|
In the Favorite Feat thread, people have mentioned Improved Initiative. In my experience, it's just a trap.
Some people have said that going first guarantees that they can change the scope of the combat. But if you can change the scope of combat going first, can't you change the scope of combat going second?
I have personally not been in a combat where going first meant the difference between success and failure. Furthermore, I would tend to think that an encounter that hinged on whether the PCs went first or second isn't particularly well designed, because it brings it down to the initiative roll--at which point, yes, Improved Initiative matters, but only at the expense of nearly everything else.
So, is going first that important? Should it be?
ETA: Some specific builds gain benefits from going first--rogues, sneak attacking the flat-footed comes to mind. For them, Improved Initiative is a good investment. But for everyone, in general? Not as much.
It varies from build to build, but it's really only great in high level games where those who go first simply win.
A blaster sorcerer that deals 300+ fireball damage in a single round, an archer fighter who can pincusion a target for 250+ damage with a single full-attack action, or a spell perfection wizard that can force you to roll two DC 37 Fortitude saves (take worst) or be petrified via flesh to stone--these are why people say Improved Initiative rocks. To go second against one of these guys is to not go at all, or ever again.
Not even "ultra" high level. This happens regularly after level 15, and evidence of "he who goes first, always dominates" can be seen as early as 10th-level.
A good initiviate roll can make the difference between receiving damage and dealing damage. Also certain magic can make a ton of difference when cast earlier. Especially magic that's less effective or not usable once intense melee is going on.
(Edit: talking about experience with lower levels now)
So it's not that hard to see why people favor the feat.
Not even "ultra" high level. This happens regularly after level 15, and evidence of "he who goes first, always dominates" can be seen as early as 10th-level.
I've been making a pretty good go of it at level 3 with the Slumber Hex. We've had some impressive coup de grace so far. Character is currently at +8 initiative and, had I the desire, I could have gotten much higher. Our incoming Kensai will have something like +15 or so when he hits level 7. That'll be interesting.
Not even "ultra" high level. This happens regularly after level 15, and evidence of "he who goes first, always dominates" can be seen as early as 10th-level.
Possibly earlier even. Without agreeing to it beforehand, most of the players in our group focused on boosting their initiative scores. Combined with our proclivity for sneaking around and ambushing enemies we regularly gain a surprise round and initiative in the second round ahead of opponents. Even for a low-level group that's a devastating amount of damage upfront for a correspondingly low-level bad guy to suffer; many don't survive the initial assault. Our modus operandi has often resulted in combat being over before we've suffered any damage. We've completed entire modules with only a handful of cure light wound spells having been required.
What they said. An example: (Note: this isn't optimized example. Its much easier to just throw down the save or sucks and laugh but I had a lot of fun using this to kill multiple squishy characters.)
My lvl 12 Divination wizard is the extreme ex of this phenomenon. He has a +18 initiative bonus and he always acts on the surprise round. So I almost always go first. If I throw out a Summon Monster 6 spell on first turn as a standard action (acadamae graduate) I can summon 1d4+1 Babau that can then shred a character to bits before their turn. If I summon 5 of the things then that's a wonderful 45d6+75 of damage to spread around as each of them full attack sneak attacks everyone. This however, only works if I go first and can treat everyone else as flat-footed.
I throw out a Summon Monster 6 spell on first turn as a standard action (acadamae graduate)
What is that, where is it at, and how can I get it?
Going first can be hugely important. It allows casters to change the shape of the battlefield, for instance. A carefully placed wall of force can subdivide an enemy, allowing the party to concentrate on half of them. a dominate monster before anyone else goes can take a bad guy and turn him into a good guy before he's half-killed anyone. Getting a buff up you didn't know would be important or is too short-term to use all the time... key.
Also, physical position can be worth it. Rogues who want to get in that first sneak attack, or get around to flank before the battle smushes together. Stuff like that.
I generally see one character per party with really high Initiative, pretty much because of those reasons.
