Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="bfreakb999" data-source="post: 4883906" data-attributes="member: 79402">My players are questioning the rules for delaying your initiative, but not to avoid damage or harmful effects, but because some of their class types are better off going first fairly often.  Example:  Last game one of the players had no negative effects or condition on them whatsoever.   However they inquired if they could hold their initiative and come back in the very top permanently.  Now I am a big fan of the mechanics of this game, and I know why the rules for this are written the way they are to prevent the players from exploiting and escaping harmful effect in an unfair way, but I have a hard time explaining why he can’t do this if he has no negative effects and would essentially just be losing rounds/turns to do so and come back in on the top.  The way some of them see it, is that they are loosing turns to be able to do this, so it is justified.  I don’t agree so much.     In my head an lower initiative roll is right in line with a lower attack roll.  A lower attack roll means you don’t hit because you weren’t focusing/you were distracted/just had a bad swing.  So to me the same holds true for initiative (odd way of seeing it I suppose).  You reacted slowly this combat/were taken by surprise/just were not prepared.  In return, your allies come to readiness sooner than you and you must act after them.     Just wanted your 2 cents, and do my above explanation seem like a legitimate reason why they can’t do this? It punishes the player for a bad roll.  Which I’m always ok with. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification