TOB Stances, I can't stop standing this way!?

[kharmakazy]

So I have one stance. How do I get out of the stance? The book says "You initiate a stance as a swift action. A stance remains in
effect indefi nitely and is not expended."

I can't find any text that says how to get out of it unless I change into another stance, which I don't have.

Someone please point out the text that I am probably overlooking.

[Endarire]

You use a swift action to leave the stance, just like you used a swift action to enter. Another stance can include "none."

[kharmakazy]

You use a swift action to leave the stance, just like you used a swift action to enter. Another stance can include "none."

Does it say that somewhere, because obviously that's probably what they intended, but I'd like to see it written.

[Yuki Akuma]

Does it really matter? I can't think of any stances where being in them all the time would be somehow detrimental.

[Morph Bark]

Does it really matter? I can't think of any stances where being in them all the time would be somehow detrimental.

Punishing Stance?

[kharmakazy]

Punishing Stance?

That would be the one.

[Saph]

There's something kind of hilarious about a warrior who enters his uber-powerful secret stance and then can't turn it off.

[Philistine]

TOB, p43. "You can use a single swift action to end one stance and begin another, or you can choose to simply end your current stance without entering a different one."

[kharmakazy]

TOB, p43. "You can use a single swift action to end one stance and begin another, or you can choose to simply end your current stance without entering a different one."

Sweet. Thanks. I can finally get my 2 AC back.

Now, does that mean I need to use a swift action to end it? The "or" is throwing me there. Use a swift action to switch stances, OR choose to simply end your current stance. I'm guessing the OR refers to an alternate way to use that swift action right?

[Theroc]

The more clear way to write my interpretation would have been,
"You can use a single swift action to end one stance and begin another, or that swift action may be used to simply end your current stance."

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

I want to meet the DM who wants written proof about being able to quit a stance

and punch him in the face

[kharmakazy]

I want to meet the DM who wants written proof about being able to quit a stance

and punch him in the face

The DM didn't require it. I required it myself.

[BlueEyes]

The DM didn't require it. I required it myself.
Punch yourself in the face, NAO!

[ToySoldierCPlus]

The DM didn't require it. I required it myself.

Since the original question has been answered, I feel it reasonable to ask WHY?

[kharmakazy]

Since the original question has been answered, I feel it reasonable to ask WHY?

I couldn't find something saying I COULD do it, so I didn't do it. Plus it was only the last 2 rounds of the last combat of the session this occurred.

[Big Fau]

I couldn't find something saying I COULD do it, so I didn't do it. Plus it was only the last 2 rounds of the last combat of the session this occurred.

I take it you are level 1, right? Cause that's pretty much the only time a -2 AC penalty could ever make a difference.

[Boci]

I take it you are level 1, right? Cause that's pretty much the only time a -2 AC penalty could ever make a difference.

If the enemy has a 50% of hitting you, +2 AC is a 10% miss chance.

[kharmakazy]

I take it you are level 1, right? Cause that's pretty much the only time a -2 AC penalty could ever make a difference.

Level 1 vs BBEG. Immediately after a charge it would have been the difference between -4 to AC and -2 to AC.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I take it you are level 1, right? Cause that's pretty much the only time a -2 AC penalty could ever make a difference.

I'm curious why you would say this? In a session last night another player said "I guess Punishing stance is kinda risky ant low levels" and the entire table agreed the opposite was true.

At level 1 -2 AC can be the difference between getting hit and not but it's only a matter of getting hit for low single digit damage while the +1d6 is a significant damage boost and will probably be the difference between killing and not killing several enemies if you use it most of the session. While at say level ten +1d6 is a pittance and -2 AC can be the difference between be missed or hit for 30-50.

I'm aware of all the arguments for AC doesn't matter and I mostly agree, but the same arguments apply to small damage bonuses and if both are static the scale will tip toward the AC being more important as level increases outside or rare niche cases where AC has already been dumped to the point of everything hitting on a 1.

[kharmakazy]

At level 1 a single digit damage hit can be fatal.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

At level 1 a single digit damage hit can be fatal.

Technically, no, it can't at least not without laying around bleeding for a few rounds.

But yes that small hit can matter at level one. My point wasn't that what my friend said was technically incorrect, but in his implication that as you increase in level Punishing Stance becomes less risky and represents a better risk/reward tradeoff.

[kharmakazy]

If all the party members are at -1 the only way that isn't a TPK is DM intervention.

If the healer is at -1 there is a good chance that he is going to die at level 1.

