Beats Suck(?)
 

Beat seems like a substandard option compared to Feint except in specific circumstances. Is that the intention (ie, you should use Feint in most circumstances, but certain characters might prefer Beats if they're built in a particular way), or am I missing something? And if I want Beat to be as useful as Feint, what house rules should I implement?

The Case Against Beat

Kenjutsu claims that its practitioners like to Beat their opponents, so let's envision several samurai in battle. Our Hero has a Strength of 14, a Dexterity of 14, Two-Handed Sword of +0, and a Feint of +4. He's facing, in various circumstances, Big Guy, who has an ST of 18, a DX of 10 and Two-Handed Sword at +0, Quick Guy who has an ST of 10, a DX of 18 and Two-Handed Sword at +0, and Wussy Guy who has an ST of 10 a DX of 10 and Two-Handed at +0. Everyone has Combat Reflexes except for Wussy Guy, because he sucks.

Against Big Guy

Beat: Big Guy attacks Hero. Hero successfully parries. This allows him to initiate a Beat. Big Guy chooses to defend with ST, giving him a total Two-Handed Sword skill of 18, against Hero's Feint of 18. They break even, and Hero only gets an advantage 50% of the time. Even if he is successful, Big Guy only has a Parry of 9, and he has a Dodge of 9. Therefore, he'll dodge if Hero gets an advantage, and thus Hero wasted his turn with the Beat.

Feint: Hero feints (there's no need to set up the move). Big Guy is forced to defend with his Two-Handed Sword of 10. Hero, on average, inflicts a -8 on Big Guy's defenses, meaning he has no problem striking Big Guy. Even if Big Guy chooses to Dodge, Hero still applies the -8.

Clearly, Feint is superior here. It doesn't require a set-up, it'll actually make a difference, and it hits his opponent at his weakest point (though with a skill so low, one wonders why Hero needs any kind of special, defense defeating option at all. It seems like Big Guy would simply wear lots of armor and disregard defense)

Against Quick Guy

Beat: Quick Guy attacks Hero. Hero successfully parries. This allows him to initiate a Beat. Quick Guy chooses to defend with DX, giving him a total Two-Handed Sword of 18, against Hero's Feint of 18. They break even, and Hero only gets an advantage 50% of the time. Given Quick Guy's parry of 13 and his Dodge of 11, a one or two point difference might matter, but no more than that.

Feint: Hero feints (there's no need to set up the move). Quick Guy is forced to defend with his Two-Handed Sword of 18. Hero, on average, inflicts a -0 penalty on Quick Guy's defenses. This applies equally to parry or dodge.

It doesn't matter which move Hero uses: Quick Guy is equally adept at defeating both. Worse, Beat has only limited use against Quick Guy, and requires a set-up. Beat is marginally useful against Quick Guy because his Dodge is lower than his Parry, but Feint is always useful.

against Wussy Guy

Beat: Wussy Guy, in panic, is all-out defending to get his low defense of 8 up to 10. Hero must first attack and see his attack successfully parried. Then, on the next second, he may Beat. He does so, and it doesn't matter what Wussy Guy uses to defend: On average, he fails by -8 points. However, he'll simply choose to dodge Hero's next attack (he has a dodge of 8 as well, and with all-out defense, that bumps up to 10, so nothing is lost to the Beat).

Feint: Wussy Guy all-out defends. Hero doesn't care, and Feints. On average, he defeats Wussy Guy by -8, which applies to all defenses. The next turn, Hero is able to slay Wussy Guy.

Clearly, Feint is superior to Beat here. In fact, Beat is basically useless.

Thus, Feint beats Beat pretty much all the time. Beat requires either a successful parry or an extra second of set-up to work (Feint requires none of this), opponents can choose the higher of their ST or DX (Feint only allows opponents to defend with DX), and it only applies to a single defense option (Feint applies to all defense options).

I can only see two (possibly three) circumstances where Beat is useful. First, you're really really strong. Beat becomes a sort of "Power Feint," useful for big guys. However, there needs to be a huge difference for you to overcome the other issues Beat faces. Second, you need to supply someone else with a bonus against your mutual opponent's defense. Given that a Beat applies to the defense against anyone, one guy can Beat an opponent to set-up his foe for his ally. A third possible option might be that Evaluate defeats Feint, but not Beat. This is questionable, though, since most rules that apply to Feint apply to beat.

