Stances

[Ahnehnois]

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.

The point is not that wizards should be trying crazy maneuvers. The point is that a fighter player shouldn't say "I want to swing really hard for maximum impact" and have the DM respond "Sorry, you don't have Power Attack". The rules need to cover the basics.

Crazy martial arts or other highly skilled maneuvers work fine as high-level feats or class abilities, but that's not really what a fighter (or his ilk) is about; it's a very small part of the game (and of actual combat, incidentally).

So I'm not saying that everyone should have a realistic chance of completing every possible action, merely every one they would realistically attempt. It's hard to do a "dual-sword attack that disarms one opponent, skewers another, and then throws the second into a third", but it isn't that hard to disarm someone, or fight defensively, or taunt an opponent. These are the sorts of things that should be available and marginally feasible to everyone, and that a fighter should be better at.

On a broader level, it is important to distinguish between the magical and the mundane. Magic should be magical, simple as that.

 

[Hassassin]

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.

Maybe because most nonmagical abilities don't have a level progression (in editions other than 4e). I'm fine with class restrictions in nonmagical abilities, but you should note that many spells aren't class restricted either, since they appear on the spell lists of multiple classes (again, other than 4e).

 

[hanez]

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.

You make a good point. But as a DM I am really reluctant to agree with mundane actions and attacks like were talking about covered by feats and powers. The reason why is that there are many players that barely pay attention to their sheet, they just wanna describe what they want to do. These players are often the casual players that make the game fun, and for me sometimes refelct the spirit of D&D. I just don't want to say "no you cant swing off the chandelier cause you dont have that power" if you know what I mean.

Still, thats not to say we shouldn't find ways to kee martial classes interesting. I would suggest a second fighter class that reflects this type of gaming, and puttin it in the core.

 

[Minigiant]

The point is not that wizards should be trying crazy maneuvers. The point is that a fighter player shouldn't say "I want to swing really hard for maximum impact" and have the DM respond "Sorry, you don't have Power Attack". The rules need to cover the basics.

Crazy martial arts or other highly skilled maneuvers work fine as high-level feats or class abilities, but that's not really what a fighter (or his ilk) is about; it's a very small part of the game (and of actual combat, incidentally).

So I'm not saying that everyone should have a realistic chance of completing every possible action, merely every one they would realistically attempt. It's hard to do a "dual-sword attack that disarms one opponent, skewers another, and then throws the second into a third", but it isn't that hard to disarm someone, or fight defensively, or taunt an opponent. These are the sorts of things that should be available and marginally feasible to everyone, and that a fighter should be better at.

On a broader level, it is important to distinguish between the magical and the mundane. Magic should be magical, simple as that.

Maybe there could be weaker general stances that the undesirable ed could use. Then there could be master stances for only certain classes could use.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

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.

To each his own, and all, but I don't see how choosing to be in a stance in order to gain additional options is boring. Unless you're assuming that taking a stance is using up your action or limiting your choices. Neither of these things should be the case.

It should be more of a:

"It's your turn. What do you do?"

"First, I take the lotus stance so I can trip them if they move. Then I attack."

*rolls a 20*

"I crit! I do 16 damage."

"Don't forget, you're level 6 now. Lotus stance now grants a free trip attempt on crits."

"Oh, right. I roll to trip."


To me, that doesn't sound boring.

 

[LostSoul]

I personally find it boring because I don't know what your PC is actually doing. What does lotus stance look like? How do you get that extra trip if your foe moves? Does it matter how your foe moves?

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Stances were some of my favourite things in Tome of Battle at the end of 3e. 4e had stances in some places including essentials (though I never liked that many of the pre-essentials ones were daily powers), but they just weren't the same as ToB.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I personally find it boring because I don't know what your PC is actually doing. What does lotus stance look like? How do you get that extra trip if your foe moves? Does it matter how your foe moves?

I think you're assuming that the stance wouldn't come with a description. I would never have it that way.

 

[LostSoul]

I think you're assuming that the stance wouldn't come with a description. I would never have it that way.

What I'm assuming is that the description of the stance doesn't matter in resolution. If you don't need to describe the action your character takes in other terms than "lotus stance" in order to proceed with resolution, the resolution system doesn't care what your character is actually doing.

I personally find that boring.

 

[Minigiant]

What I'm assuming is that the description of the stance doesn't matter in resolution. If you don't need to describe the action your character takes in other terms than "lotus stance" in order to proceed with resolution, the resolution system doesn't care what your character is actually doing.

I personally find that boring.

That is no different than "I attack with my greataxe" or "I cast fireball on the orcs"