Value of Iniative. Is it worth going first?

[Blas_de_Lezo]

In my D&D group Initiative is highly apreciated. Everybody has at least Improved Initiative, and Dexterity is usually assigned as a high ability (in some cases even more than Constitution, only to act first). Our fighters usually take another feat to improve initiative even more (Blooded, Thug, etc).

What do you think? Are we over-estimating initiative? Do you consider going almost always first is crucial?

[Vaz]

Depends. Usual answer here is a Wizard always goes first. Always, but they don't need Initiative at all. Celerity does that for them.

I think the common consensus is either ramp it up to the absolute max, and abuse it that way (Sudden Striking/Flat Footed/Denied Dex based attacks), or just not bother with optimizing it short of *make sure you're not last*.

[Malak'ai]

Depends on the character for me.
If I'm playing something that's supposed to be quick off the mark in combat (Rogue, Ranger, Monk etc) then yes I take it. If I'm more of a heavy hitter/meat shield/support then I don't usually bother unless I have a free feat and can't think of what else to take.

[Wonton]

In general, I find it to be very powerful. Since most combats last only 4 rounds or so, often it's the difference between going 3 times and 4 times.Tactically, it doesn't always make a huge difference, but it's way more FUN for me as a player anyway. :smallbiggrin:

[CaladanMoonblad]

Turn based combat does all sorts of things. Most notably is that the battlefield is like a game of Green Light Red Light from a character's perspective.

Example;
The party is traveling across a purportedly haunted forest in a shortcut to meet a noble for a time sensitive overarching goal. While en route, the sounds of ghosts reaches our heroes' ears, but the Rogue/Druid/Ranger Spots the strategically placed wind chimes high in the trees... and after climbing and making an Appraise check, notices they are of goblin make. Our Party decides to engage in some racial hatred and track the forest dwelling goblins down to their homes.

The party finds the goblin village behind a thicket, but someone fails on their Move Silently check (the priest is cursed with flatulence or something). Everyone rolls initiative!

If the wizard gets initiative, the goblins are already bunched up in the middle of the village, so his fireball will just about slay everyone. But no, he rolls low... really low. The rest of his party charges to do battle... and now the wizard must change the spell he was planning on using since s/he doesn't want to AoE his own allies.
Head to 5:10 or so (6:10 if you don't care for the context) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH5fC9H8yJA

[Curmudgeon]

As an officianado of Rogues, I've worked this out and determined that Improved Initiative is a poor feat. Here's why:

Before combat starts, the Rogue should always be walking around with a missile weapon ready to fire (a composite longbow if Elf; a composite shortbow for most). Maxed out Spot and maybe Listen means the Rogue should almost never be surprised. But if the enemies are surprised, that means the Rogue will get to add sneak attack damage (within range) on the surprise round.
On the first regular round of combat the fact that the Rogue has a missile weapon makes picking a flat-footed target easy: just fire a full attack at anyone who hasn't acted yet, and you'll get to add sneak attack damage on every shot. With good DEX, the chance of all enemies having better initiative is low, even if every one of them has Improved Initiative; that feat's bonus is only 20% of the d20 range, so it's hardly a determining factor.
On the second round of combat it's time to switch to melee. The Rogue may need to Delay until they've got a flanking partner in place, and only move after that flanker. (Moving into position before the flanking partner means no sneak attack for the round; that's tactically stupid.) So higher initiative just makes the Delay longer.
Improved Initiative also isn't worth taking for most spellcasters; they've got options like Nerveskitter and Sign that work better for them since spells are much more plentiful than feats. And, of course, Sorcerers and Wizards get Heroics, so they've probably already (temporarily) got Improved Initiative anyway.

[Flickerdart]

Going first is nice, but as with everything, boosting initiative has diminishing returns. Having 20 more initiative than your enemies and having 25 initiative more than your enemies works out to the same thing. An advantage of about 10 (winning initiative for you is a 75% chance) is probably a good place to stop and spend resources on something else.

[nedz]

It's entirely game style dependant.

In games of rocket-tag you win initiative or die.

In games where what is happening may not be immediately apparent, it's less useful.

[Miranius]

I think it`s mostly dependent on your role in the party. If you`re the sword-and-board meatshield: who cares if the enemy attacks you, that`s what they are supposed to do anyways, from the first to the last roud of combat.
If you are a d4 wizard with pneumonia and already terribly wounded by your last battle with a housecat the LAST thing you will want is to give anybody free potshots at you, escpecially if your defense might need some preparation (mirror image, mage armor and the like).

So, as always, the answer would be "it depends...."

[Answerer]

Generally, the higher the optimization level, the more important initiative is.

This is because it is optimal to eliminate threats as rapidly as possible, ideally without giving them a chance to respond. If everyone is aiming in that direction, then going second can mean not going at all.

However, even when this is not the case, high initiative is still valuable, though harder to quantify (and therefore harder to say whether a given bonus is worth its opportunity cost). It also depends on role. A caster who specializes in big, area-affecting offensive spells (damage or better debuffs) definitely wants to go first, because he's most likely to catch his opponents together and least likely to get his allies. As mentioned, a Rogue may not want to go first if he needs flanking and support in order to deal his damage. And just statistically, if you go first you are guaranteed to never be in a situation where an opponent has had more turns than you, and there will be points in time when you've had more turns than them. This means if you're perfectly matched the tie will go to you.

[Story]

The other thing is that Wizards have a low opportunity cost for taking it. Unless you're planning to go into Geometer, there's not much reason to have Scribe Scroll, so you might as well trade it out for Improved Initiative.


CELERITY!
|
V

[silverwolfer]

{Scrubbed}

[Phelix-Mu]

The arrival of useful immediate actions on the scene in 3.5 really did a number on the initiative/turn-based dynamic that had previously existed in the game. Not that this system was ever bulletproof, but things like celerity and Immediate Magic (Abrupt Jaunt) ACF really can screw up a previously fairly predictable system.

