| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You could default to the rogue always using it unless she specifies otherwise. I fail to see the problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I don't quite like that inconsistently between the Drow's ability and that of a rogue.
However, let me address the point about using the rogue's ability first. I think that, like any reaction, a GM will have to accommodate this. He should be aware of his PC's reactions and give the opportunity to use them. This goes for Dodge, AoOs and the ability to counterspell, for instance. For PbP, several tweaks are needed to ensure that combat goes smoothly. I would ask my players to post about possible reactions they have beforehand, and when they would like to trigger them. That way, I can take them into account during the enemy's turn without having to wait for players to post again.
Coming back to the drow text: I find it awkward that an ability would give an AC bonus in reaction to a hit of crit. Can this retroactively cause the attack to miss, or become a regular hit? Meh... I would have liked t see them stick with the regular Nimble Dodge reaction.
I’d say the Drow dodge works like Reactive Shield in Fighter so it can make an attack miss or not crit.
Rogues Nimble Dodge is weaker in that its done on targeting not hitting
Coming back to the drow text: I find it awkward that an ability would give an AC bonus in reaction to a hit of crit. Can this retroactively cause the attack to miss, or become a regular hit? Meh... I would have liked t see them stick with the regular Nimble Dodge reaction.
IMHO the description of the Drow ability is simply rephrasing the Nimble Dodge text. Yes, +2 AC can impact whether the PC was hit at all, and whether that hit was a critical. Same for the Drow.
It's not "retroactive" in the sense that a PC rogue with Nimble Dodge or a Drow with the quoted ability can, once per turn, add +2AC to his total AC to determine whether he was hit and how badly.
Seems to me it works just as well as the Shield Block fighter feat, except that the Shield Block, in addition to the +2AC, can also block some damage.
Sometimes, especially in online games (e.g. macros), the GM proactively resolves attacks against PCs directly. In cases like these, it is terribly difficult for a PC rogue to use Nimble Dodge, unless the GM manually asks, "Would you like to use Nimble Dodge?", each and every time the rogue is targeted by an attack while the rogue still has a reaction available.
I cannot be the only one who finds this clunky.
Online players are really good about declaring what actions will trigger their reactions before the GM has a chance to post. There is no need for a clunky back-and-forth, just some basic communication skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Online players are really good about declaring what actions will trigger their reactions before the GM has a chance to post. There is no need for a clunky back-and-forth, just some basic communication skills.Sometimes, especially in online games (e.g. macros), the GM proactively resolves attacks against PCs directly. In cases like these, it is terribly difficult for a PC rogue to use Nimble Dodge, unless the GM manually asks, "Would you like to use Nimble Dodge?", each and every time the rogue is targeted by an attack while the rogue still has a reaction available.
I cannot be the only one who finds this clunky.
Can you recommend something more realistic for her to try?
Yeah, it's suuuuper easy. Either the player calls out when they plan to use their reaction, or the GM asks about reactions the first time they target the character to establish the necessary understanding.
The drow's nimble dodge is clearly different. I guess they thought that was too powerful for a low level rogue feat, it is so much easier to use though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That a natural effect of porting an interactive game to an offline medium. There are some benefits (easier to look up rules, easier to portray thoughts and mannerisms), and some drawbacks (not as easy to have quick back-and-forth conversation, having to fiddle around with reactions.) Still, people have been dealing with that on the boards for quite some years, and I think it won't be a big problem. Just something to be aware of, and work with as best as possible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If that's a problem, the PF1 Swashbuckler should be unplayable.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Entirely separate from the mechanical question, but it seems worth noting that the Drow is almost certainly supposed to have the same version of Nimble Dodge as PCs, and I'm sure it was just taken from the Rogue at some stage...but the game changed after that and they missed the Drow.
So expect this to maybe be errata'd, and I highly doubt we'll see similar dissimilarities between PC and monster abilities that should be the same in the future.
The general issue with having to "set up" reactions beforehand is that it curtails the player from assessing enemy actions and choosing which to respond to. This is especially the case for a character with multiple reactions. "I might use Nimble Dodge if X happens, or I might use another reaction if Y happens, or something else unexpected may happen, and I will have to make the judgment call on that."
Reactions, in general, are weaker if they have to be "set up" beforehand.
It's still not that hard. Just go read a PbP for examples of how "setting up" reactions is used effectively.
And that was only one suggestion.
The GM can also be a perfectly reasonable person and check in at key decision points. You don't need to ask every single attack. Only a few attacks in a sequence are going to be worth reacting to.
I still fail to see how the description of the Drow's Nimble Dodge reaction is mechanically different from the Rogue's Nimble Dodge reaction as it's described in the PF2 CRB.
And I agree with Rysky (and others) that only the listed trigger needs to be met for this feat to come into play. Players or the DM might find it convenient to express on whether the rogue wants to use this reaction with a given adversary, for example if the rogue is thinking of saving his reaction for a tougher adversary acting later in the initiative order instead of spending it right away on a lesser minion. But stipulating the conditions under which a PC will invoke his Nimble Dodge feat is not required.
Default is as listed in the feat. It's automatic.
|
No, the trigger is you are attacked and are aware of the attacker. You don’t have to designate ahead of time “if that person over there attacks me”.
Just to be clear about that: When you have a character using Nimble Dodge, you would expect the GM in a PbP game to announce the attack and then to wait for you to announce if you want to use Nimble Dodge or not? And only then to resolve the attack?
|
No, the trigger is you are attacked and are aware of the attacker. You don’t have to designate ahead of time “if that person over there attacks me”.Just to be clear about that: When you have a character using Nimble Dodge, you would expect the GM in a PbP game to announce the attack and then to wait for you to announce if you want to use Nimble Dodge or not? And only then to resolve the attack?
In PBP you do attacks and damage at the same time. P1 had immediate interrupt abilites that would cause retcons/negations so this is nothing new. Nature of the beast.
|
|
In PBP you do attacks and damage at the same time. P1 had immediate interrupt abilites that would cause retcons/negations so this is nothing new. Nature of the beast.
Solution was the same though: Announce things beforehand to avoid retcons and negotiations in the interest of faster gameplay.
Of course that would limit your flexibility as a player a bit, but as long as the GM didn't use that disadvantage against you intentionally, I never found it to be something too bad. It's a compromise, that's all.
And you also can be flexible about it. There's nothing wrong doing it your way if you have to wait for the other players anyways. It's just that if I (as the GM) and every other player would have to wait several hours or more to get someone's answer for something that could aready be resolved, that I don't think that that would be worth the wait.
