What do you think of a tick system?

[Stacie GmrGrl]

My local gaming group, while we enjoy rolling for initiative, after playing a heavy done of exalted we are thinking of importing the tick system for our Pathfinder game, and I was just wondering if anybody has ever done this before and could give me some advice or how it has worked in your games?

Visually I can see it working. The Initiative roll can be the Join Battle roll. Whoever rolls highest goes on tick 0. tied go in the same tick. The next highest roll goes in the next tick up. Or for every 4 difference to the initiative roll you start one tick slower, up to a maximum of 6.

From there, just do actions based on your tick spot.

Standard Action = 4 ticks.
Full Action = 5 ticks.
Move Action = 2 ticks.
Delay Action = 2 ticks.
etc...some actions can have their ticks modified by feats.

Like, Weapon Focus could be a -1 tick modifier to attacks with Swords, for example.

Has anybody ever tried this or something similar to this?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Count down from highest initiative to lowest; it works very well, and people who are not paying attention either go late or miss their turn.

 

[Crothian]

WE didn't like the tick system. It brings back weapon speeds and segments and things we didn't like from earlier editions. But if your group did like it then go for it!!

 

[Flatus Maximus]

Have you seen Hackmaster Basic?

How 'bout: weapon ticks = (max weapon damage)/2, move tick = 5 ft, 10 ft if running, spell ticks = spell level.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I like the idea (or something similar) applied to 3e, but haven't made it work successfully.

The biggest problem encountered was with spell casting: it becomes a LOT easier to interrupt a standard action spell when it's stretched out over several ticks. So you may have to reconsider how Concentration works, or something along those lines.

There's also some ambiguity that happens when you try to integrate full round attacks & multiple attacks (eg, TW): exactly how/when does each attack resolve, as well as 5ft steps. And will you allow simultaneous actions? Etc. If I can dig up my notes, I'll post.

There's a lot to consider... enough that our heads swam. But I hope someone else has figured it out, because I'd *really* like to see a workable system, as well!

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

For spellcasting, the act of casting a spell, if its a standard action, would take a standard action tick speed.

For multiple attacks, create a Flurry action, give different weapons different attack rates and when using that weapon you can only flurry up to the weapons attack rate.

A single attack could be 4 ticks...a Flurry action could be 6 ticks, and each attack in the flurry could be at a -2 incremental penalty to successive attacks. -2 to first, -4 to second, -6 to third, etc.

And the tick system would work in an incremental fashion.

If you go on tick 3, and you do a 5 tick action, you go again on tick 8. You do a tick 4 action, then you move to tick 12, you delay and go to tick 13, then you do a full charge which could be 5 ticks, and move to tick 18 for your next action.

Maybe some attacks can be quicker, but do less damage. Or, you take a higher tick speed action, but it does more damage.

Interrupting casting...take the Delay Action, which delays you a ticks, but during those ticks your delaying, waiting for an opening, and then on a later tick you can act and interrupt another action, like somebody casting a spell.

Conditions that effect it also. Let's say being stunned causes a tick 3 penalty, so if you would have gone on tick 9, now you go on tick 12 to simulate being stunned and dazed. This can probably be followed up by a chain of attacks...first you stun somebody, then if you attack them in their stun state (from tick 10 to 11), you can do a follow up action that gets a bonus off that stun state. Maybe it does more damage, or its easier to perform other actions, like grapples and tripss and disarms.

 

[GnomeWorks]

The game system I'm working on uses a tick initiative system. You can find it here; while the actual mechanics aren't d20, you can probably reverse-engineer it well enough for d20.

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

 

[Piratecat]

This is how Feng Shui works. I have it functioning nice and quickly in that system, with a little practice, but I wouldn't want to retrofit D&D for it. For me, that'd be too many house rules for too little benefit.

 

[Nifft]

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

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

The game system I'm working on uses a tick initiative system. You can find it here; while the actual mechanics aren't d20, you can probably reverse-engineer it well enough for d20.

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

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

I love tick systems and if it could be worked into d20, It'd be a great option compared to the last ten years. I won't say improvement because i can't speak for everybody. It might be an improvement, but rolling for initiative and then going in a structured turn order just makes things utterly boring.