Nimble Dodge - What does the player know?

[John Templeton]

So I have a player who has taken Nimble Dodge which over all very straight forward but as it a new system and I am still getting my bearings on it something wavers in my mind. Do I tell the player the attack value against them before they make the call to use their reaction? I am thinking yes because traditionally you just ask if X hits their AC or not, which would cover the Trigger for Nimble Dodge and the player can decide to take that sweet +2 to avoid the damage or reduce the Crit to Normal Success BUT should I tell them they are targeted, let them decide then tell them the attack value? Now obviously I am not going to trick them with area attacks and make an area attack potentially trigger Nimble Dodge; just talking straight forward Strike on the player.

[Joyd]

The listed trigger is "A creature targets you with an attack and you can see the attacker." I read that as meaning that the reaction is made in response to being targeted by the attack, not in response to being hit by the attack. Contrast the trigger on Reactive Shield (https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=360), which is very clear that it's used after the attack roll is made and that the AC bonus then applies to the check.

Now, assuming that things work differently just because they have different wordings is risky business, but I'm not able to turn up any rules support for it being something that the player can use the reaction after the check is made. The only way I think that works is if we consider choosing target + rolling check to be one atomic game event (but separate from rolling damage), but I don't see any specific support for the idea that that's the case.

I do think you have to be clear enough in your communication to the player about what's going on that they're clear about when Nimble Dodge is a legal reaction. The player can't, by RAW, use their Nimble Dodge in response to something that isn't an attack, so it isn't possible to waste their reaction in that fashion.

[Kasoh]

John Templeton wrote:

So I have a player who has taken Nimble Dodge which over all very straight forward but as it a new system and I am still getting my bearings on it something wavers in my mind. Do I tell the player the attack value against them before they make the call to use their reaction? I am thinking yes because traditionally you just ask if X hits their AC or not, which would cover the Trigger for Nimble Dodge and the player can decide to take that sweet +2 to avoid the damage or reduce the Crit to Normal Success BUT should I tell them they are targeted, let them decide then tell them the attack value? Now obviously I am not going to trick them with area attacks and make an area attack potentially trigger Nimble Dodge; just talking straight forward Strike on the player.

Given how play at the table usually goes, I would say 'The Dire Hydra is going to bite at you...' and roll some dice. But I'd also be rolling to resolve all the attacks the creature is going to make against that character. So if the Rogue wants to use it on the second or third or fourth attack or what have you, they'd have to speak up.

A lot of die rolling resolution stuff is for ease of play and time efficiencies. They shouldn't be sabotaging a PC's abilities, but also, changing how you roll dice at the table for one PC is really annoying.

Generally, I'd allow it to be used retroactively after the number has been revealed, though I think by the wording they are supposed to use it when the declaration of attack has been made.

[Wheldrake]

I would agree that a compassionate DM should allow a rogue PC to declare his dodge even after the DM declares "it hit you!" and not just when the DM declares "it's trying to hit you."

Even if a strict reading of the feat requires it to be declared prior to any die rolling.

[John Templeton]

In a Discord chat it was pointed out to me that Drow Rogue as the same feat but it worded very different. It triggers on a hit and allows the NPC to raise their AC (as a reaction) to make the hit either not a hit or not a critical hit retroactively. This gives me a hint at intent I think and I am also not going to let an NPC version of an ability be better then a PC one so at this moment I am going to be letting my player know what the attack is so they can decide as needed unless someone shows me some clear and cut rule some where that I shouldn't.

[Megistone]

Well, using the feat before the roll and not changing the outcome (either because you are hit anyway, or it would have missed you regardless) isn't nice.
But I guess that knowing that I got hit, using the reaction and being told: "Sorry, your +2 is not enough to dodge it" would feel even worse, even though in general the ability is definitely better than in the first case.
Being able to nimble dodge only when you know it would change the outcome is even better, and probably OP.

[Edge93]

John Templeton wrote:

In a Discord chat it was pointed out to me that Drow Rogue as the same feat but it worded very different. It triggers on a hit and allows the NPC to raise their AC (as a reaction) to make the hit either not a hit or not a critical hit retroactively. This gives me a hint at intent I think and I am also not going to let an NPC version of an ability be better then a PC one so at this moment I am going to be letting my player know what the attack is so they can decide as needed unless someone shows me some clear and cut rule some where that I shouldn't.

The clear cut rule is the trigger for the reaction, as mentioned before. There's no ambiguity. The Drow ability is a different thing despite the same name, and has different effect probably to make things a tad simpler for the GM.