D&D 5E is the dodge action broken?

[machineelf]

Why did the skeletons continue engaging with her for three rounds while they were struggling to hit her and she wasn’t posing a threat to them?

Skeletons have an INT of 6. This is one of those areas where I make smart monsters use better tactics than dumb monsters. I would have skeletons blindly attack for longer than a smart monster.

Anyway, there are plenty of good ways to use dodge. Let's say you are a melee fighter without much range attack options, and the enemy is 90 feet away. You can close the distance using movement while using the dodge action.

 

[Charlaquin]

IMO, she was still fighting them (remember a dnd round is multiple strikes, feints, parries etc) just focused on not getting hit more than damage. So to a skeleton, she's a threat. Its not like the skeletons know she traded her action for a dodge...she is still engaged.

I disagree. She’s fighting defensively and not offensively. There should be a noticeable difference. Granted, reanimated skeletons don’t have the autonomy to decide to stop attacking if the person controlling them doesn’t instruct them to do so, and the mummy is right there in the room, watching the Figher/Rogue not attacking for a good 12 seconds.

Enemies don't know that, unless they are intelligent or insightful. Combat is an abstraction, so even fighting defensively involves dodging, parrying, shield blocking, and light attacks that don't break your opponent's guard. At no point does an enemy think an armed and armored man getting up in their face is "No Threat". That's a good way to suddenly get stabbed.

It’s an abstraction, yes, but it’s not so abstract that characters can’t tell what Actions their opponents are using. The abstraction needs to insure the characters have the same information the players do. The skeletons (or rather, the mummy controlling them) isn’t thinking about it in terms of “She used her Action to Dodge instead of Attack”, but he should be able to recognize the difference between engaging with intent to kill and engaging with intent only to not get killed. And of course they acknowledge the threat she still potentially posed by Disengaging as they move away from her to fight the more active threats.

The fighter/rogue actually hit the mummy in the first round, so the mummy wanted her taken down for such "insolence". And the two skeletons going after the other two characters seemed to have things in hand. The character engaging the mummy appeared to be a much greater threat at that point. In retrospect, the mummy should have sent a couple more skeletons after the sorcerer and wizard, but by the time the mummy realized its mistake, it was too late.

Oh, ok. That makes perfect sense, thanks for elaborating on your thought process

BTW, I roll all dice in front of the players, so there was no fudging. The fighter/rogue was hit a couple times while dodging, but I rolled low damage so she didn't actually drop until the crit (I think she had two hit points before the crit). The mummy had every reason to expect the battle would end in its favor, but the dice gods didn't quite agree.

That’s my philosophy as well. Seems like a fun fight!

Skeletons have an INT of 6. This is one of those areas where I make smart monsters use better tactics than dumb monsters. I would have skeletons blindly attack for longer than a smart monster.

I don’t really care what their Intelligence is. I don’t expect my players to dumb down their own tactics or decision making based on their characters’ Ability Scores, and I don’t limit NPCs or monsters that way either.

Anyway, there are plenty of good ways to use dodge. Let's say you are a melee fighter without much range attack options, and the enemy is 90 feet away. You can close the distance using movement while using the dodge action.

Agreed, it definitely has its uses.

 

[abirdcall]

And of course they acknowledge the threat she still potentially posed by Disengaging as they move away from her to fight the more active threats.

I rarely have monsters Disengage. I think I would never have the mindless undead do it.

At most a character can attack 1 creature. Disengaging is spending time not attacking which is the more foolhardy option.

 

[machineelf]

I don’t really care what their Intelligence is. I don’t expect my players to dumb down their own tactics or decision making based on their characters’ Ability Scores, and I don’t limit NPCs or monsters that way either.

Different style of DMing then, which is totally fine.

My monsters definitely fight differently depending on how intelligent they are. A highly intelligent monster is going to use the best tactics they know. They also will try to flee if things are not going their way.

Less intelligent monsters will usually fight until the death and use straightforward and simple tactics. However, it's not all roses for the PCs. Those dumb monsters will continue to attack a PC that has fallen to the ground and is dying instead of moving on to other conscious PCs, making that situation very dangerous to the fallen PC.

A highly intelligent dragon is going to see what the PCs are doing and change tactics to counter them. A zombie is going to just come straight at them and try to eat them, and never change tactics.For me it's a matter of verisimilitude, and to give monsters variety.

 

[Iry]

The skeletons (or rather, the mummy controlling them) isn’t thinking about it in terms of “She used her Action to Dodge instead of Attack”, but he should be able to recognize the difference between engaging with intent to kill and engaging with intent only to not get killed. And of course they acknowledge the threat she still potentially posed by Disengaging as they move away from her to fight the more active threats.

Wouldn't that depend entirely on the combat experience or insight of the skeletons and/or mummy? A veteran swordmaster might recognize someone fighting defensively, and realize they have an opportunity to slip past them. Your average monster? Not so much.

Of course, we don't know much about the Mummy. He could be a veteran of countless wars with insight out the wazoo. But I think his personal experience and skills would be supremely important for determining what the enemy actually knows.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Given you cant win by dodging (costs your action) I wouldnt call it overpowered. It just delays the inevitable.

 

[abirdcall]

Given you cant win by dodging (costs your action) I wouldnt call it overpowered. It just delays the inevitable.

Good thing D&D is not a solo game.

 

[5ekyu]

Fwiw in my games any questions of spotting intent of actions etc is decided by relative chech of deception vs insight with asv and disadv coming into play for obvious vs inobvious actions. So typically fighting defensively would not be automatic spotted but highly likely.

I also do adjust tactics of my npcs based on their int, wis, skills and nature... They are not all "me".



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Charlaquin]

I also do adjust tactics of my npcs based on their int, wis, skills and nature... They are not all "me".

To be clear, I do adjust monsters tactics, they’re not all “me” either. Their ability scores just aren’t what I base their tactics on. I base it more on their “fluff” - the descriptive content about them in the Monster Manual.

 

[5ekyu]

To be clear, I do adjust monsters tactics, they’re not all “me” either. Their ability scores just aren’t what I base their tactics on. I base it more on their “fluff” - the descriptive content about them in the Monster Manual.

Got it... Not a prioritization i would choose myself between "nature"/fluff and actual stats but hey, different games value stats differently.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app