Don't make me roll for initiative.........again

[Infiniti2000]

How does it become more powerful?

I'd not categorize it as a must have, but with a high initiative modifier, it makes it a lot easier to set up a one-two punch. If you can plan a two full round action maneuver that's a pretty powerful situation (e.g. true strike + whatever).

Just delay until your opponent goes (if you go first), then take your first turn and hope you win initiative to immediately follow up.

Maybe not too powerful at lower levels, but I'm sure bizarre and powerful combos can be thought up if really desired. The fact is that it is just one more reason why this is a terrible house rule.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'd not categorize it as a must have, but with a high initiative modifier, it makes it a lot easier to set up a one-two punch. If you can plan a two full round action maneuver that's a pretty powerful situation (e.g. true strike + whatever).

Just delay until your opponent goes (if you go first), then take your first turn and hope you win initiative to immediately follow up.

Maybe not too powerful at lower levels, but I'm sure bizarre and powerful combos can be thought up if really desired. The fact is that it is just one more reason why this is a terrible house rule.

While this is true, delaying in and of itself is giving an advantage to your opponent.

So, you take a chance that the opponent does not hand you your hat in order to get a chance to hand your opponent his hat. Since the opponent goes first, this seems like a suspect tactic unless you are fairly confident that your opponent is focused on someone else in the group (and even then, you are giving the opponent a chance to take out an ally in order to take out the opponent).


Another reason why rolling initiative every round is bad is due to Summon Monster spells. When do they occur? Could you delay to the end of round one and then have the monster appear at the beginning of round two? Or does the DM keep track of your previous initiative and you lose your initiative in round two if it is earlier?

 

[Infiniti2000]

While this is true, delaying in and of itself is giving an advantage to your opponent.

So, you take a chance that the opponent does not hand you your hat in order to get a chance to hand your opponent his hat. Since the opponent goes first, this seems like a suspect tactic unless you are fairly confident that your opponent is focused on someone else in the group (and even then, you are giving the opponent a chance to take out an ally in order to take out the opponent).

Exactly. But, if you can come up with a suitable, guaranteed one-two punch, then it's worth it. Your opponent will only get a one-punch. It's only a possibility of being a good tactic, I'm not saying it definitely is.

 

[3catcircus]

The game is about fun for everyone, not just the DM.

Anyone who allows the DM total control over the game is not using their given right to protest bad rulings and bad house rules. Worse case, people can leave a game over a lousy DM. Best case, they can communicate and compromise a solution that makes the game fun for everyone.

A good DM also tries to find out what makes the game fun for his players. Some players like to follow the RAW. Others like to roleplay. Others like to battle. A good DM does not railroad his players with lousy house rules which one or more of his players strenuously object to.

This has *nothing* to do with protesting a bad call by a DM. It also has *nothing* to do with a bad *house rule*.

It has to do with a player not liking the DM using an *optional* rule that has been published in a core D&D book - it isn't a "...lousy house rule." It is an optional rule that has been published in a core D&D book that the DM is chosing to use.

This has *no* effect on roleplaying. Using this rule *is* following the RAW. What this rule does is prevent whining "it's all about me" players from conspiring to work around the RAW by metagaming their actions in combat - actions which are supposed to represent simultaneous, continuous rapid activities in the heat of battle.

By your argument, you make it sound like the DM would be railroading the players with a lousy house rule if he decided to enforce encumbrance, or monk multiclass restrictions.

 

[Nyeshet]

I suppose I'll play Devil's Advocate in this.

My group has long rolled for initiative each round. At one time, when we learned that our method was apparently in the wrong, we considered changing to the 'standard' method. However, every player that had (or had previously had) a high Dex character was against it. A poor roll can negate a lot of the benefit of the high Dex character's initiative. If the battle is long, it just means that the penalty for a chance low roll is not balanced out later. Typically the high Dex characters have the best initiative. Even if they roll low initially, the chances are that later rolls will be higher - that on average they will do better in their initiative.

Granted, most of my players like to play high dex characters: duelists are more common than heavily armored fighters, and barbarians often have a high dex since the players tend to think that rage will balance out any 12 they happen to place in Con or Str. Casters often have Dex as their medium score (ie: not among their lowest two abilities, nor their highest of course) due to the benefits to AC, reflex saves, and - yes - initiative.

Battles are longer - sometimes notably so, but in the end the group decided to keep rolling initiative every round. It mixes things up a bit, allows high dex PCs a better chance of coming first on average, and it only takes a few seconds to roll and tally the next order of actions. I can understand why some would prefer only rolling once, but at least in my group the benefits are seen as outweighing the penalties.

 

[KarinsDad]

This has *nothing* to do with protesting a bad call by a DM. It also has *nothing* to do with a bad *house rule*.

It has to do with a player not liking the DM using an *optional* rule that has been published in a core D&D book - it isn't a "...lousy house rule." It is an optional rule that has been published in a core D&D book that the DM is chosing to use.

This has *no* effect on roleplaying. Using this rule *is* following the RAW. What this rule does is prevent whining "it's all about me" players from conspiring to work around the RAW by metagaming their actions in combat - actions which are supposed to represent simultaneous, continuous rapid activities in the heat of battle.

By your argument, you make it sound like the DM would be railroading the players with a lousy house rule if he decided to enforce encumbrance, or monk multiclass restrictions.

Just because an optional rule is written in RAW does not make it a good rule.

How do you handle Summoned Monsters with this rule? RAW does not say how. Why? Because it is a sure bet that WotC did not playtest this optional rule and never considered the ramifications of it. This rule was placed into 3E so that 2E players who were used to rolling every round could run initiative in a similar manner to 2E. Unfortunately, with AoOs and Delays and other 3E elements, this optional rule does not work well. In fact, it sucks.

This is not about whiny players who feel entitled. I would be the first to agree with you if it was. This is about an optional rule that is jarringly different from the core rule to the point that other game elements do not work well with it. It is also an optional rule that is very time consuming during play.

By definition, that is an optional rule that should carefully be considered before adding it into a game. This means taking the time to see how this interacts with other rules and explicitly going out of your way to create house rules to shoe horn it into the existing system.

 

[Iku Rex]

However, every player that had (or had previously had) a high Dex character was against it. A poor roll can negate a lot of the benefit of the high Dex character's initiative. If the battle is long, it just means that the penalty for a chance low roll is not balanced out later. Typically the high Dex characters have the best initiative. Even if they roll low initially, the chances are that later rolls will be higher - that on average they will do better in their initiative.

The basic advantage of high initiative is in catching your opponents flat-footed and the chance to get an "extra" action by acting first and last. Rolling initiative every round does not benefit characters with high initiative in particular. If you win initiative in round one you can be fairly certain that your enemy will win initiative in a later round and get two full round actions in a row against you. (Possibly ending the battle.) That makes up for the advantage of you going last in round one and getting the two rounds of actions later.

The difference is that rolling every round takes time, makes the abstract nature of DnD combat more absurd ("why didn't your character do something while his opponent performed twelve seconds worth of actions?!"), makes the game deadlier and messes with round based durations.

 

[Delta]

Well, it is a Variant published in the DMG. You can have different preferences, but you can't say the DM is really that howling-mad-crazy when he's just using a suggested Variant from the DMG.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, it is a Variant published in the DMG. You can have different preferences, but you can't say the DM is really that howling-mad-crazy when he's just using a suggested Variant from the DMG.

Do you really believe this variant was ever playtested by WotC like the core initiative system?

Do you really believe it works straight out of the box without some tweaking?

Do you really believe that WotC designers ever even give it a thought when they create a new class, race, monster, PrC, feat, or spell that might be initiative or round dependent?


Variant rules are there for variety, but buyer beware.

For example, the variant rule for Clerics doing damage dice to undead in a 30 foot radius when Turning in Complete Divine. I really like the concept of this rule, but using it as written totally cripples undead in use. So, I had to make some serious adjustments to it. Even after I watered it down, my players never use normal Turn Undead. They always attempt to do damage instead. It's just that much more effective overall.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Personally, I use d10 initiative, re-rolled each round. IME, this has actually speeded up combats because players need to pay attention to the round count. This was actually a problem with our group using the regular system. Go figure.

You are correct that Improved Initiative becomes important using this sort of variant. Obviously, you can still Hold Action, and you can maintain a Held Action from round to round. It seems to work well enough.

I have a hard time imagining leaving a good game because of a variation in rules, though. I imagine that there are actually other problems in the game structure, because this seems such a minor quibble to me. To each his own, though.