How powerful is initiative?

[Final Hyena]

Due to another project I'm curious how strong an initiative bonus is against say an attack bonus. Would you rather have +1 attack or initiative? what about +1 attack or +2 initiative? Where would you consider the sweet spot to be in terms of balance?

So how much value do you place on a characters initiative modifier?

Edit;
A scenario;
Two soldiers (no class abilities) are fighting to the death.
They will always fall unconscious after three hits.
The only mechanical difference between them is one gets a +1 to hit the other +1 to initiative.

[DracoKnight]

Due to another project I'm curious how strong an initiative bonus is against say an attack bonus. Would you rather have +1 attack or initiative? what about +1 attack or +2 initiative? Where would you consider the sweet spot to be in terms of balance?

So how much value do you place on a characters initiative modifier?

On an Assassin, I'll give them the +atk bonus over the initiative bonus every day. Everyone else, probably the initiative bonus before the attack bonus.

[JellyPooga]

Initiative for an Assassin is less important, perhaps, than for others. They rely on getting Surprise more than high Initiative.

Initiative is great for anyone that wants to end a fight before it starts, but otherwise is fairly pointless. After the first round, combat turns into "U-go-I-go" regardless of who won Initiative. Anyone with great alpha-strike potential wants Initiative bad; Paladins, Fighters, Sorcerer/Warlocks, Wizards and Rogues being the main culprits here. Druid and Barbarian Tanks probably enjoy the benefit of being able to raise their defensive shields abilities before the foe gets a pop at them too.

In general, I'd take +1 to hit over +1 Initiative (if that's the choice), but inevitably there's likely more at stake than just those two options.

For purposes of balance, the devs obviously thought Initiative fairly low-key; the Alert feat grants a whopping +5 Initiative (plus a couple of extras) as a reasonable alternative to +1 to hit and damage (if you were to take +2 Str, for example). If it's a straight contest between to hit bonus and Initiative, I'd probably rate +1 to hit against +3 Initiative. Hitting is more important than damage (if you don't hit at all, then you deal no damage; I'd peg +1 damage as about equal to +1 Initiative) and the subsidiary effects of Alert are, whilst situationally game-changing, still very much situational (so both probably add up to about the worth of +1 Initiative, maybe +2 on a good day).

[DracoKnight]

Initiative for an Assassin is less important, perhaps, than for others. They rely on getting Surprise more than high Initiative.

Initiative is great for anyone that wants to end a fight before it starts, but otherwise is fairly pointless. After the first round, combat turns into "U-go-I-go" regardless of who won Initiative. Anyone with great alpha-strike potential wants Initiative bad; Paladins, Fighters, Sorcerer/Warlocks, Wizards and Rogues being the main culprits here. Druid and Barbarian Tanks probably enjoy the benefit of being able to raise their defensive shields abilities before the foe gets a pop at them too.

In general, I'd take +1 to hit over +1 Initiative (if that's the choice), but inevitably there's likely more at stake than just those two options.

For purposes of balance, the devs obviously thought Initiative fairly low-key; the Alert feat grants a whopping +5 Initiative (plus a couple of extras) as a reasonable alternative to +1 to hit and damage (if you were to take +2 Str, for example). If it's a straight contest between to hit bonus and Initiative, I'd probably rate +1 to hit against +3 Initiative. Hitting is more important than damage (if you don't hit at all, then you deal no damage; I'd peg +1 damage as about equal to +1 Initiative) and the subsidiary effects of Alert are, whilst situationally game-changing, still very much situational (so both probably add up to about the worth of +1 Initiative, maybe +2 on a good day).

Actually - initiative is amazing on an Assassin, because Assassinate has more benefits against creatures who haven't moved in combat yet.

[ad_hoc]

Actually - initiative is amazing on an Assassin, because Assassinate has more benefits against creatures who haven't moved in combat yet.

Assassinate only has benefits against creatures that you beat in initiative. If you lose initiative you don't get to use your assassinate.

Initiative is the single most important thing for an assassin for that reason.

To answer the OP's question I would look to the Alert feat. That is about balanced. It is strong but a +2 to a stat is also strong.

Initiative, in general, is overrated.

[Theodoxus]

On my +14 Init (Alert and swashbuckler) rogue, it's a mixed bag. I've yet to not go first, but sometimes there isn't a useful opponent to attack, so I either don't get sneak (just running in and out of combat) or I run into a pack waiting for my melee buddies to provide sneak opportunities.

It's fun, but if I were given a redo or if I play a similar character, I'd not emphasize initiative as much as I have. Then again, it might prove more useful later in his career... going battlemaster will open up options for combat that having a high initiative might be nice for.

[RulesJD]

On the vast majority of characters, I'd take +1 to hit all day e'rer day, except on:

1. Assassin Rogues, obviously.

2. Wizards.

Wizards doesn't really care about +to hit and, more importantly, have the most plentiful amount of game breaking/fight ending spells. If a Wizard goes first, more often than not at higher levels, there isn't any more combat. So from a mechanical standpoint (not necessarily fun I'll grant you), Wizards want Initiative more than they want +to hit.

[GorogIrongut]

I would also add that clerics don't mind losing initiative. They tend to be more reactive to the needs of the party and thus are able to accomplish more with their teammates going before them.

[MrStabby]

Initiative is awesome.

OK in a party it is a bit more messy but generally going from behind your enemy to in front of them in combat means you will have taken one more turn than them by the time their turn comes round. Assuming you kill them on your turn that is a whole turn of theirs you have negated with that one roll.

Practically, it can sometimes be better still. You walk into a room with a wizard type guy in - you get a chance to spread out to avoid the area of effect. Or you get to hit the cleric and force a concentration save to get rid of bless before their team gets a go.

The fact that two weapon fighting can work well with weapons that use the stat that supports initiative is what makes it remotely balanced with the other styles.

[KorvinStarmast]

Initiative is OP. It breaks the game.

[ad_hoc]

Initiative is awesome.

OK in a party it is a bit more messy but generally going from behind your enemy to in front of them in combat means you will have taken one more turn than them by the time their turn comes round. Assuming you kill them on your turn that is a whole turn of theirs you have negated with that one roll.



It's actually just a tempo, or half a turn.

And then you need to look at how much each modifier changes that.

In other words, winning initiative is worth .5 of a turn. In a party of 4 or 5, that represents about an 10-13% round advantage vs the other side.

I don't know the calculation but for the sake of argument, if a +1 to initiative is a +5% chance of going first, then it is worth .025 of a turn. Which then represents a .25% round advantage for your team over the other team. Or in other words, 1/400th of a round.

If anyone knows the calculation, please post, otherwise I will go research.

[R.Shackleford]

Due to another project I'm curious how strong an initiative bonus is against say an attack bonus. Would you rather have +1 attack or initiative? what about +1 attack or +2 initiative? Where would you consider the sweet spot to be in terms of balance?

So how much value do you place on a characters initiative modifier?

Depends on the class and role.

Most clerics? Give me a -8 initiative modifier for all I care.

[Citan]

Due to another project I'm curious how strong an initiative bonus is against say an attack bonus. Would you rather have +1 attack or initiative? what about +1 attack or +2 initiative? Where would you consider the sweet spot to be in terms of balance?

So how much value do you place on a characters initiative modifier?
I personnally would be unable to answer such a question without a defined context. It depends too much on the party I'm in and the role I play.

Although, maybe, in a "void context" I'd be tempted to favor the +1 Initiative, if only because it's very hard to get a bonus in Initiative compared to getting a bonus on an attack roll (advantage is easy to get, also Bless, Bardic Inspiration, etc).

[Zanthy1]

I seem to agree with most people posting here, its all about what your opening move would be. Everyone always thinks they want to go first, but in reality certain classes don't actually benefit from it. There have been so many times when an enthusiastic player at my table wins initiative only to say "I can't really do anything right now."

