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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
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?
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) 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:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Well, I half agree, but honestly, the term "frontliner" has a few interpretations. Monks and Rogues are often "front line" but usually not intended to be standing there absorbing blows. As such, my explanation, below, would apply more to skirmishers than "tanks" I think in most cases, a "tank" has better options than using their action to assume a Dodge stance.
In our group, we had a Barbarian, Fighter, Monk and Cleric. As expected, Fighter and Barb grabbed a nasty to hold it's attention and Monk ran around helping chip away at them as needed. Barb switched characters, to a Pal-Lock, who, as it turns out, is pretty squishy. Now, Fighter engages and Monk joins him, dealing damage as an Action, then, instead of adding damage (early fight) if the enemies are dealing decent damage, or seem capable, I take the Dodge as my Step of the Wind. UD and some homebrewed items give me a great AC and Dodge is usually enough for me to weather a few attacks, with low risk of being smooshed, as I, a Monk, don't have an abundance of HP to spare. Our DM plays most battles fairly, and enemies will try to swipe at me at least once, when I am a viable target, and more so if someone does land a blow. At level 13 now, and I am finding it effective enough in mitigating incoming damage to the party by spreading at between me and the Fighter, so everyone stays up and we can finish the fight as a fully upright party.
As someone else pointed out, though, even for a Monk, when you're down to likely eliminating an enemy or lowering your chances of being hit, eliminating them is a better use of resource. I'd FoB for sure if I thought I had a chance of finishing one of the enemies, rather than Dodge.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
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.
I don't think anyone is claiming that. Mostly, the claim is that the OP is wrong -- dodge is not, in fact, better than we think it is.
Fair, but the monk in that scenario isn't only Dodging, they're stacking a Dodge on top of their action (which is, presumably, attacking)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Another place where dodge is very useful is with a cleric using spirit guardians and spiritual weapon.
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.
“Very” might be generous there. If you’re running a frontline cleric, I expect you’ll have heavy armor, a shield, and a few points in CON. While you’re definitely getting good passive and bonus action dpr, it will still almost always be more beneficial than not to be dealing damage with your action as well.
“Very” might be generous there. If you’re running a frontline cleric, I expect you’ll have heavy armor, a shield, and a few points in CON. While you’re definitely getting good passive and bonus action dpr, it will still almost always be more beneficial than not to be dealing damage with your action as well.
Eh, if I just cast spiritual weapon my offensive options are a single melee attack with likely dubious strength and sacred flame, neither of which is a big loss.
Best case scenario I can think of for using Dodge is when you can't meaningfully harm an enemy using your action and Disengage or Dash wouldn't be helpful.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
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
Melee fighter (meaning melee combatant of any class) blocking a door. Enemies currently out of range but will enter melee next round.
If the bad guys get past him, the puppies die. Momma can't help fight, she needs a couple rounds to dig out to freedom.
Melee fighter (meaning melee combatant of any class) blocking a door. Enemies currently out of range but will enter melee next round.
Fighting in a choke was mentioned all the way back in post #16. By one of the people saying 'doing damage is almost always better'. Yes, it is one of those situations where dodging can be better, depending on the exact capabilities of the enemies you're holding back, but it doesn't bear a lot of resemblance to any of the situations the OP described.
“Very” might be generous there. If you’re running a frontline cleric, I expect you’ll have heavy armor, a shield, and a few points in CON. While you’re definitely getting good passive and bonus action dpr, it will still almost always be more beneficial than not to be dealing damage with your action as well.
Eh, if I just cast spiritual weapon my offensive options are a single melee attack with likely dubious strength and sacred flame, neither of which is a big loss.
The context was not on the specific turn Spiritual Weapon was cast, just the combination of the two. And, again, more dpr is almost always better than less.
I believe maximizing my conc is more important than the damage from a single hit from a melee attack. Losing concentration feels BAD.
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.
Tasha
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
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:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
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
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
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:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Well, I half agree, but honestly, the term "frontliner" has a few interpretations. Monks and Rogues are often "front line" but usually not intended to be standing there absorbing blows. As such, my explanation, below, would apply more to skirmishers than "tanks" I think in most cases, a "tank" has better options than using their action to assume a Dodge stance.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I don't think anyone is claiming that. Mostly, the claim is that the OP is wrong -- dodge is not, in fact, better than we think it is.
Fair, but the monk in that scenario isn't only Dodging, they're stacking a Dodge on top of their action (which is, presumably, attacking)
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Another place where dodge is very useful is with a cleric using spirit guardians and spiritual weapon.
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
“Very” might be generous there. If you’re running a frontline cleric, I expect you’ll have heavy armor, a shield, and a few points in CON. While you’re definitely getting good passive and bonus action dpr, it will still almost always be more beneficial than not to be dealing damage with your action as well.
Eh, if I just cast spiritual weapon my offensive options are a single melee attack with likely dubious strength and sacred flame, neither of which is a big loss.
Best case scenario I can think of for using Dodge is when you can't meaningfully harm an enemy using your action and Disengage or Dash wouldn't be helpful.
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.
Melee fighter (meaning melee combatant of any class) blocking a door. Enemies currently out of range but will enter melee next round.
If the bad guys get past him, the puppies die. Momma can't help fight, she needs a couple rounds to dig out to freedom.
"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
Fighting in a choke was mentioned all the way back in post #16. By one of the people saying 'doing damage is almost always better'. Yes, it is one of those situations where dodging can be better, depending on the exact capabilities of the enemies you're holding back, but it doesn't bear a lot of resemblance to any of the situations the OP described.
Why you fighting just to fight? I was providing an easy example that Anton was asking for.
"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
The context was not on the specific turn Spiritual Weapon was cast, just the combination of the two. And, again, more dpr is almost always better than less.
I believe maximizing my conc is more important than the damage from a single hit from a melee attack. Losing concentration feels BAD.
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