On quicken spell: I kind of feel it should be an immediate action. After all in 3.x you could use quicken spells on other people's turns, which is part of why they cost so much in spell level increase. If you can only use a quicken spell as a swift action (meaning only on your turn) it's not nearly as useful to the wizard. (EDIT: Still rather useful... just not as useful)Actually, quickened spells are swift actions, not immediate under 3.X. SRD
Although, I am fairly sure that 3.0 had Quicken Spell make the spell a free action, IIRC (but I could be way wrong, too). Heck, as a free action, 4 levels might be a fair price...
The very quote. I don't give a damn about Minsk's class. In this instance, I only care about Minsk saying that Magic isn't always the answer for everything.
You can't divorce a quote from the character that stated it. Minsc (Minsk is the capital of Belarus) is an inherently mystical character. Also, the very quote doesn't mean anything like what you say it does. In Minsc's world, swords are ALWAYS a (if not the only) correct answer. Keep in mind that his Wisdom was, what, 6?
Not that it really matters. I'm sure you can find a quote from a character that DOES espouse that particular view. I just found it rather amusing that you would take a quote from a character that's completely counter to your view and use it as evidence that you're right.
On quicken spell: I kind of feel it should be an immediate action. After all in 3.x you could use quicken spells on other people's turnsFirst time I ever heard that. Can you give me references to this?
Sure will. The problem is looking at the SRD compared to the PHB. The PHB states for Quicken Spell (page 98):
Quicken Spell [metamagic]
"Benefit: Casting a quickened spell is a free action. You can perform another action, even casting another spell, in the same round as you cast a quickened spell. You may cast only one quickened spell per round."
The SRD states:
"Casting a quickened spell is an swift action."
The difference of course being that a free action can be performed at any time, while a swift can only be done on your round (iirc).
So when they switched over to swift and immediate actions they nerfed quicken spell in the process. It's easy to overlook becuase it isn't in the same book, and only gets a quick mention in the errata, but it's still there.
You can't divorce a quote from the character that stated it.
I think I just did.
Minsc (Minsk is the capital of Belarus) is an inherently mystical character. Also, the very quote doesn't mean anything like what you say it does. In Minsc's world, swords are ALWAYS a (if not the only) correct answer. Keep in mind that his Wisdom was, what, 6?
I seem to recall that Minsk survived BG, while his wychlaran charge died.
I just found it rather amusing that you would take a quote from a character that's completely counter to your view and use it as evidence that you're right.
I don't remember minsc doing anything except hitting enemies with a greatsword or using rage and then hitting enemies with a greatsword.
And in 3e/PF, he'd be a barbarian, who'd do nothing but enter rage and hit enemies with greatswords. The rage powers add some bonuses to attack or damage, or even extra energy damage, but they won't let him fly, either.
The difference of course being that a free action can be performed at any time, while a swift can only be done on your round (iirc).
No, free actions can only be performed on your turn as far as I know.
Quicken was a swift action all along, it just wasn't named that way. A swift action is a free action, except you only have one swift action.
But if you make Feather Fall a Swift action, you have to fall for two rounds to use it.
Good point. FF is supposed to be immediate (and the SRD agrees)
Also embarrassing is to spend round after round drifting down the cliffside like a lazy feather, while enemies fill you full of very painful crossbow bolts.
Feather fall is not that slow - just slow enough to not make you hurt yourself when you land.
To this end I have supported more skills for fighters (they don't have to be morons)
Actually, they have to be smart to get skills. If you up the number to 4, they can be dumb and still have many skill points.
I have also supported Action Points to help fighters with those SoD/SoS problems.
Not a fan of those. They don't belong into the standard rules.
Feather fall only allows you to fall 60 ft a round, so if a cliff is 300 ft. and you are only caster level 4 and you cast feather fall right when he steps off the cliff he'll still take 60 ft of falling damage, so it could have an impact at lower levels (possibly higher levels too depending on the height started at).
I'm still not seeing anything that says you can only take free actions during your own turn. An Immediate action is a form of a free action.
Edit: after re-examining they state that these are like a free action. However there has still been a change from free action to swift action, which are two completely different things.
I'm still not seeing anything that says you can only take free actions during your own turn. An Immediate action is a form of a free action.
Edit: after re-examining they state that these are like a free action. However there has still been a change from free action to swift action, which are two completely different things.
Actually, Immediate actions are not a form of Free actions. They are much more like Swift actions. In fact, the only SRD reference between Immediate actions and Free actions says: "Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action."