Spell casters typically will prefer initiative, to either cast buffs or debuffs/controls.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Honestly, I generally feel like initiative is the least important number on my sheet.

[Aaron Underhand]

I would agree in general +1 attack is roughly equivalent to +6-8 initiative, though it does depend upon the character and the party.

I fully expect to take the Alert feat with my Bard character, rather than +2 to CHA. However the Alert feat has critical extras beyond the +5 to initiative (and + 2 to CHA is not just +1 to attack - you have to factor in skills and saves as well).

The Bard is squishy, and the party's only Arcane resource (so much so he dipped one level of Wizard). As such going first is critical, whether it be to blast the enemy while grouped, to establish buffs or debuff, or simply to move out of potential hostile AoE. I think I would take +8 to init in preference to +2 CHA. The reason the Alert feat wins with just a +% to init is the 'no surprise' status. This always allows reactions even if you aren't going first - so that first counterspell goes off and the party is still fully functional when they get to move for the first time.

[NNescio]

Depends on the class and role.

Most clerics? Give me a -8 initiative modifier for all I care.

I dunno, being able to pop a Spirit Guardians in a melee fight without anybody taking their turn yet is quite powerful, or you can get Save-or-Sucks like Dismissal/Planeshift too to remove strong enemies before they even get to act. Bestow Curse/Contagion also work to a lesser scale (and they also require touch).

Heck, winning initiative can also potentially let you straight-up neuter enemy spellcasters with Silence or AMF without any saves, depending on positioning (whether they can walk out on their turn or not). Liches are good. Blindness can also neuter enemy spellcasters if their big spells require them to see their target (it offers a save though).

Being able to act first is also very useful if you're surrounded by undead. Pop that Turn Undead (or whichever other turn effect you get depending on your domain and the creature you face), and you get to potentially dust or fear a bunch of enemies before they even get to act, preventing even more potential damage to your party.

Even a spell as passive as Bless can also make all the difference if it's cast earlier in combat.

(And well, Death, Tempest, Nature and Light Clerics can do even more stuff if they win initiative, both control and blast. Trickery too, to a more limited extent. That's half of the Domains available.)

But yeah, the Wizard does benefit more from a higher initiative, as they get more control options.

[DeAnno]

I actually find Initiative is pretty important for a Cleric, if they want to cast Bless the first round. In general offensively biased characters (and parties) are going to care about initiative a lot more than defensive ones, since combat will last fewer rounds and thus the extra turns from going first are more important.

The effects of +5 initiative are actually really big. If two characters roll off and one has +5 initiative, the breakdown of results is 70% win, 3.75% tie, 26.25% loss. Since winning is worth ~0.5 extra turns over the course of the combat (assuming both sides are equally likely to win the fight), that means +5 Initiative is about 22% of an extra full turn per battle. If you assume ~2 battles per short rest, that's about half as good as having the Action Surge class feature (less control, but also a move and bonus action.)

So spending an ASI on Alert is roughly like purchasing half an Action Surge, plus the immunity to surprise and partial protection from hidden.

Note: If you assume the PCs win most fights, the effect gets even bigger.

[bid]

Since most combats are done in 4 rounds or so, winning initiative is worth whatever that 5th turn will do.

Now, that +1 hit/damage will increase your DPR by 12% (wagging here). To match this, that +2 initiative should half your chances of not going first.

You'd need something like a +15 initiative advantage for that +2 to be just as good as extra hit/damage. Not bloody likely.
{1+2+3+4+5=15 ~ 13=6+7}

For assassinate or action surge, it's +10 initiative since you get 2 turns before the 4 rounds.
{1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9=45 ~ 21=10+11}

[Pex]

Honestly, I generally feel like initiative is the least important number on my sheet.

Ditto. Initiative is swingy. It doesn't matter how high your plus is when you roll a low number. It can also be important to know what your opponent has already done to respond to it. A high initiative is nice to have, but I think people place too much emphasis on it I find it more a matter of personal taste than necessary for optimization. If particular classes/archetypes really do need high initiative for best results I won't argue against that point, but it's not a universal need.

[R.Shackleford]

I dunno, being able to pop a Spirit Guardians in a melee fight without anybody taking their turn yet is quite powerful, or you can get Save-or-Sucks like Dismissal/Planeshift too to remove strong enemies before they even get to act. Bestow Curse/Contagion also work to a lesser scale (and they also require touch).

Heck, winning initiative can also potentially let you straight-up neuter enemy spellcasters with Silence or AMF without any saves, depending on positioning (whether they can walk out on their turn or not). Liches are good. Blindness can also neuter enemy spellcasters if their big spells require them to see their target (it offers a save though).

Being able to act first is also very useful if you're surrounded by undead. Pop that Turn Undead (or whichever other turn effect you get depending on your domain and the creature you face), and you get to potentially dust or fear a bunch of enemies before they even get to act, preventing even more potential damage to your party.

Even a spell as passive as Bless can also make all the difference if it's cast earlier in combat.

(And well, Death, Tempest, Nature and Light Clerics can do even more stuff if they win initiative, both control and blast. Trickery too, to a more limited extent. That's half of the Domains available.)

But yeah, the Wizard does benefit more from a higher initiative, as they get more control options.

It depends on the build but most clerics I couldn't care less for initiative.

I typically play my clerics by having high AC and running around the battlefield field using the Help action. Then I unload when I really want/need to.

[NNescio]

It depends on the build but most clerics I couldn't care less for initiative.

I typically play my clerics by having high AC and running around the battlefield field using the Help action. Then I unload when I really want/need to.

I guess we can chalk it up to a difference in playing style then. I tend to play all classes somewhat proactively, especially on ones with limited daily (per long rest) resources. As a Cleric I tend to actively use damage control options (usually by hindering the enemies from taking actions, or straight-up killing them, or both), as in my experience this results in less damage being taken by my teammates, so I don't need to use that many spell slots to heal them up after.

This becomes significantly less necessary depending on the DM's pacing for short rests, generosity with healing options, whether other characters are taking feats like Healer and Inspiring Leader, as well as the general level of deadliness for encounters.

I also have a background in 3.5e and chess, so I guess I have some sort of preference or bias for maintaining tempo (force others to react by threatening first, and not just react myself unless I can simultaneously threaten and seize the tempo).

[Tanarii]

If you consider the Alert Feat balanced, then +4 Initiative, not being surprised, and no advantage from hidden creatures, is worth:
+1 to hit with Ranged / Finesse weapons
+1 damage with Ranged / Finesse weapons
+1 AC with No/Light Amor, and for Medium up to +2 bonus.
+1 to Dex saves
+1 to Dex skills & checks

How important not being surprised and no advantage from hidden is depends on your Wis skill. Effectively, the Feat lets consider dumping Wis. Which is thematic for D&D Rogues at least.

To compare Alert vs +1 Dex, with identical starting Dex, someone with Alert has a 66% chance of winning initiative. (Ie relative +4 Init = 66% chance to win.) That's the equivalent of Dex 18 vs Dex 10. For comparison Dex 20 vs Dex 8 is ~74% chance of winning. And Dex 20 with Alert vs Dex 8 is 88% chance of winning. (Last is mostly an internal party thing. Rogue speed vs Cleric speed :smallwink: )

[R.Shackleford]

I guess we can chalk it up to a difference in playing style then. I tend to play all classes somewhat proactively, especially on ones with limited daily (per long rest) resources. As a Cleric I tend to actively use damage control options (usually by hindering the enemies from taking actions, or straight-up killing them, or both), as in my experience this results in less damage being taken by my teammates, so I don't need to use that many spell slots to heal them up after.

This becomes significantly less necessary depending on the DM's pacing for short rests, generosity with healing options, whether other characters are taking feats like Healer and Inspiring Leader, as well as the general level of deadliness for encounters.

