So then 99% of RPG taunts are not a "taunt" because they are magical abilities, spells, visual distractions, special attacks etc... Even Goading Attack would not be a taunt by your definition then because you do not need to be able to speak to use it. Taunting as a game mechanic is drawing aggro, regardless of the what you do to cause it to happen.
Since there is no Taunting game mechanic in 5e, yeah, most of us (maybe even all of us?) are using the dictionary definition of the word rather than whatever it is you're trying to port in from video games
Reckless Attack is not a taunt, but it's probably the most reliable way in the game to "draw aggro"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
So then 99% of RPG taunts are not a "taunt" because they are magical abilities, spells, visual distractions, special attacks etc... Even Goading Attack would not be a taunt by your definition then because you do not need to be able to speak to use it. Taunting as a game mechanic is drawing aggro, regardless of the what you do to cause it to happen.
Yes, an MMO taunt is a forced aggro mechanic. D&D has a number of them, but but only one is called a taunt, none of them are actually forced aggro mechanics (just disadvantage or penalty to attacking another target), and none of them are available without specific character abilities, and a lot aren't compatible with dodging. Thus, the assumption is that 'taunt' means 'dictionary definition of taunt'.
The list of MMO taunt-like mechanics in 5e that I know of is
Barbarian (Ancestral Guardians, Ancestral Protectors): requires you to hit the target on your turn, and thus precludes dodge.
Barbarian (Ancestral Guardians, Spirit Shield): requires you to sustain your rage, which usually requires attacking, at least until the 2024 book comes out. Otherwise compatible.
Fighter (fighting style: protector or interceptor): usable when dodging. Generally terrible, though.
Fighter (battle master, goading strike): requires hitting the target with an attack, so generally not usable when dodging. Also, generally terrible.
Fighter (cavalier, unwavering mark): requires hitting the target with an attack, so generally not usable when dodging.
Paladin (compelled duel): usable when dodging. Generally terrible, though.
Rogue (swashbuckler, panache): requires an action. Lasts a minute, though, so you can use dodge in later turns.
So from what I'm reading some of you are absolutely certain that under no circumstance is it better to Dodge than Attack. Your argument stands that anytime you have a chance to take a swing, you should do that rather than avoid incoming damage.
You sure about that?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
Fighter (battle master, goading strike): requires hitting the target with an attack, so generally not usable when dodging. Also, generally terrible.
Goading attack is great on a ranged attack
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So from what I'm reading some of you are absolutely certain that under no circumstance is it better to Dodge than Attack.
No, no-one is claiming that AFAICT. Rather, the claim is that it requires specialized and fairly rare conditions for dodge to be better than attacking, and that the conditions described by the OP are nowhere close to qualifying.
Fighter (battle master, goading strike): requires hitting the target with an attack, so generally not usable when dodging. Also, generally terrible.
Goading attack is great on a ranged attack
Menacing Attack is vastly superior unless the monster is immune to the frightened condition (which is not a super rare immunity, but still only around 25% of monsters, and will frequently make the monster unable to attack at all).
Fighter (battle master, goading strike): requires hitting the target with an attack, so generally not usable when dodging. Also, generally terrible.
Goading attack is great on a ranged attack
Menacing Attack is vastly superior unless the monster is immune to the frightened condition (which is not a super rare immunity, but still only around 25% of monsters, and will frequently make the monster unable to attack at all).
In melee, yes, Menacing is better
At range, things like terrain, playstyle etc can lead to line of sight being cut off, even before you consider possible immunity
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
A front line fighter-type taking the Dodge action ABSOLUTELY has its place. If I'm playing a fighter, and 2-3 enemies with the ability to sneak attack focus on me, you'd better believe i'm taking the dodge action (which eliminates their ability to sneak attack). My teammates can then pick them off while they're either missing me, or hitting me for only a fraction of the damage they'd normally do.