This clearly says Immediate actions are "much like a swift action" but later says Immediate actions take more effort and energy than free actions.
So they're like Swift actions, and not as easy as Free actions.
Maybe this will clarify:
When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions.
All your actions are performed in your turn in the initiative sequence. Of course, later we learn this is not true for one action type, Immediate Actions, but that is the only type that clearly prints an excepotion to this rule that all your actions are performed in your turn.
In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one or more free actions.
In your turn in the initiative sequence, you can perform one or more free actions.
Free actions consume a very small amount of time and effort. You can perform one or more free actions while taking another action normally.
In your turn in the initiative sequence, you can perform one or more free actions - while taking another action normally. Free actions, by this definition, do not stand alone, but are part of another action. And it's very rare indeed that you're taking another action on someone else's initiative turn.
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
The very fact that they felt the need to add "even when it isn't your turn" to this description implies that other types of free actions that don't state this clarification may only be performed on your turn, while taking another action normally.
You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action.
These two types of actions, Swift and Free, are equivalent. Whatever rules apply to taking one, apply to taking the other, except as specifically noted (e.g. only one swift action per turn applies only to swift actions and not to free actions).
Much like a swift action, an immediate action consumes a very small amount of time, but represents a larger expenditure of effort and energy than a free action. However, unlike a swift action, an immediate action can be performed at any time — even if it's not your turn.
Right here in black and white, immediate actions can be taken when it is not your turn, unlike swift actions. This clearly means swift actions can only be taken on your turn, in case that was in doubt.
Now we know:
1. Swift actions can only be taken on your turn.
2. Free actions are equivalent to Swift actions "You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action."
3. Free actions must be taken "while taking another action". Arguably, this might imply that you could take a free action while taking an immediate action on someone else's turn, except for points 1 & 2 which clearly refute this implication.
4. Speaking is the only printed exception that allows any free action to be performed "even when it isn’t your turn."
By definition then, all free actions except speaking must be takin during your turn while performing another action normally.
Now, having gone through all that, it seems to me that the SRD could be a bit less vague on this point. One simple sentence under Free Action (and a similar clarificaion under Swift Action) would solve a lot of headache.
So you are saying I can only fall down, or drop a weapon on my turn... seems just plain silly to me.
1 nitpick beyond that: A free action is not a swift action. A swift action is like a free action but takes more effort and energy (as you point out as well and I did in my EDIT). If a free action was a swift action (which it's not) you could only perform 1 free action a round (which is not the case, you could 1. drop your weapon 2. drop prone 3. say "I surrender, don't hurt me!" in one rounds worth of actions and still have a standard, move, and swift action left).
The very quote. I don't give a damn about Minsk's class. In this instance, I only care about Minsk saying that Magic isn't always the answer for everything.You can't divorce a quote from the character that stated it. Minsc (Minsk is the capital of Belarus) is an inherently mystical character. Also, the very quote doesn't mean anything like what you say it does. In Minsc's world, swords are ALWAYS a (if not the only) correct answer. Keep in mind that his Wisdom was, what, 6?
Not that it really matters. I'm sure you can find a quote from a character that DOES espouse that particular view. I just found it rather amusing that you would take a quote from a character that's completely counter to your view and use it as evidence that you're right.
I'd like to take a moment to point out that Minsc was the most non-magical a ranger could get, as with his wisdom of 6 he COULD NOT CAST ANYTHING EVER. So in effect, he was a fighter with a wilderness savvy. So i find the 'inherantly mystical' claim to be a fallacy.
Your interpretation of the 'true meaning' of his quote is interesting, but in the end simply opinion.
YMMV
So you are saying I can only fall down, or drop a weapon on my turn... seems just plain silly to me.
1 nitpick beyond that: A free action is not a swift action. A swift action is like a free action but takes more effort and energy (as you point out as well and I did in my EDIT). If a free action was a swift action (which it's not) you could only perform 1 free action a round (which is not the case, you could 1. drop your weapon 2. drop prone 3. say "I surrender, don't hurt me!" in one rounds worth of actions and still have a standard, move, and swift action left).
That's precisely what he *didn't* say:
These two types of actions, Swift and Free, are equivalent. Whatever rules apply to taking one, apply to taking the other, except as specifically noted (e.g. only one swift action per turn applies only to swift actions and not to free actions).
So yes, feel free to take all your surrender actions at once.
So you are saying I can only fall down, or drop a weapon on my turn... seems just plain silly to me.
1 nitpick beyond that: A free action is not a swift action. A swift action is like a free action but takes more effort and energy (as you point out as well and I did in my EDIT). If a free action was a swift action (which it's not) you could only perform 1 free action a round (which is not the case, you could 1. drop your weapon 2. drop prone 3. say "I surrender, don't hurt me!" in one rounds worth of actions and still have a standard, move, and swift action left).
That's precisely what he *didn't* say:
These two types of actions, Swift and Free, are equivalent. Whatever rules apply to taking one, apply to taking the other, except as specifically noted (e.g. only one swift action per turn applies only to swift actions and not to free actions).So yes, feel free to take all your surrender actions at once.
1. Swift actions can only be taken on your turn.
2. Free actions are equivalent to Swift actions "You can take a swift action any time you would normally be allowed to take a free action."
3. Free actions must be taken "while taking another action". Arguably, this might imply that you could take a free action while taking an immediate action on someone else's turn, except for points 1 & 2 which clearly refute this implication.
4. Speaking is the only printed exception that allows any free action to be performed "even when it isn’t your turn."
Except it's precisely what he did say. He says I can speak at anytime, not that I can drop prone or drop my weapon at anytime.
on statement #2 he got it backwards it's a "square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not nessecarily a square," case.
I'd like to take a moment to point out that Minsc was the most non-magical a ranger could get, as with his wisdom of 6 he COULD NOT CAST ANYTHING EVER. So in effect, he was a fighter with a wilderness savvy. So i find the 'inherantly mystical' claim to be a fallacy.
Your interpretation of the 'true meaning' of his quote is interesting, but in the end simply opinion.
YMMV
Whether he could cast spells is irrelevant to whether he's mystical or not. Again: totem lodge warrior, "animal companion" (whether Boo is an actual animal companion in game terms or not, Minsc TREATS him like one, talks to him, and follows his advice), bodyguard for a Rashemi Witch (and yes, Dynaheir dies; he "replaces" her in BG2 with either Aerie or Nalia, if they're in the party, because it's vitally important to his worldview), from the most mystical country in probably the most mystical campaign setting and follows that country's traditions and superstitions to a fault.
His character, his morality, his personality, all revolve around mysticism, not Conan-style physical self-reliance. You can't separate mysticism from Minsc without destroying the things that made the character so great. That means that any quote you use from him to support a non-mystical playstyle are taken out of context and thus mis-used.
So you are saying I can only fall down, or drop a weapon on my turn... seems just plain silly to me.
Actually, allowing some of these options on any turn would give defensive options that would be very silly.
Being prone gives a defender +4 AC against ranged attacks.
Are you sure you want everyone in the battle dropping prone the instant the archer's turn comes up, or the mage announces he's casting Acid Arrow?
PC Mage: I target the enemy cleric with Acid Arrow. He can't hide behind his wall of minions! I roll a 13, bet that hits his touch AC.
DM: OK, that would have hit, but as your arrow streaks toward the evil cleric, he drops prone, adding +4 to his AC, making his touch AC a 16 so your acid arrow misses.
....next round....
DM: The evil cleric uses his move action to rise and none of your friends are close enough yet to take an AoO, then he casts Hold Person on you, mage, so roll your will save!
That would be fairly silly.
There probably aren't many abuses to dropping your weapon during someone else's round, but the rule remains that you can only do it on yours.
If the BBEG shouts "Drop your weapons or die!", you can't drop them on his turn. You have to wait til your turn, which means he has to wait til your turn to see if you do it.
Smart BBEGs will use a free action right before their own turn (essentially at the end of the turn of whoever goes right before the BBEG) to tell you to drop your weapons then they will ready their actions to gork the first PC that fails to comply, thus allowing them to see if you obey or not and still take their own action first if you don't obey.
1 nitpick beyond that: A free action is not a swift action. A swift action is like a free action but takes more effort and energy (as you point out as well and I did in my EDIT). If a free action was a swift action (which it's not) you could only perform 1 free action a round (which is not the case, you could 1. drop your weapon 2. drop prone 3. say "I surrender, don't hurt me!" in one rounds worth of actions and still have a standard, move, and swift action left).
I do believe that I never said a free action is a swift action. I only said they are equivalent, and qualified that by pointing out the differences quoted from the SRD.
One difference I quoted is that you can only perform 1 swift action per round. Since this is specific to swift actions, the converse, that you are not limited to only 1 free action per round, must also be true.
