Class Stances

Xel Unknown wrote:The second biggest thing that I don't get is:

Weaponmaster Stance wrote:[-2] 1st Level:
Minus one to the pip cost of Hammer of Thunder or one of its variants.

From what I understand, it means that you can use two pips to reduce the pip cost of a weapon by one? That makes no sense...

It is suppose to reduce the cost of all the attacks associated with hammer of thunder also.

I'd like to get back to the suggestion that we make the first part a no cost property which is always active. Would that be to outside the realm of Living Legends?

Basically the idea is that everyone would pick their stanceat level 1 and that would be just like a trait. Then at levels 5 and 9, you would get a talent that allows you to upgrade your stance for the fight. I can come up with some ideas for both tabletop and pbp over the weekend if you'd like.

Hmm, these seem to fall in between traits and combat talents. And that makes them feel, I don't know, I guess bulky is a good word for it. Personally I'd prefer for them to act a bit more trait-ish so you don't have to really think too hard about them. So basically, you'd get a constant (very specific) bonus, from the stance at the cost of, let's say 2 pips. And the bonus shouldn't be that good, it should be small, yet easy to remember and flavourful thing, much like traits. That way a character can be like: 'Oh, this looks like a solo fight, I want to activate my striker-style stance for this!' But then he comes across a rolling ball of parasprites and he then says: 'Nope, no stance, I need my pips for my fireswath.'

If it's not a simple decision (3 options is quite a bit to consider at the start of an encounter), then I think it will bog the game down too much. But I do like the idea of stances, because they will add an extra layer to how you play your character.

Edit: I also don't want these to end up increasing the character's fighting capabilities by a significant margin at level 1. As I'm measuring monsters for the compendium and they are scaled based on player combat power...

Stances could simply be worked into combat talents as-is.

However, if want a trait-set you can pick up at level 1 for added customization - that might work well too. In fact, no reason we couldn't have both.

thematthew wrote:Basically the idea is that everyone would pick their stanceat level 1 and that would be just like a trait. Then at levels 5 and 9, you would get a talent that allows you to upgrade your stance for the fight. I can come up with some ideas for both tabletop and pbp over the weekend if you'd like.

lol. We got rid of the leveling idea but we could add it back in if need be. I don't think its necessary though.

True, I can agree with that idea.

So I'm sure that these aren't particularly balanced, but they are simple and straight forward. I felt that having 3 options gets a little cluttered...

Stances:
[-2] Arcane Binder – Free Action
All your conjurations have resist 2 until the end of the encounter.

[-2] Specialist – Free Action
Choose one of your standard combat talents. Until the end of the encounter, whenever you use that combat talent you may gain a pip

[-2]Inspiring Commander – Free Action
Until the end of the encounter, whenever you grant an ally a free action, you and your ally may each roll your choice of either, 1d8, 1d10, or 1d12.

[-2] Saboteur – Free Action
Until the end of the encounter, whenever a combat talent you use causes an enemy be inflicted with a (save end) condition, you may either shift yourself one slot up in the initiative order, or cause an inflicted target to shift down one slot.

[-2] Stance of Dominance – Free Action
Until the end of the encounter, any time you cause an enemy to make an attack against a target of your choice, you may gain a pip.

Now these things are kinda reminding me of my little Battle Skill idea...

I like the Monster Overseer's template for stances. It seems like those would fit elegantly into just being a new kind of combat talent too, no need for a new mechanic.

Ohhh, I like this idea. It reminds me of the Force Forms in Knights of the Old Republic II. You got them as you leveled up, and they would give you different bonuses (and penalties) depending on which one was active, so for instance one might give you a general +3 defense against all enemies, while another might give you attack bonuses against a single enemy while simultaneously reducing your ability to deflect blaster bolts, while yet another might increase your deflection ability a bit while making you slightly vulnerable to other forms of attack. They weren't huge bonuses, and you could play the game without worrying about them most of the time, but I liked the idea and it was fun to adjust your Form as necessary depending on the enemy you were fighting.

I think it'd be great to have something like that in PT/LL. I like SilentBelle's idea of having them be small, passive bonuses (and maybe penalties) that you can switch to at any time for a small PiP cost (to keep players from abusing the switching ability). For a level up ability, perhaps players could select only a subset of all available stances at level 1 (say, only 3), then get access to more at higher levels to increase their versatility in combat and represent their experience (maybe an additional stance or two at levels 5 and 9 or something). In essence, kinda like traits that you can choose depending on the battle you're fighting.

Some ideas off the top of my head, no idea if these are at all balanced. Also, the penalties may be out of place, but it would give an extra factor to weigh before choosing a stance.

[-2] Neutral Stance - Free Action
You have no particular bonuses or penalties.

[-2] Aggressive Stance - Free Action
You gain +3 to all single-target damage. However, you also gain Vulnerability 1.

[-2] Defensive Stance - Free Action
You gain Resist 1 and Regeneration 1. However, you also take a -2 penalty to single-target damage you inflict.

[-2] Patient Stance - Free Action
Increase any ongoing damage you inflict by 1. However, all enemies have Resist 1 against your direct attacks.

