Disrupting the Dodge action?

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

Synjin

Mar 09, 2015 11:57:48

Question posed to me that by RAW appears the answer is "No", but could be "Yes" under the "Makes Sense" aspect.

 

Orc takes Dodge on his action. All attacks from those he can see are at Disadvantage. Fighter takes the "Shove" attack and declares the intent to knock the Orc prone. He succeeds, even at Disadvantage. Orc is now prone. 

 

The Prone condition means attacks against the Orc are now at Advantage, thus canceling out the Dodge and making subsequent attacks against it a straight 1d20 roll. However being knocked to the ground could possibly be ruled as disrupting the Dodge action. What about if it happened on a Crit?

 

RAW says the only ways to stop the Dodge action is:

• Can't See The Attacker

• Are Incapacitated

• Speed Drops To 0

 

What say you, forums? Are there other instances where you might rule that the Dodge action (and thus it's benefits) are disrupted?

#2

jaelis

Mar 09, 2015 12:04:11

The straight rules seem pretty good to me. In particular, I don't see any reason that a prone character wouldn't be able to dodge.

 

I guess that if you were able to fool the target into thinking you were an ally, I would probably rule that he wouldn't be trying to dodge your attacks.

#3

Synjin

Mar 09, 2015 12:11:39

A prone character can take the Dodge action, sure. I'm talking about being knocked to the ground after you've already taken it as a means to disrupt it. Two different circumstances, no?

#4

jaelis

Mar 09, 2015 12:15:30

They don't seem so different to me. Getting knocked prone isn't like getting stunned, where you stop what you're doing.

#5

Coredump00

Mar 09, 2015 12:17:39

Well....  You need to make timing allowances because of the design fiction that we are all taking turns... when in 'reality' everything would be happening at once.

 

So sure, if you play that with 5 PCs and 5 monsters, 9 people do nothing while 1 person attacks, or Dodge, or whatever, then the next person, etc... then your timing issue of Dodge then Disrupt makes some sense.  But if you agree that the turn taking is just an approximation of things happening simultaneously.... then it doesn't make much sense.

 

 

#6

iserith

Mar 09, 2015 12:26:01

Synjin wrote:
#7

Primarchx

Mar 09, 2015 13:12:59

Depends, I supposed.  RAW, I'd say advantage from Prone counters disadvantage from Dodge.  The initial Shove would be done at Disadvantage, of course.  This is probably how I would rule as a DM since you've already taken an action that removes Disadvantage from further strikes from standing characters.  Moving all the way to Advantaged seems excessive given the opponent's action choice.

#8

slumgum

Mar 09, 2015 13:22:41

iserith wrote:
#9

iserith

Mar 09, 2015 13:41:05

slumgum wrote:
#10

jaelis

Mar 09, 2015 13:45:12

iserith wrote:
#11

Varden_Khol

Mar 09, 2015 13:48:38

I have no problem with PCs or monsters attempting to disrupt a dodge, by knocking the target prone or grappling etc.

 

So, "How does anyone know their target is dodging, before they make an attack against them?" For me it works like this.

I don't prescribe to the idea that each Attack action made is a single swing of the sword. I tend to describe combat as ongoing and the Attack actions are moments where the PC (or monster) is trying to capitalise on an opening. This way gaining extra Attacks in the same turn makes more sense.

The fighter can make 4 effective attacks per turn while trading blows with an enemy while his friend the rogue only spots one opening, but makes it count. In this description the fighter isn't swinging at four times the speed of the rogue.

 

I see this relating to dodge because the attacker can tell that their target is behaving defensively, while sizing them up. Then when they see their chance they can say, "I simply want to press the attack," or "I'm going to kick this coward to the ground and see how well he dodges then!" or even "I want to distract him with my own assault so that Roguey McRouge can attack unhindered" (Help action).