My monk/wizard with Abrupt Jaunt and Sun School uses this to her advantage all the time. Wait until an enemy is about to swing at her, teleport behind the enemy, free attack with stunning, enemy loses rest of turn. Now it's the monk's normal turn. Depending on how many enemies there are and how much the stunning hits, it's a pretty effective strategy.

And that is hardly the most optimal use of immediate actions. Celerity itself is crazy, since at higher levels that single action that the wizard gets will radically change the outcome of the battle (especially with battlefield control or summoning), and the drawback is decidedly not much of a balancing factor.

[Answerer]

You cannot use Immediate Actions while flat-footed. If anything, Initiative became more important as a result of this.

[Phelix-Mu]

You cannot use Immediate Actions while flat-footed. If anything, Initiative became more important as a result of this.

I didn't actually say that it was less important, or if I did I was mistaken. I just was trying to point out that immediate actions destabilize the turn-based system. Your point about the first round of combat and immediate actions is a good point, and I agree that it probably does make winning initiative even more important. The rocket tag comment from before was pretty spot on as well.

If the OP wants, just think of it outside of the mechanic, in an in-character perspective. Just like getting ambushed is bad, having to stand around while other people are already doing things is bad, especially when the people are doing things to you with pointy objects.

The previous comments about the wisdom of investing feats in improving initiative is quite accurate. While at the start of the game there may not be many options, it quickly becomes more optimal to invest in items and spells that can give an equal or better bonus to initiative rolls.

[Archmage1]

Init is nice for everyone. The question is, are there other, nicer things.
For example, if you are an elven generalist, you might as well trade in scribe scroll for improved init, to go with your hummingbird familiar, as between the two of them, that is a +12, which is significant.
And neither costs you a feat slot.

Essentially if you are playing at high optimization, init means you win. If you, as a wizard, goes first, then you don't need celerity, and your enemy does. If they do something too nasty, you can just cast yours, after all.

[Deaxsa]

You cannot use Immediate Actions while flat-footed. If anything, Initiative became more important as a result of this.

Where can i find this rule? this may come up later in play, and if possible, i'd like to be able to back myself up.

[Curmudgeon]

Where can i find this rule? this may come up later in play, and if possible, i'd like to be able to back myself up.
Right here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#immediateActions). It's also in Complete Arcane on page 86.

[Treblain]

I think going first is pretty desirable for fighters, because you want to be able to stake out a position in the middle of the combat and influence where your enemies go. If the melee-ers go last, and your casters and archers stayed behind them because they had no need to move, then your party gets rushed by the enemies and bottled up where you entered the area for the whole combat.

[Story]

I think going first is pretty desirable for fighters, because you want to be able to stake out a position in the middle of the combat and influence where your enemies go. If the melee-ers go last, and your casters and archers stayed behind them because they had no need to move, then your party gets rushed by the enemies and bottled up where you entered the area for the whole combat.

How can they rush when fatigued and webbed?

[nedz]

If everyone, on both sides, favours High Dex and Improved Initiative simply to win the initiative auction: then you are all paying a feat tax for no advantage.

As arms races go: this is a zero sum game.

[Saidoro]

A single point of initiative is worth one twentieth of an action each combat. How much that is worth depends on how many actions the typical combat takes.

[Curmudgeon]

A single point of initiative is worth one twentieth of an action each combat.
It's quite a bit less than that. Initiative scores will typically have a range closer to 40 points than 20. You get a range of 19 points on the d20 roll alone, and Init modifiers range from small negative numbers to positive double digits.

[Saidoro]

It's quite a bit less than that. Initiative scores will typically have a range closer to 40 points than 20. You get a range of 19 points on the d20 roll alone, and Init modifiers range from small negative numbers to positive double digits.
While there are a few things with extremely large initiative values initiative is one of the few areas where almost everything is within the same RNG as the vast majority of PCs. Things with high or low initiative will have a few possible values that put them out of range of a few PCs, but the one twentieth model is still pretty close, if not exactly mathematically perfect.

[KillianHawkeye]

To me it depends on what kind of character you're playing. Proactive (attacking) characters such as Fighters, Rogues, and control-focused spellcasters will usually enjoy going before the enemy. Reactive (support) characters such as healers and some buffers won't care as much.

It can also depend on personal play style and the conditions of the particular situation. Like if the enemy starts all grouped together, then getting the drop on them is valuable. But other times, I like to see where a fight is going before I take my action, so I might delay my turn even if I got a good initiative. This becomes especially true if I am working with limited resources, or if I'm not sure exactly what kind of a threat I'm up against.

[TypoNinja]

It depends on optimization levels. At the highest go first or die, at lower levels though there are many benefits to not going first.

I play in relatively low OP games, so it absolutely makes my day when somebody goes before me and decides to rush my beat-stick. They got a charge, but I get to full attack. On the other hand in my game where I'm a Crowd Control/Support Mystic Thurge, I tend to want to go first to get some preparatory spells off, either Crowd Control or a Buff (Slide on a scout is an awesome choice :D)

As you can see its fairly situationally dependent, what you are doing will dictate how useful going first will be.

[navar100]

I am notorious for rolling low in initiative. In 11 years of playing with my current group, I have gone first in combat exactly one time about 7 or 8 years ago. I am so used to it I can become flustered on those few times I go second or third. I've grown accustomed to reacting to what opponents do rather than initiate the action, pun intended. It has become handy for spellcasting purposes. However, there are times when it frustrates me. I'm strongly considering taking Improve Initiative for my next feat. Of course, a previous character who had it never went first that campaign either, but it would be nice not going last or near last all the time.

[ZamielVanWeber]

As a general note, the feat tends to be decent only when you have a positive Dex. It just feels totally wasted otherwise.

[Story]

It depends on optimization levels. At the highest go first or die, at lower levels though there are many benefits to not going first.

I play in relatively low OP games, so it absolutely makes my day when somebody goes before me and decides to rush my beat-stick. They got a charge, but I get to full attack. On the other hand in my game where I'm a Crowd Control/Support Mystic Thurge, I tend to want to go first to get some preparatory spells off, either Crowd Control or a Buff (Slide on a scout is an awesome choice :D)

As you can see its fairly situationally dependent, what you are doing will dictate how useful going first will be.

