Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 FrogReaver Oct 09, 2014 21:59:58	Higher initiative gives you a better chance of going before your enemies.  How important is that?  Especially in terms of effective DPR?     I think it's best to model going first as actually going second and having the ability to do double damage on that first turn after the monsters go. (It's unlikely any monsters are going to die before 2nd turn so this should model most situations.  Besides, if your party is so optomized it can start killing monsters before they get their first turn then that high initiatvie is even better.)   So comparitively going first is esentially like going 2nd with doulbe damage on that turn.  (Very comparable to the fighters action surge).   So, if the combat lasts 3 rounds that effectively gives 4 turns worth of damage as opposed to 3 turns worth of damage.  That is an increase of 33% damage.  If the combat lasts 4 rounds then thats an increase of 25%.  If 5 rounds then that's an increase of 20%.     And of course if your going first helps kill a monster faster than the party would have by you going 2nd then you have actually saved the party quite a bit of damage since having that monster dead faster means the next will be dead faster and so on.   I'm just not sure how to incorparate any of this with a characters chance of going first.  Thoughts?  Opinions?
#2 Pelican12 Oct 09, 2014 22:52:43	Well, I'll give you my impression after playing Pathfinder's "Wrath of the Rightous" from 1-20th level (effectively DND 3.75).  I found that once I reached the point where my character always went first, it became a sort of liability.  I was a psuedo tanky character, but couldnt handle being the target of the big bads.  I always went first, and got the "****" knocked out of me almost everytime.  No small part because our "tank" wouldn't throw herself into the mix.  Going first is a double edged sword.  It can be absolultely amazing, and conversely devastating.  If a group is looking at stacking initiative, look at it as a team, not an individual and work to the benefit of the group opposed to just being the person who always wins initiative.
#3 Nevvur Oct 09, 2014 23:31:50	Agreed with Pelican, double-edged sword indeed.   I think initiative is much more useful for characters that rely on ranged attacks and effects. Melee combatants benefit tactically by getting an idea for what the other team is doing before committing to a course of action they might not be able to handle once the DM moves his pieces. For instance, getting surrounded and needing to fall back, then you suffer AoO or spend your action on disengage.
#4 FrogReaver Oct 09, 2014 23:39:24	Pelican, that is a good point.  Winning initiative as a non tanky melee character may mean getting very injured and barely making it out alive.  It's definetely something to take into consideration.  However, in terms of individual DPR contribution it does seem like we can get an idea for how effective winning initiative is...
#5 Danfmac Oct 09, 2014 23:51:31	Having the best inniative is never a negative because you can always delay your turn. You don't have to immediately walk into your death, you can hold and move in as a unit and then once your team is positioned you're golden.   However if your inniative is bad you don't have the option to speed up.
#6 FrogReaver Oct 09, 2014 23:53:20	Also please note, winning initiative can allow you to cast buff spells on allies if you want to play tactical and not engage yet (or make ranged attacks if you have any) or even make a tactical movement which keeps yourself just out of their enemies so  you can pounce when you are ready.  So I think going first is a great advantage even if you don't use that round for attacking.  Going first doesn't mean you have to recklessly run into combat...  But you definetely can and when you do I think we can model that damage contribution.
#7 2Chlorobutanal Oct 09, 2014 23:58:41	There's a sort of a similar misconception about "going first being bad" that I've seen in other turn-based games, such as M:TG.   If you "go first", you can always choose to "do nothing," thereby forcing your opponent to "go first."  However, this isn't usually the best option.  That's why most people do prefer to act first if given the choice, both in card games and in board games.   Just because a character wins initiative does not mean that the character has to adopt a compromising position.  On the contrary, that first turn could be used simply to Dodge, ready movement, cast a defensive spell, ready a specific item or weapon, move to advantageous (covering) terrain, or any other manner of tactically sound actions.   Going first is important, but the benefit is fairly limited.  As the OP pointed out, going first is essentially somewhere between 0 and 1 "extra turns" as compared to "slower" actors.  If the encounter ends after your turn (in any round), your "going first" essentially paid off and you got a bonus turn.  If the encounter ends after an enemy turn, it didn't matter after all, although the course of the encounter obviously was shaped by the order in which the participants acted.   Suffice to say, going first is important.  Sometimes, in certain situations (a horde of weak combatants) or for/against certain kinds of characters (Assassins) it is critically important.  In other situations (against a single Legendary creature), it's helpful, but not as important.
#8 FrogReaver Oct 10, 2014 0:03:08	Also couldn't you use a readied action?
(Reply to #7) FrogReaver	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#10 FrogReaver Oct 10, 2014 0:45:47	So what we have learned is that in a 5 man party that a single character that beats the monsters in initiative (while everyone else goes after them) will typically have about a 20% chance of keeping the first enemy killed from it's last turn.  However for each subsequent monster killed (assuming focus fire tactics) the chance increases by 20% as well.  The 5th enemy killed is pretty much guaranteed to lose its last turn in this situation.  That's pretty impressive assuming you can get a very high chance of going first.  Also if focus fire tactics aren't assumed then it's also pretty much guaranteed that you will cause at least the enemy you are facing to lose a turn.   Overall, the ability to keep a monster from a turn can really cut down on the amount of damage a party takes.  The more characters that invest in initiative the stronger the effects.
#11 2Chlorobutanal Oct 10, 2014 0:49:36	This is a symptom of the fact that D&D encounters are generally "party vs. monster(s)", but the party initiative is split 4-5 ways and monsters generally share 1 (or a few) initiative value(s).   If the entire party beats all the monsters, the net effect is very large, like when a player goes first in a two-player game.  If only 40% of the party (2 PCs, for example) beat the monsters in initiative, the effect is obviously lessened but still apparent.
(Reply to #11) FrogReaver	2Chlorobutanal wrote:
#13 MechaPilot Oct 10, 2014 2:12:40	Going first seems to be more important at lower levels where you can potentially be dropped in a single hit, and when you face a group of foes.
(Reply to #13) FrogReaver	MechaPilot wrote:
#15 MechaPilot Oct 10, 2014 2:20:31	FrogReaver wrote:
#16 mellored Oct 10, 2014 5:48:06	IMO: If you spend your turn running upto the enemy, and then the enemy beats you, you didn't "go first".   That said, in a game where battle is 3-4 rounds of combat, going first will reduce the numbers of attacks you take by ~30%.
#17 Smashpunk Oct 10, 2014 5:53:00	Say you have a plan and you roll initiative. If your plan is good no initiative will hurt you. If your plan is bad no initiative will save you.
(Reply to #17) Yunru	Smashpunk wrote:
#19 Mommy_was_an_Orc Oct 10, 2014 7:24:56	It depends on whether or not your going first prevents damage to the party(or you). Make opponents unable to attack normally in some way, because as examples: You've established control(Monk stuns a creature, you've cast Hold Person on X targets, etc...) You've killed a target(Fighter 11/Barbarian 2 with GWM+Polearm Master getting 4 attacks on a CR 6 creature) You have Sentinel and are next to a target that will provoke a reaction if it tries to do anything - and you're tough enough that he likely doesn't want to attack you in the first place You've put a target into a really bad spot and someone else in your party can kill it(most ranged attackers) Basically, the PCs it doesn't really benefit are the close range PCs who aren't optimized enough to take down an opponent and simultaneously weak enough to be easily hurt.
#20 mellored Oct 10, 2014 7:35:46	Mommy_was_an_Orc wrote:
(Reply to #18) Smashpunk	Yunru wrote:
(Reply to #16) FrogReaver	mellored wrote:
#23 Nevvur Oct 10, 2014 20:02:32	FrogReaver wrote:
(Reply to #23) GladiusLegis	Nevvur wrote:
(Reply to #24) Nevvur	GladiusLegis wrote:
#26 GladiusLegis Oct 11, 2014 11:33:55	Nevvur wrote:
#27 Sorxores Oct 13, 2014 8:37:48	FrogReaver wrote: