The Gaming Den

From reading the various D&D boards I get the notion that Improved Initiative is good Feat.
I frankly don´t see why. There are some applications, i.e. you´re a rogue or Iaijitsu Master. But for the rest of the time I don´t see why going first in the first round of combat is worth wasting a feat. After that round is over combat order is circular anyway.

Could anyone elaborate please ?

Sma

Well, most wizard fights begin and end with the first initiative, supposedly. Not sure, never had high level wizards before in my group.

It matters the extent of the powergaming in the campaign really. The more powergamed a character is, the more offensive oriented he tends to be and the easier he can kill his opposition in one hit. Thus for a min/max build, going first usually helps alot.

For the normal gamer however, I think the feat is very overrated.

When we first started playing, we thought the feat was a must-have. We started a new campaign about a year ago and only one of us took the feat. I don't really miss it.

Game On,
fbmf

For most people, gettting the first round is like getting an extra round. The fact that the feat gives you only like a 20-25% better chance seems worth it ot these people.

Frankly, I would never take it. Flat bonuses to rolls are a waste of a feat when you can get a feat that gives you a new ability. No one would take Dodge and Mobility if Spring Attack and Whirlwind attack weren't at the end of the list.

A lot of people haven't grasped the concept of the revolving initiative sequence.

-Username17

And Rogues (and some others) who have Expert Tactician like the 20% extra chance of getting the drop and thus an extra ttack on enemies.

TA

For people who want an alternative, you can cast Kaupaer' Skittish Nerves (MoF) or Cat's Grace to get improvements to Init (and the latter gives you other benefits as well).

The new PGtF book gives you the revised Blooded feat - +2 to Init, +2 bonus to Spot Checks, and immunity to being "Shaken".

Thoth_Amon at [unixtime wrote:1082505691[/unixtime]]And Rogues (and some others) who have Expert Tactician like the 20% extra chance of getting the drop and thus an extra ttack on enemies.

TA

And Iaijutsu masters totally flip out and cut everything in half when they go first.

But the theres two enemies ! Which means double the XP ! and they get cut up too, and then the katana-wielding Flash goes again gaining eightfold the experience ! I think you´re onto something there....

Thanks for the clarification, everyone.

Just to expand on the initiative thing a little... I build characters that fall into two groups: fast enough to kill the enemy before the enemy gets around to finding out that my character had Con as a dump stat, and those who don't care when they get hit.

Improved Init is good for rogues and high-level wizards. Otherwise, just avoid it. Fighters are better off with Combat Reflexes or Blindfighting, and clerics are better of with... heh, Lightning Reflexes.

In our group, we generally play II so that you win any initiative ties. That makes it trivially better.

It's also being discussed at the bottom here

da_chicken at [unixtime wrote:1082871944[/unixtime]]Improved Init is good for rogues and high-level wizards. Otherwise, just avoid it. Fighters are better off with Combat Reflexes or Blindfighting, and clerics are better of with... heh, Lightning Reflexes.

In our group, we generally play II so that you win any initiative ties. That makes it trivially better.

Lightning Reflexes? That's the first time I've seen that feat espoused as a feat selection not related to PrC pre-req.'s. Cleric's really don't need it. If they fail a Reflex save, it's usually just damage they suffer, unlike save-or-die issues with failing a Will or Fort save.

I agree with the Rogue and Wizard needing II. They are the only 2 cats who need it. A battlefield control Wizard who can go first can give everyone else "virtual" II by casting a spell like Solid Fog on the opposition, thereby allowing your party time to buff, reposition, and partition the battelfield. Thereby setting the pace and traffic control parameters of the ensuing battle.

Da Chicken, I like your II "tiebreaker" variant ... I think I may experiment with that one in our group.

EDIT: Horrible spelling.

IMX (where Persistent is not an option) cleric feat selection varies from lackluster to underwhelming. Since reflex saves are the most common save in the game (roughly twice as common, than Fort and Will) and because reflex saves are the only true weakness of the cleric, Lightning Reflexes is not a bad feat, IMO. My clerics almost always end up taking it, although none of my druids ever have room.

I've always been a fan of the +2 save feats, and especially LR. I realize a lot of people don't like them, but I've had a lot of success with them. Clerics tend to have extreme AC and monumental Fort and Will saves. Lightning Reflexes reduces your aggregate spell damage by like 10% (haven't done the math, so I'm guessing here... it might be 5%).

Lightning Reflexes reduces your aggregate spell damage by like 10% (haven't done the math, so I'm guessing here... it might be 5%).

Calculating your aggregate damage reduction is, of course, intractable as it is based on your chances of succeeding or failing a save in the first place.

That is, your aggregate damage is Full Damage * Chance of failing a save + Half Damage * Chance of making a save.

However, over the long haul, Lightning Reflexes is stopping exactly 5% of the original Full Damage (unless you have Evasion, in which case it stops 10% of the orinal Full Damage). If you were making your save half the time before hand, that's stopping 6.7% of the aggregate damage, and it's stopping relatively more if you were making your save more often and relatively less if you were making your save less often.

Ironically, if you are concerned about reducing aggregate damage - Lightning Reflexes is best on a Rogue. Consider: you have evasion, and you are probably saving 3/4 of the time. So saving on 2 more numbers is reducing aggregate damage by 40%.

-Username17