How useful is the Dodge action?

[5ekyu]

I think it's also better when the players and DM are cooperating to have a fun game instead of being adversarial in the meta game. If players are trying to set up a detailed set of rules for what the DM is allowed to do with monsters, and then get frustrated and say 'that's meta gaming, you're awful' if the DM doesn't follow the set of rules that the DM didn't agree to or even know about, it's going to make the game unpleasant all around. DMs should have broad discretion on how game effects interact with the world when they're running, but some arguments here seem to claim that there are effects that have a specific right answer that the DM is not allowed to use their own judgement on, like 'can enemies tell that you're using the dodge action instead of attacking'. I don't think this leads to a better game for anyone, and it's also a very passive-aggressive play style.

Also you have to give other people at the table the benefit of the doubt - two of the situations here where the DM decided to have enemies target someone else could actually be motivated by the DM saying 'oh, it looks like Player really doesn't want to get hit, I'll go ahead and give that to him instead of having the enemies try to break past his defense' and not 'haha, Player has taken a defensive action, now I will negate his choice by having the enemies attack someone else'. I don't think it's bad for a DM to occasionally let what a player is trying work even if they think it's not quite RAW, either because it is more interesting or they think the player is getting annoyed, and they're not always going to be 100% on 'what the player wants'. In general if you come in looking to get pissed off, it's pretty easy to find something to take offense at.

I dont think I disagree with anything you said tho honestly most of it is not something I see.

I don't see players coming up with hm limiting rules they then dont bring to the gm. That's just nonsensical.

I describe dodging by NPCs early so there is no question it can be seen. (I find it's often just plain good sense to show how something happens in game for your game * before* it becomes an issue for the PC choices.)

I really worry very little about metagaming - we just expect roleplaying- and I tend to promote the idea of character competence whenever possible. That tends to reduce "meta" disputes to almost nil.

As for DM discretion, I get a lot of discretion but I have earned the trust of my players. I do not make assumptions about what is right for others without knowing more. I can offer suggestions.

For the NPC choice vs dodge, as I said iirc, in my game it's well established dodge is visible so it's a choice. If a PC had an action described that involved luring in an enemy to defend against them, I would allow it as "you ready dodge for when it comes over to attack you" and give pretty much an easy deception check to hide it.

That means the PC does not get dodge against other attacks that happen before the target moves over.

But the target may move in and then get dodged and not have movement to go elsewhere. The key there is the expressed action, the ready etc as opposed to just starting to dodge and hoping it gets ignored.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

I don't see players coming up with hm limiting rules they then dont bring to the gm. That's just nonsensical.

It's happened in this thread! What I'm talking about is players doing the thing where they decide that something like sanctuary or the dodge action works one way, then complain if the DM has it work a different way. I think that the player deciding what has to be secret from enemies, not telling the DM, then condemning the DM for not following the rule are just... off.

I really worry very little about metagaming - we just expect roleplaying- and I tend to promote the idea of character competence whenever possible. That tends to reduce "meta" disputes to almost nil.

Yes, if you assume competent PCs then they understand how their abilities work in the world, even if they don't really know this weapon does a d8 and they have 43 hit points. I find that a lot of complaints about metagaming are just weird and self-contradictory. You'll often see the same people that complain about metagaming if a group plans to use create water to stay alive in the desert also say that players are stupid and deserve to die if they don't use OOC information to know that a monster is too tough for them and run at first sight.

But the target may move in and then get dodged and not have movement to go elsewhere. The key there is the expressed action, the ready etc as opposed to just starting to dodge and hoping it gets ignored.

I think in general using more 'the world is real' tactical choices like 'ready an action to start dodging when he gets to me' produces a much better game than 'I'll take dodge, and get upset if the enemy decides to attack someone else'.

 

[thrawn589]

Dodge can help the tank soak up more damage without burning out the clerics spell slots!

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

It's happened in this thread! What I'm talking about is players doing the thing where they decide that something like sanctuary or the dodge action works one way, then complain if the DM has it work a different way. I think that the player deciding what has to be secret from enemies, not telling the DM, then condemning the DM for not following the rule are just... off.

I was pretty sure I clarified what I'd said earlier. I was avoiding using another example because this conversation seemed to be derailing the thread but since you insist on bringing it up:

A character finds or buys a broach of shielding which makes him immune to magic missile(and resistant to force damage) . Afterwards, every time they have an encounter that can use MM, the DM makes a point of NOT using magic missile against the PC - despite the fact the enemy should not really know that character is immune to magic missile. The DM does this because it's a better tactic. He ensures the opposition never wastes an action on casting a spell that won't do anything. And there's plenty of justification because MM can target anyone, so why waste an action on the one PC who has protection?

Now, you can argue that the broach of shielding is doing exactly what it's supposed to: protecting the player from magic missiles. And since the DM never attacks the player with magic missiles, that's exactly what it does. That argument ignores the fact that part of the advantage of a broach of shielding is it also protects the party as a whole by occasionally soaking up damage from MM that would otherwise have hurt someone else.
So, avoiding using those actions on that PC renders the item slightly less useful than it could be.

So, if you want to use Out of Character knowledge to make the most advantageous actions every encounter, that's fine. That's a personal choice. I personally, would occasionally have an enemy target the person with the broach if it made sense to do so - even if I knew it would waste an action. Once that happens, the caster would avoid making the same mistake twice.

In any case, Being defensive is pretty obvious in most situations so it's probably a moot point. I personally wouldn't have zombies make the distinction between dodging and non-dodging characters but maybe some people play smarter zombies than I do.

Does that make the dodge action any more or less useful? I don't know anymore, honestly.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Double-post

I think it's also better when the players and DM are cooperating to have a fun game instead of being adversarial in the meta game. If players are trying to set up a detailed set of rules for what the DM is allowed to do with monsters, and then get frustrated and say 'that's meta gaming, you're awful' if the DM doesn't follow the set of rules that the DM didn't agree to or even know about, it's going to make the game unpleasant all around. DMs should have broad discretion on how game effects interact with the world when they're running, but some arguments here seem to claim that there are effects that have a specific right answer that the DM is not allowed to use their own judgement on, like 'can enemies tell that you're using the dodge action instead of attacking'. I don't think this leads to a better game for anyone, and it's also a very passive-aggressive play style.

Also you have to give other people at the table the benefit of the doubt - two of the situations here where the DM decided to have enemies target someone else could actually be motivated by the DM saying 'oh, it looks like Player really doesn't want to get hit, I'll go ahead and give that to him instead of having the enemies try to break past his defense' and not 'haha, Player has taken a defensive action, now I will negate his choice by having the enemies attack someone else'. I don't think it's bad for a DM to occasionally let what a player is trying work even if they think it's not quite RAW, either because it is more interesting or they think the player is getting annoyed, and they're not always going to be 100% on 'what the player wants'. In general if you come in looking to get pissed off, it's pretty easy to find something to take offense at.

So, going back and re-reading some stuff, I agree with this totally. Which is why I think you took my whole point out of context.

I was just trying to find an example where, if the DM is being adversarial, it could affect the quality of player's decisions - possibly in relation to the dodge action.