Are initiative rolls too random?

[BettaGeorge]

Am I the only one who feels that the way 3.5 handles initiative is flawed? What I mean is the following: say you have a non-minmaxed rogue with reasonably high DEX who spends one of their precious feats on Improved Initiative. In my experience, that character still regularly goes after all enemies in combat, denying them that sweet sweet first-round sneak attack. The reason being that while you may have a modifier of 7 to 9 on your initiative (provided you don't build your character explicitly to have high ini and nothing else), the outcome still depends on a die roll with a range of 20, more than double that modifier. If you roll on the low side and your opponent on the high side, your modifier is worth nothing.

Suspecting myself to be a victim of Negativity Bias, I decided to run the numbers. (Math PhD for the win, I guess.) We pit a combatant with low initiative against one with high initiative. Note that since only the difference in initiative modifiers affects the probabilities, I simply assume the low initiative fighter to have an ini bonus of 0. (The probabilities for ini bonus 0 vs 5 are the same as those for 1 vs 6, 2 vs 7, and so on.)

Bonuses of 0 vs 0 give us probabilities of 47.5000% win, 47.5000% lose, 5.0000% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 1 give us probabilities of 42.7500% win, 52.5000% lose, 4.7500% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 2 give us probabilities of 38.2500% win, 57.2500% lose, 4.5000% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 3 give us probabilities of 34.0000% win, 61.7500% lose, 4.2500% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 4 give us probabilities of 30.0000% win, 66.0000% lose, 4.0000% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 5 give us probabilities of 26.2500% win, 70.0000% lose, 3.7500% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 6 give us probabilities of 22.7500% win, 73.7500% lose, 3.5000% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 7 give us probabilities of 19.5000% win, 77.2500% lose, 3.2500% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 8 give us probabilities of 16.5000% win, 80.5000% lose, 3.0000% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 9 give us probabilities of 13.7500% win, 83.5000% lose, 2.7500% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 10 give us probabilities of 11.2500% win, 86.2500% lose, 2.5000% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 11 give us probabilities of 9.0000% win, 88.7500% lose, 2.2500% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 12 give us probabilities of 7.0000% win, 91.0000% lose, 2.0000% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 13 give us probabilities of 5.2500% win, 93.0000% lose, 1.7500% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 14 give us probabilities of 3.7500% win, 94.7500% lose, 1.5000% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 15 give us probabilities of 2.5000% win, 96.2500% lose, 1.2500% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 16 give us probabilities of 1.5000% win, 97.5000% lose, 1.0000% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 17 give us probabilities of 0.7500% win, 98.5000% lose, 0.7500% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 18 give us probabilities of 0.2500% win, 99.2500% lose, 0.5000% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 19 give us probabilities of 0.0000% win, 99.7500% lose, 0.2500% draw.
Bonuses of 0 vs 20 give us probabilities of 0.0000% win, 100.0000% lose, 0.0000% draw.

Adjusted for the fact that on a draw, the higher initiative modifier goes first, we get:

Bonuses of 0 vs 1 give us probabilities of 42.7500% win, 57.2500% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 2 give us probabilities of 38.2500% win, 61.7500% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 3 give us probabilities of 34.0000% win, 66.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 4 give us probabilities of 30.0000% win, 70.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 5 give us probabilities of 26.2500% win, 73.7500% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 6 give us probabilities of 22.7500% win, 77.2500% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 7 give us probabilities of 19.5000% win, 80.5000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 8 give us probabilities of 16.5000% win, 83.5000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 9 give us probabilities of 13.7500% win, 86.2500% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 10 give us probabilities of 11.2500% win, 88.7500% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 11 give us probabilities of 9.0000% win, 91.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 12 give us probabilities of 7.0000% win, 93.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 13 give us probabilities of 5.2500% win, 94.7500% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 14 give us probabilities of 3.7500% win, 96.2500% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 15 give us probabilities of 2.5000% win, 97.5000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 16 give us probabilities of 1.5000% win, 98.5000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 17 give us probabilities of 0.7500% win, 99.2500% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 18 give us probabilities of 0.2500% win, 99.7500% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 19 give us probabilities of 0.0000% win, 100.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 20 give us probabilities of 0.0000% win, 100.0000% lose.



So if my DEX equals my opponent's but I have spent a feat on Improved Initiative, that raises my chances of going first from 57% to 70%. Not sure that is worth a feat. It even gets worse as my DEX goes up – the higher my DEX is, the fewer percentage points I get out of Improved Initiative.

If my initiative is 10 higher than my opponent's (which requires quite a few feats or items, or an opponent with abysmal DEX), I still have a higher than 10% chance of going last.

