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.
Yeah, I'll give you "blocking a choke point and the rest of the party needs time to do Important Thing" as one scenario, albeit one that's incredibly specific and not something that's going to come up very often
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)
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.
In an actually hard fight, having the cleric (a) stay up, and (b) have bonus actions available for healing word or mass healing word has a good chance of being more important than any of the (non-concentration) dpr they have access to.
I've seen arguments that a priest using spiritual weapon should heal with their action rather than bonus action if they can.
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.
Aw come on man, it's Tips, not Rules. Rules is for the Rules forum.
The tip was 'dodge is better than you think it is'. That is, fundamentally, a claim about combat optimization, and that means it's a mechanics question. Now, if the tip was "you should get your enemies to do stupid stuff", well, it's obviously true though not necessarily very informative, and "attacking the person who's dodging instead of the real threats" is typically stupid
Here's some follow up mechanics questions that have been nagging at me all throughout this thread: do enemies know when you've taken the Dodge action? Should that make them less likely to target you?
It seems most posters think the answer to both questions is "yes", but I'm not sure that's any more supported by the rules than the idea of a taunt. Are there specific rules that delineate how enemies should target? If so, where can I find those? If not... It's all DM fiat anyway, why shouldn't vibes-based taunting mechanics be equally valid to any other vibes-based monster tactics?
They may not know that you are Dodging, but they do know that you did not attack.
But in reality during a fight, you can typically tell if a person is planning to dodge/parry a blow based on their stance. They will typically be leaning away, not into and be less squared in their stance:
That is a very exaggerated example of a dodge/parry in a fight. Even though the title of the video use terminology of "dodge" the video is actually a better example of, and I really hope I don't regret saying this, the act of taunting or goading. Huhammad Ali is using is exceptional skills and speed to get his Michael Dokes to recklessly throw punches; it is a defensive tactic used impress the judges of a fight and wear down an opponent by making them throw ineffective strikes. It is only one example of how dodge/parry in a combative contest can be effect but it is not standard of use.
They will typically be leaning away, not into and be less squared in their stance:
This is not true, and if it was then the many of the greatest defensive based fighters would not be as successful or legendary as their career warranted. It would b extremely ineffective to tip off to your opponent your intentions to attack or dodge. Fighters work on deceiving their opponents with the series of hand movements, altering the height of their head, and the direction of their overall movement. And this do this while squared up in their stance. Only the fighter truly knows what they are looking for to trigger the decision to throw a punch or block/dodge/parry/retract from an oncoming attacker. Yes, as the fight progresses, examples like the one you provide do happen, but it is either drawn by frustrating an opponent and/or a reaction and tactics to escape a dangerous position. At the start of the contests, and for the majority of time throughout the rounds, you will seep both fighters squared up in a stance that allows them to attack or dodge/parry.
A more accurate statement would be that a fighter is continuously opting to dodge until they opt to attack.
Here's some follow up mechanics questions that have been nagging at me all throughout this thread: do enemies know when you've taken the Dodge action? Should that make them less likely to target you?
They do not know the player has declared the character will be taking the Dodge action. However, they can decipher the character is not attacking and thus taking a purely defensive position. It is reasonable that after a PC who is dodging is attacked by a Monster A that when Monster C's turn comes up in the round they may realize that the PC is focusing on defense and thus may opt to target another character who may be engaged in offensive combat.
I've noticed there seems to be a bit of a stigma against using the dodge action, especially on a burly front liner, and I think this is wrong. When a mage uses their action to cast a spell to debuff enemies, everybody appreciates it and sees the value. When the barb gets themselves surrounded then dodges, people usually think the value of their lost attack(s) outweighs any value gained from the the dodge. Here are a few reasons dodge is a great idea on your front liner when there are too many enemies to drop in 1 or 2 rounds:
What is the definition of "too many enemies"? Regarding the barbarian, it is not just the party may have lost the best damage dealing attack option for the round but the barbarian's rage ability may also be affected. This doesn't mean that frontliners cannot take the Dodge action; it just means this decision must benefit the strategies implemented in the following rounds.