I throw out a Summon Monster 6 spell on first turn as a standard action (acadamae graduate)What is that, where is it at, and how can I get it?
As I see it high initiative is great for everyone, it allows for maneuvering for melee characters, sneak attacks for rogues, full attacks for ranged characters, the possibility to soften up the targets with aoe's and debuffs and to buff the party before the combat really starts. As mentioned above this becomes double important at higher levels when one roll can determine the outcome of a battle.
|
Really? That sounds like a design flaw, either of the encounters (The GM doesn't already know this is possible?) or of the system (Reduce the game to a single die roll).
Are people okay with playing that way? I wouldn't be.
This is not new. It's always been like this ever since D&D was created. Whoever goes first has the chance of casting a powerful spell that ends the encounter immediately. That's why those spells are called Save or Dies/Sucks, because if the save is failed, the encounter is often over.
Entangle
Sleep
Color Spray
Glitterdust
Black Tentacles
Create Pit
Blindness
Stinking Cloud
Slow
etc, and these are just the low end spells, and not blasting spells
Even a 10 INT character knows if the wizard is not leading off with his best spell to end the encounter, it's just bad tactics.
This works for fighting classes as well, although it's usually only 1 target. Back in 3.5, my barbarian would charge, Power Attack/Leap Attack with Shock Trooper and do hundreds of damage easily. If it doesn't kill, the target is usually extremely close to death and is now going to save himself as opposed to trying to hurt my party.
It's definitely one of my favorite feats for about half my characters. Healers and what-not have less need for it, but casters, rogues, ranged attackers, and - to a lesser extent - melee beasts all benefit from getting to have 1.5 extra rounds to create some momentum for the fight... not to mention make sure they're in the most tactically useful position on the field.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Initiative is wildly important to a wide range of character types. The wizard wants to be able to buff the party or throw down control spells before the enemy intermingles with his people. The cleric wants to do something similar, as do other characters with important buffs. The rogue wants to get in a few easy sneak attacks. The fighter wants to put him in the best position to hit things with something sharp and heavy. When you can actively prevent your opponent from doing things going first is remarkably important
|
|
Really? That sounds like a design flaw, either of the encounters (The GM doesn't already know this is possible?) or of the system (Reduce the game to a single die roll).
Are people okay with playing that way? I wouldn't be.
This is not new. It's always been like this ever since D&D was created. Whoever goes first has the chance of casting a powerful spell that ends the encounter immediately. That's why those spells are called Save or Dies/Sucks, because if the save is failed, the encounter is often over.
Entangle
Sleep
Color Spray
Glitterdust
Black Tentacles
Create Pit
Blindness
Stinking Cloud
Slow
etc, and these are just the low end spells, and not blasting spellsEven a 10 INT character knows if the wizard is not leading off with his best spell to end the encounter, it's just bad tactics.
This works for fighting classes as well, although it's usually only 1 target. Back in 3.5, my barbarian would charge, Power Attack/Leap Attack with Shock Trooper and do hundreds of damage easily. If it doesn't kill, the target is usually extremely close to death and is now going to save himself as opposed to trying to hurt my party.
Sure, leading off with your best spell is best tactics, but in my experience, most combats involve opponents who won't just drop to the best spell with no other response from the PCs, unless it's a simple mook mop-up; and that just strikes me as good encounter design. Sure, perhaps rocket tag has always been a possibility in D&D (I've been playing since 1e) but it's always adjustable with some clever design.
I don't like rocket tag, and I try to make sure it doesn't happen. I guess it really is a play style thing that makes Improved Initiative less useful in my campaigns.
Sure, perhaps rocket tag has always been a possibility in D&D (I've been playing since 1e) but it's always adjustable with some clever design.
I don't like rocket tag, and I try to make sure it doesn't happen. I guess it really is a play style thing that makes Improved Initiative less useful in my campaigns.
Clever design how? Making combat about something else entirely besides combat? In any game where there are a finite number of resources (like hit points), the team who has first go at depleting the opponents' resources always has the upper hand.
