Can a stance be maintained when knocked unconscious?

[Danceofmasks]

Well, a DM is a DM, but this kind of ruling is beyond a shadow of a doubt a houserule.
It's the kind of ruling that, if it must be "consistent", be applied to every effect that lasts until the end of encounter.
Just because a power happens to be called a stance doesn't make it grounds for being nerfed.

 

[Runestar]

It's a case of, as Mouseferatu put it, "(up to) the DM to make whatever ruling he feels is most appropriate"

Pardon me if I am overlooking something, but if the OP (assuming he is the DM) decided to just wing it, why would he even bother posting said query here in the first place? He clearly seems to be more interested in a RAW answer (even if one does not apparently exist). So it seems kinda redundant to suggest that he simply houserule up a solution.

After all, he asked if the stance would continue working, not if it should.

 

[HighTemplar]

Pardon me if I am overlooking something, but if the OP (assuming he is the DM) decided to just wing it, why would he even bother posting said query here in the first place? He clearly seems to be more interested in a RAW answer (even if one does not apparently exist). So it seems kinda redundant to suggest that he simply houserule up a solution.

After all, he asked if the stance would continue working, not if it should.

This might be far fetched, but I think you almost completely succeeded at ingoring what had been posted in this entire thread while repeating everything thats been said, and all that while clearly demonstrating the point that you're contradicting yourself.

The OP looks for a RAW answer: RAW answers were posted in the first 5 posts of this thread as you stated nothing much is written on the subject.

After everything that's actually been written is posted, nothing remains but to discuss what should happen now that we've cleared out that what would happen isin't clear.



Since I also feel like contributing, when we started playing 4e, 3rd game, after reading page 55, I ruled that you could not uphold a stance while unconscious, from what I can gauge in this thread, there seems to be a majority of people that also thought it made sense, that is if realism is part of your priorities.

 

[Celtavian]

re

We just had this situation happen a few days ago. The rules do not state stances end when you go unconcious. Given 4Es nature, I let that ruling stand. I did not want to cause the player to be unable to use his stance power because he went unconcious. Most stances are dailies, and dailies should work and work well. Just because you are knocked unconcious, doesn't mean you're daily should suddenly fail if the rules do not state specifically that they do.

As far as rules arguments, in general we settle the matter during the game if it is life or death. We make a ruling quick if it is not life or death such as some issue with a skill check.

 

[Cryptos]

I can understand why they continue mechanically, but conceptually perhaps a good house rule would be to have the character have to spend the same action they expended to activate the stance to resume the stance when the regain consciousness (ie, getting back into position or recovering their stride.)

For instance, say a fighter is using the "Leaping Tiger Dragon" stance and it takes a move action to activate that stance. When he gets knocked unconscious and then regains consciousness, he's then got to spend another move action to resume the stance.

That would probably be a better house rule that ruling that he's lost the stance altogether, and is actually quite cinematic. Think of the various martial arts or Matrix-style fights where the bad guy thinks he's clocked the hero but good, the hero staggers, and then recovers and does the motions for the opening stance of their fighting style again. Otherwise known as the "bring it" or "is that all you've got?" pose.

 

[Beckett]

I suspect you'd find that most DMs would give the same answer to "Can a 4E character maintain a stance while unconscious?" and "Can a 3E/3.5 barbarian continue to rage while unconscious?" - some would say yes to both, some no to both, but few would give different answers to both.

(Of course, every one of those few is about to reply to this thread to tell me how wrong I am! )

-Hyp.

Hey, it's not often I get to say you're wrong on something, as I did have barbarian rage continue for the duration, but canceled a fighter's stance when he was knocked out at my last game.

However, my decision was based on being sure that I'd read that stances ended when the character was knocked out. Did the Book of 9 swords stances work that way? I'm wondering if that's where I got it from.

Welp, if the rules don't state that stances end with unconsciousness, I guess I'll revise my ruling. Or ask the group for their opinion.

 

[brehobit]

I'm in the "stances ending when unconscious is a house rule" camp. The rules specifically state when stances end. That said, I'd have no problem with that house rule as long as I knew it ahead of time...

Mark

 

[Syrsuro]

FWIW: In the new barbarian playtest, the barbarian rages (which are otherwise very similar to stances) end when the barbarian falls unconscious.

(They also end when the barbarian enters a new rage or at the end of the encounter).

Carl