Possible Combat Actions

So I'm creating a tick-based combat system and therefore I need to make an exhaustive list of possible combat actions that someone might wish to take and assign tick-costs to them. However, I'm not entirely certain I have covered all possible actions one might conceive of, so I come to Veeky Forums for assistance. Bear in mind the overall setting is a sort of high-ish fantasy cosmology which has reached a post-industrial/pre-modern technology level (though a great deal of the world still lags behind in a sort of medieval/renaissance era). Do you think this list looks complete to you? Anyway, the list is as follows;

>Melee attacks
>Grapple/wrestle (include tackles/charges/rushes)
>Shoot a bow
>Shoot a crossbow
>Load a crossbow
>Load flint/match/wheel/caplock pistol
>Fire pistol
>Load musket/rifle
>Fire musket/rifle
>Load caplock revolver
>Fire caplock revolver
>Throw something
>Operate siege machinery/weapon emplacements
>Mount a horse/creature
>Operate/Start a vehicle (train, boat etc.)
>Patch a wound/Stabilise a fallen ally
>Drag a body/heavy object
>Push a heavy object
>Tie/Untie knots
>Pick a lock/Lock a door
>Smash/kick down a door
>Open a door
>Use a lever/button/etc.
>Place a trap
>Disarm a trap
>Sprint/run/move
>Shout a short phrase
>Extended speech
>Cast a spell
>Pray for divine intervention
>Perform a magical ritual
>Drink a potion/Apply lotions/tinctures etc.
>Climb up/down something

And I think that's all I've got. Any additional ideas would be welcome as I'd prefer to avoid running into missing thongs in the playtest phase. Also do you think any of these need to be subdivided into different speeds? If so, why?

Other urls found in this thread:

www94.zippyshare.com/v/IJuZMfcf/file.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Oh I guess I forgot to include some other actions which are continuous like holding a defensive posture but i don't want to assign a fixed cost to such a thing obviously.

This is just supposed to be a list of plausible combat actions by the way, not necessarily ones that are likely or common. I'm just trying to cover all bases here so don't be deterred from adding something unusual to this list. If you can justify how it would be done in combat then I'm adding it to the list.

The more you try to model within the limits of human capability, the more you must sacrifice either speed or realism.

I think it is better to have fewer, more general actions.

>Action economy

I have to ask, what's your end game here OP?

Old school dungeons and dragons had a whole set of complicated rules for initiative modifiers and there's a reason why all most no one use them.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea just have a clear idea what you think it will bring other then adding extra rules for the sake of it?

Man I wish you guys were in the previous threads I posted. For the third time then I'll explain what I'm doing.

Basically I'm attempting to create an RPG with a more realistic, reactive combat system than a traditional turn-based system. After thinking a lot, seeking advice from Veeky Forums, and reading around, I realised my only option was a count-up system wherein combat progresses in a tick by tick manner and each person chooses an action which has a certain tick cost. Then as the tick progresses, actions play out in the order of their action speed. Envision the following scenario.

>Player 1 could begin casting a spell at enemy X on the first tick, which has a tick cost of 4.
>Player 2 chooses to fire his pistol, a tick cost of 2, at an enemy Y.
>After two ticks have passed, P2 shoots Y, assuming Y hasn't used those two ticks to move out of line of sight or something. P1 is still in the process of casting a spell however so they have no "turn"/action yet.
>P2 now chooses their next action, to run, for a tick cost of say 1, over to protect P1 from X who is currently charging towards P1 for a melee strike
>P2 arrives after the tick passes and now chooses to adopt a defensive stance for an indeterminate amount of ticks, they may choose to cancel this at any future tick and take an action if they so wish
>On the next tick P1 finally casts their spell and kills X, hurray.

All very straightforward agreed? What I'm really here to ask though is if any of you have played this type of system before (I believe Hackmaster is one such system). If you have, what was your experience? Did you find it better or worse than other systems? What were the pros/cons? Those who haven't are also welcome to offer opinions. How would you feel about playing such a system? What problems or edge cases can you imagine? Thanks in advance guys, I can't really playtest this yet as I haven't enough of a system behind it and nobody to playtest with anyway

Just pasted my previous OP. So as you can see I'm throwing out initiative altogether. I already got good feedback in the last thread about how to handle this sort of system so I don't really need further answers to those questions at the end. But now I'm just trying to go through the slog of assigning accurate tick costs to all possible combat actions.

Yes I too would like to generalise actions but in order to do that I first need a long list of all possible things in detail so i can sensibly generalise and group certain actions. Also I just want to make sure I haven't missed anything obvious. So do you think I covered all possible actions with the list as it stands?

>I have to ask, what's your end game here OP?
I think he is doing like leading edge games.

At first leading edge games, sword path glory, each turn was 1/12 of a second. And each action, cost X turns based on character stats, skills, and items needed to do the job. At a turn people can wait, do some action or do nothing. If he decide to do an action that cost 10 turns, at the end of turn 10, he will do the action.
Everyone move at the same time as its something that contradict another will happen in the same 1/12th fo an second.
Then at their other systems, like phoenix command, based at your stats and skills, you got X points per turn. Each turn being 1 second, if I remember. Each action cost Y points (character dont influence it) and you can do as many actions in a turn as you have points to spend.

Though your explanation is a little messy essentially yes it is like the first one you mentioned. Though I intend for each tick to be much longer than 1/12th of a second. It depends on how this list of actions turns out but I reckon a tick will be equal to approximately 2 seconds.

reminds me of the tick system in dwarf fortress

however running such a game without a computer would be painfully slow with mind numbing amounts of bookkeeping probably

Hah, funny you should say that. Toady is someone I immensely respect for his dedication to realism and Dorf Fort definitely had it's influences on me. However I'm not stupid, I realise that I can't make things anywhere near as detailed without computational power. That said I think I'm reaching a fair compromise zone here.

Perhaps I can link to the previous threads? I don't know if you can do that for archived threads. Here goes nothing.

By the way, this is all good stuff and all but I would appreciate it if you guys could answer the question at hand. Does this look to you like it covers every conceivable action you could consider taking in the setting described above?

Really any additions would be helpful at this point.

Well second edition DND worked a lot like this. Each spell had a casting time, and the more powerful the spell the longer it took.

If a wizard was casting say level five fireball have to start casting it on his turn, then the actually "fire it" when it's ready later down the initiative order.

During which he has to be exposed and open to being attacked and prevented from getting his spell off.

It wasn't neat systerm, but it did deal with a lot of the caster supremacy later editions had. A wizard couldn't rely on getting high level spells off every round. You could just punch him in the face before they got the chance.

Maybe an action to cover stealth?
Some character trying to bypass combat altogether or moving to an advantageous position. It kind of makes sense to me that this would take more time and ticks then normal movement.

Also, I see that the system will have firearms and while I don't know if your combat will include cover there might be a need for a action to cover the shooting from cover.
As in you pop out, fire and go back into cover and unless someone is read to shoot you while you're out you'll be safe(this also goes along well with the whole ticks and realistic timing and timeflow idea i believe)

You'll probably run into issues with slowing the game to a crawl by trying to exhaustively catalog every single possible action and you'll still miss things. It'd probably be safer to come up with a guide that gives rough brackets instead - sure put a big appendix in the back if you want but this way if you run into something you left out it's not a problem because you can eyeball it.

Thanks for he input. I have to say though I'm kinda torn in two over that idea. Of course, I'd considered the stealth skill and how it could be used but it seems to me that it would hard to justify its use after a combat has initiated and both parties are aware of each other.

For sure though you're right that I should probably include a take cover type action. Though I may just fold that into the move action.

fellow system designer here.
>change of position (standing/kneeling/prone)

He addressed that issue already here

I don't know if you read the rest of the thread but I'm not doing what you seem to think I am. I am merely making a list for my own personal reference so that I can then construct more generalised rules (for the players/GMs) which are sure to encompass all of these. Nobody is ever seeing a long list like this, I just want to be sure I'm covering all possible things.

Moving into cover could reasonably be called a move action but I was referring more to the peeking-out-of-cover to shoot action.

Ah of course, that seems like such an obvious one to miss. Thanks man.

