Beat: Setting up a Beat works as per MA100, that is, you must first successfully parry or be parried by your foe. Thereafter, you may attempt a Beat on your turn by making a Feint maneuver. Resolve the Beat as a Quick Contest between the Melee skills of the two combatants, with the initiator of the Beat using his ST-based combat skill, and his opponent using either his ST- or DX-based combat skill. If the aggressor wins, the margin of victory is applied to both the target's next defense roll and attack roll with his weapon, as with a feint. If the margin of victory is 5 or greater, then the target's weapon becomes Unready. This effects only apply to the weapon struck in the beat. While Beat follows many of the rules of Feint, it has a distinct technique apart from Feint (called Beat). This technique also defends against Beats.
Reasoning: Beat as written was only useful to characters with higher ST than DX, but had numerous drawbacks. Moreover, I couldn't make sense of what the mechanics were actually meant to simulate (if you're knocking a weapon out of line, why don't they suffer a penalty to their attack as well as their defense?). This version makes Beat an attractive option for nearly any character (though still benefits strong characters), but is balanced by its drawbacks.
Looking at this . . . I'm not sure I'm following, exactly. To me, this reads as Beat as written, except that:
- it also affects the defender's attack roll
and
- it also has a chance of making the defender's weapon unready.
Otherwise, it's just Beat as written.
The wording of it, though, makes it sound like it'll be more useful for strong characters but not only for strong characters . . . but mechanically it seems the same as Beat in the books. There it is ST-based vs. ST or DX-based, requires a parry or to be parried, and reduces only the defenses of the weapon beaten. It doesn't add any downsides for the attacker, only upsides, yet "is balanced by its drawbacks." Unless an implied inability to use this against Dodge is what is meant . . . but that's unclear.
So my question is, what am I missing or misreading above?
I should just email Mailanka but it's way easier for me to find stuff discussed on my blog than sitting in my email mailbox. Plus someone else might just point out my declining reading comprehension ability.
Looking at M100, as far as I can tell, Beat as written doesn't lower the defender's next attack - only his defense. Also, Mailanka has introduced the possibility of making your opponent's weapon Unready with a Beat, which I think is a nice addition - it really makes the Beat an opportunity to go for an outright win if you're much stronger than your opponent.
ReplyDeleteI listed those in the post, too - that's all I see. It's just Beat, but given two extra reasons to use it. The rest of the explanation doesn't seem in line with that. What's the drawback?
DeleteThe Unready thing I'm not sure about. It's good for weapon vs. weapon, but not grappling vs. Dodge, or against natural weapons, and you can make the weapon unready but not disarm them . . . I'm just not sure it is accurate and balanced exactly as put.
The drawbacks of Beat by this rules are:
ReplyDelete1. You have to Parry or be Parried to use Beat. If you missed, or your enemy dodged, or failed his parry (and so on), you cannot use Beat.
2. Beat does work only against one weapon. It does not work against Dodge and kicks. It also does not work against attacs and parries with other weapons.
3. Enemy can use best of his ST and DX to resist Beat.
I think, that ability to give penalties to all attacks and defences with one weapon balances it nicely and is easier to visualize.
(There is more detailed wersion of this houserule here: https://mailanka.blogspot.com/2016/09/rewriting-combat-optional-rules.html)
The main problem with Beat (both in MA and in this houserule) is ST vs ST contests (human with ST15 will on average beat human with ST10 by 5, giant with ST30 will on average beat other giant with ST20 by 10, but the actual ST difference is the same) and ST vs DX contests (halfling vith ST5 and DX10 can not beat another halfling).
1 and 3 are true in MA100, too.
Delete2 is true for the first part. I'm not sure if the second part is actually true or not for this house rule as written.
As I said in the post, it just seems like an upgunned version of Beat, potentially missing use when grappling, and doesn't justify the exposition that somehow it has drawbacks MA100 doesn't give or advantages to non-high-ST characters that MA100 doesn't give.
The house rule says, "This version makes Beat an attractive option for nearly any character (though still benefits strong characters), but is balanced by its drawbacks."
DeleteI just don't see how any of those statements are actually true for this but not for the MA100 Beat.
As far as I understand, MA Beat is too weak (in comparison to Feint). It has its drawbacks (1 and 3), but it does not have any advantages (exept allowing to use ST instead of DX - not useful for dexterous characters at all). So, yes, this houserule does improve Beat compared to MA version.
DeleteWhen grappling, Beat by this houserule gives penalties to Dodge and kicks, and victory by 5+ gives enemy a yard of knockback (see link in my first comment).
Advantages to non-high-ST characters are +2 to Beat (or resist Beat), when using two-handed weapon (so non-high-ST character with two-handed sword can Beat weak enemy with one-handed weapon) and ability to train Beat as separate technique (so non-high-ST character with trained Beat can Beat high-ST character with untrained Beat).
My point is really that I don't understand why this is seen as adding drawbacks - it doesn't. And the idea that you can train it, and that somehow gives a character an edge, doesn't hold water for me . . . the Feint technique already does that. It just adds upsides.
DeleteThe +2 I missed, since it's in a different post than the version I was looking at . . . but +2 is pretty marginal. The +4 for the defender as Extra Effort is interesting.
Again . . . I don't see the drawbacks inherent in this version, and the expanded post description seems to mostly add extensive additional upsides to the person trying it. That's fine, but it doesn't scream drawbacks to me.