D&D & every other game like it will be rocket tag as long as combat exists.
Really? That sounds like a design flaw, either of the encounters (The GM doesn't already know this is possible?) or of the system (Reduce the game to a single die roll).
Are people okay with playing that way? I wouldn't be.
Personally I consider it 'realistic'. (I know, talking realism in a fantasy setting is just inviting catcalls). In real combat in the real world, the guy who goes first will likely win.
For example in a gunfight, if you can draw and shoot quickly and accurately, your opponent goes down before they can do anything back. Or consider a squad in combat, if they pull off a successful ambush, likely they will be able to wipe out the enemy before they can even react. Historically the commander who held the initiative and made the enemy react to his moves would hold a serious advantage.
I don't have any problems with a system that models that. Anyway there's a d20 worth of swing when initiative is rolled, and it is pretty hard to completely overcome that. Of course stacking the modifiers in your favor is worth the trouble though.
It seems like a pretty good strategy to me - no matter if it wins the fight for you, or just gives you an advantage. Going first is simply better. I have always been a fan of improved init - whatever class I happen to be playing.
I would only recommend skipping it if your init bonus is already decently high because of other things like traits and dex.
I don't have any problems with a system that models that. Anyway there's a d20 worth of swing when initiative is rolled, and it is pretty hard to completely overcome that. Of course stacking the modifiers in your favor is worth the trouble though.
Even Paizo understands how important initiative is to spellcasters at the later levels. At lvl 20 a divination wizard takes 20 on initiative (With their bonuses they ALWAYS go first. You end up with an initiative in the 40's). I believe there is also a cleric version of this in UC.
Another reason for spellcasters to go first is not because they can end the encounter in one turn (they could if they wanted to nova) but because the your chances of laying down effective battle field control is never better than when everyone is clumped on opposite sides of the battlefield. It is tough to battlefield control once everyone starts to mix (whiny pc's screaming don't fireball me bro!).
It would be a huge error to see this as a matter of absolutes.
"Who goes first wins" isn't always true. Sometimes it's even better to go second (but in those cases, you can always delay).
However, it's often a big advantage to go first, to get the first hits in before the enemy can act: Rogues can sneak attack even from a distance in such situations, everyone who makes attack rolls gets to target flat-footed AC (which can be a lot better than regular AC), and getting in an attack or spell before the other can put up defences (or, the other way around, put up your defences before the enemy can attack) can be very advantageous! Not always, but it happens. "Oh shit, Monster X! They use death magic/paralysis/whatever! Better defend against that!"
One of the groups I play in rolls for initiative at the beginning of every round, making this feat much more important.
Agreed--been doing this since 1st edition because you can't win initiative every round this way.
One of the groups I play in rolls for initiative at the beginning of every round, making this feat much more important.Agreed--been doing this since 1st edition because you can't win initiative every round this way.
What happens if someone with a reliably high initiative delays until the end of the round, takes their turn, then rolls highest in initiative next round?
|
|
Really? That sounds like a design flaw, either of the encounters (The GM doesn't already know this is possible?) or of the system (Reduce the game to a single die roll).
Are people okay with playing that way? I wouldn't be.
This is not new. It's always been like this ever since D&D was created. Whoever goes first has the chance of casting a powerful spell that ends the encounter immediately. That's why those spells are called Save or Dies/Sucks, because if the save is failed, the encounter is often over.
Entangle
Sleep
Color Spray
Glitterdust
Black Tentacles
Create Pit
Blindness
Stinking Cloud
Slow
etc, and these are just the low end spells, and not blasting spellsEven a 10 INT character knows if the wizard is not leading off with his best spell to end the encounter, it's just bad tactics.
This works for fighting classes as well, although it's usually only 1 target. Back in 3.5, my barbarian would charge, Power Attack/Leap Attack with Shock Trooper and do hundreds of damage easily. If it doesn't kill, the target is usually extremely close to death and is now going to save himself as opposed to trying to hurt my party.
