Post/Author/DateTime	Post
jaelis 08-13-05, 01:02 AM	It's been a while, so I wanted to prop my very favorite house rule that I've seen on the boards. It's very simple: Add your CHA modifier to initiative instead of your DEX modifier. This was first suggested by Tony Vargas, who is, of course, the One True Tony :) Here are the top 10 reasons I like it so much: 1) Dexterity is about your hand-eye coordination, your balance, your fine motor skills, and your physical reaction speed. The last is the only reason initiative was ever tied to DEX in the first place. But this was a mistake. Acting quickly in a stressful situation is a mental reaction, not a physical one. You need to be physically fast to jump out of the way of a fireball, but at the start of combat you need to assess who your enemies are and decide on a course of action. This is a mental feat, not a physical one. The actual physical act of drawing your sword and attacking is secondary... otherwise, shouldn't you get a big initiative bonus if your sword is already drawn? 2) Dexterity already has a lot going for it, with AC bonus, ranged attack bonus, finessed melee bonus, reflex saves and a ton of important skills and feat prereqs. Lots of people say it is the most important ability in the game. There's no need for that, it's more fun to spread things out a bit. 3) Of the mental stats, charisma is the best suited. The same quickness that lets you know the right thing to say in a social situation is needed to decide what to do in a combat situation. They call it "leadership" because the leader is the person leading the way, out in front. Why is she in front? Because she figured out what to do before anyone else. The whole notion of a forceful personality is about knowing what you want and acting on it without sitting around for an hour and weighing your options. 4) It helps define charisma. Lots of people have the idea that charisma is quite a bit about how you look, even though it is supposed to be a mental stat. The books try to discourage this viewpoint, but if you're not a sorcerer, there's no really persuasive mechanical reason not to treat it this way. After all, most (not all) of the CHA-based skills can be interpreted in terms of physical appearance. Tying CHA to init would help bring home to everybody that charisma goes far beyond how you look. 5) It gives charisma a universal, crunchy function. For plenty of games, interacting with NPCs is not very important. This is a totally valid way to play, and if you do, it leaves CHA with only class-specific functions. For most classes, CHA is a perfect dump stat, which only serves to penalize PCs in classes that require it. The house rule makes it so that every stat is at least a little bit important to every character. 6) It reduces ability specialization. Even if you play a social interaction game where charisma is very important, a party can usually get away with one or two high-CHA characters serving as the "face", while the low charisma folks keep their mouths shut and heads down. With the house rule, even the brute fighter who just wants to bash things can't ignore charisma entirely. 7) It doesn't break anything. The class hurt most by this rule is rogues, since they won't get to go first as often and they'll miss out on some sneak attacks. If I thought rogues were weak, I would feel bad about this. But rogue is a powerful class, and sneak attack is a powerful class feature. They'll be OK. As a silver lining, rogues have all the class skills to make putting a decent score in CHA worthwhile. 8) It gives sorcerers something nice. The only thing I don't like about sorcs compared to wizards is that wizards get all those skill points, while sorcs get... bluff? With this rule, having charisma as a casting stat is something you can be happy about, not something you have to put up with. 9) It penalizes dwarves a bit. I think dwarves are about the strongest of the PHB races, and making their -2 CHA matter a little is fine. It does kind of ream half-orcs, but in a way that is ok... half-orcs are already weak in many respects, and adding a combat effect to the CHA penalty makes it easier to come up with some other benefit that makes them balanced. 10) It makes more sense for animals. Animals usually have a pretty low charisma and a pretty good dexterity, meaning this rule penalizes their initiative. But if you've ever gone hunting, or even just surprised an animal while walking in the woods, you've probably seen that they tend to freeze up a bit before running. Now you might respond that wild animals usually clear out before you even see them. But that is because they have much better hide and move silently skills than you do. They do normally run away before you can react, but in game turns, that is because they got a surprise round, not because they won initiative. If a person manages to come upon an animal when neither of them are aware of the other, in my experience the person will always react first. If an experienced naturalist disagrees with me on this, I'd be happy to hear it. In short, if I had the chance to change one thing about the game, this would be it. I recommend it highly. jaelis
Dougbert 08-13-05, 09:43 AM	I've never considered using something like this before, but the more I think about it the more I think I'll at least try it out. I do think sorcerers get the shaft in many respects, especially for having so few non-spell uses for CHA when compared to wizards and INT. The prototype for the bard is nothing if not quick witted, emphasis on quick. I don't think I'll be thrilled about giving paladins yet another use for high CHA, but that may be a small price to pay.
