Balance on this feat: Reflexive initiative

[Ridley's Cohort]

iirc, there is a similar feat in the FRCS concerning +2 init and +2 to something else.

Which is usually much better than this feat would be IMO. It is pretty rare for me to ready an action more than once per combat, so this proposed feat looks less attractive to me than a flat +2 mod to init.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Cyclic Initiative...

This is a published Feat? Egad!

I don't like it, both for the administrative overhead, but also because of the multi-combatant issue.

Take this example:

F1, Init 15, Dex mod +1
F2, Init 14, Dex Mod +2
M3, Init 13

F2 readies to attack M3 when he casts a spell, which he does.
Normally F2's init would be changed to 13, ahead of M3.

With this feat, F2's init is changed 15, ahead of F1. F2 then gets 2 attacks in the same segment as F1 gets one attack. Definately not balanced.

The initiative system is well set up the way it is in Core, with the only alterations to your 'place' in combat being to Ready of Delay. Any time you start dealing with a means to climb the initiative ladder during combat you will start to have problems like the above.

I would consider changing it to:
At the beggining of combat in which you are caught by surprise, your initiative count is increased by 2.

This will slightly decrease the odds of being caught flat-footed in the combat, but not overpoweringly so.

BTW, per the SRD on readying an action, "Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action."

 

[UltimaGabe]

From my experience, Initiatives are almost never close to each other- you almost always end up with one guy at 10, one at 4, and one at 29 (darn halfling rogues with their natural 20's on Initiative...). In that case, a +2 would never do a thing for you. It's rare enough for initiatives to be that close to each other, and readied actions don't happen to often either- and add on the fact that, like others have said, it's a bookkeeping nightmare, that feat doesn't look very feasible at all.

 

[shilsen]

From my experience, Initiatives are almost never close to each other- you almost always end up with one guy at 10, one at 4, and one at 29 (darn halfling rogues with their natural 20's on Initiative...).

Really? In my games, we invariably have initiatives clumped together. The rogue with +9 to Initiative, the guy in full-plate with a +1 and two of the NPCs will end up on the same number regularly. Weird.

In that case, a +2 would never do a thing for you. It's rare enough for initiatives to be that close to each other, and readied actions don't happen to often either- and add on the fact that, like others have said, it's a bookkeeping nightmare, that feat doesn't look very feasible at all.

This I agree with.

 

[Philip]

Once I determine the initiative order, I forget all about the exact initiative count, since the number itself really doesn't matter. Initiative is supposed to be rolled at the start of combat to determine the order, but after that its just the order that matters, not the actual initiative count. Therefore it would be useless in my games.

If it said: 'you move up two places in the initiative order', then I could use it, but this would create all kinds of other problems, so I have to say no.

 

[Coredump]

I don't like it, both for the administrative overhead, but also because of the multi-combatant issue.

Take this example:

F1, Init 15, Dex mod +1
F2, Init 14, Dex Mod +2
M3, Init 13

F2 readies to attack M3 when he casts a spell, which he does.
Normally F2's init would be changed to 13, ahead of M3.

With this feat, F2's init is changed 15, ahead of F1. F2 then gets 2 attacks in the same segment as F1 gets one attack. Definately not balanced.

huh? In your example, all three would get one attack in each round. Sure, in round 1 F1 goes first, and after that F2 goes first, but that isn't really that big of a deal. I am not sure what you mean by "2 attacks in the same segment."

Now, I can see it seeming wrong to actually go up in initiative from delaying an action...but you could just put a limit, that you get +2, or up to your old init, whichever is less. (Granted, a +2 isn't that big of a deal, but without this, you could 'creep' you inititative up each round....)

The initiative system is well set up the way it is in Core, with the only alterations to your 'place' in combat being to Ready of Delay. Any time you start dealing with a means to climb the initiative ladder during combat you will start to have problems like the above.

And this *still* only has init alter from delay and Ready, it just changes by a different amount.

In that case, a +2 would never do a thing for you.

On the other hand, lots of peolpe take Imp Init for the +4, so a +2 is weak, but perhaps not worthless.


I also don't understand the worry about 'bookkeeping'. IMC we still re-roll init for every round, and the bookkeeping is minimal, not sure how this would be that bad. You *already* have to change init order for a delay or Ready, this would just have you change it to a different number. Why is that so much more difficult?

I don't have a problem with the feat, except that it seems very weak.

 

[UltimaGabe]

On the other hand, lots of peolpe take Imp Init for the +4, so a +2 is weak, but perhaps not worthless.

Yes, but Improved Initiative is much more appealing for two reasons: 1. Because, after all, it's a higher bonus, but 2. your feat is very, very situational. If you're not fighting a spellcaster, for example, there will very rarely be a good reason to delay or ready an action, so at least some of the time, you won't be gaining the benefit of a feat at all, as opposed to gaining a larger benefit all the time.

And, as for the bookkeeping issue, you're using a different system for initiative than 90% of the people out there- and your system, since it inherently requires more work on everybody's part (having to re-roll initiative every round) it keeps one particular instance of bookkeeping to a minimum. The way I do it (and most of the other people here, from the soudns of it) doesn't fit in with this mechanic nearly as well as it fits in with yours.

Long story short: It's weak, and it seems like it would be better as something just for your campaign than for every campaign as a whole.

 

[diaglo]

finally remembered the similar feat....

blooded. gives +2 init and +2 Spot.