Making the Dodge feat +1 AC vs. any/all?

[Plane Sailing]

Except that Weapon Focus isn't limited to 1 opponent.

Don't get confused by my summary, understand the main point!

Weapon focus is typically going to affect less die rolls in a round than a dodge bonus which was applied against all the attacks of all your attackers would have been a more foolproof way of phrasing it, I guess.

Cheers

 

[DM_Matt]

Just be careful about things like Defensive Throw which are limited to affecting only your chosen dodge opponent. We house ruled dodge to be +1 vs all, but later we then had to house rules Defensive Throw to one success per round, because the new dodge broke it.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Don't get confused by my summary, understand the main point!

Weapon focus is typically going to affect less die rolls in a round than a dodge bonus which was applied against all the attacks of all your attackers would have been a more foolproof way of phrasing it, I guess.

Cheers

But it's this point that I disagree with. A fighter with Weapon Focus will use it with every attack he makes, and I don't think he is attacked a far greater number of times than he attacks something else. Sure, if he's surrounded he'll take more attacks, but that situation is rare, as the fighter will most often avoid such a situation unless he has Whirlwind Attack, at which point, again, he'll be attacking as often as he's being attacked.

 

[Bloodstone Press]

First, like I said to begin with, it depends on how you play, but if you do it, it won't break your game.

A fighter with Weapon Focus will use it with every attack he makes,

Not necessarily. I can think of several of situations where the fighter in this example is not willing or able to use the weapon he has taken weapon focus with:
He is unarmed
His weapon focus is with a melee weapon and the opponent is at a range
He decides to grapple
His chosen weapon is ineffective for some reason (it isn't silver/holy/magical/etc while some secondary weapon he has is)

I don't think he is attacked a far greater number of times than he attacks something else. Sure, if he's surrounded he'll take more attacks, but that situation is rare, as the fighter will most often avoid such a situation unless he has Whirlwind Attack, at which point, again, he'll be attacking as often as he's being attacked.

This statement makes several assumptions about how various people play the game. It also assumes that a fighter can choose when he gets surrounded or not. I strongly disagree with that idea. Players in my games often find themselves surrounded whether they like it or not. As a player, I've found myself surrounded plenty of times and hadn't planned for it to happen.

If the party is fighting a single powerful creature, the fighter might very well be attacked fewer times than he attacks. If he stays at a range, or under improved invisibility, or is flying, or is well hidden, or kills every opponent with one hit, he might also attack a lot more than he gets attacked.

When designing feats (or spells or abilities) you can't assume that everyone else's combat scenarios are going to play out like those that occur in your own games. Nor can you assume that certain situations are going to occur more frequently than other situations. you have to base the balance issue off the basic game mechanics that everyone is playing from, because beyond that, everyone has their own way of designing encounters, setting up adventures and creating monster/NPC tactics.

Also, I'm surprised at how many people say they forget to use it. Players in my group often take Dodge, and not because it is a prerequisite either. And we play it by the book and no one ever forgets to use it.

Lastly, I'd suggest that anyone doing that take a second feat (call it Greater Dodge) that allows the +1 AC bonus to all opponents. In fact, I've seen similar feats in various d20 books.

But again, this is such a small issue that it isn't going to throw game balance (whatever that is) out of whack.

Think about it, if giving a
+1 dodge bonus to AC is a game breaker, something else is wrong.

Like I said,

I don't think it would ruin your game if you just made that change.

AS a litmus test for balance, consider this:
If dodge gives a +1 bonus to AC to every opponent, then will any player in your group NOT take it?

If everyone from the Fighter to the Wizard would want that feat, it is probably too powerful. On the other hand, if it takes two feat slots to get that effect, you'll see fewer people wanting to take them (only those characters with a lot of slots, or a real fear of combat will spend the two slots to get the +1 AC to all opponents)

But AGIAN, it really isn't that big of a deal. +1 AC either way is small potatoes.

 

[Setanta]

AS a litmus test for balance, consider this:
If dodge gives a +1 bonus to AC to every opponent, then will any player in your group NOT take it?

That's exactly how I feel about whether something is balanced or not. I just started a new campaign with six players, using a house rule of Dodge equals +1 AC versus everyone, and characters can take it as many times as they like and it stacks, and I've got one player who took it, and he only took it as a prerequisite because he eventually wants spring attack.

 

[Gaiden]

I know this is going to raise hairs.

What about raising the dodge bonus to +2 and having it affect all opponents?

Before I get stomped, hear me out. Would every character want this feat? Surely not - while it certainly would be a good feat, I would not imagine your average arcane spellcaster taking it nor even other less focused melee characters (or at least not all the time). That begs the question then, would every melee combat oriented character want this feat? Perhaps. As a barbarian or ranger, this would make a great feat, given the armor restrictions of those classes. However, if I were playing a barbarian, I'd find the choice between power attack and dodge a tough choice. Power attack not only is a great stand alone feat but paves the way for cleave and great cleave - undeniably some of the best feats for a barbarian. Certainly spring attack is good, but probably not as useful as great cleave for a barbarian. A TWF'ing ranger would probably rate this version of dodge very high on his list of feat choices. Of course there is the balance problem of the other TWF defense feats being so much weaker by comparison, but ignore those for a moment. Consider what types of feats the TWF ranger takes - probably a good amount of defensive feats given the MHASS and light armor restriction. Dodge will probably be a must for this character.

What about a fighter? A fighter has so many feats, that even if the fighter did not pursue the dodge feat chain it would probably be a good stand alone feat much like iron will or blindfight.

Is this version of dodge overpowered - well at the very least it will be one of the top 5 feats out there. It still is not horribly broken, however. Powerful yes, over the top, I for one wouldn't think so. What does that tell us about dodge in the RAW? Certainly that it could be +1 vs. everyone and possibly that it might even be upgraded from there. I like the idea of +1 vs. everyone and +2 vs. a dodge target. This prevents the hassle with feats dealing with your dodge target, and doesn't break the other defensive feats out there.

What say you?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Not necessarily. I can think of several of situations where the fighter in this example is not willing or able to use the weapon he has taken weapon focus with:

Yes, and I can think of several situations where the fighter's +1 dodge bonus to AC won't come into play either.

When he's held.
When he's flat-footed.
When his opponent is invisible.

But the point is, under regular circumstances the fighter is going to be using Weapon Focus with every attack, and should also be able to use the AC equivalent with every defense--barring special circumstances such as I mentioned, just as Weapon Focus is noneffective under the special circumstances you mentioned.

This statement makes several assumptions about how various people play the game.

You assume my statement is the one citing an abnormal game, while I think the statement to do so is yours.

That's exactly how I feel about whether something is balanced or not. I just started a new campaign with six players, using a house rule of Dodge equals +1 AC versus everyone, and characters can take it as many times as they like and it stacks, and I've got one player who took it, and he only took it as a prerequisite because he eventually wants spring attack.

Same here. I've always allowed Dodge=+1 AC flat, and still don't have anyone take it who isn't going for Spring Attack or Whirlwind Attack. It winds up being merely a way to avoid forgetting to use it, rather than anything powerful enough to take in its own right.

 

[Treebore]

I've always allowed Dodge=+1 AC flat, and still don't have anyone take it who isn't going for Spring Attack or Whirlwind Attack. It winds up being merely a way to avoid forgetting to use it, rather than anything powerful enough to take in its own right.

ditto for me Pendragon.

 

[Endur]

At one point, that change was supposed to be made for the 3.5 core rules. Then somehow it didn't happen. Same as making toughness +1 hit point per level; that was supposed to be the 3.5 change for core rules, but then it didn't happen.

Would it overpower the Dodge feat to allow the +1 AC bonus against all opponents? Throughout D&D3.X, me and all Players I've played with find it difficult to remember to declare the target for this feat on their turn.

Quasqueton

 

[Staffan]

What about raising the dodge bonus to +2 and having it affect all opponents?

I could see that with a caveat - I'd make it increase your Dexterity bonus for AC purposes instead of giving a straight Dodge bonus. This way, it will mostly be useful for those who want lighter armor, whereas someone in full plate won't have much use for it.