Stances

[LostSoul]

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

I find those boring as well.

 

[Essenti]

I find those boring as well.

Could you give us a bit of information about what you do not find boring? Your description of boring has been very vague and terse thus far, we might understand where you are coming from if you were offering some more insight rather than restating your opinion. It almost feels like you have chosen the "that's boring" stance in this discussion.



Edit:

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'm not trying to come off as passive aggressive, but what I meant was, can you shed some light on how you would do it differently so that the mechanics aren't boring?

 

[Minigiant]

I find those boring as well.

What isn't boring?

Nothing in D&D so far requires heavy description. Nothing requires more than stating who you are controlling, what action they are taking, and who the target is, if any. 50% of the game is abstract and the other half has the descriptions written in the rules.

Ruleswise everything between "I" "attack" "the orc" is meaningless. We just add stuff in for entertainment and coolness.

 

[LostSoul]

Could you give us a bit of information about what you do not find boring? Your description of boring has been very vague and terse thus far, we might understand where you are coming from if you were offering some more insight rather than restating your opinion. It almost feels like you have chosen the "that's boring" stance in this discussion.



Edit:
I'm not trying to come off as passive aggressive, but what I meant was, can you shed some light on how you would do it differently so that the mechanics aren't boring?

Yeah, I was in a bad mood when I made my first post in this thread and that continued in my replies.

Anyway. I like it when the players describe what actions their PCs are taking. Like Minigiant says here:

Ruleswise everything between "I" "attack" "the orc" is meaningless. We just add stuff in for entertainment and coolness.

I find the stuff in-between to be entertaining & cool. I want to see that happen most of the time.

The answer I came up with is to make that "everything in-between" part of the resolution system. You allow the specific actions the PCs are taking to influence how the combat plays out. By doing so players are going to pay attention to those details.

So, Lotus Stance: You have learned the Lotus Stance. When in this stance, you move into your opponent's guard and attempt to throw them off-balance with your strike. When within your opponent's guard, and your opponent is off-balance, you can trip your opponent by pushing your opponent over or sweeping out the legs, and follow up with a strike to a vital area. This strike deals an extra die of damage.

Your first action would be to take the stance, move into your opponent's guard and throw them off-balance - shoving with your shield, stabbing at the knee if your foe is giant-sized, have an ally knock them off-balance with an attack or spell, or whatever you can think of. Then you can trip them and make your next attack count.

I realize that not everyone wants to deal with combat this way. It's my preferred style, though.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

So, Lotus Stance: You have learned the Lotus Stance. When in this stance, you move into your opponent's guard and attempt to throw them off-balance with your strike. When within your opponent's guard, and your opponent is off-balance, you can trip your opponent by pushing your opponent over or sweeping out the legs, and follow up with a strike to a vital area. This strike deals an extra die of damage.

Your first action would be to take the stance, move into your opponent's guard and throw them off-balance - shoving with your shield, stabbing at the knee if your foe is giant-sized, have an ally knock them off-balance with an attack or spell, or whatever you can think of. Then you can trip them and make your next attack count.

I realize that not everyone wants to deal with combat this way. It's my preferred style, though.

I don't think anyone is going to deny that that level of description is cool when it happens, but there are three major factors that limit it.

First, the entire d20 system combat mechanic deals with the abstraction first and the description second. An attack roll is abstract representation of a large number of actions that assume that your character is attempting something tactically useful. A good roll means you chose a good tactic, and a bad roll assumes you didn't. Now it's abstract enough to allow a good description to permit a useful bonus as encouragement, but definitely not granular enough to handle the nuance of what you described above.

Second, descriptive combat of that level is interesting and fun only occasionally. It becomes a chore if done constantly. This is for the same reason that action films are not two hours of just combat. Intensity quickly loses it's impact.

Finally, that style of play only works well for those good at thinking about descriptive combat, which I'm sure we can all agree isn't even a large minority of players. Most players aren't both experienced combatants and writers. Feeling the need to be that descriptive is too much pressure.

All of these are why I advocate abstract but evocative mechanics, such as stances. The Lotus Stance described above carries meaning without also carrying a burden.

 

[Hassassin]

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

The description of fireball *does* matter for resolution. For example, if there is a glass wall between you and the orcs that you failed to notice, the "glowing bead" that you shoot from your finger explodes on your side of the wall.

You can probably come up with examples of how something similar is true for greataxes and Lotus Stances, though.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, I was in a bad mood when I made my first post in this thread and that continued in my replies.

Anyway. I like it when the players describe what actions their PCs are taking. Like Minigiant says here:



I find the stuff in-between to be entertaining & cool. I want to see that happen most of the time.

The answer I came up with is to make that "everything in-between" part of the resolution system. You allow the specific actions the PCs are taking to influence how the combat plays out. By doing so players are going to pay attention to those details.

So, Lotus Stance: You have learned the Lotus Stance. When in this stance, you move into your opponent's guard and attempt to throw them off-balance with your strike. When within your opponent's guard, and your opponent is off-balance, you can trip your opponent by pushing your opponent over or sweeping out the legs, and follow up with a strike to a vital area. This strike deals an extra die of damage.

Your first action would be to take the stance, move into your opponent's guard and throw them off-balance - shoving with your shield, stabbing at the knee if your foe is giant-sized, have an ally knock them off-balance with an attack or spell, or whatever you can think of. Then you can trip them and make your next attack count.

I realize that not everyone wants to deal with combat this way. It's my preferred style, though.

That is a whole lot for one stance. That is 3 actions.

But I could see something like

Lotus Stance
Prerequisite: Wisdom 13You have learned the Lotus Stance. When in this stance, you move into your opponent's guard and attempt to throw them off-balance with your strike. When within your opponent's guard, and your opponent is off-balance, you can trip your opponent by pushing your opponent over or sweeping out the legs, and follow up with a strike to a vital area.

When in the Lotus Stance, you can take a move action to make a melee attack against an adjacent enemy for no damage. If you hit, you may make a trip attempt as a free action at no penalty.

Trained :
If you attack an enemy knocked prone by your trip attempt, You deal a extra 1d6 damage.

Mastered:
If you attack an enemy knocked prone by your trip attempt, You deal a extra 2d6 damage.

Special:
A fighter or ranger may select Lotus Stance as one of his bonus stances.

A fighter may choose to master Lotus Stance.

But you know someone could say "I attack the orc in Lotus Stance, trip it, and attack it again."

 

[LostSoul]

All of these are why I advocate abstract but evocative mechanics, such as stances. The Lotus Stance described above carries meaning without also carrying a burden.

Let me turn this around: why do you think "Lotus Stance: on a hit, you can make a trip attempt" is evocative?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

Actually, disarming is notably more difficult than fighting defensively or taunting. Riskier, too. Comparitively speaking, maneuvering one opponent into the way of another opponent is much easier (at least for awhile). Which is another reason why this ...

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.

... is a good idea. Because what is "easy" or "hard" is going to change by genre and the sensibilities of those at the table. If you are playing a Three Musketeer type game, disarming should be easier than it is in any kind of more real-world system. And naturally that is even more true in some more fantastical settings.

This is also why I disagree with the hard distinction between magical and mundane, here. Some of the things that people want as mundane are magical--precisely magical in the sense of "made up, fantastical things," like using a double-bladed sword effectively or rapidly reloading a crossbow. If you have stances, you can easily label them not only for difficulty (anyone, expert, master, etc.) but also for the how fantastical they are.

 

[LostSoul]

But you know someone could say "I attack the orc in Lotus Stance, trip it, and attack it again."

Yeah, that's why I had "Lotus Stance" rely on fictional cues.