I also have a background in 3.5e and chess, so I guess I have some sort of preference or bias for maintaining tempo (force others to react by threatening first, and not just react myself unless I can simultaneously threaten and seize the tempo).

What's funny is that I was going to say I have a background in go, chess, and 3e/4e. Letting your enemy move first and make the first mistake (maybe the clump up when they started more spread out).

I have allies that can focus on moving first. As the support, helper, and buff dude I don't really need to go first. Let my allies cluster up with the enemies.

Besides, clerics will typically have a 30 speed, most of the time I've seen enemies start more than 30' away.

[Sir cryosin]

On my +14 Init (Alert and swashbuckler) rogue, it's a mixed bag. I've yet to not go first, but sometimes there isn't a useful opponent to attack, so I either don't get sneak (just running in and out of combat) or I run into a pack waiting for my melee buddies to provide sneak opportunities.

It's fun, but if I were given a redo or if I play a similar character, I'd not emphasize initiative as much as I have. Then again, it might prove more useful later in his career... going battlemaster will open up options for combat that having a high initiative might be nice for.

You know the swashbuckler get to sneak attack if there is no one buy you and the enemy right? That's why you have a high initiative.

[NNescio]

What's funny is that I was going to say I have a background in go, chess, and 3e/4e. Letting your enemy move first and make the first mistake (maybe the clump up when they started more spread out).

In Go and Chess having the first move has a measurable statistical advantage at all levels of play. You don't really plan having your opponents screw up, you plan assuming he makes the best move possible.

The first-move advantage also exists in most turn-based games, because well, even if moving second has some advantage the player who moves first usually has some option to waste his move anyway. If the other player reciprocates, then it essentially turns into a waiting game, until someone (or some outside factor) forces a move.

3.5e was basically rocket tag at upper levels of play. Not sure about 4e, but from what I've heard combats are drawn out so I believe initiative was less valuable there.



I have allies that can focus on moving first. As the support, helper, and buff dude I don't really need to go first. Let my allies cluster up with the enemies.

Well, Bless is a very strong option (to the point of making nearly all other concentration spells unattractive), to the point that you can contribute effectively in a lot of encounters even if you cast Bless and do nothing else for the rest of combat. That said, my experience indicates that the sooner you pop Bless (on your damage dealers), the faster the combat will end (especially if your damage dealers have HWM or Sharpshooter), and the less damage your teammates will take. The benefit to saves is just gravy on top. Even one turn of a DPR ally having or not having Bless makes a significant difference.

'though yeah, maintaining this advantage has increasing opportunity costs the more your allies optimize initiative (even if they do so unintentionally by being a Dex-based class and taking Alert for its other benefits), so depending on party compositions a +1 to +2 initiative doesn't really offer much advantage, since your allies will probably act before you anyway.



Besides, clerics will typically have a 30 speed, most of the time I've seen enemies start more than 30' away.

Well, again, you can always cast Bless, and Sacred Flame is an okayish ranged option with 60' range.

[R.Shackleford]

In Go and Chess having the first move has a measurable statistical advantage at all levels of play. You don't really plan having your opponents screw up, you plan assuming he makes the best move possible.

3.5e was basically rocket tag at upper levels of play. Not sure about 4e, but from what I've heard combats are drawn out so I believe initiative was less valuable there.



Well, Bless is a very strong option (to the point of making nearly all other concentration spells unattractive), to the point that you can contribute effectively in a lot of encounters even if you cast Bless and do nothing else for the rest of combat. That said, my experience indicates that the sooner you pop Bless (on your damage dealers), the faster the combat will end (especially if your damage dealers have HWM or Sharpshooter), and the less damage your teammates will take. The benefit to saves is just gravy on top. Even one turn of a DPR ally having or not having Bless makes a significant difference.

'though yeah, maintaining this advantage has increasing opportunity costs the more your allies optimize initiative (even if they do so unintentionally by being a Dex-based class and taking Alert for its other benefits), so depending on party compositions a +1 to +2 initiative doesn't really offer much advantage, since your allies will probably act before you anyway.



Well, again, you can always cast Bless, and Sacred Flame is an okayish ranged option with 60' range.

Like in go and chess, I rather like seeing my enemies make mistakes that I can capitalize on. This allows me to conserve resources and be of more use as I'm not a short rest caster.

3e and 4e was only rocket tag if your DM/table made it that way.

Bless and Sacred Flame is nice, however bless isn't always needed, why waste resources that you don't need to waste? Sure versus some harder monsters pop out bless, but the small fry don't need that.

Wasting a spell slot on bless is a very amateur move.

[Tanarii]

Three of the four Cleric Domains only use Medium Armor, so some of them are actually as likely to have higher Dex as the next guy.

It's Fighters (Archery builds aside) and Paladins that have pretty strong incentive to dump Dex, since they have access to HA. Especially if they're going S&B with Feat access (for Shield Master), giving them even higher AC and mitigating the suck for Dex saves.. Plus the extra HPs to take a bit of a beating if they stand in the front rank taking the first wave of attack while the archers/spell-casters behind them get in their longer ranged attacks.

[R.Shackleford]

Three of the four Cleric Domains only use Medium Armor, so some of them are actually as likely to have higher Dex as the next guy.

It's Fighters (Archery builds aside) and Paladins that have pretty strong incentive to dump Dex, since they have access to HA. Especially if they're going S&B with Feat access (for Shield Master), giving them even higher AC and mitigating the suck for Dex saves.. Plus the extra HPs to take a bit of a beating if they stand in the front rank taking the first wave of attack while the archers/spell-casters behind them get in their longer ranged attacks.

Medium Armor would typically cause a Cleric to go +2 Dex and leave it there... +2 initiative isn't much.

[Tanarii]

Medium Armor would typically cause a Cleric to go +2 Dex and leave it there... +2 initiative isn't much.
+2 vs -1 is about a 13-15% decrease in chance of losing initiative against something else with a +2 to +4 initiative. Vs +4 it's 70% chance of loss down to 57%. It's not nothing.

Although I can also see looking at making a difference in about 1 out of every 7 encounters, and considering it "not much".

[Cespenar]

If all you do is pure damage, initiative is less useful. If you actually dabble in control or denial, then initiative is paramount. A Web, Confusion, or something similar thrown in the start of the first round may swing the game much differently than if the same wizard would go last and the enemies have engaged in melee.

[NNescio]

Three of the four Cleric Domains only use Medium Armor, so some of them are actually as likely to have higher Dex as the next guy.

It's Fighters (Archery builds aside) and Paladins that have pretty strong incentive to dump Dex, since they have access to HA. Especially if they're going S&B with Feat access (for Shield Master), giving them even higher AC and mitigating the suck for Dex saves.. Plus the extra HPs to take a bit of a beating if they stand in the front rank taking the first wave of attack while the archers/spell-casters behind them get in their longer ranged attacks.

Someone playing a heavy armor fighter in my gaming group rolled for stats and decided to dump Dex.

"Hey DM, uh, do initiative scores go down to negatives?"

"Assuming it does, what's your score?"

"-2."

"...you go next Tuesday."


Like in go and chess, I rather like seeing my enemies make mistakes that I can capitalize on. This allows me to conserve resources and be of more use as I'm not a short rest caster.

3e and 4e was only rocket tag if your DM/table made it that way.

Bless and Sacred Flame is nice, however bless isn't always needed, why waste resources that you don't need to waste? Sure versus some harder monsters pop out bless, but the small fry don't need that.

Wasting a spell slot on bless is a very amateur move.

Well, Bless is generally useful regardless of circumstances, and if you're dead sure the encounter is going to be a cakewalk anyway, just pop Sacred Flame instead or melee/crossbow your opponents. First move advantage, you have the option to not cast any of your spells and just functionally 'skip your turn' a little while dealing some damage. And if you're not sure if your opponents are outright hostile (in which case provoking them might not be a good idea), you can always ready your Sacred Flame instead, triggered on something like, say, if another creature attacks or casts a spell on you or one of your allies.