1. At low levels your brawler probably only has one attack unless they're dual wielding. They can make this up with an opportunity attack if a monster runs.
How does the Dodge action have any bearing on this scenario? Is the proposed theory that since a character does not have enough attacks to match the number of attackers, then Dodge is the best option? This is not entirely true. Dodge does not significantly impact the enemies action economy. Here you are relying on other factors to drop opponents. So you might reduce the probability of getting you might also increase the number of rounds and attacks per against your character.
Also taking the Dodge action is not guarantee you will avoid being hit. So it is possible you may just prolong expected damage over later rounds.
2. Dodging is the fix for being swarmed with pack tactics.
This is a fair point. Taking the Dodge action is a good strategy to counter pack tactics.
3. A round where you kill 1 or 2 monsters then get dropped, vs a round spent dodging, followed by a round killing monsters and being dropped, are the same, EXCEPT you just bought your party a whole round of free attacks.
What do you mean by "free attacks"? I think this statement is rather misleading. The results matter more than the rounds in which they occur. In other words, trading off 1 comrade for 2 two enemies is the same regardless of the round. There isn't a benefit I can see in your statement. Please clarify.
Now, what I could see is this, if Character A's attack is not required to take down the two enemies in the round, and that by dodging they may avoid going down; then it is better do this so that the party isn't down player come next round. The only caveat I would put in is that the character's action in the next round would have a big impact on deciding the rounds fate.
4. If you grapple an enemy then dodge next round you are now blocking two squares.
Agree. Using the Dodge action while a grapple is engaged makes sense as an option.
5. A raging dodging barb is a damage soaking machine. If they somehow take no damage the party can deliver a light smack or aoe to keep their rage going.
Completely disagree. The statement "raging dodging barb is a damage soaking machine" is not true. It may even be an oxymoron. The point of the Dodge action is to avoid taking damage, not to soak it. And this action is not required for the barbarian to be raging (which is what allows the barbarian to be a damage soaking machine). The Dodge action is not required here and as you point out could be counterproductive. If this action results in the barbarian taking not damage then your party is using their action economy to keep the character's ability active rather than focusing on strategies to defeat your oppositions. This is not a good tactic for the Dodge action.
I've seen arguments that a priest using spiritual weapon should heal with their action rather than bonus action if they can.
Depends on positioning. 60' range is a significant benefit.
That's why I said if they can.
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.
>> At low levels your brawler probably only has one attack unless they're dual wielding. They can make this up with an opportunity attack if a monster runs.
> How does the Dodge action have any bearing on this scenario?
If you only have one attack and are with 5ft of at least 2 enemies. Then if you Dodge, then either the enemies attack you with a high probability of missing both attacks thus giving your allies another round to kill them. Or at least one of them moves to attack someone else thus provoking an AoO, which gives you back your full DPR.
Whew, forgot to check Beyond for a few days and this thread really blew up. My thoughts: 1. To clarify as requested, what I mean by 'free attacks' is attacks by your buddies on the baddies you are blocking without having to worry about being attacked back, or get up in their face and ruin their ranged attacks. Because the round the enemies spend attacking your dodging barb is a round where they are not attacking your friends. My barb does this now when out of rages until switching to reckless to sweep up, because nonragey barbs are squishy. And while you are doing this, you should also be doing #2:
2. It's a ROLE-playing game. Whether the rules assign special value to a taunt or not is irrelevant. The value lies in getting to ham it up and chew the scenery. And you better be doing that since you won't be rolling dice. If your character dances in front of the dragon and informs it that it's father was a hamster and its mother smelt of elderberries, then it slinks past to attack someone else, that is a high point of the night. You can't do it every round but it's definitely a great move for looking awesome especially if your DM will let you pair it with an intimidate roll. Julius Caesar ran out alone in front of the enemy army in the Roman civil war and dodged their spears for a whole minute until his army was shamed into attacking, so this sort of thing isn't even as ridiculous as it sounds.
