Stances

[Minigiant]

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 ...



... 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.

I'd go for untrained, trained and mastered. Three steps.


Half the stuff we assume all warriors to be able to do in D&D is rather difficult. Then we have to remember that only so many enemies are human sized humanoids. So id expect most untrained moves and stances performed just by imagination and watching other would be right rolls of 17 or better. Equivalent to button mashing in fighting games. Maybe advanced button mashing.

D&D's mundane is near ridiculous. Most rpg mundanes are crazy.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

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

It's a matter of concept with a touch of believable description (much like a spell). So, lets say you have the following:

Lotus Stance: This stance focuses on using an opponent's inertia against him. By holding your weapons low and keeping your body loose, you are prepared to step around the attacks and movements of your opponent, applying a combination of strikes and grapples to redirect his motion. Whenever an enemy provokes an Opportunity Attack, you may instead make a trip attempt against him.

At sixth level, you've learned to anticipate an opponents movements when you strike. Any time you score a critical hit while in the lotus stance, you may make an immediate trip attempt against the same target.
​

There's a holistic concept there. It says that you're choosing a fighting stance that is appropriate for a whole combat style. It gives you certain, believable advantages.

Moreover, it gives the sense that the style came from somewhere. It has a history, involves training and practice, and requires forethought. Plus, all of these things pay off when you get a chance to benefit from it.

Then there is the descriptive element. When a stance triggers an action or benefit, there's a descriptive reason for it. The opponent moved to go around you. You sidestep, swing at their back, and when they move to defend themselves, trip them, sending them barreling to the ground behind you.

I find all of those elements evocative.

 

[LostSoul]

I find all of those elements evocative.

That makes sense.

Here's my issue: the decisions that you make are the same as if you did not have those evocative elements. The way the in-game situation unfolds is not going to change if I decide to describe the stance in action. I'm going to get my trip attack when he provokes an OA either way.

Look at the different ways we wrote up Lotus Stance - mine was an aggressive manoeuvre, yours defensive. If I need to get in close to him to trip him, and you wait until he opens himself up, there's a big difference in how we are going to make decisions in the game, even if we both get a trip attack when our foe provokes an OA.

If the description doesn't matter to the game's resolution - if I can sit back in a defensive posture and trip him when he turns to run, or you can trip when he flings that dagger in his hand at you - then we don't have different choices to make. Resolve the OA as a trip attack, move on.

If our decisions are informed by the evocative material, then we are going to pay attention to that evocative material.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

If our decisions are informed by the evocative material, then we are going to pay attention to that evocative material.

Keep in mind that there would be multiple stances, some defensive, others offensive. Having multiple available at any time means that you are making descriptive choices every time you change stances. This is in addition to your normal actions.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I like stances because they simulate things I think PCs should be able to do, like

1) All out attack: +x to attack, +y damage, +z # attacks, -a armor, -b saves

2) Defensive: +x to armor, -y to damage taken, -a to attack, -b to damage, no forward movement

3) Sprint: +x movement, -a to armor, -b to saves, -c to attack

4) I'm gonna get you, sucka': + to stats with respect to chosen target, - to stats with respect to all other targets

etc, etc

 

[Libramarian]

I don't mind stances, but I think LostSoul is saying that they are peculiarly inert when it comes to interacting with the fiction. Which I would agree with.

They're ok, but in no way are they as interesting as having the ability to shoot explosions from your hands or charm intelligent creatures into doing your bidding. Or hide in shadows, or spider climb.

There are dry abilities and juicy abilities. Dry abilities, you look at them and there's just the mechanical interaction. The "fluff" separates cleanly; it's epiphenomenal. Juicy abilities, you're like "ooh...I wonder how this is going to be used."

Stances are pretty dry. They're a minor tactical interest module for combat, potentially more elegant than previous editions' attempts at this sort of thing. nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't mind stances, but I think LostSoul is saying that they are peculiarly inert when it comes to interacting with the fiction. Which I would agree with.

They're ok, but in no way are they as interesting as having the ability to shoot explosions from your hands or charm intelligent creatures into doing your bidding. Or hide in shadows, or spider climb.

There are dry abilities and juicy abilities. Dry abilities, you look at them and there's just the mechanical interaction. The "fluff" separates cleanly; it's epiphenomenal. Juicy abilities, you're like "ooh...I wonder how this is going to be used."

Stances are pretty dry. They're a minor tactical interest module for combat, potentially more elegant than previous editions' attempts at this sort of thing. nothing more, nothing less.

In D&D, everything except spells and other supernatural abilities, are dry. Only the supernatural is written with the opinions and secondary effects. The extraordinary requires DM help.

Tradition would let mundanes go into "kung fu movie" levels, just to the "very unrealistic but possible" levels. A unity edition wont break that tradition.