Instead we roll initiative every round.
With 4.0 being released a debate has begun raging at our table about whether Imp Init is overpowered given the way we run initiative.
It has been suggested that the way we use it is actually already nerfed the feat.
Here is my question -
Is improved initiative overpowered with the +4 if we roll initiative every round as opposed to using the RAW? (and why?)
With a warlord you can hit +6 before Dex, which allows people like Fighters and paladins to have decent Int.
Because of the nature of initiative its harder to state what a +1 gives you compared to combat.
Initiative has a flux target number, so instead of needing 16 and each +1 up to 15 giving you a 5% increase, +4 against things that have +2 is useful, but not over powered, and against things with +6 its under powered.
A maxed out inaitive at first level for a player is +9 by himself, +2 for each warlord in the group, +1 for the first half elf with group insight meaning up to +13 for max 1st level iniative.
Kobold Skirms have +5
this gives a maybe 40% advantage for the tricked out rogue. I don't know if that's enough to be 'broken' or not. My advice test it out as is, and if you need to make a change notch it down by 1 point at a time. Even with out it, 1st level 20Dex person in a group with a warlord and half elf can have +9 iniative.
Some effects are set up so that they end "at the end of your next turn." If the monster went before you in one round, and was slowed until the end of your next turn, but you go before him in the next round.. the effect ends before it even hinders the monster.
You may want to recondsider changing your initiative method to that listed in the book.
Some effects are set up so that they end "at the end of your next turn." If the monster went before you in one round, and was slowed until the end of your next turn, but you go before him in the next round.. the effect ends before it even hinders the monster.
very very very very good point....I shall bring that up
I doubt it will matter much however as positions have been solidified in this regard...
I think the house rule is meant to provide more flux to combat, the chance for die rolls that really matter (as our last encounter of fleeing 3 Balor did... each round we really needed to beat them to save ourselves mucho damage... we didn't).
Handling one round effects will be tough. There has to be a blend of some that make sense to end on the player's next turn (unless delayed), some that end on the same init number of the next round, some that play off the affected creatures next turn.
As the admitted proposer of Nerfing Imp Init and Quick Draw in the case of the House Init Each Round (now to be referred to as HEIR)... consider the benefit of getting a plus to any die roll. I think the designers give smaller plusses to rolls you use more, bigger for less. In a gaming session, you probably would roll init 3-5 times under RAW. With HEIR, you'll roll about 10-50 times and be getting that bonus.
So round 1, Skirm rolls a 20 with his +5 making it 25.
Your plus 4 means that unless you have Dex or a Warlord, you won't beat him
Round 2 he rolls a 1 making it 6
You can beat him by rolling a 2.
Its situationally benefical, rather than always beneficial.
very very very very good point....I shall bring that up. I doubt it will matter much however as positions have been solidified in this regard...
Rolling initiative each round is stupid. It's a waste of time and completely alters core mechanics with the game. It drastically alters the ebb and flow of combat and makes any "end of your next turn" powers near worthless.
Rolling initiative each round is stupid. It's a waste of time and completely alters core mechanics with the game. It drastically alters the ebb and flow of combat and makes any "end of your next turn" powers near worthless.
Its also in the DMG.
Suggested Fix for the End of Your Next Turn powers: They last until the same initiative mark. It adds more paperwork, however. Or simply give people the option of keeping their current initiative count if its beneficial to do so.
Of course there is also situations where its supremely beneficial.
For instance round 1 you get a 19 iniative monster gets a 12 iniative. You cast ray of frost he is slowed until your next turn, he is slowed on his turn, next turn initiative is rolled, you get a 5, he gets a 15. He slowed on his turn (again). Effectively giving you two rounds for 1.
So it might overall balance out, and become quirky either working well, working ok, or working poorly.
very very very very good point....I shall bring that up
I doubt it will matter much however as positions have been solidified in this regard...
Actually, it gives each "until the end of X's next turn" power or condition three possible outcomes.
#1: Effect works for effectively 0 rounds
Round 1: you go after your enemy
Round 2: you go before your enemy
#2: Effect works for effectively 1 round
Round 1a: you go after your enemy
Round 2a: you go after your enemy
or
Round 1b: you go before your enemy
Round 2b: you go before your enemy
#3: Effect works for effectively 2 rounds
Round 1: you go before your enemy
Round 2: you go after your enemy
For instance round 1 you get a 19 initiative monster gets a 12 iniative. You cast ray of frost he is slowed until your next turn, he is slowed on his turn, next turn initiative is rolled, you get a 5, he gets a 15. He slowed on his turn (again). Effectively giving you two rounds for 1.
