I Hate Rogue's Dodge, AKA, A Statistical Breakdown of a Lackluster Feat


Rules Discussion

51 to 100 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Rogue in question from the OP.

I'll leave statistical analysis to others and just say this: It doesn't feel fun when the vast majority of the time you use an ability, it fails to make a difference.

(Especially when the opponent smacks you with their second or third attack!)

It does significantly upgrade with Nimble Roll--difference to me being it does something when the attack was going to miss anyway, so it doesn't feel wasted.

This is a matter of personal opinion of course, but I'll take an ability that makes me feel good most times over one that is technically mechanically superior but usually feels like I chose to use it at the wrong time.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wheldrake wrote:

Would it break the game if you allowed the rogue to declare his Nimble Dodge *after* the DM said that he just got hit or criticalled?

There are so many moving parts in the game that this small divergence or backpeddling in favor of a vulnerable PC doesn't seem out of line.

Strictly speaking, this would be a house rule, but it's not a huge reach.

This would be a big and enjoyable improvement.

Current situation:
GM: I'm going to strike.
Rogue: I do Nimble Dodge
GM: Oh, I rolled low, you would not have been hit anyway. I strike again.
Rogue: okay...
GM: ...and I hit.

New situation:
GM: I'm going to strike and I get X
Rogue: Feh, that isn't close.
GM: I strike again and get Y
Rogue: Hah! I nimble dodge and just avoid it!
GM: Drat.


@M Morris:
Does your character have a different reaction to use? If not, Nimble Dodge is just a boon: it doesn't work often, but when it does its impact is noticeable; and besides the feat you had to take, it's basically free.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing I would bring up is the actual cost of Shield Block. When enemies get strong enough to destroy that shield, a Rogue using Nimble Dodge will be able to keep that reactive bonus.

It also seems like Nimble Dodge is a great boon to Rogues using hit and run tactics where an enemy will only have one good action to attack you with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
M Morris wrote:
I'll leave statistical analysis to others and just say this: It doesn't feel fun when the vast majority of the time you use an ability, it fails to make a difference.

No different than entropic shield or blur in P1e. At least you're not spending a non-renewable resource. Nothing like burning a second-level spell slot to have the enemy roll over 20% every round.


I'd really just let Nimble Dodge work on hit. Then call it a day.

Off set the cost of shield purchase/breaking/repairing with N.D.'s 1/rd's attack rather than multiple of it.

It doesn't feel fun when not working but thats fairly true of most things.
-------
sidenote. FOlks talk about (on the first page) not knowing ~how~ much they're beint "to hit" for. Do most GM's just memorize your character's ACs and j ust tell you you get hit?

All of mine roll ask "does a 18 hit?" and such like that. with a few corner cases, not asking if a 10 hits for instance, or a +30 (or nat 20) hits or not.
So just being able to judgement call dodge or not is quite useful for if I want to use my one dodge.
Which also makes sense in character, higher to hit equates to far cleaner/faster/true-er strikes. WHich my character wouldn't react to as quickly. SO it doesn't feel particularly meta-narritive to me either.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:

Would it break the game if you allowed the rogue to declare his Nimble Dodge *after* the DM said that he just got hit or criticalled?

There are so many moving parts in the game that this small divergence or backpeddling in favor of a vulnerable PC doesn't seem out of line.

Strictly speaking, this would be a house rule, but it's not a huge reach.

This would be a big and enjoyable improvement.

Current situation:
GM: I'm going to strike.
Rogue: I do Nimble Dodge
GM: Oh, I rolled low, you would not have been hit anyway. I strike again.
Rogue: okay...
GM: ...and I hit.

New situation:
GM: I'm going to strike and I get X
Rogue: Feh, that isn't close.
GM: I strike again and get Y
Rogue: Hah! I nimble dodge and just avoid it!
GM: Drat.

