4e Mechanics & Rules Discussion

[Heffe]

Regardless of char-gen method, players can also buy additional Specialties with XP, once the campaign is under way (p. 40 of the Player Manual).

@Heffe: As a Ref, I think I'd house-rule chargen so that players using the archetype method could also add one skill level and one specialization from the Childhood table on p. 32. IMO, the archetypes do a decent job of capturing a relatively early career's-worth accumulation of skills, but glosses over anything that came before starting said career. I think adding that one additional skill level and specialization would help round out an archetype build a bit better, and make him/her a bit more "competitive" with Life-path generated PCs. I think adding the Childhood package would also help archetype characters feel a little more real by giving them a bit more backstory (e.g. "So and so grew up in a small rural town, hunting and fishing nearly every weekend...").

-

Yep that seems like a good workaround for folks wanting the archetype experience. I suppose you could always just house rule all of it pretty easily as well by giving people 3-4 attribute points, 10-12 skill points, and a couple specialties.

[kcdusk]

Question on page 50 of the players manual. Under specialties, what's the difference between Infiltrator skill and scout

Scout gives you +1 for spotting others and avoid ambushes. I assume this gives you +1 on the ambush roll from page 60 to spot an encounter before they spot you

Infiltrator gives you +1 when trying to remain undetected. Does this +1 apply to the ambush roll Or is it used at a different time and place, like trying to creep past a sentry

So scout is used to spot the encounter first. Then infiltrator is used to get closer (ambushing, closing distance to enemy per table on page 61) Or creep past a sentry or into a house Or something entirely different

[swaghauler]

Question on page 50 of the players manual. Under specialties, what's the difference between Infiltrator skill and scout

Scout gives you +1 for spotting others and avoiding ambushes. I assume this gives you +1 on the ambush roll from page 60 to spot an encounter before they spot you

Infiltrator gives you +1 when trying to remain undetected. Does this +1 apply to the ambush roll Or is it used at a different time and place, like trying to creep past a sentry

So scout is used to spot the encounter first. Then infiltrator is used to get closer (ambushing, closing distance to enemy per table on page 61) Or creep past a sentry or into a house Or something entirely different

I have a similar type of distinction in my game BUT I'm playing a Merc2000-style game.

The Scout = Has both Stealth and Observation skills and can hide or avoid the enemy. Also good at Tracking and identifying enemy personnel. operates from camouflaged or concealed positions and avoids enemy contact whenever possible.

The Infiltrator = Has Disguise/Acting and Interrogation and Observation skills. They enter into a place or group by posing as a member of that group to gain "Intelligence" about that group by listening and even asking questions of various group members. They "blend in" to hide and would be called "The Grey Man" in Tradecraft circles (yes this is a thing, GOOGLE it). The girls in the original 1980 Red Dawn are an example of Infiltrators.

[Raellus]

Question on page 50 of the players manual. Under specialties, what's the difference between Infiltrator skill and scout

Scout gives you +1 for spotting others and avoid ambushes. I assume this gives you +1 on the ambush roll from page 60 to spot an encounter before they spot you

Infiltrator gives you +1 when trying to remain undetected. Does this +1 apply to the ambush roll Or is it used at a different time and place, like trying to creep past a sentry

So scout is used to spot the encounter first. Then infiltrator is used to get closer (ambushing, closing distance to enemy per table on page 61) Or creep past a sentry or into a house Or something entirely different

I think you are correct re Scout. As I understand it, Infiltrator is more for avoiding detection when moving in the presence of patrols, sentries, etc. but, as it reads, Infiltrator could also be applied when trying to move stealthily into position to "ambush [an enemy] in close combat", as per:

"If you want to ambush in close combat, you need to move into the same hex as your target." (p. 60 of PDF)

I hope someone with more 4e experience will chime in to confirm or correct.

-

[Raellus]

For Draftees: Archetype > Lifepath

I've noticed a potential balancing issue where the Archetype actually trumps Lifepath- the fresh-out-of-high-school draftee.

After mastering Archetype char-gen, I decided to play around with the Lifepath method for a couple of concepts for older, more experienced PCs. I realized that said PCs would probably end up more capable than most (if not all) Archetypes and I was worried about balance in mixed char-gen method party, so I tried to roll up a youngish draftee PC with Lifepath, thinking that it would yield a slightly more capable build than an Archetype. I quickly discovered that Lifepath produced a significantly less capable youngish draftee PC.

