Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 6410455" data-attributes="member: 2525">In the first round when you're assigning Init to begin with? How? Player X gets a 12, player Y gets a 6, player X says I want to go after player Y, done and done.  As it should be - you're reacting FASTER, why would you not gain advantage from that?  Why would happening to roll poorly logically be a benefit for some characters that they should seek to dump their initiative as a tactic?  This seems like a feature not a bug - having people with high initiative scores who naturally want to go later because their class abilities benefit from going later SHOULD be able to choose that as a benefit of having a high initiative count.This is just the same argument as #2 re-worded.Of course it is, for some characters.  If their abilities work best only after people have moved, then it's a disadvantage to go first.  I even had a player say "I want a feat to decrease my initiative".  It's that bad.  This is obviously not the intention of the initiative rules.Yes, it's called boosting his initiative bonus.  The rogue can do nothing to LOWER his initiative bonus, but the Wizard can.  Besides, the wizard who is of the evocation school ALSO wants to go later, to wait for enemies to clump around an ally and then blast them while protecting the ally from the blast.  That was in my first post, remember?Tell me how often rolling high is a harm to you, in your experience? The entire point of the d20 system, which 5e adheres to, is that universally a player rolling a d20 high is good and low is bad.  This is the only exception I can think of.Now think about that - it's called sneak attack, you have surprise, but you're punished if you're the fastest to react to surprise and being sneaky...and if you could have been slower, you would have gotten into a better position (every time) and had a better chance at killing your target (every time).  That's just dumb.  There is nothing surprising or sneaky about that character - it's purely a rule about ease of use, only the ease of use is about later rounds and not that first round.In the real world, military groups establish tactics, even tactics which function in split seconds, just like what you're describing.  Everyone can always hold a second, or half-second, until they can take the better shot or run to the right position or both.  There is no sense in saying that people who are fastest to react are worse off.  They are never worse off.</blockquote>

Verification