Because I hate feats.
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).
Because I hate feats.
Yeah, that's good.It could help emphasize the master of multiple combat styles that many want the fighter class to have.
By making each combat style and combat action into their own stance that could be turned on an off, the fighter can simply be given access to many stances at a faster rate to show their full mastery of weapons combat.
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.It could solve the multiple attack question.
Anything that lets the martial classes show their prowess is usually good.It could help gauge and differentiate the combat strength and skill of various classes.
That would be a good thing.It could aid in creating characters that model different editions of D&D.
Fans of older edition could take simplistic stances that simply grant bonuses to damage rolls, attack rolls and armor class. Fans of the last editions could take more complicated stances that create complex effects.
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).
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.
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).