So, let's say I am a monk, I enter Crane Stance and then want to do another Strike than crane wing attack. What is required? Let's also say Crane stance is my only stance.
A stance lasts until you get knocked out, until its requirements (if any) are violated, until the encounter ends, or until you enter a new stance, whichever comes first.
The trait text doesn't mention you can voluntarily end a stance other than violating the requirement. But Crane Stance only has unarmored as requirement. But I think a stance should be dismissable. So:
1) Can you just make another Strike to end the stance? It actually forbids you to make other strikes and it wouldn't go against the requirement.
2) Can you leave a stance without entering a new one? Is that a free action?
3) Do you have to wait until the encounter is over or you are knocked out or do you have to don armor to have the stance end? I can't enter another stance since I only have Crane.
4) other.
I would say that logic must be paramount here. I don't think there's any reason to complicate this, so a free action seems to be the clear answer.
You will still have the other constraints anyway and will need to spend an action to enter the stance again, I say that's costly enough.
requiring that you only use a specific unarmed strike definitely is a requirement as far as the conditions for ending a stance are concerned.
As for otherwise exiting a stance voluntarily... there are only two questions to ask: Would that option provide an actual advantage to the character? Is there something that would be lost or diminished by allowing a character to just not be in a stance anymore at their choosing?
And if you don't come up with any "yes" answers, go ahead and consider that good to go.
I think that there probably aren't any advantages to ending a stance as a free action, possibly with the Concentrate trait for any interactions with other stuff. So it's I guess fair to rule so.
I was just asking because there seems to be a rule missing, not for any power moves. :)
And Crane Stance doesn't require only the one Strike, it simply limits you. In the same way that Immobilized limits you to not be able to take Move actions.
Personally I'd have dropping a stance be one action, but otherwise I agree. There aren't a ton of situations where dropping a stance is something you want to do, but when you do it'd look really silly if you were stuck in it.
Personally I'd have dropping a stance be one action, but otherwise I agree. There aren't a ton of situations where dropping a stance is something you want to do, but when you do it'd look really silly if you were stuck in it.
In the end that was what I was wondering too, as it was clear something was missing. Should it be a free or a 1-action action. Making it free is basically ignoring this problem. Making it an action gives those stances a cost in very special circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I'd have dropping a stance be one action, but otherwise I agree. There aren't a ton of situations where dropping a stance is something you want to do, but when you do it'd look really silly if you were stuck in it.In the end that was what I was wondering too, as it was clear something was missing. Should it be a free or a 1-action action. Making it free is basically ignoring this problem. Making it an action gives those stances a cost in very special circumstances.
I also think it's 1-Action, and is covered by "enter a new stance". You are simply entering your "normal" stance.
I would go with free action; mechanically, you aren't achieving an advantageous state and thematically you could be said to be releasing whatever mental or physical state of readiness you were holding onto to achieve the stance in the first place. I wouldn't think it requires an action to achieve, any more than dropping a weapon would.
It should probably be at least an action, since there are defensive stances. One could exit, attack w/ weapon, enter. Then the PCs reaping the benefits w/o the lower damage Strikes defensive stances force.
Or if you count "normal" as a stance, that's another way to stop this since you can only enter a stance 1/round.
I'd do both.
It should probably be at least an action, since there are defensive stances. One could exit, attack w/ weapon, enter. Then the PCs reaping the benefits w/o the lower damage Strikes defensive stances force.
Or if you count "normal" as a stance, that's another way to stop this since you can only enter a stance 1/round.I'd do both.
That probably would be the dumbest playstyle ever. You're either gaining a meager +1 AC for one action from Crane Style (just a roundabout way of raising a shield) or a DR 2 from Iron Blood Stance by spending an action every round. While for Mountain Stance it would be akin to don your armor every round and what would be the trade off? Wield weapons that would require investment outside of the monk class (weapon proficiency stuff) to use two-handed d12 weapons in order to be better than a Dragon Tail or Falling Stone attacks. Too much of a hassle and very wasteful of actions and if your goal was to use Flurry of Blows at all every Monk weapon would cap out at 1d8 (Bo Staff and Temple Sword) with some traits, hardly worth the action investment.
