4e Mechanics & Rules Discussion

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

Agree with Heffe.

I don't think a hit in HTH would generate a CUF.

However, a CUF check could work like "stun" does in other games? You essentially go full protection mode, unable to strike back.

I absolutely disagree with this! Having been hit so hard I momentarily "blacked out," I was then reluctant to close with the Perp afterward DESPITE having an ASP collapsible baton in my hand. He shook me up enough that I even took a couple of steps back. What if you were suddenly confronted by Kane, Andre The Giant, or The Rock? How about stumbling into a bear in the woods at night? I think a CUF check would be in order...

Hell, even a DISPLAY OF FORCE should be able to trigger a CUF check! I have been witness to more than one occasion where officers were held in check by a growling dog or a pair of dogs. I even saw a female State Trooper chased back inside her cruiser by an agitated Chinese Knothead (a type of large white goose).

So I believe that a CUF check should be warranted

[Tegyrius]

"Everybody has plans until they get hit for the first time."
- Mike Tyson

[Heffe]

Originally Posted by swaghauler

I absolutely disagree with this! Having been hit so hard I momentarily "blacked out," I was then reluctant to close with the Perp afterward DESPITE having an ASP collapsible baton in my hand. He shook me up enough that I even took a couple of steps back. What if you were suddenly confronted by Kane, Andre The Giant, or The Rock? How about stumbling into a bear in the woods at night? I think a CUF check would be in order...

Hell, even a DISPLAY OF FORCE should be able to trigger a CUF check! I have been witness to more than one occasion where officers were held in check by a growling dog or a pair of dogs. I even saw a female State Trooper chased back inside her cruiser by an agitated Chinese Knothead (a type of large white goose).

So I believe that a CUF check should be warranted

On a personal note swag, I think you're correct. Someone catching a well placed right cross is probably going to take a step back or need a moment to regroup. I was just quoting the actual 4e canon rules as they stand.

This feels like one of those situations where a houserule may be appropriate on an as-needed basis. The current CUF rules dictate that a CUF failure would result in someone dropping to the ground and losing their next turn's actions. While that might be appropriate in some CUF failures in HtH combat, it doesn't feel like it would work for all of them, regardless of whatever damage is being done. To make it more realistic, FL would have needed to add a bit more complexity to what is arguably already a fairly complex melee combat system, so they probably just opted to keep it as simple as possible with no CUF roll on HtH hits.

As a recommendation to make this system more realistic, I might require a CUF roll on all successful HtH attacks, but add a table for effects of that failure so that it isn't a catchall 'drop to the ground and lose next turn' result. For example, roll 1d10 on a successful head hit and failed CUF roll - a result of 1-2 has largely no impact other than the target seeing some stars. A result of 9-10 however would result in the target falling unconscious for 1d6 rounds. Something along those lines.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Heffe

On a personal note swag, I think you're correct. Someone catching a well placed right cross is probably going to take a step back or need a moment to regroup. I was just quoting the actual 4e canon rules as they stand.

This feels like one of those situations where a houserule may be appropriate on an as-needed basis. The current CUF rules dictate that a CUF failure would result in someone dropping to the ground and losing their next turn's actions. While that might be appropriate in some CUF failures in HtH combat, it doesn't feel like it would work for all of them, regardless of whatever damage is being done. To make it more realistic, FL would have needed to add a bit more complexity to what is arguably already a fairly complex melee combat system, so they probably just opted to keep it as simple as possible with no CUF roll on HtH hits.

As a recommendation to make this system more realistic, I might require a CUF roll on all successful HtH attacks, but add a table for effects of that failure so that it isn't a catchall 'drop to the ground and lose next turn' result. For example, roll 1d10 on a successful head hit and failed CUF roll - a result of 1-2 has largely no impact other than the target seeing some stars. A result of 9-10 however would result in the target falling unconscious for 1d6 rounds. Something along those lines.

That's why I posted that houserule that we used in Forbidden Lands a page back. It is used (and presumably developed) by a guy named Chuck who runs Forbidden Lands once a month at my local game shop (the Purple Fox).

[Raellus]

Can PC groups be subdivided for separate Recon roles while attempting to sneak up on OFOR?

For example, a group of PCs are going to attempt a POW rescue. They want to get closer to the camp without being spotted. A couple of the PCs have Recon B. The others have C or D (or no score at all).

Could I split the groups- have the stealthier one approach the camp from the SW and the less stealthy one approach from the SE- and roll Group Recon separately? My gut says the answer is yes, but I don't want to play too fast and loose with the rules.