I'd probably just fold that into the shoot action to be honest. It's just the aim phase of the shot which you need to do regardless of cover (assuming you aren't blindfiring, but I intend to have options to make all actions either faster but with penalties, or slower but with bonuses and the speedy option would cover blindfire from cover i think).

It might be addressed already by but if your system includes it the players may be knocked back, knocked down, or immobilized in some way(a bola for example or maybe something more exotic) and getting back into a normal position may be considered a separate type of action

Yeah I already responded to that dude, that's a good suggestion.

Sheathing or unsheathing weapons (or the equivalent for weapons without sheaths).

Stringing a bow

Putting on armor, and taking it off

Readying a shield

Open and close a visor.

Pick up an item

Retrieve an item from backpack or pocket

Aiming

Another thing that has occurred to me(kinda weird and really specific but you said anything goes) is a situation in which a character is partially on fire and needs to put himself out by rolling on the ground

If the game has an option for a character to get stunned/concussed or whatever you wanna call it, a character may need to spend an action to clear his head so to speak

JUDGE A TARGET'S DISTANCE AND SIZE
JUDGE A TARGET'S SPEED
DETERMINE WIND DIRECTION AND SPEED
FOOTWORK CVS TARGET'S BALANCE SLl
CROSS A X INCH WIDE BEAM
CROSS A TIGHTROPE
STAND IN A SHALL BOAT
STAND IN A STEADILY HOVING VEHICLE
STAND IN A MANEUVERING VEHICLE
KNEEL IN A STEADILY HOVING VEHICLE
KNEEL IN A MANEUVERING VEHICLE
RUN ON TOP OF A CRENALATED WALL
RUN OVER A FIELD STREWN WITH OBSTACLES
RUN IN A CLUTTERED ROOM
HOVE OVER A FALLEN BODY
RUNNING JUHP. ONTO A MOVING VEHICLE
OUTRUN A PURSUER CROLL FOR EACH PURSUER>
FREE CLIMB A POLE OR FREE HANGING ROPE
FREE CLIMB A SHALL TO MEDIUM TREE WITH BRANCHES
FREE CLIMB A LARGE TREE WITH NO BRANCHES
FREE CLIMB A STONE WALL
CLIMB A WALL WITH THE AID OF A ROPE
CROSS A SINGLE ROPE BRIDGE HAND OVER HAND
CROSS A SINGLE ROPE BRIDGE HAND AND CROSS-LEGGED
CROSS A TWIN ROPE BRIDGE
FREE CLIMB A CLIFF

BLOCK AN ARCHERV PROJECTILE WITH A SHIELD
DEFLECT AN ARCHERY PROJECTILE WITH AN ARM
CATCH AN ARCHERY PROJECTILE IN THE HAND
CATCH A TOSSED WEAPON BY THE HANDLE
SMUGGLE OR FORGE AN ITEM PAST AN INSPECTOR
PLAYING DEAD THROUGH A QUICK GLANCE
CURSORY INSPECTION
CLOSE INSPECTION

Perhaps a "search" action for a situation where a character must find a take something while the others are keeping the enemies at bay(in a situation where they are out to steal something and the guards show up or perhaps they have been captured and are escaping so the character is rummaging through a desk looking for the wardens gun while the others are keeping the guards busy)

>Make a gesture or gestures
non-verbal signalling eg. Navy SEAL hand signals. Though I guess that would fall under Shout a short phrase, minus the shouting.

>Cast a Spell
Unless all spells are rituals or somesuch, this is probably going to need some granularity? Cast a Ritual, Cast a Cantrip, and Cast Arcana as suggestions

>Control Mount
Seems important, unless it falls under movement.

As a general suggestion, maybe having broader categories that then have sub-categories with modifiers would be easier to frame? That way when a player inevitably thinks of something outside the scope of the rules, they can just use the default cost for the category it would fall into.

So for example:
Reload Medium Weapon (4 ticks)
>Artillery (+2 ticks)
>Heavy (+1 tick)
>Light (-1 tick)

Also, modifiers in general make sense for performing actions in a non-standard way, such as reloading one-handed (which could add +2 ticks)

And finally, how does the system handle simultaneous actions, like firing while moving, or shouting while dragging? I suppose you could start tying actions to what part of the body they require but that seems like a very quick way to spiral into unplayable complexity

You've never seen a cop show or western where they distract the bad guys with cover fire while the lone maverick sneaks around the back and gets the drop on 'em?

Well you could have sneaking just increase the cost of move actions, like double the tick cost or something.

I personally am on the side off having generalist guidelines for judging tick costs rather than exhaust yourself and likely your potential players with a massive and definitive list which, by its nature, will be unlikely to actually manage to cover everything.
That said, I really like this idea. Haven't read your other threads yet, but I think it's damn cool and could work out very well.

OP actually stated already that this list is not something that the players will have to deal with but just a list of things which he will then group into a list of more generalized actions

Guess I can't read then, that's embarrassing. Thanks for pointing that out.

OP do you have a list of all the actions you've covered so far?

I have a suggestion for handling items and weapons.
Have your standard action cost X tick points. For the sake of this example, I'm going to pretend that drawing an object close to hand costs 2 ticks, as does maneuvering an object already in the hand.

A small object could impose a -1 tick bonus, so something like a pistol, dagger, or waving a book around would cost 1 point. Medium sized objects would be standard cost. Follow the pattern upward, and larger than average costs 1, but perhaps they cost 2 as crossbows, gatling guns, and battleaxes are typically unwieldy. From there, perhaps you can also extrapolate boons and penalties for how simple the action is.

However, I'm uncertain how far you're going to go with this. Will each and every action cost tick points? It can break down fairly quickly if you aren't careful.

This is based on the assumption that all actions ought to require at least a tick, and you aren't open to utilizing fractions of a tick, nor are you going to allow several smaller actions within the span of a single tick.
So reload a revolver or chamber a single bullet by hand is a fine action for each bullet you withdraw, and another to load or chamber. In the same fashion, to draw a bolt or arrow from a quarrel, string, and draw could also all be separate actions.

E.g. 1 tick to draw a bolt, another to string, a base of 3 ticks to cock. Total of 5 ticks.
To chamber a single round in a double barrel shotgun you would break open, 1 tick; removal of the spent cartridge, possibly 1 or 2 ticks since it requires more attention and fine motor skill; withdrawing the new shell, 1 tick (which would also vary dependent upon its location, for this example we assume it's to-hand), placing it withing the barrel, 1; finally closing the the shotgun and readying it, 1. For a grand total of 4 or 5 ticks.

OP CONTINUE DOING THAT

At my opinion all rpgs should be like that.

Ok, not all, but they should switch sides, the ratio between rpgs not like that and usual turn rpgs should be switched

Some pretty great ones here, I like stringing a bow, that's important for surprise attacks. Picking up stuff off the floor and getting stuff out of a pack or pocket is something to consider as well. Sheathing/unsheathing seems quick enough that it ought not to be worth noting but maybe. Opening and closing a visor seems pretty quick too. Aiming is for sure folded into the attack roll so that's not necessary. But seriously, putting on armour does not seem to me a worthwhile combat action. Unless you mean something simple like a helmet, that takes serious time and if the attack is unexpected enough that you don't already have armour on then you sure as fuck don't have time to put it on.

Haha brilliant, this is the kind of thinking I need. Dousing flame is definitely a viable and worthwhile action in combat.

And this seems good too. I feel like both can be rolled into a generic clear status maladies action but I'll have to look closer first.

I get that you're taking the piss but there are actually some decent ideas here. Specifically the first three, which obviously don't need to be so granulated, fall under a combat perception check.

Yes I agree like I said here a combat perception check would be great.

I guess you didn't read through the thread but I pointed out that this is not at all how my system works. I have a set of fairly broad skills for performing actions as most RPGs do, this list serves merely as a way to get the range of options straight in my head so I can begin thinking of how to properly group them into categories with general rules. As for modifiers I intend to allow all actions to be either rushed or done carefully to grant either an increased or decreased tick cost with either a bonus or malus to the skill check respectively. I will likely have other more skill/action specific modifiers too.

Thanks for the hand signal idea though that's a good one. Control mount is just a movement with a different skill governing it. And i already have my magic system sorted I just didn't feel like going into detail here.

