Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

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.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

I think it would not be out of line to say that for ANY character, say, with equal ST, DX, and IQ, that it might be desirable to:

* Have each of Beat, Feint, and Ruse be a valid combat choice

* Have each of Beat, Feint, and Ruse have different game mechanical effects to reinforce that choices matter

* Have each of Beat, Feint, and Ruse be balanced and one not an irresistible technique

* Have resisting each of Beat, Feint, and Ruse with various stats be possible. It might even be interesting to have different meanings to the type of resistance.

* Finally, even if you are very high in one stat, not to have the others be useless.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Because the rules are about making you better not your opponent worse. A St16 dx 10 fighter with a high skill might want to use a beat while a st16 dx 16 fighter has no reason to.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

That might be desirable, but you're also describing a very complex system with a large number of variables. Sorting out a system like that is difficult, and it may not be possible to solve it for the desired result.

Among other things, ST costs half as much as IQ and DX and is already very valuable in combat.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Personally, I would say in fencing a beat is not necessarily a feint or a deceptive attack, though it may be used to initiate such. That is to say, you may feint by beating, or your beat may be real.

In the basic form beat where it is not an attempt to misdirect the opponent, it's really an attack on the weapon to drive it out of the way.

Accordingly to me the only significant flaw of the GURPS model is requiring the set-up.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

I'd say I'd allow a perk to remove the set-up :)

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

I don't think it's that complicated. Or at least, it doesn't have to be.

For example:

On the Attack:

A DX-based Feint (Feint) is some fancy move or off-speed display of intentions that is designed to get your opponent in the wrong place.

A ST-based Feint (Beat) is an attempt to use force to unready the opponent's weapon. Its basic end result is an Unready weapon.

An IQ (Per, really) based Feint is...well, "look, your shoes are untied" or something. Let me come back to this one.

On Defense

A DX-based resistance is attempting to mitigate the "attack" (feint) by motion and positioning. Against DX-based attacks, it means what the rules say now. Vs. ST based attacks, you reposition your weapon or get it out of the way.

A ST-based resistance roll means you expect to "take it," and so your reactions meet force (or quickness) with force. Against a ST-based roll, losing the QC and succeeding your ST roll means the beat has its effect; failing the ST-based roll and losing the QC turns Unready into Disarm!

Per-based resistance rolls attempt to discern the nature of the incoming attack and ignore it because you see it's a Feint. Failure to actually make the Per roll (as opposed to losing the QC by your attacker having higher margin of success) might mean you lose your best Active Defense against that opponent for the next turn; you guessed totally wrong about what he was doing.

Basically, one decides what the "unique" outcome of the attack method would be. No problem there except for Per-based feints, which maybe can ONLY be resisted by IQ? Dunno about that one.

But on defense, each method of defense (ST, DX, Per) has success be straight-forward: it makes your opponent waste his turn. If you actually fail your roll in the QC, it has a unique effect. ST-based fails might mean you have a chance of being disarmed; Per-based fails means you lose your best defense next turn; DX-based fails either have no special balancing outcome, or maybe you can't retreat or something.

It needn't be a huge matrix, though honestly, 3x3 options isn't that much.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

For one thing, I don't find "If strong, beat, if not, feint" terribly tactically satisfying. If beat were really just "feint, only with ST," then I wouldn't care much, but it's more complicated than that (Ruse, on the other hand, isn't. It's identical to Feint except that it uses IQ and it's defended against slightly differently. Also, it doesn't have much in the way of fiddly bits, so it's much easier for me to tackle and hence I don't need to come to the hive mind for advice on that one).

And fencers who aren't huge and brawny in real life use beats all the time. Kenjutsu is described as focusing on beats, and yet giant ogres of samurai aren't exactly standard. I'm sure some exist, but not enough to explain why samurai focus on beats if it isn't useful for them to do so.

EDIT: For example, GURPS Japan's Samurai template lists them ST 11 and DX 13. This is 3e, but I think it converts well into 4e and doesn't look off to me. Why would such a character ever use a Beat in the system as written? And yet their signature martial art focuses on Beats...

I could simply ignore the issue and just have my players make feints, but why should I, when this thread is giving me such good ideas?

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

The campaign I have in mind will really embrace tactical complexity, so the fact that rebalancing beat and feint will introduce a slew of choices for players is a feature in this case, not a bug.

I am concerned about your second statement there, though, which is why I'm interested in hearing from people who have playtested their proposed changes.

That kinda bugs me too. On the other hand, the set-up means you're not vulnerable to a Beat unless you let blades touch: If you don't attack him with your blade, or you don't parry his blade with your own, you can't be Beaten. That's kinda neat.

But it does result in wierdness like "I attack/you attack/I beat/you attack/I attack and penetrate your defense"

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

You can always Rapid Strike with a Beat and Attack, or do a Dual Weapon Beat and Attack, or go insane and do an AoA:Dual Beat and Attack.