Is the above a legit application, or am I gaming the system?

-

[Heffe]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Can PC groups be subdivided for separate Recon roles while attempting to sneak up on OFOR?

For example, a group of PCs are going to attempt a POW rescue. They want to get closer to the camp without being spotted. A couple of the PCs have Recon B. The others have C or D (or no score at all).

Could I split the groups- have the stealthier one approach the camp from the SW and the less stealthy one approach from the SE- and roll Group Recon separately? My gut says the answer is yes, but I don't want to play too fast and loose with the rules.

Is the above a legit application, or am I gaming the system?

-

I don't recall anything in the rules against it, or even the rules mentioning a scenario like that. It makes sense to me. If I had a group of PCs that ended up splitting up into multiple groups when approaching a camp, I'd have each group roll independently.

Maybe it feels like gaming the system because knowledge of who is stealthier might be considered meta knowledge? But then, a group of people in real life would probably have an idea of who was able to move more quietly (e.g. who was clumsier, who walked louder, etc.).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Heffe

Maybe it feels like gaming the system because knowledge of who is stealthier might be considered meta knowledge? But then, a group of people in real life would probably have an idea of who was able to move more quietly (e.g. who was clumsier, who walked louder, etc.).

That's a good point. In some cases, it would be obvious to the PC (the sniper and the former Ranger, for example, would know that they were relatively stealthy, and the mechanic probably realizes that she's not), but some characters might overestimate their stealthiness.

I suppose that even with guestimating, sub-groups would probably contain individuals with skill differences of only +1 or -1, which is pretty close. If one were to implement the Help rule, the difference would offset.

-

[Raellus]

If I'm reading the rules right, the only way a Medical Aid roll can heal a wounded character is if the character is incapacitated or the wound was the result of a critical hit. I don't see anything about healing a wound that is neither incapacitating or critical. Is this correct?

Let's a say a character with 5HP takes 1HP damage. It's not a crit, and it's not incapacitating. Can a successful Medical Aid roll heal that damage?

-

[Heffe]

Originally Posted by Raellus

If I'm reading the rules right, the only way a Medical Aid roll can heal a wounded character is if the character is incapacitated or the wound was the result of a critical hit. I don't see anything about healing a wound that is neither incapacitating or critical. Is this correct?

Let's a say a character with 5HP takes 1HP damage. It's not a crit, and it's not incapacitating. Can a successful Medical Aid roll heal that damage?

-

That's my read of the rules as well from pg 73.

FURTHER RECOVERY
"Once back on your feet, you will heal 1 point of remaining damage for
each full shift spent resting or sleeping (page 148). This assumes that
you are not starving, dehydrated, or hypothermic (page 78). You can
heal damage and stress at the same time."

One other piece to note though that I think might get overlooked, is infection. From the same page:

INFECTED WOUNDS
"If you suffer 1 point of damage or more from an external attack, you
risk infection. Unless you are treated with a MEDICAL AID roll within a
shift after taking damage, you must make an infection roll (page 81) to
resist falling ill. Antibiotics give a +3 modifier to the roll. You can treat
yourself, as long as you’re not incapacitated."

Infections can get pretty nasty pretty quickly, especially for characters that are already low on HP. A failed roll or two is often enough to put them over the line.

FL I think tried to lean toward the simplicity in other TTRPGs when it comes to wounds. Nothing in the rules really talks about things like the use of first aid kits, the importance of (clean) bandages, etc., when talking about taking wounds. Even for really beefy characters, unless they get incapacitated or critted, they'll typically heal to normal within a few shifts. This brings it more in line with games like D&D, where a character can go from death's door to completely fine within 8 hours. Something's lost in terms of realism there for sure, but it seems like it's a known trade off to keep PCs moving.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Heffe

One other piece to note though that I think might get overlooked, is infection.

Infections can get pretty nasty pretty quickly, especially for characters that are already low on HP. A failed roll or two is often enough to put them over the line.

Great point (and a rule that I'd accidentally overlooked). So, even though it looks like successful application of Medical Aid doesn't result in a non-incapacitated, non-critically injured PC recovering any HP, it doesn't prevent the potentially incapacitating (or even deadly) knock-on effects of infection.
Worth it!