Kyuketsukiouji 08-13-05, 09:55 AM	I've been debating on and off changing Initiative from Dexterity (reflexes) to Wisdom (perception) and moving Will save from Wisdom (self-awareness) to Charisma (mental strength), though I've never tested it out.
Radijs 08-13-05, 10:06 AM	1) I agree mostly with your point of view on this aspect. initiative comes with your ability to process information and analyze things as they happen. 2)Its indeed one of the most important abilities in the game. Its right up there with strength. 3)No, Charisma isn't suited for the stat. As the SRD puts it: "Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness." So its about how well you know how to deal with other people in social situations. Its better to take a look at wisdom: "Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings." From the point you made at (1) wisdom looks like it has initiative written all over it. 4)Keeping the previous points in my head I think that adding initiative is actually surpassing the definition of charisma and turning it into something that its not. 5)Giving a stat a function with the purpose of giving a stat a function doesn't make much sense to me. 6)That sounds like a well-balanced party. In combat my sorceror isn't going to charge the enemy lines. He's going to hang back and cast the occasional spell hoping feverishly that the enemy archers don't turn him into a pincushion. 7)Thats something that does hurt INHO. Rogues, especially at lower levels really need to rely on their high initiative to be able to effectively deal damage. Later on with things such as invisibility it matters less but it will IMO break the rogues until you reach level 5 or 6 when the party sorceror will spend his turn making the rogue invisible. 8)I think it must be another DM dependant thing but the sorcerors and other charisma casters I've played where very happy being charismatic instead of strong/fast etc. 9)Here I can only say that I simply disagree with you. Dwarves are not really better then any of the other PHB races. 10)Sorry I've never gone out hunting so I cannot say wether animals react faster or slower then humans in the same kind of situations.
Someone 08-13-05, 12:56 PM	I would argue that Wis already factors into Initiative, just in an indirect way. A high Wis means you are more likely to pass the Spot or Listen check to notice the enemy, and that plays into things like ambushes and surprise attacks. It doesn't matter how high your Dex is if you aren't acting in the surprise round. But a high Dex might allow you to "snap out of it" quicker. Also, even though Dex is a "physical" stat, I think it includes things like mental reaction time, the sort of "combat reflexes" (not to be confused with the feat of the same name) that keeps you from hesitating in dangerous situations. That said, maybe a feat or something that allows you to add your Cha to your Init (as a luck bonus or something) would do it.
Gilean 08-13-05, 01:14 PM	I've been debating on and off changing Initiative from Dexterity (reflexes) to Wisdom (perception) and moving Will save from Wisdom (self-awareness) to Charisma (mental strength), though I've never tested it out.This may be worth the implementation. And makes logical sense, unlike the the initial suggestion.
Vestigial_Thumb 08-13-05, 03:10 PM	Wisdom and Dexterity are indirectly, but closely linked. I still think that Dexterity should apply to initiative because dexterity describes hand-eye coordination.
Acheron 08-13-05, 03:21 PM	I disagree. You're a loser. Don't post stuff anymore. Nobody likes you. Rabble rabble rabble. Someone's alittle cranky... ROFLMAOLOLWTFBBQ! :rofl: :heehee :censored: :twitch:
ZybthRanger314 08-13-05, 03:53 PM	Those are some good points. This has me thinking .... taking Dex from initiative does seem to make sense balance-wise, just as adding Cha to initiative makes sense balance-wise. But, Cha doesn't seem to be the best mental stat to put with initiative. Wis sounds like a good choice.... What does everyone else think? Of the three mental stats (Cha, Wis, Int), which is best suited to initiative? Or, for that matter, out of all of the stats, which seems best for initiative? --Zybthranger314
balard 08-13-05, 03:59 PM	OMG! I dont read the thread, nor your reasons to do that, neither the opnions against that. But im using that my own resolutions and its GREAT :-) Didn't know that other crasy people used it to. Its just right when you see.
