[BNW] Leaping, etc. [MATT]

["I. Dwayne Koonce" <dwayne@txcyber.com>]

On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Theo McGuckin wrote:

> The jumping distances seem pretty wacky. [snip]

This seems like a good time to try to resend my first post, which
disappeared for some reason when I first sent it a month ago.  
Here goes:

Okay, now that I've finally found this mailing list (shouldn't at least
_one_ of the BNW pages out there have information about this?), there are
some ambiguities in the rules I have questions about.  I looked through
the archives a bit and didn't see anything directly addressing these--but
if they've come up before, I'd glady volunteer to turn the answers into a
FAQ :)  (Some of the guys in my gaming group want to start a BNW site
anyway.)

The problem is the issue of what trait (mainly Strength) bonuses do (and
don't do).  Unfortunately, there are almost no examples in the rulebook
that feature trait bonuses.

1)  There are several places in the rules where traits are treated as
straight numbers, rather than dice pools + bonuses.  Are the bonuses
treated as extra dice?  Horizontal leaping, for instance--a half inch for
each "point" of Strength.  I'm playing a Bouncer, with a Strength
of 2d6+3.  Is that 2 "points", or 5?  I would hope it's 5, since being a
Bouncer I plan to jump a lot.  Lifting, carrying, and throwing are based
on comparing Strength to the Size of the object.  In the example for
throwing, a 4d6 is clearly treated as a 4 for these purposes--how's a
2d6+3 treated?  What about wounds?  "Up to his Strength", "double her
Strength"--do bonuses affect these?  The rules are silent on this.  It
could've been clearer, if some of the exmples had used something other
than a Blaster.

2)  Incidentally, there is no rule for vertical leaping.  My GM will be
happy to house-rule it (hi, Mike!), but this seems like an oversight in a
game that spells out everything else in term of map inches.

3)  Fighting.  Okay, this is just irking me.  What's the most accurate 
form of attack in the game?  The Gunner's astounding marksmanship, you
say?  Well, he can only tie the Goliath's Fighting.  That Strength bonuses
should give a damage bonus makes sense to me--but a bonus to hit?  Let's
say I've given my Bouncer a Martial Arts of 5 and a Speed of 5--ie, the
most accurate you can be with Martial Arts at the beginning of the game
(no, that's not how I've written him up, but just for the sake of
argument).  Let's say I'm standing shoulder to shoulder with a Goliath
with Strength 5 and a Fighting of only 1, and a Speedster runs past us,
dodging for all he's worth.  Because of his Strength bonus, the Goliath
stands a better chance of laying a hand on the Speedster than I do.  Seems
really odd for someone who's "Dirt Slow".  (Oh, and since throwing is a
Strength skill, they're just as deadly accurate with thrown objects.)

Of course, I'm screwing myself by choosing Martial Arts--it fits with my
character concept, but with the +3 Strength bonus for Bouncers, I'd be
much more effective using Fighting.  This doesn't seem to fit with the
concept of the Bouncer package, really--even the Bouncer _archetype_ has
taken the trouble to learn Martial Arts, when he'd have better luck just
wading in there and duking it out!  I guess what I'm trying to figure out
is, why is there a combat skill where accuracy is determined by strength?
There's nothing inherently wrong with the concept of a Goliath who rarely
misses--but shouldn't he have to spend a lot of points on it?

4) Acrobatics.  Okay, maybe I'm the only one who cares, but it looks
unfinished.  Is it supposed to do anything other than halve falling
damage?  (Impress women on a Challenging(10) roll?)  Can it decrease it by
more than half if I get a lot of successes? I'm just not sure how
comfortable I feel leaping from rooftop to rooftop without knowing these
things. :)

[snip]
Okay, since I attempted to send this, we've had our first two sessions, so
my GM has house-ruled most of these quite reasonably IMO.  (I haven't
asked him about Acrobatics, and I probably should, before I bounce off
some broad, flat surface.)  But I still think this stuff should be
errata'd.

Incidentally, the first two game sessions have been a blast!  The second
session was the first 14-hour session I've played in forever.  Being a
team of people who are both heroic and paranoid is... unique :)

So, thanks for a fun game, and thanks in advance for any answers.


-- 
Dwayne Koonce <dwayne@txcyber.com>
"In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal
that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to
time." --Edward P. Tryon