Originally Posted by Heffe

FL I think tried to lean toward the simplicity in other TTRPGs when it comes to wounds. Nothing in the rules really talks about things like the use of first aid kits, the importance of (clean) bandages, etc., when talking about taking wounds. Even for really beefy characters, unless they get incapacitated or critted, they'll typically heal to normal within a few shifts. This brings it more in line with games like D&D, where a character can go from death's door to completely fine within 8 hours. Something's lost in terms of realism there for sure, but it seems like it's a known trade off to keep PCs moving.

Agreed. I don't have a big problem with this. Recovering from a bullet wound after a day or two of rest isn't realistic, but it's no fun when your PC can't do anything for a full game session (or several), just to keep it "real". It is, after all a game, and games should be fun.

The way I play this rapid healing off IG is that wounds resulting in 1-2 HP reductions are grazes (or bruised ribs [torso], or concussion [head]). Fortunately, my PCs haven't sustained any incapacitating or critical wounds yet (knock on wood!).

If you're at curious about where most of my recent 4e rules questions are coming from, take a gander at my solo campaign log-ette.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=6793

-

[Heffe]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Great point (and a rule that I'd accidentally overlooked). So, even though it looks like successful application of Medical Aid doesn't result in a non-incapacitated, non-critically injured PC recovering any HP, it doesn't prevent the potentially incapacitating (or even deadly) knock-on effects of infection.
Worth it!



Agreed. I don't have a big problem with this. Recovering from a bullet wound after a day or two of rest isn't realistic, but it's no fun when your PC can't do anything for a full game session (or several), just to keep it "real". It is, after all a game, and games should be fun.

The way I play this rapid healing off IG is that wounds resulting in 1-2 HP reductions are grazes (or bruised ribs [torso], or concussion [head]). Fortunately, my PCs haven't sustained any incapacitating or critical wounds yet (knock on wood!).

If you're at curious about where most of my recent 4e rules questions are coming from, take a gander at my solo campaign log-ette.

https://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=6793

-

I don't mind the fast healing either. It definitely doesn't feel as realistic, but it can sometimes make the game feel like a bit of an action/adventure movie, which I think is more fun given the setting. Characters get shot once or twice, but then before you know it they're back on their feet and in the fight.

[kcdusk]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Can PC groups be subdivided for separate Recon roles while attempting to sneak up on OFOR?

For example, a group of PCs are going to attempt a POW rescue. They want to get closer to the camp without being spotted. A couple of the PCs have Recon B. The others have C or D (or no score at all).

Could I split the groups- have the stealthier one approach the camp from the SW and the less stealthy one approach from the SE- and roll Group Recon separately? My gut says the answer is yes, but I don't want to play too fast and loose with the rules.

Is the above a legit application, or am I gaming the system?

-

I think your doing it right.

Further, you will now have two groups rolling recon. And while one group has a high chance of success and another group a lower chance - overall the chances of someone being spotted has likely gone up due to needing to roll for two groups.

So not only do I think your doing it right, but even if you weren't i don't think your gaming the system because overall you have increased your chance of failure anyway!

[Raellus]

Allowing separate group Recon (i.e. stealth) rolls could also create interesting tactical situations in which the OPFOR detects one PC group but not another (or vice-versa).

I'm not sure how that would work with the Surprise/Initiative rules, though. Off the top of my head, an undetected group could move closer to its opposition while said is preoccupied with an another group.

-

[Heffe]

Most recent info from FL (Tomas officially) regarding how grenade damage works. From the FL forums:

"Hello!

For vehicle cannons 20-40mm, the idea is that they are fired like machine guns (with ammo dice), with the added effect that they also trigger an explosion in the hex where a target is hit. The vehicle cannons are different from the automatic or semi-automatic grenade launchers and mortars in that they are typically aimed at a specific target, not a hex.

And yes, when targeting a hex (not a specific target) with an explosive attack, targets in the blast radius suffer only explosive damage, no direct damage. In the reprint, the direct damage from fragmentation hand grenades has been removed. We will include this change in the updated PDF and errata."

[Heffe]

And some more info from Tomas about how the system is proposed to work in the reprint:

“Hi! This is being adressed in the reprint, and we will of course update the PDF as well and include in an official errata. The new wording on the relevant paragraphs on page 66 in the Player's Manual goes:

AMMO DICE: Firearms give you ammo dice to add to your skill roll. Six such tan colored D6s are included in this boxed set. You can add as many ammo dice to your attack as you like, from zero up to the rate of fire (RoF) rating of your weapon or the number of rounds left in the magazine minus one, whichever is lower. For example, if you have three rounds left, you can add up to two ammo dice.
If you have only one round left, you cannot add any ammo dice to our roll. In this case, or if you choose to use no ammo dice, only one (1) round of ammunition is used in the attack. This is typically only the case for sniper shots (page 63), but can also be useful if you are very low on ammo or your weapon is in a bad condition (low reliability rating).

AMMO SPENT: After your roll, you sum up the D6 digits on all of your ammo dice, then add one (1) to the result. This sum is the total amount of ammunition you have spent on the attack. If the sum on your ammo dice is equal to or more than the number of rounds you have left in the magazine, your magazine is completely emptied.

I hope this clears things up.”

I still have to consider the full impact of the changes, but so far it seems like a positive move. It basically makes it so a flat skill roll is always your first shot, and then subsequent shots would provide ammo dice. It feels pretty clean at first glance.

[Raellus]

It's good to get rules clarification from the source. Thanks for posting those, Heffe.

I've got mixed feelings about a reprint. Of course, it's good to have errors corrected, unclear mechanics clarified, confusing wordings fixed, etc. But it means that the my physical copies will be out-of-date, and I don't feel like paying full price for a few amendments. Hopefully, the PDF version will be updated free of charge.

Also, I asked about potential errata corrections 7 months ago on the Free League T2k forum and Tomas' response was sort of dismissive-

"As for an errata, you're of course welcome report errors, but I can't say that we have seen enough of them yet to merit an official errata."

I guess they've seen enough now.

-

[kcdusk]

Hello team. I have my PC approaching a suspected sniper location which is a 3 story building. Sniper up top, with a novice NPC at street level.

I'm trying to collect all the modifiers that may apply to recon and ambush in this situation as my PC tries to take down the building.

Distance to encounter comes from PDF page 138.
If your in a vehicle and the opposition is on foot there's a -2 to recon (Doesn't apply in this situation).
Weather can impact distance per page 140.
Am i missing any other modifiers in the payer or ref manuals?

[Raellus]

If the sniper spots your NPC and takes an aimed shot at him/her, the sniper gets a +1 modifier for firing from an elevated position.

-

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

I haven't examined this issue in detail yet but it seems like the easy fix is to give MGs a limited ability to ignore 1s on ammo dice - possibly ignore the first X 1s, where X equals half of current Reliability, rounded up (so at Reliability 5, you'd have to roll four 1s to affect Reliability and five 1s to jam - not counting any 1s on your base attack dice). This would reflect their designed capability for reliable sustained automatic fire in a better way than just pointing to the action economy advantage of belt feed.

They still have the disadvantages of encumbrance, reduced performance when hip-fired, and high consumption of your most precious natural resource (i.e., lead).

Another update after 12 sessions and 8 combats of play in my current campaign. We have one machinegunner (a very large Estonian with an MG3) in the party; everyone else is using an assault rifle, sniper rifle, or (sigh) SMG + machete combo.

Our table's implementation has been to ignore 1s on pushed ammo dice. When pushing a machine gun attack, only 1s on the base dice will reduce Reliability or cause jams.

Observation in play is that this doesn’t seem to be game-breaking. Balancing factors include increased ammo consumption (he’s encouraged to use his full ROF more, so his 7.62x51mm supply has been dwindling) and rigid enforcement of the penalty for hip-shooting a MG (p. 65 for those following along in the Player’s Manual). The net effect is that he spends the first turn or two of combat getting into a good shooting location with partial cover before he opens up, which, to my mind, is functioning as designed. He has jammed twice with double 1s on base dice, and he usually loses at least one point of Reliability each combat (which sucks up downtime actions for the party's techs to address).

- C.

[kcdusk]

I'd love to hear of more in game examples, and learnings. Or AARs to see what others are up to in their games, and even check modifiers and die rolls to see if they/I am interpreting rules correctly.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

I'd love to hear of more in game examples, and learnings. Or AARs to see what others are up to in their games, and even check modifiers and die rolls to see if they/I am interpreting rules correctly.

Not exactly what you're seeking, but I've been chronicling my campaign on my gaming blog at https://libellus.de-fenestra.com. There's a chronological index of campaign-specific posts here.

- C.

[kcdusk]

Agh that's excellent, thanks for the link. Looking forward to some great reading there.

I know long stories are not everyone cup of tea to write up, so my comment was aimed at anyone who wanted to only write up brief encounter AAR with no expectations of expansive creative writing.

[Tegyrius]

Something that came up in last Friday's session of my campaign: vehicle commanders aren't that useful in coordinating crew actions. Solution:

Vehicle Command: As a slow action, the vehicle commander may coordinate the actions of his vehicle's crew. Make a Command check. With success, this counts as help (Player's Guide, p. 46) for each other crew member's actions this turn.

The timing for this wasn't an issue because of our house rules on initiative, though I can see how it could be difficult for tables that are using the book rules (even with the ability to exchange initiative with allies).

In the interest of balance, we restricted the benefit to actual crew positions, not passengers. There was some debate about whether human cargo using firing ports should benefit, but I felt that was excessive. If you want an in-game rationale, assume that only the actual crew seats have jacks for the vehicle’s intercom.

The main benefit here was to make the player running the vehicle commander (Ellis, for those following the campaign blog) feel like his XP investment in Command was paying off. So I'm counting it as provisionally successful.

- C.

[Raellus]

Good thinking. I like this idea enough to use it. I would probably add the specific caveat that the PC must be a vehicle commander and not just any officer occupying a command position in the vehicle in order for the Help roll to apply to vehicular ops. A vehicle commander would have the knowledge and experience to effectively direct their vehicle crew during combat. An infantry, officer, for example, would likely have a good grip on infantry tactics, but probably wouldn't know enough about vehicle capabilities, crew roles and responsibilities, and/or the nuances of mounted combat to be particularly helpful (I could even see a non-vehicle commander officer character being a hindrance to crew effectiveness).

Are you thinking that this application of the Help roll would apply to both vehicle combat and driving checks? I would argue that it should.

-

[Tegyrius]

Attacks, driving, comms or sensor use - any reasonable crew actions that would benefit from overall coordination.

- C.

[Raellus]

I may have already asked this question, but it's been almost a year since I've played the game, so...

Can a PC Help another on an opposed Recon roll for a Group Ambush situation?

Here's the situation: I've got two PCs trying to get into a position to observe an enemy POW camp (and eventually, attack the guards). Since they are trying to get into an OP without being detected by the enemy sentries, I assume that I need to follow the rules for Group Ambush, which involves making opposed skill rolls.

One PC has INT A and Recon C, the other has INT B and Recon C. According to the Group Ambush rules, I have to roll for the PC with the lower Recon skill level. Both PCs have Recon C, but I assume that I should then use the lower of the two Ability scores to determine which PC rolls. Is that correct?

The two PCs already have favorable modifiers (+2 total) for distance (200m) and terrain (forest), but I would like to increase the odds of success by having the PC with the higher Recon skill Help the PC with the lower skill level, thereby adding another +1 modifier to the Group Ambush roll. Is that possible/correct? I don't see anything in the rules saying otherwise but I'd like to make sure I didn't miss- or misinterpret- anything.

-

[Tegyrius]

I have not been interpreting the group stealth rules as allowing assistance. No matter how good the team ninja is, they can't fix Noisy McTanglefoot's fundamental lack of investment in Recon.

When there's doubt about the "lowest" skill, I use the probability table on p. 46 to settle the debate.

- C.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

I have not been interpreting the group stealth rules as allowing assistance. No matter how good the team ninja is, they can't fix Noisy McTanglefoot's fundamental lack of investment in Recon.

I see your point, and I agree (to a point). If stealth was purely a physical task, it'd be hard to explain how one person could help another. On the other hand, part of stealth is fieldcraft, and that can be taught/modeled by someone with greater expertise. A more stealthy individual could offer helpful advice like, "Slow down. Look where you step. Avoid those dried twigs. Don't silhouette yourself on that crestline. Stay in the shadows." etc.

-

[kcdusk]

Maybe it can be modelled and some teaching can happen. Might incur a time cost though. So instead of taking 10 minutes to get into position, it takes an hour.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

Maybe it can be modelled and some teaching can happen. Might incur a time cost though. So instead of taking 10 minutes to get into position, it takes an hour.

I like that idea. Unfortunately, early consensus seems to be that opposed recon rolls can't be helped (at all). I'm still waiting for a few more people to weigh in before I decide if it's kosher or not.

Here's another question: An enemy soldier lobs a grenade over a wall towards the PCs. He can't see them, but he has an idea where they are (he saw them move into [suspected] position the previous round). The rules say that for a ranged attack, the attacker must have LOS or they have to use the Indirect Fire rules. Looking at the latter, indirect fire requires a Forward Observer with LOS to the target. So, it appears that the rules don't allow for a grenade attack like the one described above. That's really unrealistic. Am I missing something?

-