What do you think of a tick system?

[Stacie GmrGrl]

We've been using the tick-based Exalted 2e combat system. It's taken a bit of getting used to, but then it works fine.

It certainly opens up some interesting design spaces, like pricing weapons by their bonus in accuracy, defense ("parry"), damage and speed -- but I'm not sure the added complexity is worth it.

D&D has some inherent action limitations, which are a central part of combat balance: you can't take two Minor actions per round, for example. Exalted 2e has different limits, but those limits are no less harsh: the limit on Charm use per DV refresh, for example, or the high cost of Combos (both creation and use). If you decide to make D&D tick-based, you'll have to find a way to ensure the system still accounts for these implicit limitations.

Cheers, -- N

The great thing behind a tick system is that those limitations, Minor, Move and Standard Actions are now tossed out the window. They are gone because they are no longer called Minor, Move and Standard actions. You just give them a numerical equivalent, and their numerical equivalent is what would distinguish them.

It's just a different paradigm shift of perspective, that's all.

 

[steenan]

I've never implemented such a system with d20 mechanics, but it seems a fun idea. It will be quite complicated, though.

My ideas:
1. For weapons, create speed categories for unarmed attacks, light weapons, one-handed, two-handed and two-handed with reach. Two-weapon fighting reduces weapon tick cost if the attack is made with a different weapon than a previous one. Increasing level reduces all weapon tick costs, to reflect 3e iterative attacks.
2. Spells are much easier to interrupt, but it is a feature, not a bug. If the casting time depend on spell level, it makes high level spellcasters casting high-level spells more vulnerable, while low-level spells are fast enough to be easily cast in combat. It does a lot to increase game balance.
3. Opportunity attacks should be removed. As moves, spells etc. are no longer instantaneous, you may just attack before they are finished.
4. Delays and readied actions become the same thing - a one-tick action that does nothing.

 

[GnomeWorks]

If you used Tick systems in d20 games, how did you set up the different actions for d20?

Well... for one thing, it's a bit messier. I posted such a system awhile ago, but that was using a previous version of initiative system, which wasn't as good.

Part of the problem is that d20 isn't built with this kind of initiative system in mind. It doesn't track weight the same way Journey does, which we did specifically because we knew we wanted to use it for this purpose, so you don't really have a reliable mechanic to balance speed against.

The other thing is that d20 assumes that you'll be taking multiple actions each turn, which we don't do. The existence of the 5-foot step precludes you from just ruling that you can only take one action each round.

We have an alternate, simpler method of calculating action costs, which might work in d20. Let me see what I can whip up, and I'll post a link here to it for you.

 

[GnomeWorks]

Link to what I came up with.

Keep in mind that, as I mentioned in my earlier post, you either have to (1) maintain D&D's action system, allowing each character a standard and move action each round, or (2) eliminate the 5-foot step.

If you remove a character's ability to move and attack a creature, but keep the 5-foot step present, you wind up with situations where a creature can just keep 5-foot stepping out of the way of the character.

I decided to go with the first option, keeping D&D's allotment of actions on a given turn (that is, a character can take a move action and a standard action), and keeping the 5-foot step around. You certainly don't have to, though, just keep in mind that if you allow only one action on a turn, you have to ditch the 5-foot step, or else give it an action cost (probably Quick).

 

[Blackbrrd]

We've been using the tick-based Exalted 2e combat system. It's taken a bit of getting used to, but then it works fine.

It certainly opens up some interesting design spaces, like pricing weapons by their bonus in accuracy, defense ("parry"), damage and speed -- but I'm not sure the added complexity is worth it.

D&D has some inherent action limitations, which are a central part of combat balance: you can't take two Minor actions per round, for example. Exalted 2e has different limits, but those limits are no less harsh: the limit on Charm use per DV refresh, for example, or the high cost of Combos (both creation and use). If you decide to make D&D tick-based, you'll have to find a way to ensure the system still accounts for these implicit limitations.

Cheers, -- N

You can do two minor actions, but the second one comes at the expense of a move or standard action.

 

[Thanee]

Several years ago, I made something similar for Shadowrun (2nd Edition ), but I doubt that it would be much use for D&D (the system is too complex to accomodate to such drastic changes easily). In SR it worked very smoothly, though.

The system we used worked about like this (for Shadowrun, of course):

A combat turn is broken down into 10 segments (1 second each).
You have a number of action points per combat turn based on your initiative value.
The action points are distributed evenly (using a fixed spread) over the 10 segments.
Each segment you spend your action points to pay for the action you want to perform.
Once you have spent enough action points to fully pay for the action, you perform it.
Movement does not cost actions (as normal for SR), but adds penalties to actions,
when you move during a segment in which you paid for your current action.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

In our experience, tick-based initiatives work out amazingly well. It gives combat a much more fluid feel.

Yep, that is my experience as well. Once everyone is fluent with such a system, combat really flows as well.

Bye
Thanee

 

[evildmguy]

Back in the days of 1E/2E, I was influenced by the gold boxed games and started using a grid because of that game. Due to various arguments, we messed around with the system.

I am fuzzy on the details, though but here are the basics.

Init was a ten sided plus Dex mod. I counted down from 20 to 1. Once a person's initiative number had passed, they could move 10', or 2 squares, per number. They could also do an attack but their next attack, if they had more, was based on speed factor of the weapon, modified by mastery and magic bonus. Then, at 1, initiative started over with new rolls. This meant that at higher levels, a character might not get all attacks if they can't finish by 1. Monsters got some attacks at the same time, such as a claw/claw but not the bite. Spells and spell casting could be disrupted on an attack that caused damage in that round.

The idea was to give daggers a bonus versus two handed based on how we understood attacking with them. We weren't experts by any means.

That was the general idea. What it did was allow the high initiative bonus go first, when there was a dispute about who could have done what. Such as killing a monster before a second character can stop the first character when the second character is across the room.

edg

 

[jdrakeh]

I like tick-based combat. Arduin has had one since the early 80s and that is where my first exposure to the concept came. As somebody else mentioned, it seems that combat flows more smoothly with a tick-based system once everybody adjusts to it.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

Link to what I came up with.

Keep in mind that, as I mentioned in my earlier post, you either have to (1) maintain D&D's action system, allowing each character a standard and move action each round, or (2) eliminate the 5-foot step.

If you remove a character's ability to move and attack a creature, but keep the 5-foot step present, you wind up with situations where a creature can just keep 5-foot stepping out of the way of the character.

I decided to go with the first option, keeping D&D's allotment of actions on a given turn (that is, a character can take a move action and a standard action), and keeping the 5-foot step around. You certainly don't have to, though, just keep in mind that if you allow only one action on a turn, you have to ditch the 5-foot step, or else give it an action cost (probably Quick).

Thank you for the link, really nice of you