3. The thing about the front line is there will be new enemies coming up, at least for the first couple of rounds, and while they can't reach your back ranks without dashing, they can definitely attack YOU. So if you dodge, get your reaction attack on the enemy already in front of you as they run back to bite your wizard (who is probly gonna have to dodge next round now if they are concentrating on something), and then you get attacked by two NEW enemies who could have reached the wizard if they dashed, but get to attack you right now and just can't resist... well your dodge was well used that round IF those three enemies could have dropped you that round. The value of dropping an enemy right now cuts both ways. If they drop your barb, then next round all three hit the wizard, it smells like TPK.
If your character dances in front of the dragon and informs it that it's father was a hamster and its mother smelt of elderberries, then it slinks past to attack someone else, that is a high point of the night.
Your non-attacking character can justify their lack of contribution to the fight however they want, but I wouldn't count on anyone else going along with it
A large part of this thread has been people expecting monsters and NPCs to act exactly the way they need them to in order to make the scenario they've concocted in their head make sense
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)
The orignal premise was that "Dodge is better than [some] think it is", all that's needed to prove that right, is to come up with ways in which it is the right choice. That has been done. Yet, so many people continue to argue the issue.
There is a difference between a character standing back and not contributing, and the front-line fighter who did his job and blocked the path of the baddie from reaching squishier members, and now finds themself surrounded by folks that if they all hit will end the fighter's life (multiple sneak attacks damage adds up fast).
There are some that have tried to say, that it's unlikely that you'd face multiple foes with sneak attack (apparently they've never had a campaign or storyline where the characters must face a thieve's guild, or played any of the adventures where the writers gave half the baddies abilities that mimick sneak attack). Others keep assuming that these baddies would simply pass by the heavily armored and armed person in their way, thus exposing themselves to being flanked, just to get one shot on those squishier members... and that even assumes that those squishier members are close enough to be reached with whatever movement those baddies still have left.
Have you not seen groups where one person is melee-centric, and EVERYONE else plays a ranged character who tries to stay 65 feet behind the melee character? First round, melee character moves up to a choke point, everyone else moves back. Or couple characters form a line, (or so one thought) only to have the other run away and switch to a ranged weapon leaving one poor character to face the onslaught alone.
I play in one group in which one character is constantly being left behind to deal with melee opponents because those that should stand with her, keep running away whenever things get tough, leaving this one character to get swarmed (she already acted in the round and can't go again until after the baddies).
There are situations where one can find themselves in melee, especially against multiple foes, where it absolutely makes sense to take the Dodge action (applying disadvantage to multiple baddies, and completely negating all sneak attack damage). Not all baddies that do sneak attack damage have cunning actions that allow them to take a move as a bonus action, and some want to use that bonus action to dual wield for that extra chance to apply sneak attack.
It isn't always obvious when someone takes a Dodge action, a round in DnD encompasses 6 seconds of time, but the enemy doesn't know if your attack will come at the start of that 6 seconds, the middle, or the end. Perhaps you appear defensive because you've readied an action to strike later in the round and need to defend until that time? When you ready an attack, it doesn't mean you've pulled back your sword over your head and are just standing there frozen in time waiting for the moment to swing it down - you're still defending yourselve while waiting for the right moment to strike. They know you've taken the dodge action AFTER they've attacked you and suddenly found you much harder to hit. And even though we take turns in combat, it is all happening at the same time, which means the next one down the line of initiative doesn't know it either until they attack or until the next round.
Argue it all you want, but sometimes it is absolutely the best choice for a melee combatant to take a dodge action. Remember, friendly rogues can sneak attack with ranged weapons and only need you to be within 5' of the enemy, and they can likely do far more damage than that same fighter swinging on that same enemy.
Die from 3 rogues, each with 2 chances to sneak attack if dual wielding who can do more damage in one round than you have in hp, and no longer be able to contribute but at least you got off your (possibly) ONE swing for d8 damage (plate, shield, longsword)... or Dodge and suddenly become a lot harder to hit, and not receive any sneak attack damage for the entire round while your teammates continue to attack those around you.... as the OP stated, Dodge is better than you think it is...
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.
The orignal premise was that "Dodge is better than [some] think it is", all that's needed to prove that right, is to come up with ways in which it is the right choice.
False. The requirement is to come up with an option that we weren't already aware of. No-one in this thread is claiming dodge is never useless. Just quite rare.
There is a difference between a character standing back and not contributing, and the front-line fighter who did his job and blocked the path of the baddie from reaching squishier members, and now finds themself surrounded by folks that if they all hit will end the fighter's life (multiple sneak attacks damage adds up fast).
If the fighter can get surrounded, he isn't blocking the path. If you're blocking the path, people can't get behind you because you're blocking the path.
Have you not seen groups where one person is melee-centric, and EVERYONE else plays a ranged character who tries to stay 65 feet behind the melee character?
Sure. It generally winds up with a bunch of melee monsters that are faster than the melee character bypassing the melee character and eating the back line, because that tactic just doesn't work on most maps (and if it is a map where that works, the monsters will just pull back to somewhere else, because forcing through a choke is terrible).
I play in one group in which one character is constantly being left behind to deal with melee opponents because those that should stand with her, keep running away whenever things get tough, leaving this one character to get swarmed (she already acted in the round and can't go again until after the baddies).
The correct solution there isn't dodge. The correct solution is retreating with everyone else, because melee monsters don't do any damage if they can't reach you. And if that results in some of the other PCs dying... perhaps they will learn better tactics next time?
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)
An optional rule that I've never heard of any tables not using.
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.
An optional rule that I've never heard of any tables not using.
I would note that if you're using flanking, being surrounded by rogues gets you sneak attack anyway, because advantage and disadvantage cancel out so a sneak attacker with an adjacent ally can stab.
An optional rule that I've never heard of any tables not using.
I would note that if you're using flanking, being surrounded by rogues gets you sneak attack anyway, because advantage and disadvantage cancel out so a sneak attacker with an adjacent ally can stab.
Advantage and disadvantage only cancel out the effects on the dice, you still have disadvantage and can not sneak attack. If you have disadvantage, regardless of how many dice you'll be rolling, you can't sneak attack. If you have both advantage and disadvantage, you still have disadvantage and therefore can't sneak attack. It's how the sneak attack ability is worded.
That's why taking a Dodge action confronted with multiple sources of sneak attack works. It applies Disadvantage, and therefore negates the sneak attack. Even if the attackers also had advantage and therefore roll a single attack die instead of 2, even if they have an ally within 5', they still have disadvantage therefore can't sneak attack.
Having disadvantage (regardless of also having advantage from other sources) prevents a sneak attack.
Although the ruling was about the Lucky ability, Sage Advice describes this.
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)
Although the ruling was about the Lucky ability, Sage Advice describes this.
That is an absolutely wild misreading of what the SAC says, which is very clearly only about the Lucky feat's extra roll
For example, if you have advantage or disadvantage on your attack roll, you could spend a luck point, roll a third d20, and then decide which of the three dice to use. You still have advantage or disadvantage, since the feat doesn’t say it negates it, but you get to pick the die. The upshot of this fact is that a rogue, for instance, who has disadvantage on an attack roll couldn’t use Sneak Attack even if the rogue uses the Lucky feat to pick the die.
If a swarm of attackers all get advantage via flanking or Pack Tactics or whatever, and you cancel that advantage with Dodge, the attackers would have neither advantage or disadvantage because that's how advantage and disadvantage work -- so Sneak Attack could still apply if other conditions were met
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yeah, I'll give you "blocking a choke point and the rest of the party needs time to do Important Thing" as one scenario, albeit one that's incredibly specific and not something that's going to come up very often
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)
In an actually hard fight, having the cleric (a) stay up, and (b) have bonus actions available for healing word or mass healing word has a good chance of being more important than any of the (non-concentration) dpr they have access to.
I've seen arguments that a priest using spiritual weapon should heal with their action rather than bonus action if they can.
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
Depends on positioning. 60' range is a significant benefit.
That is a very exaggerated example of a dodge/parry in a fight. Even though the title of the video use terminology of "dodge" the video is actually a better example of, and I really hope I don't regret saying this, the act of taunting or goading. Huhammad Ali is using is exceptional skills and speed to get his Michael Dokes to recklessly throw punches; it is a defensive tactic used impress the judges of a fight and wear down an opponent by making them throw ineffective strikes. It is only one example of how dodge/parry in a combative contest can be effect but it is not standard of use.
This is not true, and if it was then the many of the greatest defensive based fighters would not be as successful or legendary as their career warranted. It would b extremely ineffective to tip off to your opponent your intentions to attack or dodge. Fighters work on deceiving their opponents with the series of hand movements, altering the height of their head, and the direction of their overall movement. And this do this while squared up in their stance. Only the fighter truly knows what they are looking for to trigger the decision to throw a punch or block/dodge/parry/retract from an oncoming attacker. Yes, as the fight progresses, examples like the one you provide do happen, but it is either drawn by frustrating an opponent and/or a reaction and tactics to escape a dangerous position. At the start of the contests, and for the majority of time throughout the rounds, you will seep both fighters squared up in a stance that allows them to attack or dodge/parry.
A more accurate statement would be that a fighter is continuously opting to dodge until they opt to attack.
They do not know the player has declared the character will be taking the Dodge action. However, they can decipher the character is not attacking and thus taking a purely defensive position. It is reasonable that after a PC who is dodging is attacked by a Monster A that when Monster C's turn comes up in the round they may realize that the PC is focusing on defense and thus may opt to target another character who may be engaged in offensive combat.
What is the definition of "too many enemies"? Regarding the barbarian, it is not just the party may have lost the best damage dealing attack option for the round but the barbarian's rage ability may also be affected. This doesn't mean that frontliners cannot take the Dodge action; it just means this decision must benefit the strategies implemented in the following rounds.
How does the Dodge action have any bearing on this scenario? Is the proposed theory that since a character does not have enough attacks to match the number of attackers, then Dodge is the best option? This is not entirely true. Dodge does not significantly impact the enemies action economy. Here you are relying on other factors to drop opponents. So you might reduce the probability of getting you might also increase the number of rounds and attacks per against your character.
Also taking the Dodge action is not guarantee you will avoid being hit. So it is possible you may just prolong expected damage over later rounds.
This is a fair point. Taking the Dodge action is a good strategy to counter pack tactics.
What do you mean by "free attacks"? I think this statement is rather misleading. The results matter more than the rounds in which they occur. In other words, trading off 1 comrade for 2 two enemies is the same regardless of the round. There isn't a benefit I can see in your statement. Please clarify.
Now, what I could see is this, if Character A's attack is not required to take down the two enemies in the round, and that by dodging they may avoid going down; then it is better do this so that the party isn't down player come next round. The only caveat I would put in is that the character's action in the next round would have a big impact on deciding the rounds fate.
Agree. Using the Dodge action while a grapple is engaged makes sense as an option.
Completely disagree. The statement "raging dodging barb is a damage soaking machine" is not true. It may even be an oxymoron. The point of the Dodge action is to avoid taking damage, not to soak it. And this action is not required for the barbarian to be raging (which is what allows the barbarian to be a damage soaking machine). The Dodge action is not required here and as you point out could be counterproductive. If this action results in the barbarian taking not damage then your party is using their action economy to keep the character's ability active rather than focusing on strategies to defeat your oppositions. This is not a good tactic for the Dodge action.
That's why I said if they can.
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
>> At low levels your brawler probably only has one attack unless they're dual wielding. They can make this up with an opportunity attack if a monster runs.