In my experience, Wizards always want to go first past level 3. Once your BSF is in the middle of the enemies, you can't drop a Web or Glitterdust anymore.



I am notorious for rolling low in initiative. In 11 years of playing with my current group, I have gone first in combat exactly one time about 7 or 8 years ago. I am so used to it I can become flustered on those few times I go second or third. I've grown accustomed to reacting to what opponents do rather than initiate the action, pun intended. It has become handy for spellcasting purposes. However, there are times when it frustrates me. I'm strongly considering taking Improve Initiative for my next feat. Of course, a previous character who had it never went first that campaign either, but it would be nice not going last or near last all the time.

If you're a spellcaster, get a Wand of Nerveskitter. +5 initiative for 15gp per battle is a steal, even at low levels. You might want to consider the aggressive trait too. And there's a ring that lets you reroll initiative.

[nedz]

Re-rolling initiative is only worth +2.5, on average.

[Zombimode]

If you're a spellcaster, get a Wand of Nerveskitter. +5 initiative for 15gp per battle is a steal, even at low levels.

How do you activate the Wand before your first turn?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

In a world of Rocket Tag, he who strikes first, wins.

[Story]

How do you activate the Wand before your first turn?

Nerveskitter has a special that says you can use it flatfooted. By RAW that doesn't apply to wands, but your DM might allow it. Mine does.

[ahenobarbi]

Re-rolling initiative is only worth +2.5, on average.

But it greatly reduces chances of rolling poorly. Which is great. Because it doesn't matter if you beat them by 1 or by 10, it matters that you beat them. And that's why I think best way to boos initiative is this the feat that lets you treat any dice roll for initiative below 10 as 10 (... can't find it now).

With some investment (nerve skitter, warning weapon, 14 dex) DM will have to optimize initiative to go before you (10(roll) + 5(nerveskitter) + 5(warning) + 2(dex) = 22 at least).

[Deophaun]

It also depends on how far away combat begins. If you start right on top of each other, then you want to go first, no ifs, ands, or buts, regardless of who you are. If you start at, say, long-range, you don't really need to go first unless you're all bunched up for a fireball.

But going first is always nice. You can always move down the initiative count if necessary, but moving up the initiative count is much harder.

[Snowbluff]

You cannot use Immediate Actions while flat-footed. If anything, Initiative became more important as a result of this.

Thank you! That was really bothering me.

[Zombimode]

Nerveskitter has a special that says you can use it flatfooted. By RAW that doesn't apply to wands, but your DM might allow it. Mine does.

Then it's not really a useful peace of advice, don't you think?

[Story]

Well it's something you have to ask your DM about, but it will probably be allowed.

If everyone gave advice by strict RAW, we'd be talking about Drown Healing.

[Zombimode]

Well it's something you have to ask your DM about, but it will probably be allowed.

What makes you so sure?

Personally, I like the fact that Nerveskitter is "balanced" in a way that you need to pay spell slots for this +5 bonus. Sure, its a price many are willing to pay, but you have to pay it.

Now, houseruling the Wand rules to let you circumvent this balancing factor of Nerveskitter? Thats not on the same level of ignoring some implications of the drowing rules (that are quite obviously oversights anyway so I wouldn't even consider it houseruling). Not even close.
Its more like houseruling "annoying" PRC or Feat prerequisites away. Or houseruling, that you can benefit from Shadow Blade with other weapons than just Shadow Hand weapons. If your group like such a rule, sure why not. But do not expect it to be wildly shared so to base an advice on it without even mentioning the houserule.

[Story]

Uh, I DID mention that it would need to be houseruled.

Anyway, to me it's just common sense that if you can cast the spell, you should be able to active the spell trigger item too. But I guess you have a different opinion.

[Curmudgeon]

Anyway, to me it's just common sense that if you can cast the spell, you should be able to active the spell trigger item too.
Well, let's consider that. First, you would have to walk around with the wand already in hand.
Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. Next, you have to point the wand at the target.
To activate a wand, a character must hold it in hand (or whatever passes for a hand, for nonhumanoid creatures) and point it in the general direction of the target or area. Finally, you have to say the spell trigger activation word.
Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. So you're prohibited by the normal rules from taking any actions (including immediate actions) when you're flat-footed, and you think it's "just common sense" to be able to point the wand at the target creature and then also give voice to the spell trigger activation word, both when you're flat-footed?

Doesn't seem sensible, or common, to me.

[Story]

Nerveskitter has a verbal component. You'd have to utter the magic words while flatfooted anyway. And having to have it already in hand is not an issue either most of the time. If you had your hands full, you wouldn't be able to cast Nerveskitter anyway.

[Gnaeus]

I play in relatively low OP games, so it absolutely makes my day when somebody goes before me and decides to rush my beat-stick. They got a charge, but I get to full attack. On the other hand in my game where I'm a Crowd Control/Support Mystic Thurge, I tend to want to go first to get some preparatory spells off, either Crowd Control or a Buff (Slide on a scout is an awesome choice :D)

As you can see its fairly situationally dependent, what you are doing will dictate how useful going first will be.


In my experience, Wizards always want to go first past level 3. Once your BSF is in the middle of the enemies, you can't drop a Web or Glitterdust anymore.


Its really true for the Beat-stick also. If you are fighting enemies who are dumb enough to charge your BSF, and you win init, there is nothing saying that you have to change your plan.

You could prepare to receive a charge.

You could drink a potion to increase your stats and then not move. If they were going to charge you before, they are probably still going to charge you now, only now you are not flat footed and you are rocking protection from evil or some other bonus that will help you through the combat.

Going last is never an advantage in 3.5. Now, as other people have pointed out, this does not necessarily mean that Improved Init is your best feat to take. You may find other things more important, or you may want to find other ways to boost init.

And of course, once you wander out of low-op, you REALLY want your beat stick to have an excellent initiative, so that he can White Raven Tactics whoever rolled badly.

