I'd like to say that these option does give us more...well, options but there's just some things that really bother me about stances.
Quote:
Your stance determines how you react to combat. Aggressive combatants
are more likely to hit and will dish out more damage but are also more
likely to be hit themselves and expend more energy when attacking.
Defensive combatants are less likely to be hit and can concentrate on using
their shield for increased effectiveness and leg defense but have a reduced
rate of attack with both weapons and spells.
What I've noticed is that the reduced attacks from using a defensive stance really hurts. It's just not an equal trade to be fighting defensively when I've noticed that I don't tend to be hit any more on an aggressive stance than defensive. I can only assume that it refers to the chance that an opponent will "miss" an attack at this point because I seem to dodge, parry, and shield block wonderfully while under mood aggressive, and it seems to help me do more melee damage (albeit probably just a little more), and to hit more accurately.
While under defensive stance I've also noticed that the help file is not true in that it states that shields can be used for leg defense. You still take far more damage when your legs are damaged while under this stance. With sacrificing 1 melee attack per round and spellcasting taking double the amount of time to cast, it seems that the penalties are just too great to bother with using this.
I've found that aggressive or neutral are simply preferable to defensive. While one can use a very fast weapon like an epee to get around the slowdown of melee weapon speed, weapons like these just don't do near enough damage to even make it worth trying. The best way to state this is that the faster I do more damage to my enemy, the less damage I myself will take.
The increase in spellcasting time is exceptionally brutal. I can't even see this stance being a viable option for players of paladins and hellions. Or anybody else that uses spells.
Why though, does it seem that the penalties for choosing a defensive stance far more extreme than what is supposedly supposed to be the penalties for an aggressive stance?