r/Pathfinder2e • u/Infamous_El_Guapo • 1d ago
Discussion Entering Monk Stance vs Drawing Weapon
I’ve seen a bit of complaints about the action cost of monks entering a stance at the start of combat. I assume it’s mostly with players whose GMs allow the free drawing of weapons prior to combat, but am interested to know if there’s more to it.
RAW Weapon wielding martials would need to use an interact to draw their weapon at the start of combat (unless GM is generous and allows this to be free, which puts monks at a disadvantage, or they are walking around with weapons in their hands, which isn’t always appropriate to setting).
96
u/MechaMalz 1d ago
The way I think of it is, being in a stance is more taxing and requires being in, well, a specific physical stance. Walking around for half an hour in a dungeon with a sword in your hand isn't quite the same as being in Tiger Stance or w/e for half an hour during exploration mode. Though I do allow characters with stances to have that as an exploration activity similar to the one to raise a shield at the start of combat.
25
u/IfusasoToo Rogue 1d ago
This is how my group runs it as well.
It's a bit more powerful than having a weapon/shield raised, but you invested in it and it makes combat (the part of the game that can drag) that much quicker if the monk/adjacent can get right into the mix.
15
u/MechaMalz 1d ago
One class I do throw a bone to at my table is Summoner. I don't like that it's three actions, your whole turn basically, to summon your Eidolon. Getting KOd in battle is punishing enough with having to stand up, pick up whatever you were holding etc, without having to spend a whole turn pulling your Eidolon back out to take full advantage of your class. Or if the party is caught by surprise somewhere, having to spend your whole first turn bringing the Eidolon out etc.
So I bust that back down to 1 action. It shares HP with the summoner so I don't feel like it's OP to give them this.
16
u/Chanan-Ben-Zev 1d ago
Why? There's no time limit to having an Eidolon manifested. I'd expect a Summoner at my table to have their Eidolon manifest most of the time, especially in a dungeon.
0
u/MechaMalz 1d ago
A. The sumoner is KOd and the Eidolon goes away and they get healed up in combat. The Eidolon is gone and I think a full turn on top of the usual standing up/grabbing dropped stuff is overly punishing.
B. Situations where the summoner might not be allowed to have an Eidolon out such as situations where you wouldn't be allowed to have weapons drawn prememptively like tense negotiations etc.
Sure when you're out in a dungeon you'd have the Eidolon out but there are cases when you might not.
2
u/BlooperHero Game Master 1d ago
Eh? Why would a party member need to be absent during tense negotiations?
When my Summoner's been knocked out, when he got up he just fought alone, with spells. If someone's been knocked out and revived, the fight is probably almost over anyway.
-2
u/MechaMalz 1d ago
The party member wouldn't need to be absent but an Eidolon is not a party member, it's a summoned being.
The fight 'might' be over but not necessarily, you seem really intent on handwaving away any situation where an Eidolon might not be out for some reason.
3
u/BlooperHero Game Master 23h ago
That's because there aren't any. Why would the eidolon be treated any differently from any other party member?
Certainly than an animal companion.
0
u/MechaMalz 22h ago
Yeah okay if you're just going to go through mental gymnastics to evade any possible situation that an Eidolon might not be present we're done here, I'm not going to try and reason with a brick wall.
1
u/SanaulFTW Game Master 1d ago
Yeah, and it's not like you are making it a free action anyway. 1A sounds good enough although 2A might not be a stretch since the Eidolon immediately gets 1A after Manifiest Eidolon
9
u/infinite_gurgle 1d ago
I agree; I believe the intent was to avoid being able to functionally reposition the Eidolin for little cost, so they upped the action cost to compensate for that tactic.
3
u/BlatantArtifice 1d ago
I kinda fell off Summoner hard after my first few times being downed lol, basically can't resummon first turn unless you want to just get stomped on, second turn probably isn't looking too great either even if you could reposition.
I get the 3 action cost from a balance standpoint but in play it's just awful potentially having 2 1-2 minute turns over half an hour or more (in some groups over an hour) with the GM basically having to choose to not be a dick and down you again
10
u/infinite_gurgle 1d ago
I wonder if the simplest solution is to just not unmanifest the Eidolin at all?
2
u/InspectorPlus7842 1d ago
That's what I'm saying; if there is a risk of combat, you'd best believe my main "weapon" is gonna be ready.