[Answerer]

My point wasn't that what my friend said was technically incorrect, but in his implication that as you increase in level Punishing Stance becomes less risky and represents a better risk/reward tradeoff.
Yeah, but you're wrong. 2 AC becomes meaningless when you have 30+ AC, or you'd need 30+ AC in order to make any significant difference in whether or not you get hit and you don't have it. The +1d6 becomes less significant too, but if it's what you've got you wouldn't go with nothing just for 2 AC.

[StreamOfTheSky]

I disagree. AC is always relevant for a melee class. Even if the enemy's highest BAB attack can hit you on not a 1, it still protects from iteratives, 2ndary natural weapons, and power attack.

Meanwhile, that +1d6 damage becomes more and more insiginificant as you go up in levels and your damage soars.


I never much liked Punishing Stance, I seldom take it. Hell, when playing a warblade I often duck out for 2 levels just ot have level 4 come at IL 5 so I can get Absolute Steel and have an actual *good* iron heart stance to take w/ IH Aura leading into Stormguard.
Only times I ever use it is when the enemy's been blinded or stunned or something and can't fight back, or do so very well.

[Eldariel]

I disagree. AC is always relevant for a melee class. Even if the enemy's highest BAB attack can hit you on not a 1, it still protects from iteratives, 2ndary natural weapons, and power attack.

Depends on your defenses. If you build your defenses around mitigating damage (e.g. Elusive Target & Starmantle Cloak & DR & co.) or miss chances (Illusions, items, etc.) in conjunction with a large HP pool you can save all the resources you would normally expend on AC and spend them on auxillary effects instead and then you can afford to dump your AC for effects like Shock Trooper, Punishing Stance and company that just punish your AC that's inexistent anyways.

Also, this means creatures with extraordinary high attack bonuses and such have basically no advantages against you. As long as you have some sort of a defense to not take too much damage from mooks (many types of regeneration, damage reduction, fast healing & similar effects work very well from this), this is more than viable. Of course, being able to oneshot whole swathes of them works too, or having teammates to take care of that job or simply having enough HP to absorb damage from whole armies.


Meanwhile, that +1d6 damage becomes more and more insiginificant as you go up in levels and your damage soars.

I never much liked Punishing Stance, I seldom take it. Hell, when playing a warblade I often duck out for 2 levels just ot have level 4 come at IL 5 so I can get Absolute Steel and have an actual *good* iron heart stance to take w/ IH Aura leading into Stormguard.
Only times I ever use it is when the enemy's been blinded or stunned or something and can't fight back, or do so very well.

You do get extra attacks tho. +1d6 attacks out of your 8 attacks a round is quite the different matter from +1d6 for 1 attack. That said, more powerful stances do of course become available but it still has a niché just like Blood in the Water for appropriate characters.

Also, being able to finish people off before they hit back has certain advantages over the philosophy of trading blows. Last session in a certain mediumish magic game I'm running right now, level 4 party fought an 8-Headed Hydra (with some homebrew about it; the campaign is about fighting massive beasts á la Shadow of the Colossus so many rules have been altered to make size matter more both ways) and the frontline Warblade maintained Defensive Fighting and a +2 AC Stance constantly until the last turn when they figured they should be able to oneshot it (they were cutting its heads and it only had two left) at which point Steel Wind, Reckless Attack and Punishing Stance came in and he took -6 to AC, but the last two heads fell (in conjunction with attacks from friends; yes, I allowed Steel Winding two separate heads at once 'cause of some stuff associated to this campaign) before they had a chance to do anything about it.

[Salanmander]

2 AC becomes meaningless when you have 30+ AC, .

That depends on your opponent's attack bonus. If you have 35 AC and your opponent has +15 to hit, getting a -2 to AC will TRIPLE your chances of getting hit.

Basically, if your opponent has a chance to hit you, but isn't guaranteed to hit you, a difference of 2 in AC is always significant.

[Answerer]

Your statement is true only if you have no other defenses beyond AC. One would hope that you do.

[Daftendirekt]

If all the party members are at -1 the only way that isn't a TPK is DM intervention.

If the healer is at -1 there is a good chance that he is going to die at level 1.

Right, because it's not like there are rules for stabilizing, or the Diehard feat... :smallconfused:

[Big Fau]

Right, because it's not like there are rules for stabilizing, or the Diehard feat... :smallconfused:

Those rules happen to be a 90% failure rate.

[zanetheinsane]

I think the real question is why it wouldn't be a free action to leave a stance. That seems sort of weird. I guess it's just a really complicated stance.

Given the choice between choosing a swift action to leave a stance or a swift action to just enter another stance that doesn't have a penalty, it seems weird not to just make it a free action to drop since it's not exactly a complicated procedure.

[Slipperychicken]

I think the real question is why it wouldn't be a free action to leave a stance. That seems sort of weird. I guess it's just a really complicated stance.