Using an Archetype for said base concept actually yields a couple more skills (and better CUF rating) for the PC than the using the Lifepath rules for drafted characters, which state:

"THE DRAFT: If your final term before war breaks out was spent as a civilian (except Intelligence careeers), and if your character is not a local of the country where your game is set, your At War term will be spent as a draftee or volunteer in the military. In this case, one of the two skill increases for the At War term must be RANGED COMBAT – unless you already have a level of D or better in the skill – and you roll for your specialty (or choose) using the Military column." (p. 39, 4e Players Manual)

Assuming no prior, post-childhood career, the Lifepath draftee ends up with a measly three skills (one from childhood, two from The Draft rules) and CUF D.

There's nothing in the rules that says an Archetype PC can't be a draftee. Assuming The Grunt, for example, is a draftee- he/she starts with six skills and CUF C.

The only way in which a Lifepath draftee tops an Archetype draftee is in the Attribute scores (all starting at C, and potentially receiving 6 upgrades, depending on the 2d3 roll).

Adding a civie career prior to being drafted adds two more skills but, after applying the draft term skills, the total is still one less than any Archetype. CUF remains at an anemic D. You might score an extra specialty, if the dice are kind.

So yeah, the vast majority of Lifepath builds are going to be more skilled, possess higher attributes, and have more specialties to start, than pretty much all the Archetype builds (save, perhaps, The Operator). For for your young draftee characters, though, the Archetype is the better option.

-

[Heffe]

I've noticed a potential balancing issue where the Archetype actually trumps Lifepath- the fresh-out-of-high-school draftee.

After mastering Archetype char-gen, I decided to play around with the Lifepath method for a couple of concepts for older, more experienced PCs. I realized that said PCs would probably end up more capable than most (if not all) Archetypes and I was worried about balance in mixed char-gen method party, so I tried to roll up a youngish draftee PC with Lifepath, thinking that it would yield a slightly more capable build than an Archetype. I quickly discovered that Lifepath produced a significantly less capable youngish draftee PC.

Using an Archetype for said base concept actually yields a couple more skills (and better CUF rating) for the PC than the using the Lifepath rules for drafted characters, which state:

"THE DRAFT: If your final term before war breaks out was spent as a civilian (except Intelligence careeers), and if your character is not a local of the country where your game is set, your At War term will be spent as a draftee or volunteer in the military. In this case, one of the two skill increases for the At War term must be RANGED COMBAT unless you already have a level of D or better in the skill and you roll for your specialty (or choose) using the Military column." (p. 39, 4e Players Manual)

Assuming no prior, post-childhood career, the Lifepath draftee ends up with a measly three skills (one from childhood, two from The Draft rules) and CUF D.

There's nothing in the rules that says an Archetype PC can't be a draftee. Assuming The Grunt, for example, is a draftee- he/she starts with six skills and CUF C.

The only way in which a Lifepath draftee tops an Archetype draftee is in the Attribute scores (all starting at C, and potentially receiving 6 upgrades, depending on the 2d3 roll).

Adding a civie career prior to being drafted adds two more skills but, after applying the draft term skills, the total is still one less than any Archetype. CUF remains at an anemic D. You might score an extra specialty, if the dice are kind.

So yeah, the vast majority of Lifepath builds are going to be more skilled, possess higher attributes, and have more specialties to start, than pretty much all the Archetype builds (save, perhaps, The Operator). For for your young draftee characters, though, the Archetype is the better option.

-

There's definitely the opportunity for archetype characters to be better than lifepath characters. I think a ton depends on your rolls themselves - 3 attributes for archetype chars is fine, but the option for 6 from a lifepath character is huge. Of course, someone rolling poorly might only get 2 attribute points from the lifepath method...Same thing for when war breaks out, aging effects, etc.

In general, I think FL tended to make the archetype chars just slightly worse than lifepath on average. Using the attribute points as a baseline, the only way to make the archetype truly equal to lifepath chars would be to give the archetype chars 4 attribute points. FL intentionally chose to give them only 3 points, however, presumably to balance out some other advantage that archetype chars had, or as a buffer against lifepath chars that happen to just roll really poorly.

[Raellus]

Best of Both Worlds

I'm trying to work out a hybrid char-gen system that uses elements of both Archetype and Lifepath. I want a little more flexibility and capability than Archetype offers, but less randomness (and fewer rolls) than Lifepath. I also don't want to make the hybrid more complicated than Lifepath, or encourage min-max'ing.

Suggestions are welcome.

