PDA

View Full Version : Stances: A fundamental, universal shift in the way melee combat works



AttilaTheGeek
2013-07-17, 12:59 PM
Every martial art has different postures. A ready stance, with weight balanced between the legs for speed; an aggressive pose, with weight forward to deliver powerful blows; and a defensive stance, with weight on the back foot for retreat and stability - all of these are common to fighting styles everywhere. Of course, there are many more, but these basic categories encompass most of them. This project aims to bring the fluidity of real martial arts to RPG combat without bogging it down with too many rules.

This is a small set of optional rules designed to add tactical play to melee. There are two versions: one designed to be compatible with any game that uses dice to resolve attacks (including 3.X), and one written specifically for 3.X that is more centered on motion around the battlefield. This subsystem is designed to be smoothly integrated into any game without making any change to a character sheet, statblock, or adventure plan. Without further ado, I introduce Stances.

There are three stances: aggressive, defensive, and neutral.

Generic version: Whenever a character would roll a die or multiple dice for attack in an aggressive stance, they instead roll dice as if making two attacks and take the better result. However, a wide, open stance leaves one open to attacks - whenever anyone would attack a character in an aggressive stance, they take the better of two attack rolls as well.

In a defensive stance, the bonuses become penalties; the character takes the worse of two attack rolls when attacking from a defensive stance, but their attackers take the worse of two rolls as well. In a neutral stance, a character takes no bonuses or penalties.

A character can change their stance by spending approximately one second of time. This corresponds to one turn in GURPS or a swift action in 3E or 4E.

3.X version: Whenever a character would make an attack roll in an aggressive stance, they instead roll 2d20 as if making two attacks and take the higher roll. However, a character in a highly aggressive stance is committed to the attack and cannot move except to take a 5-foot step or to charge.

Whenever a character in a defensive stance would be attacked and they are not flat-footed, they roll 2d20. If the higher of the two is above 10, then they can subtract 10 from their AC to add that d20 roll.

A neutral stance gives no bonuses or penalties.

A character can transfer into or out of neutral stance with a swift action, or change their stance directly to or from aggressive to defensive with a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

These rules represent a fundamental shift in the way combat works, and I think they add a rare tactical element to the game, but may need balance testing. The first is generic and deals only with attack rolls, but the second is a little more nitty-gritty and involved. Please offer feedback on both!

TuggyNE
2013-07-17, 07:19 PM
Is the 3.x writeup complete and self-sufficient in its penalties and benefits? Because the defensive stance seems to be unusually good.

qazzquimby
2013-07-17, 08:32 PM
Neutral stance just gives all classes a bonus to attack, ac and reflex saves at no penalty?
I also agree the defensive stance is too strong, maybe either put a penalty on the parry roll or increase the movement penalty?

AttilaTheGeek
2013-07-17, 09:04 PM
Is the 3.x writeup complete and self-sufficient in its penalties and benefits? Because the defensive stance seems to be unusually good.


Neutral stance just gives all classes a bonus to attack, ac and reflex saves at no penalty?
I also agree the defensive stance is too strong, maybe either put a penalty on the parry roll or increase the movement penalty?

First round of balance changes!

One can now charge in aggressive stance.

Defensive stance has been reworked. It now allows one to replace the base 10 of their AC with the higher of 2d20, but the choice is made after the d20s are rolled, so one's AC is never lower in defensive stance.

Neutral stance now gives no bonuses, down from +1 to Attack, AC, and Reflex saves.

Time to change stances has been reduced to one swift action (down from one move action), but only for changing into or out of Neutral stance. It still takes a move action to switch directly from aggressive to defensive stance.

Hanuman
2013-07-18, 12:38 AM
I actually like the idea of this, but maybe in a different way than you think.

Characters are by default in aggressive stance, they have options to be defensive or very defensive.

This is represented by a defensive action or a full defensive action.

Honestly, all that you need to do is replace "casting" or "fighting" defensively with "defending" and give it broader terms so it works with all classes and class mechanics.

Normal and full defense are honestly fine as they are.

Ashtagon
2013-07-18, 08:10 AM
So if you are aggressive, you roll the better of two dice on attack, and your opponent gets to roll the better of two dice on their attack (and worse of two if you are in defensive).

How do the stances interact if both are aggressive? or one is aggressive and the other defensive?

Eldan
2013-07-18, 09:24 AM
Isn't this already sort of in D&D, represented by the defensive fighting and full defence action? Sure, yours are better, but the basic idea isn't new.

Deepbluediver
2013-07-18, 09:50 AM
...the defensive stance seems to be unusually good.


Isn't this already sort of in D&D, represented by the defensive fighting and full defense action? Sure, yours are better, but the basic idea isn't new.

Those where my initial thoughts as well. Although, in my entire time playing D&D, I've seen defensive-fighting used exactly twice, and once was by me, so overall it seems to be a unpopular tactic, and I wouldn't fault some one if they had never heard of it.

As far as balance goes, specialization generally beats out non-specialization, so I would prefer to make the basic "neutral" stance a net of 0, with the defensive/offensive boosts coming in at an overall cost. To that end, I prefer the generic version, although the revisions are getting things more usable than your initial idea on the 3.X side as well.

For the 3.X version, the inability to move while fighting initially seems like a significant penalty, but if you where making a full-round attack you wouldn't be taking a move action anyhow. Something about it just doesn't feel like it fits right.

The defensive version seems a little confusing; I had to read it three times to figure out what you wanted to achieve. What about just rolling a d10 and adding that to your AC? Doing it against every single attack seems to add a lot of rolls; When I made an opposing-attack roll style feat, I limited it to once per round. Also, I don't see any penalty; why would I prefer neutral stance over just being defensive all the time?


If you are looking for other ideas, here is what I did for my Combat Maneuver fix:

Fighting Defensively
You can begin or end fighting defensively as an immediate action at the beginning or end of a round in which you are not flat-footed. You can remain in a defensive fighting stance as long as you wish, until the end of combat or the encounter.
While fighting defensively, you gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC, and suffer a -4 penalty to all attack rolls. You also cannot Bullrush or Charge (or Pounce) while fighting defensively.

Fighting Aggressively
You can begin or end fighting aggressively as an immediate action at the beginning or end of a round in which you are not flat-footed. You can remain in an aggressive fighting stance as long as you wish, until the end of combat or the encounter.
While fighting aggressively, the critical threat range of your attacks is increased by 1, and you suffer a -4 penalty to your AC. You also cannot use Aid Another while fighting aggressively.


When I got around to modifying the weapon-style feat chains, I also added these feats to various groups as well. It switches the benefits into a net gain over not using a stance, but by this point you are expending resources on it so I think it balances out:

Improved Defensive Fighting
Prerequisites: Con 13 or BAB +3

Benefit: When fighting defensively, the penalty to attack rolls is decreased to -2. In addition, when fighting defensively you gain an additional +1 bonus to your AC for every four HD.

Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Improved Offensive Fighting
Prerequisite: Str 13 or BAB +3

Benefit: When fighting aggresively, the penalty to your AC is decreased to -2. In addition, when fighting aggressively your critical threat range increases by an additional 1 for every 6 HD.

Special: A fighter may select this feat as one of his fighter bonus feats.

Eldan
2013-07-18, 10:04 AM
Quick excel table: the average of "roll 2d20, take highest, take 10 if result lower than 10" is 14.5 and a bit. I'd say giving a +4 or +5 dodge bonus is the same result, but significantly easier.

OzymandiasX
2013-07-18, 10:26 AM
Quick excel table: the average of "roll 2d20, take highest, take 10 if result lower than 10" is 14.5 and a bit. I'd say giving a +4 or +5 dodge bonus is the same result, but significantly easier.
I think this is called fighting defensively. lol

And in a melee-vs-melee situation these rules can be balanced, but wouldn't this give all casters free added defense? A wizard gets to hold his staff in defensive stance and get the benefit of fighting defensively even when he is spending his turns casting... (and with no prerequisites)

This would be very game-balance impacting, especially so at low levels.


It is a cool concept idea, but the built-in game mechanics already support it with fighting defensively and full defense actions that are designed to scale with level and fighting ability through feats...

Sythirius
2013-07-19, 06:26 PM
I did a stance that scaled in effectiveness by level as part of my fighter rewrite:

Initiate's Stance (ex)- A Warrior may choose to enter into a stance, using a standard action of combat, and lasting until combat ends, the Warrior terminates the stance, or the Warrior becomes prone or unconscious. While in the stance, a Warrior can not use items that are not already in the off hand, if applicable. While in the stance, the Warrior gains a +2 bonus to their attack rolls and parrying and a +1 bonus to AC.

Veteran's Stance (ex)- Bonuses gained in your combat stance are increased to +4 for attack rolls and parrying, and +2 to AC.

Master's Stance (ex)- Bonuses gained in your combat stance are increased to +6 for attack rolls and parrying, and +3 to AC.

These scale at level 1, 10, and 20 respectively. They are pretty generic though, I think I like the idea behind yours a little better.

Just to Browse
2013-07-19, 07:38 PM
I would really rather not roll four times as many dice as I have to when deciding a single attack. That can be a huge pain in the butt.

Rephath
2013-07-22, 12:47 PM
I agree with Ozymandias. These rules allow mages and ranged combatants to trade a melee attack penalty which will almost never affect them for a melee defensive bonus they don't really need. Meanwhile, your melee combatants have an even tradeoff. So what you just did is gave all mages +5 to AC for minimal penalty and created a system that melee combatants won't find very useful. I do not think this is what you intended to do.