That probably would be the dumbest playstyle ever. You're either gaining a meager +1 AC for one action from Crane Style (just a roundabout way of raising a shield) or a DR 2 from Iron Blood Stance by spending an action every round. While for Mountain Stance it would be akin to don your armor every round and what would be the trade off? Wield weapons that would require investment outside of the monk class (weapon proficiency stuff) to use two-handed d12 weapons in order to be better than a Dragon Tail or Falling Stone attacks. Too much of a hassle and very wasteful of actions and if your goal was to use Flurry of Blows at all every Monk weapon would cap out at 1d8 (Bo Staff and Temple Sword) with some traits, hardly worth the action investment.It should probably be at least an action, since there are defensive stances. One could exit, attack w/ weapon, enter. Then the PCs reaping the benefits w/o the lower damage Strikes defensive stances force.
Or if you count "normal" as a stance, that's another way to stop this since you can only enter a stance 1/round.I'd do both.
Yep, dumb, but I've seen some speculate combos like that.
It adds too little damage if any (or defense) for too much effort.There's more to it than you list though when you factor in later feats, not that they make it worthwhile IMO.
Yet I still find the answer tidy & consistent, as well as future-proofed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also think it's 1-Action, and is covered by "enter a new stance". You are simply entering your "normal" stance.Personally I'd have dropping a stance be one action, but otherwise I agree. There aren't a ton of situations where dropping a stance is something you want to do, but when you do it'd look really silly if you were stuck in it.In the end that was what I was wondering too, as it was clear something was missing. Should it be a free or a 1-action action. Making it free is basically ignoring this problem. Making it an action gives those stances a cost in very special circumstances.I partially agree here, but then it has to be addressed what happens when you violate the stance requirements:
You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to AC, but the only Strikes you can make are crane wing attacksSo, let's make it simple and go with an athletic maneuver,which has the attack trait
An ability with this trait involves an attack. For each attack you make beyond the first on your turn, you take a multiple attack penalty.Now, you are in crane stance and perform a shove.
When does the stance end?1)Before the shove is impossible, since you didn't violate anything.
2)During it's possible.
3)After it's also possible.Personally I'd go with the 3rd option.
It doesn't end at all. Crane Stance only limits your STRIKES not your ATTACKS. All Strikes are attacks but not all attacks are Strikes. :)
|
That probably would be the dumbest playstyle ever. (...)It should probably be at least an action, since there are defensive stances. One could exit, attack w/ weapon, enter. Then the PCs reaping the benefits w/o the lower damage Strikes defensive stances force.
Or if you count "normal" as a stance, that's another way to stop this since you can only enter a stance 1/round.I'd do both.
I think the Mountain Stance is probably the best example. If you take that style you're probably dependent on it for AC so you don't want to be out of it after your turn, but what if you're fighting a devil with resistance against non-silver weapons, weakness against good damage, and earlier in the adventure you conveniently found a good silver dagger?
Finding such a convenient weapon is kind of a staple, but the monk styles make it hard to take advantage of it.
---
I'd personally lean towards a free action but only at the start of your turn.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rage is not a good comparison as it explicitly tells you "you can't voluntarily stop raging" while stances can be ended voluntarily.
It is that ability to voluntarily end a stance which creates the implication that - unlike rage which states it's literally impossible to take an incompatible action - taking an action you aren't supposed to will end the stance.
You can only voluntarily end a Stance by violating its requirements or switching to another Stance. While in Crane Stance, you cannot make any other strikes. That's not a requirement, it's a limiting rule. You are not able to do it.
The only way to voluntarily exit Crane Stance is to enter another Stance, or put on Armor.
Mountain Stance is much simpler, as you can exit it by Jumping.
The only way to voluntarily exit Crane Stance is to enter another Stance, or put on Armor.
