[3.P] Should I ban Improved Initiative?

[Endarire]

At present, for DMs who intelligently assign feats to all their creatures, it's basically a feat tax. It's so good that anyone will take it, and by giving it to everyone, then everyone's just lost a feat slot.

Effectively, everyone has Improved Initiative in terms of prereqs.

What are your thoughts?

Emphasis: I'm not saying Improved Initiative is unbalanced or game-breaking. I am saying that if everyone has it, everyone has one less feat slot with no other change in power.

[woodenbandman]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

do all your players have it? Do you necessarily have to give it to all your monsters?

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

Not everyone has Improved Initiative! In my group, only I have it... and as the party rogue, I need it. without it, I might not get surprise rounds, might not get initiative... it means I might not get Sneak attack damage every encounter.

[Endarire]

I build opponents like I would build characters. By level 3, everyone has Improved Initiative.

[Kuma Kode]

It's actually only important in certain situations. A +4 in no way guarantees you'll go first. Rogues love it, but unless your combat is rocket tag, it's not that good. You're better off taking a feat that will enhance what you actually want to do, and many classes are already struggling to make ends meet when it comes to feats.

[ericgrau]

Wait, what? Do you have 1 round combats or something? Look, figure out how many extra rounds of combat the players get on average (or what fraction of a round they get). Figure out how many rounds they fight and how much extra damage that fraction of a round translates into on average. Now, for example, see how many hits they get against typical monster AC, how many more with weapon focus, and how much that increases damage instead. Last time I did it weapon focus was 2-4 times better.

Improved initiative usually isn't that great of a feat for combats of 3 rounds or more, or maybe for a sneak attack trigger or etc. Typically the average combat is 5 rounds. Or it's ok if you run out of good feats to pick. I think maybe your group is overly obsessed with improved initiative. It's pretty popular on these forums but even here I don't see people push others to get it on every build. Maybe 1/3 of them, tops.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

a.) Monster are not opponents. They should have feats that make sense for them, not because its optimized for them to have it.

b.) Since when does EVERY character build have improved initiative by level 3?

[senrath]

Improved Initiative for me is a "if I can't figure out what else to take" feat. It'll be at least okay on almost every character, but for the most part there are so many things that are better to take.

[Akal Saris]

I've always thought Improved Initiative was the benchmark of a 'good' feat - no single build ever NEEDS it, but nearly every build benefits from it.

I don't see much point in banning the feat - PCs can still raise their initiative with spells, items, and other feats, whereas monsters have few other options available. Unless most encounters consist of super rocket tag caster/ubercharger fights, losing initiative shouldn't be the end of the encounter.

[Ytaker]

Improved initiative is a good feat to make level 1 characters less squishy. You should keep it. Whoever gets the first hit early on often can win.

[Roland St. Jude]

It's a very good feat. But I don't think it's so good that one needs to ban it. Nor do I think that "intelligent assignment" of NPC/Monster feats means they should all have it. Some monsters just aren't quick on the draw - same with NPCs. It would seem more intelligent to me to assign them feats that match their envisioned strengths and weaknesses, so I wouldn't worry about it.

In my experience, the same is true of PCs. Depending on what people are going for, they often skip Improved Initiative in favor of other useful (and more in line with their goals) feats.

Don't get me wrong. Going first is great and in PvP its almost a prerequisite, but in play, I don't see it as game-breakingly required. YMMV.

[Endarire]

Improved Initiative helps everyone. Remember, he who goes first is guaranteed a turn. Going before someone else means you may deny them an action, and you have greater control over what happens.

As for fights, lately the fights have finished in 2 rounds; a bit shorter than I initially expected, but par for D&D. (Normally, fights in our group are over in 3 rounds or less.)

Emphasis: I'm not saying Improved Initiative is unbalanced or game-breaking. I am saying that if everyone has it, everyone has one less feat slot with no other change in power.

[sambo.]

no. don't ban it. i rekon it's a balanced feat.

feats are expensive and, imho, getting +4 init for a feat is a fair trade.

if improved init was, say, +10 to Init, then i would ban it.

[ericgrau]

Well, if everyone has it then effectively no one will. If you can't talk some sense into yourself and your group then you might as well, but that seems like it should be a last resort.

[senrath]

Yes, if everyone has it, you might as well ban it and give everyone their feat back. But as pointed out, not everyone should have it.

[Pink]

There is no reason to ban it.

It is not essential to every character or every monster, and +4 by itself is not enough to say "I GO FIRST" in every combat.

If you or your player's are feeling 'taxed' by improved initiative, then you don't have to take it. You're better to have your opponents get a better AC or higher HP or something.

[Mastikator]

Is everyone taking it in the game you DM? Can you honestly never think of a better feat than Improved Initiative at level 3?

If "yes and no" then yes, otherwise no.

[Endarire]

As a PC, I always take Improved Initiative by level 3. When I DM, I make creatures as I would make PCs.

I encourage my group to take it, but not everyone does.

[Erom]

It's been a while since I played 3.5, but the last time I did everyone in my group also had improved init.

That said, not every _monster_ had it, especially the more bestial ones. And it was definitely viewed as a legitimate choice, not a feat tax we were being forced into.

[Duncan_Ruadrik]

As a PC, I always take Improved Initiative by level 3. When I DM, I make creatures as I would make PCs.

I encourage my group to take it, but not everyone does.

Why always? Some build dont need it, gain little using it, and are better served by other feats.

You encouraging your group to take it shows that they recognize that fact, and in reality, you may be the problem. If you encourage everyone to take a feat and they follow your advice, who's fault is it when you wonder why everyone took it, and if you should ban it?

[Vladislav]

In my most recent big battle, the order in which the participants went was the exact opposite of their initiative modifier.

True story. Those dice can be fickle.

[Curmudgeon]

Not everyone has Improved Initiative! In my group, only I have it... and as the party rogue, I need it. without it, I might not get surprise rounds, might not get initiative... it means I might not get Sneak attack damage every encounter.
I've played a lot of Rogues. Early on, I took Improved Initiative, but I've found that feats are just too precious for a Rogue to waste on this. (That's less true in Pathfinder if you don't have access to 3.5 sourcebooks, because Pathfinder is missing a lot of feats.)

Surprise rounds aren't dependent on initiative; they're dependent on noticing problems before combat starts. Maximize your Perception (Pathfinder) or Spot and maybe Listen skills (3.5), and you'll rarely be surprised; you'll get to act in the surprise round. So walk around with a missile weapon ready to fire, because it's extremely rare for an encounter to start with an enemy in melee weapon range.

On the first regular round of combat anyone who hasn't acted yet is still flat-footed. You'll have an above-average initiative modifier simply because DEX is an important ability for a Rogue. That means there will almost always be some targets who are flat-footed, and you can make a full ranged attack and add sneak attack damage every time.

