D&D 4E Stances in 4e? Wooopie!!!

[Bishmon]

Add me up for those who like stances, a nice way to emulate maintained spell like effects in a martial way.

I like stances, but I couldn't disagree with this more. I just...it's such a logical disconnect for me, a stance emulating a spell-like effect in a martial way.

Also, I'm not sure I like the idea of a sustain minor mechanic for stances. The only way I could see it 'working' is if the stance was an at-will power started with a move action, with a minor action to sustain. That way, if I was in a stance and wanted to use a breath weapon or pull out a new weapon and ended my stance, I could at least get back into my stance on the next turn. It's kinda clunky, but whatever.

If it's something different than that, though, I'm probably going to find it hard not to houserule it to just 'use whatever action it takes to start up a stance, and you can only have one stance active at a time'. With spells, it's pretty easy to understand why a wizard couldn't keep flying after failing to sustain the spell: the magic is done. For a martial stance, though, again, it'd be a logical disconnect why he couldn't just get back in a stance.

But obviously I have to wait and see how they do it. I like the theory, at least.

 

[Jack99]

You always get quoted more often when you appear to be trolling.

I believe trolling is against the rules of these boards, and I would thus never do such a thing..

Never!




(cough)

 

[med stud]

I like stances, but I couldn't disagree with this more. I just...it's such a logical disconnect for me, a stance emulating a spell-like effect in a martial way.

Also, I'm not sure I like the idea of a sustain minor mechanic for stances. The only way I could see it 'working' is if the stance was an at-will power started with a move action, with a minor action to sustain. That way, if I was in a stance and wanted to use a breath weapon or pull out a new weapon and ended my stance, I could at least get back into my stance on the next turn. It's kinda clunky, but whatever.

If it's something different than that, though, I'm probably going to find it hard not to houserule it to just 'use whatever action it takes to start up a stance, and you can only have one stance active at a time'. With spells, it's pretty easy to understand why a wizard couldn't keep flying after failing to sustain the spell: the magic is done. For a martial stance, though, again, it'd be a logical disconnect why he couldn't just get back in a stance.

But obviously I have to wait and see how they do it. I like the theory, at least.

Justification why you can't get back in your stance: You are off balance. It has happened to me when I competed. If it is per encounter, it will get harder to justify, but then you can add in the whole soul-mind-fist thinking, that a stance isn't something you enter just by moving your feet apart and crouching. You also have to mobilize inner energy that you can't find in the middle of a combat etc, etc. Justifications are easier to find than working rules .

As for using another minor action: You can always trade in a "higher" action for a minor action. For example: You have the stance active and you don't want to drop it. You need to draw a weapon. You stand your ground, use your move action to draw the weapon, your minor action to sustain the stance and a standard action to attack. Or use the standard to draw the weapon and the move action to get away while you are sustaining the stance with the minor.

 

[Nytmare]

Are we sure it enhances your defenses? It says +2 to saving throw, so I'd assume that it means the saving throw and not defenses.

"Full defense" gives you a +2 to all of your defenses. It would be kind of a waste to give you a 6th level exploit that does the same exact thing.

 

[Lord Sessadore]

"Full defense" gives you a +2 to all of your defenses. It would be kind of a waste to give you a 6th level exploit that does the same exact thing.

Well, if the exploit kept you from performing actions like full defense does, then yes. However, if full defense requires you do nothing for the round, or maybe have only a move action, then a "sustain minor" exploit (assuming it is sustain minor) that gives you the same bonus is actually quite a bit better.

In other words, if you get the defensive bonus of full defense and retain the ability to attack and move, it's better than full defense.

P.S. Add me to the tally of people that likes stances for D&D

 

[HeinorNY]

I do like stances.
It could be fun if the Fighter had some powers that could only be activated in one stance, like in.... WOW!

 

[Lord Sessadore]

I do like stances.
It could be fun if the Fighter had some powers that could only be activated in one stance, like in.... WOW!

I agree that would be fun. And, you know, it makes sense. Who cares if it looks like WoW - stances should be more than just a passive bonus to something. When you're in a certain stance, you use certain attacks. Or another possible implementation is that a certain set of powers which you can normally use get boosted when you're in a certain stance.

 

[Crashy75]

Yeah, there are so many possibilities. And I didn't know WOW has stances~ good on them.

 

[med stud]

I do like stances.
It could be fun if the Fighter had some powers that could only be activated in one stance, like in.... WOW!

Or like in D&D 3e! The dwarven defender!

 

[Patlin]

ha ha.

TBH I couldn't care less where they steal their ideas, as long as it makes for good play.

Cheers.

Thirded.