And in any case, even if you have nothing better to do with your action, simply moving first lets you reposition your Cleric at a more ideal spot where you could be in range (or out of range) of spells, or intercept enemies before they can reach the backline where your Wizard buddy (or any other squishy) is, or even to some place where an AoE hopefully won't hit you together with your teammates (players have a tendency to bunch up during marching orders for simplicity's sake).

For me, I usually only run into 4~5 encounters tops a day (instead of the 'recommended' 6-8, which is frankly ludicrously high unless you count non-combat encounters) in my gaming group, even with different DMs, and I generally only use my first level slots for Bless and Sanctuary (and the occasional Command), so I can afford to use Bless on half the encounters, give or take, and that's assuming I'm not using the concentration on a higher-level spell like Spirit Guardians or Dismissal (or even Silence against enemy casters in cramped spaces) in which case I wouldn't be casting Bless anyway. First level spell slots are quite expendable after you hit Level 5 or so.

After encounters are usually 'deadly' to some extent, so trying to be stingy with resources in combat will usually wind up with me needing to use even more spells and GP to patch up (and restore) my teammates later.

Healing Word is usually only for emergencies after someone goes down (with Mass Healing Word for greater emergencies), and most healing is usually handled out-of-combat via Prayer of Healing.

[RyumaruMG]

Generally I would consider +1 to my attack rolls more useful than a boost to my initiative, mainly because attacks get rolled a lot more often. Note that I said generally, though, as there are certain factors that make having the highest initiative valuable. Other people have already gone over plenty of these, but there's one that every character has access to: holding your action.

It's a sort of a middle ground between reacting to your enemy and forcing them to react to you. You can hold an attack until someone gets too close, you can hold a useful spell until it needs to go off, you can hold using an item or interacting with a trap until it becomes relevant. It requires a little forethought since you have to declare a specific trigger for the action, but it's pretty useful.

[Final Hyena]

I personnally would be unable to answer such a question without a defined context.

Updated the OP with a scenario that fits my needs.

[hymer]

A scenario;
Two soldiers (no class abilities) are fighting to the death.
They will always fall unconscious after three hits.
The only mechanical difference between them is one gets a +1 to hit the other +1 to initiative.

In that case, my mathematical inuition says +1 to-hit is best, as its use can make a difference once per round, whereas +1 initiative only possibly matters in the last round of the fight. The less the likelihood the soldiers hit, the more rounds the fight will go on, the greater the advantage for to-hit (and also the more it affects the chance of hitting; hit only on 19 and 20? +1 to-hit means +50% chance you'll hit).

Edit: Of course it follows that if they have 90% hit ratio, then the likelihood the fight will be three rounds long is pretty big (over 70%) without to-hit. Even then, it may be better to get that last 5% on three hits than a 5% boost to chance to go first in the last round.
Second edit: You go from about 73% chance to about 85.7% chane to end the fight in 3 round with +1 to-hit. The math on Initiative is slightly hampered by unclear tie-breaking. But you go from 50-50 chance of going first to about 53% with +1 to-hit.

[ZenBear]

On my +14 Init (Alert and swashbuckler) rogue, it's a mixed bag. I've yet to not go first, but sometimes there isn't a useful opponent to attack, so I either don't get sneak (just running in and out of combat) or I run into a pack waiting for my melee buddies to provide sneak opportunities.

It's fun, but if I were given a redo or if I play a similar character, I'd not emphasize initiative as much as I have. Then again, it might prove more useful later in his career... going battlemaster will open up options for combat that having a high initiative might be nice for.

tl;dr the thread, but this one jumped out at me when I started.

As a Swashbuckler you can sneak attack anyone you hit with a melee weapon attack once per turn. You don't need Advantage or an ally next to the enemy to get it. This is important for you to know since it's basically the entire point of the Swashbuckler subclass.

[Sneak Dog]

As a Swashbuckler you can sneak attack anyone you hit with a melee weapon attack once per turn. You don't need Advantage or an ally next to the enemy to get it. This is important for you to know since it's basically the entire point of the Swashbuckler subclass.

Not exactly. In addition to the normal ways to gain sneak attack without advantage, you also gain sneak attack when the only creature within 5ft. of you is the target. So if there's two creatures (friend or foe) next to you, being a swashbuckler doesn't help you gain sneak attack.

It does appear to be the only way to gain sneak attack while having disadvantage.

[Specter]

I say it depends on the class. For Assassins it's the sacred number, while for Clerics, for example, it hardly matters (since they can adapt what spell they cast according to initiative). Ironically, for the Barbarian it doesn't matter AFTER they get their no-surprise ability.

[DeAnno]

I think the only type of combatant that really might want to hang back and go slow is Melee (non-Assassin), for several reasons. First, there's some value in letting the enemy Melee close first, especially if you're slow or if you have triggering control effects like PAM (this works very poorly if the enemy doesn't need to close though, since they may fire and back up instead). Second, Melee tends to benefit the most from buffs, so you want to go after whoever is going to give those buffs to you. Third, if there is area DPR/Control in your party, you don't want to go before them and need to run up into their zone of fire.

I think that almost everyone else has good reason to want to go fast though; even near-pure ranged damage ala Sharpshooter or SorcLock wants to try to kill enemies before they can act, and/or back off from where the battle line is forming to fire from a safer position (dumping an Action Surge or using a double Eldritch Blast will often KO a pretty wide range of reasonable enemies, sometimes even including PCs of the same level).

[Gastronomie]

Most people would benefit from higher initiative. Certain classes will love it.

But on the other hand, it's not worth the investment with a lot of characters, especially because a majority of the actual initiative order is actually determined by the d20, not the bonus. Even with a DEX bonus of +5, your chances of going faster than the guy with a DEX bonus of +0 is... okay, I actually haven't got the INT score nor the time nor the willpower to calculate, but one thing for sure it's probably not that high (if anyone knows how to calculate, please tell us the data).

[Rysto]

(if anyone knows how to calculate, please tell us the data).

I brute-forced it with a quick spreadsheet. Basically, I said "there is a 1/20 chance that he rolled a 1, and if he did you would have to roll a 7 to guarantee that you out-initiative him, so there's a 7/20 chance of that, ...". Then I just summed up the probabilities, and it would up being a 22.75% chance of rolling higher than him on initiative.

If I did my algebra correctly, if the difference between your initiative bonus and his initiative bonus is I, then your chances of out-initiativing him are:

(20-I)(19-I)/800

The formula is only valid for 0 <= I <= 20

[Gastronomie]

I brute-forced it with a quick spreadsheet. Basically, I said "there is a 1/20 chance that he rolled a 1, and if he did you would have to roll a 7 to guarantee that you out-initiative him, so there's a 7/20 chance of that, ...". Then I just summed up the probabilities, and it would up being a 22.75% chance of rolling higher than him on initiative.

If I did my algebra correctly, if the difference between your initiative bonus and his initiative bonus is I, then your chances of out-initiativing him are:

(19-I)(18-I)/800

The formula is only valid for 0 < I < 20Hmm, so 3/4 of the time, the guy with +5 goes faster? Actually a higher ratio than I thought. Thanks for the math~

[Tanarii]

I think the only type of combatant that really might want to hang back and go slow is Melee (non-Assassin), for several reasons. First, there's some value in letting the enemy Melee close first, especially if you're slow or if you have triggering control effects like PAM (this works very poorly if the enemy doesn't need to close though, since they may fire and back up instead). Second, Melee tends to benefit the most from buffs, so you want to go after whoever is going to give those buffs to you. Third, if there is area DPR/Control in your party, you don't want to go before them and need to run up into their zone of fire.
I seriously cannot count the number of times I've seen DPS-build melee win initiative, and go running ahead of the party to get themselves surrounded and creamed.