But what if I want Beat to be an option even if your DX is as good as your ST (or even if they're just close)? Has anyone tried any house rules?

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

It's not actually a problem with your overall conclusions, as it happens, but an assessment of combat options that gives every example character weapon skill at DX+0 is severely flawed, and that flaw does get into some of your analysis when you're saying a beat won't matter because the victim's dodge is about the same as their parry anyway. None of the characters in this analysis should probably have skill at DX+0.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Wussy would most certainly have a low skill. But even if we give, say, DX+4 to various characters (and reduce their DX accordingly), you're only seeing a +2 parry improvement. Feint still remains superior, and even if you Beat, you only gain a +2 advantage in the case of characters like Strong Guy or Wussy Guy, whereas Feint is not capped.

The analysis is not "severely flawed," it's just extreme, to highlight various points (such as the "cap" on how much impact a Beat can make).

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

It shouldn't be a surprise that Beat is better for stronger characters than for others. Consider the same scenarios but with the big buy doing the beats. It's an option for characters who's ST beats out their DX.

Note also that in this case, the beat applies to both his allies' attack, as well as his own. That can be a huge deal.

I also houserule (pretty sure it's a houserule) that beats apply both to defense and offense with that weapon. It seems odd that you could physically force a weapon away to the point that it's harder to defend with it, but posing no impediment to attacking with it.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

That seems really odd to me too, and this is one of the house rules I'm considering. How is it working out for you? I looks to me like it would become a useful trick in anyone's arsenal at that point (though superior for stronger characters, naturally).

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Regarding the game mechanic, I concur with your conclusion, Mailanka.

In my fencing experience, though, "beats" work better than this. You don't have to parry first, and it's more about technique than strength, a transfer of momentum to the other guy's blade opens him up and stops your blade in the perfect position to thrust. Nonetheless, I have no complaints about how GURPS models this, because the game mechanic for what I just described is a DX-based Feint. It just happens to involve blade contact.

GEF

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Think of it this way, when you go to attack someone, say swinging a sword at them, what's the first thing you do? Bring the weapon back to a position to swing it and get some momentum in the blade. So if you knock my weapon to the side, it's right where I want to put it to hit you anyway. But if I want to parry with that weapon, I have to bring it all the way back between you and I. Hence, harder to parry, not to attack.

However, thrusts would be harder, since I'd have to realign my sword properly to thrust it into yer gullet.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

The sample hero isn't well optimized to take advantage of beats. If you drop his DX to 12, increase his ST to 16, and change his weapon skill to DX+2, then his Feint stays at 18 but his Beat goes to 20.

In my DF game, monsters like Ogres (ST22, DX12, weapon skill 15) can't feint through the PCs' defenses, but they can certainly use Beats to knock weapons away.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

We already know that Beats are good if you're strong, that's not the point of this thread. The point is that a character who is equally competent at both Beat and Feint, the clear choice is Feint, or so it seems to me. I want them to be equally valid tactical choices, and I want to know if that means I need to make a house rule or not.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

You're right, Beat is the choice of Tough guys, but Beats can still be good for everyone.
First, Beat cannot rise opponent's defense score like Feint can. Second, your friends can benefit from your Beats.
Character and situation described is optimal for Feint, not Beat. If the combat is two vs. two guys, you can Beat the hell out of Tough guy and your friend can finish him.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

I have a player whose character, by design, is really big, by not very skilled (compared to other heroes that is). He is 17 strength, and only a 12 skill, with nothing in his feint. (He has no formal training as a fighter, he is justa big guy, not too smart, who loves animals, who, over time, self taught how to swing a big, wooden club; two handed axe/mace). For him, a beat is an excellent option. This is what it was created for, to give some one like this, with a character concept, a means by which to break through the defenses of others with out having to rely on skill or dex.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Just to belabor the obvious, what kendo/kenjutsu and fencing call a 'beat' is a DX-based Feint or Deceptive attack, not a GURPS Beat.

In GURPS, a Beat is a frackin' SMASH. It's designed, I think, for ST15+, often 20-30, with Ogres and Giants in mind.

(I have done both fencing and still do hwarang kumtoogi and bongtoogi; these moves are definitely DX-based)

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Well a beat affects the defense for everyone, a feint only for yourself. If they're both equal, that's your decision maker right there. Do you want others to also be able to take advantage? If yes, then beat. It certainly saves time if you need to mob someone you can't maneuver round and one of their defenses is very good.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Can someone point me to the 'beat' rule in the 4e books? Or is it in Martial arts?

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

I think it is found in the martial arts.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Beats: GURPS Martial Arts, p100.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

One thing that occurs:

If you do a successful beat, and your margin of victory is 5+ or 10+ depending on how hard you want it to be, the thing receiving the Beat becomes Unready from that point on.

Or make it by 5+ and it's unready, make it be 10+ and you get a disarm if it's gripped.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Incorrect:

It's not a beat, but a Beat, and he even quotes the page number. According to martial arts, Kenjutsu does not engage in a beat-but-really-it's-a-feint, they engage in a Beat, which means that a Beat is honestly intended to be the fencing-style "dash a blade out of line, and then slip in through the opening and finish him off"

Now, if you're arguing "Yeah, but Beat as written really isn't that," well then, how can we make it into that without unbalancing the game? I appreciate that everyone's telling me "Oh, but it's only really useful if you have GWAARRR amounts of strength," but that just means I want to fix it, and any suggestions you have in that direction would be very useful.


Thus, is it your point that these are the only things Beat is useful for? You'll note I point this out in the OP.

Do you have any suggestions as to how to bring it more into line with Feint, so that characters without unbelievable amounts of strength can take advantage of it too?

Martial Arts page 100-101

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Yeah, I've been toying with this. That seems to be the point of a Beat after all. You knock the blade into a position where it can't really defend or attack, ie, it becomes Unready. I'm just not sure if that's too powerful. If I All-Out Attack and Beat, then I can keep you off-balance effectively forever.

On the other hand, that's not unreasonable (can't you just picture an aggressive samurai practically knocking a guy off his feet with every blow, who's struggling to just get his blade back in line in time for the next assault? Clash clash CLASH with sparks flying), and you're talking about a pretty big margin of victory, and if you're fighting someone that unbelievably strong or skilled at Beating, you're going to stop bringing your blade into contact with his and start to rely on Dodge...

(Thank you for the suggestion, by the way)

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

With the expanded feint rules, beat is a good option if the opponent is currently wielding a weapon that isn't their best skill. With a beat, they're rolling against the skill of the weapon they're physically holding. With the feint, they can resist with their highest skill.

Not much but it is something.

M.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

What, in the same way that it takes high amounts of DX to be good at feinting? High skill helps both, buying up the feint technique helps both, and both are only truly useful if you can guarantee succeeding by a reasonable margin regularly. To be honest, the most glaring issue with the expanded feint rules is that someone can always use a DX based roll to resist. I think its Icelander who has changed it so that beats are only resisted with ST.

I don't see much point trying to give high DX, low ST characters more incentive to use beat beyond raising their ST. In the same way I don't see much point trying to give high ST, low DX characters one for feint. Anyway, I won't argue that feint is superior in a one-on-one match up, because it is. Which is also why I don't think much of your example. Aside from the fact that strong guy is really lopsided, and isn't really a challenge so why consider him at all? You don't present a situation in which beat can make full use of the rules it has. If you have one person really good at beats, and his two competent buddies, how quickly do you think they can take down a single competent opponent? How about if the three buddies are equal, and any one could initiate a beat? What if there are only two buddies?

Beat and feint are tactically different combat options, and an interesting choice if their level is fairly equal. However changing beat without having a proper look at the situations where it is suppose to be more useful (in this case, group based combat) is a flawed method of reasoning.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

I suspect that's a result of the rules being generic. A lot of guard positions keep the weapon somewhere out of reach of the opponent, to keep the weapon arm safe, avoid beats, and cock the body for a powerful strike or parry. While some styles with some weapons favour guards with the weapon extended out in front where it could be Beaten, trying to figure out whether a fighter was in one type of position or another would be a lot of complication for not much benefit. Whereas after a Parry or Block you know both weapons are out in front somewhere close together.

Beats have never come up in my games, so I don't have a strong opinion on the rules. Icelander has posted some house rules somewhere.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Indeed, much of the issue isn't that Beats suck, but rather that Beats against abysmally-low ST characters suck. If I have ST 10 DX 10, and my opponent has 5 and 15, I get NO advantage from choosing Beat over Feint.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

For a big guy, like a ST 16+ fighter, with DX 12 or so(that ST is expensive) gains a good bit from beats, especially if using his sword to parry alot. It's not always a big deal, but the extra 4 points or so of bonus for beating are down right handy.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Then why post to the thread?

But he has one. He has many, actually. If his opponent is proficient in at least 2 defenses, Feint is superior to Beat, even if you're stronger than you're dextrous. Or if your opponent is quite strong but not particularly dextrous, a feint will force him to defend with dexterity, rather than strength. Beat has no comparable advantages.

Basically, "Beat exists so strong guys with low dex can feint too," and I find that unsatisfying.

In the sense that the example proves the obvious? Perhaps.

Because I'm exaggerating to make a point.

Because he outlines a principle.

Please! Show me what those advantages are!

Two guys versus one don't need beats to win. And anyway, I chose to highlight duels for a reason. People use beats in duels all the time in real life, and yet, they're not useful in a duel here. I'm planning on running a game that will feature duels. Can you show me how a beat is useful in one-on-one, without digging into "Well, if you're really strong..."?

So far everything I've seen in this thread suggests that they aren't interesting choices. If you're roughly equal in strength and dex, or you have more dex than strength, feint is always superior (except for a few very situational circumstances). The only time one uses Beats is if you're trying to set up someone for an ally, of if you're much stronger than you are dextrous. You are an ogre, for example. Am I wrong? Is there something else I'm missing? Those aren't interesting choices or tactically different options. Those are "My character is X, so I always use Y." It's a character creation consideration, not an in-the-heat-of-battle "What should I use now?" choice.

No kidding, hence the thread.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Thanks for that.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

That's a problem too. Icelander's option certainly make Beats more interesting. Then, it doesn't matter what your DX and ST are, but how your ST compares to your opponent's (ie "I am stronger than you, therefore, I have an advantage when I beat").

I'm not sure you should use both Icelander's fix and the other fixes suggested here ("Beats act as both defensive feints and standard feints against the weapon they affect" and "It can possibly make that weapon unready"), though. I suspect one or the other is sufficient.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Reading the notes on kendo vs kenjutsu, I see my error. Nothing you do in kendo is a Beat. It's too big, and first to make a good clean hit wins.

Kenjutsu can afford to have real Beats...after all, the match ends when you kill the other guy.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Well, you're also not wrong about Beats, as written, only being useful to big, monstrous guys who slam swords around, and that's not what you'd see in a Kenjutsu fight. Samurai are not known for being brawny and barbaric. This is actually my complaint about the situation. I want to run a game that features Kenjutsu, and I want to have the Beats front and center because I believe that they're stylistically important, but as written, there's no reason for an agile samurai to use them ever, only the hulking guy with the big no-dachi.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

You might be able to represent that using the rules for focused defense (sideways stances) from GURPS Martial Arts: Gladiators, though they aren't written as having any specific effect on Beats.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Just use the rules for feint, but call it a beat feint.

M.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Full disclosure, I also use the 'Beat acts as Defensive Feint as well' and 'success by 5+ Unreadies the weapon, success by 10+ disarms it'*.

Playtesting reveals no problems so far. After all, this takes up an attack that could have seriously wounded or killed the opponent and the best you can gain is that the enemy's main weapon is taken out of play for one turn. Given that most serious combatants have either a shield or a back-up weapon, this is not the be all and end all of fight-enders.

Against an opponent with similar levels of skill, but slightly inferior ST, it's a nice option, but rarely used by my players. I'll have to inquire about it more closely.

It could be terribly effective when used by giants or ogres, but given that I have other house rules that make blade-to-blade contact with much heavier weapons a bad idea, the PCs tend to Dodge against massively strong foes.

*Two-handed weapons receive a +2 to make and resist Beats in my house rules, as well.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

As written in a one-on-one duel no, there's not many reasons for the normal-sized guy fighting a normal-sized-guy to use a Beat. As noted, a Beat IS resisted by currently-in-use weapon skill unlike a Feint, which is important, but not common in duelling situations where presumably both duellists are, well, duellists - they do whatever it is they're doing as their major hobby or job.

It's much more useful (as written) in a group-on-group fight where the skilled character can set up a defence penalty for the strong-but-not-skilled character.

I'm a little uncomfortable with the "beats are resisted by ST-based rolls, not DX-based rolls" idea - it's tempting, but with all the effort to exorcise ST-based skill rolls from 4e I'm a little leery of unintended consequences. It seems like a safe idea, though, since Beats are ST-based skill rolls in the first place.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Well, if you ever do that against a competent foe, he'll Telegraphic kick you in the nuts or Fast-Draw a knife and Telegraphic stab the hell out of you with it.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

I'm also assuming that my "big guy" will be fighting opponents who have medium or high encumbrance due to armor, so their dodge score will be fairly penalized.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Huh. That's very interesting. Given your pickiness and the fact you've playtested it quite a bit, it looks likely that this is sufficiently vetted for my purposes. I'll probably give this a look then.

A very fair point.

Well, full disclosure here, I'm not necessarily looking at this house rule to be a sweeping, generalized change. Specifically, I'm looking at swashbuckling/samurai games where you don't see ST 30 ogres stomping around. I can see why Peter was cautious when writing Beats, and I'm not necessarily suggesting a total change to GURPS, I'm just looking for something that, in a human-on-human martial arts game, will make beats attractive to more than just barbarian characters.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Personally, I have my house rules for beats, but I'm going to steal some from you too ;)

• Beats are both offensive and defensive feints at the same time
• Beats require a second roll against the skill of the beaten weapon, with a penalty equal to how much the beat was successfull (Meaning that if you won the contest by 5, then he rolls skill-5). Failure unreadies the weapon, critical failure disarms, for handheld weapons, and becomes a full damage attack against the item for items that can not be disarmed (strapped shields, etc). The defender can again choose to use either ST or DX for this roll.
• Even if a shield is not unreadied by the beat, it's ability to boost your defenses is reduced. Reduce the DB bonus granted by the shield, to defenses other than block, by 1 per 5 points the beat was successfull.
• Beats are also weak (-2 per dice) attacks against the beaten objects.
• Two handed weapons resist beats at +2

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Well, the thing here, is that you made your samurai ST 14 DX 14. Beats are designed for characters that are stronger than they're dexterous. They might be a little timid, but trust me, it's better to err on the side of timidity than it is to make them totally overpowered.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

I did that deliberately because I wanted to show that it wasn't particularly useful for such a character and I want it to be. Thus, the need for house rules.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Why do you want something that was specifically intended for a different kind of character to be useful well outside its intended area?

And big brawny guys are not that weird to see in samurai or swashbuckling. It might be a ST of 18 instead of 24 but it is still there.

And why are you ignoring Ruses? How do we make them useful for characters who's IQ is not higher than their DX?

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.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

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.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

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

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

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…

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

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.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

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.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

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.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

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.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

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.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

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.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

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'.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

I've been reading it this way, for years...but, OK...yes. p348 of the basic set. In most of the QCs in Martial Arts, you must succeed AND do so by more than your opponent, I think. You must successfully accomplish your move, AND do it better than the other guy.

I've been steeped in QCs for the last few weeks on a project, so my head is swimming with this a bit.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

A quick check with CTRL-f doesn't turn up anything that says you need to succeed, merely that you need to win a QC.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Hrm. I'll need to find out why I came to the conclusion that you had to succeed your roll.

For example, in Takedown, it's resolved as a Quick Contest. But if you don't do the technique right, you shouldn't be able to throw your opponent regardless of what he does.

Ah HA! Resistance Rolls, on the same page. I lumped all martial arts contests, being clearly done on unwilling participants, into this category. This may not be correct, but it was my interpretation. Will check with Kromm and RPK and Peter...

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Sean confirms they're Quick Contests, and not resistance rolls. Resistance rolls are for supernatural or mind control stuff.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

GURPS is so complex, and as these forums show, there are so many doubts and misunderstandings (even on the most basic rules, and among the most expert players/GM) that sometimes I wonder:

1) Are we actually playing the same game?
2) Is there a single GM in the whole world who actually plays GURPS "correctly"?
3) If most GM/players make (unknowingly) so many 'mistakes' and forget about that many details... what is the point of having all this detail in the first place?