All in all, those numbers aren't quite as bad as I had imagined them in my head, but they still confirm that I never ever want to take Improved Initiative again.

Now, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be some randomness to the initiative order. I just feel like the game designers didn't quite think through how much randomness they introduced there.

One idea I had was to just roll a d10 instead of a d20 (ignoring for the sake of argument that initiative is actually a DEX check, not just a die roll). The resulting probabilities are a lot more favorable for high-initiative builds:

Bonuses of 0 vs 1 give us probabilities of 45.0000% win, 55.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 1 give us probabilities of 36.0000% win, 64.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 2 give us probabilities of 28.0000% win, 72.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 3 give us probabilities of 21.0000% win, 79.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 4 give us probabilities of 15.0000% win, 85.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 5 give us probabilities of 10.0000% win, 90.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 6 give us probabilities of 6.0000% win, 94.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 7 give us probabilities of 3.0000% win, 97.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 8 give us probabilities of 1.0000% win, 99.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 9 give us probabilities of 0.0000% win, 100.0000% lose.
Bonuses of 0 vs 10 give us probabilities of 0.0000% win, 100.0000% lose.



What are your thoughts?

Edit: I pasted the wrong numbers like a doofus. They are correct now.

[King of Nowhere]

So if my DEX equals my opponent's but I have spent a feat on Improved Initiative, that raises my chances of going first from 57% to 70%. Not sure that is worth a feat. It even gets worse as my DEX goes up – the higher my DEX is, the fewer percentage points I get out of Improved Initiative.

wrong. this is a misconception in the way you read data, the actual chances go up.
first, if you have equal dex as your opponent, you start with 50% chance, so you go from 50 to 70, not from 57 to 70.
but see, you may think 50% to 70% is only a 20% difference, only relevant one time in five. true. on the other hand, the chance that you'll lose initiative goes down from 50 to 30, and that's a 40% reduction in the likelyhood of losing initiative.
if you go from +5 to +9 over your opponent, you go from 26% of losing to 13% of losing; you halved your chances of losing. it means that half the times you would have lost initiative, you win instead. sure, most times you would have won anyway, but it makes odds much more reliable.

anyway, this applies not only to initiative, but to any single boost. a melee getting a +1 to hit. a caster getting +1 to save DC. getting a ring of protection +2 in place of your old +1. they are all small bonuses, but they do add up over time.

[Zombimode]

Your white room case assumes a single enemy, correct? You've picked the most swingy, polarized and often most unintersting combat situation in D&D 3.5

3.5 works so much better if groups of mixed enemies are the norm.

Initiative is no exception here: with more enemies you higher Ini modifier will pay of in almost every encounter.

[Doctor Despair]

You can also use relatively easily accessible tools to buff initiative significantly enough that the odds of not going first shrink dramatically. Some quick resources (not an exhaustive list) available from level 1 are...

Improved Initiative (+4)
Danger Sense (advantage on an initiative check 1/day)
High dex (+4)
Nerveskitter (+5)
Hit and Run fighter acf (+2)
Tons of feats (+2)
Heroic Destiny (+1d6)

Consider a dex fighter with all this (except Nerveskitter). That's +11-16 with advantage to cover the low rolls. A dex wizard with a flaw could get +16-21 with advantage. This is at level 1. This isn't including items, of course.

Initiative is swingy, but if you devote any amount of resources to it, it doesn't have to be as random as it seems.

[Prime32]

Consider a dex fighter with all this (except Nerveskitter). That's +11-16 with advantage to cover the low rolls. A dex wizard with a flaw could get +16-21 with advantage.
I'd say "replace initiative checks with an unarmed attack roll, because fighters should react to danger faster than wizards"... but then you're going to have a hard time winning initiative against bruiser-type monsters.

[Biggus]

You can also use relatively easily accessible tools to buff initiative significantly enough that the odds of not going first shrink dramatically. Some quick resources (not an exhaustive list) available from level 1 are...

Improved Initiative (+4)
Danger Sense (advantage on an initiative check 1/day)
High dex (+4)
Nerveskitter (+5)
Hit and Run fighter acf (+2)
Tons of feats (+2)
Heroic Destiny (+1d6)

Consider a dex fighter with all this (except Nerveskitter). That's +11-16 with advantage to cover the low rolls. A dex wizard with a flaw could get +16-21 with advantage. This is at level 1. This isn't including items, of course.

Initiative is swingy, but if you devote any amount of resources to it, it doesn't have to be as random as it seems.

There are lots of other feats, spells and cheapish items which boost initiative (there's a list here (http://bg-archive.minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=6000)), so much so that as far as I can see the problem is the exact opposite of what the OP suggests: it's too easy to win initiative nearly all the time. At low levels you have to focus on it to do so, but at high levels most PCs have a huge initiative bonus without even trying all that hard. I've actually been considering reducing the bonus some of the more powerful initiative boosts to give the monsters the chance to go first once in a while.

[Darg]

In my experience, that character still regularly goes after all enemies in combat, denying them that sweet sweet first-round sneak attack.

Anyone else confused by this? The surprise round happens before regular initiative count. Unless your team is regularly able to kill everything within the surprise round I don't think a rogue would have trouble throwing a knife or using spring attack. In fact, going later can be a boon by letting your enemies and allies get into positions that let you flank and sneak attack.

[Troacctid]

Anyone else confused by this? The surprise round happens before regular initiative count. Unless your team is regularly able to kill everything within the surprise round I don't think a rogue would have trouble throwing a knife or using spring attack. In fact, going later can be a boon by letting your enemies and allies get into positions that let you flank and sneak attack.
Going before enemies in the initiative means they are flat-footed against you on the first round, making them vulnerable to sneak attacks.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'd say "replace initiative checks with an unarmed attack roll, because fighters should react to danger faster than wizards"... but then you're going to have a hard time winning initiative against bruiser-type monsters.

Training doesn't get you to thinking or understanding a situation faster. It gets you to -reacting- faster than your own mind can process a situation. This is better reflected by the combat reflexes feat than a high initiative modifier. Maybe some incorporation of bab or ref mod wouldn't be a terrible idea. The current setup with most characters making a raw dex check seems fine to me though. Sometimes you're caught off guard even by something you're already aware of, no matter how good you are.

For Bettageorge, if you really want to take the swing out of it, although I think zombimode makes an excellent point about 1v1 initiative, then you could always switch the d20 to 2d10s or even 3d6s to make it a bell curve distribution.

[Remuko]

I'd say "replace initiative checks with an unarmed attack roll, because fighters should react to danger faster than wizards"... but then you're going to have a hard time winning initiative against bruiser-type monsters.

what about BAB + Dex. BAB representing training or inherent combat sense and Dex your actual reaction speed. This means dex characters and high BAB get the most (particularly high Dex 1/1 BAB) but it stops most bruisers from being unbeatable as they both rarely have 1/1 BAB and theyre usually high str not DEX and str influencing an initiative doesnt make much sense anyways

[Darg]

Going before enemies in the initiative means they are flat-footed against you on the first round, making them vulnerable to sneak attacks.

Right. Slipped my mind.

[Crake]

One thing you need to keep in mind is that there's no such thing as a draw when it comes to initiative with different modifiers. If two characters tie, the character with the highest initiative modifier goes first, so a 0 vs 19 is 100% win rate, because even on a 1, the 19 gets a 20, which beats a +0's 20. The only time a tie has a tiebreaker roll-off is when the initiative bonuses are the same.

As an aside, if you want initiative modifiers to matter more, just use a smaller dice. I had a table that used d10s for initiative instead of d20s.

[InvisibleBison]

because fighters should react to danger faster than wizards

Surely that would depend on the individual fighters and wizards? A wizard who works as a bodyguard and has to be prepared for an attack at any moment is going to be faster to react than a fighter who's only seen combat in gladiatorial arenas, and they're both going to react faster than a fighter who's never actually seen combat at all.

[Quertus]

Suppose you have a Rogue with +4 initiative from Dex, and +4 from Improved Initiative, against foes with +0 init mod. Even if the Rogue rolls a 1, the odds of at least one foe being flat-footed are:

1 foe - 45%
2 foes - 69.75%
3 foes - 83.36%
4 foes - 90.85%

That's the odds of the Rogue getting to sneak attack, even with such minimal investment, even if they rolled a 1.

I'm not seeng this as reason to reevaluate the initiative system.

[D+1]

It also matters greatly what your ability to accumulate damage upon an opponent is. If you're only facing one opponent but it's going to take you 10 hits to accumulate enough damage upon them to kill them, then the only round in which initiative matters is the LAST round - hitting the opponent the final time before they have a chance to get their last attacks in upon YOU. In every round prior to that your initiative bonus will have had ZERO impact. If it took you 10 rounds to kill the opponent then they will have had 9 rounds worth of attacks on you - IF you win initiative in the last round. But that's the same if you won initiative in EVERY round. If you LOST initiative in every round including the last then the only advantage that your opponent had was in the last round - you had 10 rounds of attacks, and the opponent had 10 rounds of attacks. The only place where it could have made a difference is in the LAST round.

Obviously, as you're facing multiple opponents and your ability to kill them is improved to only one or two hits, then regularly winning initiative is a HUGE advantage over the course of a long battle because you will be preventing attacks upon yourself repeatedly over the course of the combat.

If you are using cyclic initiative then yes, that first roll is easily of huge importance because if it's going to be a long battle then you NEED to be at the top of the order over the enemies for initiative to be an advantage. If you're at the bottom of the order, below the enemies, AND it's going to be a long battle, then the best thing you can do for yourself is sacrifice a turn, Ready (or Refocus in 3.0 rules), and move yourself to the top of the initiative order. But that then makes handling the outcome of your initiative roll a tactical matter. If it's a fight against a solo monster, or the fight is likely to be over quickly in any case, then losing that initiative roll isn't as big a deal. Initiative procedure itself doesn't need to change, IMO.

Oh yeah, if you're a thief and you're relying on initiative rolls then you're already kind of doing it wrong. You want SURPRISE, not just to win initiative.

[Anthrowhale]

The value of improved initiative seems to depend on optimization level quite a bit. In a rocket tag situation where whoever goes first wins, a feat which increases the odds of winning by 13% is remarkably good. On the other end, if battle begins so far apart that no one can attack the other in the first round and battles tend to last for many rounds, initiative is pretty meaningless.

[Troacctid]

It also depends a lot on your build. Rogues are obvious because they literally do more damage if they win initiative. Area control effects are also much better if you go first because you can nab the enemies before they break formation to charge your front line and maybe prevent them from attacking at all. Blasting and save-or-lose effects are good for similar reasons, and also for the reasons D+1 mentioned. The more damage you can unload per round, the more advantageous it is to go first, since you can deny enemies their actions by sticking them with a debilitating condition like "unconscious" or "dead." (If you successfully kill an enemy with finger of death before their first turn, they literally never get to do anything!)

[Psyren]

You could always change Initiative to 3d6 rather than 1d20, giving you more of a bell curve distribution instead of a uniform one. This greatly increases the odds of an average dice result, making higher static modifiers matter much more - which the rogue is more likely to have.

[Bavarian itP]

Surely that would depend on the individual fighters and wizards? A wizard who works as a bodyguard and has to be prepared for an attack at any moment is going to be faster to react than a fighter who's only seen combat in gladiatorial arenas, and they're both going to react faster than a fighter who's never actually seen combat at all.

It's generally fallacious, I'd say. In a traditional D&D game, an adventuring wizard must be as combat-ready as a fighter. They are all "soldiers", "warriors", "operatives" or whatever term one prefers, regardless of class. It's like saying a combat engineer, a military policeman or a drill sergeant is a worse soldier than a rifleman. They are not.

On-topic: http://dndsrd.net/unearthedRolls.html

[Harrow]

Would there be any downsides to not rolling for initiative at all?

Edit: I've put some more thought into it, and I'm not sure how much I like my own question. Like, sure, you could remove rolling for initiative. But, you could remove rolling for a lot of things. I tend to like rolling only when necessary, but multiple creatures competing is really prime real estate for rolling. I do agree that, outside mid-to-high op play, it's too random for my liking, but now that I'm reconsidering, just removing the rolls entirely would probably be going too far.

[farothel]

I think it depends on what group you're playing with and what kind of game.

I can also see how for instance in Warhammer (initiative: Agility+1d10) it can be quite frustrating for someone with a low agility to always come last, simply because their rolled initiative is more than 10 lower than any opponent.

It says in most rulebooks I've seen: if you don't like a rule, change it.
Just be aware that it might be consequences, that certain builds are going to be suddenly a lot more powerful and others the reverse. Not to mention if you run a premade campaign, you might have to adapt the opponent's stats to reflect the new rule. And also as GM let your players know in advance that you're changing a rule, especially one that comes up quite often as initiative.

[Segev]

While I think a lot in this thread has been spot-on, I will point out that one way to see if you're right for your games would be to try a higher bonus from Improved Initiative and see if that makes it feel worth a feat to you. Or if it feels too good for a feat.

[D+1]

I do agree that, outside mid-to-high op play, it's too random for my liking, but now that I'm reconsidering, just removing the rolls entirely would probably be going too far.My experience was that too often 3E's cyclic initiative wasn't random ENOUGH. A lot of fights become a matter of simple attrition. The outcomes are quite predictable but it takes a while to get there, especially at low levels when missing is far more common. In those kind of circumstances combat gets boring very quickly and I found it worthwhile to repeatedly re-roll initiative just to shake things up. When players either get two opportunities to act before the opponent does, or the opponent ends up acting twice before the PC's, then it's like the Double Jeopardy round where the scores can really change. Everyone pays a bit more attention and remains more involved and engaged.