How useful is the Dodge action?

[Dessert Nomad]

I agree with this. It can be very frustrating when you cast sanctuary on yourself and the dm makes the ankheg attack someone else because ‘you have sanctuary and it can’t hit you’.

Why is it frustrating if sanctuary works exactly like the spell description says? If an opponent tries to attack you, they have to make a save, and if they fail the spell forces them to pick a different target or waste their attack. I don't understand why you'd be frustrated if you cast a spell that forces the enemy to save or pick a different target, and the enemy goes ahead and picks a different target - the DM is effectively saying 'your spell worked so well the enemy doesn't get a save' which seems like a bonus, not a frustrating negation of your choice.

 

[cmad1977]

In terms of utility the Dodge action runs anywhere from ‘fairly’ to ‘very’ useful.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Why is it frustrating if sanctuary works exactly like the spell description says? If an opponent tries to attack you, they have to make a save, and if they fail the spell forces them to pick a different target or waste their attack. I don't understand why you'd be frustrated if you cast a spell that forces the enemy to save or pick a different target, and the enemy goes ahead and picks a different target - the DM is effectively saying 'your spell worked so well the enemy doesn't get a save' which seems like a bonus, not a frustrating negation of your choice.

You misunderstand: I mean, there should be no reason for the enemy to avoid you completely just because the dm is worried his or her monsters will fail a save UNLESS the enemy knows the nature of the spell and chooses not to risk being affected. I’m fine with how the spell works and if they don’t know the nature of the spell, the dm shouldn’t change the action of the creature because one of the advantages of sanctuary is getting an enemy to waste an attack action. (Not only avoid an attack). To me, if I cast sanctuary and the enemy avoids attacking me and attacks our wiZard instead, I’ve just wasted a spell slot. I should have just cast it on the wizard.

Just the same as a DM having a low int monster avoid a dodging character because it’s tactically inferior even when said monster wouldn’t typically resort to those tactics.

 

[Stalker0]

I’m fine with how the spell works and if they don’t know the nature of the spell, the dm shouldn’t change the action of the creature because one of the advantages of sanctuary is getting an enemy to waste an attack action.

This is the segment that you are getting confused on. Sanctuary does not generally cause an attack action to be wasted.

1) The monster tries to attack you.
2) It fails its save.
3) It now has the option to attack someone else. Only if it can't (or won't) is its attack action wasted.

So unless the monster used all of its movement to get to you, and has no other targets, it is free by the spell to go after someone else.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

You misunderstand: I mean, there should be no reason for the enemy to avoid you completely just because the dm is worried his or her monsters will fail a save UNLESS the enemy knows the nature of the spell and chooses not to risk being affected. I’m fine with how the spell works and if they don’t know the nature of the spell, the dm shouldn’t change the action of the creature because one of the advantages of sanctuary is getting an enemy to waste an attack action. (Not only avoid an attack).

I don't think you're actually fine with how the spell works, because you're expecting it to do something it simply doesn't. Getting the enemy to waste an attack action is explicitly NOT one of the benefits of sanctuary, as the PHB says "On a failed save, the creature must choose a new target or lose the attack action." It doesn't actually force the enemy to lose attacks unless they have no targets other than you. Again, the situation you find frustrating is that the DM decides "your spell is successfully working better than it does by the book, as the enemy is suffering from its effect without even bothering with a save."

To me, if I cast sanctuary and the enemy avoids attacking me and attacks our wiZard instead, I’ve just wasted a spell slot. I should have just cast it on the wizard.

That statement doesn't make any sense to me. The whole point of sanctuary is 'if it works, enemies can't attack this target and have to attack someone else'. It doesn't do anything but force the opponent to make saves to attack the target of the spell, so if you cast it on a person and the enemy attacks someone else it's doing exactly what it says on the tin. Also, casting it on a wizard runs into the problem that wizards usually want to use attack spells, but sanctuary ends if they do that. Casting on the wizard is only good if he's willing to stop attacking for the rest of the fight, otherwise the spell will go away on the wizard's next attack.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I'm not confused on how sanctuary works. If an enemy uses all its movement to approach and attack and then, consequently fails its save, and has no-one else to attack, it loses its action because it has no more movement and no-one else to attack.

If the DM uses Out of Character knowledge to have the monster move to a different target just to avoid the risk of wasting a monster's action - when that monster shouldn't know what the spell actually does - then I don't think that is fair.

This is the point I'm trying to make. A DM shouldn't use Out of Character information to avoid PCs who do the dodge action. A zombie will, generally, attack the closest enemy. If those zombies are circumventing the dodging PC in favour of attacking someone who is not dodging, then using dodge is a poor tactic but only because the DM is being unfair to the player. IMO.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not confused on how sanctuary works. If an enemy uses all its movement to approach and attack and then, consequently fails its save, and has no-one else to attack, it loses its action because it has no more movement and no-one else to attack.

If the DM uses Out of Character knowledge to have the monster move to a different target just to avoid the risk of wasting a monster's action - when that monster shouldn't know what the spell actually does - then I don't think that is fair.

This is the point I'm trying to make. A DM shouldn't use Out of Character information to avoid PCs who do the dodge action. A zombie will, generally, attack the closest enemy. If those zombies are circumventing the dodging PC in favour of attacking someone who is not dodging, then using dodge is a poor tactic but only because the DM is being unfair to the player. IMO.

Monsters don’t have to know what a spell does to want to avoid the heavily armored guy that can cast spells

 

[iserith]

I'm not confused on how sanctuary works. If an enemy uses all its movement to approach and attack and then, consequently fails its save, and has no-one else to attack, it loses its action because it has no more movement and no-one else to attack.

If the DM uses Out of Character knowledge to have the monster move to a different target just to avoid the risk of wasting a monster's action - when that monster shouldn't know what the spell actually does - then I don't think that is fair.

This is the point I'm trying to make. A DM shouldn't use Out of Character information to avoid PCs who do the dodge action. A zombie will, generally, attack the closest enemy. If those zombies are circumventing the dodging PC in favour of attacking someone who is not dodging, then using dodge is a poor tactic but only because the DM is being unfair to the player. IMO.

A monster will do whatever the DM makes it do for whatever reason the DM cares to establish. I can come up with all manner of reasonable justifications for a monster to do a particular thing, even on the fly. It's not hard.

If a player wants a monster to attack a character with sanctuary cast on him or her in an effort to get the monster to potentially "waste" an attack, then it's on the players to set up the circumstances to make that happen. I provided an example upthread of just this thing: The players set up in a choke point such that the only possible target of a melee monster was the PC in the front rank who was dodging and had sanctuary cast on him. If one PC was out wandering around outside the choke point, then that's a fair target.

 

[77IM]

I've considered implementing an "Abort to Dodge" house-rule like some games have. Something like, "When you are attacked or forced to make a Dexterity saving throw, you can use your reaction to take the Dodge action. The effects of Dodge do apply to the triggering attack or effect. You are incapacitated until the end of your next turn."

Basically, when an enemy whips out a really nasty attack or a ginormous giant tries to backstab you, you can panic and emergency-dodge, but then you can't act on your next turn. I think it would really prevent the feeling of helplessness players often feel when they are the target of attacks. It's also a huge nerf for high-level spellcasters, as most monsters will choose to dodge disintegrate and similar spells (although the monster will lose a turn so I guess it's not a total waste of a spell slot).

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Monsters don’t have to know what a spell does to want to avoid the heavily armored guy that can cast spells

Correct. That is using 'in-character' knowledge to make tactical choices. Which is fine. Some enemies might not make that same assumptions.

And Heavily armored guys who cast spells are not he only people who can do the dodge action, though. That said, being all 'dodgey' is probably pretty obvious and if your DM is always going to avoid the dodging PC then it's the best tactic to avoid getting hit, but not your best tactic as a tank. So then it comes down to how well your players can read their DM.