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Sort of, yes. We all switch toggles and stuff to make the game enjoyable for us. The basic framework is there, and solid.

To the extent that means 'exactly as RAW says,' I think not...even Sean uses some house rules and judgment calls, IIRC.

Still, for the definition of 'correctly' that includes 'having fun, I'd say most GMs meet this criterion.

For those who want to use it to facilitate their version of fun, I suppose.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

These kinds of existential questions can be asked about any game, even Monopoly. Ask some people about "The free parking rule" some time...

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

I'm not really sure that's relevant. Are we speaking the same language? Yeah, certainly, even though I might have a different accent and a different way of phrasing things than you do, and we might get into arguments over grammar, or what I mean when I say X when you would have said Y. But we can communicate well enough.

If you sat at my table, you'd understand the GURPS I was running, even if I ran it differently than you did.

I'd be tempted to point to Kromm as a sort of "by definition" thing, but even he'll use GURPS differently for different games. GURPS Action and GURPS Dungeon Fantasy both sprang from his tabletop, after all, and both use the game differently. I'm not really sure there's a "correct way" to play GURPS.

(There's a "better way," and that's why some of us strive to master the rules more and more, but that's different, I'm not sure if that makes sense)

For the mistakes: as a guide, to help them improve their game. For those who choose to use different rules: to supply them with all available options. For example, I don't know the digging rules at all, but that doesn't mean someone else isn't using them. And I had been screwing up the grenade rules until relatively recently, and it was reading the book that showed me the problem.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

One thing I don't understand about Beats - and this may turn out to be a real big reason to use it - is this: What is the cost, or downside to using it?

With a Feint, you give up a turn to use it, where you could otherwise attack. With a Beat, it doesn't seem like it costs anything to try as long as you satisfy the condition of successfully defending or being defended against. MA says that you can attempt a Beat with an attack you just used if it was successfully parried or blocked. Does this mean you can do it on the same turn? That would make more sense to me.

If you attempt a Beat on the NEXT turn after your attack was successfully blocked or parried, then it would be balanced like a feint in that Beating costs you a turn to use, but it doesn't make sense realistically. Shouldn't a Beat be a unified action with the parry or block? Otherwise, the opponent would have the opportunity to strike back with the same weapon before the Beat could be initiated, which is not what a weapon that has just been knocked out of the way should be able to do before the defense penalty can be taken advantage of.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

For clarity,

So yes, you must "take a turn" to do a beat, and yes, you get the sort of strangeness you describe.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

I'm surprised I haven't read anyone take this angle:

A Beat, really, is a "shove" attack on the opponent's weapon/shield/whatever. Seems logical to me that one could just as easily set up for a Beat by doing just that—attacking it—in which case, it would take effect if the opponent failed to successfully defend (and possibly, even if he does Parry). Assuming you don't care whether the weapon ends up broken—normal attack—or that the opponent drops it—Disarm—as a result of your attack, you would effectively be doing "Knockback" on the weapon, taking it out of position.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Where can I find this rule?!

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

We made it up in this thread I think?

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

But given the thread is nine years old, unlikely anyone remembers for sure?

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Uhm, I see. Too bad for me, my players almost never want to play with not-official rules from books :/

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

You could maybe make something similar as a a technique using the rules in Martial arts. After all a disarm attempt has some similar rules; where the weapon of your opponent is either disarmed or at least still unready (unless the target made their roll by 3 or more) (see p.400 in Basic).

But I never did mess around with the technique rules.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

What if we just counted all Disarm attempts as Beats too? Like merge them into one technique? If either are underwhelming, perhaps combining them would make them more impressive?

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

I think they're too different. Mechanically, beats are specifically ST-based (which often accompanies heavy weapons), while disarms could be both ST- and DX-based, and fencing weapons (which really don't require much strength) give disarms an advantage. If you combine those mechanics, either fencing weapons become less effective at disarming, or somehow become more effective at knocking foe's weapon away despite being rather light.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

That problem seems moreso that you should be limited in how much ST you can use to beat if you're using a flimsy weapon to beat with, because we'd still face that problem if a fencer used a Beat as a followup to being parried or parrying.

Re: Beats Suck(?)
 

Well, there's the general (and generous) limit of 3 × minST for damage purposes. I'd extend that to Beats.