Can someone please help me out with this effect? Lost for the wording of it. Plus is it only used for working out who get the first attack?? -- Pstarky

  • Yes the SDR does has have the missing bites. :) -- Pstarky 05:22, 12 Jun 2005 (PDT)

There is no special initiative actions page.-- 22:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

  • That appears to have been left over from a copy from the SRD. --The Krit 01:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

initiative and casting spells

The note about timestops is wrong. There is no initiative for casting a spell until the spell is cast, spellscript is triggered and function SignalEvent(EventSpellCastAt is signalized on target. This will trigger initiative for the first time, so initiative has no effect on casters.

Ranged attacks works similar, since you dont need to come closer in order to attack whether you win or lose initiative you attack first.

Also there are situations where initiative doesnt work even in melee which is when you ambush a creature from corner - in this situation the creature is wandering around location as she can't see you, but you get close to her before AI tells her to attack you and therefore you can get sneak attack and you attack first no matter of initiative. The creatur turns around and attack back when the first attack roll is made but no sooner. Also invisible/hidden character attack first no matter of initiative. --ShaDoOoW 12:30, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

  • Others insist that initiative does matter in a time stop vs. time stop duel, and I am not about to tell them they are wrong without testing it. (Maybe I will get around to it, maybe not.) As for the rest of what you wrote, what is your point? You are saying that initiative does not matter, and the article says that initiative does not matter, so what are you getting at? --The Krit 13:47, November 5, 2011 (UTC)
  • Simple to test, default Time Stop doesn't even trigger initiative, a custom timestop with GetFirstNextInShape loop, custom effect and added signalevent does but after the spell is cast. As for rest my point is that I thought these informations might be relevant to the page to make it more detailed. --ShaDoOoW 08:43, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • Why does the article need to be more detailed? Too many details can confuse rather than enlighten. The only reason I singled out sneak attacks and time stop for special mention is because I have repeatedly seen them mentioned as reasons for trying to improve initiative. --The Krit 20:26, November 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • Good that you do realize that this wiki start to be overfilled by a notes of unsignificant meaning and its sometimes hard to find the relevant informations. If you feel the current article is accurate, then ok, though I'm planning to change it significaly as I found some new informations about initiative. However I need more time to make proper tests. After I do this, I'm also going to remove the note about timestops as thats clearly incorrect. --ShaDoOoW 12:49, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.