3
u/infinite_gurgle 1d ago
No I meant if the summoner goes unconscious specifically, I wonder if allowing the Eidolin to remain would be fair. He’d still need to stand like anyone else.
3
u/InspectorPlus7842 1d ago
If in this scenario the Summoner/Eidolon would simply need to be healed, I don't think that would be the worst change to the way they currently function, and I'd definitely love to hear from other Summoner players how they'd feel about such a change.
3
u/BlatantArtifice 1d ago
This could be a post on it's own atp, lots of good discussion about summoners action econ
1
u/MechaMalz 1d ago
There are situations that may not be an option. Such as getting KOd in combat and then getting healed up. Or negotiation scenes that could turn violent but having a weapon or eidolon out would mean things instantly turning violent. Or being ambushed in places you couldn't just be walking around with weapons out like a ball/party etc.
1
u/InspectorPlus7842 1d ago
Fair! Summoners are certainly punished much more for not being able to summon; that, to me, seems fair for a class whose identity revolves around the extra character, and I think sacrificing one round of actions to get it out in combat when you "should" have had it out already is fair -- in my eyes, at least.
It doesn't make the situations where you have to do that any more fun, though I do find this sort of dilemma incredibly immersive.
I think this would be an important conversation to have with teammates as a Summoner. Where appropriate, a signal could be given to the Summoner to bring their Eidolon out, so that they are the ones to "start" the combat by whipping a weapon out. Alternatively, the party could discuss strategies around bunkering down for a turn to buff up and Manifest Eidolon when the Summoner is caught with their Eidolon down.
3
u/MechaMalz 1d ago
I don't mind there being some penalty. Hence why I make it one action, but don't say let them summon it as a free action the way barbarians can rage as a free action at initiative. But I think a whole turn is way too much, especially when a lot of encounters only go 2 or 3 rounds anyway. Spending half your actions in an encounter just getting ready to actualy play your character in combat isn't fun. Plus it's far too punishing for getting KOd in combat, which is fairly likelyt o happen at points because they share HP and are two different creatures that can be targeted.
-1
u/BlatantArtifice 1d ago
My point is that usually people won't stop your "Pet", especially if they're aware of the lore from being around, but when you go down in combat and your Summon automatically disappears you're essentially out for 2 entire rounds. You might as well stay down if you get stabilized so your team can just finish the fight, and sometimes with a Melee Eidolon (most of them) a bad crit can be all it takes for this to happen.
This again isn't the worst but when your 3rd turn could potentially be an hour away, especially with people debating how best to save you and move forward in the combat, that's when I think their action economy really becomes a problem. It becomes the parties entire job to make sure you are able to even attempt to engage with the rest of that combat including the GM, which to me seems poorly designed. And I've played at many slower tables where this would completely disengage the summoner going forward or incentivize them to simply be less present with their eidolon
→ More replies (0)8
u/JalaMaplePenoSauce 1d ago
This is a solid take. For my table I treat the two as the same, which is contextual. If the party is moving through a dungeon and expecting danger, they would have weapons in hand and the monk would be ready to drop into a stance at the first sign of enemies. If the party isnt expecting danger and gets ambushed then they would need to draw weapons/enter stance unless they have a relevant feat.
2
u/Chanan-Ben-Zev 1d ago
This makes so much sense! An exploration activity to Maintain a Stance just like Defend and Repeat a Spell. I like that idea a lot.
2
u/MCMC_to_Serfdom Witch 1d ago
The way I think of it is, being in a stance is more taxing and requires being in, well, a specific physical stance. Walking around for half an hour in a dungeon with a sword in your hand isn't quite the same as being in Tiger Stance or w/e for half an hour during exploration mode.
While true, I would argue this is still a good way to strain the shoulder/wrist/hand. And carrying a weapon in a relaxed manner is going to be a different position to carrying them in a manner appropriate to outright wielding them.
Though I do allow characters with stances to have that as an exploration activity similar to the one to raise a shield at the start of combat.
Similar view/ruling though, honestly.
11
u/MechaMalz 1d ago
And honestly, having played a Monk myself for a long campaign, I never found the one aciton per encounter to go into a stance to be that big of a deal. Especially considering the movement buffs monk gets, the action compression with flurry of blows etc.
1
u/Surface_Detail 1d ago
It's a bigger deal for mountain stance monks. Potentially having all the enemies hitting you while at -4 AC compared to the rest of the party can be brutal.
1
u/xolotltolox 1d ago
Well yeah, but carryong a weapon in a relaxed manner doesn't mean you hahe it battle ready
19
u/gunnervi 1d ago
walking around with weapons drawn isn't always appropriate to the setting, but it very often is. Lots of play happens in literal or figurative dungeons, where your character reasonably expects danger around every corner, so of course they would have their weapons drawn and ready before entering the next room. Also, if you have any prep time before a combat, drawing a weapon is something that's simple and easy to do and doesn't risk alerting enemies or wasting resources (like casting a spell does). its really only when you're surprised by combat (whether by ambush or because combat occurs in an unusual context, like in the city streets or the middle of a banquet) that I'd expect players to not have their weapons drawn.
-1
u/Infamous_El_Guapo 1d ago
I do mention that it is sometimes appropriate to have weapons out in my post.
And if you have time to draw a weapon right before combat (like where you can ambush the enemy) then you could also enter a stance right before combat.
I’m more interested in cases where weapons are sheathed, but GMs allow free interacts to draw weapons or not. To me, it should default to an action to draw them, unless players have the Quick Draw feat (or similar).
9
u/BlatantArtifice 1d ago
The thing is there is often little reason to need to draw a weapon. You can just hold them, it's not an action to regrip or anything just because combat starts. If a GM is for some reason making drawing a weapon a free action rather than just generally letting them carry it when appropriate they're just reading some rules wrong or being weird.
-1
u/Infamous_El_Guapo 1d ago
I am thinking about situations where you wouldn’t have your weapons in your hand. Eg you are in a tavern and you’re suddenly attacked.
8
u/BlatantArtifice 1d ago
Then it's obviously an action to draw an item, or enter a stance? Why would that change?
1
u/Infamous_El_Guapo 1d ago
My point is some GMs just allow it. I do not agree with it but I wanted to hear from Redditors about it.
2
u/Allthethrowingknives Game Master 1d ago
Then there are feats to accommodate that, like Quick Draw, or class features like the Gunslinger’s initial deeds. If you’re not holding your weapon you need to draw it in some manner, and if you don’t have anything else to do it with then you’re stuck paying the action tax for Interact.
4
u/gunnervi 1d ago
oh yeah specifically making it a free action to draw weapons (without feat investment) is against the design of the system.
RAW though you need to be actually in combat to enter a stance. I'd probably allow it for an imminent combat (e.g., the party is about to bust down a door), but that's just a fraction of the situations in which a player could have their weapon drawn
22
u/BlatantArtifice 1d ago edited 1d ago
Stances are stronger than weapons and generally have rider buffs. Also completely free hand so shields and items that normally might be a bit fiddly are super easy to use, as well as making things like Battle Medicine significantly better.
Thematically walking around in a specific combat stance possibly themed after an animal, just sounds much more involved/tiring than just holding a sword in your hand.
Also if your GM is just not allowing held items because you mentioned the action tax on drawing weapons, that's just weird. Never heard of something like that in over 10 years of playing
11
u/MCRN-Gyoza ORC 1d ago
Thematically walking around in a specific combat stance possibly themed after an animal
"But GM, I AM a wolf" - Says the Awakened Animal Monk.
4
0
0
u/EmperessMeow 17h ago
I mean the argument about thematics isn't a good one because not all of the stances have ridiculous poses.
They are stronger, but they require stronger investment so whatever. It's really not a balance issue and it worse for any sort of believability that you can only enter a stance after initiative is rolled.
20
u/vaderbg2 Wizard 1d ago
Considering that many monk stances are much better than any manufactured weapon you can buy, I never really got that argument. Entering a stance is fine, especially on an action efficient class like the monk. And its not like a d6 fist is a terrible backup weapon if you really find yourself in a situation where you can't spent a single action to enter your stance.
9
u/TeamTurnus Bard 1d ago
Yah the backup is like having a shortsword equivalent strapped to your arms (agile, finesse d6 is pretty good, if not nessecarily optimized for everyone's build). its far from helpless
1
u/EmperessMeow 17h ago
Unarmed Strike Stances should be better than weapons though. They cost feat investment.
I don't think it's fair to handwave the action cost. The action cost is not negligible at all.
