Shattered Kingdoms

But you're saying exactly what I am, in reverse. In stance defensive, you're gaining physical bonuses at the cost of magical penalties. In stance aggressive, if a spellcasting bonus was implemented, you'd be gaining spellcasting bonuses at the cost of physical penalties. It's an identical concept, only the flipside of what's currently in place.

I will admit to not having read this entire thread, but with regard to benefits vs drawbacks for Spellcasters in melee combat, IMO they should really not see many benefits at all. They are Spellcasters not fighters, so while they might see a slight bonus for being defensive (in terms of not getting hit), going aggressive shouldn't offer any major benefits to their martial skills, they don't just turn into hardened fighters because they they are 'up for a fight'.

A caster using stance aggressive gains exactly the same benefits in melee as anyone else using stance aggressive. They also have the same penalties. The flipside to that is later on, when if they're front row they might as well lie down 'cause they're probably going to die, is that being aggressive comes with physical penalties to overall "AC" and vulnerability to ranged and other attacks, but with no benefits, whereas being defensive gives them a boost to their defensive capabilities while also hitting them in the concentration time for their spells.

Yes, I understand that, but what I am meaning to say is this sytem might not be balanced perfectly for spell casters, but then why should it be. Any spellcaster finding themselve in combat should sound the retreat, not stand their going for guts n glory, so the stances, in those cirmcumstances become moot.

Okay, maybe this isn't clear in my point so i'll state it now. Stance bonuses/penalties apply no matter what rank you're in. So a caster in the back rank of formation on stance aggressive is taking a penalty to his/her ability to dodge and shield block either reaching weapons or ranged attacks while simultaneously taking more damage per hit, therefore they should have some counter to that penalty. It would be the same concept as a caster in back rank taking a hit to concentration time in order to defend themselves; they're trading magical ability for physical defense. In the case of the aggressive stance, a caster should be trading physical defense in exchange for magical ability. Currently that isn't the case: a back or second rank caster on aggresive stance is taking a physical penalty for no benefit whatsoever.

I really don't see why aggression should equal bonus to casting ability. You are concentrating on (aggressive) hitting harder / more often or (defensive) getting out of the way. Either way, your mind is elsewhere. If you are in the back / middle row go neutral if you want to be able to cast all your spells as per normal. I know you don't agree with that, but I guess we see this from different perspectives. My personal opinion is stances really are for fighter classes and spell casters shouldn't be worrying about them so much... (IE stay neutral).

Though from what I have said above, the spell casting time (in my argument) should be the same for defensive / aggressive and only faster/normal in neutral stance.

Okay, let's look at an example to maybe make this clearer since stance DOES apply and IS applicable from a tactics perspective to every class, not just fighter classes.

PriestMan is standing back rank, behind BarbWoman and a horse. He is in stance defensive. He is so focused on preventing ranged attacks from hitting him that he's even able to shield block arrows. In exchange for this, he has less ability to concentrate on spells, thereby increasing his casting time.

PriestWoman is standing back rank, behind BarbMan and a horse. She is in stance aggressive. She is so focused on using her spells to the utmost that she is disregarding her physical safety to the point where her defense is actually lower (as it is in stance aggressive).

This should, reasonably, translate into increased proficiency with said spells, versus stance neutral in which no penalties or bonuses apply at all. Just because a character's offensive paradigm is in the form of magic, doesn't mean they can't be so focused on doing extra damage with said magic that they disregard their physical safety (as is mechanically represented by the penalties of stance aggressive).

I can see your point, but then this whole system (and I know that is your argument) needs to split into melee and spell casting affects for stances. IE you choose your stance and your focus, IE:

Stance: Aggressive Focus: Martial
Stance: Aggressive Focus: Arcane

Something like that, but for each stance.

Then Spellcasters can be aggressive and recieve spell buffs, fighter classes can be aggressive choosing martial buffs and hellions / paladins / battle priests / shamans can choose as they see fit for the situation.

Of course, this would be the same for defensive / neutral stances. Though perhaps no neutral focus. I really don't know.

Tied in with this could be the combat casting ability which also effects how well you adjust to the stance/focus, but that is a whole other issue.

As it is, I just don't think aggression and defense should give a buff to both ability to fight and cast spells. I think one always has to be a trade off with the other.

Do you really see a mage front row lasting even four rounds in melee no matter what their stance? No, they won't. The point is, a caster gaining melee benefits to being stance aggressive is completely moot. They're not (as a more than general rule) going to be using them, but they WILL be taking a penalty for being in that stance. There doesn't need to be any split or focus or anything like that.

A mage (or most casters) front row are going to die and die fast, stance defensive, neutral, or aggressive. The vast, vast majority of casters are going to be second or back rank in formations. Giving them a reduced concentration time equal to the increased concentration time of defensive stance while in aggressive stance, or maybe something else like a +2 to art or somesuch, will balance the very real penalties they'll experience in aggressive stance by giving them an actually useable bonus that melee ability is not. Even giving casters both the melee and the magical bonus doesn't over power them, considering the huge weaknesses that casters experience front rank. As you said, a caster front rank should be trying to get the hell out of dodge, not trying to lay into a merc with a dagger.

It also fits into the whole concept of "trade magical for physical" that D was talking about in regards to stance defensive, it just reverses the equation so that you're trading physical for magical.

Totally agree OA. The reason I referred to a 'focus' is because while no straight spell caster will realise the benefits of increased fighting ability when they are aggressive (along with their spell buff) a Paladin, Shaman, Hellion, Battle Priest just might.

I agree with your point about them [Spell casters] just casting hell for leather, irrespective of the consequence, but the only way I could see them having this benefit without giving dual benefit to say a Pallie, is to rework the way it is done.

Anyways, you will be glad to know it's now my bedtime so here endeth my contribution (for what it is/was worth).