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

[Nifft]

Hmm. It looks like the issues are:

- Dodge stacking with Armor
- Dodge applying to many rolls per round, especially with respect to ranged attacks


Combined solution:

- Dodge grants a +1 Dex bonus to AC vs. Melee attacks.


That clears up issues like, "can I designate an invisible opponent as my dodge?", or even "can I designate the first archer to shoot me as my dodge?"


It's even weak enough in that form that I'd allow it to be taken multiple times, and for the effects to stack. It would certainly give a swashbuckler-type the sort of feel that he'd want -- no fear of swordsmen, but crossbows are still quite dangerous.

-- N

 

[Jhulae]

Changing Dodge to +1 versus all opponents seriously steps on the toes of Two Weapon Defense, which gives a +1 versus all opponents and requires you to be wielding two melee weapons (or a double melee weapon) to get the bonus, plus it requires having two weapon fighting as a feat.

Giving Dodge +1 versus all opponents greatly overpowers Two Weapon Defense.

To give Dodge +2 versus all opponents is ludicrous, as TWD only lets you get +2 versus every opponent on a total defense standard action(which means you can't even attack with AoOs and limit your speed to a single move action).

 

[Marshall]

Changing Dodge to +1 versus all opponents seriously steps on the toes of Two Weapon Defense, which gives a +1 versus all opponents and requires you to be wielding two melee weapons (or a double melee weapon) to get the bonus, plus it requires having two weapon fighting as a feat.

Thats easy. Noone in their right mind will ever take TWD.

 

[Liquidsabre]

Changing Dodge to +1 versus all opponents seriously steps on the toes of Two Weapon Defense, which gives a +1 versus all opponents and requires you to be wielding two melee weapons (or a double melee weapon) to get the bonus, plus it requires having two weapon fighting as a feat.

I don't see the conflict between the two feats. In fact, they work quite nicely together. Dodge feat provides a +1 dodge bonus to AC, TWD provides a +1 shield bonus to AC, when fighting defensively or using total defense it provides a +2 shield bonus to AC. Improved TWD provides a +2 shield bonus while wielding 2 weapons and +4 shield bonus when fighting defensively or using total defense.

Giving Dodge +1 versus all opponents greatly overpowers Two Weapon Defense.

Not sure how it does this, Dodge only adds +1 to the recipients AC. Perhaps a 2k ring of protection also overpowers TWD? Not likely.

 

[Anditch]

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

Our group have used +1 to all right from day one and the game functions no different noticeably. It simplifies things and that is a good thing really. I hope that if WOTC bring out a fourth edition or another update that they change it to +1 to all.

 

[Jhulae]

I don't see the conflict between the two feats. In fact, they work quite nicely together. Dodge feat provides a +1 dodge bonus to AC, TWD provides a +1 shield bonus to AC, when fighting defensively or using total defense it provides a +2 shield bonus to AC. Improved TWD provides a +2 shield bonus while wielding 2 weapons and +4 shield bonus when fighting defensively or using total defense.


Not sure how it does this, Dodge only adds +1 to the recipients AC. Perhaps a 2k ring of protection also overpowers TWD? Not likely.

The conflict comes in to play because Dodge is a 'basic' feat. No prerequisite required. It also has no other requisites to it's use.

Two Weapon Defense has two prerequisites: 1) that you have Two Weapon Fighting and 2) that you're wielding two weapons or a double weapon. That's why it provides a bonus against all opponents.

To allow Dodge to do the same thing, without needing any prerequisites, makes it a much better feat than TWD, much better than a feat that requires two specific things, including another feat.

To compare a feat to a magic item is sophistic. I don't even need to explain why.

 

[mercucio]

The conflict comes in to play because Dodge is a 'basic' feat. No prerequisite required. It also has no other requisites to it's use.

Two Weapon Defense has two prerequisites: 1) that you have Two Weapon Fighting and 2) that you're wielding two weapons or a double weapon. That's why it provides a bonus against all opponents.

To allow Dodge to do the same thing, without needing any prerequisites, makes it a much better feat than TWD, much better than a feat that requires two specific things, including another feat.

To compare a feat to a magic item is sophistic. I don't even need to explain why.

1. Two-weapon defense is not a good feat. Honestly, it isn't.
2. Two-weapon defense is a tack-on onto two-weapon fighting. Let me stress that again: two-weapon fighting.
3. Dodge's whole focus is letting you avoid attacks, hence the dodge bonus. TWD grant's you a *shield* bonus, in other words you deflect attacks with your weapons.

So no, switching it to +1 v.s all opponents is not overpowering. It doesn't make it a better feat (which is subjective anyways). Claiming it will nerf two-weapon defense is a fallacious argument. Consider also, you can take Imp. TWD with another feat, increasing your shield bonus to +2, where as you cannot take Dodge multiple times. The focus of the Two-weapon fighting chain is fighting, not defense. The focus of the Dodge chain is, oddly enough on defense. Go figure =).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

You can see how the designers placed it as it is.

feats that give a bonus that might come up once a combat (imp init, cbt casting) get +4

Feats that come up every round (weapon focus on every hit) +1

Feats that come up less than every round (weapon spec - only when you hit) +2

Since a dodge vs all targets would give the +1 benefit against potentially multiple opponents it would have been "too good", so it was scaled down to work against only 1 opponent (making it notionally the same scale of benefit as weapon focus, which gives a +1 hit for all attacks you make against 1 opponent).

I would say your analysis is correct and that is suggests that Dodge should either be +1 vs. All Opponents, or +2 vs. One Opponent.

I do not see how one could say that, as a general rule, Dodge gets used more than Weapon Focus. IME I do not see PCs with Dodge who are not planning on picking up Mobility and (possibly) Spring Attack. A feat that no one would take except as a prereq for something cooler is probably a weak feat.

 

[Philip]

We just use Auto-dodge:

- If you have a single opponent facing you, you are assumed to automatically dodge that opponent.
- If you had more than one opponent facing you when your turn came around, you are assumed to dodge the last person that damaged you.
- If no one has damaged you yet, you are assumed to dodge the last opponent that attacked you.
- If no one has attacked you yet, you will auto-dodge the first one who does.

If you want to dodge a specific target instead of the defaults above, only then do you have to state it.

This rule will deal effectively with 95% of the situations that come up. And of the cases the auto-dodge would have been contrary to player choice, the chances that the +1 bonus made the difference between a hit and a miss is small and thus usually irrelevant.

 

[argo]

The feat lets you take mobility and spring attack.

It is one thing for a feat to be sub-optimal but a preq for another better feat, but no feat should be totally worthless on its own merits. Seriously, have you ever seen anyone take dodge who wasn't angling for spring attack/whirlwind? Spring attack is powerful thats true, but it is balanced by the fact that it is a third tier feat as well as by the fact that dodge is suboptimal. Dodge should be worth something by itself.

Pluce AC is far more valuable than bonus to hit in core character abilities since it is cheap for magic.

I don't understand your statment about AC being more valuable than to-hit. Considering the fact that an enhancment bonus to an armor or shield costs half of what an equal enhancment bonus to a weapon costs I would say that the designers seem to think that an AC bonus is less valuable than a to-hit. Besides, once you get out of low levels attack bonuses quickly start to outstrip AC, that +1 from dodge will not unbalance anything once you hit 6th level or so.

Plus as the poster above notes, Dex 13 for dodge is just at the sweet spot of dex scores for heavy armor classes. It would give those characters too much of a boon.

Thats a non-issue. The core rules provide an optimal armor choice for every Dex bonus. This feat will offer the same benefit to the Dex 26 guy in padded armor as it does to the Dex 13 guy in full plate.


In more concrete terms I can attest to the fact that I have played with Dodge as being +1 vs everybody for years and seen no ill effects come of it. I have seen some players take it who wern't angling for spring attack and some who didn't. In this form it seems to be considered to be worth the cost of a feat on its own assuming that a high AC is your schtick and you already have Expertise. This seems to put it on par with feats like Improved Init and Combat Reflexes; good if it is part of a package you are tying to put together but otherwise left for later. I think that is exactly where the feat should be.