4e Mechanics & Rules Discussion

[Spartan-117]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

One thing I thought was often overlooked in games was 'the dead guy's gear.' i had a brief exposure to a 4e online game and we had a dead guy in the Bradley when we started in media res. So I said to the GM 'what about his gear? What are we doing about that?' And he was like 'uh, what do you mean?' So I was like 'well surely the guy has gear.' And the GM was like 'we're not divvying up a dead NPC's gear.'

I saw a facebook post by Maciej Komaszyło about finding shelter in the TW2K world. He pointed out that 50% of the world died and many of those deaths were due to famine and disease. So empty houses/apartments/dwellings should be prevalent.

This is my thought as well. Were all the dead buried with their worldly possessions like Egyptian pharos? Prolly not.

I mean, the Ukranians are arming up with WW2 DP-27 MGs.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...%20in%20Russia.

At the end of the world, people and not-easily manufactured consumables are going to be scarce, but relatively durable goods (Rifles, Bayonets, LBE components, Rucksacks - which 4e treats like unicorns BTW - etc.) are going to be plentiful, IMHO.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Spartan-117

At the end of the world, people and not-easily manufactured consumables are going to be scarce, but relatively durable goods (Rifles, Bayonets, LBE components, Rucksacks - which 4e treats like unicorns BTW - etc.) are going to be plentiful, IMHO.

I got a rucksack but the gear I had would have fitted in my pockets...

[Heffe]

Agreed that 4e feels very limited when it comes to gear, especially when stacked up against 1 and 2.

Not only that, but one part of 4e I'm not big on at all is the encumbrance abstraction. I get that they were trying to streamline the rules, but the whole 3kg per unit of weight thing just feels weird and wrong to me. Much prefer the earlier versions where players can track gear on a per lb./kg basis.

Anyone know if there's been some character sheets for 4e created that fiddle with the equipment section to bring it more in line with previous versions?

[Spartan-117]

My quick fix for the EU problem is that each PC should just multiply their carrying capacity by 3 (which gives the amount of kilograms they can carry) and then account for stuff in KGs from that point on, using older sources or Paul's site, with the exception of clothing and LBE.

So a STR 8 PC who would normally carry 8 EU of gear, would be able to carry 24 kg of gear on their person, and another 24kg in their pack.

Every game I've been in has had PCs want gear that doesn't appear in the book. Converting those to EU is more complex than just dealing with their KG weights.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Spartan-117

My quick fix for the EU problem is that each PC should just multiply their carrying capacity by 3 (which gives the amount of kilograms they can carry) and then account for stuff in KGs from that point on, using older sources or Paul's site, with the exception of clothing and LBE.

So a STR 8 PC who would normally carry 8 EU of gear, would be able to carry 24 kg of gear on their person, and another 24kg in their pack.

Every game I've been in has had PCs want gear that doesn't appear in the book. Converting those to EU is more complex than just dealing with their KG weights.

I did the same for Mutant: YEAR ZERO, and I'd also convert Ranges back to meters. I like to different map scales based on whether the engagement is several hundred meters or just a few meters apart. Don't give me an arbitrary scale, give me a distance that I CAN SCALE to my maps or battle board.

[kcdusk]

My PC just fired an aimed shot at an NPCs head, and hit him.

Did 3 points of damage due to a single success.

The game moved on. My reading of the rules is that it doesn't matter if you get hit in the leg, arm or head, there is no benefit in hitting someone in the head or torso unless you also qualify for a critical hit.

So taking an aimed shot and hitting a called target doesn't give you much benefit unless you roll two or more successes/hits to qualify for the critical.

In my case, running a solo game, i house ruled that a called shot also qualifies for a critical hit, even if there's only one success.

[Spartan-117]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

My PC just fired an aimed shot at an NPCs head, and hit him.

Did 3 points of damage due to a single success.

The game moved on. My reading of the rules is that it doesn't matter if you get hit in the leg, arm or head, there is no benefit in hitting someone in the head or torso unless you also qualify for a critical hit.

So taking an aimed shot and hitting a called target doesn't give you much benefit unless you roll two or more successes/hits to qualify for the critical.

In my case, running a solo game, i house ruled that a called shot also qualifies for a critical hit, even if there's only one success.

If he had a vest on and no helmet, then you avoided armor reducing the damage. If he had a helmet on and no vest, you just reduced your own damage. So even without critical hits, it can be useful to perform an aimed shot.

[unipus]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

My PC just fired an aimed shot at an NPCs head, and hit him.

Did 3 points of damage due to a single success.

The game moved on. My reading of the rules is that it doesn't matter if you get hit in the leg, arm or head, there is no benefit in hitting someone in the head or torso unless you also qualify for a critical hit.

So taking an aimed shot and hitting a called target doesn't give you much benefit unless you roll two or more successes/hits to qualify for the critical.

In my case, running a solo game, i house ruled that a called shot also qualifies for a critical hit, even if there's only one success.

That's correct, and a bit contentious. My own house ruling on this has been that any hit to the head causes automatic suppression.

[Raellus]

"Rolled" up my first couple of characters using the archetype method. The process was surprisingly fast and resulted in characters that feel balanced.

