| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and don't try to make these arguments about RAW.
You say this, but
you can't stand on a wooden floor and use it.
reads like something out of one of those 'strict RAW only' threads, or at least a parody of them. That or maybe one of those 'spiteful GM' threads.
Mountain Stance is the only way (currently) to make a Strength based Monk without very much dex work without a really tight tactical use of "hit and run". As a result, until there is an alternative stance to make "low dex monks" work, I will assume Mountain Stance works in as many situations as I can plausibly justify as the GM.
If this is the case it seems easier to just throw out the requirement all together if you're equating it to a Sentinel archetype wearing magical plate mail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really? Why is that clearly not the intent?Basically because that's the least fun and enjoyable possible interpretation and I don't believe that the designers actively hate us and want us to be miserable.
I mean, really, Mountain Stance is clearly designed as something you build around. Having it completely unusable in any urban game, or most non-urban ones large portions of the time is terrible game design and I choose to believe the designers are pretty good at their job and this is thus not true.
Well, with my personal opinions on PF2 being what they are I guess I disagree on some of your points, but we wont delve into that since it's not a productive area of discussion.
At the very least you must agree that if "stable footing" is the intent then they didn't choose the clearest means of wording/identifying that requirement.
Heck, somewhere earlier in this thread someone was advocating that flying while touching a rope that was touching the ground and I think most of us can agree that's nonsense.
I definitely agree your position makes for a better game, but the requirement as written is unclear if that's the intention.
To me, the requirement that you need to touch ground means yeah, you can't stand on a wooden floor and use it.Press F for monks wearing shoes, monks walking on grass, monks who have dirty feet, monks who are walking on dusty stone, monks who have wet feet, and your GM who has to keep making rulings every turn.
Yes, clearly that's what I said.
Or maybe you could extrapolate what I was trying to explain rather than making obvious strawman arguments.
So to be clear, I don't think footwear factors in. I don't think dust, or puddles factor in, and I don't think a GM has to keep making rulings if people are relatively reasonable about what "touching the ground" means. Someone wearing shoes is still touching the ground. Someone standing in a building unless it's exposed to the ground isn't.
I'm beginning to see why this is such a difficult problem because people want to be incredibly pedantic about touching the ground.
I think I'm also falling into the camp that even ignoring the pedantry with the clear idea of what "touching the ground" means in my mind that it is pretty restrictive, and probably needs to be rewritten to something that is:
1) Clearer
2) About having a stable footing rather than touching the ground
Heck, somewhere earlier in this thread someone was advocating that flying while touching a rope that was touching the ground and I think most of us can agree that's nonsense.That was me.
I think it's OK.
It's consistent and will always be interpreted the same way.
It's how it often works in Wuxia (the Chinese fantasy martial arts genre).
We have completely different ideas of what touching the ground entails then.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm beginning to see why this is such a difficult problem because people want to be incredibly pedantic about touching the ground.
Pedantic like arguing a feat stops working if you're standing on some flooring?
I'm beginning to see why this is such a difficult problem because people want to be incredibly pedantic about touching the ground.Pedantic like arguing a feat stops working if you're standing on some flooring?
I don't think I'm personally being pedantic in interpreting ground to roughly mean "earth and rocks". I guess that's the problem of how you define the meaning of the word "ground".
I would never use the word "ground" to sort of generically mean floor or other surface you could stand upon, because ground is more specific than that.
So while I could see where you might feel I'm being pedantic on the meaning of "ground" I think others are incorrectly interpreting the meaning of the word ground, but will agree that the concept of having "stable footing" should be the intended restriction rather than what is written.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm beginning to see why this is such a difficult problem because people want to be incredibly pedantic about touching the ground.Pedantic like arguing a feat stops working if you're standing on some flooring?I don't think I'm personally being pedantic in interpreting ground to roughly mean "earth and rocks". I guess that's the problem of how you define the meaning of the word "ground".
I would never use the word "ground" to sort of generically mean floor or other surface you could stand upon, because ground is more specific than that.
So while I could see where you might feel I'm being pedantic on the meaning of "ground" I think others are incorrectly interpreting the meaning of the word ground, but will agree that the concept of having "stable footing" should be the intended restriction rather than what is written.
It's a problem of taking literal definition with no leeway. Monks with this stance can't go into houses or go up stairs because then they aren't "touching the ground." Hell, they can't even climb a wall if it's made of wood or steel or stone without losing the feat.
As for "ground" not including floor, they are synonymous under certain definitions of the word "ground." The definition that I suspect is the one Paizo is using.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a problem of taking literal definition with no leeway. Monks with this stance can't go into houses or go up stairs because then they aren't "touching the ground." Hell, they can't even climb a wall if it's made of wood or steel or stone without losing the feat.
As for "ground" not including floor, they are synonymous under certain definitions of the word "ground." The definition that I suspect is the one Paizo is using.
Perhaps I am being overly literal, but no definition of ground includes the concept you're trying to add to, at least not in "normal English usage". You're basically trying to say ground also includes floor or any other surface that you can stand on that isn't flimsy and isn't questionable in terms of whether it can support your weight.
Definition of ground (Entry 1 of 4)
1a: the surface of a planet (such as the earth or Mars)
b: an area used for a particular purpose
the parade ground
fishing grounds
cgrounds plural : the area around and belonging to a house or other building
d: an area of knowledge or special interest
covered a lot of ground in his lecture
e: an area to be won or defended in or as if in battle
2a: SOIL, EARTH
b: a special soil
3a: the bottom of a body of water
bgrounds plural
(1): ground coffee beans after brewing
(2): SEDIMENT sense 1
4a: a basis for belief, action, or argument
ground for complaint
—often used in plural
sufficient grounds for divorce
b(1): a fundamental logical condition
(2): a basic metaphysical (see METAPHYSICAL sense 2) cause
5a: an object that makes an electrical connection with the earth
b: a large conducting body (such as the earth) used as a common return for an electric circuit and as an arbitrary zero of potential
c: electric connection with a ground
6a: a surrounding area : BACKGROUND
b: material that serves as a substratum
7: a football offense utilizing primarily running plays
Don't get me wrong, I think your concept is how it should be played. I agree with you. But the word "ground" doesn't encapsulate that concept.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Then do a comparison how the word ground is used in the CRB in dozens of other locations (160 times in total if you are able to do crtl+F, not all of those are rules relevant though), for example if you use the literal #1 definition you can never ever "knock an opponent to the ground" using Athletics in a building.
Fun times!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Then do a comparison how the word ground is used in the CRB in dozens of other locations (160 times in total if you are able to do crtl+F, not all of those are rules relevant though), for example if you use the literal #1 definition you can never ever "knock an opponent to the ground" using Athletics in a building.
Fun times!
Or how the section on Speed refers to "land speed" over the "ground."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I never think to see how the word is used elsewhere in the CRB. Mostly because I don't own a physical CRB. So I'm using AoN as my rules reference.
And when I'm reading a restriction like that I'm not thinking "I should double check how the word ground is used elsewhere in this book to see if it's consistent with the common English usage of the word ground".
So within the context of the CRB's usage of ground, it would be an acceptable definition.
I think it's also horrible writing.
And the fact that I have to reference the specific usages of the word in the CRB rather than the common English definition is awful.
Is ground one of the traits or terms specifically defined somewhere in the CRB?
Edit: By the way, I want you all to understand that this is genuine, and that I hadn't even thought about the ways in which the CRB used the word ground (which in most instances would be incorrect, but I get the context now that I think about).
My mind literally never went to the place of likening it to those others instances.
Double Edit: So, in summation I think it's bad writing and should be changed for clarity (and that instances of the word ground have been used improperly all over over the place) but within the context of this game that the restriction here does actually mean "some stable surface capable of supporting you" and that Darksol's (et. al.) interpretation is the most reasonable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I never think to see how the word is used elsewhere in the CRB. Mostly because I don't own a physical CRB. So I'm using AoN as my rules reference.
And when I'm reading a restriction like that I'm not thinking "I should double check how the word ground is used elsewhere in this book to see if it's consistent with the common English usage of the word ground".
So within the context of the CRB's usage of ground, it would be an acceptable definition.
I think it's also horrible writing.
And the fact that I have to reference the specific usages of the word in the CRB rather than the common English definition is awful.
Is ground one of the traits or terms specifically defined somewhere in the CRB?
Yeah well, not entirely disagreeing with you here about the fact that the more consistent the wording the better and this clearly seems to be a case where the designer had something vividly in mind and (at least somehow) failed to provide an equally precise description.
And unfortunately ground is not "definined" in the CRB, just used in other definitions like:
Prone (condition) You’re lying on the ground and easier to attack.
And I think we all agree that you can easily go prone on a ship or a flying carpet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And unfortunately ground is not "definined" in the CRB, just used in other definitions like:
Prone (condition) You’re lying on the ground and easier to attack.And I think we all agree that you can easily go prone on a ship or a flying carpet.
Absolutely, it'd be insane to say you can't be knocked prone because you're not standing on ground or that somehow if you're knocked prone the area you were standing on becomes ground, instead of whatever it is.
But this is an instance where it's easy to extrapolate the context of prone. And the real meaning of prone has nothing to do with the ground but instead about the state of laying on a surface.
But when I read the restriction on mountain stance I'm not extrapolating the meaning of ground like that, it didn't occur to me.
So I'm just sitting there thinking "okay, mountain, need to touch ground, you're becoming like a mountain, makes sense (except that it's not magical)".
For people who want to base it on whether you have stable footing:
What happens during an earthquake in which you have to keep making Acrobatics checks to remain upright? And say Assurance doesn't cut it, for those who use that.
If you can't stay in the stance due to instability we have a problem in that the stance text only requires "touching the ground," and if you're standing there you certainly are.
If you can stay in the stance despite the instability, why should instability be an invalidating factor on ships etc? Is a storm-tossed boat really worse than an earthquake?
Yeah, this is definitely a tricky edge case.
Now, I am going to reinterpret what you presented because I don't think a natural earthquake would generally be nearly as violent of movement as a storm-tossed boat. I've been through some non-trivial earthquakes before. They actually aren't that bad as long as the building you are in doesn't start taking damage. The boat is designed to handle the high amount of movement without falling apart, but the movement is definitely a lot more pronounced.
So instead, I am thinking something like a spell effect that causes violent movement of the ground.
And for game balance reasons, I don't think that being knocked prone should drop a character out of mountain stance, so I would rule that the stance stays in the case of being knocked prone. Even due to an effect caused by moving the ground.
At least for instantaneous effects. If it is instead a persistent effect that has a duration of some number of rounds at least, then I think it could instead fall into the category of unstable ground that disqualifies mountain stance from working. But that would probably be some very high level of effect to cause that.
Now that I think of that - maybe the effect should attempt a counteract check against the monk's class DC? That may be a good way of resolving whether it is severe enough to knock the monk out of the stance.
It would have been way cooler if Tiger Stance and Gorilla Stance had the same type of requirement. Paizo why avoid something like this??
Nothing about Mountain Stance is actually elemental-related so the idea that a wooden floor would shut it off has no basis that I can see. You don't need some kind of mystical connection to the earth. It's a wuxia/martial arts movie thing, not an Avatar thing. It's a poetic name, not a statement of connection to one of the elements.
Put me in the 'grounded stable surface' camp. So no to a rolling boat or flying carpet, yes to a non-moving ship at anchor or a wooden floor on the second story of an inn, etc. I think the 'if you have to make balance checks, it shuts off' rule of thumb is good.
I also probably wouldn't allow it while prone. "Standing" is implicit in the word "stance", for me. I'm not going to try sitting down opposite my sensei when we're about to spar, you know?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing about Mountain Stance is actually elemental-related so the idea that a wooden floor would shut it off has no basis that I can see.
While you do have to dig a bit deeper into the descriptions of the follow-up Feats in the chain the Stance is VERY much meant to indicate that it relates to the "earth" itself. Sure it doesn't use that wording in the Stance itself but I tend to think that this was intentional so that GMs can make their own determination of if it makes sense.
Mountain Stronghold talks about "You focus on your connection to the earth and call upon the mountain to block attacks against you."
Similarly Mountain Quake says... "You stomp, shaking the earth beneath you."
These both mention "earth" specifically and I don't know if anyone here can reasonably justify using any form of "casual language" usage that would indicate that anybody should consider wood, metal, or water as being "earth" in pretty much any circumstances.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also probably wouldn't allow it while prone. "Standing" is implicit in the word "stance", for me. I'm not going to try sitting down opposite my sensei when we're about to spar, you know?
While that is true for the English word "stance," in PF2 it is a technical term.
Stance: 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 take an action that has the stance trait, you can’t take another one for 1 round. You can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode.
"A general combat strategy" is clearly not at all the same thing as "a standing posture" (my dictionary's definition), so only the technical definition should be applied.
Also, the rules specify exactly when a stance ends, and falling prone is not in there.
Also-also, if you couldn't be in any stance while prone, being Tripped would be basically fatal for Mt Stance monks.
Yeah, I get it, although I think that's mostly for future proofing so they can use the stance rule to cover a lot of situations. I don't think it's any big stretch to think that the stance that gives you bonuses against being tripped would stop working if someone actually gets you down, though. I will grant you I'm making a feel/intent argument and not a RAW one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing about Mountain Stance is actually elemental-related so the idea that a wooden floor would shut it off has no basis that I can see.While you do have to dig a bit deeper into the descriptions of the follow-up Feats in the chain the Stance is VERY much meant to indicate that it relates to the "earth" itself. Sure it doesn't use that wording in the Stance itself but I tend to think that this was intentional so that GMs can make their own determination of if it makes sense.
Mountain Stronghold talks about "You focus on your connection to the earth and call upon the mountain to block attacks against you."
Similarly Mountain Quake says... "You stomp, shaking the earth beneath you."
These both mention "earth" specifically and I don't know if anyone here can reasonably justify using any form of "casual language" usage that would indicate that anybody should consider wood, metal, or water as being "earth" in pretty much any circumstances.
I do feel, however, that the 'stable surface' interpretation is one that works fairly well for gameplay, while the 'literally in contact with the earth' interpretation seems pretty bad for gameplay.
Player: "So, can one use mountain stance in this inn?"
GM: "Look, it's very simple. According to the rules we've already established through precedent, you get one point for worked stone, two points for unworked stone, one point for mud, two points for dry soil, one point for dry-ish soil with plants in the way, one point for being on the ground floor, minus one point for each floor above ground level, minus one if there's carpeting or similar, and minus one point if you're wearing boots, even if you fill your boots with soil. If the score is positive, you can use it. So, are you using it?"
Player: "No, I exchanged the feat at the last level for something more practical."
Given that the monk is the wuxia clearinghouse class, and that wuxia martial arts are usually exaggerations of real martial arts, and no actual martial arts styles limit themselves by things like "well, this only works indoors" but might insist on something like "a stance with a strong base" the "stable surface" is probably the intention.
I mean, sure the mountain quake feat does feel like something that should require actual earth, but this is a level 14 feat and level 14 is close to the range in which characters can do things that are completely impossible without actual magic (like you can fall from orbit and take no damage with cat fall at 15).
no actual martial arts styles limit themselves by things like "well, this only works indoors"
I'll have you know the entire school of martial arts I learned in only works while indoors, sitting down, and holding a gun.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would never use the word "ground" to sort of generically mean floor or other surface you could stand upon, because ground is more specific than that.
While it’s true that “ground” has a a more specific meaning than that, I think it’s still a pretty common meaning.
For instance, I’ve heard knockdowns in boxing and other combat sports described as one fighter putting the other “onto the ground“ even when the fighters were in an elevated ring or on a mat.
As pointed out earlier in the thread, the rules describe the default Speed statistic as “how quickly they can move across the ground” and that pretty clearly applies even when a creature is moving across a floor rather than literal ground.
So while I could see where you might feel I'm being pedantic on the meaning of "ground" I think others are incorrectly interpreting the meaning of the word ground, but will agree that the concept of having "stable footing" should be the intended restriction rather than what is written.
I disagree that “ground” has a different meaning for Mountain Stance than it does for Speed, but I don’t think “stable footing” has anything to do with it. I think the requirement is that the character remain in contact (including through shoes) with a surface on which they are able to move using their Land Speed.
Given that the monk is the wuxia clearinghouse class, and that wuxia martial arts are usually exaggerations of real martial arts, and no actual martial arts styles limit themselves by things like "well, this only works indoors" but might insist on something like "a stance with a strong base" the "stable surface" is probably the intention.
Five Elements Ninjas begs to differ. You wouldn't see a water ninja out of water, a wood ninja outside woods or a earth ninja out of the ground. You put a wood or water ninja inside and they are going to have a bad day...
The eponymous five element ninjas are the antagonists of the film. Having a severe limitation on an ability is fun for an antagonist, but not for a PC.
The eponymous five element ninjas are the antagonists of the film. Having a severe limitation on an ability is fun for an antagonist, but not for a PC.
I'm not sure how any of that in any way discounts the examples disproving "and no actual martial arts styles limit themselves by things like "well, this only works indoors"". "Fun" wasn't in your last post: If we're going to look to wuxia to see what limits makes sense, I'm going to bring up Five Elements Ninjas. Seeing someone have to be in water to do ninjitsu makes standing on stone/dirt seem pretty reasonable...
Five Elements Ninjas begs to differ. You wouldn't see a water ninja out of water, a wood ninja outside woods or a earth ninja out of the ground. You put a wood or water ninja inside and they are going to have a bad day...
I would have thought seeing a ninja outside their element is precisely when you WOULD see them. When they're IN their element, they're all but invisible, aren't they?
;P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mountain Stance has no Magical or Primal trait so there is no mystical connection to the earth required. You only need to be standing on solid ground. The stances footwork requires it or something like that.
So definitely allowed on a flying ship for me. A flying carpet... depends on how wobbly it is. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mountain Stance has no Magical or Primal trait so there is no mystical connection to the earth required. You only need to be standing on solid ground. The stances footwork requires it or something like that.
Not standing, “touching.” It looks to me like lying prone meets the requirement.
Until we get something official from the design team, I've come to the conclusion that it's an unsolvable mess. Any benefits from playing a PC with mountain stance are hugely outweighed the many disagreements regarding the wording of the feat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until we get something official from the design team, I've come to the conclusion that it's an unsolvable mess. Any benefits from playing a PC with mountain stance are hugely outweighed the many disagreements regarding the wording of the feat.
This is only true in Organized Play or another environment where you don't know who your GM is gonna be week to week. With a single GM, you can easily just ask.
It's still a real problem and in need of clarification, but let's be clear on who it's actually a problem for.
Until we get something official from the design team, I've come to the conclusion that it's an unsolvable mess. Any benefits from playing a PC with mountain stance are hugely outweighed the many disagreements regarding the wording of the feat.This is only true in Organized Play or another environment where you don't know who your GM is gonna be week to week. With a single GM, you can easily just ask.
It's still a real problem and in need of clarification, but let's be clear on who it's actually a problem for.
Fair enough, I should have specified PFS.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In theory, I suppose.
I've seen plenty if Mountain Stance PFS monks, but I have yet to see a ruling of "that stance only works on natural earth" actually happen in a game.
In theory, I suppose.
I've seen plenty if Mountain Stance PFS monks, but I have yet to see a ruling of "that stance only works on natural earth" actually happen in a game.
Barring specific guidance otherwise, the path of least resistance for a GM is "it works the way the player thinks it does" assuming their interpretation is reasonable.