Attn mearls: Melee Weapon Mastery (PHB2)?
Jasin Zujovic
(slashing, bludgeoning, piercing). The requirements are Weapon Focus,
Weapon Specialization and BAB +8.
I'm not even sure it's really a problem, what with all the FIGHTER IS
TEH SUKK going around... but does anyone else find it a bit strange that
a Ftr8 is faced with a choice of Greater Weapon Focus for +1 with one
weapon and Melee Weapon Mastery for +2/+2 with a category of weapons?
Is it supposed to be +1/+2 for the category, non-stackable with Weapon
Focus and Weapon Specialization? That's what I would expect from the
table on p. 72, and I think it would make more sense.
Could you shed some light on this perhaps, Mike? Your name is in the
book and some of the fighter feats sort of seemed to have your signature
on them... :)
--
Jasin Zujovic
Mark Blunden
What is this choice you speak of? The sensible fighter will pick up both
Weapon Mastery and Greater Weapon Focus. And yes, the bonuses all stack.
Much of the praise the PHBII has received is on account of its feat
selection helping to beef up high-level Fighters to keep them competitive
with other classes.
--
Mark Blunden.
Jasin Zujovic
> > It gives +2/+2 to attacks/damage with one category of melee weapons
> > (slashing, bludgeoning, piercing). The requirements are Weapon Focus,
> > Weapon Specialization and BAB +8.
> >
> > I'm not even sure it's really a problem, what with all the FIGHTER IS
> > TEH SUKK going around... but does anyone else find it a bit strange
> > that a Ftr8 is faced with a choice of Greater Weapon Focus for +1
> > with one weapon and Melee Weapon Mastery for +2/+2 with a category of
> > weapons?
> >
> > Is it supposed to be +1/+2 for the category, non-stackable with Weapon
> > Focus and Weapon Specialization? That's what I would expect from the
> > table on p. 72, and I think it would make more sense.
> >
> > Could you shed some light on this perhaps, Mike? Your name is in the
> > book and some of the fighter feats sort of seemed to have your
> > signature on them... :)
>
> What is this choice you speak of? The sensible fighter will pick up both
> Weapon Mastery and Greater Weapon Focus. And yes, the bonuses all stack.
Eventually, yes. But it's still weird that MWM has easier prerequisites
than Greater Weapon Focus and is as good as Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon
Focus and Weapon Specialization combined, for a whole category of
weapons.
> Much of the praise the PHBII has received is on account of its feat
> selection helping to beef up high-level Fighters to keep them competitive
> with other classes.
And MWM doesn't really help with that, since it doesn't encourage people
to take more than 4 levels of fighter.
A Ftr4/Bbn16 is not allowed to take Greater Weapon Focus for that extra
+1, because that's reserved for high-level fighters only, but he's
allowed to take MWM for +2/+2?
MWM as written beefs up 4th-level fighters, not high-level fighters.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Justin Alexander
> > Much of the praise the PHBII has received is on account of its feat
> > selection helping to beef up high-level Fighters to keep them competitive
> > with other classes.
>
> And MWM doesn't really help with that, since it doesn't encourage people
> to take more than 4 levels of fighter.
>
> A Ftr4/Bbn16 is not allowed to take Greater Weapon Focus for that extra
> +1, because that's reserved for high-level fighters only, but he's
> allowed to take MWM for +2/+2?
>
> MWM as written beefs up 4th-level fighters, not high-level fighters.
Sure. But as Mark pointed out, nothing stops you from taking Greater
Weapon Focus later on.
For example, I find your example of the Ftr4/Bbn16 weird. IME, when
you're talking about maximizing for power, no one takes more than a
few levels of barbarian. Once you've got a couple of rages per day,
it's not worth sticking around in the class: You're better off witha
Bbn4/Ftr16 build. And MWM only encourages that.
Which is part of the problem with the new "we need to help the
fighter" fixes: They naturally gravitate towards utilizing the bonus
feats. But this only further screws the poor barbarian.
--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealexandrian.net
tussock
> Is it supposed to be +1/+2 for the category, non-stackable with Weapon
> Focus and Weapon Specialization? That's what I would expect from the
> table on p. 72, and I think it would make more sense.
Ding, ding, ding! We have a *winnah*.
Seems obvious by the wording that it was, at some point in it's
development, supposed to expand the benefits of all your
WF/WS(Greatsword) feats out to all edged weapons. If you've got +2/+4
with Greatsword then all edged weapons should get the same benefit.
Seems a logical and balanced feat. Then they gave up on the notion
of balanced feats for Fighters.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Jasin Zujovic
> > Is it supposed to be +1/+2 for the category, non-stackable with Weapon
> > Focus and Weapon Specialization? That's what I would expect from the
> > table on p. 72, and I think it would make more sense.
>
> Ding, ding, ding! We have a *winnah*.
>
> Seems obvious by the wording that it was, at some point in it's
> development, supposed to expand the benefits of all your
> WF/WS(Greatsword) feats out to all edged weapons. If you've got +2/+4
> with Greatsword then all edged weapons should get the same benefit.
In fact, by my reading, it should be a bit weaker than that: just
benefits of Focus and Specialization, not the Greater versions.
> Seems a logical and balanced feat. Then they gave up on the notion
> of balanced feats for Fighters.
Is aimed at any particular PHB2 feats? And do you think fighters can
wreak more havoc with these feats than a wizard or a cleric using just
the PHB?
--
Jasin Zujovic
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>> Seems obvious by the wording that it was, at some point in it's
>> development, supposed to expand the benefits of all your
>> WF/WS(Greatsword) feats out to all edged weapons. If you've got +2/+4
>> with Greatsword then all edged weapons should get the same benefit.
>
> In fact, by my reading, it should be a bit weaker than that: just
> benefits of Focus and Specialization, not the Greater versions.
True, that's my bias that feats should stack where possible.
>> Seems a logical and balanced feat. Then they gave up on the notion
>> of balanced feats for Fighters.
>
> Is aimed at any particular PHB2 feats?
Many of them are just plain better than the ones in the PHB. If
WotC thought feats were generally too weak (which is a fair argument)
they should've rewritten the weaker core feats.
Dodge: +1 dodge bonus to AC, stacks.
Mobility: No movement AoO from select opponent.
Combat Expertise: Add Int mod as shield bonus to AC when attacking.
Toughness: Add level + 1 HP.
Pokémon: One select animal gains +level/2 AC and HD, shared spells,
and link (~as companion/familiar, replaces Mounted Combat).
PBS: Opponents within 30' are flatfooted vs missile attacks.
Save Focus: +4 to a save type (replaces mettle, evasion).
Extra Attack: light weapon, -5, 1/2 Str. Applies to each additional
light weapon, or Stacks at -5 additional. (replaces TWF, flurry, etc).
Skill Focus: +3 and can always take 10.
Agile: +2 on all Dex skills.
Athletic: +2 on all Str skills.
Alertness: +2 on all Wis skills. etc.
> And do you think fighters can wreak more havoc with these feats than a
> wizard or a cleric using just the PHB?
The best spell uses, IMO, are to buff the grunts, scuff the enemy,
and otherwise manage crowd control. Making the Fighters tougher makes
those spells even better. Such a cooperative party is comfortably ahead
of the core CR system.
A grunt without spell support is screwed, same as always. That is a
feature, not a bug.
Justisaur
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> > tussock wrote:
> >> Seems obvious by the wording that it was, at some point in it's
> >> development, supposed to expand the benefits of all your
> >> WF/WS(Greatsword) feats out to all edged weapons. If you've got +2/+4
> >> with Greatsword then all edged weapons should get the same benefit.
>
> > In fact, by my reading, it should be a bit weaker than that: just
> > benefits of Focus and Specialization, not the Greater versions.
>
> True, that's my bias that feats should stack where possible.
>
> >> Seems a logical and balanced feat. Then they gave up on the notion
> >> of balanced feats for Fighters.
>
> > Is aimed at any particular PHB2 feats?
>
> Many of them are just plain better than the ones in the PHB. If
> WotC thought feats were generally too weak (which is a fair argument)
> they should've rewritten the weaker core feats.
>
> Dodge: +1 dodge bonus to AC, stacks.
Resonable
> Mobility: No movement AoO from select opponent.
Hell, why not just no movement AoOs? (except for entering an
oponent's square perhaps)
> Combat Expertise: Add Int mod as shield bonus to AC when attacking.
Hmm, that' might be a bit much.
> Toughness: Add level + 1 HP.
Already available as Improved Toughness (just doesn't count for prcs/
feats with toughness as a prereq) and still generally not worth it.
Maybe if it were 4 +1 per level HP (as if it were an extra skill)
> Pokémon: One select animal gains +level/2 AC and HD, shared spells,
> and link (~as companion/familiar, replaces Mounted Combat).
LOL. o.k....
> PBS: Opponents within 30' are flatfooted vs missile attacks.
Ouch! That's a bit much.
> Save Focus: +4 to a save type (replaces mettle, evasion).
Hmm... Plenty of people already take Iron Will, etc. Might be a bit
much.
> Extra Attack: light weapon, -5, 1/2 Str. Applies to each additional
> light weapon, or Stacks at -5 additional. (replaces TWF, flurry, etc).
Not bad, TWF & Flurry tend to suck without being high level and
> Skill Focus: +3 and can always take 10.
Hmm... one of the major abilities of a few classes in regards to UMD
anyway. Not sure I'd want to give that away for a single feat. On
the other hand, eh, why not.
> Agile: +2 on all Dex skills.
> Athletic: +2 on all Str skills.
> Alertness: +2 on all Wis skills. etc.
Youch! O.k. the 2 for 2 as is is pretty weak, but that would
definitely fail the would everyone (rogue) take that feat. Maybe just
a +1?
>
> > And do you think fighters can wreak more havoc with these feats than a
> > wizard or a cleric using just the PHB?
When you put it that way... no... although perhaps a wizard with the
+2 to all INT skills & +INT to AC...
> The best spell uses, IMO, are to buff the grunts, scuff the enemy,
> and otherwise manage crowd control. Making the Fighters tougher makes
> those spells even better. Such a cooperative party is comfortably ahead
> of the core CR system.
>
> A grunt without spell support is screwed, same as always. That is a
> feature, not a bug.
>
Very true, something only the grunt in our current game realizes.
(the wizard, sorcerer & druid give minimal support).
- Justisaur
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>> [...] If WotC thought feats were generally too weak (which is a
>> fair argument) they should've rewritten the weaker core feats.
>>
>> Dodge: +1 dodge bonus to AC, stacks.
>
> Resonable
It might be a bit good, but getting rid of the fuss is worth it.
>> Mobility: No movement AoO from select opponent.
>
> Hell, why not just no movement AoOs? (except for entering an
> oponent's square perhaps)
Could do, I was just thinking of taking a piece out of Spring
Attack and moving it up the chain. Skill Focus(Tumble) as below
basically ignores movement AoO's.
>> Combat Expertise: Add Int mod as shield bonus to AC when attacking.
>
> Hmm, that' might be a bit much.
The only ones who'll really benefit are melee focused Wizards and a
few rogues. It costs others a lot to have a high Int, though there's
bound to be a splatbook class that it's unbalanced for.
>> Toughness: Add level + 1 HP.
>
> Already available as Improved Toughness (just doesn't count for prcs/
> feats with toughness as a prereq) and still generally not worth it.
> Maybe if it were 4 +1 per level HP (as if it were an extra skill)
It's one of those feats I wouldn't want to be too tempting: forcing
everyone to take it to be competative would be boring. It's
aesthetically pleasing like that too, same number of HP as having a
larger hit die size.
>> Pokémon: One select animal gains +level/2 AC and HD, shared spells,
>> and link (~as companion/familiar, replaces Mounted Combat).
>
> LOL. o.k....
Could even borrow the Paladin trick of zapping them into a pocket
dimension when they're not wanted (with an extra feat).
>> PBS: Opponents within 30' are flatfooted vs missile attacks.
>
> Ouch! That's a bit much.
Well, only in that high level Rogues are a bit much. I figure it's
a simple use of a standard mechanic, Rogues can already get that damage
bonus and more with flanking, and it's not like stone-throwing halflings
are going to dominate the game even with it.
>> Save Focus: +4 to a save type (replaces mettle, evasion).
>
> Hmm... Plenty of people already take Iron Will, etc. Might be a bit
> much.
Maybe, but weak saves need the help.
>> Extra Attack: light weapon, -5, 1/2 Str. Applies to each additional
>> light weapon, or Stacks at -5 additional. (replaces TWF, flurry, etc).
>
> Not bad, TWF & Flurry tend to suck without being high level and
I also apply it to monsters so that shapechangers need the feats to
use the full natural attack routines, reducing the LA on certain monster
races to suit.
>> Skill Focus: +3 and can always take 10.
>
> Hmm... one of the major abilities of a few classes in regards to UMD
> anyway. Not sure I'd want to give that away for a single feat. On
> the other hand, eh, why not.
Rogues get 3 + Int mod skills to take 10 with with one of their
high level picks. Probably better to give three of them as a feat, and
leave the bonuses to the below.
>> Agile: +2 on all Dex skills.
>> Athletic: +2 on all Str skills.
>> Alertness: +2 on all Wis skills. etc.
>
> Youch! O.k. the 2 for 2 as is is pretty weak, but that would
> definitely fail the would everyone (rogue) take that feat. Maybe just
> a +1?
Rogues only get seven feats by 20th level, so spending some on
their least useful class feature won't always happen. +1 is more like
the standard balance (there's a +1 to all Knowledge skills somewhere),
but they're all pretty weak.
>> A grunt without spell support is screwed, same as always. That is a
>> feature, not a bug.
>
> Very true, something only the grunt in our current game realizes.
> (the wizard, sorcerer & druid give minimal support).
You know you're in trouble when the opposing Wizard puts the /Wall
of Force/ across your escape path and their grunt smiles.
Jim Davies
>Justisaur wrote:
>> tussock wrote:
>
>>> [...] If WotC thought feats were generally too weak (which is a
>>> fair argument) they should've rewritten the weaker core feats.
>>>
>>> Dodge: +1 dodge bonus to AC, stacks.
>>
>> Resonable
>
> It might be a bit good, but getting rid of the fuss is worth it.
It's a pretty common house rule. I do it.
>>> Mobility: No movement AoO from select opponent.
>>
>> Hell, why not just no movement AoOs? (except for entering an
>> oponent's square perhaps)
>
> Could do, I was just thinking of taking a piece out of Spring
>Attack and moving it up the chain. Skill Focus(Tumble) as below
>basically ignores movement AoO's.
I have Mobility give a +4 synergy bonus to Tumble when avoiding AoOs.
Not sure synergy is the right thing.
>>> Combat Expertise: Add Int mod as shield bonus to AC when attacking.
>>
>> Hmm, that' might be a bit much.
>
> The only ones who'll really benefit are melee focused Wizards and a
>few rogues. It costs others a lot to have a high Int, though there's
>bound to be a splatbook class that it's unbalanced for.
Eldritch Knight and so forth?
As a shield bonus, it suggests that people with real shields wouldn't
benefit. Not sure that's the right idea.
>>> PBS: Opponents within 30' are flatfooted vs missile attacks.
>>
>> Ouch! That's a bit much.
>
> Well, only in that high level Rogues are a bit much. I figure it's
>a simple use of a standard mechanic, Rogues can already get that damage
>bonus and more with flanking, and it's not like stone-throwing halflings
>are going to dominate the game even with it.
Doesn't really make sense to me. If I know you're there and am ready
for you, why should I be flat-footed? Besides, it's not a bad feat as
things stand. It applies to all missile weapons, gives +1 H and +1 D
and its only limitation is the range. I can see having Far Shot
increase the Point Blank limit from 30' to 50' or 60'.
>>> Save Focus: +4 to a save type (replaces mettle, evasion).
>>
>> Hmm... Plenty of people already take Iron Will, etc. Might be a bit
>> much.
>
> Maybe, but weak saves need the help.
Replaces mettle and evasion, or replaces LR, IW, GF? Something doesn't
compute.
>>> Extra Attack: light weapon, -5, 1/2 Str. Applies to each additional
>>> light weapon, or Stacks at -5 additional. (replaces TWF, flurry, etc).
>>
>> Not bad, TWF & Flurry tend to suck without being high level and
>
> I also apply it to monsters so that shapechangers need the feats to
>use the full natural attack routines, reducing the LA on certain monster
>races to suit.
OK
>>> Skill Focus: +3 and can always take 10.
Take 10 is pretty hot, as it'll frequently save your having to take up
to 9 skill points (eg for Concentration).
Speaking of which, IMC:
Combat Casting
Allows you to Take 10 on Concentration rolls while on the defensive or
while you are grappling or pinned. Otherwise as PHB.
>>> Agile: +2 on all Dex skills.
>>> Athletic: +2 on all Str skills.
>>> Alertness: +2 on all Wis skills. etc.
>>
>> Youch! O.k. the 2 for 2 as is is pretty weak, but that would
>> definitely fail the would everyone (rogue) take that feat. Maybe just
>> a +1?
>
> Rogues only get seven feats by 20th level, so spending some on
>their least useful class feature won't always happen. +1 is more like
>the standard balance (there's a +1 to all Knowledge skills somewhere),
>but they're all pretty weak.
Some of these (Alertness, Negotiator, Persuasive, Stealthy) are good,
some average to poor (Acrobatic, Agile, Animal Affinity, Magical
Aptitude, Numble Fingers) and some pretty useless (Athletic,
Deceitful, Deft Hands, Diligent, Investigator, Self-Sufficient).
The theory is allegedly that each gives bonuses to one useful skill
and one less useful. But in practice, the less useful one is so
useless that it's better to take Skill Focus for the other one
instead, and that's marginal.
--
Jim or Sarah Davies, but probably Jim
D&D and Star Fleet Battles stuff on http://www.axsm89.dsl.pipex.com
becaue pipex's technical support is crap and so http://www.aaargh.org doesn't work.
Mike Mearls
>
> Seems obvious by the wording that it was, at some point in it's
> development, supposed to expand the benefits of all your
> WF/WS(Greatsword) feats out to all edged weapons. If you've got +2/+4
> with Greatsword then all edged weapons should get the same benefit.
>
Yup, that's the intent.
The issues with the fighter are far beyond the scope of a single post.
I've been pretty busy with work (hence the lack of posts), but the
issues faced by the fighter run pretty deep into the system.
In essence, fighters are shackled to a system of abilities (feats)
that's supposed to serve as a set of customizations/toys that you can
use to make your character unique and fun. It's usually bad to force a
sub-system to take on two, radically different burdens.
- Mike
Arandor
> On Feb 12, 10:21 pm, tussock <s...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Seems obvious by the wording that it was, at some point in it's
> > development, supposed to expand the benefits of all your
> > WF/WS(Greatsword) feats out to all edged weapons. If you've got +2/+4
> > with Greatsword then all edged weapons should get the same benefit.
>
> Yup, that's the intent.
However, as written in PHB2, that is not what it does. It gives a flat
+2 / +2 bonus to-hit / damage to all weapons of the same type. The
bonus is untyped, and without a note like "this does not stack with
(Greater) Weapon Focus / Weapon Specialization", RAW, it *does* stack.
Making it a really, REALLY good feat.
If it was meant not to stack (and I think you're saying here that non-
stacking is intended), all of a sudden it is a much less interesting
feat, but it is *still* strictly better than Greater Weapon Focus,
especially for non-full Fighter types.
Does this mean we can expect errata on the PHB2 coming up soon?
> In essence, fighters are shackled to a system of abilities (feats)
> that's supposed to serve as a set of customizations/toys that you can
> use to make your character unique and fun. It's usually bad to force a
> sub-system to take on two, radically different burdens.
I am unsure what you mean, can you elaborate?
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>> Justisaur wrote:
>>> tussock wrote:
>>>> [...] If WotC thought feats were generally too weak (which is a
>>>> fair argument) they should've rewritten the weaker core feats.
>>>> Combat Expertise: Add Int mod as shield bonus to AC when attacking.
>>> Hmm, that' might be a bit much.
>> The only ones who'll really benefit are melee focused Wizards and a
>> few rogues. It costs others a lot to have a high Int, though there's
>> bound to be a splatbook class that it's unbalanced for.
>
> Eldritch Knight and so forth?
Something like that.
> As a shield bonus, it suggests that people with real shields wouldn't
> benefit. Not sure that's the right idea.
True, and it's not the only way of course. I'm sort of forcing
shields into a push/bash role for the strong, it's the lightly armoured
musketeer and pirate types I want to have the expertise line of tricks.
<sigh> Bonus types.
>>>> PBS: Opponents within 30' are flatfooted vs missile attacks.
>>> Ouch! That's a bit much.
>> Well, only in that high level Rogues are a bit much. I figure it's
>> a simple use of a standard mechanic, Rogues can already get that damage
>> bonus and more with flanking, and it's not like stone-throwing halflings
>> are going to dominate the game even with it.
>
> Doesn't really make sense to me. If I know you're there and am ready
> for you, why should I be flat-footed?
Because it's a game effect I like that's still looking for an
explanation. Missiles too quick to dodge at that range? <shrug>
> Besides, it's not a bad feat as things stand.
Ug. Minor situational bonuses bad. I want a game that gives me +5
once rather than +1 five times. Not that I've gotten far along those
lines yet.
>>>> Save Focus: +4 to a save type (replaces mettle, evasion).
>>> Hmm... Plenty of people already take Iron Will, etc. Might be a bit
>>> much.
>> Maybe, but weak saves need the help.
>
> Replaces mettle and evasion, or replaces LR, IW, GF? Something doesn't
> compute.
Right. Both. There's a house rule to make that work too: making a
save by 10+ means you take no effect (so +4 is roughly as good as
Evasion, and another +4 for Improved Evasion), combined with ridding the
game of weak saves, and lately setting all DCs to HD/3.
>>>> Skill Focus: +3 and can always take 10.
>
> Take 10 is pretty hot, as it'll frequently save your having to take up
> to 9 skill points (eg for Concentration).
Yep. 9 skill points for a feat is ultimately pretty weak, just
getting you an automatic mid or high level ability a little earlier.
I use 2 extra skills (6 + 2/level points) for a feat.
> Speaking of which, IMC:
>
> Combat Casting
> Allows you to Take 10 on Concentration rolls while on the defensive or
> while you are grappling or pinned. Otherwise as PHB.
Looks a good change.
Come to think of it, I don't like the Concentration skill. If they
wanted a spell failure chance there's already a mechanic for that: call
it 20% while suffering ongoing damage, 50% if damaged while casting.
A Combat Casting feat could then just remove AoOs from casting, and
have another feat could cut the remaining failures to 0%/20%.
Tetsubo
>On Feb 16, 2:17 am, "Mike Mearls" <mea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Feb 12, 10:21 pm, tussock <s...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Seems obvious by the wording that it was, at some point in it's
>>>development, supposed to expand the benefits of all your
>>>WF/WS(Greatsword) feats out to all edged weapons. If you've got +2/+4
>>>with Greatsword then all edged weapons should get the same benefit.
>>>
>>>
>>Yup, that's the intent.
>>
>>
>
>However, as written in PHB2, that is not what it does. It gives a flat
>+2 / +2 bonus to-hit / damage to all weapons of the same type. The
>bonus is untyped, and without a note like "this does not stack with
>(Greater) Weapon Focus / Weapon Specialization", RAW, it *does* stack.
>Making it a really, REALLY good feat.
>
>If it was meant not to stack (and I think you're saying here that non-
>stacking is intended), all of a sudden it is a much less interesting
>feat, but it is *still* strictly better than Greater Weapon Focus,
>especially for non-full Fighter types.
>
>Does this mean we can expect errata on the PHB2 coming up soon?
>
>
As I read it, it was untyped and is meant to stack. Which is how I
will rule as a GM... It isn't unbalancing and Fighters need a boost...
>
>
>>In essence, fighters are shackled to a system of abilities (feats)
>>that's supposed to serve as a set of customizations/toys that you can
>>use to make your character unique and fun. It's usually bad to force a
>>sub-system to take on two, radically different burdens.
>>
>>
>
>I am unsure what you mean, can you elaborate?
>
>
>
--
Tetsubo
My page: http://home.comcast.net/~tetsubo/
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)
/_|_\
tussock
> Mike Mearls wrote:
>> In essence, fighters are shackled to a system of abilities (feats)
>> that's supposed to serve as a set of customizations/toys that you can
>> use to make your character unique and fun. It's usually bad to force a
>> sub-system to take on two, radically different burdens.
>
> I am unsure what you mean, can you elaborate?
Looks like feats were only supposed to individualise a character;
like the rather benefit neutral design of Metamagic and Item Creation
feats, and how a great many of the 3.0 combat feats weren't really any
better than an ordinary attack.
Options rather than power. Like Two-Weapon Fighting, no better for
Fighters but eats lots of their feats to let them look cool.
But now they're also being used to ramp up the Fighter's core class
abilities (hit and damage, the revised Power Attack) to keep them
competative at higher levels. They're doing similar things for
multiclassers and other weaker class abilities (like Turn Undead).
So we now have some feats that give equal-power options, and others
that just give power. Guess which ones people take.
I suppose the original idea is better game design too. Characters
start with N fair choices, and each feat can either make that N+1 fair
choices, or one powerful option and N-1 weaker ones.
More options makes for a better game, but only up to the point
where you forget to use them.
Arandor
> Arandor wrote:
> >However, as written in PHB2, that is not what it does. It gives a flat
> >+2 / +2 bonus to-hit / damage to all weapons of the same type. The
> >bonus is untyped, and without a note like "this does not stack with
> >(Greater) Weapon Focus / Weapon Specialization", RAW, it *does* stack.
> >Making it a really, REALLY good feat.
> will rule as a GM... It isn't unbalancing and Fighters need a boost...
As a GM, that's how I ruled it as well (since I agree with the
'fighter types need a boost' line of thinking), but another game where
I am player, the GM did not agree, making it not stack but overlap.
I was not playing the Fighter, but advocating on his behalf (as in, I
recommended the feat). Another player, however, thought it was wayyyy
overpowered. He had a point in that, as written, it is strictly - much
- better than Greater Weapon Focus, and it stacks with that to boot,
so you can take it later anyway.
Hadsil
>
> The best spell uses, IMO, are to buff the grunts, scuff the enemy,
> and otherwise manage crowd control. Making the Fighters tougher makes
> those spells even better. Such a cooperative party is comfortably ahead
> of the core CR system.
>
> A grunt without spell support is screwed, same as always. That is a
> feature, not a bug.
>
> --
> tussock
>
> Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Over on the Wizards boards, this kind of talk just proves fighters
suck and leech off spellcasters for buffs. A spellcaster buffing the
grunt is a waste of resources. I argue against this nonsense, but
that's the "consensus".
Gerald Katz
Arandor
I keep trying to get my players to realize that one well-placed /
haste/ spell would already have a better "damage output" than a /
fireball/, and it protects the party to boot.
However, the barbarian usually just rages and charges in, and the
sorcerer usually forgets he even has /haste/ and shoots /magic
missiles/ instead. Oh, and he's supposed to be an "illusionist". ;-)
Keith Davies
If you're going to do that, have a feat that explicitly extends the
benefits, *not* that provides similar benefits.
Melee Weapon Mastery
Prereq: Weapon Focus, BAB +8
Benefit: Choose a melee weapon type (slashing, bludgeoning, piercing)
containing a weapon you have taken Weapon Focus (and derived feats)
for. You can apply Weapon Focus (and the derived feats) to all
weapons of this type.
Special: You may take this feat more than once, choose a different
melee weapon type each time. Fighters may choose this feat as a
bonus feat.
Wording's a little awkward, but the gist is there. It extends the
benefits of Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and the (IMC: Improved
and) Greater forms of each.
It doesn't give a bigger bonus than any of the other feats, it doesn't
stack with the other feats, it just extends how the other feats are
applied.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Sometimes my brain is a very strange
keith....@kjdavies.org to live in."
keith....@gmail.com -- Dana Smith
http://www.kjdavies.org/
Keith Davies
> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>> tussock wrote:
>
>>> Seems obvious by the wording that it was, at some point in it's
>>> development, supposed to expand the benefits of all your
>>> WF/WS(Greatsword) feats out to all edged weapons. If you've got +2/+4
>>> with Greatsword then all edged weapons should get the same benefit.
>>
>> In fact, by my reading, it should be a bit weaker than that: just
>> benefits of Focus and Specialization, not the Greater versions.
>
> True, that's my bias that feats should stack where possible.
>
>>> Seems a logical and balanced feat. Then they gave up on the notion
>>> of balanced feats for Fighters.
>>
>> Is aimed at any particular PHB2 feats?
>
> Many of them are just plain better than the ones in the PHB. If
> WotC thought feats were generally too weak (which is a fair argument)
> they should've rewritten the weaker core feats.
>
> Dodge: +1 dodge bonus to AC, stacks.
http://www.kjdavies.org/wiki/index.php/Dodge_Feats
> Mobility: No movement AoO from select opponent.
I'm satisfied with it as it is, I'm not a big fan of feats where you
have to choose a target.
> Combat Expertise: Add Int mod as shield bonus to AC when attacking.
This adds up too fast, I think, and precludes the use of Combat
Expertise with a shield. Competence bonus, maybe, if I were to allow
it; I would want it to stack with a shield.
> Toughness: Add level + 1 HP.
I do +1 hp/HD.
> PBS: Opponents within 30' are flatfooted vs missile attacks.
Nasty, that.
> Save Focus: +4 to a save type (replaces mettle, evasion).
Mettle is 'Evasion for Fort saves', yes? I like having Evasion
available, though I changed how it works. Save Focus as you've
suggested it is quite a bit better than Great Fortitude, Iron Will,
Lightning Reflexes.
> Extra Attack: light weapon, -5, 1/2 Str. Applies to each additional
> light weapon, or Stacks at -5 additional. (replaces TWF, flurry, etc).
By 'at -5', you mean '-5 from best attack bonus'? So a Monk12 would
flurry at +9/+4/+4, rather than +8/+8/+3?
Maybe.
> Skill Focus: +3 and can always take 10.
Okay. Might want to add 'and makes the skill a permanent class skill'.
> Agile: +2 on all Dex skills.
> Athletic: +2 on all Str skills.
> Alertness: +2 on all Wis skills. etc.
These are all markedly more powerful than the other skill feats. Which
admittedly are either weak or uninteresting, since they rarely seem to
be taken.
Keith Davies
>
>>> Mobility: No movement AoO from select opponent.
>>
>> Hell, why not just no movement AoOs? (except for entering an
>> oponent's square perhaps)
>
> Could do, I was just thinking of taking a piece out of Spring
> Attack and moving it up the chain. Skill Focus(Tumble) as below
> basically ignores movement AoO's.
Using Tumble this way halves your movement rate, though, unless you take
a -10 penalty.
And I know a bunch of us have talked about having the Tumble check be a
contested check rather than a base DC. Or have the Tumble check result
replace AC against AoP provoked by movement. In some fashion take into
account how good the guy you're trying to tumble past/through is.
>>> Combat Expertise: Add Int mod as shield bonus to AC when attacking.
>>
>> Hmm, that' might be a bit much.
>
> The only ones who'll really benefit are melee focused Wizards and a
> few rogues. It costs others a lot to have a high Int, though there's
> bound to be a splatbook class that it's unbalanced for.
Ranged attacks such as bows, what about ray spells (there's an attack
roll, after all)? It'll be lovely for flanking rogues (most rogues I've
seen in play start with as high an Int score as they can get).
"Add Int modifier as a shield bonus when in melee", perhaps.
>>> A grunt without spell support is screwed, same as always. That is a
>>> feature, not a bug.
>>
>> Very true, something only the grunt in our current game realizes.
>> (the wizard, sorcerer & druid give minimal support).
>
> You know you're in trouble when the opposing Wizard puts the /Wall
> of Force/ across your escape path and their grunt smiles.
"Are you gonna be a good bitch or a bad bitch?"
The question of whether you're going to be the bitch at all has largely
been settled.
Keith Davies
> On the grave of tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> is inscribed:
>
>>Justisaur wrote:
>>> tussock wrote:
>>
>>>> PBS: Opponents within 30' are flatfooted vs missile attacks.
>>>
>>> Ouch! That's a bit much.
>>
>> Well, only in that high level Rogues are a bit much. I figure it's
>>a simple use of a standard mechanic, Rogues can already get that damage
>>bonus and more with flanking, and it's not like stone-throwing halflings
>>are going to dominate the game even with it.
>
> Doesn't really make sense to me. If I know you're there and am ready
> for you, why should I be flat-footed? Besides, it's not a bad feat as
> things stand. It applies to all missile weapons, gives +1 H and +1 D
> and its only limitation is the range. I can see having Far Shot
> increase the Point Blank limit from 30' to 50' or 60'.
In fact, I *reduced* it -- lesser of 30' and one range increment.
Additional feats improve them (lesser of 60' and two range increments,
etc.). This change applies to PBS and to Ranged Sneak Attacks.
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>>> tussock wrote:
>>>> Seems a logical and balanced feat. Then they gave up on the notion
>>>> of balanced feats for Fighters.
>>> Is aimed at any particular PHB2 feats?
>> Many of them are just plain better than the ones in the PHB. If
>> WotC thought feats were generally too weak (which is a fair argument)
>> they should've rewritten the weaker core feats.
>>
>> Dodge: +1 dodge bonus to AC, stacks.
>
> http://www.kjdavies.org/wiki/index.php/Dodge_Feats
Yep. I quite like the concept of your Dodge feats, I just have a
thing about tracking little mods that don't always apply.
>> Mobility: No movement AoO from select opponent.
>
> I'm satisfied with it as it is, I'm not a big fan of feats where you
> have to choose a target.
In general that's true. In this case I figure as it only comes up
when you're moving through a threatened space on your turn, it's a
pretty intuitive tag to place.
>> Toughness: Add level + 1 HP.
>
> I do +1 hp/HD.
Yep, I just wanted it to match having 1 step larger HD.
>> Save Focus: +4 to a save type (replaces mettle, evasion).
>
> Mettle is 'Evasion for Fort saves', yes?
Yep, no effect from Fort partial type saves.
> I like having Evasion available, though I changed how it works.
I reckon just give /everyone/ no damage when they make the save by
10, and let the +4 stack.
> Save Focus as you've suggested it is quite a bit better than Great
> Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes.
Indeed. This was an "if feats were supposed to be good things" post.
>> Extra Attack: light weapon, -5, 1/2 Str. Applies to each additional
>> light weapon, or Stacks at -5 additional. (replaces TWF, flurry, etc).
>
> By 'at -5', you mean '-5 from best attack bonus'? So a Monk12 would
> flurry at +9/+4/+4, rather than +8/+8/+3?
Yes. Though Mnk12 would be +12/+7/+2//+7/+2 instead of +9/+9/+9/+4,
as I give 'em full BAB. Just seems overly fussy design to cut a class's
BAB so you can give 'em extra attacks at no penalty.
Now, if they also go for an off-hand extra (rather than the primary
light weapon represented above) they get another bite at //+7. Far too
much change for most I suppose, but I like the results.
>> Skill Focus: +3 and can always take 10.
>
> Okay. Might want to add 'and makes the skill a permanent class skill'.
True, forgot about that cross-class and skill points stuff. 8]
Jasin Zujovic
> >> Save Focus: +4 to a save type (replaces mettle, evasion).
> >
> > Mettle is 'Evasion for Fort saves', yes?
>
> Yep, no effect from Fort partial type saves.
And Will, IIRC.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Keith Davies
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> tussock wrote:
>>> Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>>>> tussock wrote:
>
>>>>> Seems a logical and balanced feat. Then they gave up on the notion
>>>>> of balanced feats for Fighters.
>>>> Is aimed at any particular PHB2 feats?
>>> Many of them are just plain better than the ones in the PHB. If
>>> WotC thought feats were generally too weak (which is a fair argument)
>>> they should've rewritten the weaker core feats.
>>>
>>> Dodge: +1 dodge bonus to AC, stacks.
>>
>> http://www.kjdavies.org/wiki/index.php/Dodge_Feats
>
> Yep. I quite like the concept of your Dodge feats, I just have a
> thing about tracking little mods that don't always apply.
It probably wouldn't harm anything to fold 'Ranged Dodge' into the
normal Dodge feat, so the bonus applies to all attacks. I liked the
differentiation. That I allow up to +3 through stacking feats, dividing
them was a better way to go for me.
>>> Mobility: No movement AoO from select opponent.
>>
>> I'm satisfied with it as it is, I'm not a big fan of feats where you
>> have to choose a target.
>
> In general that's true. In this case I figure as it only comes up
> when you're moving through a threatened space on your turn, it's a
> pretty intuitive tag to place.
In that you might decide to have the feat disallow AoO for movement for
your turn and be done with it.
IMC that's the Avoidance feat. I forget where I got it, but it's got
stiffer prerequisites (Spring Attack, Combat Expertise, Evasion, and 8
ranks of Tumble).
>>> Toughness: Add level + 1 HP.
>>
>> I do +1 hp/HD.
>
> Yep, I just wanted it to match having 1 step larger HD.
That's how I wrote it up originally -- +1 hp per HD, or bump to the next
larger HD size to a maximum of d12.
>> Save Focus as you've suggested it is quite a bit better than Great
>> Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes.
>
> Indeed. This was an "if feats were supposed to be good things" post.
That just seems a big jump to me.
>>> Extra Attack: light weapon, -5, 1/2 Str. Applies to each additional
>>> light weapon, or Stacks at -5 additional. (replaces TWF, flurry, etc).
>>
>> By 'at -5', you mean '-5 from best attack bonus'? So a Monk12 would
>> flurry at +9/+4/+4, rather than +8/+8/+3?
>
> Yes. Though Mnk12 would be +12/+7/+2//+7/+2 instead of +9/+9/+9/+4,
> as I give 'em full BAB. Just seems overly fussy design to cut a class's
> BAB so you can give 'em extra attacks at no penalty.
I've considered building a 'more martial monk' that uses full BAB, so
that change could work for me.
> Now, if they also go for an off-hand extra (rather than the primary
> light weapon represented above) they get another bite at //+7. Far too
> much change for most I suppose, but I like the results.
So how many attacks total then? Because I was under the impression the
additional attacks granted by Extra Attack did model TWF (attack with
multiple limbs).
Justin Alexander
Keith Davies wrote:
> tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> > Yep. I quite like the concept of your Dodge feats, I just have a
> > thing about tracking little mods that don't always apply.
>
> It probably wouldn't harm anything to fold 'Ranged Dodge' into the
> normal Dodge feat, so the bonus applies to all attacks. I liked the
> differentiation. That I allow up to +3 through stacking feats, dividing
> them was a better way to go for me.
My version of Dodge actually had a flat +1 dodge bonus and you could
take it multiple times and have the bonus stack. None of my players
ever took it more than once. Burning a feat on a +1 bonus to AC just
isn't the best use of a feat.
The only reason anyone ever takes Dodge in my games is to satisfy the
prereqs for other feats.
> > In general that's true. In this case I figure as it only comes up
> > when you're moving through a threatened space on your turn, it's a
> > pretty intuitive tag to place.
>
> In that you might decide to have the feat disallow AoO for movement for
> your turn and be done with it.
That just seems too powerful to me. (And not only because I'm still
trying to eliminate absolutist elements in the game. Everything should
have a natural counter -- by which I mean the counter shouldn't be
another feat in a tag-team of oneupmanship.)
I like Mobility: +4 against AoOs is a pretty nice bonus. It
essentially increases the miss chance by 20%, which means that you're
basically moving around the battlefield as if you had concealment.
> >> Save Focus as you've suggested it is quite a bit better than Great
> >> Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes.
> >
> > Indeed. This was an "if feats were supposed to be good things" post.
>
> That just seems a big jump to me.
Maybe it's just my campaign, but Iron Will and Great Fortitude are
essentially never taken (barring some prereq situations).
Lightning Reflexes, OTOH, is frequently picked up by rogues with
evasion: Being able to completely avoid damage 10% of the time is
worth it for them. Upping that to a +4 boost might be a little too
effective for rogues, although I probably wouldn't sweat it.
Keith Davies
>
> Keith Davies wrote:
>> tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> > Yep. I quite like the concept of your Dodge feats, I just have a
>> > thing about tracking little mods that don't always apply.
>>
>> It probably wouldn't harm anything to fold 'Ranged Dodge' into the
>> normal Dodge feat, so the bonus applies to all attacks. I liked the
>> differentiation. That I allow up to +3 through stacking feats, dividing
>> them was a better way to go for me.
>
> My version of Dodge actually had a flat +1 dodge bonus and you could
> take it multiple times and have the bonus stack. None of my players
> ever took it more than once. Burning a feat on a +1 bonus to AC just
> isn't the best use of a feat.
>
> The only reason anyone ever takes Dodge in my games is to satisfy the
> prereqs for other feats.
It hasn't actually come up in my game -- I extended Dodge IMC while on
hiatus. If I find that no one takes it past the first one (needed as a
prereq) I may soften things to allow easier stacking.
>> > In general that's true. In this case I figure as it only comes up
>> > when you're moving through a threatened space on your turn, it's a
>> > pretty intuitive tag to place.
>>
>> In that you might decide to have the feat disallow AoO for movement for
>> your turn and be done with it.
>
> That just seems too powerful to me. (And not only because I'm still
> trying to eliminate absolutist elements in the game. Everything should
> have a natural counter -- by which I mean the counter shouldn't be
> another feat in a tag-team of oneupmanship.)
As I said, Avoidance is markedly stiffer, requiring Combat Expertise,
Evasion, and 8 ranks in Tumble. It's a fairly powerful ability, being
able to move around the field without provoking AoO.
>> >> Save Focus as you've suggested it is quite a bit better than Great
>> >> Fortitude, Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes.
>> >
>> > Indeed. This was an "if feats were supposed to be good things" post.
>>
>> That just seems a big jump to me.
>
> Maybe it's just my campaign, but Iron Will and Great Fortitude are
> essentially never taken (barring some prereq situations).
>
> Lightning Reflexes, OTOH, is frequently picked up by rogues with
> evasion: Being able to completely avoid damage 10% of the time is
> worth it for them. Upping that to a +4 boost might be a little too
> effective for rogues, although I probably wouldn't sweat it.
Indeed. The only time I've seen the basic save feats taken -- even
before I introduced Improved Fortitude, etc. -- was Lightning Reflexes
by characters with evasion.
Though Dolarn (he of the mighty +1 to Reflex saves -- total -- at fifth
level) was considering it at sixth level (his Ftr4 feat for Weapon
Specialization: Greatsword, his general to Lightning Reflexes in hope
that he'd stop getting set on fire by traps).
tussock
> Maybe it's just my campaign, but Iron Will and Great Fortitude are
> essentially never taken (barring some prereq situations).
I used to see the odd Iron Will in the dumb grunts, but now Brbs
get +4 in class and Fighters have too many other options to bother.
> Lightning Reflexes, OTOH, is frequently picked up by rogues with
> evasion: Being able to completely avoid damage 10% of the time is
> worth it for them. Upping that to a +4 boost might be a little too
> effective for rogues, although I probably wouldn't sweat it.
It replaces Evasion at that, along with making it so a save by 10
negates all effects. Basically the same average. Stacks for Improved
Evasion, much the same for Mettle in effect.
Jasin Zujovic
> > Maybe it's just my campaign, but Iron Will and Great Fortitude are
> > essentially never taken (barring some prereq situations).
>
> I used to see the odd Iron Will in the dumb grunts, but now Brbs
> get +4 in class and Fighters have too many other options to bother.
Huh. My loremaster is taking the +2 Will and +2 Fort secrets for sure,
and I'm seriously considering Iron Will and Great Fortitude on top of
that.
And we're telling the fighter to get Iron Will almost every session,
since almost every session he gets hit by something ugly and mind-
affecting.
--
Jasin Zujovic
tussock
> And I know a bunch of us have talked about having the Tumble check be a
> contested check rather than a base DC. Or have the Tumble check result
> replace AC against AoP provoked by movement. In some fashion take into
> account how good the guy you're trying to tumble past/through is.
I got convinced otherwise eventualy. The guy you're moving past is
busy; the only reason he'd normally get an AoO is that you leave
yourself open to a quick shot. With tumble, you don't do that, there is
no opening.
That, and skills /are/ allowed to work.
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>
>>> Maybe it's just my campaign, but Iron Will and Great Fortitude are
>>> essentially never taken (barring some prereq situations).
>> I used to see the odd Iron Will in the dumb grunts, but now Brbs
>> get +4 in class and Fighters have too many other options to bother.
>
> Huh. My loremaster is taking the +2 Will and +2 Fort secrets for sure,
Well, it's that, the +1 dodge, or the feat. The rest of the table's
nothing great.
> and I'm seriously considering Iron Will and Great Fortitude on top of
> that.
I guess if you're not into metamagic, spell focus/penetration, nor
in need of Precise Shot, Improved Initiative, ....
> And we're telling the fighter to get Iron Will almost every session,
> since almost every session he gets hit by something ugly and mind-
> affecting.
Depends how cheesy the DM's being, but a Hat of Disguise is a cheap
foil to targetted will saves, as is painting on a lot of holy symbols to
pretend you're a Cleric of Kord.
Jasin Zujovic
> >>> Maybe it's just my campaign, but Iron Will and Great Fortitude are
> >>> essentially never taken (barring some prereq situations).
> >> I used to see the odd Iron Will in the dumb grunts, but now Brbs
> >> get +4 in class and Fighters have too many other options to bother.
> >
> > Huh. My loremaster is taking the +2 Will and +2 Fort secrets for sure,
>
> Well, it's that, the +1 dodge, or the feat. The rest of the table's
> nothing great.
+1 to attacks is kind of cool. Stacks with being a pit fiend and divine
power cast from a scroll via UMD. :D
> > and I'm seriously considering Iron Will and Great Fortitude on top of
> > that.
>
> I guess if you're not into metamagic,
Not really. Spells of level X+N seem better than spells of level X with
a +N level metamagic. I've taken Empower because I needed it to qualify
for loremaster and I haven't used it for two levels now.
I do admit that Empower probably wasn't a good choice (Extend or Quicken
probably would've seen use) and I didn't really pay much attention to
the Complete Arcane metamagics...
> spell focus/
Again, not really. My favorite spells so far include telekinesis (the
combat maneuver option), Evard's black tentacles, web, scorching ray...
either stuff without saves, or stuff where making the save doesn't help
that much.
> penetration,
I have Penetration, and I'm planning to take Greater. I also have assay
spell resistance.
> nor in need of Precise Shot,
Again, not really.
> Improved Initiative, ....
I already have that.
Reserve feats look interesting, though. I'll have to check with the DM
if they're OK, but still... not having enough fireballs doesn't kill
people. Fort saves kill people. :)
> > And we're telling the fighter to get Iron Will almost every session,
> > since almost every session he gets hit by something ugly and mind-
> > affecting.
>
> Depends how cheesy the DM's being, but a Hat of Disguise is a cheap
> foil to targetted will saves, as is painting on a lot of holy symbols to
> pretend you're a Cleric of Kord.
Heh. I just might suggest that to the fighter. :)
--
Jasin Zujovic
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>
>>>>> Maybe it's just my campaign, but Iron Will and Great Fortitude are
>>>>> essentially never taken (barring some prereq situations).
>>>> I used to see the odd Iron Will in the dumb grunts, but now Brbs
>>>> get +4 in class and Fighters have too many other options to bother.
>>> Huh. My loremaster is taking the +2 Will and +2 Fort secrets for sure,
>> Well, it's that, the +1 dodge, or the feat. The rest of the table's
>> nothing great.
>
> +1 to attacks is kind of cool. Stacks with being a pit fiend and divine
> power cast from a scroll via UMD. :D
For some reason, that's not the image that first jumps to mind when
one thinks of a sage. 8]
>>> and I'm seriously considering Iron Will and Great Fortitude on top of
>>> that.
>> I guess if you're not into metamagic,
>
> Not really. Spells of level X+N seem better than spells of level X with
> a +N level metamagic. I've taken Empower because I needed it to qualify
> for loremaster and I haven't used it for two levels now.
Empowered /Scorching Ray/ is good, anything Evocation works well
enough depending on the caps and stuff (though I'd say it's more that
Evocation doesn't work well without it). You can even cheese it up with
combos of swift metamagic or rods ontop.
> Reserve feats look interesting, though.
Most of the effects looked like they should be spells.
> I'll have to check with the DM if they're OK, but still... not having
> enough fireballs doesn't kill people. Fort saves kill people. :)
Fort saves don't kill people. d20's kill people. No, wait, is it
people with d20's that kill people? Splatbooks kill people? Hmm. All I
know is that counting the votes would have been undemocratic.
Jasin Zujovic
> >>>>> Maybe it's just my campaign, but Iron Will and Great Fortitude are
> >>>>> essentially never taken (barring some prereq situations).
> >>>> I used to see the odd Iron Will in the dumb grunts, but now Brbs
> >>>> get +4 in class and Fighters have too many other options to bother.
> >>> Huh. My loremaster is taking the +2 Will and +2 Fort secrets for sure,
> >> Well, it's that, the +1 dodge, or the feat. The rest of the table's
> >> nothing great.
> >
> > +1 to attacks is kind of cool. Stacks with being a pit fiend and divine
> > power cast from a scroll via UMD. :D
>
> For some reason, that's not the image that first jumps to mind when
> one thinks of a sage. 8]
I have this thing for warrior-mage types, so even with a true
spellcaster, I still get carried away.
> >>> and I'm seriously considering Iron Will and Great Fortitude on top of
> >>> that.
> >> I guess if you're not into metamagic,
> >
> > Not really. Spells of level X+N seem better than spells of level X with
> > a +N level metamagic. I've taken Empower because I needed it to qualify
> > for loremaster and I haven't used it for two levels now.
>
> Empowered /Scorching Ray/ is good, anything Evocation works well
> enough depending on the caps and stuff
It's OK, but do I want an Empowered scorching ray or Evard's black
tentacles? Do I want an Empowered fireball or telekinesis? So far, I've
been choosing tentacles and telekinesis.
> (though I'd say it's more that
> Evocation doesn't work well without it). You can even cheese it up with
> combos of swift metamagic or rods ontop.
That's a good part of why I haven't used it yet: I have a lesser rod of
Empower.
> > Reserve feats look interesting, though.
>
> Most of the effects looked like they should be spells.
Well, that's the idea: that a prepared (or available-to-cast, for
sorcerers) spell provides you with an inexhaustible source of a weaker
similar effect.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Justin Alexander
tussock wrote:
> I guess if you're not into metamagic, spell focus/penetration, nor
> in need of Precise Shot, Improved Initiative, ....
Hmm.. I've always considered Improved Initiative to be the most
useless feat in the core rulebooks.
Will Green
>
> Hmm.. I've always considered Improved Initiative to be the most
> useless feat in the core rulebooks.
Yeah. I'll buy it for rogues, but that's about it.
-Will
Jasin Zujovic
> > Hmm.. I've always considered Improved Initiative to be the most
> > useless feat in the core rulebooks.
>
> Yeah. I'll buy it for rogues, but that's about it.
Wiz10 facing a Wiz10. I have telekinesis (+17 grapple) and Evard's black
tentacles (+18 grapple) prepared. For all I know, so does he.
I would very much like to go first.
There's also taking to the air or going invisible before the enemies can
act, moving so that the tanks are between me and the enemies if they
came from an unexpected direction...
--
Jasin Zujovic
Marcel Beaudoin
@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net:
Also handy for Dragon Shamans for changing their aura to the proper one for
maximum effectiveness.
--
Marcel
Justin Alexander
Sure. But usually surprise is much more useful than initiative. And
Improved Initiative just isn't that useful in actually helping you to
win initiative: In a situation where you were tied for initiative
modifiers before, it's only a 20% adjustment. Compared to feats that
are useful round after round after round, like Spell Focus for
example, that just isn't any kind of meaningful edge.
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>> I guess if you're not into metamagic, spell focus/penetration, nor
>> in need of Precise Shot, Improved Initiative, ....
>
> Hmm.. I've always considered Improved Initiative to be the most
> useless feat in the core rulebooks.
It's useless if your character isn't the type to contribute to
disabling the enemy. Otherwise, it's about as good as +1 to everything.
--
tussock
Arandor
> At Tue, 20 Mar 2007 22:45:18 GMT, Will Green wrote:
>
> > > Hmm.. I've always considered Improved Initiative to be the most
> > > useless feat in the core rulebooks.
>
> > Yeah. I'll buy it for rogues, but that's about it.
>
> Wiz10 facing a Wiz10. I have telekinesis (+17 grapple) and Evard's black
> tentacles (+18 grapple) prepared. For all I know, so does he.
>
> I would very much like to go first.
Except that is not what Improved Initiative *does*. It gives you a
small bonus that may, or may not, offset that 1d20 roll with its large
variance.
I've seen the -1 Dex dwarf fighter go before the +5 Dex-and-Improved-
Initiative elf way too many times to like the feat.
In your scenario, I'd rather have metamagic feats that allows me to
cast spells while grappled easier, have extra spell slots, spell
known. Or more hit points to survive grapple longer, or some feat that
is useful in another scenario (I haven't seen wizard duels IMC)...
ANYTHING, except Improved Initiative.
> There's also taking to the air or going invisible before the enemies can
> act, moving so that the tanks are between me and the enemies if they
> came from an unexpected direction...
You don't need to go first for that. It's handy, but unlike first
level or if all enemies you face have pounce and start within charging
range and from that unexpected direction (you're not standing in the
front line, so if the party knows what it's doing, the majority of
your encounters should be from the front).
Nope, ImpInit still doesn't look useful. I'd rather go for something
that actually does what it advertises.
(Then again, dice are random, and randomness is evil, so it could be
that.)
Jasin Zujovic
> > > > Hmm.. I've always considered Improved Initiative to be the most
> > > > useless feat in the core rulebooks.
> >
> > > Yeah. I'll buy it for rogues, but that's about it.
> >
> > Wiz10 facing a Wiz10. I have telekinesis (+17 grapple) and Evard's black
> > tentacles (+18 grapple) prepared. For all I know, so does he.
> >
> > I would very much like to go first.
>
> Except that is not what Improved Initiative *does*. It gives you a
> small bonus that may, or may not, offset that 1d20 roll with its large
> variance.
Hey, people take Spell Focus, Weapon Focus and Dodge and those are only
+1 to a d20.
> I've seen the -1 Dex dwarf fighter go before the +5 Dex-and-Improved-
> Initiative elf way too many times to like the feat.
>
> In your scenario, I'd rather have metamagic feats that allows me to
> cast spells while grappled easier,
That one costs extra spell levels.
> have extra spell slots,
That one is horribly inefficient, since it gives you a single extra
slot, which stays at the level where you put it forever and slowly
becomes less and less useful.
> spell known.
The one I know that helps with this is pretty good, I'll give you that.
> Or more hit points to survive grapple longer,
What, +3 from Toughness? :)
> or some feat that
> is useful in another scenario (I haven't seen wizard duels IMC)...
This wizard showdown was an actual situation from last session. It
wasn't a real wizard's duel, just a fight between two parties, and they
had a wizard. And it was the wizard that worried me the most. The
fighter would have needed some exceedingly lucky rolls to put me out of
comission instantly, the wizard could have had many ways to do it.
> ANYTHING, except Improved Initiative.
It doesn't sound like I'll be able to convince you. :)
> > There's also taking to the air or going invisible before the enemies can
> > act, moving so that the tanks are between me and the enemies if they
> > came from an unexpected direction...
>
> You don't need to go first for that. It's handy, but unlike first
> level or if all enemies you face have pounce and start within charging
> range and from that unexpected direction (you're not standing in the
> front line, so if the party knows what it's doing, the majority of
> your encounters should be from the front).
But as you say, it's handy. Handy enough in enough situations that it
feels like very much a worthwhile investment.
> Nope, ImpInit still doesn't look useful. I'd rather go for something
> that actually does what it advertises.
Well, it improves your initiative... it's not called Win Initiative. :)
> (Then again, dice are random, and randomness is evil, so it could be
> that.)
But there's a lot of that going on in D&D, and not just with initiative,
no?
--
Jasin Zujovic
Jasin Zujovic
> > > > Hmm.. I've always considered Improved Initiative to be the most
> > > > useless feat in the core rulebooks.
> > >
> > > Yeah. I'll buy it for rogues, but that's about it.
> >
> > Wiz10 facing a Wiz10. I have telekinesis (+17 grapple) and Evard's black
> > tentacles (+18 grapple) prepared. For all I know, so does he.
> >
> > I would very much like to go first.
> >
> > There's also taking to the air or going invisible before the enemies can
> > act, moving so that the tanks are between me and the enemies if they
> > came from an unexpected direction...
>
> Sure. But usually surprise is much more useful than initiative.
But there's no Improved Surprise feat. :)
> And
> Improved Initiative just isn't that useful in actually helping you to
> win initiative: In a situation where you were tied for initiative
> modifiers before, it's only a 20% adjustment. Compared to feats that
> are useful round after round after round, like Spell Focus for
> example, that just isn't any kind of meaningful edge.
How so? A first strike from a wizard can disable multiple opponents, at
least for the time being (with stuff like glitterdust, web, Evard's
black tentacles, solid fog, mass suggestion), or it can prevent a
similar strike from the enemy until the party is better prepared (globe
of invulnerability, wall of force).
Being able to do that an extra 20% or so of the time seems worth a feat
to me.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Arandor
> At 21 Mar 2007 01:44:22 -0700, Arandor wrote:
> > Except that is not what Improved Initiative *does*. It gives you a
> > small bonus that may, or may not, offset that 1d20 roll with its large
> > variance.
>
> Hey, people take Spell Focus, Weapon Focus and Dodge and those are only
> +1 to a d20.
But you make those rolls (or force the rolls on others in the case of
Spell Focus) a lot more often, every single combat, and the feats you
mention are also, in core, prerequisites to other things.
Spell Focus -> Greater Spell Focus (and access to Archmage)
Weapon Focus -> Greater Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization
Dodge -> Mobility, Spring Attack
And, attacking with a weapon or spell is not an 'opposed roll' (not
the correct term) like rolling for initiative is. If you have a decent
Dex, Improved Initiative and roll OK-ish, you are still going to be
beaten by somebody with a low Dex and no Improved Initiative who
happens to roll a natural 20 for his initiative check. But if I roll a
natural 15+, I was going to beat the guy WITH OR WITHOUT Improved
Initiative ANYWAY.
With weapons, I just roll, get as many modifiers as possible, and
Weapon Focus is just one of them. For my save DCs, Spell Focus is a +1
to what my opponent has to roll against my static, but now higher, DC.
The merits and demerits of Dodge have already been discussed a couple
of times. :-)
> That one costs extra spell levels.
Still better than ImpInit. IMHO of course.
> That one is horribly inefficient, since it gives you a single extra
> slot, which stays at the level where you put it forever and slowly
> becomes less and less useful.
An extra spell is still better than ImpInit. IMHO of course.
> What, +3 from Toughness? :)
Ok... maybe Improved Initiative is not the worst feat. (Note that I
was not the one who said Improved Initiative is the worst feat ever;
just that I'd never take it. Same goes for Toughness.)
> This wizard showdown was an actual situation from last session. It
> wasn't a real wizard's duel, just a fight between two parties, and they
> had a wizard. And it was the wizard that worried me the most. The
> fighter would have needed some exceedingly lucky rolls to put me out of
> comission instantly, the wizard could have had many ways to do it.
Being grappled by /Telekinesis/ or /Black Tentacles/ is not "out of
commission instantly" for any Wizard worth his salt.
> It doesn't sound like I'll be able to convince you. :)
Oh, certainly nope - but I'm aware it's fully IMHO, you're of course
free to feel that it's actually worth something.
> But as you say, it's handy. Handy enough in enough situations that it
> feels like very much a worthwhile investment.
Other feats feel more handy, in more situations. To me.
> Well, it improves your initiative... it's not called Win Initiative. :)
If I still go last, it hasn't been improved... ;-) Maybe it should be
renamed to "slightly less chance of not being the last to act, if
you're not going up against fast enemies" but that's such a mouthful.
Remember, you do not win by going FIRST, you win by going LAST. If
somebody is still going after you, you haven't won yet.
> But there's a lot of that going on in D&D, and not just with initiative,
> no?
Way too much. ;-) I still can not fathom why so many players actually
pick up the dice when I say "make a <insert skill here>" check. I make
sure that Take 10 suffices for what I want, then I refuse to roll.
Barring that, I will get as much boosts as possible, so that I will
make it on a 1+ anyway, and still refuse to roll.
Last session, I actually had to be reminded of the POSSIBILITY to roll
for Spell Penetration. I have Arcane Mastery for my Warlock, and was
so used to declaring "I beat SR 22" without rolling that when we came
across something with SR > 22, I really had it in my head that I COULD
NOT defeat that SR. When I actuall had to roll 13+.
Which, according to some people, is actually possible with a d20. ;-)
Jasin Zujovic
> > This wizard showdown was an actual situation from last session. It
> > wasn't a real wizard's duel, just a fight between two parties, and they
> > had a wizard. And it was the wizard that worried me the most. The
> > fighter would have needed some exceedingly lucky rolls to put me out of
> > comission instantly, the wizard could have had many ways to do it.
>
> Being grappled by /Telekinesis/ or /Black Tentacles/ is not "out of
> commission instantly" for any Wizard worth his salt.
What are you thinking of?
In this particular case, the wizard escaped with dimension door. So I
just grappled him again. :)
> > But there's a lot of that going on in D&D, and not just with initiative,
> > no?
>
> Way too much. ;-) I still can not fathom why so many players actually
> pick up the dice when I say "make a <insert skill here>" check. I make
> sure that Take 10 suffices for what I want, then I refuse to roll.
>
> Barring that, I will get as much boosts as possible, so that I will
> make it on a 1+ anyway, and still refuse to roll.
>
> Last session, I actually had to be reminded of the POSSIBILITY to roll
> for Spell Penetration. I have Arcane Mastery for my Warlock, and was
> so used to declaring "I beat SR 22" without rolling that when we came
> across something with SR > 22, I really had it in my head that I COULD
> NOT defeat that SR. When I actuall had to roll 13+.
>
> Which, according to some people, is actually possible with a d20. ;-)
Heh.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Justin Alexander
> At 21 Mar 2007 01:44:22 -0700, Arandor wrote:
> > Except that is not what Improved Initiative *does*. It gives you a
> > small bonus that may, or may not, offset that 1d20 roll with its large
> > variance.
>
> Hey, people take Spell Focus, Weapon Focus and Dodge and those are only
> +1 to a d20.
The d20 in question is relatively important when discussing these
things. During the course of any given combat, you will frequently
have people trying to hit you (Dodge), make a saving throw against
your spells (Spell Focus), or make an attack roll (Weapon Focus).
Those are feats that give and give and give -- even if you don't fix
the Dodge feat (which, in the RAW, is nearly as useless as Improved
Initiative, except that it serves as a meaningful prereq).
OTOH, you only make one initiative check. This initiative check will
frequently make no difference whatsoever, and after the first round of
combat it's essentially irrelevant.
--
Justin Alexander
http://www.thealeandrian.net
Keith Davies
> At 21 Mar 2007 01:44:22 -0700, Arandor wrote:
>
>> > > > Hmm.. I've always considered Improved Initiative to be the most
>> > > > useless feat in the core rulebooks.
>> >
>> > > Yeah. I'll buy it for rogues, but that's about it.
>> >
>> > Wiz10 facing a Wiz10. I have telekinesis (+17 grapple) and Evard's black
>> > tentacles (+18 grapple) prepared. For all I know, so does he.
>> >
>> > I would very much like to go first.
>>
>> Except that is not what Improved Initiative *does*. It gives you a
>> small bonus that may, or may not, offset that 1d20 roll with its large
>> variance.
>
> Hey, people take Spell Focus, Weapon Focus and Dodge and those are only
> +1 to a d20.
They also apply pretty frequently -- every time you use an applicable
spell, almost every time you make an attack (you did take Weapon Focus
for the weapon you use all the time, right?), every time you get into
melee (and as a prereq for other *good* stuff).
>> have extra spell slots,
>
> That one is horribly inefficient, since it gives you a single extra
> slot, which stays at the level where you put it forever and slowly
> becomes less and less useful.
I changed it to "+1 spell per day, constrained list" (usually by school
or domain or the like). It can be of any level and goes up as you do.
Take it at first level, it works on cantrips and first-level spells (of
the chosen type). When you're 20th level, you use it on ninth-level
spells (of the chosen type).
Jasin Zujovic
> >> > > > Hmm.. I've always considered Improved Initiative to be the most
> >> > > > useless feat in the core rulebooks.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yeah. I'll buy it for rogues, but that's about it.
> >> >
> >> > Wiz10 facing a Wiz10. I have telekinesis (+17 grapple) and Evard's black
> >> > tentacles (+18 grapple) prepared. For all I know, so does he.
> >> >
> >> > I would very much like to go first.
> >>
> >> Except that is not what Improved Initiative *does*. It gives you a
> >> small bonus that may, or may not, offset that 1d20 roll with its large
> >> variance.
> >
> > Hey, people take Spell Focus, Weapon Focus and Dodge and those are only
> > +1 to a d20.
>
> They also apply pretty frequently -- every time you use an applicable
> spell, almost every time you make an attack (you did take Weapon Focus
> for the weapon you use all the time, right?), every time you get into
> melee (and as a prereq for other *good* stuff).
Agreed, a simple +1 vs. +4 comparison isn't fair. I just wanted to point
out that the fact that d20 has a large variance compared to the bonus
from ImpInit isn't conclusive argument that the feat isn't useful.
> >> have extra spell slots,
> >
> > That one is horribly inefficient, since it gives you a single extra
> > slot, which stays at the level where you put it forever and slowly
> > becomes less and less useful.
>
> I changed it to "+1 spell per day, constrained list" (usually by school
> or domain or the like). It can be of any level and goes up as you do.
> Take it at first level, it works on cantrips and first-level spells (of
> the chosen type). When you're 20th level, you use it on ninth-level
> spells (of the chosen type).
I probably wouldn't take this very often, but I'd definitely consider
it, unlike the WotC version.
What's your opinion on Improved Initiative? Useful? Not? Have you
changed it IYC?
--
Jasin Zujovic
Jasin Zujovic
> > > Except that is not what Improved Initiative *does*. It gives you a
> > > small bonus that may, or may not, offset that 1d20 roll with its large
> > > variance.
> >
> > Hey, people take Spell Focus, Weapon Focus and Dodge and those are only
> > +1 to a d20.
>
> The d20 in question is relatively important when discussing these
> things. During the course of any given combat, you will frequently
> have people trying to hit you (Dodge), make a saving throw against
> your spells (Spell Focus), or make an attack roll (Weapon Focus).
> Those are feats that give and give and give -- even if you don't fix
> the Dodge feat (which, in the RAW, is nearly as useless as Improved
> Initiative, except that it serves as a meaningful prereq).
>
> OTOH, you only make one initiative check. This initiative check will
> frequently make no difference whatsoever,
How do you mean?
Or do you mean that the +4 from the feat might not make a difference?
> and after the first round of combat it's essentially irrelevant.
You're still that one step ahead, even if no-one keeled over in the
first round.
It's like that South Park episode with roshambo (sp?): I kick you in the
nuts, then you kick me in the nuts, then we go all over again, last man
standing wins.
OK, I realize that at any point in time you've taken, at best, one
action more than the opponent, no matter how good you are at initiative.
But going first initiative often means the enemies have to respond to
your actions instead the other way around, which I think is a definite
advantage, albeit one that's hard to measure objectively. Open up with a
good dispel, and their next action might be to put an essential
protection back up rather than doing something offensive. Something like
wall of fire or cloudkill might influence their movement decisions. You
might put up something like a wall of force or a globe of
invulnerability which can make their planned offensive action not worth
the bother or impossible.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Keith Davies
About where I was with it. The WotC wasn't terribly useful. Lower than
your current best spell and doesn't scale? Either you take it early and
it's more or less wasted, or you wait, and wait, and wait, and finally
get it and you still can't use it with your best spells.
> What's your opinion on Improved Initiative? Useful? Not? Have you
> changed it IYC?
I haven't changed it. It hasn't come up as a consideration, though.
I've seen some characters take it, but I don't remember anyone
complaining about it. It's usually gone on characters that were
probably going to go first *anyway*, so I don't remember it making a big
difference.
Overall I'm inclined to think there is usually something more useful or
interesting to take.
Justin Alexander
> At 21 Mar 2007 09:44:17 -0700, Justin Alexander wrote:
> > OTOH, you only make one initiative check. This initiative check will
> > frequently make no difference whatsoever,
>
> How do you mean?
>
> Or do you mean that the +4 from the feat might not make a difference?
I mean that initiative results frequently have little or no impact on
how a combat plays out.
IME, Spot and Listen checks usually mean that either:
(a) One side or the other has surprise, in which case having that
surprise is vastly more important than having initiative in the next
round.
(b) Both sides are aware of the other in such a way that one or two
rounds of preparation and/or action have already taken place before
the first blows are struck. Which means that, with readied and delayed
actions, the original initiative check results have already been wiped
out.
This isn't true in every combat. But it's true in enough situations
that the already questionable utility of Improved Initiative is
further eroded.
Now, if Improved Initiative were to offer, say, a +10 bonus to
initiative, that might be worth it. You'd still be looking at
situations where your vast edge in iniitiative doesn't always win the
day, but it does mean that at least picking up the feat gives you a
meaningful edge on a reliable basis.
But I don't do this because so many monsters are given Improved
Initiative as one of their feats by default. It would mean that
monsters would systematically have a huge edge in initiative in a way
that doesn't make sense. It's a house rule that would probably be an
improvement, but is too much of a hassle to implement.
Jasin Zujovic
> > > OTOH, you only make one initiative check. This initiative check will
> > > frequently make no difference whatsoever,
> >
> > How do you mean?
> >
> > Or do you mean that the +4 from the feat might not make a difference?
>
> I mean that initiative results frequently have little or no impact on
> how a combat plays out.
>
> IME, Spot and Listen checks usually mean that either:
>
> (a) One side or the other has surprise, in which case having that
> surprise is vastly more important than having initiative in the next
> round.
>
> (b) Both sides are aware of the other in such a way that one or two
> rounds of preparation and/or action have already taken place before
> the first blows are struck. Which means that, with readied and delayed
> actions, the original initiative check results have already been wiped
> out.
How do you mean wiped out? If both sides spend an equal amount of time
in preparation, the guy who won initiative still gets to go first. If
the guy who won initiative spends one round extra, the other guy gets to
go first, but the guy who won initiative has one round extra worth of
preparations.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Arandor
That's what delay (doesn't often happen), refocus (hardly ever
happens) and ready (happens frequently) are for.
After round 1, initiative is just "the order in which we go". Nothing
more, nothing less.
On top of that, as somebody else pointed out, many monsters get
Improved Initiative, so you still don't win even if you DO roll high
and you DO have Improved Initiative.
Yay, the monster (which is going to die in this encounter ANYWAY) has
gotten one charge in. He actually got to roll once and, wow, even
maybe hit. Inflict some damage.
Then everybody else goes, and the monster dies, along with his
Improved Initiative feat.
Perhaps he would've been more of a challenge if he got another feat
instead? ;-) Answer: no, he still dies anyway - luckily for him, he
does not have to have to value his feats for an adventuring career,
his feats only have to matter ONE combat, the one in which he dies.
For MONSTERS, Improved Initiative makes some sense, strictly from a
gaming point of view. For PCs, nah.
Jasin Zujovic
> > > (b) Both sides are aware of the other in such a way that one or two
> > > rounds of preparation and/or action have already taken place before
> > > the first blows are struck. Which means that, with readied and delayed
> > > actions, the original initiative check results have already been wiped
> > > out.
> >
> > How do you mean wiped out? If both sides spend an equal amount of time
> > in preparation, the guy who won initiative still gets to go first. If
> > the guy who won initiative spends one round extra, the other guy gets to
> > go first, but the guy who won initiative has one round extra worth of
> > preparations.
>
> That's what delay (doesn't often happen), refocus (hardly ever
> happens) and ready (happens frequently) are for.
I didn't quite catch your meaning with this. Delay makes you go later,
not first. Ready lets you interrupt (and go first) but only if you have
declared readying, and to do that, you had to go first. And if I'm not
mistaken, refocus isn't there anymore in 3.5.
> After round 1, initiative is just "the order in which we go". Nothing
> more, nothing less.
Right. And whatever blows were traded in any previous round, in the
current one I wouldn't mind at all going first and blasting the guy with
disintegrate, or grappling him with Evard's black tentacles, and ending
it, before he gets the chance to do the same.
> On top of that, as somebody else pointed out, many monsters get
> Improved Initiative, so you still don't win even if you DO roll high
> and you DO have Improved Initiative.
Oh come on. What's the highest initiative modifier in the MM? Balor has
+11, pit fiend has +12. That's pretty tough to beat even with Improved
Initiative if you're not a rogue or other Dex-focused type... but it's
still a better odds than without ImpInit! A Dex 14 wizard with ImpInit
can expect to win against a balor 91 times out of 400. Without, it goes
down to 36/400. I'd much prefer the first odds, especially since balor
is exactly the sort of monster against which that one opening round can
be extremely deadly.
What's your opinion, what would be a fair bonus for a ImpInit feat? +8?
+20? Or is initiative simply irrelevant?
--
Jasin Zujovic
Arandor
> I didn't quite catch your meaning with this. Delay makes you go later,
> not first. Ready lets you interrupt (and go first) but only if you have
> declared readying, and to do that, you had to go first. And if I'm not
> mistaken, refocus isn't there anymore in 3.5.
Delay lets you shuffle things around - IME, the fighter types often
delay until after the wizard, so he can get /Haste/ or some other buff
off.
Ready lets you go first the *next* round.
> Right. And whatever blows were traded in any previous round, in the
> current one I wouldn't mind at all going first and blasting the guy with
> disintegrate, or grappling him with Evard's black tentacles, and ending
> it, before he gets the chance to do the same.
So use ready. Or just cast the spell in the first place. After
everyone has gone, it is cyclic, there is no 'first' anymore.
> Oh come on. What's the highest initiative modifier in the MM? Balor has
> +11, pit fiend has +12. That's pretty tough to beat even with Improved
> Initiative if you're not a rogue or other Dex-focused type... but it's
> still a better odds than without ImpInit! A Dex 14 wizard with ImpInit
> can expect to win against a balor 91 times out of 400. Without, it goes
> down to 36/400. I'd much prefer the first odds, especially since balor
> is exactly the sort of monster against which that one opening round can
> be extremely deadly.
Or just don't beat it. Surprise it. At 20th level there are options to
do so. Survive first round (come on, /Meteor Swarm/ is a JOKE.)
> What's your opinion, what would be a fair bonus for a ImpInit feat? +8?
> +20? Or is initiative simply irrelevant?
After round 1, it's irrelevant. 99 times out of 100, it's also
irrelevant in round 1. That's IMHO and IME.
I just don't take the feat unless it's a prereq for something juicier.
Like, if I play an epic fighter and I want Dire Charge.
Jasin Zujovic
> > I didn't quite catch your meaning with this. Delay makes you go later,
> > not first. Ready lets you interrupt (and go first) but only if you have
> > declared readying, and to do that, you had to go first. And if I'm not
> > mistaken, refocus isn't there anymore in 3.5.
>
> Delay lets you shuffle things around -
One way only.
> IME, the fighter types often
> delay until after the wizard, so he can get /Haste/ or some other buff
> off.
See? If the wizard has Improved Initiative, perhaps the fighter won't
need to delay (and give the opponent the chance to drain resources,
whether by making himself harder to hurt or by hurting someone in the
party).
> Ready lets you go first the *next* round.
But to go before the other guy using ready, you have to declare that
you're readying before him, which means you have to go before him
anyway.
Ready doesn't let you go sooner, it lets you go just in time to
interrupt something that happens later than you would have gone if you
didn't ready.
> > Right. And whatever blows were traded in any previous round, in the
> > current one I wouldn't mind at all going first and blasting the guy with
> > disintegrate, or grappling him with Evard's black tentacles, and ending
> > it, before he gets the chance to do the same.
>
> So use ready.
To do that before he hits me with his spell, I need to go first.
> Or just cast the spell in the first place.
To do that before he hits me with his spell, I need to go first.
> After everyone has gone, it is cyclic, there is no 'first' anymore.
After everyone has gone, the guy who has gone first goes first for the
second time. If it takes to hits to bring the opponent down, and two
hits to bring you down, going first for the second time wins the fight.
> > Oh come on. What's the highest initiative modifier in the MM? Balor has
> > +11, pit fiend has +12. That's pretty tough to beat even with Improved
> > Initiative if you're not a rogue or other Dex-focused type... but it's
> > still a better odds than without ImpInit! A Dex 14 wizard with ImpInit
> > can expect to win against a balor 91 times out of 400. Without, it goes
> > down to 36/400. I'd much prefer the first odds, especially since balor
> > is exactly the sort of monster against which that one opening round can
> > be extremely deadly.
>
> Or just don't beat it. Surprise it. At 20th level there are options to
> do so.
Winning initiative is better than having surprise and losing initiative.
Of course, having surprise and winning initiative is best, but you seem
to be saying that trying to get surprise is worthwhile, but trying to
win initiative isn't, which I found strange, if that is indeed your
opinion.
> Survive first round (come on, /Meteor Swarm/ is a JOKE.)
Blasphemy isn't.
> > What's your opinion, what would be a fair bonus for a ImpInit feat? +8?
> > +20? Or is initiative simply irrelevant?
>
> After round 1, it's irrelevant. 99 times out of 100, it's also
> irrelevant in round 1. That's IMHO and IME.
>
> I just don't take the feat unless it's a prereq for something juicier.
> Like, if I play an epic fighter and I want Dire Charge.
Would you mind if the DM ruled that you always lost initiative? Everyone
else simply goes first?
--
Jasin Zujovic
Keith Davies
> At 26 Mar 2007 02:47:19 -0700, Arandor wrote:
>
>> After everyone has gone, it is cyclic, there is no 'first' anymore.
>
> After everyone has gone, the guy who has gone first goes first for the
> second time. If it takes to hits to bring the opponent down, and two
> hits to bring you down, going first for the second time wins the fight.
So roll initiative every round. Over time, the bonuses to initiative
will make a greater difference.
Arandor
> One way only.
Initiative is cyclic. After 'the first one' has gone, guess who is now
'first'?
> See? If the wizard has Improved Initiative, perhaps the fighter won't
> need to delay (and give the opponent the chance to drain resources,
> whether by making himself harder to hurt or by hurting someone in the
> party).
Perhaps, perhaps not. *shrug* The fighter may very well have a higher
Dex than the wizard, partly negating his Improved Initiative boost.
Delay ALWAYS lets you pick the order. You want the Wizard to go first?
If he happened to roll higher, let him wait. If not, well, guess you
don't have to do anything. And you save yourself a feat.
> But to go before the other guy using ready, you have to declare that
> you're readying before him, which means you have to go before him
> anyway.
Let him go. Guess who is 'first' now? Exactly. Initiative is cyclic.
After the first round, nothing matters, you can pick the order
yourself.
> To do that before he hits me with his spell, I need to go first.
Take a feat to let you survive the spell. Then go 'first' after he has
gone.
> After everyone has gone, the guy who has gone first goes first for the
> second time. If it takes to hits to bring the opponent down, and two
> hits to bring you down, going first for the second time wins the fight.
Nope - after he has gone, you ready if you want to interrupt him. See?
You go 'first'.
> Winning initiative is better than having surprise and losing initiative.
> Of course, having surprise and winning initiative is best, but you seem
> to be saying that trying to get surprise is worthwhile, but trying to
> win initiative isn't, which I found strange, if that is indeed your
> opinion.
Gaining surprise is something you have MORE influence on than the way-
too-random initiative roll. Improved Initiative just doesn't cut it,
there are many more useful feats out there.
> Blasphemy isn't.
At that level? Yep it is. What, you did PREPARE, right?
> Would you mind if the DM ruled that you always lost initiative? Everyone
> else simply goes first?
Not terribly much, no. I see it happen all the time anyway.
Now, if he just takes something away from me "no, no matter what, you
go last" instead of rolling for initiative so I have a chance, no
matter how small, I might actually go first once in a blue moon... I'd
wonder "hey, don't I get something back in return?"
But I'm not going to invest in a feat that gives me a small bonus to
something that may, or may not, matter the first round. Because the
first round just isn't that important - compared to what I can do in
more than one round.
IME, the majority of the fights are more than one round (but very few
are 10 or more rounds). Perhaps for you it's different. Perhaps you
are ALWAYS hit with the proverbial "save-or-die" effect in round one.
In which case I'd still recommend you to go for a save-boosting feat
instead. (Because if you happen to make your save in round one, who is
to stop them from trying it again next round?)
But that's IMHO and we already established you're not going to change
my mind. ;-) Nor am I going to change yours.
Arandor
> Jasin Zujovic <jzujo...@inet.hr> wrote:
> > At 26 Mar 2007 02:47:19 -0700, Arandor wrote:
>
> >> After everyone has gone, it is cyclic, there is no 'first' anymore.
>
> > After everyone has gone, the guy who has gone first goes first for the
> > second time. If it takes to hits to bring the opponent down, and two
> > hits to bring you down, going first for the second time wins the fight.
>
> So roll initiative every round. Over time, the bonuses to initiative
> will make a greater difference.
That WOULD make Improved Initiative more useful, sure. It'd also
create more bookkeeping, just to make that feat more useful. In my
book, it's a sign of a bad feat if you need to introduce more
bookkeeping to make it useful. (Oh, wait, that's Leadership. ;-)
Moreover, rerolling initiative will make combat slow down, always a
bad thing to do.
tussock
> So roll initiative every round.
Oh, man. Someone crack a window, that's nasty.
--
tussock
Jasin Zujovic
> > One way only.
>
> Initiative is cyclic. After 'the first one' has gone, guess who is now
> 'first'?
The guy grappled by the Evard's black tentacles? The guy stuck in solid
fog? The mess of flesh who failed a save against implosion? One of the
gibbering idiots who failed a save against confusion? The guy burned to
a crisp by the breath weapon?
> > See? If the wizard has Improved Initiative, perhaps the fighter won't
> > need to delay (and give the opponent the chance to drain resources,
> > whether by making himself harder to hurt or by hurting someone in the
> > party).
>
> Perhaps, perhaps not. *shrug* The fighter may very well have a higher
> Dex than the wizard, partly negating his Improved Initiative boost.
>
> Delay ALWAYS lets you pick the order. You want the Wizard to go first?
> If he happened to roll higher, let him wait. If not, well, guess you
> don't have to do anything. And you save yourself a feat.
What the...?
I didn't take Improved Initiative so I could got before the fighter. If
that's what's needed, he can always just wait for me.
I took it to go before the enemy, who won't oblige me in the same way.
> > But to go before the other guy using ready, you have to declare that
> > you're readying before him, which means you have to go before him
> > anyway.
>
> Let him go. Guess who is 'first' now? Exactly. Initiative is cyclic.
> After the first round, nothing matters, you can pick the order
> yourself.
If both sides have 99 hp and deal 50 hp per round, which one will win?
The guy who won initiative or the guy who didn't win initiative?
> > To do that before he hits me with his spell, I need to go first.
>
> Take a feat to let you survive the spell. Then go 'first' after he has
> gone.
That's a perfectly valid tactic. But so is just going first and simply
not suffering the spell.
> > After everyone has gone, the guy who has gone first goes first for the
> > second time. If it takes to hits to bring the opponent down, and two
> > hits to bring you down, going first for the second time wins the fight.
>
> Nope - after he has gone, you ready if you want to interrupt him. See?
> You go 'first'.
That you put "first" in quotation marks is indicative. I mean, enemy
goes. You ready for the enemy to go again. The enemy goes, but you go
before that since you readied. End result: enemy goes, you go, enemy
goes. How is that you going first in any meaningful sense of the term?
> > Winning initiative is better than having surprise and losing initiative.
> > Of course, having surprise and winning initiative is best, but you seem
> > to be saying that trying to get surprise is worthwhile, but trying to
> > win initiative isn't, which I found strange, if that is indeed your
> > opinion.
>
> Gaining surprise is something you have MORE influence on than the way-
> too-random initiative roll. Improved Initiative just doesn't cut it,
> there are many more useful feats out there.
So does Improved Initiative just grant too small a bonus, or is
initiative simply irrelevant?
My understanding is that you have been arguing that due to delay, ready,
and the cyclic nature of intiative, it is simply irrelevant, and even a
+20 bonus, which would practically ensure wining initiative, wouldn't
really be very useful.
But you bring up surprise as a valid option, even though gaining
surprise is, in its effects, less useful than winning initiative.
> > Blasphemy isn't.
>
> At that level? Yep it is.
Daze without a save round after round from a CR = party level encounter?
> What, you did PREPARE, right?
Every time, for everything?
I guess that if the default assumption is that you're always completely
prepared for the enemy that comes up, yes, I guess I can see how
initiative doesn't really matter. You'll wipe the floor with them
anyway.
But that hasn't been my experience in D&D.
> But I'm not going to invest in a feat that gives me a small bonus to
> something that may, or may not, matter the first round. Because the
> first round just isn't that important - compared to what I can do in
> more than one round.
>
> IME, the majority of the fights are more than one round (but very few
> are 10 or more rounds). Perhaps for you it's different.
No, that has been pretty much my experience too (although I'd probably
pick something like 7 for expected upper limit).
As a spellcaster, I still like to have that one extra action to prepare
or attack, and I find that as a spellcaster there aren't nearly as many
feats I really want as there are for other character types.
> Perhaps you
> are ALWAYS hit with the proverbial "save-or-die" effect in round one.
> In which case I'd still recommend you to go for a save-boosting feat
> instead. (Because if you happen to make your save in round one, who is
> to stop them from trying it again next round?)
>
> But that's IMHO and we already established you're not going to change
> my mind. ;-) Nor am I going to change yours.
OK, fair enough. :)
Just for the record, I'm not actually trying to change your mind, since
this started as a somewhat subjective discussion: whether a feat is
"worth it" can depend on your preferred tactics and the style of the
game as much as it does on the actual numbers.
It's just that as we went on, I found it interesting that your argument
seemed to be that initiative isn't very important rather than Improved
Initiative isn't good enough.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Keith Davies
> Keith Davies wrote:
>
>> So roll initiative every round.
>
> Oh, man. Someone crack a window, that's nasty.
Heh.
I know it is. Personally I'm satisfied with initiative the way it is.
However, if you want to make the feat more useful, use it every round.
That it's nasty and adds paperwork doesn't invalidate that point...
though it does mean I wouldn't want to do it.
Kyle Wilson
>tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>>> So roll initiative every round.
>>
>> Oh, man. Someone crack a window, that's nasty.
>
>Heh.
>
>I know it is. Personally I'm satisfied with initiative the way it is.
>However, if you want to make the feat more useful, use it every round.
>That it's nasty and adds paperwork doesn't invalidate that point...
>though it does mean I wouldn't want to do it.
>
I think that over a number of battles this works out to be equivalent.
In some battes you'll spend the entire battle with a high numbered
initiative slot and in others a low slot. The bonus just increases
your chances of getting a higher slot than the enemy.
I'd expect that the value of ImpInit depends very much on how
effective a given character's first strike is able to be and how
resistant to damage they are. This seems a bit like the split between
meat shield and finesse fighter (and I know that these don't work out
as equivalent choices either). You can optimize for attrition battles
(higher resistances and better AC) or for 'alpha strike'.
I'm honestly not sure which of these works out better in the game as
written...Ideally I'd prefer that they come out about even, but that
seldom seems to happen in reality.
--
Kyle Wilson
email: mynameasoneword at wilson.mv.com
Keith Davies
I'm fine with Improved Initiative and wouldn't make that change
specifically because it would slow down play. But if you want to make
the feat more useful, using it more will do so.
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>> Keith Davies wrote:
>>
>>> So roll initiative every round.
>> Oh, man. Someone crack a window, that's nasty.
>
> Heh.
>
> I know it is. Personally I'm satisfied with initiative the way it is.
> However, if you want to make the feat more useful, use it every round.
> That it's nasty and adds paperwork doesn't invalidate that point...
> though it does mean I wouldn't want to do it.
You know, that doesn't make it more useful either. Either you've
had one more action than the bad guys when they go down, or you haven't.
Rolling every round doesn't alter the chance of that.
--
tussock
Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
Shawn Wilson
"Arandor" <ara...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174473670.1...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> Last session, I actually had to be reminded of the POSSIBILITY to roll
> for Spell Penetration. I have Arcane Mastery for my Warlock, and was
> so used to declaring "I beat SR 22" without rolling that when we came
> across something with SR > 22, I really had it in my head that I COULD
> NOT defeat that SR. When I actuall had to roll 13+.
>
> Which, according to some people, is actually possible with a d20. ;-)
You LIE!!!
Shawn Wilson
>> I would very much like to go first.
>
> Except that is not what Improved Initiative *does*. It gives you a
> small bonus that may, or may not, offset that 1d20 roll with its large
> variance.
OK, how about a variation on Improved Initiative that I just came up with-
Instead of a straight +4 to all initiative rolls, it allows you to roll two
d20 and take the result you prefer (normally the larger, but if you want a
low result for whatever reason that is available).
Breaking out Excel-
A d20 has a mean of 10.5 and a standard deviation of 5.766281297. (about
68% of the results are with one stddev of the mean)
2d20, take the largest has a mean of 13.825 and a stddev of 4.711090638.
The average improvement in roll is about the same as +4, but you also have a
reduced variance meaning more consistent results, without ruling out any
extreme results.
Thoughts?
Arandor
> "Arandor" <aran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I've seen others do it. Cross my heart...
Arandor
> "Arandor" <aran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I still won't take the feat. (Unless it's a prereq to something juice
that I actually do want.) Besides, notice that you have not taken into
account what your OPPONENT rolls. ;-) And that you actually get less
than a +4 bonus on average. (average 10.5 <-> average 13.825).
Keith Davies
>
[snip Shawn's 'roll 2d20 and take the best one' suggestion]
> I still won't take the feat. (Unless it's a prereq to something juice
> that I actually do want.) Besides, notice that you have not taken into
> account what your OPPONENT rolls. ;-) And that you actually get less
> than a +4 bonus on average. (average 10.5 <-> average 13.825).
Not only does it provide less of a bonus on average (+3.325 vs. +4), it
doesn't let you get bigger numbers. Fighting something with even Dex 12
could be unbeatable (he rolls a 20, you *can't* beat 21 with just best
of 2d20).
Overall, this takes a generally poor feat and makes it crap.
Shawn Wilson
> Arandor <aran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip Shawn's 'roll 2d20 and take the best one' suggestion]
>
> > I still won't take the feat. (Unless it's a prereq to something juice
> > that I actually do want.) Besides, notice that you have not taken into
> > account what your OPPONENT rolls. ;-) And that you actually get less
> > than a +4 bonus on average. (average 10.5 <-> average 13.825).
>
> Not only does it provide less of a bonus on average (+3.325 vs. +4), it
> doesn't let you get bigger numbers. Fighting something with even Dex 12
> could be unbeatable (he rolls a 20, you *can't* beat 21 with just best
> of 2d20).
>
> Overall, this takes a generally poor feat and makes it crap.
The post was a response to the specific complaint about the high
variance of initiative rolls. Well, this reduces the variance greatly
without otherwise weakening the feat (much) or adding (much)
complexity.
You could also use a smaller die for initiative rolls or simply have
everyone take 10. I think the d20 for initiative is fine and +4
works.
Arandor
Oh, I am fine with initiative as well - if you're going to fix
variance at all, fix it ACROSS THE BOARD, or don't bother. Not "just
for initiative".
IF, and only IF, variance is much less, then bonuses become much more
important. If we were rolling 3d6 for initiative, then I maybe would
consider Improved Initiative since now it has a much more decent
chance of actually letting me go first, and I could design my
character just so as to take advantage of that.
For attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks and such, the variance
is the same but it's much easier for dedicated characters to gain a
significant bonus and you're generally rolling against set DCs, it's
much less frequently an opposed roll.
If I make a dedicated fighter, I make d**n sure that, even if I roll
crappy, at least my first attack has a very decent chance of hitting
the opponents I'm likely to face. If I take Improved Initiative, even
with decent Dex, if I roll crappy I am GOING to go last despite my
wasted feat.
On top of that, initiative just plain does not MATTER so much. Yes, of
course, it can be nice to get a "first strike" in. But the majority of
the time, initiative is just "the order in which you go". Therefore,
IMHO, Improved Initiative is a crappy feat.
Of course, other people think it's a great feat you can not possibly
do without; more power to them. There's also people out there that
like Rogues. I personally can't possibly fathom why... ;-) Unless, of
course, the campaign is largely skill-based or the GM really stuffs
his dungeons to the brim with traps and locked doors. And even THEN
you don't need a Rogue. Again, IMHO.
Darin McBride
> On top of that, initiative just plain does not MATTER so much. Yes, of
> course, it can be nice to get a "first strike" in. But the majority of
> the time, initiative is just "the order in which you go". Therefore,
> IMHO, Improved Initiative is a crappy feat.
Improved Initiative can mean that, on average, you go first more often than
without the feat. Going first means, on average, that your opponents get
one less attack against you (presuming you win nearly all combats), which,
on average, means you take less damage per combat. And that means you will
likely be able to take on slightly more difficult creatures (more XP per
fight) and/or more combats before returning to civilisation to rest up
(more XP per delve into the dungeon).
Remember that PCs usually get the last strikes. So improved initiative can
help determine whether the PCs get the same number of strike attempts as
the enemy, or if the PCs get *one* *more* attempt than the enemy. And when
combat lasts about 5 rounds, that means the enemy is getting only about 80%
of the attack sequences as the players. That's pretty significant. Even
if you take the +4 to be about 20% change, that still amounts to 4% fewer
chances to hit (20% fewer hits times 20% change) - it's like a -1 to hit
for the enemy. If weapon focus is a worthy feat at +1 to hit for you, this
seems to be about on par for about a net of +1 to your AC. (Yes, I know
these values don't really multiply out like this, but I think it's a useful
approximation.)
Again, this is all relative to not having the feat. Sure, my rogue with 24
DEX (halfling, gloves of dex) will have the same initiative bonus as the
cleric with 16 DEX and improved initiative. But if that rogue also took
improved initiative, he'd improve his chances of going first. And thus of
the likelihood of taking one less hit (attempt).
Some of my players swear by it (especially the one that slept through a
university math degree and got top marks). Others think it's useless.
That tells me it's probably about right.
Personally, I think I'd rather take items that improved my initiative
indirectly (gloves of dex, boots of speed) than directly. But that's
because they grant lots of other useful things at the same time - like a
direct improvement to AC ;-)
Shawn Wilson
>> > Not only does it provide less of a bonus on average (+3.325 vs. +4), it
>> > doesn't let you get bigger numbers. Fighting something with even Dex
>> > 12
>> > could be unbeatable (he rolls a 20, you *can't* beat 21 with just best
>> > of 2d20).
>>
>> > Overall, this takes a generally poor feat and makes it crap.
>>
>> The post was a response to the specific complaint about the high
>> variance of initiative rolls. Well, this reduces the variance greatly
>> without otherwise weakening the feat (much) or adding (much)
>> complexity.
>>
>> You could also use a smaller die for initiative rolls or simply have
>> everyone take 10. I think the d20 for initiative is fine and +4
>> works.
>
> Oh, I am fine with initiative as well - if you're going to fix
> variance at all, fix it ACROSS THE BOARD, or don't bother. Not "just
> for initiative".
Variance in general doesn't need to be fixed, though I suppose if you wanted
you could replace 1d20 with 2d10 (add this time), which gives you about the
same range and mean but a smaller variance (though not so small as 3d6,
which is flatly too small).
> IF, and only IF, variance is much less, then bonuses become much more
> important. If we were rolling 3d6 for initiative, then I maybe would
> consider Improved Initiative since now it has a much more decent
> chance of actually letting me go first, and I could design my
> character just so as to take advantage of that.
Ah, so what you really want is bigger plusses...
+4 on 3d6 is about the same as +8 on 1d20. (14- on 3d6 is 90%) You aren't
looking at a bonus, you're looking at a flat guarantee of going first.
That is definitely too much for a single feat.
> If I make a dedicated fighter, I make d**n sure that, even if I roll
> crappy, at least my first attack has a very decent chance of hitting
> the opponents I'm likely to face. If I take Improved Initiative, even
> with decent Dex, if I roll crappy I am GOING to go last despite my
> wasted feat.
And if you roll crappy on an attack you'll miss. What's your point?
> On top of that, initiative just plain does not MATTER so much. Yes, of
> course, it can be nice to get a "first strike" in. But the majority of
> the time, initiative is just "the order in which you go". Therefore,
> IMHO, Improved Initiative is a crappy feat.
It matters for spellcasters, thieves, and fighters who do more than hit
things with sticks. Improved initiative and improved disarm/sunder can
effectively end the fight in round 1.
Arandor
> Variance in general doesn't need to be fixed, though I suppose if you wanted
> you could replace 1d20 with 2d10 (add this time), which gives you about the
> same range and mean but a smaller variance (though not so small as 3d6,
> which is flatly too small).
I'd disagree. *shrug* Personal again. Also, 3d6 instead of 1d20 is
presented as a variant in Arcana Unearthed. I'd love to play that
type. And THEN Improved Initiative is nicer.
> Ah, so what you really want is bigger plusses...
No. It would make the feat less crappy, but even at +8 I'd not
consider it. I will, however, hesitate a second before dropping it.
> That is definitely too much for a single feat.
Without prereqs, maybe.
Now, if Improved Initiative did give a +8, and it also was the prereq
for the feat "You Go First (except for the other people that have "You
Go First"), I'd really consider it.
> And if you roll crappy on an attack you'll miss. What's your point?
Nope - if I make a Fighter and I roll crappy, I will STILL have a
decent chance to hit. I'll need that Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon
Focus, Superior Weapon Focus, Ultimate Weapon Focus and Epic Weapon
Focus and milk them for all they're worth, I have to charge into a
flanking position and beg the spellcaster for every single boosting
spell they can spare me, all added on top of Melee Weapon Mastery...
but if I roll higher than a 1-2, I'll hit, thank you very much.
On the few numbers left on a 1d20 where I would normally miss, that +1
is a huge contribution. In addition, Weapon Focus is a prereq for
something meaningful. That's my point.
Jasin Zujovic
> Now, if Improved Initiative did give a +8, and it also was the prereq
> for the feat "You Go First (except for the other people that have "You
> Go First"),
"kill yous even if you can't be kild"
> > And if you roll crappy on an attack you'll miss. What's your point?
>
> Nope - if I make a Fighter and I roll crappy, I will STILL have a
> decent chance to hit. I'll need that Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon
> Focus, Superior Weapon Focus, Ultimate Weapon Focus and Epic Weapon
> Focus and milk them for all they're worth, I have to charge into a
> flanking position and beg the spellcaster for every single boosting
> spell they can spare me, all added on top of Melee Weapon Mastery...
> but if I roll higher than a 1-2, I'll hit, thank you very much.
If you're a swordsage/iaijutsu master/duelist with Improved Initiative,
you'll win initiative even if you roll higher than a 1 or 2... :)
--
Jasin Zujovic
Arandor
You might lose initiative a few times less than normally. Unless you
have > 19 points higher than the majority of your opponents, you'll
still go last quite often.
Jasin Zujovic
> > > Now, if Improved Initiative did give a +8, and it also was the prereq
> > > for the feat "You Go First (except for the other people that have "You
> > > Go First"),
> >
> > "kill yous even if you can't be kild"
> >
> > > > And if you roll crappy on an attack you'll miss. What's your point?
> >
> > > Nope - if I make a Fighter and I roll crappy, I will STILL have a
> > > decent chance to hit. I'll need that Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon
> > > Focus, Superior Weapon Focus, Ultimate Weapon Focus and Epic Weapon
> > > Focus and milk them for all they're worth, I have to charge into a
> > > flanking position and beg the spellcaster for every single boosting
> > > spell they can spare me, all added on top of Melee Weapon Mastery...
> > > but if I roll higher than a 1-2, I'll hit, thank you very much.
> >
> > If you're a swordsage/iaijutsu master/duelist with Improved Initiative,
> > you'll win initiative even if you roll higher than a 1 or 2... :)
>
> You might lose initiative a few times less than normally. Unless you
> have > 19 points higher than the majority of your opponents, you'll
> still go last quite often.
You seem to be using a very strange definition of "quite often".
Really, it seems that you want to be sure that it's only worth investing
in something if the invesment guarantees a perfect success rate. Which
to me seems next to impossible in D&D, so I wonder why you are singling
initiative out.
--
Jasin Zujovic
Arandor
>
> - Show quoted text -
Because you roll initiative less often (once per encounter) and it's
less useful (you CAN do something before somebody else acts, but
unless that something is very delibitating, it does not tend to matter
much).
Attack rolls, you make quite often. Saving throws, you thankfully have
to make less often but when you have to roll and fail them, it sucks,
big time. There I need every point I can get - there is a REASON that
Weapon Focus only gives +1 and it is still one of the feats that is
taken most often, if you're going to be swinging a weapon at all.
Both attack rolls and saving throws (and to a lesser degree, skill
checks) go up by level. Initiative doesn't. You get no "help" from
anything except feats, which are dearly precious and class features
from certain exotic classes from exotic books. (And those same books
offer classes and feats which almost all look better than Improved
Initiative to start with.)
Initiative has more variance (you don't roll against set numbers but
it is opposed), it is far less easy to get a total modifier which is
significant against the 1d20+X your opponents are going to roll, and
it's less relevant.
If Improved Initiative wants to appeal to me, it should do a heck of a
lot more than give a meager +4 bonus. Just making the number slightly
bigger doesn't cut it; at +8 it'd still leave it at home... UNLESS
there is that feat "And Now You Will Be First". Which, of course,
isn't going to happen.
That's why I'm singling initiative out. Something which boosts that
better be hot d**n good, or it will get left behind for something more
useful.