Class Stances

century6 wrote: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.

Eh, don't change it on my behalf. I also like the idea of having something that you pick before the battle and can't change, which would encourage thinking and deciding what the best stance would be before entering battle.

I guess to me the word "stance" implies something you can change easily: you can start with a defensive stance, then later switch to a more offensive or aggressive stance if the enemy seems to be almost down, then quickly switch back to a cautious stance if enemy reinforcements suddenly appear. I get what you're saying about classes though, and they could certainly work on the "adopt a stance for the entirety of the battle" principle.

The way the document looks right now, I really really like it. Just my two cents

I was kinda hoping we could keep stances as an exclusive class system. If you guys do incorporate stances into the combat talents I really really really think that they should not be able to stack. I can imagine that if we let stances stack things would get broken real quick.

I suppose we could change how the system works a bit and allow people to make changes to their stances mid battle. Stacking is silly though.

Well, the Combat Talents could have "This talent does not stack with another Stance because taking two different stances is silly"

Yeah I think that we should just make a general rule against the stacking of stances.

century6 wrote:I was kinda hoping we could keep stances as an exclusive class system. If you guys do incorporate stances into the combat talents I really really really think that they should not be able to stack. I can imagine that if we let stances stack things would get broken real quick.

I suppose we could change how the system works a bit and allow people to make changes to their stances mid battle. Stacking is silly though.

I definitely agree with that. Only one stance should be active at a given time, whether or not you can change them mid battle. On that note, perhaps there could be two different systems with different features? One that could be incorporated into the existing combat framework as a set of mutually-exclusive combat talents (using ideas like those I and SilentBelle offered), and another one consisting of class stances chosen before battle that couldn't be changed, which could be their own system (like what century6 proposed). Just a thought.

Philadelphus wrote:

century6 wrote:I was kinda hoping we could keep stances as an exclusive class system. If you guys do incorporate stances into the combat talents I really really really think that they should not be able to stack. I can imagine that if we let stances stack things would get broken real quick.

I suppose we could change how the system works a bit and allow people to make changes to their stances mid battle. Stacking is silly though.

I definitely agree with that. Only one stance should be active at a given time, whether or not you can change them mid battle. On that note, perhaps there could be two different systems with different features? One that could be incorporated into the existing combat framework as a set of mutually-exclusive combat talents (using ideas like those I and SilentBelle offered), and another one consisting of class stances chosen before battle that couldn't be changed, which could be their own system (like what century6 proposed). Just a thought.

That would be agreeable with me. All I really want is a distinct class system. I don't really care too much if stances are incorporated into the regular combat talents. I will do pretty much anything within reason to get a class system into LL.

Okay so I changed the document so that people can change stances mid battle. Are there any other recommendations?

If the point of the stances is to give characters more of a class-like feel, wouldn't switching mid-battle defeat the point? Or if we've already moved away from the class idea you can just ignore this.

Pi3th0n wrote:If the point of the stances is to give characters more of a class-like feel, wouldn't switching mid-battle defeat the point? Or if we've already moved away from the class idea you can just ignore this.

Yeah that was the reason I put that restriction in there the first place, but I've changed my mind. I don't think the ability to change your class stance mid-battle will make it feel less like a class.

We still want players to enjoy flexibility and mashing together different class concepts in the system... So being able to switch between stances or not use stances at all in exchange for more pips sounds good.

You know, despite having helped come up with the "switchable stances" idea, I do still like the idea of (class) stances that you pick at the start of each battle and can't change. (I think I got a little hung up on the terminology.) In fact, re-reading the class stances document, I really like the idea of potentially sacrificing some or all of your starting PiPs in exchange for bonuses during the battle. I don't see why both ideas couldn't develop in parallel, especially since the switchable stances (perhaps renamed something like "postures") could fit very well into the current framework as combat talents, while Ian's idea could function as an additional system.

One slight problem (for me at least) is that all the example stances in the document involve some aspects of the tabletop version of the game, so it's hard to make a judgement about how useful or effective they would be in the Skype version. Could we perhaps get an example just for the Skype version to help get the creative juices flowing?

Philadelphus wrote: In fact, re-reading the class stances document, I really like the idea of potentially sacrificing some or all of your starting PiPs in exchange for bonuses during the battle. I don't see why both ideas couldn't develop in parallel, especially since the switchable stances (perhaps renamed something like "postures") could fit very well into the current framework as combat talents, while Ian's idea could function as an additional system.

I like that idea^

I think that classes could be to combat what races are to roleplaying. I haven't heard anyone complaining about races reducing flexibility. As long as your class doesn't dictate what combat talents you can use, I don't think it will really reduce flexibility. And it will definitely accomplish the first goal of giving level 1 characters some individuality.

Interesting ideas.

