Stances

[Jeff Carlsen]

I find stances very evocative. They represent a more holistic sense of personal tactics. And they can carry setting-grounded descriptions.

Moreover, they're something to attach maneuvers to. Taking a particular stance might allow you trip attempts as opportunity attacks. Another might grant you free disarm attempts on critical hits. These kinds of passive abilities make the area around the fighter very dangerous, which is exactly what I want from the fighter.

It's a mechanic that seems very befitting of a fighter and gives them tactical options without turning them into spellcasters. Focus on a few stances, and make them grow with the character.

 

[Essenti]

My problem with stances is that they are boring.

"I take the Lotus Stance!"

Awesome. Who cares. What is your guy doing?

"I take the Lotus Stance!"

I'm not sure I see the relevancy of this comment. It's only as boring as the player using it makes it out to be. Taking a stance shouldn't be a full round action anyway, should it? You should be able to both make an attack and then assume a new stance on the same turn. Is taking a stance any more boring than, say:

"I swing my axe at it!"

Awesome. You go with your bad self. I told you the creature turned invisible...

"I swing my axe at it!"

In that situation, going into a defensive stance (or full defense, which is essentially a stance available to everyone) could be the more tactically sound thing to do. But it really is only as boring as the player describes it (or perhaps doesn't describe it).

 

[LostSoul]

Taking a particular stance might allow you trip attempts as opportunity attacks. Another might grant you free disarm attempts on critical hits.

That's what I mean by boring. What is your guy doing? "Lotus stance! I trip him!"

I know most people don't care about that, but I do.

 

[hanez]

Sounds like a great idea for a class that isnt the fighter.

Fighter already has a definition in D&D and its no where close to this one being proposed. Honestly sometimes I just think the internet is filled with people who dont like D&D and just need to redefine it

 

[Sunseeker]

I LOVED the Essentials Fighter:Slayer/Knight. One of the best ideas I've seen developed for fighters in ages.

I love keeping my fighters simple and effective and stances combined with your fav weapon really made my day.

I would love to see stances make a return as a (to steal a term from Pathfinder), "alternate advancement path" for fighters and heck, any martial class. "Stance Fighter", oooo boy I'm drooling over the concept right now.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

Sounds like a great idea for a class that isnt the fighter.

Fighter already has a definition in D&D and its no where close to this one being proposed. Honestly sometimes I just think the internet is filled with people who dont like D&D and just need to redefine it

And what is the definition of the d&d fighter? Looks like the designers of the next d&d also have some difficulty defining it: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

 

[Essenti]

Sounds like a great idea for a class that isnt the fighter.

Fighter already has a definition in D&D and its no where close to this one being proposed. Honestly sometimes I just think the internet is filled with people who dont like D&D and just need to redefine it

I could make a broad generalized statement suggesting that some people must not like innovation at all, because they don't want anyone changing their D&D. But that's a farily backwards way of looking at things and a rather wishywashy way of invalidating opinions that differ from my own.

I have been playing D&D since the late 80s with BECMI and 1E. I have seen the evolution of the game and I respectfully disagree with your statement that not liking the game is the reason behind contemplating innovation. Some changes have been better than others, but I play ALL versions of D&D and I like them all.

The Essentials Fighteractually made the fighter class feel more like a fighter again (as opposed to the encounter power driven 4e PHB fighter class). I will grant you that the mechanics using stances is very different, and I wasn't sure about it when I first looked at it, but the flavor of the fighter class was still alive an' kicking even in the latest edition of the game.

It's okay to contemplate new ideas, when innovation is good, it makes things better.

 

[hanez]

And what is the definition of the d&d fighter? Looks like the designers of the next d&d also have some difficulty defining it: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

Good point. And the uncertainty of the definition of the most played class in D&D, is a problem. We have many many players who loved playing fighters because they were simple, descisions were simple, they could forget about mechanics, roleplay their dwarf, and ask the DM to do the levelling because they didnt know how. And now we have players who love the wide lists of powers, tactics, effects, and choices that fighters have. I would think WOTC needs to find a solution that satisfies both groups, and not instead once again give the groups something totally different then what they thought a fighter was.

 

[Minigiant]

Sounds like a great idea for a class that isnt the fighter.

Fighter already has a definition in D&D and its no where close to this one being proposed. Honestly sometimes I just think the internet is filled with people who dont like D&D and just need to redefine it

I don't see how it isn't the fighter. My propasal would attempt to allow players to mimic all the fighters of previous editions. The weapon accurate, simplistic. tough guy of old and the fancy strike using, defensive soldier of today.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

This is an idea that I seem to see a lot, and I don't understand it at all. Why is it that if it's a nonmagical ability, the rules must support everyone being able to do it, but only wizards can do magic? That makes no sense.

I can't fly a fighter jet. If you put me behind the controls of a fighter jet, I will fail to fly it every single time, because I've never learned to fly fighter jets and it's not something you can do untrained. Why do the rules need to model the theoretical one-in-fifty-bazillion possibility that I might hit all the right buttons in the right order at the right instants?

Likewise, I can try to do some elaborate dual-sword attack that disarms one opponent, skewers another, and then throws the second into a third. But it's never going to work if I haven't had a ton of practice fighting with two swords. Swordfighting ain't easy.

And on the other hand, if it absolutely must be possible to attempt any martial exploit, how come wizards are exempt? If Zelda the Sneaky has a good Intelligence score, and she's been fighting alongside Zardoom the Almighty for five years watching him throw spell after spell, why can't she try to imitate the words and gestures and focus her mind just right, and have a chance to pull off a magic missile?