[Rubik]

According to the Rules Compendium (which is official errata, BTW), wands have the same casting times as the spells in them, so you CAN use an immediate action Nerveskitter wand, RAW.


...Activating a spell trigger item takes the same amount of time as the casting time of the spell that the item stores, but activating the item doesn't provoke attacks of opportunity.

[Story]

Of course you can use it as an immediate action. The problem is that by RAW, you can't use it while flatfooted, because the special technically isn't part of the casting time.

[Rubik]

Of course you can use it as an immediate action. The problem is that by RAW, you can't use it while flatfooted, because the special technically isn't part of the casting time.Except Nerveskitter has a clause specifying that it CAN be cast then.

[Story]

Yes, but by RAW, that doesn't carry over to Wands of Nerveskitter.

[Curmudgeon]

Going last is never an advantage in 3.5. You should be careful using words like "never". If the next-to-last is your flanking partner getting into position, last is the most advantageous position in the initiative order for a Rogue.

[Story]

But you can still delay your action, making going first strictly better.

[Curmudgeon]

But you can still delay your action, making going first strictly better.
It's not "strictly better" if the best action choice is always to wait. A theoretical advantage, but of zero value, still offers only zero value.

[Rubik]

It's not "strictly better" if the best action choice is always to wait. A theoretical advantage, but of zero value, still offers only zero value.Except going first is still always better because going last is not the same as delaying until last.

The former means you're flat-footed for the first and surprise rounds. The latter means you aren't.

[georgie_leech]

It's not "strictly better" if the best action choice is always to wait. A theoretical advantage, but of zero value, still offers only zero value.

But it's not of zero value. In the first round of combat, for instance, going first means you don't need a flanking buddy to sneak attack. The fact that delaying every round after that is a better move doesn't mean having the *option* to go first isn't of value.

[TuggyNE]

It's not "strictly better" if the best action choice is always to wait. A theoretical advantage, but of zero value, still offers only zero value.

If, in the extreme cases, going last and going first are of the same value, and in every other case going first is of some slightly or substantially higher value, how does that not come out to "going last is never an advantage"?

I submit that going last is never of tactical advantage; at most it might be a slight convenience at the table, but not tactically different.

[navar100]

As a general note, the feat tends to be decent only when you have a positive Dex. It just feels totally wasted otherwise.

Character's Dex is 18.

[Gnaeus]

It's not "strictly better" if the best action choice is always to wait. A theoretical advantage, but of zero value, still offers only zero value.

In your very example, going first is still better than going last. The rogue can coat his blade in poison or drink a potion, to improve his odds in the rest of the combat. Then, at the end of the round, his buddy will move into flanking position, and the rogue, at the top of round 2, is in exactly the same position as if he has been in the bottom of round 1, except that he is +1 buff, and wasn't flat footed for a round.

So as your own example proves, going first is always better. Please argue more, I cannot do a better job of disproving your position than you are doing by yourself.

[navar100]

In your very example, going first is still better than going last. The rogue can coat his blade in poison or drink a potion, to improve his odds in the rest of the combat. Then, at the end of the round, his buddy will move into flanking position, and the rogue, at the top of round 2, is in exactly the same position as if he has been in the bottom of round 1, except that he is +1 buff, and wasn't flat footed for a round.

So as your own example proves, going first is always better.

Good argument.


Please argue more, I cannot do a better job of disproving your position than you are doing by yourself.

Curmudgeon wins by not being condescending.

[Curmudgeon]

In your very example, going first is still better than going last.
How did going first get to be an arguable point here? That wasn't (and almost never is) an option — if going last is a possibility — simply because of the usual wide (~40) range of initiative numbers. Improved Initiative and other Init modifiers simply won't span the usual wide difference between highest and lowest initiative count.

The rogue can coat his blade in poison or drink a potion, to improve his odds in the rest of the combat.
If you do that, you're (almost always) sacrificing any option to attack before your enemy gets their turn.

Then, at the end of the round, his buddy will move into flanking position, and the rogue, at the top of round 2, is in exactly the same position as if he has been in the bottom of round 1 ...
Again, that's almost never going to happen. Instead, your enemy will get a chance to attack long before your initiative comes up again.

Sure, going first is always better than going last. But you can't claim that going a little bit earlier than last is always better than going last. Let's try to stick to the points that have been raised, rather than going off on tangents and attacking straw man arguments which had never been posed. :smallfrown:
Please argue more, I cannot do a better job of disproving your position than you are doing by yourself. Frankly, after the way you twisted my position before trying to rebut it, I'm at a loss to respond. :smallyuk:

[Pickford]

According to the Rules Compendium (which is official errata, BTW), wands have the same casting times as the spells in them, so you CAN use an immediate action Nerveskitter wand, RAW.

Weird, because this is directly contradicted by the new 3.5 PHB which includes Errata 'and' the Spell Compendium:

SpC pg. 4

Magic Items: Activating a spell a spell completion item, activating a spell trigger item, or drinking a potionis a standard action even if the spell from which the scroll, potion, or item is made can be cast as a swift action. In other words, it takes a standard action to drink a potion of quick march (page 164), even though casting the spell itself rquires only a swift action.

Interesting side-note: You also cannot use an immediate action if you are currently flat-footed.

Which means the only possible use for nerveskitter is if (and only if) you are not surprised. (i.e. you see it coming) and it's not possible to use via anything but memorization.

Edit: To the topic, I prefer the idea of building a character who's able to react (even flatfooted) to attacks rather than caring particularly about going first.

[Story]

Interesting side-note: You also cannot use an immediate action if you are currently flat-footed.

Which means the only possible use for nerveskitter is if (and only if) you are not surprised. (i.e. you see it coming) and it's not possible to use via anything but memorization.


Nerveskitter has a special exception to that.

As far as always being able to react, Divine Oracle 10 could help. But by that point you'll probably be close to Foresight and Shapechange Dire Tortoise anyway.

[TuggyNE]

First, a few quotes from up the thread, for context:


You should be careful using words like "never". If the next-to-last is your flanking partner getting into position, last is the most advantageous position in the initiative order for a Rogue.
But you can still delay your action, making going first strictly better.
It's not "strictly better" if the best action choice is always to wait. A theoretical advantage, but of zero value, still offers only zero value.

And now, back to the discussion:
How did going first get to be an arguable point here?

I don't know, but going strictly first a) isn't necessarily the point (going before last is, and has been) and b) this was already part of the discussion several posts back.


Sure, going first is always better than going last. But you can't claim that going a little bit earlier than last is always better than going last. Let's try to stick to the points that have been raised, rather than going off on tangents and attacking straw man arguments which had never been posed.

Actually, none is ever strictly better in all cases; however, going earlier is always at least as good as going later. Here's how I would state it: For every initiative check result N, N is at least as good a result, in all possible tactical ways, as N - 1.

Or, in short, going last is never advantageous. This is exactly the statement you objected to, quite specifically.

I invite counter-examples, of course, because I seriously can't think of any, and none have so far been presented at all.

[Person_Man]

If one player optimizes his Initiative, then he's likely to benefit greatly from it. But if every player does it, then the DM is much more likely to factor it into the metagame, and just use more enemies and/or faster enemies.

[Curmudgeon]

... however, going earlier is always at least as good as going later. Here's how I would state it: For every initiative check result N, N is at least as good a result, in all possible tactical ways, as N - 1.

Or, in short, going last is never advantageous. This is exactly the statement you objected to, quite specifically.
Huh? You've just started and stopped your argument by defining a superior numerical result for Initiative as better. You haven't actually addressed whether going later might be tactically superior.

I invite counter-examples, of course, because I seriously can't think of any, and none have so far been presented at all.
Well, I've already presented the case where going earlier for a Rogue, before their flanking partner, is worse: they don't get sneak attack damage. (Having the option to go earlier, when that's tactically disadvantageous, adds no actual value.)

Here's another example. Let's say you've got an enemy in heavy armor (speed 20') holding a non-reach weapon 50' away. You're an unarmed Monk (5' reach) with at least 50' movement and you've trained with a Sparring Dummy of the Master. If you've got superior initiative you can get there and make a single attack; the enemy would then get to make a full counterattack after your single kick/punch. Or you could wait until the enemy makes a double move but stopping 15' short of you (5' more than they figure you can reach with a 5' step). By going later than this enemy you can then make a 10' step and make a full attack with flurry of blows. If you didn't have higher initiative you get the same (superior) result: going later is purely better for you, whereas having the option to go earlier could tempt you into doing something rash.

Or let's suppose your group is being chased by an overwhelming force, but you've managed to get a bit ahead of them. You turn into a corridor with a whole lot of blood stains on individually set floor tiles. Do you rush forward, or wait until after the party Rogue? If your initiative is lower you can't be first in line to trigger the traps.

When going later gives you better options, that's the smart tactical position.

[Shining Wrath]

Class and role matter so much here. If your role is "tank", maybe not so much. You are probably at the front of the party and the baddies have to go around you to get to the squishy people, where ever you wind up is where the front line is. If your role is "Battlefield controller" or "back-stabbing rogue", going first is important. A Wizard who wants to drop Cloudkill on the enemy wants to hit them while they are over there and his party is over here.

At higher levels, though, not being last means being pretty darn quick, and going first means being very quick indeed.

[Shining Wrath]

Huh? You've just started and stopped your argument by defining a superior numerical result for Initiative as better. You haven't actually addressed whether going later might be tactically superior.

Well, I've already presented the case where going earlier for a Rogue, before their flanking partner, is worse: they don't get sneak attack damage. (Having the option to go earlier, when that's tactically disadvantageous, adds no actual value.)

Here's another example. Let's say you've got an enemy in heavy armor (speed 20') holding a non-reach weapon 50' away. You're an unarmed Monk (5' reach) with at least 50' movement and you've trained with a Sparring Dummy of the Master. If you've got superior initiative you can get there and make a single attack; the enemy would then get to make a full counterattack after your single kick/punch. Or you could wait until the enemy makes a double move but stopping 15' short of you (5' more than they figure you can reach with a 5' step). By going later than this enemy you can then make a 10' step and make a full attack with flurry of blows. If you didn't have higher initiative you get the same (superior) result: going later is purely better for you, whereas having the option to go earlier could tempt you into doing something rash.

Or let's suppose your group is being chased by an overwhelming force, but you've managed to get a bit ahead of them. You turn into a corridor with a whole lot of blood stains on individually set floor tiles. Do you rush forward, or wait until after the party Rogue? If your initiative is lower you can't be first in line to trigger the traps.

When going later gives you better options, that's the smart tactical position.

I point out "Delay" and "Ready". A rogue can move, ready a backstab, and then trigger the backstab when the flanker arrives. Delay lets you change your initiative position, but there is no anti-delay.

So, since Delay means N > N-M, 0<M<N - because if it's to your advantage you can delay M, but if it's better to act now you can, higher initiative is strictly better. Ready an action allows you to split your turn across different initiative values, even better, but carries the risk that the triggering event will be somehow prevented.

[Shining Wrath]

It's not "strictly better" if the best action choice is always to wait. A theoretical advantage, but of zero value, still offers only zero value.

Only in the very special case where your flanking partner would otherwise go last, so the theoretical advantage is not of zero value. If there are (N+M) combatants, the odds that your flanking buddy goes last are 1/(N+M), i.e., probably less than 15%. That gives 85% of the time when higher imitative is useful, plus all the situations where moving into flanking position on round one is suboptimal.

90% of the time for a flanking rogue, higher initiative is useful.

[Gnaeus]

How did going first get to be an arguable point here? That wasn't (and almost never is) an option — if going last is a possibility — simply because of the usual wide (~40) range of initiative numbers. Improved Initiative and other Init modifiers simply won't span the usual wide difference between highest and lowest initiative count.

If you do that, you're (almost always) sacrificing any option to attack before your enemy gets their turn.

Again, that's almost never going to happen. Instead, your enemy will get a chance to attack long before your initiative comes up again.