Especially my 4e Pursuit Avenger. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

Even with a DEX bonus of +5, your chances of going faster than the guy with a DEX bonus of +0 is... okay, I actually haven't got the INT score nor the time nor the willpower to calculate, but one thing for sure it's probably not that high (if anyone knows how to calculate, please tell us the data).
70% chance of going first. In other words, instead of going first in 5 out of 10 encounters, you'll go first in 7 out of 10.

Anydice forumula is: output (1d20+5) > (1d20)
http://anydice.com/program/9248

[R.Shackleford]

I seriously cannot count the number of times I've seen DPS-build melee win initiative, and go running ahead of the party to get themselves surrounded and creamed.

Especially my 4e Pursuit Avenger. :smallbiggrin:

I've seen this so many times as well. In 3e, 4e, Essentials, and in 5e.

I've also seen plenty of times where the first round of combat has no melee attacks and a lot of the PCs not have decent ranged attacks. Casting bless on them is a waste and can lead to you losing concentration.

If the battle is over (one of the smaller battles) before my cleric does anything, I see that as a win for my cleric. Didn't lose HP, didn't expend spell slots, didn't need to heal/repair anyone... Just saving it for the big show.

[ad_hoc]

70% chance of going first. In other words, instead of going first in 5 out of 10 encounters, you'll go first in 7 out of 10.

Anydice forumula is: output (1d20+5) > (1d20)
http://anydice.com/program/9248

This is helpful.

Thanks

[toapat]

While Initiative is fairly important based on your individual abilities on the char sheet, the attribute loses value as a given character gains additional dicerolls, or, In other terms:

Each +1 Initiative is worth less then the last because each subsequent one is less likely to matter. every +! to Spell/Attack is as important as the previous one, until you reach the point where only a 1 fails

[Citan]

I seriously cannot count the number of times I've seen DPS-build melee win initiative, and go running ahead of the party to get themselves surrounded and creamed.

Especially my 4e Pursuit Avenger. :smallbiggrin:
Well, if the one martial with suicidal tendancies is in fact a Bear Totem Barbarian, this could be a worthy tactic to prepare a bath of AOE attacks from Wizard/Sorcerer/Ranger...
Let the Bear aggro everyone, drop a few AOE (with Volley from Ranger or Evoker Wizard working best since he can just choose to not attack Barb), done. :smallbiggrin:

It suppose though that you're either very lucky on Initiative Rolls (ideally Barb first, then mooks, then rest of party) or that you agree taking the risk that the Barb actually goes down in spite of his vitality or get targeted by a nasty effect in the meantime.

[Tanarii]

While Initiative is fairly important based on your individual abilities on the char sheet, the attribute loses value as a given character gains additional dicerolls, or, In other terms:

Each +1 Initiative is worth less then the last because each subsequent one is less likely to matter. every +! to Spell/Attack is as important as the previous one, until you reach the point where only a 1 fails
True. There are diminishing returns against an opponent with a static value, unlike hit chance vs a static AC. That's the difference between target ACs/DCs and opposed checks.

Here's the percentage win chance vs no bonus for each plus through +10 (ie Dex 20 & Alert):
+1 52.50
+2 57.25
+3 61.75
+4 66.00
+5 70.00
+6 73.75
+7 77.25
+8 80.50
+9 83.50
+10 86.25
http://anydice.com/program/924d

As you can see each bonus gives you +4.75 to +2.75. So the last one is worth 58% the first one.

[IShouldntBehere]

After running some simulations:

Attack Rolls are always better. They are much better when you need high attack rolls to beat AC winning upwards of 80% of the time if they'd need a 19~20 to hit each other before taking the bonus. When you're hitting on 10~11s or the middle of you range, things are a bit closer with +1 attack getting a ~55% win rate. If you barely need to roll at all say you need a 2 or higher before taking the bonus, it's very close but attack rolls still win just a hair over 50% of the time. If they can't miss each other at all (negative AC), then init rolls do win ~57%-ish of the time.


Against the middling ACs. Getting to around +8 or +9 initiative seems to balance out or just edge over +1 hit. Once you bump things up to +2 hit, even always winning initiative (+99 init) puts no dent in the value of attack rolls, which win this scenario ~53% of the time.


This is only for the exact scenario (first to 3 hits win) put forward in the OP. I imagine real play and other variables could affect this greatly. Such as scenarios with random damage that can result in OHKO probably favorite init more than this setup.

[Vogonjeltz]

Due to another project I'm curious how strong an initiative bonus is against say an attack bonus. Would you rather have +1 attack or initiative? what about +1 attack or +2 initiative? Where would you consider the sweet spot to be in terms of balance?

So how much value do you place on a characters initiative modifier?

Edit;
A scenario;
Two soldiers (no class abilities) are fighting to the death.
They will always fall unconscious after three hits.
The only mechanical difference between them is one gets a +1 to hit the other +1 to initiative.

+1 initiative with all other things being equal equates to going first 55% of the time instead of 50% of the time.

That should also mean being victorious 55% of the time if it took an equal number of hits and both sides were equally likely to hit.

If there's a 5% chance to hit, then it would require an average of 60 rounds to deal 3 hits (approximately 1 hit every 20 rounds).
Doubling that to 10% would provide a hit every 10 rounds, or an average of 30 rounds to deal 3 hits.

If there is a 50% chance to hit, then there would be a hit every approximately 2 rounds, requiring an average of 6 rounds. a +5% to hit in this situation would provide a negligible improvement on the average number of rounds required to win.

So, in a very low hit scenario the increase to hit is substantially more valuable than a high hit scenario, which is where going first is more important.

In the scenario you've described, Initiative is probably more important based on the assumption that they are likely to hit each other more often than not.

[uraniumrooster]

Getting an extra +1 to initiative isn't a bad thing for any class, as it's always nice to go first. However, the actual value of getting that +1 to initiative depends on the opportunity cost. How are you gaining that initiative bonus, and what other options do you have?

Generally, getting an extra +1 to initiative is going to be the result of spending your ASI to raise your Dex. So, what else could you do with your ASI?

For Light-armored characters using ranged or finesse weapons, there's virtually zero opportunity cost. Using their ASI to boost their Dex and gain +1 initiative also grants +1 on attacks, AC, and dex saves. In that case though, they're not really raising their Dex specifically for the Initiative bonus, it's just an added benefit. The only other competition for their ASI is the possibility of taking a feat or improving one of their secondary ability scores instead.

A heavy-armored character (or a medium-armored character that has already reached their dex-cap), using a Str-based weapon or Spells, though? The only other benefit of improving their initiative is boosting their Dex saves, at the cost of not improving their weapon/spell attacks or spell save dc, or choosing a feat.

A light or unarmored spell caster might consider raising their Dex for the AC/Save/Init bonus, but again, that's at the cost of not raising their primary stat to boost their spell attacks, save dc, and potentially their number of prepared spells. It's build-dependent, as there are certainly some builds that would prefer the dex boost, but I think most would rather focus on getting their spell-casting ability maxed first, picking up a feat, or even just boosting their Con for the sake of HPs and concentration.

Assassins are the only class I can think of that would really go out of their way to intentionally boost their initiative. Thanks to the way Surprise works in 5e, their Assassinate ability only applies to creatures the assassin beats in initiative. So, even after going through the trouble to catch an enemy unaware, if they don't go first, they lose the ability to use their coveted auto-crit feature for that encounter. For them, there's a potential opportunity cost for not boosting their initiative.

[R.Shackleford]

Getting an extra +1 to initiative isn't a bad thing for any class, as it's always nice to go first.

It's a bad thing for anyone who wants to let their allies go first (and enemies) so that they can survey the battlefield and then do their thing.

