| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stands to reason. I probably wouldn't allow it on, say, balancing on a rope, but the main intent is "you are not flying", not "you are on dirt". Otherwise it wouldn't work indoors, which would be weird considering what a mountain stance is.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I probably wouldn't allow it on a flying carpet, but I would allow it on a aircraft or boat. I interpret it to mean "You are standing on a surface that allows you to have stable footing".
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lacking any clear guidance from the design team or explicit definition of "ground," I have interpreted it as follows.
"Touching the ground" means being in position to use one's "land speed," as this described as "how quickly [one] can move across the ground."
Moving around on the deck of a ship, you are using your land/ground speed which would allow one to be in mountain stance. If you're on a flying carpet, you're using its fly speed and thus not in position to be in mountain stance. Note this does mean, I'd be OK with someone being in mountain stance on the deck of a flying ship as long as they are in position to use their land/ground speed to move about the ship.
By raw idt disallow it. But considering that is a really dick move. I'd probably fiat it to work on the boat. Flying carpet probably not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can Stride across liquid and surfaces that don’t support your weight. This benefit lasts only during your movement. If you end your movement on a surface that can’t support you, you fall in or it collapses as normal.
Monks with this feat can use their land Speed to walk over water. Pjrogers, would you rule that they remain in Mt Stance when they do so? I'd make them reactivate it on the other side. (Well, if I didn't houserule away the ground requirement completely.)
If the carpet is 10 feet long are you in a position to use your land speed to move about on the carpet?
I would say "no," but I'll acknowledge that's a fairly arbitrary "no."
The problem, as I see it, is the lack of any clear and explicit definition of "ground" which can be colloquially used in at least two ways:
1) A solid surface of some sort
2) More restrictively - earth, rock, dirt, etc.
I have a mountain stance monk, and I spent some time looking about the CRB for the meaning of "ground," and the closest I could find was its use in the section on movement quoted above.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a magical effect, so the logical inference is 'stable surface', not 'rock or dirt'. The latter doesn't even make sense without magic being involved.
That being the case, I'd allow it on any stable surface, even one like a 5' stone pillar you can't use ground speed on. A flying carpet is borderline and I'd have to consider at the time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No to both of your queries, at least as long as they're each "in their element" in that they're floating in water of flying/hovering in the air.
I'm not a stickler for it being about "Dirt/Earth" or even "floor" for the word ground but to me it's communicating that the surface has to be solid and stationary.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a stickler for it being about "Dirt/Earth" or even "floor" for the word ground but to me it's communicating that the surface has to be solid and stationary.
I'd argue that a ship should usually count, though if the seas are high enough I might make an exception.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can Stride across liquid and surfaces that don’t support your weight. This benefit lasts only during your movement. If you end your movement on a surface that can’t support you, you fall in or it collapses as normal.Monks with this feat can use their land Speed to walk over water. Pjrogers, would you rule that they remain in Mt Stance when they do so? I'd make them reactivate it on the other side. (Well, if I didn't houserule away the ground requirement completely.)
No, because it's clear that water is not ground as this particular feat is needed for you to use you land/ground speed to cross it.
I'd allow Mountain Stance to function on any solid surface, from a wall of force to a ship rolling in a storm. I wouldn't allow it to function on a flying carpet because, in my mind, that isn't truly solid.
If a character was on a cloud, it'd depend on whether the cloud was solid or more soupy. ...Actually, thinking about it, I'd probably treat the cloud the same way I would a swamp. If you've stepped into quicksand or someplace where you can't touch solid ground, I'd make it end, but as long as you're finding someplace relatively firm to stand, that'd work. I'll admit this somewhat clashes with the flying carpet ruling, but the ability working on a carpet (unless it a was a mile-long, foot-thick carpet) makes no sense to me.
I agree with Themetricsystem. I interpret it as having footing on a solid, stable surface, though I would probably be lenient if it's a ship on a calm sea. Flying, swimming or riding are obviously not ok for mountain stance. I'd also disallow it on a flying carpet, a small boat or a ship on a stormy sea, which wouldn't really offer the stability this stance implies.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have been playing Mountain Stance as "you have to begin and end every turn on a stable surface" with "stable" being roughly "there's no acrobatics, etc. checks for moving or standing on this thing".
So under normal conditions on a ship, mountain stance works great. If you're being tossed by a storm, with acrobatics checks needed to move from one part of the ship to another, then you might need to make the same checks to stay in mountain stance.
Cydeth and PossibleCabbage have it as I've been ruling it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lacking any clear guidance from the design team or explicit definition of "ground," I have interpreted it as follows.
"Touching the ground" means being in position to use one's "land speed," as this described as "how quickly [one] can move across the ground."
Moving around on the deck of a ship, you are using your land/ground speed which would allow one to be in mountain stance. If you're on a flying carpet, you're using its fly speed and thus not in position to be in mountain stance. Note this does mean, I'd be OK with someone being in mountain stance on the deck of a flying ship as long as they are in position to use their land/ground speed to move about the ship.
This looks to be about as RAW as it gets, and I agree with it from a RAI perspective. I'd also include climbing and burrowing to count in most cases as well, since that also fulfills touching a solid surface and moving across it, but I would say that flight and swimming would be automatic grounds for leaving the stance, even if they are on a solid surface or other creature.
In fact, even if you Leap or perform Jumps, you would automatically leave the stance, as you are no longer able to stride, climb, or burrow.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No to both of your queries, at least as long as they're each "in their element" in that they're floating in water of flying/hovering in the air.Given that ground is also the word used to describe how land speeds function, do you also rule that people on a ship or aircraft can't walk around either?
It's hard to take this interpretation seriously, as it reads more like an attempt to stick it to the player than anything else.
No, I take it more from the general idea that the character is benefiting from rooting themselves to a solid surface and using maximum balance to benefit themselves with the stance.
Boats, even in calm water, when moving have quite a bit of rocking motion that fundementally intereres with balance and can make simple things taking a 90 degree turn while walking a bit tricky for those without "sea-legs." As an example of this is described in the Pirate Dedication talks about difficult terrain caused by the movement of a ship which suggests that at least some of the time a moving ship should or does impact most PCs. Now of course this would be all up to GM determination in any given moment but having been on about a dozen vessels or so in my lifetime, I would have to say that even on a larger boat calm water still had me actively checking and shifting my balance at pretty much all times. If the ship is moving at all, under its own power or being pushed by the wind it will still be listing back and forth in the water and bobbing constantly which I feel would very much disrupt this stance, that is unless you're playing a Monk Pirate in which case I'd be all thumbs for the stance working.
A sea dog in action to showcase how even on a pretty clear day without "rough seas" as one would call them the boat moves quite a lot and people (in this case an animal) couldn't really stay nearly as stationary or "grounded" as this stance requires or implies.
As for an Airship, that's a tricky one because typically these are magically piloted and wouldn't really be very susceptible to being pushed around by air currents so it could stand to reason that depending on how it functions it could be stable enough for the Monk.
If it's a stable enough surface to stand or move normally, I'd likely allow it, with one caveat: I would not allow it on anything that would or could use your own actions for immediate movement (such as a flying carpet or mount).
If it's a stable enough surface to stand or move normally, I'd likely allow it, with one caveat: I would not allow it on anything that would or could use your own actions for immediate movement (such as a flying carpet or mount).
What about creatures large enough for howdahs and the like? Does it count if you can put a small building on a creatures back?
If it's a stable enough surface to stand or move normally, I'd likely allow it, with one caveat: I would not allow it on anything that would or could use your own actions for immediate movement (such as a flying carpet or mount).What about creatures large enough for howdahs and the like? Does it count if you can put a small building on a creatures back?
If you can stand and move about freely, don't need to make checks to maintain stable footing, aren't strapped down, and aren't spending your actions to control the beast, then I'd probably allow it.
and aren't spending your actions to control the beast
Could you explain why this would be? Command an Animal only has the Auditory and Concentrate traits. Which of those interferes with a Stance?
don't need to make checks to maintain stable footing
Would you rule differently if it was icy/oily ground instead of shifting ground? Even uneven cobblestones is a Balance check.
PS: I'm not trying to be a pain with the questions, just picking the brain of someone I don't think minds a little debate. I've seen every interpretation from actual dirt/stone to anytime you have 2 feet on something so I'm just curious on various reasonings. ;)
I am in the camp of 'as long as you are on something that is stable and fully supports your weight'.
So:
large ships in calm seas - yes.
small boats - no.
magic carpet - questionable, probably not.
using water step to cross a river - questionable, probably yes.
on top of a wall of force - yes.
on oily ground that requires balance checks on - probably yes, as long as you succeed at the checks.
quicksand/swamp - no, it doesn't fully support your weight.
after using jump action - not normally.
after being knocked prone - probably yes.
on the back of an enormous creature - yes, as long as you don't have to make skill checks to keep your footing. (whether or not the creature moves under your control or not makes no difference)
while standing on a large rock that is moving at high velocity - yes, of course. Isn't that what the ground actually is?
on the back of an enormous creature - yes, as long as you don't have to make skill checks to keep your footing.
I had a DM that made it for anything stable enough that you didn't have to make rolls but allowed assurance [acrobatics] to count as stable as you don't roll with it [assuming the DC is met].
...and aren't spending your actions to control the beast...Could you explain why this would be? Command an Animal only has the Auditory and Concentrate traits. Which of those interferes with a Stance?
I'm more imagining someone on horseback, or holding the reigns to the elephant carrying the howdah--something that generally preoccupies you.
...don't need to make checks to maintain stable footing...Would you rule differently if it was icy/oily ground instead of shifting ground? Even uneven cobblestones is a Balance check.
I do not believe I would allow it in any situation in which one could not maintain stable footing without effort.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am OK with the flying carpet if you are touching the ground at the same time, for example with a toe or a finger.
I'll just carry a handful of dirt around with me wherever I go. Problem solved!
I'm more imagining someone on horseback, or holding the reigns to the elephant carrying the howdah--something that generally preoccupies you.
Ok, I get the imagery [physically controlling the animal] but the game doesn't even care if you're laying flat on a horse blindfolded and bound. ;)
Not that I disagree physical control can happen but it leads to another question: would you swap out the Auditory trait for the Manipulate trait if they where physically controlling a mount?
I do not believe I would allow it in any situation in which one could not maintain stable footing without effort.
Would you allow if Assurance exceeds the DC or do you count Assurance effort?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, I get the imagery [physically controlling the animal] but the game doesn't even care if you're laying flat on a horse blindfolded and bound. ;)
Seems more of an odd rules anomaly created out of rules abstraction rather than the intent of the designers to me.
Not that I disagree physical control can happen but it leads to another question: would you swap out the Auditory trait for the Manipulate trait if they where physically controlling a mount?
I might, but only if it was brought up by a player during a game. Otherwise, I'd not have given it that much thought to begin with.
Would you allow if Assurance exceeds the DC or do you count Assurance effort?
I would not. Assurance makes you good at doing a thing, but does not change the environmental conditions. I think that allowing it in this case would be overstepping the capabilities of Assurance.
You guys are already much further down the rabbit hole of thinking on this than I'd ever likely go for any game. Even if asked a similar question by a player, I'd simply make a quick ruling and move on with the game.
I think stable ground is important. I just don't see how you can effectively hold a defensive stance if you're being tossed about.
I think stable ground is important. I just don't see how you can effectively hold a defensive stance if you're being tossed about.
I might agree if it were the only stance in game, but there are tons of others and none of them deactivate from being tossed about. Why is a defensive stance more dependent on stable ground than an offensive one?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are unarmored and touching the ground.
Going from here it is clear that it does not matter if you are prone or not or if the "ground" is uneven or unstable as long as *YOU* are touching it and in my humble opinion this also rules out any "non-you" extentions like ropes etc.
Now all very much depends on the definition on "the ground", alas none is provided in the CRB.
Going by the formal Oxfordian #1 explanation of "ground = the solid surface of the earth", you would not be "touching the ground" in ridiculous ways, like in upper floors of a solid stone building, so I would rather disregard this definition for our purpose.
However when looking at how "ground" is used in the CRB, which is more or less a "solid plane that you can stand/walk/fall on" it does make more sense to think along the #2 Oxford definition of "ground = used to describe activities that take place on the ground, not in the air or at sea".
Going by this I would say as long as you do not fly or swim yourself, but rely on something to support you doing so, you are touching "the ground".
Another way of thinking of this would be the hypothetical question: Would a regular character or NPC receive falling damage when being at this very spot and dropping 10 feet? If the answer is yes then this is "the ground" for you. So it does not matter if your magic carpet is 100 feet in the air or your ship is in the middle of the ocean thousands of feet deep. If you are falling towards it any surface will very fast become "the ground".
The important thing I think is to only do the checks for "Is Mountain Stance still on?" at the beginning or end of your turn, so it doesn't turn off if you jump (for example.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The important thing I think is to only do the checks for "Is Mountain Stance still on?" at the beginning or end of your turn, so it doesn't turn off if you jump (for example.)
I kind of thought the whole point of the restriction was to PREVENT jumping and the like.
|
|
Ok, so... while I do get the purpose and point of debating what it mean I just do not jive with the loose/permissive interpetation of this, it just doesn't make any sense to me at all, espescially since this was firmly grounded (heh) in the Monk of the Sacred Mountain Arcehtype of yore coupled with the Mountain Quake Feat.
If you want this to twist the rule to be functional in such ways then what you're doing is opening up Monks to qualify for this at all times by sprinkling some dirt in their boots and I can guarantee that's not the intent.
Thanks for letting me pick your brain on this Ravingdork. This has been a nice calm thread to talk about something I've been curious about. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man this thread is a weird read.
I totally interpret the restriction to mean directly touching the ground, which is a bad one of saying "the planetoid you're residing on when on Golarion" and extrapolate that to the analogous description for when you're not on Golarion.
So no flying carpets. No boats. No putting soil in your shoes. No standing on a square of dirt held in a wooden box.
Touch the mother f%#$ing ground, in the most "normal" sense, of the description and don't try to make these arguments about RAW.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Touch the mother f+$*ing ground, in the most "normal" sense, of the description and don't try to make these arguments about RAW.
The thing is that, logically, the Stance is completely non-magical, so anything as stable as the ground should logically work.
Also, if you go with the literal interpretation, you can't use the Stance while inside buildings, which is pretty clearly not the intent.
Touch the mother f+$*ing ground, in the most "normal" sense, of the description and don't try to make these arguments about RAW.The thing is that, logically, the Stance is completely non-magical, so anything as stable as the ground should logically work.
Also, if you go with the literal interpretation, you can't use the Stance while inside buildings, which is pretty clearly not the intent.
Really? Why is that clearly not the intent?
Because when I read it, yeah that is clearly a consequence but I have no clue if that's the intent or not. There's nothing that would make me think it's not 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.
The stance is non-magical, I agree. How and why it only works on "the ground" I dunno.
I do see a strong argument that "stable surface" probably could and should be substituted.
But I still wouldn't let things like boat, even big ones, count.
Man this thread is a weird read.
I totally interpret the restriction to mean directly touching the ground, which is a bad one of saying "the planetoid you're residing on when on Golarion" and extrapolate that to the analogous description for when you're not on Golarion.
So no flying carpets. No boats. No putting soil in your shoes. No standing on a square of dirt held in a wooden box.
Touch the mother f@~@ing ground, in the most "normal" sense, of the description and don't try to make these arguments about RAW.
What is the difference between a monk on a boat, and a monk with wet feet on the land? Or worse, a monk on a boat vs a monk standing on ice covered land?
Both of them have a layer of water between them and the Earth, and that water is supporting their weight.
This is why the thread is weird.
The difference to me is that the only one that would count is the "monk with wet feet" because he's presumably still in direct contact with the ground. The others don't work, not even the monk standing on ice which is on the ground.
Honestly I'm starting to think this should become a magical power so that we have an easier reason to say that ground should be taken literally. Right now the fact that it's not magical is the only strong argument (to me) not to take what's written very literally.
|
|
| 7 people 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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Since saying "no, your mountain stance doesn't work here" is sort of like telling the character deeply invested in the "Sentinel" archetype "no, you can't wear your magical plate mail here". There may be some contexts where this is the right approach, but mostly it's a dick move by the GM.