Sure, going first is always better than going last. But you can't claim that going a little bit earlier than last is always better than going last. Let's try to stick to the points that have been raised, rather than going off on tangents and attacking straw man arguments which had never been posed. :smallfrown: Frankly, after the way you twisted my position before trying to rebut it, I'm at a loss to respond. :smallyuk:

Hmm. So going first IS always better than going last?


But you can still delay your action, making going first strictly better.


It's not "strictly better" if the best action choice is always to wait. A theoretical advantage, but of zero value, still offers only zero value.

He said going first was always better. You said it wasn't. You disproved yourself with your own example. And then you tried to argue that that wasn't what you said, when it clearly was. Can't get any clearer than the record.

[Curmudgeon]

I point out "Delay" and "Ready". A rogue can move, ready a backstab, and then trigger the backstab when the flanker arrives.
The disadvantage of this is that you're moving adjacent to the enemy and giving them a chance to make a full attack against you, undistracted by your later-arriving flanking partner. (You might already be dead by the time your readied action triggers. :smalleek:) Clearly going later, after the enemy has used up their action beating on the armor of your much sturdier flanking buddy, is the better option.

[Gnaeus]

The disadvantage of this is that you're moving adjacent to the enemy and giving them a chance to make a full attack against you, undistracted by your later-arriving flanking partner. (You might already be dead by the time your readied action triggers. :smalleek:) Clearly going later, after the enemy has used up their action beating on the armor of your much sturdier flanking buddy, is the better option.

No. Clearly going earlier and preparing yourself for the combat with a buff, and then going again after the enemy has used up his action, is the better option.

[Curmudgeon]

No. Clearly going earlier and preparing yourself for the combat with a buff, and then going again after the enemy has used up his action, is the better option.
Better than what, though? That is, what's the cost of getting your Initiative high enough so you can be reliably assured of going before your enemies act, just to get in that single buff per combat?

You can't get there with just one feat. You might get there with a couple of feats, a non-consumable magic item, and a wand that you'll burn through in a few adventuring days. I can think of much better ways to spend those resources, seeing how I've already outlined useful tactics that involve going later than your opponents and teammates.

[Agincourt]

The disadvantage of this is that you're moving adjacent to the enemy and giving them a chance to make a full attack against you, undistracted by your later-arriving flanking partner. (You might already be dead by the time your readied action triggers. :smalleek:) Clearly going later, after the enemy has used up their action beating on the armor of your much sturdier flanking buddy, is the better option.
If they enemy hasn't gone yet, then they will be flat-footed. There is no need to wait for your flanking partner then. I have no idea why you would delay then. You still haven't addressed the point that going earlier means you will have your dex and dodge bonuses earlier in the round, which rogues rely on heavily.

[Pickford]

Nerveskitter has a special exception to that.

As far as always being able to react, Divine Oracle 10 could help. But by that point you'll probably be close to Foresight and Shapechange Dire Tortoise anyway.

Does it?

I see:

You cast this spell when you and your party roll initiative.

Hrm...that's not an exception, that just tells you when you need to do it to have it work.


If the subject does not make an initiative check within 1 round, this spell has no effect.

Implication from that is that it's quite possible to either not get this cast (if flatfooted or unaware).

If you can find an exception for nerveskitter (and quote it), otherwise no dice.

[Agincourt]

Read the errata:

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a

“Unlike other immediate actions, you can cast this spell while flat-footed.” I'm of the opinion it does not work on wands, but the errata makes it explicit that it works on the spell, even when flat-footed.

[Pickford]

Read the errata:

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a

“Unlike other immediate actions, you can cast this spell while flat-footed.” I'm of the opinion it does not work on wands, but the errata makes it explicit that it works on the spell, even when flat-footed.

Ah nice, still using the magic item 'is' a standard action even when the spell is faster.

[Story]

Ah nice, still using the magic item 'is' a standard action even when the spell is faster.

Not according to the Rules Compendium.

[Curmudgeon]

If they enemy hasn't gone yet, then they will be flat-footed.
You didn't see my earlier post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14811210&postcount=6), I guess. This is for the second regular round of combat. Nobody is flat-footed. The enemy hasn't acted yet on this turn.

[Agincourt]

I saw that. It was 2 pages ago. There have been a lot of intermediate points in between. So , on to arguing about the second round...

Actually, no, I'm not going to argue about the second round. It's all about the first round. If your preferred tactic is to fire a ranged weapon during the first round of combat, then almost all of your damage potential is contingent on you catching the enemy flat-footed.

As for your flanking partner, he will have his own agenda, but he could already be in position at the end of the first round. Many (most?) melee type builds focus on charging so he should not be firing his ranged weapon. Even if charging isn't the focus of your flanking partner, they may still charge for purposes of teamwork: protecting the casters, and providing flanking for the rogue.

[Snowbluff]

You didn't see my earlier post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14811210&postcount=6), I guess. This is for the second regular round of combat. Nobody is flat-footed. The enemy hasn't acted yet on this turn.

Your second action further limits your enemy's ability to respond, either by placing your BFC or killing them.

If this is a question, you guys want to think about this using military mindset. A dead rifleman can't fire.

[Shining Wrath]

I saw that. It was 2 pages ago. There have been a lot of intermediate points in between. So , on to arguing about the second round...

Actually, no, I'm not going to argue about the second round. It's all about the first round. If your preferred tactic is to fire a ranged weapon during the first round of combat, then almost all of your damage potential is contingent on you catching the enemy flat-footed.

As for your flanking partner, he will have his own agenda, but he could already be in position at the end of the first round. Many (most?) melee type builds focus on charging so he should not be firing his ranged weapon. Even if charging isn't the focus of your flanking partner, they may still charge for purposes of teamwork: protecting the casters, and providing flanking for the rogue.

If you are a melee type (Warblade, Barbarian, etc) the "battle line" is often going to be near where you end your first term. Most of the time you want that line *further* from your casters and *closer* to theirs.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Maybe if I can clarify Curmudgeon's position, we can all understand it a little better:

Curmudgeon is stating that, in a great many circumstances (not all, but most, depending on character makeup), it is tactically superior to wait to go later in the initiative order, to pair up with a flanking buddy, deny your enemy the first full attack, et cetera.

It does not follow that having a lower initiative is better; indeed, a higher initiative is always better than a lower initiative, barring fringe cases like the Mirror Castle scenario (from Final Fantasy 1), where higher bonuses somehow means lower, because even if most of the time the benefit is zero, there are still going to be a number of situations (a positive nonzero number) where it will produce some benefit by way of increased options. As stated, the person with the highest initiative can go highest or lowest, or anything in between. They have the option, and options are ALWAYS good.

What does follow is that, in a large number of scenarios (anywhere from "some" to "most"), the actual benefit is going to be worth nothing (somebody who goes second and delays to fifth gains no mechanical benefit over simply having gone fifth, except for how much of the initiative they are considered flat-footed, and for classes with uncanny dodge, not even then EDIT: no, not even then). In these scenarios, you have to measure the tactical benefit of the higher initiative that you've received (nothing, or a negligible amount) against the cost, or the opportunity cost. If your initiative result was high because you had a high DEX (on a class where having a high DEX is beneficial for other reasons, or you just straight-up had a high DEX), or initiative bonuses as a free lunch (via the Scout's Battle Fortitude, or the Swordsage's Quick to Act), or relatively cheap magic items that don't prevent the use of more useful things (at higher levels, +1 Eager Gauntlets of Warning, or either of those bonuses if they are of the same type, as I am away from books, or a Belt of Battle), then initiative bonuses are still good, because the resource cost isn't steep, and neither is the opportunity cost.

If, on the other hand, the cost of the initiative bonus is high (such as Improved Initiative occupying one of your precious few feat slots), then it isn't worth it; that feat could have been used for something that would prove invaluable to you, such as Craven, or Travel Devotion, or something else, which makes the opportunity cost quite steep. If activating a wand of Nerveskitter in the wand chamber of a held weapon (no actions to draw, or a free action with Quick Draw, so we're back to just the immediate action casting time) robs you of your next turn's swift action, you need to evaluate what that swift action was worth to you. If you weren't doing anything with it, then it's probably okay that you lost it; the opportunity cost wasn't steep. If, however, it prevented you from using a charge on that Belt of Battle (or Chronocharm of the Horizon Wanderer, etc) to close with the enemy and allow you a full attack on the flat-footed enemy (as a Rogue), or prevented you from casting a quickened spell (as a Wizard), then the opportunity cost expressed in actions is actually pretty steep.

TL;DR: Curmudgeon isn't saying "low initiative = bad". He's saying that you need to evaluate the benefits of having a high initiative (which he feels are overstated; I won't elaborate on this point, as it's not mine) against the resource and opportunity cost. If you're getting initiative bonuses for free as class features, ability modifiers, and so on, then "initiative bonus = good"; if you're spending permanent character resources for little tactical benefit, or preventing you from doing something of greater tactical benefit for that bonus, then "initiative bonus = bad".

[Curmudgeon]

What does follow is that, in a large number of scenarios (anywhere from "some" to "most"), the actual benefit is going to be worth nothing (somebody who goes second and delays to fifth gains no mechanical benefit over simply having gone fifth, except for how much of the initiative they are considered flat-footed, and for classes with uncanny dodge, not even then).
You're still flat-footed if you Delay. From the COMBAT BASICS summary on page 135 of Player's Handbook:
A character is flat-footed until he or she takes an action. If you check the chart on page 8 of Rules Compendium, you'll find Delay in the "No Action" section. Getting out of flat-footed status requires actually acting, not merely having your initiative count roll around.

[Lonely Tylenol]

You're still flat-footed if you Delay. From the COMBAT BASICS summary on page 135 of Player's Handbook: If you check the chart on page 8 of Rules Compendium, you'll find Delay in the "No Action" section. Getting out of flat-footed status requires actually acting, not merely having your initiative count roll around.

Psst. Hey, Curmudgeon. Trying to help everybody out here. Not overly concerned with the finer details at this point.

Is the basic premise of my summary correct?

[Story]

Well that makes much more sense.

[Curmudgeon]

Psst. Hey, Curmudgeon. Trying to help everybody out here. Not overly concerned with the finer details at this point.

Is the basic premise of my summary correct?
Yes, it's good. Thanks for trying to help.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Excellent!

Hopefully this will help change the parameters of the discussion a bit. Arguments stemming from misunderstandings are always a pain in the ass. :smallsmile:

[TuggyNE]

Curmudgeon is stating that, in a great many circumstances (not all, but most, depending on character makeup), it is tactically superior to wait to go later in the initiative order, to pair up with a flanking buddy, deny your enemy the first full attack, et cetera.

It does not follow that having a lower initiative is better; indeed, a higher initiative is always better than a lower initiative […]

TL;DR: Curmudgeon isn't saying "low initiative = bad". He's saying that you need to evaluate the benefits of having a high initiative (which he feels are overstated; I won't elaborate on this point, as it's not mine) against the resource and opportunity cost. If you're getting initiative bonuses for free as class features, ability modifiers, and so on, then "initiative bonus = good"; if you're spending permanent character resources for little tactical benefit, or preventing you from doing something of greater tactical benefit for that bonus, then "initiative bonus = bad".

Thank you. Yes, I was trying to get at the point that, strictly speaking, a higher initiative result can always be down-converted into a lower if that's advantageous (but not vice versa), and is thus strictly superior.

The only real question is exactly how much higher initiative is worth, which I don't have much of an opinion on, frankly. :smallwink:

[Raimun]

In theory, yes. If everyone and everything goes for pure efficiency, they can obliterate their enemies in one shot. Whoever goes first, kills first.

But in practice? Honestly? Nah. In pretty much every game I've played in, high initiative is nice but it's not really that good. It's not even close to being one of the more useful abilities. Of course, this is assuming moderate optimization levels.

Most people/enemies simply can't alter the battlefield conditions so much that it would make much difference to go first. Sure, going first is a good thing but it will not cost you the battle to be the very last to act.