You don't have to act first; you just have to act before the last enemy. Improved Initiative is hardly ever going to matter enough to be worthwhile. The important thing is to play effectively at the start of combat. I'm just astounded how often players will have their Rogue characters close for melee and foolishly squander opportunities for guaranteed sneak attack. :smallconfused:

[ericgrau]

As a PC, I always take Improved Initiative by level 3. When I DM, I make creatures as I would make PCs.

I encourage my group to take it, but not everyone does.

Then all the better for them. I wouldn't ban it then. It only means weaker monsters when even the ones better suited for other feats take it. You may feel that it's beyond uber, but not everyone does.

[pinwiz]

As a PC, I always take Improved Initiative by level 3. When I DM, I make creatures as I would make PCs.

I encourage my group to take it, but not everyone does.

There's nearly always a better option than Improved Initiative. I have taken the feat twice, once out of boredom and laziness, and the second was because I wanted a super initiative character.

It is a good general feat, and I like it, but the dice are going to determine Initiative order far more often than a +4 boost. If something else fits, take that instead.

[Rasman]

I build opponents like I would build characters. By level 3, everyone has Improved Initiative.

then I would reevaluate the way you build characters. Going first is nice, but it isn't the end of the world if you don't and there are feats that are FAR more effective than Improved Initiative.

Frankly, I've never built a character with II because, if you know what you're doing, you REALLY don't have to go first. Not to mention, you get a chance to see what the BBEG is going to do or has lined up if you go after he does.


Improved Initiative for me is a "if I can't figure out what else to take" feat. It'll be at least okay on almost every character, but for the most part there are so many things that are better to take.

That about sums it up. II is a good filler feat, but it's anything BUT necessary. So I wouldn't ban it, but following the advice of others, don't give it to everything because everything doesn't need it.

[graeylin]

odd. I hardly ever take it as a character. there's waaay to many other feats for my PC to have, and every PC I make is feat starved.

I am looking over my current 6 characters, and my previous 12, and not a single one spent a feat on it, except one who got it for free.

[mucat]

When I DM, I make creatures as I would make PCs.

Why?

The creatures in your world don't go through a set of books, picking the feats that most benefit them. If an orc has Toughness rather than Improved Initiative, it isn't because he chose that feat from a list. It's simply because he's a fairly tough guy, but not exceptionally quick on the draw.

For that matter, a PC doesn't choose their feats either (although they're more likely than the average person to think about how to focus their training.) The players choose feats, but in doing so they're just choosing the sort of person they want to play; it doesn't mean that the character had every possible choice open to him.

Ask a player why she chose Spell Focus: Illusion, and she'll explain why she liked that feat better than the alternatives. But if you ask her wizard in-character, she'll likely say "It wasn't a choice. I've just got a knack for that kind of magic." There are other wizards out there with other (often suboptimal) builds, reflecting what they're good at. They're not the ones the player chose to play, but she'll meet them as she explores the world.

[Zaydos]

I wouldn't ban it. I actually rarely take Improved Initiative on my characters (I might if I'm a wizard and didn't have a specific build in mind and plan on going straight wizard), or big monsters (expected to last more than 1 or 2 rounds).

Now mooks, and glass cannon NPCs, these often get Improved Initiative :smallbiggrin: That, dragons, and NPC fighters (unless it's a high power game where the PCs have a few bags of tricks; at that point the NPC fighters might just need all their feats for more deadly tricks) because it's a lazy feat to give when I don't feel like putting too much work into it (I've had a dragon which had Maximize Breath, Heighten Breath, Quicken Breath, Ability Focus Breath Weapon, Improved Initiative, and Improved Toughness x5? as its feats before).

tl;dr: Don't ban it; it's an okay feat but far from necessary on every character and both PCs and monsters will often do better with a different feat.

[Endarire]

At some level, I recognize the game as a game. I care little how, in character, a creature acquires its feats. Put simply, it just has its feats. I provide the best, because I prefer to optimize everything.

This will usually lead to a buncha people who seem incredibly potent, and I like it that way.

[Callista]

Banning it would hurt some classes more than others. Notably, rogues, charge-based characters, spellcasters, and any other class that relies on either sneak attacks (self-explanatory), area of effect (going earlier lets you avoid friendly fire in indoor spaces and possibly hit the enemy before they scatter) or position/movement during combat (being able to charge straight at the enemy or tumble into flanking is easier before the battlefield gets cluttered).

Because some classes are hurt more than others, I'd suggest you don't ban this feat.

[Mecharious]

Improved Initiative helps everyone.

So does toughness. And we all know how great that is.


Remember, he who goes first is guaranteed a turn. Going before someone else means you may deny them an action, and you have greater control over what happens.

Each combat, Improved Initiative has a 20% of making you go before someone you normally wouldn't have. The feat is far from a "guarantee." Then consider that many times you'll want to delay for a teammate which will make the feat matter even less.


As for fights, lately the fights have finished in 2 rounds; a bit shorter than I initially expected, but par for D&D. (Normally, fights in our group are over in 3 rounds or less.)

That explains a bit. In my group, fights regularly go on for at least 10 rounds. You might want to make encounters that aren't over in a single fireball or fullattack sneak attack.


Emphasis: I'm not saying Improved Initiative is unbalanced or game-breaking. I am saying that if everyone has it, everyone has one less feat slot with no other change in power.

Feat slots are very precious. Not everyone can afford improved initiative, and it isn't a "must have" by far.

[Rasman]

Emphasis: I'm not saying Improved Initiative is unbalanced or game-breaking. I am saying that if everyone has it, everyone has one less feat slot with no other change in power.

That's your rationalization of what you're saying. What it really means is that there are 3 choices in the matter. Ban it and Gimp those who desire the feat. Force it upon everyone and Gimp those that don't want or need the feat. Cast Freedom of Choice, a 1st level DM spell, and let your players do as they please and FREE yourself from this type of binding and make yourself more creative, rather than choosing something you view as necessary.


At some level, I recognize the game as a game. I care little how, in character, a creature acquires its feats. Put simply, it just has its feats. I provide the best, because I prefer to optimize everything.

This will usually lead to a buncha people who seem incredibly potent, and I like it that way.

But you're referring to it in terms of a DM, not a player and you fail to see what you create as a being. There is ALWAYS a reason for being able to do something when it comes from a feat, whether it be training or life experience or something that is out of your control. Feats make a character who they are. Improved Initiative is no different. A character with Improved Initiative could live a shady lifestyle and have to look over his back in order to get his enemy before he gets him OR he could have been born with particularly keen senses or reflexes, but rarely is someone just faster because they say they are. I'd never lose at anything if that were the case.

From the way you talk about "Optimization", just Ban it if you're going to make that big of a deal about it. Frankly it sounds like you want us to tell you to so so you'll stop using the feat and combat occurs more naturally, so just do it.

[ffone]

I had a rogue with Improved Initiative and actually switched away from it when the char transferred campaigns.

