On the Dodge Action

smbakeresq said:

No enemy attacks you or makes you use make a DEX saving throw: You have wasted your action doing nothing.

Click to expand...

I would disagree on this point. An important factor that you seem to have overlooked is that taking the Dodge action can cause enemies to re-evaluate who they attack. If nobody attacks you, your Dodge action was only wasted if their decision to not attack you was made without regard to your Dodge action. If your choice to Dodge causes them to not attack you, then your action had the effect of making the enemy change their target, which can be circumstantially beneficial.

As a very general guideline, at least when I DM, enemies that aren't especially clever will favor attacking at Advantage whenever possible. If they can't get Advantage on anyone, then they'll attack normally. They'll only attack at Disadvantage if they have no other options.

I posted these in the other threa:

Dodge can be a more attractive option than disengage - if you disengage you avoid AOOs but are hit normally next round, if you dodge then move away you take any AOOs at disadvantage, but also give enemies disadvantage through your next turn. If you think enemies might follow you or hit you at range, dodge can be your better option.

Dodge is also great if you're just maintaining spells. The most nasty, fairly low-level version of this is a 5th level cleric wearing splint and shield who casts spiritual weapon, guardian spirits, and wades into the enemy while dodging. Every round doing 3d8 (save half) to everyone within 15', plus d8+3 to one target on attack, and AC 19 (21 with shield of faith) plus disadvantage on enemy rolls for defense is pretty scary

People like to think of all of the PCs as roughly equal. But in my experience in AL games, it's not uncommon to have a mix of fresh-faced level 1s and level 3-4 characters who are much, much stronger. If you're a level 1, aren't very tanky, and aren't doing something exceptional, a lot of times your best option is to plink away at long range with a cantrip or ranged weapon, then dodge if something comes into melee with you. If the enemies aren't trivial to the higher level guys, they probably one-shot you.

TallIan said:

Did you follow the link? It explains how ADV/DIS actually work. A roll of 11+ changes in probability by 0.25%, a roll of 20 changes by 4.75%

This post actually shows the maths. There are hundreds of google results showing the same thing.

Click to expand...

I'm an electrical engineer who's made a few posts on this topic and I cannot follow what the chart in that post is doing. It's right at the ends, but very badly wrong in the middle. Whatever it's showing isn't a 'chance to roll this number or higher' which is the critical question of advantage (lower for disadvantage) and it's not chance to roll that exact number (which isn't interesting at all) so...

The basic question of advantage is can you roll higher that number N on 2 d20 rolls taking only the highest. This is figured by finding the odds of rolling higher than that number on a single d20 and then adding the product of those odds times the odds that you don't roll that number on a single d20. For example, if the target number is 11, the odds of rolling at least an 11 on a d20 is 10 in 20 or 50%. This, coincidentally, is the same odds of NOT rolling at least an 11. So, you add 10/20 to the product of (10/20 x 10/20) or 10/20+100/400. A little adding of fractions and you get 300/400 or 3/4 or 75% chance of rolling at least an 11 on 2d20 take highest. The equation form of this is a bit messy, and easier done in percentages:

.05(21-N)+.05(21-N)*.05(N-1) = p

To put this in a chart:



Disadvantage runs the inverse. 1 is included above for completeness above.

Now, please keep in mind that the equivalent bonus is a bad way to think about advantage/disadvantage because you can't reduce a normal distribution to a bonus to a flat distribution, but that's nerd math talk. Just know you're wrong to do it, but it's still kinda handy for a general rule of thumb.

smbakeresq said:

Can you post the accurate math? From what has been posted here and elsewhere without your a**hole****ess advantage/disadvantage is a flat -5/+5. You clear have a different perspective then others

Post your academic credentials also so we can see if you actually know of what you speak. Since you are so confident it shouldn’t be a problem. Just post your solutions, if you don’t then we know who you are.

Click to expand...

I'm have a Bachelor's of Electrical Engineering (BSEE) from an ABET accredited institution with 10+ years experience in the field of communications technology and a particular interest in statistical analysis. Advantage/disadvantage is not a flat +/- 5, although it resembles such (if you squint and are okay being wrong) between 8 and 12. Given many rolls are in this range for bounded accuracy, it's probably why the designers chose to shorthand it as +5/-5 for passive checks. Makes it easy.

However, if the enemy needs an 18+ to hit you, they have a base 15% chance to score a hit. If you give them disadvantage, they'll have a 2.25% chance to hit you. In some circumstances, dodging is a smart move.

Besides, not every encounter is about reducing the other side's hitpoint to zero first.

If anyone cares, the chance out of 400 (rolling 2d20 yields 400 possibilities) of getting a 20 with advantage (or 1 with disadvantage) is 39/400. It then decreases by 2 for each number lower (or higher) until you get to 1/400 chance at 1 (or 20). So 37/400 for a 19 with advantage, and so on.

Then just use a SUM to figure out the odds of getting that particular number or higher.

Ovinomancer said:

I'm an electrical engineer who's made a few posts on this topic and I cannot follow what the chart in that post is doing. It's right at the ends, but very badly wrong in the middle. Whatever it's showing isn't a 'chance to roll this number or higher' which is the critical question of advantage (lower for disadvantage) and it's not chance to roll that exact number (which isn't interesting at all) so...

The basic question of advantage is can you roll higher that number N on 2 d20 rolls taking only the highest. This is figured by finding the odds of rolling higher than that number on a single d20 and then adding the product of those odds times the odds that you don't roll that number on a single d20. For example, if the target number is 11, the odds of rolling at least an 11 on a d20 is 10 in 20 or 50%. This, coincidentally, is the same odds of NOT rolling at least an 11. So, you add 10/20 to the product of (10/20 x 10/20) or 10/20+100/400. A little adding of fractions and you get 300/400 or 3/4 or 75% chance of rolling at least an 11 on 2d20 take highest. The equation form of this is a bit messy, and easier done in percentages:

.05(21-N)+.05(21-N)*.05(N-1) = p

To put this in a chart:

Number	Base Chance (>= to N)	Advantage (>= to N)	Difference	Equivalent Bonus
1	100%	100%	0	0
2	95%	99.75%	4.75%	~1
3	90%	99%	9%	~2
4	85%	97.75%	12.75%	~3
5	80%	96%	16%	~3
6	75%	93.75%	18.75%	~4
7	70%	91%	21%	~4
8	65%	87.75%	22.75%	~5
9	60%	84%	24%	~5
10	55%	79.75%	24.75%	~5
11	50%	75%	25%	~5
12	45%	69.75%	24.75%	~5
13	40%	64%	24%	~5
14	35%	57.75%	22.75%	~5
15	30%	51%	21%	~4
16	25%	42.75%	18.75%	~4
17	20%	36%	16%	~3
18	15%	27.75%	12.75%	~3
19	10%	19%	9%	~2
20	5%	9.75%	4.75%	~1

Disadvantage runs the inverse. 1 is included above for completeness above.

Now, please keep in mind that the equivalent bonus is a bad way to think about advantage/disadvantage because you can't reduce a normal distribution to a bonus to a flat distribution, but that's nerd math talk. Just know you're wrong to do it, but it's still kinda handy for a general rule of thumb.



I'm have a Bachelor's of Electrical Engineering (BSEE) from an ABET accredited institution with 10+ years experience in the field of communications technology and a particular interest in statistical analysis. Advantage/disadvantage is not a flat +/- 5, although it resembles such (if you squint and are okay being wrong) between 8 and 12. Given many rolls are in this range for bounded accuracy, it's probably why the designers chose to shorthand it as +5/-5 for passive checks. Makes it easy.

However, if the enemy needs an 18+ to hit you, they have a base 15% chance to score a hit. If you give them disadvantage, they'll have a 2.25% chance to hit you. In some circumstances, dodging is a smart move.

Besides, not every encounter is about reducing the other side's hitpoint to zero first.

Click to expand...

Thanks.

So, using your example, they would have missed %85 of the time anyway (base %15 hit chance) and hit you %2.25 of the time even if you use the Dodge action, so %87.25 of the time using the Dodge did not alter the outcome.

I agree that not every encounter is a race as you say, but the original assertion was Dodge (used as an action) is used all the time and is awesome whereas I thought it is highly situational.

Using your example I would rather do something else with my action (if possible) then reduce the chance of being affected by something by %12.25.

I can see it’s use in some specific situations, I still don’t see it as useful all the time nor do I consider it awesome.

Saelorn said:

I would disagree on this point. An important factor that you seem to have overlooked is that taking the Dodge action can cause enemies to re-evaluate who they attack. If nobody attacks you, your Dodge action was only wasted if their decision to not attack you was made without regard to your Dodge action. If your choice to Dodge causes them to not attack you, then your action had the effect of making the enemy change their target, which can be circumstantially beneficial.

As a very general guideline, at least when I DM, enemies that aren't especially clever will favor attacking at Advantage whenever possible. If they can't get Advantage on anyone, then they'll attack normally. They'll only attack at Disadvantage if they have no other options.

Click to expand...

I think this is true also and what a DM should do. Knowing when you are in a good circumstance like having advantage goes to a enemies cunning, which is implied by their wisdom score.

It also follows from what you say you are essentially using your action to force an enemy to attack your teammate, which could be a good or bad idea. As you say it’s circumstantial, which is my general point.

As a DM myself if a player takes the Dodge action I won’t change my actions against that PC just because they declare the Dodge action until at least some bad guy has tried to affect them and missed them because of the Dodge action. If a PC takes the Dodge action and you as DM alter your attack plans against them right away you are meta-gaming the PCs and I don’t think that’s proper.

Bawylie said:

I achieved my doctorate in artful dodging in London under the tutelage of the esteemed Fagin.

Also, you mean I have a different perspective THAN others.

You know who I am.

Click to expand...

The purpose of the thread is to get different perspectives. You gave yours so thanks.

So far on this thread and the other one I have seen that Dodge as an Action probably isn’t used all the time and probably isn’t awesome. I have seen that it is situationally useful, which is what I thought.

Ovi corrected my math which was off in a specific sense but got across the general idea that Dodge doesn’t swing the odds greatly in your favor. It has a place, maybe even a niche, but that’s it.

Dodge is an “every now and then thing that can help” as opposed to “an all the time thing that’s awesome.” I wanted to see if I missed something about Dodge as an Action and I found out.

smbakeresq said:

The purpose of the thread is to get different perspectives. You gave yours so thanks.

So far on this thread and the other one I have seen that Dodge as an Action probably isn’t used all the time and probably isn’t awesome. I have seen that it is situationally useful, which is what I thought.

Ovi corrected my math which was off in a specific sense but got across the general idea that Dodge doesn’t swing the odds greatly in your favor. It has a place, maybe even a niche, but that’s it.

Dodge is an “every now and then thing that can help” as opposed to “an all the time thing that’s awesome.” I wanted to see if I missed something about Dodge as an Action and I found out.

Click to expand...

Of course, just to point out, that someone saying they used dodge all the time and found it awesome could be quite true and accurate at the same time it being circumstantial is. It may well be that most of the meaningful conflicts (memorable ones) in their campaign include some of those circumstances and/or that their group has developed tactics and builds around it.

One of the basic realities of non-computer RPGs is the challenge really has more to do with the value of a tactical choice and its trade offs than most anything else and challenges will vary from campaign to campaign.

So, if someone said they used dodge a lot and found it awesome that does not mean that same value carries over into other games.

5ekyu said:

Of course, just to point out, that someone saying they used dodge all the time and found it awesome could be quite true and accurate at the same time it being circumstantial is. It may well be that most of the meaningful conflicts (memorable ones) in their campaign include some of those circumstances and/or that their group has developed tactics and builds around it.

One of the basic realities of non-computer RPGs is the challenge really has more to do with the value of a tactical choice and its trade offs than most anything else and challenges will vary from campaign to campaign.

So, if someone said they used dodge a lot and found it awesome that does not mean that same value carries over into other games.

Click to expand...

I agree except when I said what you said above it was claimed that I also had no idea what I was talking about and it that it wasn’t circumstantial and that since I didn’t see it all the time I had no experience with it and no right to an opinion. Furthermore other posters claimed that if I didn’t use it all the time and see it’s greatness then somehow I was in a game that was no good with a bad DM.


I understand what you are saying but IMO a tactical choice that uses your Action to do nothing that has no effect somewhere over %75 of the time is almost always a very poor tactical choice with less value then other choices.

smbakeresq said:

I agree except when I said what you said above it was claimed that I also had no idea what I was talking about and it that it wasn’t circumstantial and that since I didn’t see it all the time I had no experience with it and no right to an opinion. Furthermore other posters claimed that if I didn’t use it all the time and see it’s greatness then somehow I was in a game that was no good with a bad DM.


I understand what you are saying but IMO a tactical choice that uses your Action to do nothing that has no effect somewhere over %75 of the time is almost always a very poor tactical choice with less value then other choices.

Click to expand...

If dodge was anything like what you describe I would still disagree because of the almost always which I have a higher threshold for.

But fortunately I have no investment in your attempt to obliquely regain face.