Funny thing, I've actually seen people suffer from high initiative. They get thrilled when they go first and thanks to good movement, charge the enemy and get beaten up when they are the only valid target for the opposition.

Anyway, after noticing this trend, I hardly ever upgrade my initiative, unless I get it "for free". It's generally a better idea to get/upgrade abilities that you use when your turn comes. After all, you tend to get your turn to use them anyway.

To sum it up: High initiative is good. Other things are better.

[Pickford]

Not according to the Rules Compendium.

My understanding of primary source vs secondary source is that the PHB, MM, and DMG would over-ride. As far as I know, Rules Compendium is a secondary source in that regard.

[TypoNinja]

If they enemy hasn't gone yet, then they will be flat-footed. There is no need to wait for your flanking partner then. I have no idea why you would delay then. You still haven't addressed the point that going earlier means you will have your dex and dodge bonuses earlier in the round, which rogues rely on heavily.

In theory this is desirable, but in reality, you've taken your light armour wearing, D6HP pool into the middle of combat before anybody else, unless your attack is also the end of combat you are likely going to get cheesed*.

Squishy people with low HP pools don't typically want to run in first. Your ideal scenario is stepping up behind a foe your plate mail encrusted friend has already gained the attention of. Preferably after the foe has used all his attacks on the guy with twice your HP.

There is also opportunity cost to consider. What could you have gotten the ability to do instead of optimizing your inititave? Unless going first is central to your build you'd probably be better off not leaning on your init very hard. While going first is always better, because if actually going first isnt better you can simply choose to act later, if you have ability to go first but almost always delay, you have made a poor investment.

*This is similar to getting creamed, but goes on for longer, and hurts more.

[Rubik]

My understanding of primary source vs secondary source is that the PHB, MM, and DMG would over-ride. As far as I know, Rules Compendium is a secondary source in that regard.The Rules Compendium is officially errata, and explicitly overrides EVERYTHING else, except its OWN errata, of which I doubt it has any.

[TuggyNE]

The Rules Compendium is officially errata, and explicitly overrides EVERYTHING else, except its OWN errata, of which I doubt it has any.

For what that's worth, at least; it was certainly intended to override all other sources, and the only reason to suppose it wouldn't is if you favor a particularly nitpicky reading of certain rules, and completely ignore all manner of common sense. In practice, that's a bad idea, so RC should be considered a primary source for any actual game.

[TypoNinja]

For what that's worth, at least; it was certainly intended to override all other sources, and the only reason to suppose it wouldn't is if you favor a particularly nitpicky reading of certain rules, and completely ignore all manner of common sense. In practice, that's a bad idea, so RC should be considered a primary source for any actual game.

If we are being nitpicky about it I would assert that the Rules Compendium, by virtue of being published is obviously the Primary Source for anything covered in its pages, as the stated purpose of its existence was clarifications of the rules.

Or if you really want to split hairs, its a printed and bound collection of Errata, so therefor edits the original Primary Source for each subject it details.

[DigoDragon]

To sum it up: High initiative is good. Other things are better.

I'll echo this statement.
All things being equal, initiative is a decent advantage, but in my experience there's a lot of different situations that affect its value.

[Agincourt]

In theory this is desirable, but in reality, you've taken your light armour wearing, D6HP pool into the middle of combat before anybody else, unless your attack is also the end of combat you are likely going to get cheesed*.

Squishy people with low HP pools don't typically want to run in first. Your ideal scenario is stepping up behind a foe your plate mail encrusted friend has already gained the attention of. Preferably after the foe has used all his attacks on the guy with twice your HP.

*This is similar to getting creamed, but goes on for longer, and hurts more.

I do agree with Curmudgeon that it's a good idea for rogues to start combat with their melee weapons. At the end of the first round, the rogue should try to be about 25 feet from the front line.

[Story]

Most people/enemies simply can't alter the battlefield conditions so much that it would make much difference to go first. Sure, going first is a good thing but it will not cost you the battle to be the very last to act.


Unless you're a caster of course. Grease, Web, Glitterdust, Grave Mist, Stinking Cloud, Sleet Storm, ...

I'm currently playing a Wizard, and there are several times I've wished that I was able to go earlier than I did.

[Pickford]

For what that's worth, at least; it was certainly intended to override all other sources, and the only reason to suppose it wouldn't is if you favor a particularly nitpicky reading of certain rules, and completely ignore all manner of common sense. In practice, that's a bad idea, so RC should be considered a primary source for any actual game.

Actually I found it curious for another reason, but was clarified by a google search (found on minmax board):


Originally Posted by Chris Perkins, speaking on behalf of WotC
When we release errata, it will always be free.
It logically follows that if the change is rules is not free, it is not errata. The changed text in the Rules Compendium is not free, therefore it is not official errata.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

The value of initiative is determined by the average level of optimization present among the characters and campaign in general.

For example, if you have an Ubercharger, a Clericzilla, a Batman Wizard and a Beguiler/Rainbow Servant... you can be pretty much guaranteed that anything they win initiative against is going to go down before it can respond. Thus, the importance of initiative is supreme, it's pretty much the only number which is relevant in combat anymore.

In situations like this, initiative has polarized into the win/loss defining feature. Of course, in situations like this... only the Ubercharger has to really concern himself with initiative anyways, all of the other characters have means of bypassing initiative and generating a 'go first' condition completely independent of rolling initiative, obviating even that as a necessity.

In situations of low op, however, since you generally aren't able to end an encounter with a single action, initiative is less important, mostly to conserve resources and prevent one turn's worth of damage before it happens.

[Raimun]

Unless you're a caster of course. Grease, Web, Glitterdust, Grave Mist, Stinking Cloud, Sleet Storm, ...

I'm currently playing a Wizard, and there are several times I've wished that I was able to go earlier than I did.

It is true that the spells you mentioned do benefit from high initiative.

However, not everyone knows the importance of spells like these. What people can do is not only limited by what their class can do but also by how well they know their class... :smalltongue: