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.
Yes, other factors are important as well. That's really not a news flash. However, all else being equal, shooting first is pretty damned helpful.
But let's take your concerns about misdirection, intelligence and the ability adapt into game terms.
A)Misdirection: in them game, this is hiding, casting deceptive spells (illusions), or feinting. Having initiative facilitates all of these.
B) Intelligence: if you go first in game terms, you have time to cast divination spells to grant yourself any additional information required to undo the misdirection employed by the enemy.
C) The ability to adapt is also reliant on initiative. You can law down spells which compensate for a situation (elemental protection, battlefield control, haste, slow), or even the ability to simply ready an action.
You really haven't proved my point even vaguely wrong. Now I will admit that initiative won't solve all problems a party might have. There is no buff that can overcome stupid. However, given a decent understanding of the situation by he party (or someone in real life), being able to act before an opponent does is a significant advantage.
|
IMX from 3.5 into PF having a higher initiative really does change the flow of combat at every level, not just higher levels.
Several of my players frequently twink out initiative, having +9 at 1st level isn't abnormal. On average in any encounter where two or more of the PC's roll above average, combats last no longer than 3 rounds. If two or more roll below average a combat will definitely last longer than 5 rounds. In any combat that lasts 5+ rounds it's quite likely at least one PC will drop into negative hit points. YMMV.
--Vrock & Awe
At lower levels going first is important. If i can go before the orc, i can kill him in one shot, meaning that the party takes less damage.
At levels 4-10 where you can't one shot everything that often, its not that important.
After level 12 when the save or dies start sprouting like mushrooms, then you go first or die.
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.
Only 20%? That is pretty big. If you think it is small then calculate your next paycheck after the payroll department messes something up. Another way to look at it is that someone has to roll a 14 to equal your 10.
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.
Nobody is saying it is end all, be all, but it greatly increases your chances of survival if you are the one not taking cover(real world), or healing a status affect(game world).
|
The only type of character that seems to work well going low in the initiative on a regular basis is a cleric or healer type, who really needs to have a round go off before he can determine what type of action he needs to take (healing, bursting, breath of life, restoration, buffing, attacking, summoning, etc). My experience has been that these type of characters usually hold their action if they happen to roll a high initiative anyway.
|
Thief out front. walks into the room to search for traps, OOPS theres monsters.
See monster via Perception; monster doesn't see you due to insane Stealth.
Roll Init.
go first.
Sneak-attack flat-footed monster in surprise round with Quickdrawn/thrown dagger.
Sneak-attack monster again at beginning of regular round.
run behind the fighter.live to loot another day.
Fixed.
"Never send a human rogue to do a halfling's job."