But, nothing in either the SRD or PF Beta rules says you can do anything on someone else's turn except speak.
If you want to drop your weapon, go prone, or surrender in any way other than saying "I surrender, don't hurt me!" then you have to do it on your turn.
By the way, I didn't say all that.
By the way, I didn't say all that.
*facepalm* correct, you didn't, that was DM_Blake, sorry KaeYoss, got ahead of myself.
If someone wants to drop prone to get a +4 to AC against a ranged attack, then take the penalties for any other attack, and spend another move action getting back up (and take the AoO for that) I'd say they've made a poor trade. But even then the thought that you can only drop prone on your turn is still silly. It takes little effort or time to fall down, and is easily do-able on a whim.
My nitpick is that if they are equilvent, then they are equal, which means if you take a free action, then you can't take a swift action, becuase you've taken an equilvent already.
What we need is a "freemediate action." Call it instant action, if you will.
It's an immediate action, except that it's based on the free action instead of the swift.
In other words: You can do them basically any time, and they don't really take up time, and you can have more than one per round. And, as always, common sense trumps slavish adherence to the rules.
If someone wants to drop prone to get a +4 to AC against a ranged attack, then take the penalties for any other attack, and spend another move action getting back up (and take the AoO for that) I'd say they've made a poor trade. But even then the thought that you can only drop prone on your turn is still silly. It takes little effort or time to fall down, and is easily do-able on a whim.
My nitpick is that if they are equilvent, then they are equal, which means if you take a free action, then you can't take a swift action, becuase you've taken an equilvent already.
One of my favorite definitions of "equivalent" is "Having similar or identical effects".
While this defintion means that two things, such as Swift and Free actions *could* have identical effects, it also means they could merely have similar effects.
In my rules rant, I think the fact that I called them "equivalent" and pointed out the offical differences would clearly indicate that my usage of "equivalent", in this instance, meant, by definition, that they have similar effects, not equal effects. The fact that there is a list of differences proves they are not equal.
But the fact that both the SRD and Pathfinder liken one to the other, in fact saying "You can perform one swift action per turn without affecting your ability to perform other actions. In that regard, a swift action is like a free action", means (note the use of the word "like") that these two actins are "similr", e.g. "equivalent".
To answer your nitpick:
If you take a free action, then you CAN still take a swift action, becuase you've taken an equilvent action already, but not an equal action, and only immediate or swift actions count against the rule of 1 swift action per turn. Since free actions, deapite being equivalent or similar, to swift actions, do not count against the 1 swift actin per turn rule, you would still be able to take a swift or immediate action this round. By definition of all the rules I previously quoted.
Now to apologize to everyone:
All I had intended to do was present the various quoted bits of text from the SRD and Pathfinder Beta rules, then link those together into a logical and rules-abiding conclusion regarding swift and immediate actions.
I never meant to enbroil this thread into rules lawyership or grammatical debates.
I still believe that the rules I quoted are accurate, and the conclusions I reaches are supported by those rules.
I do not believe that all those rules reflect real-world logic, such as dropping a weapon out of turn. Consequently, I fully support anyone who rules otherwise and allows simple actions to be performed out of turn, even if the rules don't permit it. And yes, I know you don't need or want my support for it - I merely state my support by way of saying that I hear your arguments and agree with your reasoning and further agree that such houserules make excellent sense.
But they are exactly that: houserules. Because they break and/or change the printed RAW from both sources.
So, to everyone, I apologize for the contentious direction these posts have taken. It was only meant to state and clarify the RAW, not to debate the wisdom of the RAW or of any players who disagree with the RAW (no, don't read that as me calling anyone unwise, since I've already stated that the RAW doesn't reflect real-world logic, hence my intent was to indicate that the players who disagree with the RAW are likely wiser than the RAW, if wiser is a word).
Heck DM_Blake it's no huge issue. No one got all huffy, and we all stayed civil, so I don't see any harm here. In fact if it leads to more clarification on the swift/immediate/free action front (and possibly to more cleaning up on it too) then it does much good for the game.
Heck DM_Blake it's no huge issue. No one got all huffy, and we all stayed civil, so I don't see any harm here. In fact if it leads to more clarification on the swift/immediate/free action front (and possibly to more cleaning up on it too) then it does much good for the game.
That's what I'm hoping for, clarity for all.