A front line fighter-type taking the Dodge action ABSOLUTELY has its place. If I'm playing a fighter, and 2-3 enemies with the ability to sneak attack focus on me, you'd better believe i'm taking the dodge action (which eliminates their ability to sneak attack). My teammates can then pick them off while they're either missing me, or hitting me for only a fraction of the damage they'd normally do.
No one is saying there's never any possible reason to dodge, but simply going by printed stat blocks and my personal experience, that's an extremely uncommon type of encounter, and so doesn't really contradict the point that barring specific and uncommon circumstances it's better to spend your action to attack rather than dodge.
Maybe you don't fight a lot of rogues, but since rogues frequently make better fighters than fighters, most people fight a LOT of them. There are also quite a few villains in pre-made adventures and monsters in several sources that get sneak attack, pack tactics, or the equivalent under a different name - all of which are ruined by the Dodge action taking away their advantage or imposing disadvantage.
So from what I'm reading some of you are absolutely certain that under no circumstance is it better to Dodge than Attack. Your argument stands that anytime you have a chance to take a swing, you should do that rather than avoid incoming damage.
You sure about that?
I don't think anyone is saying that at all. Dodge has it's place. If you're low on health, or blocking a path, and being multi-attacked, dodge is an excellent selection. Most of the time however, an attack is a better choice to make.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Maybe you don't fight a lot of rogues, but since rogues frequently make better fighters than fighters, most people fight a LOT of them. There are also quite a few villains in pre-made adventures and monsters in several sources that get sneak attack, pack tactics, or the equivalent under a different name - all of which are ruined by the Dodge action taking away their advantage or imposing disadvantage.
Pack Tactics and other features that just grant advantage are a whole different matter, and frankly not worth spending your action dodging. All you're doing in that instance is reducing their to hit odds by about 15% I believe. It's worth it if you think you're about to take a bunch of sneak attack damage since you are chopping off the majority of the damage dice in that instance, but it's really not worth it just to mitigate advantage, particularly since most Pack Tactics users are on the squishy end and thus simply killing them off both shuts it off for others and reduces overall damage they can deal.
A front line fighter-type taking the Dodge action ABSOLUTELY has its place. If I'm playing a fighter, and 2-3 enemies with the ability to sneak attack focus on me, you'd better believe i'm taking the dodge action.
How exactly do you know that they're focused on you, and why do you think they'll stay focused on you? Typical tactics for a monster with sneak attack is 'pop out of hiding to sneak attack with ranged attack at target of opportunity, cunning action hide', and if they're surrounding someone who decides to dodge... well, that's what cunning action disengage is for, go gank someone more vulnerable.
Cunning action Hide (or any hide) requires concealment or cover, if there is none, there is no hide. Also, if they try to use that hide to hide behind a boulder (let's say), they aren't really hidden. You still know exactly where they are. You know exactly where they'll pop out, unless it's a massive boulder. Not only would they need to Hide, with some form of concealment, but then they need to move while hidden so you don't know where to expect them. The advantage they get is from you not knowing where the attack will be coming from. If they hide behind the only tree in a field, they don't get advantage when they pop around it to take their shot - you knew exactly where they were. But if that rogue hides behind the tree, then stealthily climbs the opposite side of that tree that's large enough to block you view, NOW they would have advantage. Too many don't understand that, and just think the cunning action Hide is some magical invisibility.
If your fighter is in a 30' long hallway, and 2 figures in leather armor using finesse weapons go into melee with you - there's a good chance both are rogues and will attempt to use their ally's presence within 5' of you to inflict a sneak attack. It's not artificer science, as long as it's not that fighter's very first fight in life, it's going to suspect that they're rogues.
In pre-made adventures, you fight the same type of enemy over and over. For example, Dragonwing/dragonfang/etc cultists in Tyranny of Dragons. After the first fight you figure out they do extra damage if they attack with advantage, and their pack tactics encourages them to team up on PCs to take advantage of that - taking the dodge with your front line person removes that advantage.