Sure, leading off with your best spell is best tactics, but in my experience, most combats involve opponents who won't just drop to the best spell with no other response from the PCs, unless it's a simple mook mop-up; and that just strikes me as good encounter design. Sure, perhaps rocket tag has always been a possibility in D&D (I've been playing since 1e) but it's always adjustable with some clever design.
I don't like rocket tag, and I try to make sure it doesn't happen. I guess it really is a play style thing that makes Improved Initiative less useful in my campaigns.
It's not about dropping the opponent. It's about doing something effective before they can do something to counter or to you instead. Often times that means dropping the opponent, but not always.
If I knew my opponents use level 3 spells or lower, I can cast Minor Globe when I go first.
If we're facing a party of fire elementals, I can cast Resist Energy/Protection from Energy.
If we are facing an opponent with DR, I can cast a spell to negate or overcome the DR.
Haste greatly increases my party's options and speed.
Stoneskin on my best fighting class against a bunch of normal combatants would be huge.
Silence on an opposing caster. Or if I want, I can ready an action to disrupt another caster by hitting him with a damage spell and force a concentration check.
Flaming Arrow if we surprise a few trolls and we have lots of ranged characters.
Summoners can summon a monster with their SLA if eidolon isn't up for whatever reason. It can attack and provide flanking immediately. Using the ready action to setup brace weapons against a bunch of mounted warriors.
If none of my spells could be effective against the opponent, I can buff my party instead.
Or even just casting a lesser spell on purpose to test the defenses. Like SR, energy resistance, etc. "Oh he has Shield up, hey guys, no more Magic Missiles" or "Oh he has SR, hey guys, consider buff spells on us instead".
Going first is extremely important. What you do with it is equally important, whether it is offensive, defensive, or reactionary/counter.
At higher levels, it becomes rocket tag because of the power levels get to the point where that 1 action does mean life or death. It happens at lower levels as well, but it's much more common at higher levels.
Even in a lower level game, going first can make a huge difference.
Example, I am a level 4 casting focused druid who specializes in controlling the battlefield.
If I go first, I get to drop my entangle on the enemy while they are 50 feet away from the party locking down most of their melee fighters.
If I go second, their melee fighters charge our melee fighters, and now I have to drop the entangle on my friends or find another spell.
This is true of a lot of battlefield control spells. They are a lot more effective when you can drop them before the battlefield becomes chaotic.
The problem with improved init is that it doesn't garentee you go first. Even with a +10 to initiative, the is around a 25% chance you go second against someone with a +0 initiative.
While I think that initiative for some classes is very important (Spellcaster, rouge), I do think that it does get played up in importance by one unrealistic board question. "Who wins in a spell duel?" Take a look at the Lvl 20 Wis Vs Cleric thread. The entire thread is about initiative. Why? Because at lvl 20 their is only 1 round. Combat starts, initiative winner casts time stop, other caster prays that they survive. Spellcasting at high levels is nuclear war, he who strikes first wins.
In the context of a party of adventurers, it is not as important. The fighter does not need awesome initiative and probably wont spend anything on it. The cleric may want initiative but may delay because its better to heal party members from the bottom of the initiative. In the real game high initiative is less black and white, it's important but its not the most important.
In the context of a party of adventurers, it is not as important. The fighter does not need awesome initiative and probably wont spend anything on it. The cleric may want initiative but may delay because its better to heal party members from the bottom of the initiative. In the real game high initiative is less black and white, it's important but its not the most important.
I do agree here. A fighter might benefit from higher initiative(especially an archer or other ranged type), but a melee fighter doesn't really need it. Truthfully a fighter is generally better off following their own casters since that way any buffs will be in effect. Also a fighter will very rarely be able to KO an opponent before a response is possible.
They just get highest initiative next round.What happens if someone with a reliably high initiative delays until the end of the round, takes their turn, then rolls highest in initiative next round?One of the groups I play in rolls for initiative at the beginning of every round, making this feat much more important.Agreed--been doing this since 1st edition because you can't win initiative every round this way.
basically in this system higher initiative gives you the option to go when ever you want because delaying has no repercussions.
|
|
It would be great if Paizo would continue their boxed line, breaking the system into a Basic (1-5), Expert (6-14), and Advanced (15-20) systems. That way the game could be more clearly packaged and focused on the kind of play that those levels of play actually accomplish.
Just FYI, but Lisa and Paizo consider the fracturing of the D&D line to be what killed TSR. Check out her 'story hour' talk on Know Direction.
EDIT: Fixed link, because I'm a moron.
basically in this system higher initiative gives you the option to go when ever you want because delaying has no repercussions.They just get highest initiative next round.What happens if someone with a reliably high initiative delays until the end of the round, takes their turn, then rolls highest in initiative next round?One of the groups I play in rolls for initiative at the beginning of every round, making this feat much more important.Agreed--been doing this since 1st edition because you can't win initiative every round this way.
It also lets someone go twice in a row if they go last in one round and first in the next.
|
|
While I understand the 'good to go first' argument, I have two concerns with taking this particular feat:
A) It's only a +4 (20%) bonus. No guarantees here, at least not without some other input. It also only gets applied once per combat, as opposed to a +hit or +damage that would get applied multiple times per turn. The value is close to the cost, but I'm on the fence.
B) Only one of your adventuring party really needs to have it, unless you're playing a competitive/PvP game. When it comes to 'setting the tone', not all six players are going to be able to do that. So perhaps as a leader-type, yes, you'd want this. But not in general, I wouldn't think.
In ultra high level games, who goes second doesn't matter.
He's already dead.
Having run an ultra high level campaign for two years (levels 14-19, where 16-19 were with Pathfinder rules), I can tell you that at least in my personal experience, this is patently untrue. Absolutely going first can have an advantage but it isn't the be-all, end-all. Enemies at that level will be tough enough to avoid a fullout assault even if the first attacker has a tremendously good first turn. The "first guy wins" tends to assume good die rolls on the part of the attacker and poor ones on the part of the defender.
I can also tell you that the value of Improved Initiative depends a lot on your own die roll luck. In the same game I ran, the players seemed to consistently roll, BEFORE add-ons from Dexterity and Improved Initiative--Rogue: 17-20; Ranger: 15-20; EK: 4-12; Cleric: 2-6. Nearly EVERY TIME (ONCE the cleric rolled over 15, and that was one of the most bizarre, borked fights we played through, as if the nature of the universe itself had turned upside down ;) ). Even if the Cleric had Improved Initiative, she'd never go first, just based on that sheer, bizarre luck. Thing is, the cleric was good at avoiding damage (and the others protecting her)--and a lot of times having her go last was good as she could mop up---either hurt the bad guy for a final blow or heal the rest of the party who got hit hard.
Now, that was just a weird thing in our group--can't predict it would happen again. And who stayed up and who went down was influenced by innumerable circumstances--terrain, visibility, die rolls, how many enemies there were, how easy it was to get into flanking, success of spells going off, etc. etc. etc. So just to say "first guy wins" is an unhelpful overgeneralization---for example, if the "first guy" goes off in the middle of a fog cloud and can't see his opponent, he may not be able to do anything but move to get around. Just a singular example--the point is, such a thing can't be predicted in a game that's constantly affected by ever-shifting variables and circumstances.
Anyway, if you have Improved Initiative and roll a 2, the slow-moving thug who rolled a 20 may well still get to act before you. It CAN help and it CAN be useful. I personally won't take it because I know if I did, I'd never roll higher than a 2 myself. ;) If someone already has a high Dex and takes Improved Initiative, it can be a smart thing to take because even if you roll low, you'll still at the worst case manage to go off in the middle if not first. But it depends a lot on what you want to do, how your party works, and what you want to accomplish with your character.
While I understand the 'good to go first' argument, I have two concerns with taking this particular feat:
A) It's only a +4 (20%) bonus. No guarantees here, at least not without some other input. It also only gets applied once per combat, as opposed to a +hit or +damage that would get applied multiple times per turn. The value is close to the cost, but I'm on the fence.
B) Only one of your adventuring party really needs to have it, unless you're playing a competitive/PvP game. When it comes to 'setting the tone', not all six players are going to be able to do that. So perhaps as a leader-type, yes, you'd want this. But not in general, I wouldn't think.
I don't know that I totally agree to your second point. At least when I talk about 'setting the tone', i'm talking about making actions that dictate what my opponents do. If i'm the only one to do this, and I can't create an action that pretty much negates the movement or aggressive tactics of my targets, I'm pretty much guaranteeing some hefty retribution from those targets before my teammates can get into position to help me out. Often this means that if I open up with something that doesn't disable or otherwise impede retaliation, I've just painted a giant crosshair on my face for all the bad guy mooks to gang-bang on me for one round.
Where-as if a few of my other team-mates also have a really good chance of consistently beating our opponent's initiatives, then they can either take up a position around me to help absorb the shock or take other aggressive actions which should pull some of that heat towards them.
And in either case, an already bleeding group of bad guys has to break on a prepared group of fighters.
As to it only being a 20% boost - meh... that's a call for every player to make. If I'm going to pick up Improved Initiative, it's usually going to be on a character that has a few other marginal boosts to initiative. If I can get that modifier up to +9 or higher... that's when I start really seeing consistent results from my investment.
Note: This does not work in a combat with lots of enemies, however, against the BBEG this is why initiative is important and what a wizard can do with it at lvl 20.
Divination wizard has initiative of ~ 40 +- 3 or so (depends on your dex). He always has this as he can take 20 on the die role.
Round 1: Cast time stop - Cast: Gate (balor), Gate (balor), prismatic sphere.
Step out of your prismatic sphere and watch BBEG squirm against 2 balors in a 10 ft radius sphere that it can not escape.
Thats a typical lvl 20 wizard nuke. Is it practical. Hell No! Does it effectively kill an opponent before they go. Hell Yes and with style!
|
Really? That sounds like a design flaw, either of the encounters (The GM doesn't already know this is possible?) or of the system (Reduce the game to a single die roll).
Are people okay with playing that way? I wouldn't be.
Personally I consider it 'realistic'. (I know, talking realism in a fantasy setting is just inviting catcalls). In real combat in the real world, the guy who goes first will likely win.
For example in a gunfight, if you can draw and shoot quickly and accurately, your opponent goes down before they can do anything back. Or consider a squad in combat, if they pull off a successful ambush, likely they will be able to wipe out the enemy before they can even react. Historically the commander who held the initiative and made the enemy react to his moves would hold a serious advantage.
I don't have any problems with a system that models that. Anyway there's a d20 worth of swing when initiative is rolled, and it is pretty hard to completely overcome that. Of course stacking the modifiers in your favor is worth the trouble though.
I do not agree with your take on real combat, especially when it involves large groups of fighters following their leader's instructions.
Going first would be absolutely necessary to win in a perfect world where everything is known to the competitors.
However, such is not the case in the real world. You devise your strategy and tactics based on what information is available to you and you might be wrong in your interpretation of it. Of course, going first allows you to "set the tone", but if your info is not 100% exact, then your tone might be completely the wrong way to approach the combat.
Initiative is not the game-winner in real combat. Misdirection, intelligence and, most of all, being able to adapt are.
|
I do agree here. A fighter might benefit from higher initiative(especially an archer or other ranged type), but a melee fighter doesn't really need it. Truthfully a fighter is generally better off following their own casters since that way any buffs will be in effect. Also a fighter will very rarely be able to KO an opponent before a response is possible.