Nuntius128 08-13-05, 04:39 PM	1) Dexterity is about your hand-eye coordination, your balance, your fine motor skills, and your physical reaction speed. The last is the only reason initiative was ever tied to DEX in the first place. But this was a mistake. Acting quickly in a stressful situation is a mental reaction, not a physical one. You need to be physically fast to jump out of the way of a fireball, but at the start of combat you need to assess who your enemies are and decide on a course of action. This is a mental feat, not a physical one. The actual physical act of drawing your sword and attacking is secondary... otherwise, shouldn't you get a big initiative bonus if your sword is already drawn? True, but there isn't exactly one mental trait that does all that. To come to a logical conclusion, that's Intelligence. To assess the situation, that's Wisdom. See what I mean? Your arguement supports all of the mental stats. More Wisdom and Intelligence than Charisma, which is the strength of your personality. 2) Dexterity already has a lot going for it, with AC bonus, ranged attack bonus, finessed melee bonus, reflex saves and a ton of important skills and feat prereqs. Lots of people say it is the most important ability in the game. There's no need for that, it's more fun to spread things out a bit. Well, that arguement isn't really valid, because every ability score does a lot. In all actuality, without ability scores, all you have is dice. To a lot of people, it is the most important ability. To others, its a dump stat, and it never gets any higher than 9 or 10. 3) Of the mental stats, charisma is the best suited. The same quickness that lets you know the right thing to say in a social situation is needed to decide what to do in a combat situation. They call it "leadership" because the leader is the person leading the way, out in front. Why is she in front? Because she figured out what to do before anyone else. The whole notion of a forceful personality is about knowing what you want and acting on it without sitting around for an hour and weighing your options. See my response to #1. You're leaning a lot more on Intelligence than Charisma. A Rogue doesn't need to follow orders, he/she would need to act first, because regardless of a battle plan, they know damn well that they need to take control of the opponent, and actions speak 1000 times louder than words. That leaves it at about a stalemate between Intelligence and Dexterity(there is a 3rd party feat that allows both on Initiative checks, believe it or not, and it's superb). 4) It helps define charisma. Lots of people have the idea that charisma is quite a bit about how you look, even though it is supposed to be a mental stat. The books try to discourage this viewpoint, but if you're not a sorcerer, there's no really persuasive mechanical reason not to treat it this way. After all, most (not all) of the CHA-based skills can be interpreted in terms of physical appearance. Tying CHA to init would help bring home to everybody that charisma goes far beyond how you look. Well, anyone who believes that is the kind of player who doesn't read the whole description. The PHB clearly defines what Charisma is, and what it brings to the table. 5) It gives charisma a universal, crunchy function. For plenty of games, interacting with NPCs is not very important. This is a totally valid way to play, and if you do, it leaves CHA with only class-specific functions. For most classes, CHA is a perfect dump stat, which only serves to penalize PCs in classes that require it. The house rule makes it so that every stat is at least a little bit important to every character. I've seen campaigns where you rely almost solely on your interaction with NPCs. Much like with #4, that's just a poor amount of planning/creativity on the DMs part, who should be able to mix it up a bit. 6) It reduces ability specialization. Even if you play a social interaction game where charisma is very important, a party can usually get away with one or two high-CHA characters serving as the "face", while the low charisma folks keep their mouths shut and heads down. With the house rule, even the brute fighter who just wants to bash things can't ignore charisma entirely. Nothing's ever gonna reduce that. There simply isn't any way around it, until you allow PCs to take natural 18's on every ability score. Some characters excel in one ability score, while others excel in another. And by excelling in one aspect, they are deficient in another, thus giving characters variety, and keeping them from being the same 2 characters every game. 7) It doesn't break anything. The class hurt most by this rule is rogues, since they won't get to go first as often and they'll miss out on some sneak attacks. If I thought rogues were weak, I would feel bad about this. But rogue is a powerful class, and sneak attack is a powerful class feature. They'll be OK. As a silver lining, rogues have all the class skills to make putting a decent score in CHA worthwhile. Well, no, I don't think it breaks anything, either, but that's not a good enough reason to have it. There are lots of things that don't break anything at all, but that doesn't make them right. Though, it would give Sorcerors(masters of 1st round kills with spells), Paladins(mounted combatants using Smite in the first round before the enemy attacks, huge powerhouse), and Bards(giving everyone those important boosts at the start so they benefit from the first round) a monsterous power-boost. 