-

[Spartan-117]

I'm trying to work out a hybrid char-gen system that uses elements of both Archetype and Lifepath. I want a little more flexibility and capability than Archetype offers, but less randomness (and fewer rolls) than Lifepath. I also don't want to make the hybrid more complicated than Lifepath, or encourage min-max'ing.

Suggestions are welcome.

-

Start with the Archetype. Then...

My house rule is that once your skill is C or higher, you get a specialty for it. So if you select Recon C, you could get one of Forward Observer, Historian, Infiltrator, Intelligence, Investigator, Scout.

So each of you will start with 3 specialties.

One for your B skill, and one for each C level skill. More can be learned in game.

[Raellus]

Does reloading break aim

I really like that, Spartan. I think that's the route I'm going to go. Thanks!

Here's a question about action economy during ranged combat:

The Aiming rules state,

"If you do anything else except shoot your weapon after you have aimed, you lose the effect of the aim and you need to spend another fast action to aim again. You can fire repeatedly at the same target without breaking your aim." (PM p. 64)

This can be interpreted two ways, as I read it. One, since reloading is doing "anything else except shoot your weapon", it breaks aim, and another fast action must be spent after reloading to aim before resuming fire. The bit about "you can fire repeatedly at the same target without breaking your aim", however, could be interpreted to mean that after reloading, another fast action to aim is not required as long as the PC resumes firing at the same target as before.

Which is the correct interpretation

Also, does "you can fire repeatedly at the same target without breaking your aim" mean that you don't have to use a fast action to aim each turn, if you've done it once initially (assuming the target doesn't change, of course)

-

[Heffe]

I really like that, Spartan. I think that's the route I'm going to go. Thanks!

Here's a question about action economy during ranged combat:

The Aiming rules state,

"If you do anything else except shoot your weapon after you have aimed, you lose the effect of the aim and you need to spend another fast action to aim again. You can fire repeatedly at the same target without breaking your aim." (PM p. 64)

This can be interpreted two ways, as I read it. One, since reloading is doing "anything else except shoot your weapon", it breaks aim, and another fast action must be spent after reloading to aim before resuming fire. The bit about "you can fire repeatedly at the same target without breaking your aim", however, could be interpreted to mean that after reloading, another fast action to aim is not required as long as the PC resumes firing at the same target as before.

Which is the correct interpretation

Also, does "you can fire repeatedly at the same target without breaking your aim" mean that you don't have to use a fast action to aim each turn, if you've done it once initially (assuming the target doesn't change, of course)

-

The way I read it is that on a subsequent turn, so long as you haven't taken any other actions, you can continue firing without needing to aim. Given that firing takes a slow action however, that really only means that you can fire on that subsequent turn, and then either stay there doing nothing, or moving using your fast action after you've fired. To me at least, reloading is taking a separate action, and thus would break your aim.

[Raellus]

Explosions

A question about explosions:

A PC grenadier targets an enemy occupied hex. He rolls a hit. The 40mm HE round from his M203 does 3 damage and has a blast rating of D.

Do both direct hit (3) and blast damage (results of 2d6 roll) apply to every enemy within the same hex I assume the answer is yes, but I'd appreciate confirmation or correction.

-

[Heffe]

A question about explosions:

A PC grenadier targets an enemy occupied hex. He rolls a hit. The 40mm HE round from his M203 does 3 damage and has a blast rating of D.

Do both direct hit (3) and blast damage (results of 2d6 roll) apply to every enemy within the same hex I assume the answer is yes, but I'd appreciate confirmation or correction.

-

This question has come up a lot over the past few months since the way the rule book is written (and the grenade example they use on pg 68 doesn't help) leave a lot to be desired. We ended up asking FL directly for clarification here. The TL;DR is that you generally can have an easier time hitting someone with a heavy weapon but do less damage, or have a harder time hitting them but doing more damage.

When using a heavy weapon, such as a grenade launcher, generally a PC would aim for a large target such as a hex. When targeting a hex, the damage done to the target is only the blast damage, not the direct damage. The benefit of this approach is that you don't get any penalties for aiming at a large target (hex or vehicle).

When aiming for a small target directly with a heavy weapon (such as an individual enemy), you would receive a -2 to hit penalty, and therefore have a higher chance of your shot deviating. The benefit of aiming directly at a person however, is that if you hit, you do both the direct damage AND the blast damage.

As I mentioned, the way it's written is a little vague, but it can be found on pages 70 and 71 of the player manual.

I think a lot of the reason for the vague approach here in the book is that things are...abstracted a lot when it comes to explosions. For example, if you lob a grenade directly at a person and hit despite the -2 penalty, you'd do 2 direct damage in addition to the blast damage. In this instance, the 2 direct damage from the grenade is abstracted as the grenade landing at someone's feet or right under them, as opposed to the damage being imparted from the kinetic energy of the grenade literally smacking someone in the chest after being thrown. Contrast this with other weapons where the direct damage is a representation of that kinetic energy transfer, such as a 30mm round hitting someone in the arm and tearing their arm off.

[Raellus]

Hm. That's an interesting take. I was interpreting the two distinct damage types as representing shrapnel (Direct Damage) and concussive blast (Explosion), similar to the system employed by v2.2. It's familiar and it makes sense to me, real world modelling-wise.

I get the point v area target trade-off argument, but there are already modifiers in place to model that. As I read back through the Heavy Weapons section again, I don't see anything that specifically states or even implies that both types of damage would not be applied to targets within a hex if that hex was the intended targeted and a hit was rolled.

-

[Heffe]

Hm. That's an interesting take. I was interpreting the two distinct damage types as representing shrapnel (Direct Damage) and concussive blast (Explosion), similar to the system employed by v2.2. It's familiar and it makes sense to me, real world modelling-wise.

I get the point v area target trade-off argument, but there are already modifiers in place to model that. As I read back through the Heavy Weapons section again, I don't see anything that specifically states or even implies that both types of damage would not be applied to targets within a hex if that hex was the intended targeted and a hit was rolled.

-

Like I said, the wording leaves a lot to be desired. If it's helpful, here's their written response from back when I asked a similar question about grenades. Unless I may have misinterpreted the response somehow

Heffe: I had a quick question or two about grenades that I'd love some clarity on. First, an easy one. Do grenades suffer from deviation on misses Reason would indicate that they would, but it's not stated explicitly in the player handbook so I wanted to ask just to be sure.

FL: Hand Grenades have some special rules about them, but other than those they follow the rules of Heavy Weapons, so yes the deviate if you miss.

Heffe: Second, grenade damage - grenades are listed with both direct damage and blast power. The example of a grenade being used in the player's handbook (pg. 68) indicates that the grenade only did blast damage to Diaz. Is that because the grenade only landed in the same hex as Diaz and wasn't targeting Diaz Is there a certain proximity to a grenade that a target should be before they take both the direct damage and the blast damage Should grenades only have blast damage and not both types Or was the example just written poorly and Diaz should have taken more damage Any thoughts here or official rulings would be super helpful to clarify the intent of the rules on this topic.

FL: When you use a Heavy Weapon, like a Grenade Launcher (or a thrown HandGrenade), you can target an individual (with a -2 penalty) or you can target something big (like a vehicle) or you can just target the hex. If you target an individual (or a large target), then that individual (if you hit) will suffer Direct Damage (2 for a frag grenade +1 for each extra success) and then there will be a blast (C for a frag grenade) that will do damage according to the explosion rules.
So, since -2 is a lot, it might be good enough to just aim the HandGrenade for the hex instead. Sure, no one will get the Direct Damage, but you also hopefully won't miss.

Source: https://forum.frialigan.se/viewtopic...t=hand+grenade

[Raellus]

40mm Nerf GL

Thanks for the link, Heffe. Fenhorn is a mod, but is he an official FL spokesperson I haven't spent as much time on that forum as you have, but my impression is that he is not.

If his interpretation is correct, 40mm grenades, at least, are severely nerfed. They have a blast power of D (which only does 1 damage on a successful damage roll). On an indirect () hit (i.e. the hex was targeted, not an individual person), the Ref rolls two d6s to determine blast damage. Since you can't push that roll, it has only a 31% chance of doing any damage whatever to enemies within that hex.

That's super low, wouldn't you say It kind of negates even rolling a successful HW attack with the GL, I would argue.

Here's why I asked this question in the first place. I was soloing a firefight. The Blue Force grenadier rolled a hit on a hex occupied by two prone OPFOR*. I rolled the 2d6s, showing no sixes. So, the two OPFOR in the targeted (and hit) 10m hex escaped injury from a 40mm exploding within same.

If I'm reading this rule correctly, being prone makes one completely immune from a level D blast:

PRONE: If the target is prone, the blast power is reduced one step.

Since D is the lowest level blast, reducing it one step means no blast at all Or would that mean rolling only one d6 (That would lower the chances of the hit doing any damage to 17%)

Unless the design intent was to nerf 40mm grenades, I think Fenhorn must be wrong (or I'm still missing something).

-