As said I have mentioned that multiple times. You make a good point about the combat stealth though, I suppose in some very specific situations that could work. I'll add it to the list.

The list is as you see in this thread pretty much. I am considering the possibility of actions with tick cost of 0 or at least allowing certain kinds of actions to be done simultaneously. Though really currently I can only see it applying to speaking while doing something and doing things with your hands while moving. I may just treat speech and movement as exceptions to the usual rules.

But other than that yes everything should have a cost, though I may not break it down so much. I may just have a reload action which varies for different weapons instead of breaking it into steps but I don't know yet. By the way, I don't know if you read the thread completely but the setting is post industrial/pre-modern. Metallic cartridges/shells do not exist yet, never mind gatling guns. Revolvers are only the cap and ball variety and those are extremely rare and like the bleeding edge of weapons tech as the setting stands.

Thanks man, obviously I agree entirely. That's why if I have any design compromises that need to be made between complexity/realism and speed/smoothness I will err on the side of complexity. I know there are others who feel the same as I do out there and anybody who wants a simplified/gamey experience can go play one of thee zillion other systems which cater to that. I'm attempting to reach a more specific niche of the roleplaying community.

It was mentioned in previous thread but isn't listed.
A wait/overwatch action enabling you ready and unleash an attack at an oportune time(perhaps wait for the wizard to start casting and then interrupt the spell by breaking his concentration with an attack)

Also the idea that another user mentioned for the wait function having a mandatory length(perhaps dependent on some character attribute) representing that while you are ready to act your perception and reflexes still limit how fact you can actually react to something(so a wait action would be the time it takes you to register something a decide on counter-reaction)

And although this may b e outside the topic of this thread i always figured one way for the fighter to be an actual threat to a wizard would be to give a fighter a special form of a fast spell-interrupting attack. This would be the fighter attacking with some light throwing weapons such as small throwing knives, shuriken, something similar to pikado darts etc. drawn from an easily accessible holster on their body which deals negligible damage but breaks the casting process.

I doubt anybody would want to play this. It sounds clunky, slow and boring.

Yeah I had posted prior to really reading all threads, so I was just applying your rules to my own setting without really realizing it.

Also, related to "overwatch": it only really works with automatic weaponry, or at least multiple-shot ranged weapons. Should one miss with the first shot, or encounter more targets than they have loaded weapons, the problem is ostensibly moot. So the issue is rather non-extant in your setting, and really only should be considered "waiting" or a held action.

That is basically what I meant, i only called it overwatch because i felt that it was the same as a wait action with a ranged weapon

How about the well-known cliche of a character getting shot with an arrow or stabbed with a knife in the arm/leg which seems to do little other then impairing mobility which the character then proceeds to yank out and keep going as if nothing has happened.

I guess I didn't list wait "actions" because it isn't really an action but yes of course continuous wait. As opposed to making a wait action take a certain minimum I think it would be more realistic to have the stats determine a certain tick cost for reacting. So you can wait as long or little as you like but it will always take you say 2 ticks for you to cancel it (or less if faster, more if slower etc.) As for balancing magic with martials I have that under control already. I don't want to tip the balance in favour of martials by making it really easy to interrupt spellcasting, that would just be annoying and totally deter player casters.

I'm going for realism remember, but anyway something along those lines would fall under "patch a wound" which i listed

I totally get that it's not your thing but that is demonstrably wrong. See , not to mention others who have posted in this and other threads. As i stated earlier, I'm targeting a very specific niche of players who I feel are unfairly ignored and not catered to. You're welcome to enjoy the other 99% of games with more simplified mechanics

I was thinking that some stat would determine the minimum length(in ticks)of a "wait segment" and longer periods would just be you spending multiple of these segments concurrently.

The effect is the same basically. you couldn't start doing another action until one of these minimal segments has passed.

Not exactly the same, there is a very crucial difference. In your system, lets say my minimum wait is 3 ticks. I take a wait action on tick 0 so I can't move until tick 3. Somebody does something on tick 1 that I want to react to but I must wait for 2 more ticks before i can act. However, had that person instead done something on tick 2 which i wanted to react to, I would still have to wait until tick three. In this situation for no real reason I have essentially reacted twice as fast as in the first situation since I'm only waiting one tick before I can act, instead of two. This is why I don't like your way of doing it.

Whereas imagine in my system, instead of a minimum wait time, the reaction speed of a character is represented by a cancellation cost of X ticks. So imagine again I'm waiting indeterminately, but on tick 1 someone does something i want to react to. My cancellation cost is say 2 ticks, so I have to wait until tick 3 to even begin reacting. However, if again the other character did something on tick 2 I wanted to react to, I would need to wait until tick 4 until I could begin my action. So now we see a more consistent rate of reaction as opposed to your system which essentially depends on how close you are to the end of your wait segment(which makes little sense in regard to reality anyway).

Furthermore, I think it would be good for this cancellation cost to apply to all sudden changes when you are mid action, with actions from a wait position having a reduced cancellation cost. So if I'm loading a crossbow but i see a guy readying his own and it looks like he'll be done before me, i can cancel my reload action into a more rapid attack like throwing a grenade, but I must wait for the cancellation cost of 2 ticks first. However, if I was waiting when I noticed that crossbowman, i could simply begin my grenade throw action immediately or perhaps at only a 1 tick cancellation cost. I'll need to fine tune it balance wise but I think this works out better. Thoughts?

A lot of systems do have some "aim" action that takes extra time but improves chances to hit. Your system right now doesn't have any such accommodations. A lot of players would likely appreciate the option to spend an extra tick or two to make their shot count.
If you're not worried about being too much like DF, having different tick #'s for different types of attacks (precise, heavy, light, etc.) might work well. Though you've probably considered that already.

Kissing. Dead serious. Mid-battle kisses, one last kiss before joining the fight, cheekily throwing a grappled enemy off guard. Happens in movies all the time, so players might like to try it.

OK, didn't think of that. When you look at it that way having an interrupt cost does make more sense.

On a somewhat unrelated note your quick reaction example reminded me of a mechanic from Space Cadets dice duel which i think could be useful if there is a need to convey an urgency in an opposed test between two sides(an example I always think of is a Wild West quickdraw duel).
Basically have an action take a certain amount of successful rolls in a dice pool and have both side roll at the same time.
They can roll and reroll as many times as they want and when they get a result on dice they like they can set it aside an keep rolling the remaining dice.
At any point a character may say STOP, then both sides stop rolling and attempts the action.
Then the rolling continues.
Regardless of whether it succeeds or fails the player who attempts the action loses the set he has rolled and must start.
Probably a mechanic too much in a system but I just thought it is interesting.

Yeah I don't know if you've already read the thread but I've mentioned that I plan to have every action be modifiable to be either rushed or done carefully, with a tick cost decrease and penalty to roll, or a tick cost increase with a bonus to roll respectively.

Uhh, I think I'll just let GMs cross that bridge if they come to it.

Glad you see things my way. That sounds like an interesting mechanic but as you say I don't need to be adding more onto what is already quite complex. You guys don't even know the half of it, the damage calculations and whatnot will be a bit of a handful. I'm working on slimming it down though. Also I really dislike dice pools, for reasons I can't really explain.

>Just hate dice pool

That's a shame because I was going to suggest you check out Warhammer fantasy 3rd ed stance system

Actions don't have a initiative cost as such but they do get special bonuses and penalties depend what stance the player takes, a cautious stance is more likely to succeed, but more likely to push them down the initiative ladder depending what they roll.

Likewise if they got reckless then they are more likely to strike first and hit harder increase the chances it backfired.

You're right, I missed that. Sorry about the redundancy then.

Wargames in particular I don't really like which is probably part of it. I don't appreciate the generalised/abstracted combat (of course i understand why it's like that given the numbers fighting, i just don't like it). Nonetheless, that sounds similar to my intent for rushed actions having penalties and slowed(i'll think of a better word, measured? analysed?) actions giving bonuses as this guy now notices

Doesn't Exalted 2e does this?

Sort of but not exactly My system is closer to Hackmaster really but you'd know that if you read the thread(s).

Will explain myself better.

This idea, sounds like something that is not widely used because it was not discovered or invented before.

This type of turn would be equvalent of movies with sound, and the usually used turn method would be silent movies.

This type of turn would be equvalent of color photos, and the usually used turn method would be black and white pictures.


Obviously, if you want you can make a game with normal turn if you are really into it, or you can make a silent movie if you want the specific movie you are producing, but this method is the logical path of making a real time thing (like) become a turn based thing.

Yeah I think i get your meaning. And thanks for the high compliments.

I guess this is seen as something that should be left to video games cause it's so impractical otherwise.
The problem with that being a video game can't have the same depth or breadth as a tabletop RPG, Dwarf Fortress having been the best effort by far and it's still not close.

But I thought of something.

What if you had an application keep track of turns (kind of like those D&D initiative trackers)

You press some button for your action, the application doesn't process anything that's going on, you just feed it the list of characters/monsters who are acting in the current moment, with their speed stat or whatever else effects their turn orders. You press the button/key for the action a character is taking, it automatically calculates who goes next based on how many ticks that action uses up.

Basically a tabletop/computer hybrid game, where the computer is only their for trackign time/"turns" (not really turns but you know what I'm saying) and everything else is traditional roleplay, with the infinite possibilities that brings

>You press some button for your action, the application doesn't process anything that's going on, you just feed it the list of characters/monsters who are acting in the current moment, with their speed stat or whatever else effects their turn orders. You press the button/key for the action a character is taking, it automatically calculates who goes next based on how many ticks that action uses up.

This is possible and easy to do

>This is possible and easy to do

Here, this is the one.
www94.zippyshare.com/v/IJuZMfcf/file.html

You can:
Add some action and the amount of turns it cost. The action will be shown at the list of actions to be done and the amount of turns left to do it.
You can remove actions from the list, if you or someone else make you stop the action before you finish it (like someone hit you while you are trying to parry). Or if you add something wrong
You can advance turns by clicking enter.


Remember this program is about games like sword path glory, where actions cost X turns based at your skills. You tell you will do the action, wait X turns and at the end of the turn, the action is made.

What op told he will do is closer to phoenix command, where you have Y points per turn, based at your skill and stats, and for everybody, every action cost W or Z stats, he can do as many actions in a turn as he has points to spend.

PS:You need python to run it

If you read the threads you'd realise I mentioned that ages ago. I have planned on making my own software though i guess I'll examine that one for ideas.

>Remember this program is about games like sword path glory, where actions cost X turns based at your skills. You tell you will do the action, wait X turns and at the end of the turn, the action is made.
>What op told he will do is closer to phoenix command, where you have Y points per turn, based at your skill and stats, and for everybody, every action cost W or Z stats, he can do as many actions in a turn as he has points to spend.
Wrong. My system is almost identical to the sword path glory thing. Please read the thread so you actually understand what is happening.

Use a teammate or enemy as a bootie, ie jumping on their shoulders to do a leaping attack on someone or to get to a higher place or just to vault over them.

A bootie? Can't say i have ever heard that word used to mean that but ok

Did you mean like a boost? Or is "bootie" really a phrase you use like that?

Also, i don't think it's that bad, as long as encounter sizes are reasonably small (as they should be in a realistic combat) then the GM shouldn't be spinning too many plates and each player only really needs to keep track of their own ticks.

Anyway this would be a move action really

One last bump then I'll give up on this for now.

>So I'm creating a tick-based combat system and therefore I need to make an exhaustive list of possible combat actions

Your system sounds completely impossible for humans to actually use. Listing every conceivable thing and assigning them a tick value that has to be looked up from a gigantic list with dozens of entries would slow down combat to a snail's pace, going through one turn would likely take an hour. I suggest instead creating a short list (max 10) of rough rule-of-thumb benchmarks and telling the DM to wing it from there. That way he can keep the entire system in his head instead of having to look something up every single time somebody does something.

You're like a child who wanders into the middle of the movie and wants to know everything that's happened. Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element. Maybe you should try reading the thread.

I mean seriously what kind of idiot do you expect to find here. I don't think even the bottom of the Veeky Forums barrel would be so foolish as to make a system with a huge list of every single possible action each with its own rule.