Given the choice between choosing a swift action to leave a stance or a swift action to just enter another stance that doesn't have a penalty, it seems weird not to just make it a free action to drop since it's not exactly a complicated procedure.

Perhaps the idea is that it takes some very conscious effort to leave "battle-mode", that it actually takes a moment to relax your muscles. Often, shortly after a fight's over, you can see people keep their hands/weapons up for a second or two before they start calming down.

[Vladislav]

I don't think it was mentioned, but there's a way to (ab)use Punishing Stance a bit: On every odd-numbered combat round (round 1,3,5...), you enter the Stance, then attack. On every even-numbered round (round 2,4,6...), you attack, then leave the stance.

This way, you always gain +1d6 damage, but have -2 AC only half the time.

[Greyfeld85]

Those rules happen to be a 90% failure rate.

Aid Another and Healing checks aside, a wand of CLW stabalizes just fine.

[The Glyphstone]

I don't think it was mentioned, but there's a way to (ab)use Punishing Stance a bit: On every odd-numbered combat round (round 1,3,5...), you enter the Stance, then attack. On every even-numbered round (round 2,4,6...), you attack, then leave the stance.

This way, you always gain +1d6 damage, but have -2 AC only half the time.

Not as abusive as you might think, because that's still soaking up your swift actions every turn. Boosts are swift actions, and a lot of minor magic items melee likes to have are also swift/immediate actions, so you're giving up the ability to use either.

[Vladislav]

That's why the (ab) was parenthesized. Anyway, it's a pretty good tactic on low levels, when you're unlikely to have many boosts and magic items.

[kharmakazy]

Aid Another and Healing checks aside, a wand of CLW stabalizes just fine.

Who has those at level 1?

[Greyfeld85]

Who has those at level 1?

If we're talking a "hypothetical" party that consists of only one person who has the ability to heal others, then the party is also "hypothetically" no longer level 1.

But in the case that the party is level 1, as I said, there is Aid Another with Heal checks. And Blessed Bandages.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

In my experience, most published adventures drop partially charged wands of clw. Failing that one or two clw scrolls are cheap enough to have on hand for emergencies.

[Greyfeld85]

In my experience, most published adventures drop partially charged wands of clw. Failing that one or two clw scrolls are cheap enough to have on hand for emergencies.

And even if there are no characters who can UMD one of those, a couple CLW potions are still viable at 50gp a pop.

[Dsurion]

Last session in a certain mediumish magic game I'm running right now, level 4 party fought an 8-Headed Hydra (with some homebrew about it; the campaign is about fighting massive beasts á la Shadow of the Colossus so many rules have been altered to make size matter more both ways)Do tell! White text is white

[Eldariel]

Do tell!

A friend of mine is probably going to journal the campaign eventually, once we're done adjusting the rules. Basically though, we implemented Facing-rules (and all the adjustments that entails, mostly to sneak attack), made people only capable of attacking body parts in their range, enabled climbing big enemies to both, get to harder-to-attack places and to attack more critical areas, and then I gave the beasts various Size Matters-type abilities like knockbacking attacks, frightful presence and so on, and play 'em with Big Thing tactics like jumping on people, throwing people and so on.

[Lonely Tylenol]

I couldn't find something saying I COULD do it, so I didn't do it. Plus it was only the last 2 rounds of the last combat of the session this occurred.

I know the "rules don't say I can't" mentality has been lauded by some as munchkinry, but I happen to feel that in some cases, it is perfectly applicable.

This?

This is one of those times.

[Curmudgeon]

I think the real question is why it wouldn't be a free action to leave a stance.

To initiate a maneuver or a stance, you must be able to move. You do not need to be able to speak. You've got to be able to move, and requiring some small expenditure of energy and time (i.e., the definition of a swift action) to switch out of a stance seems like a good fit.

[kharmakazy]

You've got to be able to move, and requiring some small expenditure of energy and time (i.e., the definition of a swift action) to switch out of a stance seems like a good fit.

The logical counterpoint to that is that if it requires a small amount of movement to initiate a stance, isn't the opposite of that not moving at all?

I mean, you are expending a tiny amount of effort to stand a certain way, logically it would seem effortless to stop standing that way.

[Lonely Tylenol]

The logical counterpoint to that is that if it requires a small amount of movement to initiate a stance, isn't the opposite of that not moving at all?

I mean, you are expending a tiny amount of effort to stand a certain way, logically it would seem effortless to stop standing that way.

Have you ever sat cross-legged for a minute, and then had difficulty standing up because your leg muscles have become accustomed to sitting cross-legged?