As the devs have said many many times, 5e is a group sport, not an individual sport. Too many people see combat as a bunch of one-on-one encounters on the same battlefield at the same time, instead of a group effort. One person taking the dodge action while being focused on by the enemy can be an effective tool to mitigate the enemies' attacks, while those farther away take them out, or to buy time for teammates to move into flanking positions for future rounds.
No one is saying a fighter should Dodge every round, but it is absolutely a useful tactic to Dodge instead of attack whenever the situation calls for it. A friendly rogue doesn't need the fighter to attack in order to inflict a sneak attack, they just need the fighter to be within 5' of the enemy. And when you consider that fighters are no longer the fighters of 1st edition (back then fighters ruled melee combat, they had the highest ACs, they did the most damage per attack, they attacked most often - that changed in 2e and every edition since, now the rogue rules melee combat since they get sneak attack twice a round (once on their turn, once on an enemy's turn wtih their reaction). Rogues in 5e average only a single hp less per level than a fighter, and do a lot more damage.
Again, not saying a fighter should do it every round - but Dodge is far more effective than many give it credit. Let's not forget that Dodge also gives advantage on Dex Saves (the most common damage save).
THose that never Dodge are entering combat with one less tool in their toolbox.
This thread started out as using a taunt on the enemy, then dodging. That simply doesn't work reliably because there are no mechanics to enforce the enemy attacking you. I don't think anyone has even tried to argue that you should never dodge.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
One person taking the dodge action while being focused on by the enemy can be an effective tool to mitigate the enemies' attacks, while those farther away take them out, or to buy time for teammates to move into flanking positions for future rounds.
Group of rogues: attack frontliner in a pack Frontliner: takes Dodge action Rogues: shrug, Disengage, and move on to squishier PCs behind frontliner
As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, someone taking only the Dodge action is announcing they don't intend to pose a threat, at least for the moment. Enemies with two brain cells in their skull to rub together won't simply stand there and keep stabbing the person who isn't posing a threat and is harder to hit, they'll look for better targets
In 5e, a frontliner's job is essentially to keep enemies occupied so that the rest of the party can do the things they're best at, whether that's spells, ranged attacks, whatever. You are a lot less effective at that job if you don't give enemies a reason to want you off the battlefield
That's why people are arguing for some sort of Dodge/taunting combo -- it's an attempt to create a reason for enemies to keep attacking you, when you aren't giving them that reason with your sword
Are there times when Dodge makes sense, even for a tanky paladin? Sure. Is it when they are in the thick of melee? Very, very, very rarely
If you're paranoid about a pack of rogues attacking you, get a close-range AoE or misty step or something. Or trust your party to take them out while they're focused on you because you keep hitting them. You did say 5e was a "group sport", right?
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
LOL So we agree that Dodge CAN be a useful tactic, that's all I'm saying. There are many who say it is never useful, especially for fighters. They are wrong.
And several rogues bypassing the front line fighter to then get stuck in the middle of the PCs where the rogues themselves can be flanked, won't live long.
In any case, i've said what I wanted to say and there's not much point in saying more.
Dodge is a tool, keep it in your toolbelt, use it if you believe it is useful, don't use it if you feel another tool is more useful - but the point still remains, it is useful and people getting mad a the frontline fighter who dares take the dodge action, aren't always right.
There are many who say it is never useful, especially for fighters. They are wrong.
I mean, no one in this thread's come up with a particularly plausible scenario for a frontliner using Dodge effectively in the middle of melee yet
I'm a never say never kind of guy, so I'm always going to try and allow for edge cases, but if it's such a valuable tool, you think it'd be easier to provide an example
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter) Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Since there is no Taunting game mechanic in 5e, yeah, most of us (maybe even all of us?) are using the dictionary definition of the word rather than whatever it is you're trying to port in from video games
Reckless Attack is not a taunt, but it's probably the most reliable way in the game to "draw aggro"
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Marking is a mechanic which is reliable.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Yes, an MMO taunt is a forced aggro mechanic. D&D has a number of them, but but only one is called a taunt, none of them are actually forced aggro mechanics (just disadvantage or penalty to attacking another target), and none of them are available without specific character abilities, and a lot aren't compatible with dodging. Thus, the assumption is that 'taunt' means 'dictionary definition of taunt'.
The list of MMO taunt-like mechanics in 5e that I know of is
So from what I'm reading some of you are absolutely certain that under no circumstance is it better to Dodge than Attack. Your argument stands that anytime you have a chance to take a swing, you should do that rather than avoid incoming damage.
You sure about that?
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Goading attack is great on a ranged attack
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No, no-one is claiming that AFAICT. Rather, the claim is that it requires specialized and fairly rare conditions for dodge to be better than attacking, and that the conditions described by the OP are nowhere close to qualifying.
Menacing Attack is vastly superior unless the monster is immune to the frightened condition (which is not a super rare immunity, but still only around 25% of monsters, and will frequently make the monster unable to attack at all).
In melee, yes, Menacing is better
At range, things like terrain, playstyle etc can lead to line of sight being cut off, even before you consider possible immunity
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
A front line fighter-type taking the Dodge action ABSOLUTELY has its place. If I'm playing a fighter, and 2-3 enemies with the ability to sneak attack focus on me, you'd better believe i'm taking the dodge action (which eliminates their ability to sneak attack). My teammates can then pick them off while they're either missing me, or hitting me for only a fraction of the damage they'd normally do.
Playing D&D since 1982
No one is saying there's never any possible reason to dodge, but simply going by printed stat blocks and my personal experience, that's an extremely uncommon type of encounter, and so doesn't really contradict the point that barring specific and uncommon circumstances it's better to spend your action to attack rather than dodge.
Maybe you don't fight a lot of rogues, but since rogues frequently make better fighters than fighters, most people fight a LOT of them. There are also quite a few villains in pre-made adventures and monsters in several sources that get sneak attack, pack tactics, or the equivalent under a different name - all of which are ruined by the Dodge action taking away their advantage or imposing disadvantage.
Playing D&D since 1982
I don't think anyone is saying that at all. Dodge has it's place. If you're low on health, or blocking a path, and being multi-attacked, dodge is an excellent selection. Most of the time however, an attack is a better choice to make.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Pack Tactics and other features that just grant advantage are a whole different matter, and frankly not worth spending your action dodging. All you're doing in that instance is reducing their to hit odds by about 15% I believe. It's worth it if you think you're about to take a bunch of sneak attack damage since you are chopping off the majority of the damage dice in that instance, but it's really not worth it just to mitigate advantage, particularly since most Pack Tactics users are on the squishy end and thus simply killing them off both shuts it off for others and reduces overall damage they can deal.
How exactly do you know that they're focused on you, and why do you think they'll stay focused on you? Typical tactics for a monster with sneak attack is 'pop out of hiding to sneak attack with ranged attack at target of opportunity, cunning action hide', and if they're surrounding someone who decides to dodge... well, that's what cunning action disengage is for, go gank someone more vulnerable.
Cunning action Hide (or any hide) requires concealment or cover, if there is none, there is no hide. Also, if they try to use that hide to hide behind a boulder (let's say), they aren't really hidden. You still know exactly where they are. You know exactly where they'll pop out, unless it's a massive boulder. Not only would they need to Hide, with some form of concealment, but then they need to move while hidden so you don't know where to expect them. The advantage they get is from you not knowing where the attack will be coming from. If they hide behind the only tree in a field, they don't get advantage when they pop around it to take their shot - you knew exactly where they were. But if that rogue hides behind the tree, then stealthily climbs the opposite side of that tree that's large enough to block you view, NOW they would have advantage. Too many don't understand that, and just think the cunning action Hide is some magical invisibility.
If your fighter is in a 30' long hallway, and 2 figures in leather armor using finesse weapons go into melee with you - there's a good chance both are rogues and will attempt to use their ally's presence within 5' of you to inflict a sneak attack. It's not artificer science, as long as it's not that fighter's very first fight in life, it's going to suspect that they're rogues.
