Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5432343" data-attributes="member: 6668292">After writing all of this, I'm going to preface this by apologizing for the long post.Water Bob, I'm going to try to clarify this if I can. If you feel anything I write is incorrect, feel free to let me know. This is a discussion board, and I'm just trying to help.The argument presented to you is that going first on initiative is indeed very advantageous, and that delaying has many potential advantages. It goes on to state, however, that there is no inherent advantage to going first on initiative other than on the first round. Please not that I did use the qualifier "inherent."I'd like to take your example of two evenly matches warriors. I would indeed bet on the person who went first, as they're going to have the advantage, and with equal luck, and if both character simply full attack, then the character that wins initiative should win. However, that's due to going first in the first round, as I'm going to attempt to demonstrate.The first warrior (Tom) is going to fight the second warrior (Ben). Tom goes first on initiative.Both only get 1 attack per turn in this example. They will have multiple later on.1) Tom attacks Ben once. Ben attacks Tom once. They have each attacked once. --> round 2.2) Tom attacks Ben once. Ben attacks Tom once. They have each attacked twice. --> round 3.3) Tom attacks Ben once. Ben attacks Tom once. They have each attacked three times. --> round 4.4) Tom attacks and drops Ben. Tom attacked four times, while Ben only attacked three times. Combat is resolved.Order of initiative (Tom [T], Ben ): T, B, T, B, T, B, T.If Ben delayed, it would look like this:1) Tom attacks Ben once. Ben delays to gain first initiative. Tom has attacked once, and Ben has not attacked. --> round 2.2) Ben attacks Tom once. Tom attacks Ben once. Tom has attacked twice, and Ben has attacked once. --> round 3.3) Ben attacks Tom once. Tom attacks Ben once. Tom has attacked three times, and Ben has attacked twice. --> round 4.4) Ben attacks Tom once. Tom attacks Ben once, and drops Ben. Tom has attacked four times, and Ben has attacked three times. Combat is resolved.Order of initiative (Tom [T], Ben ): T, B, T, B, T, B, T.In both examples, Tom gets to attack 4 times, and Ben only gets to attack 3 times. The reason that this happens is because Tom won initiative in the first round. If we look at the order of turns in combat, it looks identical, doesn't it? That means that given equal warriors with equal actions and equal luck, then whoever wins in the first round will win, and holding the highest initiative does not matter in a one-on-one fight.If we expand this to two or more attacks each, the numbers simply double.Tom hits Ben twice. Ben hits Tom twice. (Two attacks each)Repeat. (Four attacks each)Repeat. (Six attacks each)Tom hits Ben twice, and drops Ben. (Tom attacked eight times, Ben attacked six times) Combat is resolved.The numbers are simply doubled. If they had three attacked, they would be tripled. If they were each fighting with two weapons, you would adjust the multiplier to fit the new number of attacks.Now, in a combat situation with three or more people, delaying will give quite a big benefit, potentially, though this is always situational. The reason for that is that rather than reacting to the highest initiative (as you've implied is the case), creatures react to whatever happened between their last turn and this turn.This goes back to combat order. In a combat scenario with only two combatants, since you are solely reacting to one another, combat order never needs to change. It goes as follows: T, B, T, B, T, B, T. If Ben won initiative in the first round, then he would win the fight (all things being equal). That being the case, just swap the order of combat, and you'll see that delaying to hold subsequent combat rounds makes no difference.If we take three combatants, this all potentially changes. Add Kenny to the mix. In fact, make it a three-way combat, where everyone involved wants everyone else dead. If Kenny (as the newest addition) had the lowest initiative, combat rounds would look like this: T, B, K, T, B, K, T, B, K, etc.Now, with three people involved, there is potentially a lot of ways the fight can change. If Kenny (last on initiative) see Tom and Ben trading blows, he can simply delay each round until one of them is dead, and then attack the survivor. This makes perfect sense, and this shows the direct benefit to delaying in certain scenarios. If, however, Tom attacked Kenny in the first round, Ben could decide to delay, and see if Kenny trades blows with Ben. If that's the case, then Ben will just watch the fight, delaying multiple turns, and then attack the winner.This speaks more to the order of combat (T, B, K, T, B, K, T, B, K, etc.) than who has the highest initiative in any round except the first.I apologize for the excessively long post. I hope what I said is clear. If not, you can ask for clarification, and I'll do my best to post nothing beyond a few hundred characters. Have a nice day.</blockquote>

Verification