Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Vegepygmy" data-source="post: 5861077" data-attributes="member: 40109">No, not that rule. The rule (as you interpret it) that PC C (init mod +2) can act between PC A (init mod +0) and PC B (init mod +1) if A goes on initiative count 12 and B goes on initiative count 11, but not if A and B both go on initiative count 11. What purpose is served by complicating initiative order that way and necessitating the tracking of initiative counts (and not merely order) beyond the start of combat? Doesn't it strike you as totally arbitrary? Also, consider the Ready action. How would you handle the following scenario? PC A (init mod +0) and PC B (init mod +1) are both scheduled to act on initiative count 11. C (init mod +2) acts on initiative count 12, and Readies to cast a spell if A fires his bow. On initiative count 11, B acts first (having the higher init mod), and then A fires his bow, triggering C's readied action. C casts his spell, and now his initiative result changes to 11. For the rest of the encounter, he acts immediately ahead of A (the character whose action triggered his readied action). But Water Bob's rule says that A, B and C all act on initiative count 11, and since they are "tied," they can only act in order of their initiative modifiers. Thus, C (init mod +2) must act immediately before B (init mod +1), who goes before A. C cannot act immediately ahead of A, even though the Ready rules specifically state that he does. Now, I realize one can argue that in this particular case, the specific Ready rule trumps the general tied-initiative-count rule, but really...isn't it obvious that "initiative count" was never intended to function the way Water Bob is claiming?</blockquote>

Verification