Re: [BNW] Leaping, etc.

["Steve Crow" <crow_steve@hotmail.com>]

> > 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.
>
>Well the FAQ that I printed off of the Barony of Gilead page indicates:
>A. The Goliath's bonus does effect leaping distance (so the bouncer's
>would too)
>B. It also effects # of wounds per location.
>

However, somewhat oddly, it _directly_ and on a 1-for-1 ratio affects 
Wounds.  This seems a tad powerful not only for him, but for the bouncer.

At least for Skills, raising the d6 of the attribute is more expensive (and 
probably gives you more of a benefit) than simply buying a +1 to a skill.

In this case, though, _each_ add of Strength gives you one extra Wound, just 
as a d6 of Strength attribute does.  Granted, you can't buy Strength adds 
like you can Skill adds, but it seems that in this case a Bouncer with 1d6+3 
Strength has just as many Wounds as a 4d6 Reg.

I could see some players wondering if they can buy Strength points for their 
characters...

> > 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.
>
>What did you think of my rules suggestion?
>
> > 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.)
>
>One possible "patch" for this would be to allow multiple dodges (i.e. the
>Goliath rolls to hit with his one action, the Speedster dodges and doesn't
>make it, so the Guide lets him use another action to try and dodge again).
>If you really wanted to up the odds you could do a reversal of normal and
>give the dodger a BONUS to dodge for each extra action he puts into (he is
>focusing most/all of his effort on dodging, so he'll do it better). This
>would fit perfectly with the old Fesic/Wesley image of the giant swinging
>slowly and the little guying dodging like a fiend, but not being able to
>respond.
>Thoughts?
>
> > 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?
>
>Oh! Oh! I had another idea. How about this:
>Unless the book specifically states it bonuses to not apply to "skilled"
>rolls. So for the Goliath, his str. bonus would apply to damage, size for
>wounds and leaping because there are no skills associated with these
>rolls. It would not apply to fighting or throwing as there is a skill that
>adds to the dice (so he would just get his 5d6, not 5d5+5).
>Likewise the bouncer would then be better off with martial arts (4d6 vs.
>2d6) but his damage would still be above normal (+3) as would his ability
>to take hits (5 wounds per area). Now his dodge would still be nuts as the
>book specifically says he gets +5 to dodge (plus what ever skill in dodge
>he has).
>Also (getting long winded here...) the Genius would get his +5 to all int.
>rolls cause the rules say so.
>
> > 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. :)
>
>Yeah, I wasn't too sure about this one either, seems like a really
>phenomonal roll should allow you to catch that flag pole sticking out of
>the building, swing around it three times (a la spiderman) and then land
>gently on the ground.
>
> > 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.
>
>Could you share some of his rulings? It might help others who have similar
>quandries...
>
> > 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 :)
>
>Lucky snot, we have yet to start playing (focusing on getting our old
>Deadlands game up and running) which really blows my credibility in
>suggesting rules changes/clarrifications (oh well).
>
>-Theo McCracken, whose thoughts and ideas are solely his own and do not,
>in any way, reflect those of Jefferson Lab or its staff. Unless of
>course there is any money to made off those ideas, in which case the lab
>says: "Gimme, gimme, gimme!"
>
>
>To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@gamerz.net with
>	unsubscribe bnw
>as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>



---

Steve Crow

"Worm Can Opener Extraordinare"

Check out my website at:  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4991/

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com