1. The higher your initiative already is (beyond the enemy's), the more likely a further bonus is not to matter. If you have the same mod it's a +20% chance of going first but if your mod is 10 better it's like 10% (if you roll 11-20 you'll go first no matter what they roll). If you tweak out initiative (Dex-oriented character with a Belt of Battle and Eager / Warning armor spikes or random hold-between-encounters throwing weapon) you will often roll too high for the +4 to matter.

This effect is stronger at high levels since you will keep tweaking it out but monsters' may not get better on average (you fight bigger and bigger things with low Dex.)

2. When other PCs rolled ahead of monster, she often delayed by 4 or more to go after the other PCs anyway (since it's usually better for buff or area spells to go before physical attacks.)

3. Sometimes going first means you move+attack rather than full attack. If you're not a sneak attack or ubercharger you'd probably rather the enemy burn actions getting you to.

[Gullintanni]

Improved Initiative is a great feat, but given how feet starved most characters are, I almost never have room for it in a build. I've made about 8 characters in the last 2 years for myself, and only one had Improved Initiative, because everything else I needed was better.

Except for Skill Focus (Religion). I hate PrC prereqs...

If the peak of optimization for you is Improved Initiative, then you're probably missing out on some very good feats. To answer the OP question...no, don't ban it. It's a very well balanced feat.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Except for Skill Focus (Religion). I hate PrC prereqs...

Isn't that one of those feats you can buy?

[true_shinken]

There is ALWAYS a reason for being able to do something when it comes from a feat, whether it be training or life experience or something that is out of your control. Feats make a character who they are. Improved Initiative is no different. A character with Improved Initiative could live a shady lifestyle and have to look over his back in order to get his enemy before he gets him OR he could have been born with particularly keen senses or reflexes, but rarely is someone just faster because they say they are. I'd never lose at anything if that were the case.
I completely agree with you, but Endarire has another gaming style, from what he says. He's not looking for a simulationist experience, he's looking for a good tactical game.

[Gullintanni]

Isn't that one of those feats you can buy?

Can you? If it's possible, please let me know how, for how much and from which source book. My cleric could definitely put the extra feat slot to better use.

[FMArthur]

So your players all sunk a feat into going first, and you went out of your way to nullify it? Good job, DM.

[Saph]

Initiative optimisation is only really important in two situations: duels, and rocket-tag battles where both sides have lots of attack power but weak defences.

Even then, Improved Initiative, while good, isn't anywhere near essential. Feat slots are just too valuable.

[Thrawn183]

I'd say stop giving it to your monsters. If your party wants to go first so badly, stop building encounters so they can't.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Can you? If it's possible, please let me know how, for how much and from which source book. My cleric could definitely put the extra feat slot to better use.

Complete Scoundrel, Fane of the Frog God. GP equivalent 2000 gp. You explore an ancient, submerged jungle ruin and find your way into hidden chambers; once inside, you study the religious artifacts there to gain more understanding.


He's not looking for a simulationist experience, he's looking for a good tactical game.

I'm about as hesitant to give feats like Improved Initiative an in-game part in causal links as I am to give classes that sort of substance. When Improved Initiative has to represent paranoia or bizarre talent, that's a step down the road that leads to the Barbarian class having to represent a wild savage and if you take the class without that archetype you're doing it wrong. Now, that road is a perfectly valid one, and there are some beneficial stops along the way before it comes to a negative extreme, but it simply isn't one I'd like to take.

[Gullintanni]

Complete Scoundrel, Fane of the Frog God. GP equivalent 2000 gp. You explore an ancient, submerged jungle ruin and find your way into hidden chambers; once inside, you study the religious artifacts there to gain more understanding.


Thanks. Not sure this is possible for my character but, I'll investigate.

[Templarkommando]

Let me try to explain my points here.

1. There is a reason that improved initiative is in the game. Specifically, it is so that players can get a slight advantage over monsters and NPCs in terms of initiative. At the point where you make all of your characters and monsters in such a way that negates the feat, you have effectively killed the feat itself, and you've required anyone who has any initiative-dependent abilities to take it even though it's just to put them on even ground with what they encounter. Only occasionally should your characters run into NPCs or monsters that have improved initiative unless it really makes sense. If you run into a guild of thieves. Everyone having imp init. might make sense, but it's like a spice. Use it sparingly. Crushed red pepper is great with spaghetti, but it sucks on ice cream.

2.Realistically, not everyone is going to have improved initiative. I know that I personally go for the improved feint/bluff tree on any rogue that I play. I'm getting sneak attacks (most of the time) on you any round that I hit anyway, so you still haven't killed sneak attacks per se, but you have killed what what is meant as a boost to characters based on luck and a little bit of skill.

3. You have effectively reduced the number of surprises you can throw at your players. If their improved initiative characters are only beating your monsters at initiative rolls half the time, there's a pretty good guess that your monsters and NPCs all have improved initiative. A smart player will be thinking "Well, he's got improved initiative and what?"

4. Tactically speaking if your group loses combat because you lost an initiative roll, you were probably going to lose the combat anyway. As a sword and board fighter, most of the time my 1st level feat list looks like "Combat Expertise, Dodge, and Weapon Focus." At some point, it doesn't matter if you're winning initiative or not. After the first round, you're not going to be hitting me except on 20s anyway. Magic is a bit stickier, but I have hit points for a reason.

[Lapak]

I wouldn't ban it.

In addition, if your goal is 'optimally-constructed opposition', I'd go back over the last five or ten monsters you've built and double-check them: look at the list of feats, and look at the monsters, and be sure that none of them see a feat on the list that wouldn't have done more for them then Improved Initiative. A feat that makes your turn effective can be more important than one that makes your turn early - if Monster A gets two turns but misses on both of them, and Monster B gets only one turn but shreds a PC half to death, I'd rather have Monster B.

[Xiander]

At some level, I recognize the game as a game. I care little how, in character, a creature acquires its feats. Put simply, it just has its feats. I provide the best, because I prefer to optimize everything.

This will usually lead to a buncha people who seem incredibly potent, and I like it that way.

Disregarding the argument about whether or not Improved Initiative actually is "that good", I think the problem has its roots in this attitude. You can optimize an ogre without giving it improved initiative. If you really believe that this will lead to your players winning by killing it before it acts, there are many ways to make encounters which deny them this opportunity even if they go first.

[Merk]

How about giving the feat a prerequisite? Something like "Requires base reflex save +5". Note that this helps out rogues with getting the drop and a few martial types (i.e., rangers) but doesn't do much for most full spellcasters I can think of.

[Gnaeus]

I'm in the good feat, but not a must have camp as well. I certainly optimize my characters, but I find that of my last 10 or so only a handful used improved init, and they were all playing rocket tag.

My casters don't take it, they fix their initiative with the Primal line of spells, or Persist bite of the wererat, or nerveskitter.

In 3.P, you can get around it easily with traits. A rogue with 20 dex and a trait that gives +2 initiative really doesn't need another +4.

And, as mentioned, having a low initiative is not exactly a crippling flaw in most games.

[Warlawk]

I think I may have taken the feat. Once. I think it was a prereq for something I wanted to do. If you can't find something better to take out of all the books available, chances are good you're just being lazy or playing a strict core only game.

I'm going to say what a lot of people are thinking and don't want to. Giving it to every monster in some misguided attempt to make every monster "optimized" is, frankly, bad dming. (Purely IMO, your game is your game and you can always do what you want, blah blah blah) A DM is not there to 'win' and create uber monsters. You are there to tell a good story. If you can't create an interesting and challenging encounter without giving every monster imp init then maybe you should check out the how to dm section included in some of the books. I believe the DMGII has a lot of info on how to build and run games.

If you strictly want to play a tactical game with story considerations completely forgotten... you can build MUCH stronger encounters by giving your monsters feat selections that are, well, good instead of defaulting to imp init like it's some kind of IWINBUTTON. If your encounters are always over in 1-2 rounds, then clearly imp init is not doing anything to make them tougher now is it? There's a much bigger flaw to be found somewhere.

Imp initiative is useful to every character, but I would hesitate to even call it good outside of a very few extremely specific builds. Look over the hardcore CharOP threads, how many of them have improved initiative if it isn't a prereq for something?

If initiative is really *that* important, then it's just going to be a matter of some wizard using celerity to crap all over every encounter anyways.

Not trying to be an ass about this, and it's not intended as a personal attack or anything but the idea that improved initiative is outright required for every character and monster is, frankly, absurd.

[Skjaldbakka]

I think you should ban Improved Initiative. Playing without it will make your players realize just how much it isn't as important as they think it is. To really drive that point home, keep putting it on everything they fight, but don't tell them that you did. Save that for the big reveal after a few months of playing that way.

[Kyeudo]

Over at the Arena, we've made a fairly significant discovery about Intiative rolls: They are only important if you can attack or be attacked on the first round. If the encounter distance is large enough or there are obstructions in the way that prevent an attack on the first round of combat, Initiative barely has an effect on the outcome of combat.

[Kurald Galain]

Improved Initiative is a great feat, but given how feet starved most characters are, I almost never have room for it in a build. I've made about 8 characters in the last 2 years for myself, and only one had Improved Initiative, because everything else I needed was better.

I concur. I believe the OP is overestimating the effect of this feat, but certainly he is overestimating how many characters actually take it.

[Vistella]

unless a melee has pounce or is a rogue, high initiative is bad for themcause they cant make full attacks after they moved to the enemy

so no reason to ban it

[Skjaldbakka]

Going first is always better than not going first, however, a 20% better chance of going first is not better than being able to swap to-hit for damage on a melee attack, or casting a spell as a swift action, or getting an extra off-hand attack, or ... you get the idea.

[Asur]

I encourage my group to take it, but not everyone does.

You can't encourage your group to take it, and then complain that they took it...

Personally if I were in your position I'd make the 'battlefield' bigger. "So glad you started first, now spend all your first action getting into range of my guys." Because of that scenario I never give II to melee types, rather let my enemy get close, then charge.

[alchemyprime]

You could go the Star Wars Saga Edition route: Make it a skill.

Initiative (Dex)
This skill is used to determine the order in which you enter battle. It can be used untrained.
Class Skill for: Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue.

Just tossing that out there. Then Improved Initiative, while a huge boon, isn't necessarily going to be taken by everyone.

Or say that it requires a Reflex bonus of at least +2, so you know only the Rogue, Monk, Ranger or Bard (maybe barbarian? Can't remember) will have it at 1st and everyone else has to wait til 6th to take it.

[Tiki Snakes]

I think just starting building monsters as monsters and not as PC's would be a good start. If you are giving literally everything the feat, then there is a problem.
But it's not with the feat.

[Ernir]

I have to sign in with the "Improved Initiative is fine" crowd.

Also, I think that this

As a PC, I always take Improved Initiative by level 3.
means you really need to take a second look at how you build PCs. :smalleek:

[Psyren]

For psionic characters especially, Improved Initiative is waaaaaay down the priority list. Before that, you'll want a faster focus, a psicrystal, a focus in that psicrystal, overchannel, talented, then prereqs for chosen PrCs, whatever EKs you need to broaden your list, etc. By the time you get all that, you're usually high enough for metapsionics to come into play.

(Though to be fair, psionicists can cheat - Anticipatory Strike basically says "Initiative? What Initiative?")

[Curmudgeon]

unless a melee has pounce or is a rogue, high initiative is bad for themcause they cant make full attacks after they moved to the enemy
Some questions for you:

How is a Rogue supposed to make full attacks after moving to the enemy?
Why would a Rogue want to move to the enemy?
I'm apparently missing something here.

Going first is always better than not going first
Can't agree with that one. If you're a Rogue and combat has gotten to the point that no one is flat-footed anymore for your ranged attacks, you still want to delay closing for melee until an ally has moved into a position that would let you flank an enemy. The difference between sneak attack and no sneak attack is huge, so you never want to be the first to get into melee.

[Coidzor]

I build opponents like I would build characters. By level 3, everyone has Improved Initiative.

Every time I run into it online, it's addressed as something nice to have but not something everyone must have. This really seems like a particular quirk of your group.

As for nixing it as a prerequisite for other feats/PrCs, I'm all for that.

[Skjaldbakka]

Can't agree with that one. If you're a Rogue and combat has gotten to the point that no one is flat-footed anymore for your ranged attacks, you still want to delay closing for melee until an ally has moved into a position that would let you flank an enemy. The difference between sneak attack and no sneak attack is huge, so you never want to be the first to get into melee.

Sorry, allow me to rephrase: Having the option of going first is always better than not going first. Going first and then delaying action for tactical advantage is still going first in my mind.

Also, if you're a rogue, going first = everyone is flat-footed, because you went first. Combat is cyclical, so any actions afterwards is no longer going first, even if you're at the top of the round.

edit- and the rogue wants to close with the enemy because he needs to be within 30ft for sneak attack, and if he is built for damage output, wants to set up a flank so that he can two weapon fight for massive damage output. You need improved invisibility or to win initiative to get a full attack with ranged weapons that all get sneak attack damage.

[Kylarra]

I think you should ban Improved Initiative. Playing without it will make your players realize just how much it isn't as important as they think it is. To really drive that point home, keep putting it on everything they fight, but don't tell them that you did. Save that for the big reveal after a few months of playing that way.You have it backwards. The OP is the one claiming the importance of Imp Init, not the players.

[Kurald Galain]

Well, 99% of the time when somebody says that a certain feat, item, or spell is "mandatory" for build X, then that person is simply wrong but has never tried playing an X without it. Generally, if you manage to convince them to play an X without that feat, item, or spell, they'll come to realize that yes, that is also possible.

[Waker]

I wouldn't ban the feat. Instead focus on either beefing up the enemies so they can last for more than two rounds or stagger combat in some fashion. Using terrain or having reinforcements arrive is a far more tactical choice than +4 initiative.

[grimbold]

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

do all your players have it? Do you necessarily have to give it to all your monsters?
this
you may want to also monitor your monsters and edit them if neccesary

[Curmudgeon]

Sorry, allow me to rephrase: Having the option of going first is always better than not going first. Going first and then delaying action for tactical advantage is still going first in my mind.
How is this any different, other than using up a feat, than going later?

Also, if you're a rogue, going first = everyone is flat-footed, because you went first.
Why would you need everyone to be flat-footed? As long as there's at least one flat-footed enemy left every time you fire an arrow at the start of combat your initiative is high enough for you to deal maximum sneak attack damage.

[Kuma Kode]

Why would you need everyone to be flat-footed? As long as there's at least one flat-footed enemy left every time you fire an arrow at the start of combat your initiative is high enough for you to deal maximum sneak attack damage. He/she technically didn't say everyone had to be flat-footed, what they said was correct; if you go first, everyone is flat-footed.

[Kamai]

I'm with everyone here that Improved Initiative is not really good enough of a feat where everyone, no matter what, should be taking it, even in Pathfinder, where you do get more feats, but there are also a lot of useful feat chains. The only group I've ever seen take that feat in mass had a houserule where you rolled initiative every round, and even then, I couldn't find a spot for it.

As far as monster design, is a +20% chance of going first really worth losing (HD) hit points? Rerolling a save? Quickening spell-likes? Being able to land a nasty single hit? Nauseating on a critical? Just try building one of your monsters without Improved Initiative, and see what that extra feat gets you.

[Psyren]

Why would you need everyone to be flat-footed?

So you can pick any target within range

[Curmudgeon]

So you can pick any target within range
And how is Improved Initiative going to accomplish this? Everyone's rolling a d20, with a difference of up to 19 from that alone. +4 might give you one more flat-footed target to choose in the average encounter.

I just don't see much value for Rogues.

[Amphetryon]

I'm with everyone here that Improved Initiative is not really good enough of a feat where everyone, no matter what, should be taking it, even in Pathfinder, where you do get more feats, but there are also a lot of useful feat chains. The only group I've ever seen take that feat in mass had a houserule where you rolled initiative every round, and even then, I couldn't find a spot for it.

<snip>
Oddly enough, the group I was in with that houserule felt it devalued Improved Initiative, because of the increased amount of randomness thrown in. Low rolls are more likely when you have 5 initiative rolls per character per encounter. Also, what you rolled in subsequent rounds didn't prevent other folks from potentially acting, as it can in round 1 on an ubercharger or a God-Wizard or a Zilla.

[quiet1mi]

When building characters, if and only if I cannot fill in a feat slot because I am having a brain fart and cannot think of a feat that would improve or diversify this character, I take improved initiative.

After the first round, Improved initiative effectively does nothing... If you find your games to be rocket tag, take a feat that will help you survive the first turn.

[Skjaldbakka]

How is this any different, other than using up a feat, than going later?

Why would you need everyone to be flat-footed? As long as there's at least one flat-footed enemy left every time you fire an arrow at the start of combat your initiative is high enough for you to deal maximum sneak attack damage.

Ok, definitely a breakdown in communication here.

Going first (or having the option to) is always better. In my original post, I went on to describe how Improved Initiative =/= going first, and that a +4 initiative bonus is not as good as a few other feats, such as Power Attack, Quicken Spell, or Two Weapon Fighting... Not sure where you got "this guy is in the everyone should take improved initiative camp" from that.

My statement, which is a factual statement, is that going first (including the option to decide to delay) is always better than not going first. It wasn't "taking improved initiative in order to have better chance of going first is always better than taking other feats useful for your build". I in fact expressed a point of view opposite of that one.

If you really think it is better to not go first than to go first, you are wrong, and here are the reasons why:

1 - More options are better. Having the option to go first is only an option if you go first.

2 - Bad things happen to people who are flat-footed. Even if you delay action, you are no longer flat-footed.

3 - You don't have to take improved initiative to go first, because that isn't what improved initiative does. It might be an interesting discussion to debate whether always going first would be worth a feat... the answer would be yes if you are a rogue or a spellcaster, IMO.

[Hallack]

I'd say, if as the DM you are putting Improved Initiative on most or all your monsters it is you creating the Feat tax for the players forcing them to keep up with what in most cases are going to be disposable one shot foes.

Probably not as cheesy as loading up with Sudden metamagics for one shot caster foes but to me I think it misses the mark in that vein of 'just because there are best choices mechanically doesn't mean you should always use them, particularly in npc design.'

Improved Initiative is nice but I rarely take it unless it is a bonus, prereq, or I just really don't have anything else to take.

[nedz]

Over at the Arena, we've made a fairly significant discovery about Intiative rolls: They are only important if you can attack or be attacked on the first round. If the encounter distance is large enough or there are obstructions in the way that prevent an attack on the first round of combat, Initiative barely has an effect on the outcome of combat.

In one game I played in: we were almost always ambushed, and even monsters we saw flying in from miles away arrived in the suprise round. Combats rarely lasted more than 1 round. EVERYONE had Improved Initiative.

In the game I run encounter distances vary and ambushes are rare. NO ONE has improved inititive, in fact its fairly common for people to delay in the first round.

I'm guessing that this issue is down to the OP's game style.

[Gullintanni]

How is this any different, other than using up a feat, than going later?

Why would you need everyone to be flat-footed? As long as there's at least one flat-footed enemy left every time you fire an arrow at the start of combat your initiative is high enough for you to deal maximum sneak attack damage.

II is definitely valuable for a rogue. To address your first question, the answer is that it's situational. Going first means I can delay my action to any initiative count that suits me best. Whereas actually having a later initiative count denies me the flexibility to act when it is most advantageous to me.

The other reason you want everyone flat-footed is because this means you get your pick of targets. Assuming there is a heavy fighter with low dex and a wizard with high dex, if having a high dex rogue with II allows you to neutralize the caster threat by winning initiative and pulling a volley of Sneak Attacks out, then you may have just saved your party. I don't run an opponent caster in most battles, and I assume most people don't, so the benefit of II is limited...but when it pays off, the benefit can be very important.

That being said, these benefits are (as I said) situational. There are usually better feats. II is useful, but far from vital. It's already been said though, if you can't find something better to put on your character, you probably aren't looking hard enough.

[Curmudgeon]

Ok, definitely a breakdown in communication here.
Yes, we do seem to be making disjoint points.

1 - More options are better.
There's no denying that, but I don't think that's what's at issue. The issue is whether Improved Initiative gives you more options that are worth the cost of the feat. Since it might, on average, let you go before one more enemy each encounter it doesn't seem particularly worthwhile.

Having the option to go first is only an option if you go first.
There's that breakdown in communication again. :smallwink:

2 - Bad things happen to people who are flat-footed. Even if you delay action, you are no longer flat-footed.
Sorry, but that's not right.

Delay

By choosing to delay, you take no action and then act normally on whatever initiative count you decide to act. When you delay, you voluntarily reduce your own initiative result for the rest of the combat. From Rules Compendium on page 35:
Flat-Footed: A creature that hasn’t yet taken an action during combat is flat-footed, not yet able to react normally to the situation. A flat-footed creature is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC and can’t make attacks of opportunity. Delaying, in terms of game consequences, is identical to just going later. You're flat-footed until you act.

[Thespianus]

And how is Improved Initiative going to accomplish this? Everyone's rolling a d20, with a difference of up to 19 from that alone. +4 might give you one more flat-footed target to choose in the average encounter.
If the DM rolls one initiative roll for "all the monsters", i.e , all monsters act on the same initiative count (which is the way the PHB kind-of recommends), you either go "before all monsters" or "after all monsters".

This is how our group plays out initiative, and others (you) might play it differently...

[Keinnicht]

Not really. Players should have the choice between acting faster, or getting another feat to do something else.

[Gullintanni]

If the DM rolls one initiative roll for "all the monsters", i.e , all monsters act on the same initiative count (which is the way the PHB kind-of recommends), you either go "before all monsters" or "after all monsters".

This is how our group plays out initiative, and others (you) might play it differently...

I'm a vote on the play it differently side of things. Different monsters in the same combat often have different initiative modifiers, so they can still act in varying orders in between PCs. Given that that's the case, why not roll for everything in the encounter. It doesn't really impact gameplay that much...and it feels more realistic for me and my party.

[true_shinken]

If the DM rolls one initiative roll for "all the monsters", i.e , all monsters act on the same initiative count (which is the way the PHB kind-of recommends), you either go "before all monsters" or "after all monsters".

This is how our group plays out initiative, and others (you) might play it differently...

I at least roll for groups of monsters separatedely, so there is that. I also think that's the default rule.

[Thespianus]

I'm a vote on the play it differently side of things. Different monsters in the same combat often have different initiative modifiers, so they can still act in varying orders in between PCs. Given that that's the case, why not roll for everything in the encounter. It doesn't really impact gameplay that much...and it feels more realistic for me and my party.

As I was reading through the passage in PHB, I realized that I never actually thought about it that much, but yeah, you're right, if the initiative modifiers vary (say between a Rogue and a Cleric NPC) the DM should act on different initiative counts depending on which NPC he acts with, even if he rolls one initiative roll.

I'll ask my DM how he acts it out. Normally he moves "all monsters" at the same initiative count, and I'm not sure how he treats various initiative modifiers.

Quite possibly, he will just say "Shut up, this is how I do it", which is fine by me. ;)

[Curmudgeon]

If the DM rolls one initiative roll for "all the monsters", i.e , all monsters act on the same initiative count (which is the way the PHB kind-of recommends), you either go "before all monsters" or "after all monsters".
That's only reasonable if the DM both rolls once for all enemies and all the monsters have the same initiative modifier. That's OK for a horde of mooks, but not if you're up against a diverse enemy group with both melee and ranged forces, plus spellcasters.

But even if the enemies all have the same initiative, Improved Intiiative just means that maybe every 5th encounter you'll go before the monsters when you would have instead acted after them. The other 4 encounters Improved Initiative won't make any difference. I much prefer feats that you can benefit from most or all of the time, not just every other day.

[Thespianus]

I at least roll for groups of monsters separatedely, so there is that. I also think that's the default rule.

The default rule in the PHB says "The Dm makes a single initiative check for monsters and other opponents (...) At the DMs option, he can make separate checks for groups of monsters"

However, there's nothing in the PHB about what initiative modifier the DM should use for that roll. How annoying! :smallfrown:

[Gullintanni]

As I was reading through the passage in PHB, I realized that I never actually thought about it that much, but yeah, you're right, if the initiative modifiers vary (say between a Rogue and a Cleric NPC) the DM should act on different initiative counts depending on which NPC he acts with, even if he rolls one initiative roll.

I'll ask my DM how he acts it out. Normally he moves "all monsters" at the same initiative count, and I'm not sure how he treats various initiative modifiers.

Quite possibly, he will just say "Shut up, this is how I do it", which is fine by me. ;)

Hmm...

The problem with that approach is if I have a CR 20 Dragon with an init mod of +0 and say a CR 2 Choker with a +6 init mod, and the DM rolls one score, which init mod does he include? If he includes the choker's mod, and allows the dragon to move simultaneously to the choker, then he's effectively given the Dragon a +6 init mod.

...on that note it's the DMs game. It's perfectly valid; however, to assign one initiative score to all of your monsters in an encounter. The DM should be playing the monsters by their modifiers though when it makes a difference IMHO.

[Thespianus]

But even if the enemies all have the same initiative, Improved Intiiative just means that maybe every 5th encounter you'll go before the monsters when you would have instead acted after them.
This part is still totally true. :)

But, ok, then I have some input for initiative rolls for my DM. In our group, we're all crazy anyway, and use the alternative "Roll initiative every turn"-rule in the DMG, so I guess that's another reason why I never thought of it, the initiative count varies a lot naturally during the encounter anyway...

[Thespianus]

Hmm...

The problem with that approach is if I have a CR 20 Dragon with an init score of +0 and say a CR 2 Choker with a +6 initiative mod, and the DM rolls one score, which init mod does he include?
Yeah, exactly. I'll ask him next time. So far, I don't think it's been a huge difference in initiative modifier between the monsters we've encountered, anyway.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

orry, but that's not right.
From Rules Compendium on page 35: Delaying, in terms of game consequences, is identical to just going later. You're flat-footed until you act.
Of course, Delay itself is listed as a Special Initiative Action. So it’s an action where you take no action?

In any case, one would expect the RAI of what being flat-footed represents to allow the condition to be eliminated once one is cognizant enough to actually choose to bide one’s time until a better opportunity comes along.

[Skjaldbakka]

There's no denying that, but I don't think that's what's at issue. The issue is whether Improved Initiative gives you more options that are worth the cost of the feat. Since it might, on average, let you go before one more enemy each encounter it doesn't seem particularly worthwhile.

I am not disagreeing with you there. I personally rarely take it except on casters (out of a sense of fairness for the non-casters, I don't tend to be as efficient when I make a caster).


orry, but that's not right.
From Rules Compendium on page 35: Delaying, in terms of game consequences, is identical to just going later. You're flat-footed until you act.

Well, that is about as stupid as bucket healing and being able to act when dead, so I'll just ignore that by taking a free action to speak, then delay. I won't necessarily speak anything in particular, but I'll have acted at that point.

[The Big Dice]

Hmm...

The problem with that approach is if I have a CR 20 Dragon with an init mod of +0 and say a CR 2 Choker with a +6 init mod, and the DM rolls one score, which init mod does he include?
Roll once but add each critter's Initiative modifier to the roll is how I deal with that. So in that case, assuming I rolled a 14, the Choker would go on 20, but the Dragon on 14. Yes it can mean that gangs of the same creature type all end up acting at the same time, but that just makes life a little easier on the GM anyway.

After all, why does a GM need every single critter to have the same level of complexity and detail as a PC? That's just giving out pointless headaches. If I can simplfy things, I will. Just to save myself from having my brain use so much processor capacity that it all freezes up.

[Jayabalard]

Sorry, allow me to rephrase: Having the option of going first is always better than not going first.Not so... sometimes it's better, and sometimes it's exactly the same.

If your build makes it so that most of the time it's exactly the same, then it may not be worth the feat.

[Curmudgeon]

Well, that is about as stupid as bucket healing and being able to act when dead, so I'll just ignore that by taking a free action to speak, then delay. I won't necessarily speak anything in particular, but I'll have acted at that point.
That doesn't work, either. Delay requires that you take no action, so if you act you no longer qualify for Delay.

[Benly]

My two cents: I end up with Improved Initiative in a lot of my builds, but that doesn't mean that all or even most of my characters have Improved Initiative. Usually it goes later in the build; my early feats are taken up with either feats that give me new options or prerequisites. By the time the game degenerates into rocket tag it tends to be the mid-late levels anyway.

[Skjaldbakka]

Not so... sometimes it's better, and sometimes it's exactly the same.

If your build makes it so that most of the time it's exactly the same, then it may not be worth the feat.

And once again, the assumption is made that I favor Improved Initiative as the cure for all that ails you. Having the option to go first is by definition better than not having that option, because more options are always better.

That doesn't mean improved initiative is worth taking, it doesn't mean I think going first is the most important thing.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

That doesn't work, either. Delay requires that you take no action, so if you act you no longer qualify for Delay.
Talking is an action you can take even when it isn’t your turn. Speak before your turn comes up! Yay! No more flat-footedness, whether you are going to delay or not!

[Jayabalard]

And once again, the assumption is made that I favor Improved Initiative as the cure for all that ails you.No, I'm not making any such assumption. I'm just disagreeing with your use of the word "always" because I think it makes what you said a false statement, because it's not always better. Sometimes it doesn't matter.


Having the option to go first is by definition better than not having that option, because more options are always better.Not true. There are many cases where more options aren't better. If Resturant A has 4 sandwiches (roast beef, Ham and Swiss, turkey club, and veggie), and Restaurant B has 5 sandwiches (all variations of a S**** sandwich: cow S****, horse S**** , pig S****, turkey S**** and goat S****); Having more options does not make the restaurant B the better restaurant.

Trivial Gaming examples:

any point where additional option slow the game down and make it less fun.
any option that adds less value than it's opportunity cost.


The other problem with this statement is that it's a false dichotomy in the context of "Do I take improved initiative or something else". The choice isn't between having the option of going first, and nothing, it's the choice between a better chance of going first and some other else.

[Severus]

It's actually only important in certain situations. A +4 in no way guarantees you'll go first. Rogues love it, but unless your combat is rocket tag, it's not that good. You're better off taking a feat that will enhance what you actually want to do, and many classes are already struggling to make ends meet when it comes to feats.

I've always tried to take this on my mages when I could once they got to higher levels, because the first person who casts, wins....

[Jayabalard]

I've always tried to take this on my mages when I could once they got to higher levels, because the first person who casts, wins....Winning initiative is generally not the way to ensure you go first as a higher level caster.

[Curmudgeon]

Talking is an action you can take even when it isn’t your turn. Speak before your turn comes up! Yay! No more flat-footedness, whether you are going to delay or not!
OK, so you won't be flat-footed if your DM buys this argument ─ but you're still not allowed to Delay if you speak. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: I recommend donning a crash helmet in preparation for advocating this tactic, as most DMs have a bunch of heavy books in easy reach. It might be easier on the player's skull for their character to take 2 levels of Scout, since Scout uncanny dodge keeps them from being caught flat-footed, ever.

[Doug Lampert]

1. The higher your initiative already is (beyond the enemy's), the more likely a further bonus is not to matter. If you have the same mod it's a +20% chance of going first but if your mod is 10 better it's like 10% (if you roll 11-20 you'll go first no matter what they roll). If you tweak out initiative (Dex-oriented character with a Belt of Battle and Eager / Warning armor spikes or random hold-between-encounters throwing weapon) you will often roll too high for the +4 to matter.

Agreed.

The chance of Improved Initiative helping in a 1 on 1 comparison is 23.5% if you are -2 to the enemy without improved initiative and +2 with it. That's the best possible case (it improves your chance by more than 20% since you lost ties before and now win ties).

But if you're not between opponent's initiative -4 and equal initiative without the feat (inclusive), then the feat will help at most 16.5% of the time, and every point you're outside the -5 to +1 range by drops that 16.5% by another 1% (till you get to absurdly large differences).

So if you are a rogue and beat most foes' base initiative by +4 anyway then the chance that II will make you go before a particular foe is 13.5%, not all that great actually.

[Lycar]

From Rules Compendium on page 35: Delaying, in terms of game consequences, is identical to just going later. You're flat-footed until you act.

Uhm but your interpretation of what exactly constitutes 'having acted' is wrong.

Being flat-footed is the equivalent of not being aware of being in a combat situation, thus being unable to react to an attack, unless you happen to have those finely-tuned instincts that Uncanny Dodge represents.

If a character deliberately choses to either ready an action, or delay taking the action he is entitled to, he has already acted insofar as he has made a conscious, deliberate choice to postpone his attack/move/casting/whatever until circumstances have changed, preferably for the better.

The primary example would be the fighter who'd rather have the enemy close the distance himself, so that his single attack is met, possibly even canceled out by his Combat Reflexes/Hold the Line feat combo (if the enemy choses to charge that is).

You are not really arguing that that fighter, just because he rather waits for the enemy to move first, and thus loses the opportunity to make full attacks, instead of moving and attacking first himself, thus opening himself for aforementioned full attack, is still blissfully unaware of being in a combat?

Lycar

[Curmudgeon]

Being flat-footed is the equivalent of not being aware of being in a combat situation
I'm afraid you're confusing different game concepts. You've just described surprise, not the flat-footed condition. Surprise is being unaware. Flat-footed is (usually) merely not having acted yet.

Most of the time a surprised character is also flat-footed. However, a Scout of level 2+ isn't flat-footed even when they're surprised. And you can be perfectly aware yet flat-footed in several ways, including trying to Balance with fewer than 5 ranks in the skill.

Two different concepts.

[Aemoh87]

If Improved Initiative is considered overpowered, then Toughness is considered half way decent and Divine Metamagic is it's own game.

[rayne_dragon]

My 2 copper pieces: If all your players have it, you're giving it to all your monsters/NPCs, and everyone agrees that nobody would not take it, then it may actually be worth banning, or restricting to certain classes (like Rogues) because you do make a good point about it basically just being a feat tax at that point. I honestly think that with most groups this isn't a problem so I normally would never endorse banning it, but you've made me realize that there is a situation where it would be worthwhile to do so. Just make sure that everyone will find it more fun not to have access to the feat.