> How does the Dodge action have any bearing on this scenario?
If you only have one attack and are with 5ft of at least 2 enemies. Then if you Dodge, then either the enemies attack you with a high probability of missing both attacks thus giving your allies another round to kill them. Or at least one of them moves to attack someone else thus provoking an AoO, which gives you back your full DPR.
Whew, forgot to check Beyond for a few days and this thread really blew up. My thoughts:
1. To clarify as requested, what I mean by 'free attacks' is attacks by your buddies on the baddies you are blocking without having to worry about being attacked back, or get up in their face and ruin their ranged attacks. Because the round the enemies spend attacking your dodging barb is a round where they are not attacking your friends. My barb does this now when out of rages until switching to reckless to sweep up, because nonragey barbs are squishy. And while you are doing this, you should also be doing #2:
2. It's a ROLE-playing game. Whether the rules assign special value to a taunt or not is irrelevant. The value lies in getting to ham it up and chew the scenery. And you better be doing that since you won't be rolling dice. If your character dances in front of the dragon and informs it that it's father was a hamster and its mother smelt of elderberries, then it slinks past to attack someone else, that is a high point of the night. You can't do it every round but it's definitely a great move for looking awesome especially if your DM will let you pair it with an intimidate roll. Julius Caesar ran out alone in front of the enemy army in the Roman civil war and dodged their spears for a whole minute until his army was shamed into attacking, so this sort of thing isn't even as ridiculous as it sounds.
3. The thing about the front line is there will be new enemies coming up, at least for the first couple of rounds, and while they can't reach your back ranks without dashing, they can definitely attack YOU. So if you dodge, get your reaction attack on the enemy already in front of you as they run back to bite your wizard (who is probly gonna have to dodge next round now if they are concentrating on something), and then you get attacked by two NEW enemies who could have reached the wizard if they dashed, but get to attack you right now and just can't resist... well your dodge was well used that round IF those three enemies could have dropped you that round. The value of dropping an enemy right now cuts both ways. If they drop your barb, then next round all three hit the wizard, it smells like TPK.
Your non-attacking character can justify their lack of contribution to the fight however they want, but I wouldn't count on anyone else going along with it
A large part of this thread has been people expecting monsters and NPCs to act exactly the way they need them to in order to make the scenario they've concocted in their head make sense
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)
The orignal premise was that "Dodge is better than [some] think it is", all that's needed to prove that right, is to come up with ways in which it is the right choice. That has been done. Yet, so many people continue to argue the issue.
There is a difference between a character standing back and not contributing, and the front-line fighter who did his job and blocked the path of the baddie from reaching squishier members, and now finds themself surrounded by folks that if they all hit will end the fighter's life (multiple sneak attacks damage adds up fast).
There are some that have tried to say, that it's unlikely that you'd face multiple foes with sneak attack (apparently they've never had a campaign or storyline where the characters must face a thieve's guild, or played any of the adventures where the writers gave half the baddies abilities that mimick sneak attack). Others keep assuming that these baddies would simply pass by the heavily armored and armed person in their way, thus exposing themselves to being flanked, just to get one shot on those squishier members... and that even assumes that those squishier members are close enough to be reached with whatever movement those baddies still have left.
Have you not seen groups where one person is melee-centric, and EVERYONE else plays a ranged character who tries to stay 65 feet behind the melee character? First round, melee character moves up to a choke point, everyone else moves back. Or couple characters form a line, (or so one thought) only to have the other run away and switch to a ranged weapon leaving one poor character to face the onslaught alone.
I play in one group in which one character is constantly being left behind to deal with melee opponents because those that should stand with her, keep running away whenever things get tough, leaving this one character to get swarmed (she already acted in the round and can't go again until after the baddies).
There are situations where one can find themselves in melee, especially against multiple foes, where it absolutely makes sense to take the Dodge action (applying disadvantage to multiple baddies, and completely negating all sneak attack damage). Not all baddies that do sneak attack damage have cunning actions that allow them to take a move as a bonus action, and some want to use that bonus action to dual wield for that extra chance to apply sneak attack.
It isn't always obvious when someone takes a Dodge action, a round in DnD encompasses 6 seconds of time, but the enemy doesn't know if your attack will come at the start of that 6 seconds, the middle, or the end. Perhaps you appear defensive because you've readied an action to strike later in the round and need to defend until that time? When you ready an attack, it doesn't mean you've pulled back your sword over your head and are just standing there frozen in time waiting for the moment to swing it down - you're still defending yourselve while waiting for the right moment to strike. They know you've taken the dodge action AFTER they've attacked you and suddenly found you much harder to hit. And even though we take turns in combat, it is all happening at the same time, which means the next one down the line of initiative doesn't know it either until they attack or until the next round.
Argue it all you want, but sometimes it is absolutely the best choice for a melee combatant to take a dodge action. Remember, friendly rogues can sneak attack with ranged weapons and only need you to be within 5' of the enemy, and they can likely do far more damage than that same fighter swinging on that same enemy.
Die from 3 rogues, each with 2 chances to sneak attack if dual wielding who can do more damage in one round than you have in hp, and no longer be able to contribute but at least you got off your (possibly) ONE swing for d8 damage (plate, shield, longsword)... or Dodge and suddenly become a lot harder to hit, and not receive any sneak attack damage for the entire round while your teammates continue to attack those around you.... as the OP stated, Dodge is better than you think it is...
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
False. The requirement is to come up with an option that we weren't already aware of. No-one in this thread is claiming dodge is never useless. Just quite rare.
If the fighter can get surrounded, he isn't blocking the path. If you're blocking the path, people can't get behind you because you're blocking the path.
No there aren't.
Sure. It generally winds up with a bunch of melee monsters that are faster than the melee character bypassing the melee character and eating the back line, because that tactic just doesn't work on most maps (and if it is a map where that works, the monsters will just pull back to somewhere else, because forcing through a choke is terrible).
The correct solution there isn't dodge. The correct solution is retreating with everyone else, because melee monsters don't do any damage if they can't reach you. And if that results in some of the other PCs dying... perhaps they will learn better tactics next time?
You realize that's an optional rule, 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)
An optional rule that I've never heard of any tables not using.
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
I would note that if you're using flanking, being surrounded by rogues gets you sneak attack anyway, because advantage and disadvantage cancel out so a sneak attacker with an adjacent ally can stab.
Advantage and disadvantage only cancel out the effects on the dice, you still have disadvantage and can not sneak attack. If you have disadvantage, regardless of how many dice you'll be rolling, you can't sneak attack. If you have both advantage and disadvantage, you still have disadvantage and therefore can't sneak attack. It's how the sneak attack ability is worded.
That's why taking a Dodge action confronted with multiple sources of sneak attack works. It applies Disadvantage, and therefore negates the sneak attack. Even if the attackers also had advantage and therefore roll a single attack die instead of 2, even if they have an ally within 5', they still have disadvantage therefore can't sneak attack.
Having disadvantage (regardless of also having advantage from other sources) prevents a sneak attack.
Although the ruling was about the Lucky ability, Sage Advice describes this.
Playing D&D since 1982
Have played every version of the game since Basic (Red Box Set), except that abomination sometimes called 4e.
Maybe you'd be surprised. I GM 4 games, am playing in 4 games and none of them have flanking.
What are the official rules for flanking? Which book is it in? I hear different things so I want to know the source.
"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
Between the three games I'm in right now and the one I DM, half do and half don't
So now you have
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)
That is an absolutely wild misreading of what the SAC says, which is very clearly only about the Lucky feat's extra roll
If a swarm of attackers all get advantage via flanking or Pack Tactics or whatever, and you cancel that advantage with Dodge, the attackers would have neither advantage or disadvantage because that's how advantage and disadvantage work -- so Sneak Attack could still apply if other conditions were met
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)