I ask, quite often, if I can take disadvantage on initiative rolls or just go last.

Most people have a striker mentality, even when using other methods of play, I don't really have this mentality.

There is no delaying after all and the ready action is meh at best.

[uraniumrooster]

It's a bad thing for anyone who wants to let their allies go first (and enemies) so that they can survey the battlefield and then do their thing.

I ask, quite often, if I can take disadvantage on initiative rolls or just go last.

Most people have a striker mentality, even when using other methods of play, I don't really have this mentality.

There is no delaying after all and the ready action is meh at best.

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I think even for a non-striker play style, acting earlier in the initiative order is still beneficial. Going first doesn't have to mean rushing the enemies or dropping your highest level spell right off the bat. It can allow you to survey and possibly manipulate your surroundings, move to a better position behind cover, or recover from surprise sooner if caught off guard.

Improving your initiative bonus shouldn't ever be a top priority (with the possible exception of Assassins), but I don't think it ever hurts.

[R.Shackleford]

I don't disagree with the sentiment, but I think even for a non-striker play style, acting earlier in the initiative order is still beneficial. Going first doesn't have to mean rushing the enemies or dropping your highest level spell right off the bat. It can allow you to survey and possibly manipulate your surroundings, move to a better position behind cover, or recover from surprise sooner if caught off guard.

Improving your initiative bonus shouldn't ever be a top priority (with the possible exception of Assassins), but I don't think it ever hurts.

Not always.

There are so many variables to play that making going first only great if one of two things happen. The first one if the fight starts in such a location that you can move and attack in the first round. The second is if you have class features based around going first/surprise, much like the assassin.

If you can not move and attack on the first round, or move and effect, then there is no reason to go first. Having your enemy comes to you or bunch up is the best thing that can happen. You never want to meet an enemy half way on their turn. Even using the ready action doesn't prevent you from being ganged up on.

If you are the type to hide/duck/dive and stuff you are typically going to be roguish, which means that your initiative will be organically grown from your ability scores without any attempt on your side to make it larger. There really isn't much you can do about it.

However, letting your enemy bunch together is the difference between catching one or two creatures in a fireball and catching 4 or 5.

I've seen so many people waste their turns and spell slots by rushing ahead. I've seen even more lose their characters.

I'm not saying it isn't good to go first, I'm saying it isn't always good to go first.

[PotatoGolem]

Not very. Up until recently, both the paladin and the cleric in our campaign had disadvantage on all initiative rolls and I can't say it ever really mattered. Unless we were going to win or lose in the first round of combat, which is rare, it felt pretty trivial.

[Dalebert]

Much of what I had to say has been said so I'll just address a few things that come to mind.

If you're low in the initiative order, you likely will get fewer actions than those higher up in the last round and average combat is 3 or 4 rounds. That means you're acting 25% to 33% less than those who tend to beat you in initiative. I don't obsess over initiative but I am aware that I might just have more fun by virtue of having more things to do. This is also why rogues just seem a lot of fun. Cunning action means lots of bonus action options so you just feel like you get to DO a lot, even at a table with a lot of other players. This is also why early Bless is so relevant. You get 25% to 33% more use out of it in an average combat if you manage to fire it off early.

There are diminishing returns on both init and attack. Once you're reasonably high, going yet higher doesn't help as much. You're already hitting a lot or winning initiative a lot. There's something to be said for fleshing out one if the other is already strong.

For non-evocation wizards, going first means getting off an AoE before your melee or the enemy have closed the gap. For crowd controllers, something like Hypnotic Pattern is similar--nice to do before everyone is mixed up.

[Reynaert]

If initiative were that important, you would get some really odd mexican standoffs in any melee fight where the parties start more than 30 feet apart.

One side moves to within movement range of the other and readies the attack action on the condition 'when the opponent gets in range'. The other side is wise to that and remains outside melee range and readies their own attack. Etc.. (Assuming it is that important to get your attack in first).

[Tanarii]

If you're low in the initiative order, you likely will get fewer actions than those higher up in the last round and average combat is 3 or 4 rounds.What difficulty encounters, number of opponents, and party size are you assuming here?

That's sounds about right for me for a 2 enemy Medium encounter for a part of 5. So I'm curious what your assumptions are when making such a statement.


There are diminishing returns on both init and attack. Once you're reasonably high, going yet higher doesn't help as much. You're already hitting a lot or winning initiative a lot. There's something to be said for fleshing out one if the other is already strong.Attacks don't have diminished returns until you need a 2 to hit. Each +1 is always 5% extra chance to hit. Because it's against a static number, not a opposed check.

Edit: fix quotes

[Rysto]

Going from a 90% chance of a hit to a 95% chance does significantly less for your DPR than going from 5% to 10%. It's the relative increase that matters, not the absolute increase.

[bid]

Attacks don't have diminished returns until you need a 2 to hit. Each +1 is always 5% extra chance to hit. Because it's against a static number, not a opposed check.
I think he meant the relative increase.

With a static increase of 5:
- 20 to 25 is 25% increase
- 50 to 55 is 10% increase


It's the same thing with initiative:
- neutral, you win 50% of the time
- +5, you win 70% of the time {+20%}
- +10, you win 85% of the time {+15%}


Going backward in time:
- you kill the last creature
- 1 creature attacks you
- you kill another one
- 2 creatures attack you
- you kill another one
- 3 creatures attack you
- you kill your first creature
- 4 creatures attack you {only if you lose initiative}

Here, winning the initiative reduces from 10 to 6 attacks, -40% in potential damage received.

[Tanarii]

I think he meant the relative increase.

With a static increase of 5:
- 20 to 25 is 25% increase
- 50 to 55 is 10% increase


It's the same thing with initiative:
- neutral, you win 50% of the time
- +5, you win 70% of the time {+20%}
- +10, you win 85% of the time {+15%}But they aren't the same thing. +1 attack gives you an absolute increase of +5% chance to hit each added one, vs a static AC. +1 Initiative gives you less than +5% chance to win, with each added one giving you a smaller and smaller fixed amount.

I get what you mean in terms of total chance of damage. 55%--> 60% is a 9% relative gain, but 60-->65% is only 8% relative gain. But the absolute chance of hitting goes up by the same amount each time. The absolute chance of winning initiative does not.

[Dalebert]

I'm not denying that it's, by default, a linear increase. When you're already hitting a lot, it just doesn't seem like a big deal to raise it a little more, especially if you had a choice between another +1 to hit and some amount of init bonus if your init is already not very good. I guess the fact that init is diminishing on returns makes a bonus to hit by comparison not seem as great.

That said, advantage and disadvantage DO actually make to-hit bonus returns non-linear when they come into play and they come into play surprisingly a lot, particularly if you build for it. Heck, just having an owl familiar can mean having advantage on one attack per turn almost automatically, just as an example. Another case is having a wolf totem barbarian.

So since they will definitely sometimes have diminishing returns, they have diminishing returns period. It's just not as dramatic is for init.

[NNescio]

If initiative were that important, you would get some really odd mexican standoffs in any melee fight where the parties start more than 30 feet apart.

One side moves to within movement range of the other and readies the attack action on the condition 'when the opponent gets in range'. The other side is wise to that and remains outside melee range and readies their own attack. Etc.. (Assuming it is that important to get your attack in first).

Everyone has ranged options. Chuck something and it'll force them into zugzwang.

[jaappleton]

It really depends on the class.

Initiative can allow you to win a fight before the fight happens.

Tempest Cleric wins initiative. Maximizes Shatter's damage with Channel Divinity. At level 3, that's a LOT damage, guaranteed, and will often decimate an encounter.

[Temperjoke]

So, to sum up, it's depends on the class, role, enemy, location as to how powerful initiative can be. :smallbiggrin:

[R.Shackleford]

It really depends on the class.

Initiative can allow you to win a fight before the fight happens.