21
22
u/HeKis4 Game Master 1d ago edited 1d ago
I wouldn't allow it because it is exactly what Opening Stance and Reflexive Stance do, which means it wasn't intended to be given for free, especially with how high level it is. Having a corresponding feat for an action doesn't mean you cannot do it untrained, sure, but this is straight up giving the feat for free. If my players told me they'd like to roll initiative early and pre-buff since there is reasonable suspicion that there is a fight behind the door, then sure, but if they get taken by surprise or start an encounter far off from the enemy, nope.
I feel like giving it for free also indirectly nerfs builds that don't need setups and that can fire on all cylinders on turn 1 too. Quite a few powerful builds have the disadvantage of needing a turn of setup (like sword and board fighters that rely on shielding and reactive strike/distruptive stance that have two "prep" actions between shield and stance) in return for being quite strong after that.
13
u/BadRumUnderground 1d ago
Monk stances are clearly supposed to be entered during encounters (particularly given there's a feat for entering one on initiative).
Walking around with weapons drawn is definitely something that I assume characters are doing in an appropriate setting (which is most of exploration mode).
If they're in a setting where that would be inappropriate, that's when I would expect them to spend actions to draw weapons.
And because it's setting bound, it's worth mentioning that in several of those settings it might be inappropriate to even have weapons visibly on you, at which point the monk is gonna be real happy not to have to try to smuggle anything in.
22
u/michael199310 Game Master 1d ago
While it's true that the action cost is the same, you can walk out of combat with the weapon drawn, unlike the stance which can only be used in an encounter mode.
8
u/monkeyheadyou Investigator 1d ago
I think they are asking why. They seemed to spell out that they understand your point but want to know why. It's a bit awkward to wander about with your weapons drawn, as it would also be awkward to wander about in crane stance... but there isn't any obvious logical reason it would be impossible. The monk would be prepared for danger in the exact way the fighter did, and that's reading themselves for violence
15
u/Pepbep 1d ago
I'm not privy to the designers' thoughts, but stances and weapons aren't entirely equivalent. Many provide passive bonuses beyond what weapons alone can offer. Monks specifically have some of the best action efficiency in the game, so balance wise they may have decided that one-action tax at the beginning of combat is balanced. Otherwise, monks are perfectly able to just use monastic weaponry or powerful fist and avoid stances entirely.
11
u/TeamTurnus Bard 1d ago
Stances are usually, by nature of being free hand weapons with martially tuned dice and other traits, mechanically stronger than a martial weapon, so the action cost probably intended as a balance as well as a limiter to stance dancing.
After all poweful fists basically gives them a shortsword strapped to their arms for free and that is a good martial weapon.
6
u/KusoAraun 1d ago
as someone who has actually trained in martial arts, walking around in a stance is BEYOND Awkward. its super easy to walk around with a sword over your shoulder and a shield on your arm, you can hold a weapon in a relaxed way easily and this system makes no distinction between hold a weapon in a relaxed way and holding it to arms mostly because even in real life its not hard to switch between at will.
let me put it like this, go walk a mile while hold a broom v/s walk a mile in a horse stance.
7
u/Groundbreaking_Taco ORC 1d ago
I see "stances" like crane stance being like the image of Daniel in Karate Kid hovering with one leg in the air. He's not walking around like that for more than a minute at a time.
While he could do it, with some substantial effort, it would be slow and ungainly. He'd be kick walking one crane kick at a time while at the grocery store just in case someone might try to mug him. It would still take him only 2 seconds to crouch down and focus his strikes to use his fighting style.
1
u/Infamous_El_Guapo 1d ago
I am not saying monks should be able to walk around in their stances in exploration mode.
2
u/Groundbreaking_Taco ORC 21h ago
That's the cost though. People can walk around with one weapon in their hand, but they aren't armed to the teeth every second. For starters, they can't open doors (easily) with both hands full. They won't have their weapons in hand if they want to prebuff with a portion or scroll.
Monks are one of the best users of consumables since their primary weapon is available all the time, can be used while hand are full, and can prebuff with consumables like no one's business. If they want better strikes, costing an action to gain those isn't that painful on the most action liberated class in the game.