Is it really worth adding a whole new game mechanic (and thus layer of complexity) though? If we can just work stances into combat talents which people can choose if they want them and don't have to choose if they don't want them - that would certainly be simpler. And the cost of missing out on another potential combat talent could mean that the stances could be more powerful, and thus more role-defining, than otherwise.

I kind of vote for Dan. I liked this system because it was simple and easy to learn from both sides of the table. Adding another whole layer to that miiiight be a bit odd. And besides, what if someone could have ALL OF THE STANCES AS COMBAT TALENTS O3O

Remember, a vote for Dan is a vote for... Dan.

It actually might be interesting to let stances stack in that case, though my first instinct is to make sure that they can't - if each is a fair pip trade then it could be cool to enter two stances at once.

How about a trait line? Combo Stance- Able to combine 2 stances at once. And Tri Stance: Able to combine 3 at once or something?

Could be fun.

Stairc -Dan Felder wrote:
Is it really worth adding a whole new game mechanic (and thus layer of complexity) though? If we can just work stances into combat talents which people can choose if they want them and don't have to choose if they don't want them - that would certainly be simpler. And the cost of missing out on another potential combat talent could mean that the stances could be more powerful, and thus more role-defining, than otherwise.

I disagree. I don't think this is making the system complicated. This is an elegant solution to getting classes into the system. We don't have to tinker with anything else in the system. Copy, paste.

Remember part of the reason we are doing this is to allow for more versatility at lvl 1. If we just made these stances as combat talents it wouldn't fix that.

Furthermore I hate the current "no defined roles" thing that LL is. In dnd you can tell who is the striker, healer, defender, or controller. In LL everyone just takes what they think is cool, regardless whether it works on a party scale (like eureka). I want defined roles to be, at minimum, heavily encouraged. If you make stances just combat talents it will degrade the original intent of this idea to the point of meaninglessness.

Just a brief question this would be an optional expansion? Also was not Ponytales created with freedom from the class system of D&D in mind?

I'm not sure what it would be yet, which is why we're still discussing it. However, Pony Tales wasn't specifically created as a non-class system - it was created to provide great gameplay and character customization in the most elegant way possible. We fully intended to have classes originally, but when we broke down the reasons for having them - the reasons to have them weren't very compelling.

However, this does come at a cost of distinct playstyles and a lack of character identity at level 1. Items can help solve that, as can stances in combat talents... So I'm not certain that we want a whole new, "Combat Style" that you choose at level 1. In fact, if more playstyle-specific items, traits and combat talents pop up - we could probably solve the problem with what we already have.

We could always give a Combat Trait out at level 1.

Stacking stances is silly, but I suppose maybe a trait system that lets stances stack might work. It might get broken real fast though.

I suppose it would be optional. You aren't forced to activate the stance if you don't want to.

LL was created because Daniel was fed up with the fact that 4e's combat took so long. The only reason classes were never put in is because the traditional definition of a class system tends to restrict which powers, or in this case, talents you can choose. These stances would not do that. They wouldn't prevent you from choosing warrior and cleric talents. It would just help define a role.

I don't want stances as combat talents. That doesn't define roles, it will just create new talents to dork around with. I want you to be able activate your class stance at anytime and not have to worry about whether you should choose your stance.

I suppose you could give out a new trait for lvl 1 characters, but I don't see what that would accomplish besides make level 1 more palatable.

If you guys don't like the idea of stances, combat styles, or whatever you want to call it well say so now because I'd rather not continue a discussion on a idea nobody really wants to even try. I think this would make LL better though.

I decided to go through the doc with a fine toothed comb.

Out of the 21 talent thingys only 9 work outside of the table top system the only other thing that jumps out at me are theses two

[-2] At the start of an encounter you can gain resistance 2 against either fire, cold, or lightning.
[-3] When you roll max damage on an attack with the type: fire, cold, or lightning choose one enemy, they take ongoing 3 damage of that type (save ends).

I was unable to find the terms Fire, Cold, and or Lightning as Keywords in any of the rule books if they were not intended to be keywords well in Pony Tales attacks and talents are reflavored by almost everyone.

The examples are written for the Living Legends tabletop version, because that's what Ian plays. It's just meant as a general example, clearly while the mechanics themselves would be different for the skype version the concept would be the same.

The problems with choosing a specific combat style at level 1 (stance) are that it's...

1) An extra rule to remember and another part of character building, which adds to the complexity

2) Rather limiting if you only get one stance... Otherwise you have to create leveled-up versions of each stance or let people swap between multiple stances, which is awkward if you're supposed to choose multiple stances at level 1. You could just learn more stances as you level up, but that narrows the focus a lot at lower levels then widens it at higher levels - which doesn't mesh well with the rest of the sysyem - and would involve a whole lot of extra content people need to deal with (and we'd need to generate) in order to keep such choices meaningful.

So, in short, I'd rather take the reasons we like stances... And then see if there's *any* way we can provide those benefits within the existing mechanics. Less complexity is always good if all other things are equal.