I know that some people really enjoy the char-gen process but it's one of my least favorite aspects of T2k. Even though I'm more interested in role playing than "roll playing", I tend to get fixated on maximizing PC skill efficiency and effectiveness (min-maxing, I think this is called). The more steps, pieces (abilities, skills, etc.), and maths there are, the more frustrated I find myself becoming. In v1-2.2, there are a lot more steps, so to speak. I've gen'd up PCs using really well-thought out point-buy systems for skills, adding even more granularity to the process. It often takes quite a while. In PbP, it's taken 4-6 players a couple of weeks to finish char-gen. I imagine if this were translated to FtF, it would have taken at least a couple of hours. At the end of it all, I usually feel like a have a PC that's a jack-of-all trades but master of none (or one, at most). And if you're a player or Ref whose actually used the Parachute skill in a game, I'd love to hear the story!

In 4e, there are still choices, but they feel more clear cut, and there was significantly less agonizing during selection. It's clear that a PC can't be good at everything one might want him/her to be. It's easier to focus and prioritize when there are fewer choices to make. It took me about 10 minutes, consulting the rule book for every step, to gen up the first trial PC. After than, I could crank one out in about 5 minutes. This seems pretty ideal for players who want to jump right in and start playing right the game.

Of course, it remains to be seen how these archetype build PCs actually play in a campaign, when faced with skill checks and combat. I may change my mind after giving them a test drive or two (if they survive that long).

-

[kcdusk]

Character creation and T2K timeline are the two things i care about the least. I find both uninteresting, easy to house rule yourself to get the result you want and entirely personal.

I first got into RPGs back in the late 70's (?!). My cousin, who i used to see 3 or 4 times a year, used to Ref while i played. I first remember playing Top Secret. He always made me roll up a rookie character. After a few games, i got sick of it though. I kept dieing and could never grow my PC. But he was relentless in me starting as a rookie PC.

Same thing happened when we moved on to James Bond, which is still one of the best game systems i've seen. My rookie taking on single or multiple "double 0" NPCs. By then i was a bit older and wiser. Had read the rules myself, and knew there was a way to make a "00" character using the rule book.

But personally, i choose or let my players decide what their character is, then just reflect the numbers on the character sheet. No rolling, very little editing, no link back to the rule book. Just make up whatever character you want. Its quicker, and gets the Ref and player into the game of their choice straight away.

Good luck running your characters through their first few encounters. I'm close to writing up my own adventure in the "Post Apocalypse Creative writing" thread. Or maybe i'll just post the encounters in my own thread here. My character, mission, random encounters and how i've interpreted the V4.0 rules.

[Heffe]

I've rolled up a good dozen or so chars for 4e using the life path method (on top of translating the char-gen rules into a flowchart), and I've been pretty happy with it as a character generation method. IMO, the 4e rules are a bit of a give and take over the older rule sets, but on the whole, I find them to be a tad better.

Pros:

• Less options leads to less analysis paralysis.
• Not only kept, but streamlined the life path method from 2e, which was always one of my favorite aspects.
• Once you get your feet under you, it's undeniably fast. If you're willing to just accept whatever the dice rolls, it can be even faster. I imagine someone could program out an automatic character generator (if it hasn't happened already) relatively quickly.

Cons:

• It's simple. Perhaps overly so. There's a part of me that misses the higher number of attributes and extreme number of skills. Sometimes the lack of skills don't make a ton of sense, such as how a race car driver suddenly is an expert at driving a tank.
• Specialties seem like a bit of a waste to me. FL could have done something with specialties that could give them a little more pop than just a +1 on skill rolls. As is, they all feel a little generic.
• The Life Path method can occasionally result in some poorly balanced characters within the same group. Depending upon someone's attribute score rolling, you could have one character with a ACCC in their skills, with another character that had an AAAC in their skills. I end up just giving all of my players 4 points to distribute just to keep it balanced.

[kcdusk]

Question on specialties. Does it say anywhere how many you get during character generation?

Or can you add a specialty during a campaign? Or is it simply one specialty skill per PC?

[Heffe]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

Question on specialties. Does it say anywhere how many you get during character generation?

Or can you add a specialty during a campaign? Or is it simply one specialty skill per PC?

I believe if you go with the archetype method, you only get a single starting specialty. If you go life path method though, it can vary quite a bit based upon when war breaks out and how well you roll for promotions. I think my record was five or six specialties on one character, but most ended up with 2 or 3. It should be noted that generally speaking, life path method characters will be a little stronger than the archetype characters, due to the high chance for more attribute points (2 to 6 instead of a flat +3) and the added specialties.

[Raellus]

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...").

-

[Jason]

One big advantage of the Archetype method of chargen is the ability to pick any Specialty, yes, lifepath gives more Specialties, but since it is random, it is possible to end up without what one may consider a 'defining' trait. I made a couple of lifepath characters to be translators, and neither got the Specialty to speak another language.

I ran an ad hoc, shake-and-bake session at Adepticon, and we used Archetype chargen only, and it is nice when you are introducing the game to new players to be able to make playable characters in such a short time.

If I were going to be a player in a campaign, I would choose Lifepath, because it gives characters more......character. But, even min/maxers could do worse than the Operator Archetype with Sniper or Combat Awareness; they may not be old-school snake-eaters, but they can still do work.

[Heffe]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.