Shattered Kingdoms

Seriously who ever used mood aggressive as a spell caster when they where not being taunted into it ? It had no bonus at all. Now mood defensive has been buffed but a catch has been added. To replace this a new stance has been added to let you not suffer the catch.

A few quick questions which I can probably test out as soon as I get back to playing. Does taunt effect stance like it did mood. Does stance defensive give me a similar bonus on concentration levels as mood defensive over mood aggressive.

If a spell caster wishes to make use of stance aggressive they can use a sling or a crossbow or a thrown weapon. Oh no you cant use stance aggressive to get a better bonus over my warrior foes.

Stance as far as I can tell from the help file doesnt effect magic at all it doesnt improve or hinder saves. So Casters are going to get a buff that there is no counter measure a warrior can use ?

There are lots of things that could lots of extras tied into stance. Magic and saves, Order lag. Why dont we run with what we have and see how it goes before we start adding extras to it.

For the moment casters are going to stick with what they always had mood defensive with a greater bonus and a slight drawback and mood aggressive (stance neutral) which has a slight advantage of not costing you more damage like it use too. Where warriors have been given mood defensive with a draw back your now slower and mood aggressive same as always. Also an added seemingly useless stance for them stance neutral which does nothing for them. If you look closely you will see both warriors and casters find one of the stances a waste of time 90% of the time. I should also add that the idea of a warrior needing to change his stance gives the casters a slight edge they might not have to face a total spam bash fight.

What alot of uneeded bitching.

Stance neutral for casters = no lag time for spells, no taking more damage

Stance aggressive for non-tanking fighter.

Stance defensive for tanking fighter.

I use to use mood defensive and aggressive all the time with my swashies, I had alias' for it. If I was still playing Krakish I'd use stance aggressive for crossbow and stance defensive for shield and kama.

God, it's really not all that hard to understand I can't believe all the bickering.

Geez. We were having such a pleasant discussion, I go to bed and a few hours later war has broken out ok SK. I guess it's OA testing defensive, Salandarin testing neutral and the rest of you guys going mode aggressive!

If you scroll back to the discussion that OA and I had you will see, while we didn't agree on all, he did make some very valid points. I thought about this alot last night, sadly, it did in fact keep me awake a bit.

My issue with what you propse OA is that you want to have this change given to aid the spell casting classes, but you aren't giveing proper thought to the affect it will have on all the other classes. Thereby trading of one solution for a whole set of other potential problems.

If you provide something for the aggressive stance, (which I still think would need to be split for melee and spell casters to choose their buff/focus so as not to get both), then this should be increased spell casting time BUT this comes at a cost. You are chucking out all your spells as quickly as you can without due care and attention. The net effect is that they are less likely to hit and maybe not as potent. In game terms, -art perhaps or bonus to the targets save. But you do get to do it more often.

For defensive, you take longer to cast as you are taking greater care. This could give an art bonus and maybe inflict a save penalty to the target (as I think OA suggested in a previous thread).

Neutral = normal casting time, no penalty or bonus.

I really can't understand why you wish for stances to affect melee characters only, with the exceptance of hybrids (this would require more advanced tweaking), I see no problems with the suggestions of having agressive stance affects spell casting.

I really am not talking about some massive amount of "aid" given to spellcasters. I'm saying make every stance useful to every class because every class has the option of every stance. Added art for aggressive stance (and no, not a 10 art bonus, but something minimal like 2 or 3 art) would be more than acceptable in lieu of reduced casting time.

Contrary to OVT's post, stance neutral has utility to a warrior when they don't yet know what stance will be most effective, giving a balanced approach to combat until a more specific and desireable stance is found. Also, there are times when a caster will be willing to open themselves to greater damage to put just a little edge on their spells, just like a warrior will be willing to open themselves to greater damage in order to put a little edge on their sword swings.

Cyra, I could see reflex and will saves getting a buff on defensive stance if such was absolutely necessary (which I don't believe it is), but no matter how ready you are for combat you just can't increase your fortitude.

Worts, you're still adding levels of complication that don't need to exist. There is already built in to the stance system the trade off of magical ability for physical defense (defensive stance), so all that is required is to reverse that for aggressive stance. Trading physical defense for magical ability is not out of context nor is it particularly unreasonable. Again, this could come in either the form of a small buff to art, or a small reduction in concentration time.

On the whole casters and stance my thoughts are as follows.

Agressive:

True casters should never use mode agressive nor should they receive any benifits from it for casting. Being agressive won't make you read a book faster, if anything it would slow you down or cause you to make a mistake. Magic is based entirely on your intellect, and the adrenaline based progression of combat may hone your focus, it will not however allow you to think more damage upon a person or assist you in penetrating their natural defenses. Mode agressive should not give you *any* bonus to spell casting as it is purely for physical combat, and quite possibly reduce a person's overall concentration while in melee combat. I personally feel that anyone in an overly agressive mood will be unfocused mentally and prone to accidents, this should warrant a slight reduction also in willpower and reflex saves.

For hybrids, agressive increases their physical attacks but puts them in harms way and tires them out. I feel it should also give an additional reduction in concentration per opponent while in melee, in addition to a reduction in willpower and reflex saves.

Defensive:

While in a defensive mood true spell casters are more cautiously casting. If not in melee they also benifit from the shield effects if they are carrying one to ward off ranged attack, but I also feel that they should get a bonus to concentration as an offset to the increased casting time. No additional amount of time on a spell is going to increase it's damage as that is based on level alone except for a few things like voodoo. Nothing overly significant, something to the effect of an additional point in intelligence. That tied with the shield bonus would make it quite worth while in certain situations.

For hybrids, while in a defensive position of course they receive all the benifits whilst in melee combat. I feel that in addition to the reduced casting costs, a slight buff in total concentration and/or a maximum amount of a reduction in concentration based on the number of attackers would be appropriate. For example, ten attackers lowers a hybrid's concentration during melee quite significantly, even if they are all mice or some other weak NPC, this is compared to say only two attackers which have a less significant reduction in concentration. Limit it to something realisic such as five attackers, so that paladin holding protection and sanctuary can take on that necromancer and tank twenty wights and still be able to possibly get off a holy word to save the day.

Summary:

Agressive: Melee bonuses and negatives, no bonus for spelltime or damage, slightly lowered concentration, slightly lowered willpower and reflex saves.
Defensive: Melee bonuses and negatives, slightly increased concentration, shield bonus, slower casting time, max amount of reduction in concentration based on number of attackers.

Taunting will, of course, automatically put you into a stance of agressive until the effects wear off. It will then revert to what you were prior to being taunted.

Stance defensive should already be giving you a slight bonus to concentration in two ways. Seeing as damage reduces the amount of things you can concentrate on. Focusing some of your time and energy looking around you should actually be giving you a negative to concentration. Seeing as it doesnt you are getting a buff to concentration while in stance defensive.

I haven't been reading this thread at all but I do have a few questions. Does aggressive stance give a bonus to spellcasting? If it doesn't, then it seriously should. Seeing as defensive stance is clearly a nerf on casting. The entire idea of stance makes perfect sense and applies to both casters and warriors easily. Casters should get increased speed or damage on spells and increase to damage taken, while in aggressive. And in defensive, increase to resistances / decreased casting time. thats how it should be.

The answers to your questions are in this thread. Go read.

I don't need to because I already know that my idea is the best.