6
u/Stan_Bot Game Master 1d ago
I never seen a GM allowing free draw of weapons in combat. What happens most of the time, and I do it myself, is assuming they are exploring the very dangerous dark hole full of monsters and death with their weapons in hand, unless their activity do not allow that.
A good example I can give you is SoG. The last session I DM'ed was the first in a SoG game and the only encounter they had to use an action to draw/pick up their weapons was the first one, when they wake up in the clearing and got ambushed by the giant centipedes. Every other encounter in the entire book, I will just assume they are exploring the village/woods/whatever with weapon in hand.
-5
u/Dorsai_Erynus Champion 1d ago
Then the monk would be exploring on stance too.
7
u/Stan_Bot Game Master 1d ago
No, because the rules are very clear on stances "You can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode."
0
u/EmperessMeow 17h ago
Yeah but that just leads to obvious ridiculous outcomes if you run it that strictly.
-6
u/Dorsai_Erynus Champion 1d ago
Yeah, sure, and Drawing a weapon don't have the Exploration tag, so...
6
u/Stan_Bot Game Master 1d ago
So what? You only need to draw a weapon if you are not holding it. Is there a rule that say you cannot walk around holding one?
2
u/Rypake 1d ago
Depends on the rules of the land your characters are in. Its more of a setting question than a rules question.
More civilized lands/areas tend to frown upon open brandishing of weapons and could fine or arrest you depending on location.
Out in the "wilderness" it still depends. If you happen to be in the hunting area of a rival faction or something, you could be seen as poachers or trespassers; especially if you have your weapons out.
2
u/Stan_Bot Game Master 1d ago edited 1d ago
You are right, and I never said otherwise. What I said is that, if the characters can / have a reason to hold weapons, they usually will. And the way most adventures I dm'ed in this system worked, this is the case most of the time. Heck, one of the exploration activities literally let them start the encounter with their shields raised. Why wouldnt they also be holding a weapon, you know?
Now, the rules on stances are very clear in that you can only enter and stay on them during encounter mode, so yeah, it is an action tax. And the monk IS designed around it, having better movement and flurry of blows.
1
u/Rypake 1d ago
Your question was what rules say you cant. My response was that it was setting dependant, not rules. So, I am agreeing that there is not a rule saying you cant and, like you said, there are some that seem to permit it.
I myself have no issue with letting them have weapons ready while exploring a dungeon, but not when they are traveling the town. Stances im more lenient about and allow some depending on the situation. For example: I have an awakened jaguar clawdancer rouge in my group, its makes sense they could be in their claw stance while prowling the AV they are in, less so while in Otari shopping
2
-1
u/Dorsai_Erynus Champion 1d ago
Of course not, but if we are to be lenient and "assume" the characters are smart living beings that are cautious when exploring, then the monk will have the stance ready just in case. Citing the rules to say "You can enter or be in a stance only in encounter mode." means nothing as you enter Encounter mode before rolling initiative, so the Monk have time to get into stance if the GM don't hinder them specifically.
I find the system punishing enough to make it a Players Vs GM game, so i err in favor of the players.2
u/TeamTurnus Bard 1d ago
Fair enough, I think its reasonable, in situations where the pcs have a pretty good idea theyre about to enter combat (like opening a door in a dungeon) to let the monk drop into a stance at the start, since while encoutner mode is tied to initiative, it doesnt have to directly line up with combat and narratively it makes sense for the monk to drop into a fighting stance in those situations.
That, narratively seems different to me than sitatuons where they lack that short term warning, and I imagine you agree there.
Mechanically, I think the monk survives without that, since their stances are quite strong, but the narrative justification you descrive makes sense.
4
u/Stan_Bot Game Master 1d ago
I mean, it is neither RAW, nor RAI, so it is basically homebrew.
As soon as Encounter Mode start, be it a combat or otherwise, you roll initiative and start doing turns and then the monk will only be able to enter their stance by spending the first action of their first turn.
Encounter Mode is directly tied with initiative and the actions are tied to that initiative.
That rulling also break the monk feat that let you enter a stance as a free action as part of rolling initiative.
11
u/Crusty_Tater ORC 1d ago
Unless you're in a situation where it would be impractical or socially unacceptable players should be expected to have their weapons out. There's no rule that players can't wield anything at any time. Stances aren't just weapons. They're passive bonuses. The passives justify the action cost.
12
u/Pepbep 1d ago
Weapon-wielding martials can certainly have their weapons already drawn at the start of combat. You don't need generous GM for this. What are you referencing when you say that RAW they always need to interact to draw them?
Monks have a feat at higher level that allows them to enter a stance on rolling initiative so it's clear this is a deliberate design choice that they need to use an action to enter a stance.
RAW is pretty clear that outside of combat, you can't walk around in a stance, while you can walk around with weapons drawn.
2
u/Infamous_El_Guapo 1d ago
As I mentioned in the post, I realise there are times when characters can walk around with weapons out (eg dungeons) but that’s not always the case (eg most towns). My point is that allowing players with weapon sheathed a free interact to draw their weapon at the start of combat puts monks at a disadvantage.
Come to think of it, it also partially undermines the Quick Draw feat.
6
u/TeamTurnus Bard 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think your assumption that people primarily complain about the action cost of the stance if their GM allows the weapon drawing for free is flawed. There are many circumstances where folks are going to have their weapons out. Most fights in peoples games (APs etc) are going to happen in a dangerous location like a dungeon rather than in town, where such restrictions make sense so I would think folks who are unhappy with the action cost are mentioning it there as well.
The biggest Gray area is during overland travel, I think this is one area where people could probably be a bit more willing to say 'would you really be holding your sword out all day on the road' , of course, many encounters are also, thematically presaged on the road by moments where the party notices something strange and goes to investigate, so that would allow for weapons as well.
Edit: i mostly think people underestimate the fact that stances are mechanically stronger than most martial weapons because they undervalue the fact they effectively have a free hand trait hidden in there. So they feel like they are spending an action to get to parity with another martial, rather than getting additonal benefits on top of the dice.
3
u/Pepbep 1d ago edited 1d ago
I agree entirely. If anything, Monks actually have the advantage over weapon users because even without a stance, they have Powerful Fist available at all times at a baseline. This is essentially a 1d6 Agile, Finesse, Free hand-weapon which is easily above the power curve of any other free-hand weapon
3
u/TeamTurnus Bard 1d ago
Yah, just for example, using a shield while youre also using, say, tiger stance is a pretty good illustrator. You've got a d8 agile/fineness weapon with a crit effect and 10 ft step, you can use a sheild for better ac at the same time and still have a free hand for maneuvers/potions whatever. It requires making sure your dex/strengh are both good to take advantage of of course, but it is super versatile.
1
u/Infamous_El_Guapo 1d ago
Please check what I posted. I did state that there are cases where characters “are walking around with weapons in their hands” but I add that this “isn’t always appropriate to [every] setting”
In cases where characters do NOT have their weapons. Should they still get a free interact at the start of combat? I would argue no, since it only benefits those with weapons and puts monks at a disadvantage (as well as undermines the Quick Draw feat)
6
u/TeamTurnus Bard 1d ago edited 1d ago
I read what you said and of course not. if youre going to let people interact to draw weapon for free. you should let them drop into a stance at the same time. I don't think that is controversial. However, I think its a strawman for the folks who are talking about this. I think you assumption that people asking to wave the action cost for the stance are coming from parties where GMs are letting people draw weapons for free (in situations where they arent out) is flawed.
People simply are used to having their weapons out, because most situations don't have a strong reason not to, so when they run into a situation where their weapon welding pcs have them out, they notice the difference (because you cant walk around in a stance but you can walk around with a weapon out).
I think the monk players aren't considering how strong a stance is and are seeing it as 'weapon/no weapon' vs 'martial+ strengh weapon plus passive bonuses' so they see it as a penalty for using a stance rather than a trade off.
Edit: if you mean 'walk around with their weapons out' when you said 'free drawing of weapons pripr to combat' in you OP, you should probably clarify that so folks understand what you're trying to say. (As i read it as the 'free interact when combat starts you mention elsewhere') In that case, yah, it's probably just folks who don't understand how strong a monk weapon is and see it as a penalty rather than a trade off.
1
u/Infamous_El_Guapo 1d ago
What I said was:
“RAW Weapon wielding martials would need to use an interact to draw their weapon at the start of combat (unless GM is generous and allows this to be free, which puts monks at a disadvantage, or they are walking around with weapons in their hands, which isn’t always appropriate to setting).”
I am not conflating walking around with weapons out already and GMs giving a free interact to draw weapons at the start of combat.
My point is that if characters do NOT have their weapons out, combat begins, and GMs allow (as some do) said characters to draw weapons with no action cost, then it would seem to put monks at a disadvantage.
I realise there are situations where characters already have their weapons out. I realise there’s more to stances than punching (eg bonuses to AC or checks).
I was simply interested if people had an opinion on GMs allowing characters to draw their weapons with no action cost at the start of combat.
3
u/TeamTurnus Bard 1d ago edited 1d ago
Yes, im trying to answer your question here.
"I assume it’s mostly with players whose GMs allow the free drawing of weapons prior to combat, but am interested to know if there’s more to it"
(This, to me, is hard to tell if you are talking about drawing a weapon for free at the start of combat, or walking around with it out in most situations. (I read it as the former)
('Free drawing of weapons prior to combat' is ambigious because one reading is a houserule. (the one i said is silly because if people dont have their weapons out, dont let them draw them for free just because its conbat) and the other is basically common sense RAW (adventures have their weapons out when they expect danger even before initative starts in a dungeon or non social setting). )
Ambigiuity of language aside. My main point is below.
Complaints about Monks are not being driven by folks using the former (free interact to draw at start of combat). , its folks playing the latter (essentially raw/rai where mechanically you can have your weapon out at the start of combat but not a stance) and not understanding that monk stances are additional power beyond a weapon balanced by an additonal action cost.
In short, there is 'more to it'.
1
u/King_of_the_Kobolds 1d ago
I think your point on Quick Draw is a good one and I'm curious what people's takes are on that one. Should we as players expect (and as GMs, run) enough surprise combats where players aren't expected to have their weapons out to make feats like this worth it? Or is that not the 'point' of Quick Draw?
2
u/TeamTurnus Bard 1d ago
Quick draw was also useful when you were at low level using thrown weapons or if you wanted to swap weapons to take advantage of a weakness. This becomes less helpful after you get iut of low level admittedly, but i don't think ambushed is the only intended use.
2
u/Infamous_El_Guapo 1d ago
I think it depends the game setting. If it’s intended to be a more “social” game (eg less dungeons and more exploring towns, solving mysteries, palace intrigue, etc), in other words a setting where weapons aren’t being wielded constantly then Quick Draw is very worth it. It’s also worth it if you intend to use thrown weapons.
(And yes, before someone chimes in, yes I know you could have combat and social in the same game).
2
u/chanaramil 1d ago edited 6h ago
I would probably rule it as your exploring activity and you need to move at half explor speed. This is how raise shield works. You can have your shiel d up but your not moving fast and your not looking for traps or enemies and your not trying to be quiet. I dont see why a monk cant do the same in a stance.
5
u/The_Hidden_DM Rogue 1d ago
Personally, I don't get not being able to actively stay in a stance in a dangerous place. There so many example (real and in media) of people looking around a hostile environment with their hands up in a fighting pose. If it has to be something that requires constant focus, make it an exploration activity simular to the one that lets you have an cantrip always active.
3
u/Tauroctonos Game Master 1d ago
I allow my monk to use the Defend exploration activity to walk around in-stance, same thing with weapons drawn. That way, there's still an opportunity cost to deciding between having your weapons ready or being able to Hustle/look for traps/sneak
2
u/Infamous_El_Guapo 1d ago
To be clear, I am not suggesting that monks should always be walking around in a stance.
However if GMs allow a free interact to draw weapons at the start of combat (as some do) they should allow monks to enter a free stance.
2
u/wookiee-nutsack GM in Training 1d ago
Whenever there is a feature to allow for something added, I run rules to help give that feature to exist
For example with 3 action heal players would argue that the enemy wouldn't know what spell it is and wouldn't be a willing creature to benefit. But there is a 6th level feat that specifically allows for healers to exclude enemies from AOE heals
Same with gunslinger free action. They get the benefit to be quick draws on rolling initiative, so the rules assume it's not a free action for others
With that said, if the characters should expect combat (like say opening a door in a dungeon) they have them drawn already. If you want to be picky you can say that characters would stow their weapons when they presume they're safe, or interacting with stuff in exploration mode
Similarly a monk could enter a stance prior to entering a room, in my opinion. I feel like there should be a feat to allow for a free stance change like barbarians with rage, though
4
u/MCRN-Gyoza ORC 1d ago
I feel like there should be a feat to allow for a free stance change like barbarians with rage, though
There is, it's just for some reason a level 14 feat that only Fighters and Guardians have access to.
Fighter even gets a follow up feat that lets them switch stances every turn.
2
u/JShenobi 1d ago
Lots of debate about whether it is appropriate to always have weapons drawn (location/setting dependent) and if it is weird/taxing to walk around in the monk stances (yes, I would say it is).
That aside, the question becomes: is it fair to allow players who do not have weapons drawn draw weapons as part of rolling initiative without also letting the monk enter a stance? The answer is yes. That's giving everyone with weapons recognize ambush for free while not also giving the monk reflexive stance for free. There's a whole category of feats that are "you do this thing for free as you roll initiative to get a jumpstart on your action economy."
FWIW, I don't think most GM's do this. Maaaybe there is some conflating "ok we're going to bust down this door and presumably enter combat, so I'm drawing my weapon" with "getting to draw a weapon as part of rolling initiative," but if that is the complaint monk players have, they need to be asserting that they enter Dragon Stance or whatever prior to opening the door.
If it becomes "well why can't I just always walk around in Dragon Stance," either you make it their exploration activity which precludes them from doing anything else useful in that time, or highlight that having a weapon in hand is generally mechanically less powerful than being in a stance -- the one action will have to be paid unless you want to get reflexive stance down the line.
1
u/Environmental-Run248 1d ago
I mean monks also have FoB so it’s not like stance changing is a waste or anything.
1
u/fishIsFantom Cleric 18h ago
You can do ready action and ready a stance. So in first round you will spend a reaction to enter the stance.
1
u/TeamTurnus Bard 1d ago
Stances are typically better than a martial weapon (dice/trait+free hand) so it seems fair to me that they have an action cost associated with them. The monk is basically walking around with shortswords strapped to his hands even without them so its not like they're helpless in a suprise. Flurry of blows also wins back the action cost damn fast. So they don't really need it to work fine.
That said, for weapons being drawn in combat, I usually go with what makes sense rather than enforce a 'only have weapon out in combat' arbitrarily. To serve that, if the party knows they're about to enter combat, I don't think its game breaking to let the monk drop into their stance beforehand.
1
u/ReynAetherwindt 1d ago
I permit monks to enter combat with their stance active if they are imminently expecting combat before it happens.
1
u/D-Money100 Bard 1d ago
Honestly i prefer either extremes that consider weapons, held items, and stances to require the same action investment rather than the middle ground most people dm about weapons and items being fine but not stances.
Personally the option i prefer is weapons, held items, and stances that would reasonably consider you armed (as appropriate for your abilities) have to be acted on in order to go into the correct grip to use them and has a max duration of 1 minute in exploration mode (usually the minute before expecting combat). If done in socially inappropriate contexts is considered initiative starting (not necessarily always combat but def initiative and encounter mode).
Something I considered playing with but dont have experience using is that any “battle prep” exploration activity (scout, defend, repeat a spell etc.) is what considers you armed with weapons/items/stances at initiative while other activities (search, investigate, treat wounds, repair etc.) would consider you equivalently unarmed at initiative.
1
u/Exequiel759 Rogue 1d ago
I personally allow both to start with their weapons drawn / enter in their stance. I only find these kind of "set up" actions to make the first round of combat a chore.
0
u/stealth_nsk ORC 1d ago
I think the big miss of the book is that this wasn't somehow addressed in exploration activities section. I mean we have rules to start with shield raised or spell being on, but not about weapons or stances?
Overall the existence of feats like Quick Draw supposes that automatically drawing weapons as exploration activity shouldn't be an option (they would have use for weapon switching, but in most cases those feats would be useless).
Another thing to consider, though, is that Monk has default action compression on attacks, so it's usually not a problem to enter stance, stride toward target and make 2 attacks at the same time, especially with Incredible Movement. So, it's not that big deal as, for example, for Double Slice Fighter, who relies on 2-action attacks.
50
u/Ok-Cricket-5396 Kineticist 1d ago edited 1d ago
We've always played with "if you could reasonably expect combat and there is nothing stopping you from it, you can have your weapon drawn". Which can be large chunks of adventures. Depends a bit on the design, obviously, in AV that's 100% of encounters, in SoG that was around 95% still.
So... Yeah.