There's also the case where you slow a monster at initiative mark 10, after it's already gone this round. Next round, it rolls a 14 initiative, but delays until initiative mark 9 so it can take a normal turn.
Rerolling every turn is a bad, bad, bad, bad idea. The game is based on a static order, and it corrupts the system when you screw with it.
for instance (as I stated earlier): If you keep affects going until their Iniative mark, it has the same affect.
With rolling for every round gives this
Before, After
After, Before
Before, Before
After, After
Of these, Before, Before and After, After BOTH keep the current setup
Before, After gives you two rounds
After, Before gives you no round of it.
Typically ((2+1+1+0)/4) 1 round of affect: No change.
Despite many people freaking out over it, the rolling every round has transitioned very nicely.
*****
We have had no real problems rolling every round.
And what solution did you come up with to solve the 'end of the next turn' problem?
for instance (as I stated earlier): If you keep affects going until their Iniative mark, it has the same affect.
How does this solve the problem?
Wizard slows monster on Mark 10 in round one. (monster went on 11)
Round two, I go on 11, monster on 9. If the effect times out on 10, then the monster is never subject to the the slow.
I like the idea of rolling every round, it just seems like its more hassle than it's worth.
Is improved initiative overpowered with the +4 if we roll initiative every round as opposed to using the RAW? (and why?)
No and here is why (and also why you should roll initiative only once).
Each round it gives you a better chance of going before your opponent.
If with your system, you beat your opponent on initiative every round, there is no advantage after the first round.
You get to act once, then they do, then you do, etc. etc. So you never get to act twice before your opponent ever gets to react to your previous action. Similarly if you lose initiative every round, there is no disadvantage after the first round.
Now the other possible ways it can go.
If you lose initiative the first round then win it the second, there is a slight advantage. Because you can get to act twice before your opponent gets an opportunity to react to your first action. React could be move away, drink a potion, etc. But since Improved Initiative makes it more likely you will win every round, this means this is less likely to happen.
If you win initiative the first round, then lose it the next, there is a slight disadvantage. Because then your opponent will get to have two sets of actions before you can react to the first. But again Improved Initiative while making it likely you will win the first round, also makes it likely you will win the second. Which as shown earlier give no advantage beyond the first round.
Any time a character or monster gets to have two actions before the opponent gets any that is a significant advantage. Being able to react to the actions of your opponent before they can act again is pretty crucial for balance.
Improved Initiative makes the chance of ever losing initiative less, but if you always go first then you only had an advantage in that very first round. As soon as you lose a round, the opponent gets a much more significant advantage by being able to hit you twice before you can do anything about it.
If anything I'd rather lose initiative consistently than win the first round and lose a later one. In your system Improved Initiative, is a liability unless it 100% ensures you will win initiative every round.
No and here is why (and also why you should roll initiative only once).
Each round it gives you a better chance of going before your opponent.
If with your system, you beat your opponent on initiative every round, there is no advantage after the first round.
You get to act once, then they do, then you do, etc. etc. So you never get to act twice before your opponent ever gets to react to your previous action. Similarly if you lose initiative every round, there is no disadvantage after the first round.
Now the other possible ways it can go.
If you lose initiative the first round then win it the second, there is a slight advantage. Because you can get to act twice before your opponent gets an opportunity to react to your first action. React could be move away, drink a potion, etc. But since Improved Initiative makes it more likely you will win every round, this means this is less likely to happen.
If you win initiative the first round, then lose it the next, there is a slight disadvantage. Because then your opponent will get to have two sets of actions before you can react to the first. But again Improved Initiative while making it likely you will win the first round, also makes it likely you will win the second. Which as shown earlier give no advantage beyond the first round.
Any time a character or monster gets to have two actions before the opponent gets any that is a significant advantage. Being able to react to the actions of your opponent before they can act again is pretty crucial for balance.
Improved Initiative makes the chance of ever losing initiative less, but if you always go first then you only had an advantage in that very first round. As soon as you lose a round, the opponent gets a much more significant advantage by being able to hit you twice before you can do anything about it.
If anything I'd rather lose initiative consistently than win the first round and lose a later one. In your system Improved Initiative, is a liability unless it 100% ensures you will win initiative every round.
hmmmm....not quite sure what to say about this one...going first in the round by having Imp Init is very very very awesome as we get to kick a%^# on the monsters before they can do anything...I do not see where you are going with it is only a slight advantage on the first round.
What really made me laugh as that Imp Init is a liability rolling every round...I am sure you have a good point but I am not reading it so far...
In the 4e DMG, it mentions the option of rolling each round... but suggests little else.
I think the house rule is meant to provide more flux to combat, the chance for die rolls that really matter (as our last encounter of fleeing 3 Balor did... each round we really needed to beat them to save ourselves mucho damage... we didn't).
Handling one round effects will be tough. There has to be a blend of some that make sense to end on the player's next turn (unless delayed), some that end on the same init number of the next round, some that play off the affected creatures next turn.
As the admitted proposer of Nerfing Imp Init and Quick Draw in the case of the House Init Each Round (now to be referred to as HEIR)... consider the benefit of getting a plus to any die roll. I think the designers give smaller plusses to rolls you use more, bigger for less. In a gaming session, you probably would roll init 3-5 times under RAW. With HEIR, you'll roll about 10-50 times and be getting that bonus.
HIER...:embarrass
hmmmm....not quite sure what to say about this one...going first in the round by having Imp Init is very very very awesome as we get to kick a%^# on the monsters before they can do anything...
Yes in 3rd Ed it meant you could close with them, so on their go they got a full attack on you and if they won initiative the next round, another full attack before you could do anything.
At least in 4th Ed it isn't as bad, now you charge in doing a basic attack, (and can blow an action point every other encounter). They on their go get to do two special attacks (assuming they have them), before you can react.
What really made me laugh as that Imp Init is a liability rolling every round...I am sure you have a good point but I am not reading it so far...
Do you agree that (with no surprise round at least), if you always win initiative then the round go like this.
Round 1 - You, Monster
Round 2 - You, Monster
etc.
You will never get two turns before the monster. After the first round there is not a significant advantage.
However. If you win initiative the first round, then later lose initiative, the round you lose initiative the monster gains an advantage.
Round 3 - You, Monster
Round 4 - Monster, You.
So imagine the Monster in round 3 gets successful grab or pushes you to the edge of a cliff (popular in 4E) or does significant damage. You can't drink a potion or try to escape before his next action in Round 4. So Round 4 he pushes you off the cliff, or eats your brain or, finishes you off, etc.
If you rolled initiative only once as advised from 3rd onwards, then you or the monster (it's balanced both ways) always gets a chance to react before the opponent gets to do a follow up.
Doesn't surprise me, but have you nerfed II or kept it at a static +4?
No.
II is still +4, now.
We tried it with the lower value for one session and I saw no real worthwhile impact other than one of the players becoming bitter and naming his player character "Nerf."
Now, the improved initiative bonus is back to normal and he has a really cruddy name that has actually cursed him (i.e., being set on fire in encounter A1 for KotS and not being able to put himself out, being the only logical target in encounter A1 for the first 3 rounds, and, missing all but one attack roll he made during encounter A1).
*****
And what solution did you come up with to solve the 'end of the next turn' problem?
....I like the idea of rolling every round, it just seems like its more hassle than it's worth.
It is a very simple system.
1. Anything personal operates/lasts as per RAW.
2. Anything that is a "fire-and-forget" effect, ends on the initiative count it was launched.
3. Being knocked to 0 hps (or less) - death save is done on the initiative count that you were knocked down.
Simple. Easy. Better than RAW.
Why?
It removes the "chess-like" your turn, my turn type of game tactics. After all, this is not your father's Squad Leader game.
*****
I've been playing all sorts of games since 1985, from the complex to the silly, and one thing I'm sure of is complicated initiative systems and action count ticks and the like aren't worth it and create odd situations where it can be good to roll bad, or you suffer no consequences to dangerous actions like charging, running, or all out attacks.
But, yes, +4 is better in your system (except on the first turn of a fight when there is some distance between the groups, when you'd want to roll poorly) because initiative doesn't matter after the first turn. It should be +2 your way.
No.
II is still +4, now.
We tried it with the lower value for one session and I saw no real worthwhile impact other than one of the players becoming bitter and naming his player character "Nerf."
Now, the improved initiative bonus is back to normal and he has a really cruddy name that has actually cursed him (i.e., being set on fire in encounter A1 for KotS and not being able to put himself out, being the only logical target in encounter A1 for the first 3 rounds, and, missing all but one attack roll he made during encounter A1).
*****
Not bitter
I just thought it was a funny name given your penchant for Nerfdom
Anyhow...we will come back with some updates later after a few PCs have met their demise...or not as the case may arise.
1. Anything personal operates/lasts as per RAW.
2. Anything that is a "fire-and-forget" effect, ends on the initiative count it was launched.
3. Being knocked to 0 hps (or less) - death save is done on the initiative count that you were knocked down.
Your players dont mind losing out on the 'fnf' powers when the creature rolls lower than the initiative count they activated the power? This is really the only problem I see rolling every turn.
Your players dont mind losing out on the 'fnf' powers when the creature rolls lower than the initiative count they activated the power? This is really the only problem I see rolling every turn.
No problems yet.
*****