Tempest Cleric wins initiative. Maximizes Shatter's damage with Channel Divinity. At level 3, that's a LOT damage, guaranteed, and will often decimate an encounter.

Technically once it is your turn the fight is happening so you can't win it before the fight happens. Initiative is only rolled when the fight starts... :smallcool:

Also, if you kill 1 out of every 10 enemies then the fight is hardly over. :smallbiggrin:

I don't know about all the DMs out there but I don't cluster my enemies in such a way that Tempest would be able to take out enough of them in one action. With magic being known in the world I don't think too many, even the stupider aces, would cluster when in the presence of anyone that looks like a caster.

[Dalebert]

I don't know about all the DMs out there but I don't cluster my enemies in such a way that Tempest would be able to take out enough of them in one action. With magic being known in the world I don't think too many, even the stupider aces, would cluster when in the presence of anyone that looks like a caster.

EVER? Sounds like meta-gaming. Do you think NPCs are constantly living every moment of their lives in deep tactical thought about the PCs? I mean, I realize their entire existence is for the purpose of satisfying our virtual murder hobo lusts, but do THEY realize that? Often times, aren't they just getting on with their lives when PCs happen upon them, sometimes in a small room? Do you not ever have confined spaces where orcs sleept? Do they never gather at a table to play cards, unaware of the PC threat because the PCs haven't (as of yet) used any booming thunder attacks?

[R.Shackleford]

EVER? Sounds like meta-gaming. Do you think NPCs are constantly living every moment of their lives in deep tactical thought about the PCs? I mean, I realize their entire existence is for the purpose of satisfying our virtual murder hobo lusts, but do THEY realize that? Often times, aren't they just getting on with their lives when PCs happen upon them, sometimes in a small room? Do you not ever have confined spaces where orcs sleept? Do they never gather at a table to play cards, unaware of the PC threat because the PCs haven't (as of yet) used any booming thunder attacks?

I love how people call metagaming against things that aren't metagaming.

If you were thrown into a battlefield and saw a dude chucking grenades (who looks like a grenade chucker), are you are your buddies going to cluster? No, no you are not. It doesn't take a 10 Int to see how that is a bad idea.

You may metagame and give players an easy time so that their abilities will work 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean squat to me or my groups.

I like how you are bringing different situations into the conversation that isn't combat. We are talking about combat, not exploration/roleplaying.

"The Order of Combat

A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other."

Playing cards, sleeping, and many other situations like that isn't combat.

Now if players get the drop on a group, great! If not, then the creatures aren't going to cluster in such a stupid way. Most of the time players don't initiate combat, as in they aren't the root cause of the combat. Usually enemies are the ones that cause combat to start.

Walking along a road and a bandit pops up.

A lord kidnapped a princess and intends to marry her (enemies are defending their lord).

Sure, you can have the players start the issues, but it is up to the DM to craft the world around them.

[Temperjoke]

I love how people call metagaming against things that aren't metagaming.

If you were thrown into a battlefield and saw a dude chucking grenades (who looks like a grenade chucker), are you are your buddies going to cluster? No, no you are not. It doesn't take a 10 Int to see how that is a bad idea.

You may metagame and give players an easy time so that their abilities will work 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean squat to me or my groups.

I like how you are bringing different situations into the conversation that isn't combat. We are talking about combat, not exploration/roleplaying.

"The Order of Combat

A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other."

Playing cards, sleeping, and many other situations like that isn't combat.

Now if players get the drop on a group, great! If not, then the creatures aren't going to cluster in such a stupid way. Most of the time players don't initiate combat, as in they aren't the root cause of the combat. Usually enemies are the ones that cause combat to start.

Walking along a road and a bandit pops up.

A lord kidnapped a princess and intends to marry her (enemies are defending their lord).

Sure, you can have the players start the issues, but it is up to the DM to craft the world around them.

I think it's more the automatic spreading out, as opposed to reacting to your enemy in battle, that would be borderline meta-gaming. Assuming the enemies had no prior knowledge of the players and their tactics, or if they weren't trained troops who are used to dealing with such things, until you saw that first AoE burst, you wouldn't know off-hand to spread out.

[NNescio]

I love how people call metagaming against things that aren't metagaming.

If you were thrown into a battlefield and saw a dude chucking grenades (who looks like a grenade chucker), are you are your buddies going to cluster? No, no you are not. It doesn't take a 10 Int to see how that is a bad idea.

You may metagame and give players an easy time so that their abilities will work 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean squat to me or my groups.

I like how you are bringing different situations into the conversation that isn't combat. We are talking about combat, not exploration/roleplaying.



Unlike the grenade-chucking soldier, Tempest Clerics are dressed like Fighters or Paladins (martial weapon + medium or heavy armor, and most likely a shield as well). Only difference is the holy symbol, which may be emblazoned on the shield instead. Most NPCs without Religion proficiency shouldn't be able to tell the difference (note that non-religious Fighters may employ heraldry, and religious Fighters may even have the symbol of their faith on their person even if they aren't Clerics or Paladins), unless the Cleric's church is very prominent around that region. Even then, if the God has multiple domains, it shouldn't be easy for the NPCs to figure out which domain Cleric he is either.

And well, even if the NPCs do recognize the Tempest Cleric for his AoE capabilities, well, winning initiative allows the Cleric to AoE first before they get to scatter.

(And really, unless the NPCs are skirmishers or something, they probably be grouped up together because it's generally safer that way, unless they know in advance that they're going to be facing AoEs. Same goes for PC parties -- bunching up lets you defend squishies easier and helps prevent your Wizard from getting ganked without any allies nearby, and makes it easier to march in a cohesive group.)

[KorvinStarmast]

I love how people call metagaming against things that aren't metagaming. Having played a Temptest Cleric that wandered about in heavy armor and shield, what does "looks like a caster" mean to you? Dalebert's critique wasn't all wrong. Maybe your monsters needed to make a lore/knowledge check to make sure they saw and recognized how a heavily armored opponent somehow gave off a tell that he was a caster. Recall the scenario in play: first action right after initiative is decided. :smallwink:

(Your larger point is agreed if it's a medium to high magic setting, not so much in a low magic setting).

[Tanarii]

And well, even if the NPCs do recognize the Tempest Cleric for his AoE capabilities, well, winning initiative allows the Cleric to AoE first before they get to scatter.

(And really, unless the NPCs are skirmishers or something, they probably be grouped up together because it's generally safer that way, unless they know in advance that they're going to be facing AoEs. Same goes for PC parties -- bunching up lets you defend squishies easier and helps prevent your Wizard from getting ganked without any allies nearby, and makes it easier to march in a cohesive group.)Part of the problem is that D&D doesn't model the advantages of a shield wall very well. What it does model well is ganging up on an enemy, or grouping up to avoid the enemy ganging up on you. But that kind of mobbing will occur naturally as the battle progresses. Of course, the disadvantage for a caster is your allies are stuck in the middle.

So unless the enemy troops are trained warriors making a shield wall, or they have someone/somewhere to protect by physically blocking access to them (a shaman, BBEG boss, whatever), or you've got the drop on them and surprised them, there's no real reason to assume they will start facing a combat situation tightly bunched up. Not saying they should be scattered all across the damn plains or anything. Just not tightly bunched.

[NNescio]

Part of the problem is that D&D doesn't model the advantages of a shield wall very well. What it does model well is ganging up on an enemy, or grouping up to avoid the enemy ganging up on you. But that kind of mobbing will occur naturally as the battle progresses. Of course, the disadvantage for a caster is your allies are stuck in the middle.

So unless the enemy troops are trained warriors making a shield wall, or they have someone/somewhere to protect by physically blocking access to them (a shaman, BBEG boss, whatever), or you've got the drop on them and surprised them, there's no real reason to assume they will start facing a combat situation tightly bunched up. Not saying they should be scattered all across the damn plains or anything. Just not tightly bunched.

Well, bunched up within half move (15~20 ft) from each other or so, which usually lets an AoE hit about one third to half of them (if you open with the AoE before anyone gets to move), in my experience as a player and DM. True, nobody would fight shoulder-to-shoulder unless they're rigorously trained to fight in tight formations (which is a bad idea in a world with easy access to magic). In retrospect I probably shouldn't have used the word "bunched", because it implies a tighter degree of clustering.

[MaxWilson]

(And really, unless the NPCs are skirmishers or something, they probably be grouped up together because it's generally safer that way, unless they know in advance that they're going to be facing AoEs. Same goes for PC parties -- bunching up lets you defend squishies easier and helps prevent your Wizard from getting ganked without any allies nearby, and makes it easier to march in a cohesive group.)

This tactical doctrine isn't really valid in the 5E ruleset because of how effective missile fire is. Regardless of whether you're going up against AoEs or individual attacks, it's pretty much always better to adopt a skirmish formation. A dozen hobgoblins have no reason NOT to spread themselves out over 120' or more even when they're on the move. It's not like it reduces their ability at mutual support, and it gives you the option of falling back or Dodging a melee threat while your more-distant buddies pelt it with arrows.

[MrStabby]

(And really, unless the NPCs are skirmishers or something, they probably be grouped up together because it's generally safer that way, unless they know in advance that they're going to be facing AoEs. Same goes for PC parties -- bunching up lets you defend squishies easier and helps prevent your Wizard from getting ganked without any allies nearby, and makes it easier to march in a cohesive group.)

NPCs are always likely to assume if there is an enemy group it will involve someone with an AOE attack. What wouldn't it? Given that it is no harder to learn fireball than to get a second attack I would expect most parties - whether military, criminal or adventurer would contain an AOE caster, and if not a caster then acid, alchemists fire etc.. This is only metagaming if you only do it with a party that contains AOE - as long as you do it with PC parties without AOE as well it is just consistent military ecology.

The idea of rigid formations of troops is just a legacy of a historical time when there was little effective AOE on the battlefield. When wars were fought in a world where effective AOE became more prevalent then the big legion style blocks became less and less common. If AOE exists in a world then people living in that world should behave consistently with it existing.

[Dalebert]

You may metagame and give players an easy time so that their abilities will work 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean squat to me or my groups.

MASSIVE strawman. You said you don't bunch up your NPCs for convenient AoEs. I said "EVER?" Because sometimes they will be bunched up and sometimes they won't be when combat starts. If they're bunched up always, that sounds like meta-gaming. If they're bunched up never, that sounds like meta-gaming. This is true whether one side or the other has surprise or not. In non-surprise situations, which are pretty common unless one side or the other has the opportunity to put effort into surprise and succeeds at it, then from the moment the two parties become aware of each other you roll initiative. If they're bunched up at the start for whatever reason, then they can start moving to scatter when they see a robed dude with arcane symbols all over his robes (because PC wizards like to advertise their glass-cannon status like that). The problem is they may not get the chance to scatter in time IF the wizard has a high initiative; you know, the subject of this very thread?

And scattering isn't always the effective strategy. It's commonly the smart thing to do to focus fire and if you're primarily melee as many creatures are, that means bunching up to some extent or another. The fact is creatures are bunched up often due to circumstances, e.g. they're orcs playing cards in a dungeon where nothing has happened for weeks or months before the PCs showed up, they're bunched up for defensive reasons when it's tactical to do so because they hardly ever face things that shoot fireballs, they're PCs walking through a dungeon together down a thin corridor where they can only walk two-abreast and they're trying to protect they're squishies from an ambush.

The fact remains that if your monsters ALWAYS have a lot of room (more than 40 ft diameter rooms) and are ALWAYS spread out as if they know there's a wizard approaching, that sounds super meta-gamey.


A typical combat encounter is a clash between two sides, a flurry of weapon swings, feints, parries, footwork, and spellcasting. The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn. The order of turns is determined at the beginning of a combat encounter, when everyone rolls initiative. Once everyone has taken a turn, the fight continues to the next round if neither side has defeated the other.

Yeah. What does this have to do with anything? Until combat starts, creatures are doing non-combat things. They don't teleport into tactical positions at the moment of combat starting. They roll initiative and start off wherever they happen to be which might not be ideal... for them... or for the PCs.


Usually enemies are the ones that cause combat to start.

If you're always having the enemies ambushing the PCs, that's meta-gamey too. What about a basic dungeon crawl? The PCs are moving about and the NPCs don't necessarily expect them until they're there. What about when a high-perception PC notices the hidden bandit before they can jump out. Maybe bandits are split on either side of the road but they're still likely conveniently positioned for at least half of them to be in a fireball; possibly more than half. Otherwise they might be too spread out for an effective ambush depending on the nature of their battle tactics like whether they primarily use ranged or whether they close for melee or to grapple the casters and take them out quickly.

My point is IT VARIES A LOT depending on circumstances but in most of these circumstances, getting to go first often has a significant impact, particularly if you're a caster who can do a powerful AoE damage or crowd-control effect, or who can buff your whole team before the enemy has has a chance to get into an ideal tactical position. This is all highly relevant to the topic of the thread.

[Tanarii]

The DMG has suggested guidelines. DMG p249, Adjudicating Areas of Affect, including Targets in Areas of Effect table.

[Dalebert]

I'm getting this comical vision of a band of orcs that spends every moment of their lives, waking or sleeping, in constant anticipation of a wizard showing up and shooting a fireball at them. They spend countless hours of hard labor to enlarge every single room to massive proportions. They're sleeping quarters are 50 ft square and all the beds are spread out as evenly as possible out to the edges of the room, with 20ft deep nooks if possible. They're dining hall is massive too, of course, and they spread out as evenly as possible while eating. They don't talk at all, because as they're ladeling stew into their mouths, they stare at the door in fear of the inevitable fireball wizard. If they did talk, however, they would shout across the room at their comrades, but only to discuss strategy of what they will do when the fireball wizard shows. In between meals, they have a bunch of rooms where they go and just stand all spread and stare at the door at the ready for the fireball wizard. All the corridors of their lair are 50 ft wide, and they don't cluster together when they're on watch. They pointedly walk 20 feet behind the orc in front of them.

Last one in the spaced-out line gets ganked by a hidden assassin. They all turn and think "Crap! We didn't plan for getting ganked all by ourselves while ineffectively spread out for melee. We planned for fireball wizards!"

[Temperjoke]

I'm getting this comical vision of a band of orcs that spends every moment of their lives, waking or sleeping, in constant anticipation of a wizard showing up and shooting a fireball at them. They spend countless hours of hard labor to enlarge every single room to massive proportions. They're sleeping quarters are 50 ft square and all the beds are spread out as evenly as possible out to the edges of the room, with 20ft deep nooks if possible. They're dining hall is massive too, of course, and they spread out as evenly as possible while eating. They don't talk at all, because as they're ladeling stew into their mouths, they stare at the door in fear of the inevitable fireball wizard. If they did talk, however, they would shout across the room at their comrades, but only to discuss strategy of what they will do when the fireball wizard shows. In between meals, they have a bunch of rooms where they go and just stand all spread and stare at the door at the ready for the fireball wizard. All the corridors of their lair are 50 ft wide, and they don't cluster together when they're on watch. They pointedly walk 20 feet behind the orc in front of them.

Last one in the spaced-out line gets ganked by a hidden assassin. They all turn and think "Crap! We didn't plan for getting ganked all by ourselves while ineffectively spread out for melee. We planned for fireball wizards!"

That party of adventurers left a major impact on that tribe's culture several generations in the past, and it's only grown across time, turning the legendary PCs into the demons of the current generation, more terrifying than even the tribes ancestral gods.