[-2] Dare-devil Stance - Free Action
You gain +2 damage on moves that damage more than one target. However, you also gain Vulnerability 2.

[-2] Compassionate Stance - Free Action
Whenever you restore an ally's HP, they gain 3 temporary HP. However, whenever you would regain HP, you regain 1 less.

[-2] Careful Stance - Free Action
You gain Regeneration 1. However, you also gain Vulnerability 1.

[-2] Calculating Stance - Free Action
Whenever you inflict damage, you also inflict 1 Ongoing damage. However, any Ongoing damage you take is increased by 2.

[-2] Cautious Stance - Free Action
You gain Resist 3. However, all enemies have Resist 2 against you attacks.

[-2] Flexible Stance - Free Action
You gain +3 to all saving throws. However, any attacks you suffer that deal damage inflict 1 Ongoing damage on you.

[-2] Generous Stance - Free Action
Whenever you restore HP, you restore an additional 3 HP. However, you suffer a -2 penalty to your saving throws.

So many awesome ideas Philadelphus and SB. Keep it up!

I like those ideas

Keep in mind when designing these, the idea was to balance against having 2 fewer pips, so unless the stance works well with your play style, then it's going to be a detriment. I'll try and think up some more during work.

Oh, I see what you're saying, the lost-opportunity cost of the PiPs could serve as the "penalty". In which case they should probably not have penalties (except maybe in extreme cases), and I'll go back and edit my suggestions when I get time after work.

Some could have pip costs and al/mostlyl benefits while others could have little or no pip cost (a [-1], [0] or even [+1] stance) and come with more penalties to balance it out.

So right now from the conversation I'm interpreting that you guys want your stances to be more versatile. I think we could accomplish that.

How about this, we create some basic stances, but leave the -3 and -4 slots empty which can be filled from a list of different properties? Now I don't think you should be able to trade out properties in the middle of game.

Lets take this for example:

Defender Stance- Stance; Free Action
You gain these benefits.

[-2] Enemies adjacent to you take a -4 penalty to damage rolls for attacks that don’t include you as a target.
[-3] Choose one from the -3 list
[-4] Choose one from the -4 list

Defender Stance Lists
-3 List:
-Gain resist 2 to melee damage.
-Gain regeneration 2
-You may push an enemy one square when they attack you
-You may grant an ally resist 2 when they are attacked by a enemy adjacent to you
-etc

-4 List:
-When an enemy adjacent to you willingly moves to an unadjacent square without shifting you may take a standard action to attack that enemy.
-Gain resist 4 to melee attacks
-Gain regeneration 4
-When flanking an enemy you may make an attack against the enemy if it attacks the ally which is flanking with you.
-etc

So how about that? Is that kinda what you all are looking for?

century6 wrote:
So how about that? Is that kinda what you all are looking for?

Well, I was looking for something very simple that 'sharpens' your playstyle or focuses it, where as these almost seems like they provide too many options to give it that feel. Of course I'm also of the opinion that these could work well as a new style of combat talents (count against your 8 ) so that we don't have to add a new layer to combat. I'm not sure how everyone else feels about it though.

I think that the basic idea of "Stances" as - PiP free actions that do just 1 thing should be just added in as normal combat talents, but that perhaps the idea of having the class thing be passive is a separate element.

Stances as combat talents sound great. As for the extra mechanic, if we still want it, that could be a, "Combat Style" that you choose... Though perhaps the simple presence of role-specific stances in the combat talents will be enough.

Kindulas wrote:I think that the basic idea of "Stances" as - PiP free actions that do just 1 thing should be just added in as normal combat talents, but that perhaps the idea of having the class thing be passive is a separate element.

I agree with that statement mostly. I don't think just adding stances to the combat talents will be enough of an incentive for anyone to create a meaningful role.

Carson by "passive" do you mean that you want these properties and abilities to be active all the time, including out of combat?

century6 wrote:

Kindulas wrote:I think that the basic idea of "Stances" as - PiP free actions that do just 1 thing should be just added in as normal combat talents, but that perhaps the idea of having the class thing be passive is a separate element.

I agree with that statement mostly. I don't think just adding stances to the combat talents will be enough of an incentive for anyone to create a meaningful role.

Carson by "passive" do you mean that you want these properties and abilities to be active all the time, including out of combat?

um... yes except they would ever do anything outside of combat. Unless you count resist to falling damage

One simple question to answer is whether a "stance" is something you can change at any time (perhaps at some cost or gain) or whether it's something you pick at the start of battle and are stuck with no matter what. SilentBelle's and my ideas tend towards the former, but they may very well be different enough that you could come up with an additional system (like what century6 originally proposed) that works like the latter, while perhaps incorporating our ideas into the standard combat talents.

Former. You get to spend a class stance only once per encounter. Though I only created that because I didn't want people to be able to change their mind midway through the battles, it doesn't seem like something classes should be able to do. I guess I could be wrong though. I suppose we could change it.

not nessecsarily if we add stances as simply a combat talent they might be stackable

It's not concrete

Kindulas wrote:not nessecsarily if we add stances as simply a combat talent they might be stackable

It's not concrete

Yeah I was talking about my original proposal.