zanwot wrote:You have a point, but actually I think it may be even better (ie simpler) to push the concept further: Let the stance be a unique flexible thing, so every time a charatcer takes a stance the player chooses where the -1 or -2 goes to, and where the +1 or +2 goes to, between attack, defense, damage and maybe speed. It is more or less what you do, no point in listing all the possibilities, unless if there is a particular combination to be avoided?
That's not a bad idea. The only concernt I'd have is while it is indeed a simpler rule, as it's less well defined you could run into problems more easily. Either someone choosing an option which doesn't work/make sense. Or, because they're not defined, it's easier to forget which option you're using mid game.
zanwot wrote:I would probably make it 2 in defense or attack is worth 1 in damage, but that is fine tweaking to be thought about and checked with the books.
I was using a static +2/-2 to keep things simpler. It may not always be balenced though. I figure that +1/-1 probably isn't enough difference to bother using the options, and +3/-3 is probably too powerful.
Admiral Yacob wrote:Looks interesting. I just have two questions. First, you mention casting in your descriptions, does this mean these stances would help their casting rolls? I don't think that makes as much sense in the concept as the casting roll, I always thought, seemed a bit more mental then physical (gathering the energy, reaching into the fade, etc).
I guess it depends on how you define casting. In DA:O, if you were an Arcane Warrior (or otherwise weilding a non-staff weapon), some spells required you to sheathe your weapons to cast them , suggesting that some spells require your hands free to guesticulate. In DA:2, there is a Templar abilty called "silence" which prevents mages from casting. So that suggests that all spells require some kind of vocalisation to cast them. Although I'm unaware of any clarification in the PnP rules.
To be honest I added it mostly because I didn't want to exclude casters from using them. As well as maintining some balance. If they didn't affect casting rolls, then a caster would always use a Defensive Stance, sine they're probalby not making any attack rolls anyway.
Personally I think the Offensive, Defensive and Sprint Stances effecting casting rolls makes sesne. Even if it's not a physical thing, it's a matter of concentration. You compromise your concentration on one task, by prioritising your focus on another.
The Controlled and Powerful Stances are trickier to justify. You could change it from a damage bonus/penalty to Spell Power, which might make more sense. But essentially I'd justify Powerful as you allowing the spell to be more volitile. Making it more potent, but harder to control. And Controlled would simply be the opposite of that.
Admiral Yacob wrote:Second, would it make sense for the stance to end/need to be restarted after movement? I have had limited experience with martial weapon training but I do know that if you moved more than pivoting or taking a single step, you didn't maintain the stance you were in while doing it. You would usually hold your blade (or other weapon) ready to engage move and quickly get into position as you arrive at your destination.
That's a good question. It's been so long since I did that kind of training I can't answer with certainty. But if I recall, you can at least maintain a descent hustle/scramble. Though you definitly couldn't sprint, and a proper run would probably break it too. I could add, "Taking a Run Major Action" as breaking a stance, with the exception of sprint stances. Although that's probably more tedium than it's worth.
I think there's enough of a mental component to stances to justify you still being in one regardless of the distance moved. As stances are largely a preemptive decision on how you wish to takle a particular situation. So the last few steps you take of any movment will be keeping the stance in mind.
Spinning is so much cooler than not spinning.