Ok, class abilities of another kind then. My point was: why stances and not abilities that are always active (in the case of combat styles) or depend on which attack action you use (in the case of multi-attack).
Stances
- Thread starter Minigiant
- Start date
Ok, class abilities of another kind then. My point was: why stances and not abilities that are always active (in the case of combat styles) or depend on which attack action you use (in the case of multi-attack).
Ahnehnois
First Post
I think the idea of a stance or mode of attack is a good one, as long as it is not a class ability. If a stance is a mode of fighting, everyone should be able to do it, and more martial characters should simply be better at it. The only negative I see is if it takes us back down the road of "powers" for fighters, but that doesn't seem to be the suggestion here.
***
OnIt would be really nice if power attacking, fighting defensively, and the like were all covered under one smooth, consistent system.
Yeah, that's good.
Well, not really solve it, but it would be a nice way of implementing options so DMs and players can choose what they want to do about it.
Anything that lets the martial classes show their prowess is usually good.
That would be a good thing.
***
OnIt would be really nice if power attacking, fighting defensively, and the like were all covered under one smooth, consistent system.
Because then you'll have to write every thing a class could do into every class description. That would be like 4E where every class is 10 pages because you have to write every then they could do.
If the fighter and the ranger are both designed to have access to two weapon fighting and mobile attacking but not the paladin and warlord (unless they meet the prerequisites), you just stick it on the fighter and ranger stance list and stick a Stance chapter behind the Spell chapter.
For these it would actually make a lot of sense: While in the defensive stance you have -4 to all attacks and +2 to AC.
Not so sure about combat styles, since then it would one or the other and you couldn't e.g. fight defensively with two weapons. Unless you have yet another TWF defensive stance, a two-handed defensive stance, etc.
So they should be like feats, except only some classes get them?
Meh, I think feat is a good mechanic. Just use a prerequisite (other feat, ability score, class level) that isn't needed if you get it directly from a class. The 3.5 ranger thing was pretty good, IMO. Stupid feats in edition X aren't a good reason to throw the whole mechanic away.
If they are more like 4e powers, you probably still have to invent a way to get them from another class (power swap feats).
I see feats as a failed experiment in both 3E and 4E editions because of its implementation.
Power swapping is just as bad for another reason.
I believe if they treat combat actions they way we treat spells, it would partially fix a lot of issues.
DonAdam
Explorer
Stances serve several important functions.
1) They allow "siloing" of bonuses. That is, if you're using stance x you're not using stance y, so we bypass stacking issues. This advantage is shared by powers.
But relative to other powers, they have several other differentiating features.
2) They apply to all opportunity attacks and other similar features. This means that they feel like knowledge of a technique rather than drawing on a power source, which is (IMO) one thing you want from an interesting martial option. Of course, you could make all martial powers "basic attacks," but...
3) They are more discrete than other powers. Assuming you can only change stances on your turn, then you're stuck with the benefit until your next turn. This is less powerful than letting any martial power be used as a basic attack, but I like it for two reasons:
a) Out of turn actions resolve more quickly. No choice anxiety between your many options.
b) You create the possibility of more interesting tradeoffs and tactical decisions.
I heart stances.
Even weapon specialization might be better handled with stances. If you specialize, you get (e.g.) two stances that can be used with a single weapon rather than one that can be used with all weapons. A longsword specialist knows a hundred ways to cut you with a longsword, but when it comes to ranged combat he doesn't have as many options. That way weapon specialization doesn't have to be flatly mechanically superior for a given attack, and is instead a tradeoff also (maybe not enough of one, but it's a start).
1) They allow "siloing" of bonuses. That is, if you're using stance x you're not using stance y, so we bypass stacking issues. This advantage is shared by powers.
But relative to other powers, they have several other differentiating features.
2) They apply to all opportunity attacks and other similar features. This means that they feel like knowledge of a technique rather than drawing on a power source, which is (IMO) one thing you want from an interesting martial option. Of course, you could make all martial powers "basic attacks," but...
3) They are more discrete than other powers. Assuming you can only change stances on your turn, then you're stuck with the benefit until your next turn. This is less powerful than letting any martial power be used as a basic attack, but I like it for two reasons:
a) Out of turn actions resolve more quickly. No choice anxiety between your many options.
b) You create the possibility of more interesting tradeoffs and tactical decisions.
I heart stances.
Even weapon specialization might be better handled with stances. If you specialize, you get (e.g.) two stances that can be used with a single weapon rather than one that can be used with all weapons. A longsword specialist knows a hundred ways to cut you with a longsword, but when it comes to ranged combat he doesn't have as many options. That way weapon specialization doesn't have to be flatly mechanically superior for a given attack, and is instead a tradeoff also (maybe not enough of one, but it's a start).
I don't really like stances. The stances in 4E Essentials are just at-will attack powers with the serial numbers filed off; they do the exact same thing. I would much rather see martial classes use an expanded list of at-will attack powers, combined with at-will movement powers along the lines of the Rogue's Tricks from 4E Essentials. Maybe we could throw in some at-will boosting powers that use minor actions as well.
If you did want to use stances as the defining Fighter mechanic, they would have to be a heck of a lot more interesting than "+1 to hit" or "shift one square when you hit".
If you did want to use stances as the defining Fighter mechanic, they would have to be a heck of a lot more interesting than "+1 to hit" or "shift one square when you hit".
I love the idea of stances, as separate from special attacks. It's because it makes it clear it is an ability that has passive effects not on the characters turn. Like an increase or decrease in AC. Or a "protection" stance that let's a fighter follow an opponent who is trying to move around him. Or an interference stance that increases the chance of a miscast spell.
It also would emphasize that this is an ability that comes with martial training. While any character could attempt any of the actions or goals, they wouldn't get the specific bonuses that a trained martial character would in a stance.
As an effect, however, a martial character would only be able to change his stance on his turn, and it would be assumed to be in place until his next turn.
It also would emphasize that this is an ability that comes with martial training. While any character could attempt any of the actions or goals, they wouldn't get the specific bonuses that a trained martial character would in a stance.
As an effect, however, a martial character would only be able to change his stance on his turn, and it would be assumed to be in place until his next turn.
