Stances.

The word stance itself, is a morpheme meaning stand.

Yet a monk with 7 stances and woh can spam stances while they're on their ass, because they were too busy building up adrenaline to get [bonetti's defense] up for when they run out of energy from spamming [shield stance][defensive stance][disciplined stance][shield bash][protector's defense][wary stance], and not paying attention to the field and having a little bit of talent/skill to throw up a simple [guardian]. Illogical, and inconsistent.

All of the skills in guild wars descriptions make sense. That's something i like, how the skill's name coordinates with it's effect. Except for stance.

Suggestion: stances cannot be used while knocked down, and stances end upon being knocked down.

"omfgqq ur qq so whut if monk can use st4nce when they r kd it a gaem stop qq ur qq" - heard it before, save the qq spam.

/signed

Stance monks are lame and this is a logical way to make them less dominant. Stances can still be used this way, but if a knockdown makes it in it is game over.

KD's are already pretty overpowered. This would make them even more so.

/notsigned

I think it'd be cool if we got back in the "evade" and "block" system again... I think that would solve some of your problems.

/unsigned

I'll consider it when you have a reason, method, and environment for balancing that doesn't include Monks.

/notsigned

Stances are like prot on your bar, and bad monks cause use balanced stance before a KD anyway. <3

[shield bash] and [protector's defense] arent stances wut? 0__o

not signed.

Problem is not with stance mechanics, problem is very specifically with Tactics stances being far more attractive to a caster class than a warrior.
Imo the penalties on them like "end if you use attack skill" were somewhat balanced against old durations (while still kinda useless if remember it right). With current duration/recharge there is no need for that as warriors would not use them anyway and penalty does not affect monk in the first place.

I'd much rather see a tactic stance like this: 5e 20sec "Stance. Have 50% chance to block and attack 25% faster for 1...2...3 seconds for each melee attack skill equipped. Ends if you hit moving foe." (DISCLAIMER: these numbers do not pretend to be accurate or balanced)
Conditional. Useful to a warrior (other melee). Requires smart use.


Though Shield Bash does need serious kick in teh beanbag. Duration at 0 strength should go down to 2 seconds, and skill disabling should scale with strength attribute.

+9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

I'm really pissed because I can't finish my chain on Monks and Rangers

They ALWAYS block after being knocked down...

/notsigned

We have stance removal skills, lets make more of/buff them or nerf stances. We do not need to make knockdowns even more powerful.

Stances do work more or less conceptionally. Think of a fighting stance as a being akin to your fighting style. To switch from one style to another is mainly as mental shift, not a physical. It's thinking, "Hey, I could use my shield to block stuff too!" rather than, "Must...run...as...fast...as...possible!"

What we really need is a nerf-buff to tactics. Buff tactics to make it more attractive to warriors and nerf it to be less attractive to monks. 'Nuff said.

This. Stances are not literally about how you stand. How exactly to you position your body so that your spells recharge faster (Deadly Paradox), or you take less damage from elemental sources and gain energy (Mantra of X)?

Balance skills based on the skills' performance, not what the skills "should" do thematically. IMO, the only real problem is the fact that shield bash is so good on a mo/w; tap that down to low duration at 0 strength and be done with it. For the rest of it, it's only a problem in RA, and a monk with 5 stances is pretty much useless to his team anyway. No one complains about Defy Pain tanks, and they're just as annoying to take down.

Stances are not a problem,

Everyone good knows, that you contstany change targets in pvp, as soon as your terget has been protted/ or used a stance, find a new target

that how you are ment to play...so stances are fine

definately not signed. you act like guardian isn't possible to interrupt saying all they should do is throw one up.

/notsigned. stances are fine they way they are. don't like being blocked, make a caster.

btw i find stance monks just as annoying as i am a ranger, and d-shot doesnt do much when it gets blocked., but it's no reason to change (destroy) a whole skill type.

whats the matter? cant fit [wild strike] or [wild blow] on that Palm Strike wiki build?

too many stance monks on guru. oh well.

Don't attack people for putting up there opinion. I've already thought of this and it really does make sense. How are you in a balanced stance when your ass is on the ground? But I also realize that this is a game, and it doesn't have to make sense.

I /sign this but I do understand there are better ways to go about this. I just want something to happen.

/notsigned
The game should not be balanced with unorganized PvP in mind, which is the only place stance monks are really a problem.
And yes, people who use gank/spike builds and then complain when their build doesn't insta-stab people don't deserve sympathy. Counters exist in this game for a reason.

Plus, this would make the actual stance removal skills way obsolete.

/not signed

If you have a monk using stances, switch targets, and damage someone else for the time being.

I'm more interested in skills that remove stance, but I'm glad they're rare enough as it is. Also I'd rather have a way to cancel out stance much like the way you do with maintained enchants.

/nosign

I have a blast beating through monks and their block. Gotta keep a certain hex on them, a load of kds and you're all set.

Stances have only 4 removal skills, but quite a lot of downsides like short duration, energy consumption, reduced armor, reduced speed movement, not working if not under the effects of other skills...

And of course, you can have only one of them at the same time.

Stances do not prevent spells from hitting, and there are many spells that deal knockdown, some of them even without conditions at all.

So this would be way too much.