Once we're all on the same page (including the game designers who, hopefully, write a clear and concise and unambiguous page for us), then we can all start houseruling from the same initial understanding...
:)
Now that everyone is clear on what everyone else meant by what they said in previous posts... I have two things I'd like to mention.
Other combat classes seem to be searching for options to make use of this swift action category, but monks are trying to decide what to cram into that swift action window.
... in fact, they seem kind of gimped by having overlapping swift action requirements.
*Dodge bonuses are the only AC bonus type that is meant to stack with itself.
*The Dodge feat requires a swift action to use.
*The monk Ki power that provides a dodge bonus also requires a swift action. (as do all other Ki powers)
*Only one swift action per round is available...
(So the +4 to AC is really a net +2 [presuming acrobatics 10), since the dodge feat is part of the monk's bonus package. You are forced to choose between the use of your bonus feat and the use of your Ki ability. Is this intentional? Should there be a way for the two to stack?)
Also listed in PFPG under the Ride skill, but not under Mounted Combat is this:
Cover: You can react instantly to drop down and hang
alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can’t attack or
cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your
Ride check, you don’t get the cover benefit. This usage does
not take an action.
Not even an immediate action! No action at all. You make a check, and gain cover. Sounds an awful lot like dropping prone in response to a ranged attack.. doesn't it? Would you then take a move action to recover your position on your turn?
Now that everyone is clear on what everyone else meant by what they said in previous posts... I have two things I'd like to mention.
Other combat classes seem to be searching for options to make use of this swift action category, but monks are trying to decide what to cram into that swift action window.
... in fact, they seem kind of gimped by having overlapping swift action requirements.*Dodge bonuses are the only AC bonus type that is meant to stack with itself.
*The Dodge feat requires a swift action to use.
*The monk Ki power that provides a dodge bonus also requires a swift action. (as do all other Ki powers)
*Only one swift action per round is available...
(So the +4 to AC is really a net +2 [presuming acrobatics 10), since the dodge feat is part of the monk's bonus package. You are forced to choose between the use of your bonus feat and the use of your Ki ability. Is this intentional? Should there be a way for the two to stack?)
Also listed in PFPG under the Ride skill, but not under Mounted Combat is this:
Cover: You can react instantly to drop down and hang
alongside your mount, using it as cover. You can’t attack or
cast spells while using your mount as cover. If you fail your
Ride check, you don’t get the cover benefit. This usage does
not take an action.Not even an immediate action! No action at all. You make a check, and gain cover. Sounds an awful lot like dropping prone in response to a ranged attack.. doesn't it? Would you then take a move action to recover your position on your turn?
I know exactly what you mean. Swift and immediate actions are being overused. It is a way for the game designers to prevent stacking. Just like with the over use of enhancement bonuses.
|
I strongly suggest to use it, sir.
It finally gives fighters the love they always have needed, without making the system crumble. Definitely a must have, and one of the reason for which (being a definite fighter lover) I wont' switch to 4ed.
I strongly disagree. TOB makes the system crumble. If it doesn't in your group then that's wonderful and a testament to the group's personal merits but any Min/maxer, Optimizer or Munchkin loves that book. Things like being able to use sneak attacks almost all the time without ever needing to really flank, a gnome who can punch through solid rock tunnels bypassing all DR, and the ability to jack-up damage to preposterous levels EVERY COMBAT, ALL DAY LONG made me ban the book from my table. I had an 8th level PC drop over 100 damage in a single round due to that book, and it was totally legal per TOB. I had a bare-handed gnome of 6th level tunnel through 40 ft of solid rock with his hands (it took a while, but was totally legal per TOB).
That book sucks IMO and led to almost ruining my Savage Tide game.That said I do agree that all classes should be able to use the various shorter actions better and need some work to achieve that.
I strongly suggest to use it, sir. [referring to the Tome of Battle]
It finally gives fighters the love they always have needed, without making the system crumble. Definitely a must have, and one of the reason for which (being a definite fighter lover) I wont' switch to 4ed.
I strongly disagree. TOB makes the system crumble. If it doesn't in your group then that's wonderful and a testament to the group's personal merits but any Min/maxer, Optimizer or Munchkin loves that book. Things like being able to use sneak attacks almost all the time without ever needing to really flank, a gnome who can punch through solid rock tunnels bypassing all DR, and the ability to jack-up damage to preposterous levels EVERY COMBAT, ALL DAY LONG made me ban the book from my table. I had an 8th level PC drop over 100 damage in a single round due to that book, and it was totally legal per TOB. I had a bare-handed gnome of 6th level tunnel through 40 ft of solid rock with his hands (it took a while, but was totally legal per TOB).
That book sucks IMO and led to almost ruining my Savage Tide game.That said I do agree that all classes should be able to use the various shorter actions better and need some work to achieve that.
Agreed.
TOB is not balanced with the core D&D mechanics, and while it does in fact give fighters some love, it turns them into gods of the battlefield, completely invalidating the existence of barbarians, monks, and rangers, and nearly of paladins (paladin's combat is invalidated but their RP value is not).
I have disallowed the TOB at my table too, unless everyone wants to use it, which so far hasn't happened.
Other combat classes seem to be searching for options to make use of this swift action category, but monks are trying to decide what to cram into that swift action window.
... in fact, they seem kind of gimped by having overlapping swift action requirements.*Dodge bonuses are the only AC bonus type that is meant to stack with itself.
*The Dodge feat requires a swift action to use.
*The monk Ki power that provides a dodge bonus also requires a swift action. (as do all other Ki powers)
*Only one swift action per round is available...
(So the +4 to AC is really a net +2 [presuming acrobatics 10), since the dodge feat is part of the monk's bonus package. You are forced to choose between the use of your bonus feat and the use of your Ki ability. Is this intentional? Should there be a way for the two to stack?)
I had not noticed this about monks.
That does seem to invalidate the two class abilities a little.
My first thought is that Dodge is only one of 8 feats listed from which the monk must choose his bonus feats. The monk only gets 6 bonus feats, so it's entirely possible to choose 6 feats without ever selecting Dodge.
My second thought is that monks can only use their ki pool a limited number of times per day. When the monk is out of ki, or when he is saving what's left in the ki pool in case he needs it later, those are the times when the regular Dodge feat would be useful. Or even when the monk decides that it's worth spending a feat to learn Dodge so he can always use his ki pool for offense and never needs to use it on defense.
My third thought is that you assumed the monk in question is at least 10th level and has put at least 10 skill ranks in Acrobatics. In fact, this dodge conflict could happen as early as 4th level. And it's entirely possible, given the limited number of skill points monks receive, and their likely desire to spread them around to Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, Perception, Stealth, and Swim (and other skills if the monk is more well-rounded as an RPer and not just a battle machine), it's very likely the monk may be well over 10th level before his Dodge feat becomes +2 AC, so he may have as few as 6 levels, or as many as 16 levels, where the benefit of the ki power is +3 net AC gain vs. the lower amount of his Dodge feat.
And my fourth thought is I could easily be persuaded by a monk player in my campaign (I don't have a monk at this time, but maybe in the future) to rule that the monk is using a single swift action to designate one opponent to be dodged, and deciding as he does so whether he's using his feat, his ki, or both (in which case, as you pointed out, the two dodge bonuses stack).
I had not noticed this about monks.
That does seem to invalidate the two class abilities a little.
My first thought is that Dodge is only one of 8 feats listed from which the monk must choose his bonus feats. The monk only gets 6 bonus feats, so it's entirely possible to choose 6 feats without ever selecting Dodge.
My second thought is that monks can only use their ki pool a limited number of times per day. When the monk is out of ki, or when he is saving what's left in the ki pool in case he needs it later, those are the times when the regular Dodge feat would be useful. Or even when the monk decides that it's worth spending a feat to learn Dodge so he can always use his ki pool for offense and never needs to use it on defense.
My third thought is that you assumed the monk in question is at least 10th level and has put at least 10 skill ranks in Acrobatics. In fact, this dodge conflict could happen as early as 4th level. And it's entirely possible, given the limited number of skill points monks receive, and their likely desire to spread them around to Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, Perception, Stealth, and Swim (and other skills if the monk is...
This may be a personal bias, but game mechanics aside, flavor elements of playing a monk demand high acrobatics and the dodge feat, as well as deflect arrows. Maybe if your monk is like Sammo Hung or something then he can't dodge... but if you're Li Mu Bai...
Game mechanics considered, there are limited ways to correct the AC deficit monks suffer, and dodge is one of them. "Out of Ki" is a valid consideration, and doesn't make the Dodge feat a useless choice, but I just have a feeling that if ANY class should be able to dodge at +6 AC for one round, it's monks. As it stands, its a +3 or +2 net over any other character with the feat alone.
Does nobody else find that instance of the Ride Skill being used to gain cover without an action kind of strange?