Intelligence to Initiative

[Kzach]

I often make house rules that I playtest to determine whether or not I keep them, however currently I haven't got a set of guinea pigs group to test them so thought I'd post one of them here for feedback.

It's very simple. Dexterity and Intelligence are tied together for everything but Initiative. So why stop there? I'm going to playtest allowing the highest of either Intelligence or Dexterity to add to Initiative.

What do you think?

 

[generalhenry]

I was thinking the same thing. Currently Int is a dump stat.

str v con
OAs v HP

wis v cha
nada v nada

dex v int
init v nada

 

[bobthehappyzombie]

I think it was done so that the rogues and rangers would tend to get the drop on folk and the wizards would likely act last, I must say I think it is fine as it is, wizards warlocks and some warlords thematically don't fit in the same set as rogues and rangers otherwise why cant my paladin base his HP's off Str?

 

[generalhenry]

otherwise why cant my paladin base his HP's off Str?

Since he bases his OAs off str.

 

[bobthehappyzombie]

Unless he has heavy blade opportunity and bases them off charisma, what I am getting at is there is still a small reason for a wizard to boost dex, not a big one but it still exists.
In the same way as there is still a reason why you'd want both str and Con.
Most skills seem to be wis or cha based and thus there is a reason for desiring both.
All this will do is benifit a small subset of the carefully balanced classes, I really don't see what other purpose it serves.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think this is a feat opportunity.

 

[generalhenry]

heavy blade opportunity

which requires str

what I am getting at is there is still a small reason for a wizard to boost dex, not a big one but it still exists.

Shouldn't a ranger have equal reason to boast int?

In 3E int determined skill points so everyone had a use for int.

 

[bobthehappyzombie]

which requires str.

Yeah but only ever 15, and you then no longer use str... anyhow

Shouldn't a ranger have equal reason to boast int?

True enough, I guess I will have to revert to my basic predjudice that I don't think that wizards warlocks and warlords should be as quick off the mark as rangers and rogues, not without investing in feats and the like anyhow.

In 3E int determined skill points so everyone had a use for int.

Comparing the stats to 3e is not really relivant, there was no stat equality in 3e thats for sure.

 

[generalhenry]

Comparing the stats to 3e is not really reliant, there was no stat equality in 3e thats for sure.

There was a reason cha was a dump stat.

Str = (damage) (hit) carry capacity
Dex = AC, Init (hit) Ref
Con = HP, Fort
Int = Skills (save DCs)
Wis = Will (save DCs)
Cha = (save DCs)

 

[Nur-ab-sal]

I agree re: wizards not being as fast on the gun as rangers and rogues (which also prevents wizards from wiping out minions in a big AOE strike before the melee characters have entered combat). Personally, my current plan to fix Int is to give bonus trained class skills at Int 14, Int 18, Int 22, etc., with wizards, rogues, and warlords getting one less trained skill normally (to balance high-Int wizards and warlords and encourage rogues once more to use Int)