#12

iserith

Mar 09, 2015 13:50:07

jaelis wrote:
#13

Varden_Khol

Mar 09, 2015 13:53:55

iserith wrote:
#14

Synjin

Mar 09, 2015 14:09:03

jaelis wrote:
#15

jaelis

Mar 09, 2015 14:16:31

Oh, true. That does make sense.

 

I don't really buy the issue with prone though.

#16

Synjin

Mar 09, 2015 14:24:48

jaelis wrote:
#17

slumgum

Mar 09, 2015 14:21:04

iserith wrote:
#18

jaelis

Mar 09, 2015 14:32:10

Synjin wrote:
#19

Coredump00

Mar 09, 2015 14:36:01

Thinking about it more.... 

I don't think being prone is likely to be enough to disrupt Dodge, so I would not likely allow it. (one a crit.. sure, whatever)

 

Thinking about it 'realistically'.... if I wanted to stop someone from dodging, I would grab him, so a Grapple seems to make sense.


Likewise, I could get in his way and mess with him... mechanicaly, that would be 'helping' somene else, which would negate the disadv from dodge.

 

 

#20

Synjin

Mar 09, 2015 14:36:49

jaelis wrote:
#21

iserith

Mar 09, 2015 14:39:36

slumgum wrote:
#22

slumgum

Mar 09, 2015 15:10:53

"The DM says so" allowed as an argument kind of shuts down all discussion of the game doesn't it?  

#23

iserith

Mar 09, 2015 15:18:47

slumgum wrote:
(Reply to #17)

Dark_Kain

slumgum wrote:
#25

OoftaMeg

Mar 10, 2015 7:26:14

I don't think you should be able to disrupt the dodge action short of incapacitating them.  Dodging means you are not exposing yourself to attack and are spending all your energy trying to avoid being hit, that doesn't change if you're standing or prone.

 

In any case, I can't imagine this comes up very often.  

#26

ivstin

Mar 10, 2015 20:29:54

I'm reading a lot of people saying they give disadvantage on the Contest for shove.
While I have been doing the same thing, I must now question this.

Dodge says it gives Attack Rolls against the target disadvantage.

 

Shove is listed as a "special melee attack" to shove, but you do not make an attack roll. You make a Strength (Athletics)  check against them.

Something to consider in the RAW.

 

 

#27

Kalani

Mar 10, 2015 22:55:08

There are three kinds of d20 checks in 5E.

  • Attack rolls
  • Ability checks (includes initiative).
  • Saving throws

​If you keep that simple rule in mind, you will never go wrong.

 

Dodging only applies to attack rolls. Ability checks (such as the Strength (athletics) check made when shoving/grappling) =/= Attack rolls.

 

With that being said, dodging while prone is a valid, yet suboptimal tactic.

 

  • Adjacent creatures do not have advantage against you when making melee attacks (disadvantage from dodging negates advantage for being prone).
  • Ranged attacks and melee attacks with reach still suffer disadvantage (for being prone, and because you are taking the dodge action). 

 

#28

Byakugan01

Mar 11, 2015 1:41:07

Being able to stun people with an attack vs AC and no save would be way strong...That is something that should only be on a fearsome foe, like as a Legendary action. 

 

I can only think of 2 abilities in the PHB that can stun off the top of my head.  Monks and Contagion....I think 1 or 2 more that I cant think of.

 

 

Knocking someone down already has the effect of making them easier to hit(except for ranged attacks), which it sounds like the OP already understands.

 

No need to fix it if it ain't broke.

#29

strider13x

Mar 11, 2015 3:04:00 		I would not negate the Orcs action, the Advantage and Disadvantage simply cancel each other out. A player wouldn't like it if their action was negated... If the target was Grappled I would rule the same, the speed was reduced after the Orc used Dodge, had he been Grappled prior then Dodge wouldn't have been an option.
#30

Chaosmancer

Mar 12, 2015 12:01:08

Dark_Kain wrote: