Dodge

[Artoomis]

That's assuming the 'on any action' clause is not still limited by 'during your action'.

-Hyp.

I presume you mean "any of your Actions" - It would be a complete changing of the words otherwise; this way it's arguable an implied restriction.

As written, you could change Dodge to protect each attacking opponent, but NOT for each AoO you provoke - unless, of course, you allow the silliness of using a Free Action: Speech to say a word just so you can switch opponents for Dodge.

The latter case is a clear abuse and should not be allowed.

The Simplest way (preserving "any action") is either:

1. +1 AC against everyone (whiohc seems a bit too much to me) or
2. You declare the opponent on each of your own actions: Standard. Move or Full Round.

 

[Infiniti2000]

"Free Action
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally. However, there are reasonable limits on what you can really do for free. "

There you have it. SRD quote - Under "Types of Actions."

That doesn't prove your point at all. You read it as a restriction. I read it as a possibility. Your interpretation is not so limited, though, just a little weird because to get around it you just have to talk a lot.

On the other hand, given your interpretation, you don't allow speaking out of turn right? I mean, the speaking description doesn't eliminate this restriction you've imposed. It just creates a conflict in the rules.

There are a lot of weird scenarios that your interpretation produces.

 

[Artoomis]

That doesn't prove your point at all. You read it as a restriction. I read it as a possibility. Your interpretation is not so limited, though, just a little weird because to get around it you just have to talk a lot.

On the other hand, given your interpretation, you don't allow speaking out of turn right? I mean, the speaking description doesn't eliminate this restriction you've imposed. It just creates a conflict in the rules.

There are a lot of weird scenarios that your interpretation produces.

Okay, you're right. I may have read that too quickly. That does not change my opinion of how to run Dodge, though, as Free Actions that can be taken when someonle ELSE is using an Action are pretty well documented as exceptions.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I presume you mean "any of your Actions" - It would be a complete changing of the words otherwise; this way it's arguable an implied restriction.

What I mean:
During your action, you designate an opponent and receive a +1 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks from that opponent. You can select a new opponent on any action.

I can choose a Dodge opponent "During my action" and "on any action". Whether I can choose a Dodge opponent on someone else's action is dependent on whether I need to satisfy either or both of those restrictions.

The hobgoblin's attack action is 'on any action', but it is not 'during your action'; can you therefore designate the hobgoblin as your Dodge opponent? I would say no, because I'd require both conditions to be fulfilled.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

What I mean:
During your action, you designate an opponent and receive a +1 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks from that opponent. You can select a new opponent on any action.

I can choose a Dodge opponent "During my action" and "on any action". Whether I can choose a Dodge opponent on someone else's action is dependent on whether I need to satisfy either or both of those restrictions.

The hobgoblin's attack action is 'on any action', but it is not 'during your action'; can you therefore designate the hobgoblin as your Dodge opponent? I would say no, because I'd require both conditions to be fulfilled.

-Hyp.

Oh, man, I was over-focusing on the last sentence. Taken together "any action" only makes sense if we read "During your action..." as:

1. During your turn or
2. During any of your actions

 

[Hypersmurf]

Oh, man, I was over-focusing on the last sentence. Taken together "any action" only makes sense if we read "During your action..." as:

1. During your turn or
2. During any of your actions

Right.

And based on the Combat Expertise/Stunning Fist/Shield Bash/etc examples, I'm inclined to read it as 'During your turn'.

The other question is whether, given this reading, 'on any action' should also be read as 'on any subsequent (your) turn', which would restrict switching to once per round.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Right.

And based on the Combat Expertise/Stunning Fist/Shield Bash/etc examples, I'm inclined to read it as 'During your turn'.

The other question is whether, given this reading, 'on any action' should also be read as 'on any subsequent (your) turn', which would restrict switching to once per round.

-Hyp.

I wouldn't think so. That seems like a pretty large change of language to me. I would not allow anything other than Standard, Move and Full Actions, though.

So I'd allow one designation for your Move Action followed by a different one for Your Stndard Action (Attack), for example.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I wouldn't think so. That seems like a pretty large change of language to me.

Well, the word is used in at least three ways in rules text in the books.

1. A Standard/Move/Full Round/Free (/Swift/Immediate) action.

2. "On your action..." "During your action..." "Before your next action..." - your turn in the initiative order.

3. "The subject can take no actions..." This phrase seems intended to prohibit certain things, like 5' steps and AoOs, which are not covered by definition 1. It's a more natural-English definition of 'action', basically meaning 'doing stuff'.

I'm fairly confident that the intent of the word 'action' in the phrase 'During your action' in the Dodge feat is definition 2. Given that, I don't see it as a stretch to assume that the same word used later in the same paragraph is using the same definition.

-Hyp.

 

[Nyeshet]

Dodge is a slightly underpowered feat as it is, so I wouldn't mind if the character altered it at the start and end of their turn. It is within the bounds of the rules, and nearly as important to me it makes sense realistically. During their action they may be focusing on one foe, but if that foe is slain or otherwise bypassed by the end of their action their attention will likely be focused upon another foe - thus granting the bonus vs that foe until the start of their next action when they can next react to changes around them.

I would, however, limit it to the start and end of their turn unless something really unusual happened during their turn that would perhaps allow otherwise. I cannot think of such a situation, but I am sure and enterprising player could do so. For instance, during their turn they are in combat with one of two foes flanking them. Their dodge bonus goes to that foe. At the end of their turn they could choose to place it with the other foe flanking them - as perhaps their character is becoming nervous about that knife behind their back instead of the one they can see in front of them. At the start of their next turn they could again choose from those threatening them when determining against which they receive the bonus. Perhaps they continue to place it with the one behind them. Perhaps they return it to the one in front of them. Maybe a new foe is now also adjacent to them, so they place it with this unknown factor. At the end of their turn they could decide yet again.

 

[Jdvn1]

I don't understand your comment and how it relates to my post, so I assume there's a misunderstanding.

How can someone respond to such a poll if two answers are indistinguishable?

You are claiming that people who respond to the poll with "Intent" or "RAW" do not otherwise houserule Dodge.

That's not necessarily true, but I probably could have worded the poll much better to be much more clear. That is a good point.

The discussion is really useful, though.