8) It gives sorcerers something nice. The only thing I don't like about sorcs compared to wizards is that wizards get all those skill points, while sorcs get... bluff? With this rule, having charisma as a casting stat is something you can be happy about, not something you have to put up with. Well, they also don't need to prepare spells, they're ready for anything as soon as it happens, which in a lot of instances, evens itself out. 9) It penalizes dwarves a bit. I think dwarves are about the strongest of the PHB races, and making their -2 CHA matter a little is fine. It does kind of ream half-orcs, but in a way that is ok... half-orcs are already weak in many respects, and adding a combat effect to the CHA penalty makes it easier to come up with some other benefit that makes them balanced. So Orcs should just be universally screwed of everything? That's not fair in the least, there are plenty of devoted Orc players who don't deserve that extra penalty. Saying "Dwarves should get penalised for being strong" is kinda silly. If you keep penalising the "strongest" race, then Dwarves will eventually end up back on top, because you'll end up nerfing every race, taking this and that from everything endlessly. People will think "Oh, Humans/Elves are too strong, now." Then Halflings, then Gnomes, etc. 10) It makes more sense for animals. Animals usually have a pretty low charisma and a pretty good dexterity, meaning this rule penalizes their initiative. But if you've ever gone hunting, or even just surprised an animal while walking in the woods, you've probably seen that they tend to freeze up a bit before running. Now you might respond that wild animals usually clear out before you even see them. But that is because they have much better hide and move silently skills than you do. They do normally run away before you can react, but in game turns, that is because they got a surprise round, not because they won initiative. If a person manages to come upon an animal when neither of them are aware of the other, in my experience the person will always react first. If an experienced naturalist disagrees with me on this, I'd be happy to hear it. Intelligence, again. All animals(short of templated ones) universally are at 3 Intelligence, which makes it difficult for them to do anything but freeze up while they asses the situation, because, well, they just aren't able to multitask in their heads.
StevenO 08-13-05, 06:31 PM	10) It makes more sense for animals. Animals usually have a pretty low charisma and a pretty good dexterity, meaning this rule penalizes their initiative. But if you've ever gone hunting, or even just surprised an animal while walking in the woods, you've probably seen that they tend to freeze up a bit before running. Now you might respond that wild animals usually clear out before you even see them. But that is because they have much better hide and move silently skills than you do. They do normally run away before you can react, but in game turns, that is because they got a surprise round, not because they won initiative. If a person manages to come upon an animal when neither of them are aware of the other, in my experience the person will always react first. If an experienced naturalist disagrees with me on this, I'd be happy to hear it. jaelis That animal "freezing up" is actually the animal taking a delaying action, the trigger-when you do something. I've run across deer and other animals in their habitat and in most of those cases it is them sizing you up and deciding wether to ignore you, attack, or run. As for actual reaction speed, I've seen deer duck arrows even when they hadn't seen the shooter.
Nuntius128 08-13-05, 06:41 PM	I've run across deer and other animals in their habitat and in most of those cases it is them sizing you up and deciding wether to ignore you, attack, or run. You mean, they made a Sense Motive check? :D
jaelis 08-13-05, 09:22 PM	It is true that any of the mental stats could reasonably be used for initiative. The problem is that the division between the mental stat is even less grounded in reality than the division between the physical stats. So it depends a lot on how you personally draw lines between different aspects of the mind. Even so, I am right. Intelligence, as laid out in the book, is about learning and reason. That's great for coming up with plans, and for analyzing what happened after the fact, but not really useful for snap decisions where you don't have time to lay out all the factors of a problem. The book describes someone with high intelligence but low Wis and Cha as an absent-minded professor who often puts her foot in her mouth. Does that sound like someone who would be first off the block in a fight? I work with lots of people who fit this to a tee, and I probably fit the bill pretty well myself. Trust me, none of us has a good initiative modifier. Wisdom is more subtle. Wisdom includes perception, intuition, and insight, all of which might be appicable to initiative. But Someone hit it right on the head... having a high wisdom means having a good sense of what's going on around you. That means that you are very hard to surprise. But initiative is not about surprise. If you're not surprised, then initiative isn't based on perception and insight. If you made your listen check, you already know that something is behind that door ready for a fight. Initiative is a more active quality. You open the door and make a quick judgement about what needs to be done. A high wisdom may help supply data for that judgement, but it doesn't apply to your quickness in making it. A great example is in the PHB: "A character with high Wisdom but low Charisma knows enough to speak carefully and may become an advisor rather than a leader." He doesn't make snap judgements, he is careful about things. Advising instead of leading means that you take the time to understand the situation and formulate advice, you don't just snap out an order. Indeed, the book also says that rashness, imprudence and irresponsibility are characteristics of a low wisdom score, but all of these also tie in to acting quickly. I will freely admit that nothing in the charisma description says anything explicit about being able to make decisions quickly. But my point is that the most important thing going into "force of personality", "persuasiveness", "personal magnetism", and "ability to lead" is the ability to make quick decisions based on sketchy data. Charisma is needed in the first place because intelligence and wisdom are inadequate for describing social skills. Intelligence doesn't work because people are too complicated to figure out intellectually, and wisdom doesn't work because influencing people requires actively, not just passively understanding things about them. Sense Motive is the exception that proves the rule here: it is the only social skill that is intrinsically passive, and it is the only one based on wisdom. So what does charisma bring? Intelligence provides a background of general knowledge, wisdom provides an understanding of what is going on. Charisma is the ability to put these things together and act on them quickly enough for it to make a difference. My argument is that if you are good at that in the social arena, then you should be good at it in the combat arena as well.
Nuntius128 08-13-05, 11:13 PM	Even so, I am right. Intelligence, as laid out in the book, is about learning and reason. That's great for coming up with plans, and for analyzing what happened after the fact, but not really useful for snap decisions where you don't have time to lay out all the factors of a problem. The book describes someone with high intelligence but low Wis and Cha as an absent-minded professor who often puts her foot in her mouth. Does that sound like someone who would be first off the block in a fight? I work with lots of people who fit this to a tee, and I probably fit the bill pretty well myself. Trust me, none of us has a good initiative modifier. The "foot in mouth" thing is Charisma, because it refers to what the character says. Using real-life examples is completely silly, and has no ground or basis in a discussion on fantasy matters, I don't know what you're trying to accomplish by saying your coworkers have low ability scores, because they're real people. Let's keep fantasy and reality seperate, OK? Its healthy. Wisdom is more subtle. Wisdom includes perception, intuition, and insight, all of which might be appicable to initiative. But Someone hit it right on the head... having a high wisdom means having a good sense of what's going on around you. That means that you are very hard to surprise. But initiative is not about surprise. If you're not surprised, then initiative isn't based on perception and insight. If you made your listen check, you already know that something is behind that door ready for a fight. Which is why Dexterity is used, instead of Wisdom, as it should be. Initiative is a more active quality. You open the door and make a quick judgement about what needs to be done. A high wisdom may help supply data for that judgement, but it doesn't apply to your quickness in making it. A great example is in the PHB: "A character with high Wisdom but low Charisma knows enough to speak carefully and may become an advisor rather than a leader." He doesn't make snap judgements, he is careful about things. Advising instead of leading means that you take the time to understand the situation and formulate advice, you don't just snap out an order. Indeed, the book also says that rashness, imprudence and irresponsibility are characteristics of a low wisdom score, but all of these also tie in to acting quickly. No, I think you've gotten yourself far too confused. Initiative is used for combat, not talking amongst NPCs. Your point is starting to lose focus. I will freely admit that nothing in the charisma description says anything explicit about being able to make decisions quickly. But my point is that the most important thing going into "force of personality", "persuasiveness", "personal magnetism", and "ability to lead" is the ability to make quick decisions based on sketchy data. Charisma is needed in the first place because intelligence and wisdom are inadequate for describing social skills. Intelligence doesn't work because people are too complicated to figure out intellectually, and wisdom doesn't work because influencing people requires actively, not just passively understanding things about them. Sense Motive is the exception that proves the rule here: it is the only social skill that is intrinsically passive, and it is the only one based on wisdom. You keep saying Charisma is about quickness of thought, and ability to assess the situation, there's nothing in the PHB that supports what you're saying. Of the mental stats, according to your argument, Charisma is the least appropriate. I think you need to refresh yourself on what the PHB says about Charisma. So what does charisma bring? Intelligence provides a background of general knowledge, wisdom provides an understanding of what is going on. Charisma is the ability to put these things together and act on them quickly enough for it to make a difference. My argument is that if you are good at that in the social arena, then you should be good at it in the combat arena as well. And that's where you stopped making sense. I don't see the correlation between being "good at that in the social arena, then you should be good at it in the combat arena." This sounds less like clever roleplaying/rules discussion, and much more like Min/Maxing Charisma. Please see in the PHB that there's nothing in Charisma's description that supports any of this. The only way you'll get anywhere is by citing specific points in the rulebooks that support what you're saying, because I don't see any of it.
Ichor 08-14-05, 01:50 AM	Ok, just to be honest, I skipped over the last two or three posts just out of sheer boredom of the arguement so I don't know if this has been brought up yet. However, I doubt it has in the rapidly-progressing flame war. I would like to point out an imbalance that moving Initiative from a physical stat to a mental stat would cause. It gives a certain type of spellcaster a great advantage over all of the other classes in combat. Think about it, there is a spellcasting class that uses each mental ability as its base for spellcasting and each would profit tremendously from the change. It is rare to find a spellcaster whos highest ability is not in her base-spellcasting ability so it is reasonable to assume that most spellcasters of whichever class benefits the most will have the highest Initiative bonuses. That, in turn, gives them the ability to-most of the time-act first in combat. I cannot even explain the boon that would be to any class over the others. Secondly, putting Initiative into mental stats hurts the combat-oriented classes. The mental stats are dump stats for those classes and it just creates one more high roll needed to be as effective as the average party needs the tank to be. As for my final point, I believe Dexterity was chosen to use in Initiative because most spellcasters, while having their strongest score in the base-spellcasting ability, would be wise to put their next highest in Dexterity for its uses in determining AC. So in conclusion, I guess my point is that the stat used for Initiative shouldn't be determined out of "which is more realistic," but rather, which is more balanced for every class. Dexterity proves to be the best choice because most every class will put at least a decent stat there, whether for attacking purposes or the AC benefits.
jaelis 08-15-05, 01:22 PM	I think some people here are missing the point a little bit. It's not like I'm claiming to have found some secret text in the PHB that proves you should use charisma for initiative instead of dexterity. Of course, with the current rules, Dex must include whatever mental and physical aspects go into intiative, as Someone nicely pointed out. And in the current rules, charisma applies to two broad things: social interactions a certain style of magic. Nothing about initiative there. My point is that, IMO, the game is better if we change a little bit what Dex and Cha means. I've tried to explain why these changes would make the game a little more realistic and internally consistent. Namely, it makes Dex more of a purely physical trait, and it broadens Cha into a certain sort of mental agility. I maintain that a similar sort of mental agility is responsible for both acting quickly in combat and for being successful in a social situation. If you disagree with me, fine. I'm happy to talk about it more, but I'm not going to find a rule in a book stating this or to present a "logical" argument for it. I also happen to think that it makes some sense that this sort of mental agility could power a sorcerer's casting or a monster's supernatural powers. But I can't even appeal to real world examples for that. But I should reiterate the main point: I think that this change makes the game more fun. One of the things I like best about dnd is designing a character, which means choosing somethings for him to be good at and some to be bad at. I don't think any of those choices should be free of consequences. And with the rules now, in many cases dumping charisma is a penalty-free choice. There's many other things that I like about it too, which I outlined in my first post. If none of those things seem appealing to you, then don't use this rule.
jaelis 08-15-05, 02:07 PM	Ok, just to be honest, I skipped over the last two or three posts just out of sheer boredom of the arguement so I don't know if this has been brought up yet. However, I doubt it has in the rapidly-progressing flame war. I hope it's not really a flame war; it's hardly gotten very personal, though I imagine a few people are at least tacitly questioning my good sense. I would like to point out an imbalance that moving Initiative from a physical stat to a mental stat would cause. It gives a certain type of spellcaster a great advantage over all of the other classes in combat. This is a very sensible criticism. And if you tend to find that sorcerer or bards are already overpowered in your games, then you'd best not adopt this change. But in my own limited experience, and the impression I get from posts on the boards here, is that sorcerers are not overpowered. I often see them rated as the weakest of the full casters. What's more, I have seen and share the complaint that their one and only special feature is spontaneous casting. The get no bonus feats, no useful skills. All they get is a familiar, which isn't even unique to them. I think the initiative change gives them a modest power boost and another special thing to call their own, neither of which is unbalancing. Bards are tricky, because people tend to place their power levels all over the map. But from my experience, they really aren't all that great in combat; their goodness really shines out of combat. So giving them an initiative advantage doesn't really help them as much as it would other classes. At any rate, I think the advantage is small enough to keep the class balanced. We may be placing a different value on the initiative bonus, though. If you find that initiative is key above all, and that every single character takes Improved Initiative at first level, and that rogues are running away with your game, then again you probably shouldn't use my suggestion. My experience has been that initiative modifiers are good but not critical, and that Improved Initiative is a good but not must-have feat. That's where I'm coming from in saying that my change is balanced. Secondly, putting Initiative into mental stats hurts the combat-oriented classes. The mental stats are dump stats for those classes and it just creates one more high roll needed to be as effective as the average party needs the tank to be. Well, of the casters only sorcerers and bards would typically have a high charsima. And of the melee classes, paladins already have a high charisma. So I don't think there's a general caster vs. melee bias here. Anyway, a lot of my aim is to take away charisma as a dump stat. By definition, that is going to hurt every class that doesn't require charisma anyway. Or on the flip side, maybe with the current rules the classes that depend on charisma are getting screwed. As for my final point, I believe Dexterity was chosen to use in Initiative because most spellcasters, while having their strongest score in the base-spellcasting ability, would be wise to put their next highest in Dexterity for its uses in determining AC. So in conclusion, I guess my point is that the stat used for Initiative shouldn't be determined out of "which is more realistic," but rather, which is more balanced for every class. Dexterity proves to be the best choice because most every class will put at least a decent stat there, whether for attacking purposes or the AC benefits. By that reasoning, why base initiative off a stat at all? It would be fairest if you just rolled your d20 without modifiers. The reason I like my house rule is that it forces most players to decide whether initiative is a priority or not, and assign their scores accordingly. I agree this makes the game a little harder, but I don't think it is necessarily unbalancing.