For every build there is a counter build going against a "stance monk" why not use some of the following skills:
[diversion][blackout][Migraine]->kill woh [Wastrel's Worry] [wild blow] [Conjure Nightmare] [Conjure Phantasm] -> stances dont stop health degen [Phantom Pain]->no need fro a sword or axe to make a deep wound u know [Shrinking Armor]->crack that monk [Signet of Humility] -> no WOH =No Heal..plenty of time to drain health etc.. [Web of Disruption] -> probally hard to time but worth a shot [Whirling Axe] [Wild Strike] [Wild Throw] and if that isnt enuff here a link for more http://guildwars.wikia.com/wiki/Nega...uick_reference

/unsigned gotta think outside the box i see those monks all the time and make them suffer

[pure strike][sun and moon slash][seeking blade][wild blow][overbearing smash][soldier's strike][whirling axe][magehunter strike][swift chop][griffon's sweep][irresistible blow]

Those are just the skills from Warrior, and not even all of them. Casters obviously ignore stances, as spells still work. Ranger, Paragon, Dervish, and Assassin all have skills that can hit a target using a Block stance, end a Block stance, or cause a condition/knockdown to a foe using a Block stance.

Still not sure what the problem with Blocking stances is. You can't kill a Monk who uses them because you aren't willing to modify your build? Considering the large number of skills available to get past blocking or make use of a foe that is blocking, what is the problem?

I would sign but with the additional knock down time from gloves etc.. what could you do? you can only sit and get killed

From a GvG aspect:

1. Rangers do ~300 damage relatively quickly. A common build now uses two rangers AND two warriors. If they're going to spike with four physical targets that are going to beast you without a prot, why would you not bring a block stance for your own survivability?

2. They're reactive and that makes them easy to use. Why would I want to manipulate my field position (Return) or take half damage (Dark Escape) when I could stance instantaneously and not be punished for it? Oh, and I block 75% of the incoming damage with an armor gain.


From an RA Aspect:

1. You can't count on defense on your team. You can count on people being pretty dumb and not knowing what to do, people not negating their own damage, and people not kiting efficiently to avoid said damage. I tend to use the guardians to stop physical damage amongst my team and either stance on their unload on me or guardian before they get to me, depending on the situation.

2. Once again, it's easy to use and has no punishment.

3. You can end up playing 2-3 physicals in one match, in which case you're going to need your prots in addition to some way to either manipulate your position, snare their damage, or block their damage. The first two have cast times, stances have none.

___________

This being said, I hate stances. I think they're terrible crutches to lean on and they promote reactive field watching and spike mitigation. That being said however, you'd be stupid not to run them with the amount of damage that rangers and warriors can do at the moment. Self-snaring is inefficient because of cast time, Return won't block ranged damage while it allows mobility, and there are no other block enchantments like Guardian that are easy to access without a terrible attribute spread or any reliability issues. Stances fulfill the role of blocking, easy to use, and they have a long enough duration and short enough recharge to be usable.

/agree with this statement 100%

think outside the box

/not signed

Knock locks(being knocked down more than once in a row unable to cast each warrior KD 3 seconds with stonefist insigs), anti block skills, stance removals

lol, having any KD remove a stance would be broken. not only does it knock ur opponent down, but it eliminates any defense that they may be able to put up themselves while knocked down? especially in places like RA or TA where there is a solitary monk that can't depend on another monk to save him when he's KD'ed.

/not signed

So basically you want to kill defensive stances because you don't like stance monks in RA?

I'll pass.

Off topic: I'm glad to see somebody else misses that too. Evade and block were always kinda confusing when they where both in the game, but I always thought having both made more sense. Having simplified game mechanics isn't a great thing.

Anyway, just glad somebody else misses that system too.

You cannot be further from the truth.
Half of those skills terribly fails. And other half will not do the job required to kill through the stance anyway.
Problem is that as it stands tactics stance on a monk is an iwin button against any spike build. Oh you being spiked? Stance. Cover up with guardian. gg. Simple to the extend of almost passive. And passive is bad. I wont even waste my breath proving that.

I hear ya. I miss the evade simply because blocking and evading are not the same thing. Although the system made it easier for skills like Wild Strike, I'd still want it back!

On-Topic: /notsigned because KD's are, as stated, already powerful enough.

However, I am not against making caster professions gain adrenaline at a slower rate. Monks can be seen as a calm kind of person, which goes against adrenaline. So one can say that Monks should have an even harder time to get adrenaline than any other profession.

The stance monk thing is just one of many ways where the dual profession system fails and I dislike it.

*rolls eyes* Every time I see someone pull out a rule change based on some obscure* point of definition or etymology, part of me wants to reach through the monitor, grab their neck, and squeeze.

Believe it or not, ANet's developers probably didn't go over the definition and etymology of each word they use with a fine-toothed comb before using it. "Stance" is a game mechanics keyword describing skills that share certain properties - instant activation self-buffs that cannot be stacked with other skills with the same keyword, and which can be removed by certain skills. That's all it means. Whatever the dictionary may tell you is completely irrelevant to what a stance is in the game. They could have called them gurkleflrffs instead and it would make no difference to the game mechanics.

As has already been mentioned, a stance represents a state of mind more than anything. Some 'stances', such as those that populate the Inspiration line, are purely this, while others are more physically active. However, when you think about it, there is nothing saying that characters cannot use even those more physical stances when knocked prone. A character activating Defensive Stance may be rolling along the ground to avoid blows while looking for a safe opportunity to return to his or her feet, while one using Balanced Stance may simply be looking to ensure they can get back on their feet without being knocked down again immediately after.

On a purely balance-perspective, I think others have said what's needed to be said. There are already plenty of ways to remove stances, bypass or punish blocking, or both, and knockdowns are powerful enough already. They don't need to be stronger.

*Obscurity may vary. It doesn't exactly take a genius to realise that 'stance' and 'stand' may just have a common origin.

As was pointed out, stance hate is pretty week. All those listed skills could use some buffing before we roll out changes to stances themselves. Although disciplined could use a hit, the drawback does nothing to non-warriors so it gets used everywhere.