In pre-made adventures, you fight the same type of enemy over and over. For example, Dragonwing/dragonfang/etc cultists in Tyranny of Dragons. After the first fight you figure out they do extra damage if they attack with advantage, and their pack tactics encourages them to team up on PCs to take advantage of that - taking the dodge with your front line person removes that advantage.
As the devs have said many many times, 5e is a group sport, not an individual sport. Too many people see combat as a bunch of one-on-one encounters on the same battlefield at the same time, instead of a group effort. One person taking the dodge action while being focused on by the enemy can be an effective tool to mitigate the enemies' attacks, while those farther away take them out, or to buy time for teammates to move into flanking positions for future rounds.
No one is saying a fighter should Dodge every round, but it is absolutely a useful tactic to Dodge instead of attack whenever the situation calls for it. A friendly rogue doesn't need the fighter to attack in order to inflict a sneak attack, they just need the fighter to be within 5' of the enemy. And when you consider that fighters are no longer the fighters of 1st edition (back then fighters ruled melee combat, they had the highest ACs, they did the most damage per attack, they attacked most often - that changed in 2e and every edition since, now the rogue rules melee combat since they get sneak attack twice a round (once on their turn, once on an enemy's turn wtih their reaction). Rogues in 5e average only a single hp less per level than a fighter, and do a lot more damage.
Again, not saying a fighter should do it every round - but Dodge is far more effective than many give it credit. Let's not forget that Dodge also gives advantage on Dex Saves (the most common damage save).
THose that never Dodge are entering combat with one less tool in their toolbox.
Playing D&D since 1982
This thread started out as using a taunt on the enemy, then dodging. That simply doesn't work reliably because there are no mechanics to enforce the enemy attacking you. I don't think anyone has even tried to argue that you should never dodge.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
Group of rogues: attack frontliner in a pack
Frontliner: takes Dodge action
Rogues: shrug, Disengage, and move on to squishier PCs behind frontliner
As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, someone taking only the Dodge action is announcing they don't intend to pose a threat, at least for the moment. Enemies with two brain cells in their skull to rub together won't simply stand there and keep stabbing the person who isn't posing a threat and is harder to hit, they'll look for better targets
In 5e, a frontliner's job is essentially to keep enemies occupied so that the rest of the party can do the things they're best at, whether that's spells, ranged attacks, whatever. You are a lot less effective at that job if you don't give enemies a reason to want you off the battlefield
That's why people are arguing for some sort of Dodge/taunting combo -- it's an attempt to create a reason for enemies to keep attacking you, when you aren't giving them that reason with your sword
Are there times when Dodge makes sense, even for a tanky paladin? Sure. Is it when they are in the thick of melee? Very, very, very rarely
If you're paranoid about a pack of rogues attacking you, get a close-range AoE or misty step or something. Or trust your party to take them out while they're focused on you because you keep hitting them. You did say 5e was a "group sport", right?
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
LOL So we agree that Dodge CAN be a useful tactic, that's all I'm saying. There are many who say it is never useful, especially for fighters. They are wrong.
And several rogues bypassing the front line fighter to then get stuck in the middle of the PCs where the rogues themselves can be flanked, won't live long.
In any case, i've said what I wanted to say and there's not much point in saying more.
Dodge is a tool, keep it in your toolbelt, use it if you believe it is useful, don't use it if you feel another tool is more useful - but the point still remains, it is useful and people getting mad a the frontline fighter who dares take the dodge action, aren't always right.
Playing D&D since 1982
Please quote the post in this thread where someone has actually said that.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I mean, no one in this thread's come up with a particularly plausible scenario for a frontliner using Dodge effectively in the middle of melee yet
I'm a never say never kind of guy, so I'm always going to try and allow for edge cases, but if it's such a valuable tool, you think it'd be easier to provide an example
Active characters:
Askatu, hyperfocused vedalken freedom fighter in Wildspace (Zealot barb/Swashbuckler rogue/Battle Master fighter)
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)