That's way to strong. During a single round, you won't take that many attacks. Chances are high that only one attack will be just 1 or 2 points ahead your AC. So, basically, it's equivalent to saying that you have +2 AC. So, now, Nimble Dodge becomes a Raise a Shield action for the cost of a reaction and no need for a shield. Expect greatsword Fighters with the same AC than sword and board ones. Way way overpowered.

Zwordsman wrote:

sidenote. FOlks talk about (on the first page) not knowing ~how~ much they're beint "to hit" for. Do most GM's just memorize your character's ACs and j ust tell you you get hit?

All of mine roll ask "does a 18 hit?" and such like that. with a few corner cases, not asking if a 10 hits for instance, or a +30 (or nat 20) hits or not.
So just being able to judgement call dodge or not is quite useful for if I want to use my one dodge.
Which also makes sense in character, higher to hit equates to far cleaner/faster/true-er strikes. WHich my character wouldn't react to as quickly. SO it doesn't feel particularly meta-narritive to me either.

That's too late to use Nimble Dodge. He must use it as soon as you say the monster is attacking him. As soon as you state the AC, he can no more.


Zwordsman wrote:

sidenote. Folks talk about (on the first page) not knowing ~how~ much they're beint "to hit" for.

Do most GM's just memorize your character's ACs and j ust tell you you get hit? All of mine roll ask "does a 18 hit?" and such like that.

Thanks for picking up on this...

I don't see it as major burden for GM to have PC AC values marked down behind his screen, along with Saves and Perception/Skill checks.
Critical point being there isn't meant to be information symmetry between GM and PCs.

I think the critical nuance of this is, a player will at least know if attack would hit them before triggering Reactive Shield.
But should the GM also tell them if it is a Critical Hit? Well if they tell them the attack roll total they will know that too,
but if they aren't told attack #s, I'm not sure if a "Critical Hit" should be inherently recognizable (other than by it's effect).

A related question is whether Reactive Shield works with Certain Strike (partial damage on Failure/Miss),
and if target would knows it is "Failure" hit (i.e. low damage) before choosing to trigger Reactive Shield... ???

Likewise if player rolls Save, should the GM tell them whether it is CritFail/Fail/Save/CritSave or just the relevant effect?

I think having a solid official baseline for this is important in balancing these types of abilities,
since a different assumption can lead to significantly different applications without overt intention to diverge from rules.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In most of my games, attack totals are generally announced by the attacker and the defender then tells the attacker whether the attack hit or missed (with crit and fumble to be added when we convert to 2e). Do we have anything in the (new) rules that establishes that this is the right or the wrong way to do it?

PF1 had numerous abilities that worked only with this method of resolving attacks, so this is a rather jarring change in PF2.


For a note, the actual comparison should be made to Guardian's Deflection, aka improved Nimble Dodge targeting an ally. Note that this is a level 6 fighter feat and has more restrictions.

Why should a level 1 rogue feat be turned into a better version of a level 6 fighter feat?


That's actually a good example of mechanics going out of their way to specify something (if the +2 would downgrade attack) that is un-necessary if victim (or their ally) already knows the attack roll #. Because if they do know the attack #s, they don't need formal clause to only use it when the +2 matters, they can decide not to waste it themself.

I think that's evidence towards the rules assumption is the players don't know enemy attack numbers, but only the effects... except when game mechanics specifically inform them:
With Guardian's Deflection they are informed they would be hit and +2 would downgrade attack, but not necessarily whether that means Crit->Hit or Hit->Miss.
With Reactive Shield they are informed they would be hit, but not necessarily whether that is Crit or normal Hit, and don't know whether +2 is enough to downgrade it (to Miss or normal if it was a Crit).

Although technically, there could potentially be value in downgrading normal Failure to CritFailure, but I think bad effects of CritFail attacks would usually need a Reaction to take advantage which would normally conflict with the Reaction being used to raise AC.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

One of the many reasons why you shouldn't treat percentages as exacts.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's worth noting that in the Bestiary, the Drow Rogue also has a feat by the same name, Nimble Dodge, which is worded slightly differently:

Bestiary p 137 wrote:

Nimble Dodge [reaction] Requirement A drow rogue can’t use this reaction while encumbered.

