Guys, it's a 6/10, maybe a 7 at a push
But this isn't true, going before the enemy is valuable, but it depreciates as rounds go on and you need good openings to capitalise on starting first. But going first has undeniable benefits and saying it doesn't is just nonsense.
Wits helps with crit rate, so it's not useless unless you're a mage without savage sortilage (the magic crit talent).
But what is the problem? The text doesn't actually say and I have no clue what the issue is from the text. All there is, is nonsense hyperbole.
No, one person gets to go first. Wits is irrelevant to going first on every other party member. Even then I would argue that a single enemy going first is not super-important because only one enemy is going first. So I don't really agree that Wits is terribly important in terms of turn order.
Wits helps with crit rate, but that only starts to be a better investment than raw STR/INT/FIN after one of those is at 40. It's only second place because there's not really anything else to invest in.
So I completely disagree that Wits is in a good place or that Initiative is a useful random affix on items.
Wits, as a stat, is a minor investment for most people, if at all. It's useful. I want to put 5 points in it for everyone on my team, but that's it and it's low priority.
I could see that being perceived as a problem, but the stat isn't meant to be maxed (typically), but getting 30% crit chance and +30 init. I can really seeing that being built around and being tactically useful. Put it on a 2h warrior, a hunter or an offensive wizard. Add hotheaded and unload the nukes, seems legit to me.
I don't know if I really benefit from +30 init, or if 10 would be enough for most encounters. I want the bonus to detection on my rogue, rather than my warrior, but that's okay.
Starting first in combat is huge, especially if you can capitalise on it and wits seems good for that.