Orayn, Elvish Blademaster 08-15-05, 02:34 PM	I disagree. You're a loser. Don't post stuff anymore. Nobody likes you. Rabble rabble rabble. Also, CHA is like for people and lots of people don't know that it's for people so they think that since they are a person and CHA isn't for people that they don't need CHA because they think that it isn't for people even though it is for people and the people with CHA are better than the people that don't have it and the people that don't know that they should have it and that they are not as good as those that do have it for themselves and can use it in order to be better with people who don't have it because they suck. BLAM! That dart'll put you out for about four hours. *Tosses an unconscious Jaerad in a 3-foot pit*
Nephlite 08-15-05, 02:49 PM	This is a very sensible criticism. And if you tend to find that sorcerer or bards are already overpowered in your games, then you'd best not adopt this change. But in my own limited experience, and the impression I get from posts on the boards here, is that sorcerers are not overpowered. I often see them rated as the weakest of the full casters. What's more, I have seen and share the complaint that their one and only special feature is spontaneous casting. The get no bonus feats, no useful skills. All they get is a familiar, which isn't even unique to them. I think the initiative change gives them a modest power boost and another special thing to call their own, neither of which is unbalancing. I agree Sorcerors would like this powerup. It makes them look more appealing compared to a wizard (who can get Bonus feats as well as spellcasting). I mean Sorcorers can't even use Sudden Quicken becuse it doesn't negate penalty or casting time. Though it doesn't allow them quickwn it does make Sorcerors quicker. We may be placing a different value on the initiative bonus, though. If you find that initiative is key above all, and that every single character takes Improved Initiative at first level, and that rogues are running away with your game, then again you probably shouldn't use my suggestion. My experience has been that initiative modifiers are good but not critical, and that Improved Initiative is a good but not must-have feat. That's where I'm coming from in saying that my change is balanced. I tend to find Initative a great thing. My Rogues also have about equal dex and Charisma so this won't affect them. Well, of the casters only sorcerers and bards would typically have a high charsima. And of the melee classes, paladins already have a high charisma. So I don't think there's a general caster vs. melee bias here. Anyway, a lot of my aim is to take away charisma as a dump stat. By definition, that is going to hurt every class that doesn't require charisma anyway. Or on the flip side, maybe with the current rules the classes that depend on charisma are getting screwed. I'm against any class using Charisma as "dump" stat anyway, so bully for you dumpers!
jaelis 08-15-05, 02:57 PM	I'm pretty sure jaerad was just trying to help stoke up a debate. You can leave him in the pit, but please don't skin him and eat him :)
Tony Vargas 08-15-05, 02:58 PM	Think about it, there is a spellcasting class that uses each mental ability as its base for spellcasting and each would profit tremendously from the change. Yep, the sorcerer would become the spellslinger of D&D. How bad would that be? They're supposed to be instinctive masters of magic, afterall. I think the sorcerer 'outdrawing' the bookish wizard makes perfect sense. Secondly, putting Initiative into mental stats hurts the combat-oriented classes. The mental stats are dump stats for those classes and it just creates one more high roll needed to be as effective as the average party needs the tank to be.Nod. That's kinda the idea. Though it's OK to 'dump' a stat, it should hurt a little to do so. Dumping CHA doesn't hurt, this'd make it do so, a little. A fighter could still take Improved Initiative to make up for it, and Barbarians, Rogues and Monks all have a better chance of being Aware, to begin with, so won't be hurt /that/ much by slightly poorer initiative. As for my final point, I believe Dexterity was chosen to use in Initiative because most spellcasters, while having their strongest score in the base-spellcasting ability, would be wise to put their next highest in Dexterity for its uses in determining AC. Well, or CON for the hit points and FORT save bonuses. I guess my point is that the stat used for Initiative shouldn't be determined out of "which is more realistic," but rather, which is more balanced for every class. Agreed. As long as the stat choice isn't totally /unrealistic/ (basing Initiative on CON, say), game balance rules. Dexterity already does a lot. Dexterity proves to be the best choice because most every class will put at least a decent stat there, whether for attacking purposes or the AC benefits. I disagree. For one thing, why should the initiative stat be something everyone would choose? Secondly, it isn't. Dexterity isn't something that most every class goes for. Any class with heavy armor, for instance, can safely ignore DEX and still have a good AC - DEX is prettymuch a dump stat for Clerics and Paladins, and can be ignored by fighters who prefer full plate. Like all physical stats, it can be ignored by wildshaping Druids and other Polymorphing casters. I'll admit that WIS also makes some sense, but, it already has a combat impact in terms of WILL saves, and determining awareness (spot and listen). INT has an indirect combat impact since skills can be used in combat, and it gives you skill points. CHA, mechanically and balance-wise, is really out in the cold.
Ichor 08-15-05, 10:46 PM	Wow, that brought up more discussion than I thought it would. My apologies for saying this is a flame-war, it seemed rather hostile as I was reading it but that was probably just me. We may be placing a different value on the initiative bonus, though. I am beginning to see where your argument is coming from. It must be that our different styles of play bring us to see the value of Initiative differently. I have always been somewhat of a rules-lawyer and constantly worry about balance. I think that is where most of my argument came from. I don't want to say anything definitive about how you like to play, but am I correct in assuming that playing by the book takes a backseat to realism? It also might be that two of the three people I DM now have sneak attacks?
jaelis 08-15-05, 10:55 PM	I do care quite a lot about balance, much of what I like about this is that I find it to be more balanced than using Dex. The fact that it is also (IMO) more realistic is why it is my favorite house rule. Your rogue players would no doubt grumble if you dropped something like this on them in mid-game, and I wouldn't advise anyone to do that. I might point out, though, that if your players find sneak attack to be so valuable, perhaps a slight nerf might not be completely unwarranted. How many of your players have a high charisma, if I may ask?
Ichor 08-15-05, 11:19 PM	One (The one without the sneak attacks, lol). Just off topic they're not both rogues, the one who is moves around (mobility, spring attack) and flanks for sneak damage; the other is an Order of the Bow Initiate. But back on topic... Hmm, I can't think of anything worthwhile to say. :( I guess this boils down to opinions and house rules. So whatever floats your boat. Charisma will just never make sense to me.
xver 08-16-05, 12:26 AM	Balancing out the stats is bad. Parts of the system are built with unbalanced stats in mind.
jaelis 08-16-05, 10:35 PM	Balancing out the stats is bad. Parts of the system are built with unbalanced stats in mind. It certainly should be that way in principle. So sorcerers, bards and paladins should be a bit more uber because they don't get that potential dump stat. The problem is, I don't really see that they are. (Unless you've already implemented some other house rules to make charisma more important, like some kind of strong NPC reaction rules. That can work too, I just prefer mine because it's a little more cut and dried.)
jaerad 08-17-05, 02:45 AM	I'm pretty sure jaerad was just trying to help stoke up a debate. Lol. Nah, I was just the first reply and I wanted it to be negative. As much I as personally like this, as it boosts up CHA, I don't agree with it. While leadership and force of personality take quick thinking and the presense of mind to "go for it" - I think that Initiative has more to do with reflexes. I mean, come on. The door busts open and three orcs flood in - the lucky roll out of the way and quick feet are the reason you're up and ready for battle, not your quick wit and decisiveness. Theoretically, CHA can make sense for Initiative, but I don't think it really fits for a hack'n'slash game. For a social game, sure. In that situation whoever gets the first diplo-roll is going to own, and it makes sense that diplomacy isn't gotten off quicker by being coordinated (although, not tripping over your words?).
smrtgmp 08-17-05, 07:41 AM	I dont think charisma is appropriate for determining initiative. One can be charming without being quick on ones toes. It happens all the time. I've met some very charming people who choke under pressure and cant make crucial decisions in times of duress. The two traits are in no way related. Of all the mental stats, I actually think charisma is the least appropriate. Obviously, YMMV.