Improved Initiative and the wizard

[KarinsDad]

My statement was simply that an individual index card for each creature out of a lot of 30-40 is probably not the best way for handling numerous opponents in combat. Breaking them up into groups of the same initiative is definately the way to go here, as we see most DM's do.

Why? It can be faster with less confusion based on how you do it. Just because many DMs do something a given way does not make it the most efficient or easiest. That's an Ad Populum argument.

For example, if your miniatures are numbered 1 through 40, it is very easy to know which NPC goes next if your index cards are also numbered 1 through 40. If index card #1 means NPCs number 1 to 4 and index card #2 means NPCs number 5 to 8, then it is less intuitive and more prone to mistakes.


Now, I agree that it is a pain to roll initiatives for 40 opponents (although if you use a computer program for generating initiatives, this can be very quick), but that is a different issue than having an index card for each creature.

 

[Nail]

Re: Rolling Init for 40 creatures

FWIW, I've never done a large encounter with one index card per individual monster. That's just too much work for too little pay-off. Write up the cards, roll the dice for each, note where each miniture is and what it's number is, etc, etc, etc.....

For groups of 12 or more, I *might* break them up into groups...but then again, I might not. If the monsters have a low enough CR that I can throw 12+ of them at the party at the same time, the order of combat makes little difference.

Consider, that to throw 12 orcs (CR 1/2) at the party, that's an EL 7. At that point it *might* be worth the extra effort to break the 12 orcs up into 2 - 4 groups. Maybe. For forty (40)? Not a chance.

In the games I play, it's far more likely that the party is attacked by a group of mooks, sergeants, and 1 - 3 main critters. Given that, the impact of each individual mook is minor, and rolling the init for each mook is a waste of good gaming time.

IMNSHO.

 

[Nail]

Wizards tend to be "well protected" in parties anyway. So, the PC Wizard going first in a round slightly more often means that he may sometimes (for example) Fireball the opposition first. .

The word "slighty" is a bit of a stretch, methinks. We can show that a +4 init is significant, even against groups of opponents.

The question really is: "Is going first generally a good idea for a wizard?"

By going first (or nearly first), the Wizard has more options. That's unarguable, IMO. And more options are always good, don't you think?

For a Wiz, area of effect spells are a key aspect, and by going first, those AoE spells are easier to place. Even if the Fireball (to just chose 1 spell from a list of many) doesn't kill the swarm of bad guys, it's weakened them significantly. It's now possible that the front line fighter can take out one per swing.

And as for "calling attention to the Wiz".....that's possible, I suppose,....but that has to be weighed against the alternative of not damaging as many opponents. I mean, after all, the Wizard's not there to be a cheer leader.

....is she?

 

[KarinsDad]

In the games I play, it's far more likely that the party is attacked by a group of mooks, sergeants, and 1 - 3 main critters. Given that, the impact of each individual mook is minor, and rolling the init for each mook is a waste of good gaming time.

...

The word "slighty" is a bit of a stretch, methinks. We can show that a +4 init is significant, even against groups of opponents.

That is where the first assumption comes in. The math does show that it really is not signficant most of the time. If you generally go against a bunch of mooks and sergeants, then it does not really matter if you beat them in init or they beat you. The party can easily handle mooks and sergeants. They are not the serious threats.

It is the 1-3 main critters (and mostly if these critters have spells or special abilities) where it might really matter that an arcane caster has +4 to init.


Against one such foe, if the arcane caster has the same Dex, he goes from:

First 50%, Last 50% to
First 70%, Last 30%

So, 1 combat in 5, the caster goes first compared to the main opponent where he would not go first anyway. This means that Improved Initiative only really seriously affects one combat in five when there are mooks, sergeants, and one main opponent. 4 combats in 5 (the majority of combats), nothing significant has happened here.

Against two such main foes, if the arcane caster has the same Dex, he goes from:

First 33%, Second 33%, Third 33% to
First 55.5%, Second 29%, Third 15.5%

This means that in 2 combats in 5, he improves his init compared to at least one (or both) of his two main foes. 33% of the time, he is still in first, 15.5% he is still in third, and some significant portion (about 2/3rds) of 29%, he is still in second. 3 combats in 5, nothing has really changed.


And remember, PC Arcane Casters still tend to be fairly well protected before combat starts. They tend to be behind other PCs, they tend to have protection (and even contingency type) spells up before entering dangerous areas, they might be invisible or otherwise hard to detect, etc.


You cannot have it both ways. Either mooks are minor to the overall scheme of combat and not worth even rolling individual inits for, or they are major enough that Improved Initiative actually matters with regard to them.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've split the whole 'improved initiative' conversation off into a thread of its own here to allow the initial thread to keep going on its own topic, while highlighting the interesting discussion about improved init for others to see as a separate topic.

 

[MarkB]

I'm no darn good at statistics, but I will say that I've never regretted taking Improved Initiative as a primary spellcaster. Even if you only win initiative over an entire opposed group 2 in 5 times (or whatever the actual figure is), that's still a big advantage.

One of the most important aspects of both real-world and D&D combat is whether you and your allies are in a proactive or reactive stance. If you're proactive, you get to dictate the tactics of battle, and ensure that you're playing to your strengths. If you're reactive, you have to prioritise responding to the enemy's actions over taking the actions that would be most advantageous to you.

So long as at least one character in a party wins initiative over the opposing group (preferably a spellcaster, who can affect multiple targets at once), they can put their side on a proactive footing and force the other side to be reactive. This goes a long way towards swaying the entire battle in your favour.

 

[Thanee]

Win initiative. Fireball.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Nail]

I've split the whole 'improved initiative' conversation off into a thread of its own here to allow the initial thread to keep going on its own topic, while highlighting the interesting discussion about improved init for others to see as a separate topic.

Thanks!

 

[Nail]

Statistics tutorial requested.....

That is where the first assumption comes in. The math does show that it really is not signficant most of the time.

Then you an I are using different math.

....and I'll be honest: It's been...oh....."awhile" since I studied Statistics. Long enough to matter, anyway.

Would you mind calculating the chance of our Wiz 1 (Dex 12) winning init over all 4 orcs? Use the 2 cases of "With Improved Initiative" and "Without Improved Initiative". I'd like to compare answers.

 

[Nail]

So long as at least one character in a party wins initiative over the opposing group (preferably a spellcaster, who can affect multiple targets at once), they can put their side on a proactive footing and force the other side to be reactive. This goes a long way towards swaying the entire battle in your favour.

I couldn't agree more.

In my experience, in high level combats winning initative over the opposed spell casters is HUGELY important. Pretty much can't over emphasize that fact.