[sonofzeal]

Improved Initiative always seemed like a "well I don't have aynthing particular I need, oh hey init's always good". A +4 is hardly going to guarantee first place, and feats are valuable.


The one thing I might ban is having them on any but the most ninja-agile monsters. They're good for players, PCs love going first, but having Mr Orc #347 with an excellent init just seems wrong. Monsters are there for the PCs to outmaneuver, and that means allowing a PC who's invested there to be able to get the initiative on them. Throwing it on every single monster really does turn it into a feat tax. Instead, ban it for monsters (unless it's default for them) and let PCs do what they want. Some will take it, some will find better things to do with their feats.

[Gullintanni]

Not true. There are many cases where more options aren't better. If Resturant A has 4 sandwiches (roast beef, Ham and Swiss, turkey club, and veggie), and Restaurant B has 5 sandwiches (all variations of a S**** sandwich: cow S****, horse S**** , pig S****, turkey S**** and goat S****); Having more options does not make the restaurant B the better restaurant.


This is faulty logic. In your metaphor, Restaurant A presents 4 options, whereas Restaurant B presents 5 DIFFERENT, options. To be more representative of the current scenario, the menus would have to present as follows:

A - Roast beef, Ham/Swiss, Turkey Club, Veggie
B - Roast beef, Ham/Swiss, Turkey Club, Cow S***

In which case, if you're a housefly, the second option may in fact be the better of the two.

...and it is that niche that II fills. In rare builds, where you are the housefly, then option B is probably better.

The rest of your points are correct. II =/= going first, and the opportunity cost of taking II renders it almost impossible to fit in any build.

[Severus]

Winning initiative is generally not the way to ensure you go first as a higher level caster.

That depends upon what level you are.

[Corronchilejano]

Sorry, but that's not right.
From Rules Compendium on page 35: Delaying, in terms of game consequences, is identical to just going later. You're flat-footed until you act.

RAW is dangerous when you don't even attempt to understand the spirit of what is being said. I know you get it, and I understand what you're trying to say it, but I wonder:

Why oh why isn't it acceptable then to just talk yourself out of flatfootness? If it's acting...

And yes, I understand that technically not being flat foot after delaying is a "house rule" by the way you speak.

I'm talking to YOU, RULES COMPENDIUM! You used to be cool man.

PS: If II is overpowered then wait till you discover Power Attack.

[erikun]

Improved Initiative helps everyone.
Quick Draw helps everyone. Endurance helps everyone. Iron Will helps everyone. Combat Reflexes helps everyone. Improved Unarmed Strike helps everyone. Dodge and Mobility help everyone. Heck, even Toughness helps everyone.

Just because a character is better with a particular feat than without does not make it overly powerful. For one, you are always giving up a potentially far better feat to take one of the above. Sure, every character you have ever made may have taken Improved Initiative and Quick Draw and Power Attack, but that is a far cry from every character being better by taking Improved Initiative over any other feat choices.

I would recommend against banning the feat. As others have said, it's good at what it does but represents an expense that could be used in better feats for the character. If every single NPC and monster you design has Improved Initiative, then it sounds more like you have choosing from a very limited pool of feats than Imp Init being overpowering in the campaign.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

Endaire, I've said it before. Feat taxes are good if they are done atleast equally to casters. That Fighter20 should smile at the full casters sweating over which caster feat to chose. Let's face it, its one of the few times he can smile.

[true_shinken]

OK, so you won't be flat-footed if your DM buys this argument ─ but you're still not allowed to Delay if you speak. :smallbiggrin:
Curmudgeon arguing against RAW?
Run to the hills! The end is upon us!
Just kidding, dude. :smallwink:

[The_Jackal]

Why punish the players for taking good feats? Does your game really require that your monsters always go first to make them challenging? Look, going first is only game-breakingly huge when combat ends on round one. Instead, try throwing monsters with more hit points in there, or fudge a perception check to give your mooks a surprise round.

The main reason everyone grabs II is because being flat footed is really, really punitive against many enemies. But +4 isn't that huge when you're talking about a 1-20 random factor.

[Togo]

It' a point that's been made already, but I suspect you need to vary the encounter distance more. Initiative makes much less difference when the two groups see eachother from a good distance, or literally start off 5ft away (say by suddenly coming around a corner, or ambush, or similar).

Try also varying the combat length. A zombie attack backed up by an evil cleric buffing the zombies will generally last a good five rounds, at any level. I've found that tough monsters are generally more fun to fight than dangerous but flimsy monsters. They're less threatening to the lives of the PCs, but more effective at draining resources from them. If every fight is a game of rocket tag, you're missing out, and your player's PCs will gradually start to all look like rockets.

When I wrote a game for a living campaign (ie for people who I didn't know, at a table where I wouldn't be DMing) I was careful to put in one encounter that started at long range, with monsters with missle weapons of varying ranges, one encounter with undead that were very tough but not as dangerous, one encounter slanted towards mobile PCs (it was fought on rooftops above a crowd), and so on. Most of those who played agreed that one of the fights was really tough, but not on which one.

Improved initiative is a good feat, one of the best in the PHB. But you probably want to focus on a variety of challenges, not trying to beat the PCs with the same stick each time, however effective you believe that stick to be. There are some good paragraphs on different monster encounter types in the DMG - use them. At least two or three won't suit your style, and you won't 'like' the resulting encounter, but playing against your own preferences occasionally will make the game more fun.

[Amphetryon]

It' a point that's been made already, but I suspect you need to vary the encounter distance more. Initiative makes much less difference when the two groups see eachother from a good distance, or literally start off 5ft away (say by suddenly coming around a corner, or ambush, or similar).

Try also varying the combat length. A zombie attack backed up by an evil cleric buffing the zombies will generally last a good five rounds, at any level. I've found that tough monsters are generally more fun to fight than dangerous but flimsy monsters. They're less threatening to the lives of the PCs, but more effective at draining resources from them. If every fight is a game of rocket tag, you're missing out, and your player's PCs will gradually start to all look like rockets.

Going to have to disagree here. A party with a Cleric who has Extra Turning or a Nightstick or 8 and is optimized for it through Radiant Servant of Pelor or similar pretty much walks through the zombies while their Wizard eliminates the evil Cleric.

From what he's said in this and other threads, Endarire plays a very high-CharOp version of D&D. In that environment, round 3 of any combat is a rare bird indeed. If this and similar questions indicate a dissatisfaction with the way that plays out at the table, then there's an issue to examine. If, as some others have speculated, this and similar questions are Socratic in nature and indicative of a desire somehow to "fix those games and gamers that are doing it wrong", that's a goal which may prove unattainable.

[molten_dragon]

Improved initiative is nice, but it's not so good that everyone should have it by level 3. Feats are a very limited resource, and there are usually much better choices out there.