Agreed. When playing a fighter I would like to go lower in the initiative, after buffs are started out. Also, at further encounter ranges (outdoor adventures, etc.), a melee fighter usually can't close the distance in one turn. Better to let them come to you when you can counter-charge.
Also, If you don't know what your opponents are (unless you're meta-gaming), it helps to see what they are up to so you can react to them.
Really? That sounds like a design flaw, either of the encounters (The GM doesn't already know this is possible?) or of the system (Reduce the game to a single die roll).
Are people okay with playing that way? I wouldn't be.
Personally I consider it 'realistic'. (I know, talking realism in a fantasy setting is just inviting catcalls). In real combat in the real world, the guy who goes first will likely win.
For example in a gunfight, if you can draw and shoot quickly and accurately, your opponent goes down before they can do anything back. Or consider a squad in combat, if they pull off a successful ambush, likely they will be able to wipe out the enemy before they can even react. Historically the commander who held the initiative and made the enemy react to his moves would hold a serious advantage.
I don't have any problems with a system that models that. Anyway there's a d20 worth of swing when initiative is rolled, and it is pretty hard to completely overcome that. Of course stacking the modifiers in your favor is worth the trouble though.
I do not agree with your take on real combat, especially when it involves large groups of fighters following their leader's instructions.
Going first would be absolutely necessary to win in a perfect world where everything is known to the competitors.
However, such is not the case in the real world. You devise your strategy and tactics based on what information is available to you and you might be wrong in your interpretation of it. Of course, going first allows you to "set the tone", but if your info is not 100% exact, then your tone might be completely the wrong way to approach the combat.
Initiative is not the game-winner in real combat. Misdirection, intelligence and, most of all, being able to adapt are.
I would like to point out that many actions have a lot of slop when it comes to this sort of thing.
"That guy looks like a melee fighter that could tear me a new one. Better cast Fly and move up 40 feet."
Agreed. When playing a fighter I would like to go lower in the initiative, after buffs are started out. Also, at further encounter ranges (outdoor adventures, etc.), a melee fighter usually can't close the distance in one turn. Better to let them come to you when you can counter-charge.
Also, If you don't know what your opponents are (unless you're meta-gaming), it helps to see what they are up to so you can react to them.
I see your point, but I'd rather have that decision to make, which is only possible if you have initiative on your opponent. Often it is beneficial to get the first attack in. Even if it's beneficial to wait, if you beat their initiative, you can still delay. Or, better yet, you can ready something really nasty... an option the guy with a naturally low initiative often does not have.
I do not agree with your take on real combat, especially when it involves large groups of fighters following their leader's instructions.
Going first would be absolutely necessary to win in a perfect world where everything is known to the competitors.
However, such is not the case in the real world. You devise your strategy and tactics based on what information is available to you and you might be wrong in your interpretation of it. Of course, going first allows you to "set the tone", but if your info is not 100% exact, then your tone might be completely the wrong way to approach the combat.
Initiative is not the game-winner in real combat. Misdirection, intelligence and, most of all, being able to adapt are.
This doesn't seem so much an argument against high initiative so much as an argument for an informed, intelligent leader. Those don't seem to be mutually exclusive.
Wouldn't' you want an informed, intelligent leader leading a team of guys who are quick to react?
Pretty much. It wasn't my idea.basically in this system higher initiative gives you the option to go when ever you want because delaying has no repercussions.They just get highest initiative next round.What happens if someone with a reliably high initiative delays until the end of the round, takes their turn, then rolls highest in initiative next round?One of the groups I play in rolls for initiative at the beginning of every round, making this feat much more important.Agreed--been doing this since 1st edition because you can't win initiative every round this way.
Doesn't play out like that for my games because 'reliably' still doesn't mean always. And you may be forgetting it works both ways.
Just going by personal experience though.
All else being equal, going first matters plenty.
It may or may not be everything.
The feat may or may not give you initiative.
But the point of it is: It stacks the odds more in your favor.
If you take I.I., your build had better make use of it. Dwarven melee fighters, for example, don't get as much from initiative.