Increasing disparity between monster and player initiative

[billd91]

Adding a PC's highest bonus just strikes me as another way to stop "penalizing" PCs for having variations from some optimized "norm". I wouldn't recommend it. I'd suggest dropping the half-level increase to initiative altogether. That way, modest investments retain their value without having to retrain or upgrade as you level-up.

 

[FireLance]

From the PCs' perspective, a warlord with the Combat Commander feat allows everyone in the party to add his Intelligence or Charisma modifier (whichever is higher) to initative checks. In a way, the disparity helps certain monsters to keep up with alpha strike oriented PCs. Now, it could be argued that the disparity between the PCs' initiative modifiers shouldn't be so great, but that's another seperate issue.

 

[Ferghis]

Also by mid-paragon there are lots of initiative bonuses available to PCs via powers and magic items, which I don't think your chart takes into account (nor am I sure how you would).

I intentionally did not account for items or other buffs, because my point was to explore what the default scores were. In the last column from the left (first from the right) I note the relevant character building resources that are most often invested in, i.e. Superior Initiative, Improved Initiative and the Casque of Tactics. There are other ways to boost initiative (items, feats, themes, and backgrounds), but they still represent an investment that (a) displaces other investments and (b) do not grant most characters an actual advantage, but only reduce their disadvantage. It's this combination that makes the problem similar to other "feat tax" math corrections.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I really need to look into C4. Does it have a spreadsheet or something that aids in making monsters or characters?

I can't recommend C4 highly enough, but alas, it has no fancy chargen aids. It does have cheat sheets that include all the common bonus types, which I find sufficiently helpful though.

C4 doesn't help with monster building, but might I offer my own Marvelous Monsters? One of the users turned my pdf into an excel spreadsheet, though I can't remember using it. I keep meaning to brush up on my excel skillz, but real life keeps getting in the way...

 

[Al'Kelhar]

I agree that there is a steadily increasing disparaity between average PC initiative and monster PC initiative as level increases. While there may be an argument that it somehow "balances" team monster vs. team PC because it allows monsters to actually get in one round's worth of actions before being nuked, it does seem quite counter to the general direction of 4E over the years. We observed increasing disparity between average PC attack rolls and average monster defences, and a whole slew of mechanical fixes were put in, specifically the various (and now multitudinous) Expertise feats (if you can't find the perfect one for your PC's combination of weapons and implements, just wait for the next Dragon mag...), and superior implements, superior weapons. We observed increasing disparity between average monster attack bonuses and averge PC defences, and a whole slew of mechanical fixes were put in, specifically the Improved and Superior defence feats, armour specialisation etc., and magical armour being "automatically" masterwork (i.e. increasing in base AC bonus as it increases in enhancement bonus). There are some mechanical fixes for disparity between average PC initiative and average monster initiative, but they are fewer than the other numbered-fixes on offer, and in any case they simply become further feat taxes or require particular PC design choices. It would be nice if the system itself didn't lead to these results in the first place.

NB There is a suggestion in one post above that Int it relevant to Initiative. Of course, it isn't. It's one of the few instances in 4E where only one ability affects one attribute, whereas most attributes are affected by the highest of the two abilities in an ability "group". The other major break with the ability-group-affecting-a-single-attribute is that only Con affects hp and number of surges. Which is why Con is never, ever, a dump stat, for anyone. And why Int is usually dumped for Dex in any trade-off between the two. Again, a particular design choice for which the rationale is obscure but the game effects are significant.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[Quickleaf]

I intentionally did not account for items or other buffs, because my point was to explore what the default scores were. In the last column from the left (first from the right) I note the relevant character building resources that are most often invested in, i.e. Superior Initiative, Improved Initiative and the Casque of Tactics. There are other ways to boost initiative (items, feats, themes, and backgrounds), but they still represent an investment that (a) displaces other investments and (b) do not grant most characters an actual advantage, but only reduce their disadvantage. It's this combination that makes the problem similar to other "feat tax" math corrections.

You could be right. Most of my 4e experience has been at heroic tier and only recently have I started DMing a paragon campaign. Also, I generally use an average of 8, 10, or 12 for monster initiative rolls which i try to figure out in advance. I have noticed that average monster initiatives do seem high compared to the PCs, so I may experiment with lowering them in a few encounters.

 

[Ferghis]

I think it's smart to just use fixed numbers for monster initiatives, but I think it's just personal preference. I like the fact that the DM doesn't have to roll the die to determine it, and that a lucky player will beat monster initiative, instead of being outdone by the occasional luckier DM.

I have noticed that average monster initiatives do seem high compared to the PCs, so I may experiment with lowering them in a few encounters.

This heavily weighs in favor of characters with high dex (or other initiative-related primary ability). This why I was throwing out the idea to use highest ability bonus minus three (or something). That way it scales properly, and you, as DM, don't have yet another step to "fixing" monsters.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Also, I generally use an average of 8, 10, or 12 for monster initiative rolls which i try to figure out in advance.

I've begun doing this as well. (I always pick 10 as my base, just for simplicity.) Monsters win on a 'tie,' which counterbalances the advantage of rolling the d20 that PCs have, according to my not-at-all-rigorous mathematical analysis.

I don't remember if you're the one I stole this idea from, but it's brilliant!

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

NB There is a suggestion in one post above that Int it relevant to Initiative. Of course, it isn't. It's one of the few instances in 4E where only one ability affects one attribute, whereas most attributes are affected by the highest of the two abilities in an ability "group". The other major break with the ability-group-affecting-a-single-attribute is that only Con affects hp and number of surges. Which is why Con is never, ever, a dump stat, for anyone. And why Int is usually dumped for Dex in any trade-off between the two. Again, a particular design choice for which the rationale is obscure but the game effects are significant.

Yeah, init and hp are strange that way. Sometimes I think about house ruling that Str or Con apply to hp, and Dex or Int applies to init...but Cha and Wis are still left out in the cold. And what would be the implications for Str builds that suddenly don't need Con to have great hp? So whatever, I guess.

 

[Sunseeker]

I rebuilt any monster or set of monsters I threw at my party. Redone defenses, redone init, redone stats, custom abilities, ect... 4e is by far the easiest edition to do this in. By the RAW however, you're right, there is a significant difference between the fixed defenses and offenses of monsters and players.