[kharmakazy]

Have you ever sat cross-legged for a minute, and then had difficulty standing up because your leg muscles have become accustomed to sitting cross-legged?

Good point. Swift action due to leg stiffness/foot asleep.

[Curmudgeon]

The logical counterpoint to that is that if it requires a small amount of movement to initiate a stance, isn't the opposite of that not moving at all?
Not according to the book.
You initiate a stance as a swift action. A stance remains in effect indefinitely and is not expended. You enjoy the benefit your stance confers until you change to another stance you know as a swift action. You can remain in a stance outside of combat situations, and you can enjoy its benefit while exploring or traveling. Not moving at all is maintaining the stance. It just takes some effort to get out of it.

[BlueEyes]

Imagine that a squat is a martial stance.
http://www.calisthenicexercise.com/pictures/squats-man.jpg
You enter that stance by... going down into a squat position. If you want to end the stance you have to go back up again, which requires effort (minimal but still an effort).

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well, by RAW, if it takes a swift action to end a stance, doesn't that mean it's still active when you're sleeping?

I've had games where we are attacked at night. Having that stance up before my first turn or having the swift action for something else on my turn in most of those cases would have really helped.

And yes, the idea of maintaining your stance while laying down asleep is silly. Perhaps if you fell asleep standing up....

[Curmudgeon]

I've had games where we are attacked at night. Having that stance up before my first turn or having the swift action for something else on my turn in most of those cases would have really helped.
D&D doesn't model non-combat actions with a high degree of detail. Indefinitely means your stance was still active while you slept; the game just doesn't care about the details of how that happens.

[ToySoldierCPlus]

When you're asleep, you're helpless. Vulnerable to coup de gras, the whole nine yards. Stances also end if you are rendered helpless. Ergo, and completely logically, your stance ends when you go to sleep.

[Big Fau]

D&D doesn't model non-combat actions with a high degree of detail. Indefinitely means your stance was still active while you slept; the game just doesn't care about the details of how that happens.

Stances end automatically when you are rendered helpless for any reason, such as falling asleep. (Page 43, second-to-last paragraph)

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

What bothers me is that, if you used a counter in your last turn, you cannot end a stance, even if you forfeit all other actions.
You just can't, because you can't perform a swift action, and other actions cannot be converted into swift actions.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Ah, nice catch. Guess you do lose it by sleeping, RAW. That's good.


What bothers me is that, if you used a counter in your last turn, you cannot end a stance, even if you forfeit all other actions.
You just can't, because you can't perform a swift action, and other actions cannot be converted into swift actions.

Find a way to render yourself helpless for that round? :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, you should just be able to stop being in a stance...

[Curmudgeon]

Stances end automatically when you are rendered helpless for any reason, such as falling asleep. (Page 43, second-to-last paragraph)
Good catch; I missed that. I have no idea why they stated clearly up front that "A stance remains in effect indefinitely and is not expended." and then buried the automatic helpless condition override, five full pages later, inside the "MANEUVER AND STANCE DESCRIPTIONS" writeup.

[Big Fau]

Good catch; I missed that. I have no idea why they stated clearly up front that "A stance remains in effect indefinitely and is not expended." and then buried the automatic helpless condition override, five full pages later, inside the "MANEUVER AND STANCE DESCRIPTIONS" writeup.

WotC has never been that good at organizing their books.

[Eldariel]

Good catch; I missed that. I have no idea why they stated clearly up front that "A stance remains in effect indefinitely and is not expended." and then buried the automatic helpless condition override, five full pages later, inside the "MANEUVER AND STANCE DESCRIPTIONS" writeup.

At least ToB has a clause for what happens if you're X, Y or Z; rarity far as WoTC books go :smallcool:

[Andreaz]

I can't help but feel everyone is complicating it more than necessary. No stance penalizes you other than punishing stance, and that one stops being valuable very early into the game. There is also no undesirable side effects to remaining in a stance forever.

So you can leave the stance. I'd not even make it spend a swift action.
There's no need for it to be any more complicated than this.

[Eldariel]

I can't help but feel everyone is complicating it more than necessary. No stance penalizes you other than punishing stance, and that one stops being valuable very early into the game.

Stance of Clarity too.

[Answerer]

IIRC, there are creatures with odor-based attacks that are extra-effective against creatures with Scent, so Hunter's Stance could be a drawback maybe.

[Morph Bark]

Technically, no, it can't at least not without laying around bleeding for a few rounds.

Obviously you never have been critted by a scythe.

[Thurbane]

There's something kind of hilarious about a warrior who enters his uber-powerful secret stance and then can't turn it off.
For some reason, that reminds me of this: Dodge (http://www.goblinscomic.com/02042006/). :smallwink: