Beats Suck(?)

[alimantando]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

The trick is, 'big brawny' is relative. For a ST6 Hobbit, a typical human warrior is a Big Brawny guy, but the rules don't reflect that.

I didn't think about this til now.
A ST18 DX10 char against a ST12 DX10 char could use Beat, but a ST6 DX10 char against an ST4 DX10 char could not (at least not really).
Maybe one should use relative ST-scores instead. Set the weaker chars ST to 10 and the other ones to (his ST / weak ones ST)*10. So will Beat work the same on all strength scales.

[lexington]

Originally Posted by alimantando

I didn't think about this til now.
A ST18 DX10 char against a ST12 DX10 char could use Beat, but a ST6 DX10 char against an ST4 DX10 char could not (at least not really).
Maybe one should use relative ST-scores instead. Set the weaker chars ST to 10 and the other ones to (his ST / weak ones ST)*10. So will Beat work the same on all strength scales.

Or just take the simple route and raise the lowest score to 10 and raise the higher score by a like amount.

[Darekun]

Originally Posted by lexington

Or just take the simple route and raise the lowest score to 10 and raise the higher score by a like amount.

If "by a like amount" means addition, then it doesn't help anything but criticals — Quick Contest.

But yes, this kind of thing is the problem with ST-based rolls.

Might be better to multiply both scores by the highest integer that won't take the lower score over 10. With ST: 6 vs ST: 4, that would be ×2, so it would be resolved as 12 vs 8. Not bad. And it would make a beat by a ST: 3 cat terribly effective against a ST: 1 mouse.

For a more all-terrain solution, maybe change the structure of the roll? for example, each rolls (3d+skill mod)×ST, margin is 1 per full [opponent's ST] you win by? Probably not easy enough for most people without computer-aided gaming…

[lexington]

Originally Posted by Darekun

If "by a like amount" means addition, then it doesn't help anything but criticals — Quick Contest.

EH?

ST3 vs ST6. You get nothing but failures. So we raise ST3 to ST10 and raise ST6 by a like amount (seven), making it ST13. Now the contest can be resolved quickly.

This is even advised in Basic Set because while 10 vs (higher ST/ lower ST)*10 is more accurate the other method is trivial to do and covers a lot of ground perfectly well.

[Darekun]

Originally Posted by lexington

ST3 vs ST6. You get nothing but failures. So we raise ST3 to ST10 and raise ST6 by a like amount (seven), making it ST13. Now the contest can be resolved quickly.

That's a Regular Contest. B349, in the Regular Contests section. In a Quick Contest, two rolls and it's over, regardless of the values. Assuming all rolls are natural 10s:

Rolling against 3, failure by 7; against 6, failure by 4; the stronger wins the Quick Contest by 3.

At +7: Rolling against 10, success by 0; against 13, success by 3; the stronger wins by 3.

At ×3: Rolling against 9, failure by 1; against 18, success by 8; the stronger wins by 9.

[Dinadon]

Originally Posted by Darekun

That's a Regular Contest. B349, in the Regular Contests section. In a Quick Contest, two rolls and it's over, regardless of the values.

Unfortunately, as a form of Feint it isn't actually a quick contest. The aggressor must succeed on their skill check for anything to happen.

[blacksmith]

Originally Posted by alimantando

I didn't think about this til now.
A ST18 DX10 char against a ST12 DX10 char could use Beat, but a ST6 DX10 char against an ST4 DX10 char could not (at least not really).
Maybe one should use relative ST-scores instead. Set the weaker chars ST to 10 and the other ones to (his ST / weak ones ST)*10. So will Beat work the same on all strength scales.

Why would the weak one resist the beat with st and not dx? You wouldn't resist a beat with st instead of dx unless your dx is higher.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Darekun

That's a Regular Contest. B349, in the Regular Contests section. In a Quick Contest, two rolls and it's over, regardless of the values. Assuming all rolls are natural 10s:

Rolling against 3, failure by 7; against 6, failure by 4; the stronger wins the Quick Contest by 3.

I'm not sure this is true. The margin is correct, but in most things, in order to have the effect you want, you must succeed your roll; you must ALSO succeed your roll more than your opponent or your opponent must fail his roll.

I either read or mis-read it the same way you have for a long time, but I'm not sure the "you win even if you fail so long as your opponent fails by more" is the generic case. It may not EVER be true.

[Dinadon]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I either read or mis-read it the same way you have for a long time, but I'm not sure the "you win even if you fail so long as your opponent fails by more" is the generic case. It may not EVER be true.

Actually, it is the generic case for Quick Contests that you only need to have a better margin than your opponent. Feints aren't a Quick Contest, despite the similarities, and do require to have succeed as well as having the better margin.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by DouglasCole

I either read or mis-read it the same way you have for a long time, but I'm not sure the "you win even if you fail so long as your opponent fails by more" is the generic case. It may not EVER be true.

It is the basic case detailed on 348, and thus presumably the version which is meant any time the rules call for a quick contest without specifying further modifications.

However, the description of Feint basically calls for a resistance roll, and then has a curious way of deciding degree of success tacked on. It says to roll a quick contest, but since it fully specifies how to interpret the roll it evidently just means 'each of you roll once'.