Or you can punch yourself unconsious if you don't have armor handy.
A stance is a general combat strategy that you enter by using an action with the stance trait, and that you remain in for some time. A stance lasts until you get knocked out, until its requirements (if any) are violated, until the encounter ends, or until you enter a new stance, whichever comes first. After you use an action with the stance trait, you can’t use another one for 1 round. You can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode.
The language leaves open the option for the Monk to violate the requirements purposefully. From that perspective, intent matters, so an implicit requirement for any stance is that you still want to be in that stance. Violating that requirement of "intent" would likewise result in dropping the stance.
In addition, the language does not assess an action penalty, or any penalty, to dropping a stance, aside from no longer receiving its benefits. The only addition is that you can't use a Stance action more than once per round and you can only enter or be in a stance in encounter mode.
I don't see support for requiring an action cost to drop a stance.
There's "you can't" meaning you don't have permission, and "you can't" meaning you lack the capability.
So I can't eat my neighbor's food, and I can't teleport - but one of those is conditional.
And I think interpreting the stance use of "you can't" as the you are not capable kind falls into the purview of the text on page 444 about problematic repercussions since it is - narratively speaking - "you can't do this thing because of how you are standing, but also you can't just not stand like that anymore"
You absolutely can "just not stand like that anymore". By spending an Action, to change your Stance. Or do you think it somehow takes less time to reorient your entire body than it does to add a single hand to the grip of your Weapon?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You absolutely can "just not stand like that anymore". By spending an Action, to change your Stance. Or do you think it somehow takes less time to reorient your entire body than it does to add a single hand to the grip of your Weapon?
This probably the best argument for making leaving a stance an action. If the Fighter has to use an action to go from 1-handed to 2-handed with their bastard sword, why shouldn't the monk have to use an action to go from 1d8 slashing to 1d6 bludgeoning?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You absolutely can "just not stand like that anymore". By spending an Action, to change your Stance. Or do you think it somehow takes less time to reorient your entire body than it does to add a single hand to the grip of your Weapon?This probably the best argument for making leaving a stance an action. If the Fighter has to use an action to go from 1-handed to 2-handed with their bastard sword, why shouldn't the monk have to use an action to go from 1d8 slashing to 1d6 bludgeoning?
Hm, if we stay with this analogy shouldn't be a free action to leave a stane?
Fighter needs 1 action to grip 2-handed and a free action to release the grip.Monk needs 1 action to enter a stance and a free action to leave it.
On the other hand, dismissing an ongoing spell takes an action.
So... both versions can be argued for. 8)
You absolutely can "just not stand like that anymore". By spending an Action, to change your Stance. Or do you think it somehow takes less time to reorient your entire body than it does to add a single hand to the grip of your Weapon?This probably the best argument for making leaving a stance an action. If the Fighter has to use an action to go from 1-handed to 2-handed with their bastard sword, why shouldn't the monk have to use an action to go from 1d8 slashing to 1d6 bludgeoning?Hm, if we stay with this analogy shouldn't be a free action to leave a stane?
Fighter needs 1 action to grip 2-handed and a free action to release the grip.
Monk needs 1 action to enter a stance and a free action to leave it.On the other hand, dismissing an ongoing spell takes an action.
So... both versions can be argued for. 8)
That would be fine if leaving a Stance meant going limp and falling to the floor, which would essentially be the same as a Release Action, but that's not what leaving a Stance is.
But even then, Drop Prone is 1 Action, so it's pretty clear that the amount of movement required to move your entire body is a minimum of 1 Action.
I meant releasing the grip from 2-handed back to 1-handed as that was Kelseus' example.
But your argument with Drop is good.
This probably the best argument for making leaving a stance an action. If the Fighter has to use an action to go from 1-handed to 2-handed with their bastard sword, why shouldn't the monk have to use an action to go from 1d8 slashing to 1d6 bludgeoning?Hm, if we stay with this analogy shouldn't be a free action to leave a stane?
Fighter needs 1 action to grip 2-handed and a free action to release the grip.
Monk needs 1 action to enter a stance and a free action to leave it.On the other hand, dismissing an ongoing spell takes an action.
So... both versions can be argued for. 8)
I would say that changing stances is more akin to adding a hand then removing it. Under my example above, the reason you switch is not to chance the dice side, but to change the damage type, thus creating a benefit for the attack.
My argument here is simply that the "can't" presented by a Stance seems like the permissive use and thus has no reason to treat it as an explicitly separate thing from a stance's requirements solely because it doesn't appear on the requirements line. Which is consistent with other things in the game because the text of a thing frequently modifies or expands upon the bits mentioned on lines like "requirements" and especially "targets."
I agree, I had always read the "you can't make other strikes" as having an unspoken "if you want to stay in this stance" as opposed to a "the rules prevent you from doing so unless you take an action to leave the stance."
My argument here is simply that the "can't" presented by a Stance seems like the permissive use and thus has no reason to treat it as an explicitly separate thing from a stance's requirements solely because it doesn't appear on the requirements line. Which is consistent with other things in the game because the text of a thing frequently modifies or expands upon the bits mentioned on lines like "requirements" and especially "targets."I agree, I had always read the "you can't make other strikes" as having an unspoken "if you want to stay in this stance" as opposed to a "the rules prevent you from doing so unless you take an action to leave the stance."
I don't see any support for that in the rules. While you are in such a stance you are cannot make any other Strikes. i.e. You are incapable of doing so until you leave the stance.
If it was a requirement, it would say "Requirements: You make only Crane Wing Strikes".
Wild Shape uses the same wording. Would you argue that you can end Wild Shape by simply choosing to use a standard Weapon Strike, which somehow forces you out of your Form?
The wording Aratorin refers to is presumable found in the part of wild shape that gives you an attack; animal form.
(Animal Form grants the user) "One or more unarmed melee attacks specific to the battle form you choose, which are the only attacks you can use." (CRB 317)
...
Anyway, seems like a pretty big stretch to me - Crane Stance tells you quite plainly you can only make one type of strike. If it meant that using another type of strike ends the stance, that's what it would say.
If it was a requirement, it would say "Requirements: You make only Crane Wing Strikes".Except then someone would be talking about it being impossible to even enter Crane Stance because you can't meet that requirement before entering the stance and can't enter the stance without first meeting it's requirements.
Wild Shape uses the same wording. Would you argue that you can end Wild Shape by simply choosing to use a standard Weapon Strike, which somehow forces you out of your Form?Words are given meaning by the context in which they are used.
And also I can't seem to find which part of the wild shape rules you are talking about that uses the same language. The word "can't" doesn't even appear in the Wild Shape feat or spell.
I'm quite certain that you fully understand that I was referring to battle forms, which use the same terms in the same context as stances. Both of them involve you taking a "form" different to normal, which precludes you using your standard attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even that example isn't valid though. "Can't" doesn't mean that you lack permission. In that case, the word would be "may not". "Can't" always means "unable to".
Setting aside all semantics, I'd say you should be able to drop out of a stance as a free action the same as you can drop a weapon. Entering a stance is basically the equivalent of drawing a weapon, after all.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey folks!
I was looking this up specifically for the Everstand Stance feat, and came to the realization that the Remaster has officially fixed this issue.
Stance: A stance is a general combat strategy that you enter by using an action with the stance trait, and you remain in for some time. A stance lasts until you get knocked out, until its requirements (if any) are violated, until the encounter ends, or until you use a stance action again, whichever comes first. After you take an action with the stance trait, you can’t take another one for 1 round. You can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode. You can Dismiss a stance.
Action: 1; You end an effect that states you can Dismiss it. Dismissing ends the entire effect unless noted otherwise.
Thought that I would share this information after coming across this post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool.
It looks like it matches one of the more common rulings as well - that you can spend one action to end a stance and go back to a non-stance state.