|
I know I saw a discussion of this before, but cannot find it. Can Style feats be used while mounted or prone? Here is the reasoning line I took and I would like constructive and substantiated criticism to see if it is flawed. Please keep it civil, if all you want to do is shout "You're wrong!", I just went through that on FB and wish instead to get a logical answer.
1)First, it says in UC that, "As a swift action, you can enter the stance employed by the fighting style a style feat embodies."
2)It also says, "You can use a feat that has a style feat as a prerequisite only while in the stance of the associated style."
3)chiefly Scottish
1a : station
b : site
2a : a way of standing : posture
b : intellectual or emotional attitude <took an antiwarstance>
3a : the position of the feet of a golfer or batter preparatory to making a swing
b : the position of both body and feet from which an athlete starts or operates
Definition 1a&b & 2b obviously do not apply. 2a, by context, seems to be the pertinent definition, while 3a&b are related.
So, what I see is that a stance is "a way of standing" (thus not prone or mounted) and is required to use the Style feats. Obviously there are exceptions like Monkey Style as it specifically refers to being prone (specific always trumps general as per the rules). I have ruled this way in the past. Am I out of line?
MMA fighters use stances while prone all the time.
When they're flat on their back, it's a disadvantage, sure, but they still have their dukes up, use a lot of kicks, and it can be hella dangerous to approach them even once you get them down.
There is nothing in the RAW that keeps you from using styles from horseback or when swimming or what ever. At least nothing i have seen.
|
RAW, there is nothing stopping you from using a stance while prone, mounted, flying, climbing, swimming or any other mode of movement.
There is no balance reasons to deny style feats from working in those situations, and styles are already restricted by needing to spend a swift action to enter them in the first place.
That said, as long as it's your game, rule 0 applies. You are free to house rule as you see fit.
|
|
I posted the RAW and then posted the definitions of the words used in RAW. Please explain how you justify saying that "there is nothing in RAW that keeps you from using styles...". Remember, saying the rules do not say so is not a valid reason as there are many things the rules do not say you can't do, but we know that you can't. Rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't (except for specific restrictions). The rules do not say that a human character can not breathe rocks, but I doubt anyone would say that they can because of that.
|
|
As I said in the above logic sequence, the word "stance" means "a way of standing", so if you must enter a stance to use Style feats how do you (by RAW) justify being in a stance without standing? As to Monkey Style notice it is a specific instance for being prone and that is handled with the basic "specific trumps general" as stated in the beginning of the Core Rulebook.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stance can be a way of standing, but is not necessarily. You are attempting to use a definition from the dictionary to define a game term. Please know that these do not always line up.
Individual stance feats do not mention any sort of condition that invalidates their use. A failure to include such information seems rather large. If there were intended to be conditions in which the style feats could not be used such as while mounted or swimming or prone, don't you think that it would have been mentioned more obviously?
You're whole argument is predicated on the dictionary definition of stance being how you stand.
And personally I don't see strong enough evidence to say that it has anything to do with that in particular. What would Kirin style have to do at all with how you were standing? Neither the fluff description of the style nor the abilities granted by the feat seem to have anything to do with it.
I'm sorry, I just don't see it.
By RAW, stance is nothing defined, so it is fluff so it has no mechanic in the game. By RAW you use a swift action to get the bonuses and can't have two at the same time.
You posted a relevant definition in the OP.
Stance = the position of both body and feet from which an athlete starts or operates
Stance can refer simply to body position. Base ground defense position is a "stance", yet you are on your back (or at least on one side/hip). How many feet do you need to be on to be in a stance? Is one enough? How "on your feet" do you need to be? Actually standing, or is squatting sufficient? What about butterfly guard?
"Stance" has obviously not been defined as a game term. It was left vague - perhaps as an oversight, perhaps by design. Regardless, it is ambiguous at best.
There is a perfectly valid accepted definition of "stance" that encompasses a person's general body positioning. I see no reason why this shouldn't be the most relevant definition unless directed otherwise. Stance here likely simply refers to a combatant's body posture and preparedness for a fight. Nothing more specific than that.
I posted the RAW and then posted the definitions of the words used in RAW. Please explain how you justify saying that "there is nothing in RAW that keeps you from using styles...". Remember, saying the rules do not say so is not a valid reason as there are many things the rules do not say you can't do, but we know that you can't. Rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't (except for specific restrictions). The rules do not say that a human character can not breathe rocks, but I doubt anyone would say that they can because of that.
It says here: "As a swift action, you can enter the stance employed by the fighting style a style feat embodies."
That is it. If there was exeptions to when you could use it it would have been in the rules around here.And it is not.
The feet also have a position when you swim. So by your argument pehaps style feats only work under water? (A strawman yes but still valid i Think)
The second part is about using the feats that utilise the style feats. Like you Can only use pummeling bully when in Pummeling stance( what ever that May look like)
|
|
@ Chess Pwn, That is demonstrably false. There are many words in the rules that aren't defined and are not fluff. The words "can't", "may", "must" are not defined in the rules anywhere, yet they are definitely not "fluff".
@ Claxon, yes, there are other definitions of "stance" yet, as pointed out above, in the context of its use it is fairly obvious which definition is appropriate. Also, the rules are replete with examples of abilities that don't work in many situations, yet those are not explicitly written in the rules as the words used to describe the ability make it obvious the conditions that do not apply. If the say "stance" then that would proscribe prone and mounted. So far the only semi-valid argument seems to be over what the definition of "stance" is. They may have meant for it to have a broader definition, but I am concerned only with RAW at the moment, not RAI. Also, I would say that Monkey Style actually strengthens my point as it is specific about being prone, which infers that it is an exception. In addition, the idea of Style feats is based on Eastern martial arts and there the word stance has a well defined meaning.
|
|
@ Cap. Darling, please read the part about how rules work. Here is an example: Spirited Charge- it says while mounted, no where does it say you cannot use it on foot, yet because we know what the definition of "mounted" means, we know we cannot use it on foot. The exact same applies here (if my premise about the definition of "stance" is correct).
|
|
If the above wasn't confusing enough, here is another part that begs some questions:
"Although you cannot use a style feat before combat begins, the style you are in persists until you spend a swift action to switch to a different combat style."
So, does that mean once you enter a stance, nothing can take you out of it except you using a swift action to change it? Paralyzed, unconscious, dead? :)
@ Cap. Darling, please read the part about how rules work. Here is an example: Spirited Charge- it says while mounted, no where does it say you cannot use it on foot, yet because we know what the definition of "mounted" means, we know we cannot use it on foot. The exact same applies here (if my premise about the definition of "stance" is correct).
This is assuming it is not about golfing then?
The mounted feats tells us it is when mounted the style feats dosent tell us it is when on foot. I Can see your point about what a stance may meen. But figthing stances are its own thing and so is figthing styles and if they are to be limited to figthing with 2 feets on the Ground it Will need to be more explisit in the wording. IMOP.
This is not a religious text that need to be read by sages and explained to the common man. It is just game rules.
Did you just call me a prick on the message boards? I can't take you seriously anymore.
Guys, I'm guilty of being very aggressive at times on the boards, but please lets try to keep it civil. Attacking is only going to get Galahad to dig his heels in deeper.
Galahad let me ask you this, aside from the definition you are using, do you have any evidence that supports your interpretation?
I believe the answer is no. Following that, you have admitted that you believe there is ambiguity. Are you open to the idea that the word stance is not necessarily following definitions, or even defined to have any actual in game meaning besides representing the concept of entering a specific style?
|
|
Claxon, as to agreement or disagreement, I would ask you the same. If my more narrow definition was deemed correct, then do you agree with my position? In essence, the only actual disagreement between us is on the scope of the definition of the word (which btw, is just an academic point on my side, as I am more than willing to concede to the broader definition you propose).
|
|
Oops, didn't see your post before I posted. Yes, the entirety of my position rests on what the definition of "stance" is. If we go with a broader definition, or the idea that the term "stance" is descriptive as opposed to definitional, then I would agree with the idea that prone, mounted, etc has no effect on the use of Style feats.
|
|
Also, to the point, while this argument is purely academic to me, it does have some real world impact. So far, in the many public PFS events I have participated in, I have seen this very issue come up several times and all but one of them ruled the more narrow way.
For home games I don't care. I use a more restrictive ruling in my campaign because its a big table (9 people at one point) and min/maxer heavy, so I curtail the cheese.