Trigger The drow rogue is hit or critically hit by an attack made by a creature the drow rogue can see. Effect The drow rogue gains a +2 circumstance bonus to their Armor Class against the triggering attack.

IMHO, the *intent* of the standard rogue feat Nimble Dodge is for the rogue to be able to declare it *after* a hit or critical has been declared. Admittedly, as things stand, this isn't the case. We can hope for another round of errata at some point to clear up this apparent confusion.

Unless someone wants to argue that the Drow version of Nimble Dodge is *supposed* to be better, because, well, Drow. <g>

RAI vs RAW? Maybe.


Good catch. I do think clarification on broader principles of "do you know attacker #s by default" is desirable, since even these abilities that work on "would be a hit" don't inherently reveal whether it is normal or Critical hit.

From mechanical details of Guardian Deflection that I discussed, I would say rules assumption is you don't know specific attack #s... But I'm less certain about whether rules assume you can or can't discern normal Hit VS Critical Hit before effects are applied.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, as a DM who is interested in fostering player agency, I'd definitely let a PC rogue declare his Nimble Dodge after I state "The monster hit you!"

I wouldn't go so far as to say "The monster hit you with a 19 against your AC of 18." Just declare the hit or critical hit and let the rogue Nimble Dodge to try to get out of it. It makes the feat far more valuable, I'll admit, but it's not overpowered or game breaking, and gives the poor rogue a tiny bit more "oomph" out of his feat choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Comparing Reactive Shield to Nimble Dodge doesn't really track, IMO, because one is a fighter feat and the other is a rogue feat. Class feats are balanced to work with their class, and would be valued differently by other classes.

Example: Double Slice is clearly better than Twin Feint to a rogue or a fighter. But the fighter gives up the chance to use a shield for defense, a polearm for reach, or a great axe for damage. A rogue, who is already limited to finesse and agile weapons by sneak attack, isn't going to make that sacrifice. So they get a weaker dual wielding feat. They can get Double Slice, but it costs them their 2nd and 4th level feat, compared to the fighter's 1st.

Reactive Shield is in the same situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You can't compare Nimble Dodge to Reactive Shield as one increases your AC and the other one improves your action economy. Reactive Shield doesn't improve your AC, it allows you to Raise a Shield for the cost of your reaction. The "cost" of having a higher AC is "payed" by wielding a shield. Hence the fact that it looks far better. But the "You are wielding a shield" requirement of Reactive Shield is a very expensive one. If you remove it, the feat gets totally out of line in terms of power.

Liberty's Edge

Cellion wrote:
Plus, changing the outcome of a hit to a miss or crit to a hit 20% of the time is an enormous impact in comparison to other feats.

Nimble Dodge doesn’t change the outcome 20% of the time, it changes probability once per round if it’s used. That’s the point of the comparison to shield use — raising a shield has the exact same impact on probability of any given incoming attack, but lasts across the entire round.

I don’t think the feat is as bad as Alex thinks, but I don’t think it’s exactly good.

Liberty's Edge

Wheldrake wrote:
Would it break the game if you allowed the rogue to declare his Nimble Dodge *after* the DM said that he just got hit or criticalled?

I think this would improve the feat without overpowering it, though I’m not sure it’s so bad it needs improved. I think this would improve the flow of play, though, because as a GM I don’t always remember to pause to ask if my Rogue PC wants to Nimble Dodge, which means we basically play that way anyhow.


Captain Morgan wrote:

Comparing Reactive Shield to Nimble Dodge doesn't really track, IMO, because one is a fighter feat and the other is a rogue feat. Class feats are balanced to work with their class, and would be valued differently by other classes.

Example: Double Slice is clearly better than Twin Feint to a rogue or a fighter. But the fighter gives up the chance to use a shield for defense, a polearm for reach, or a great axe for damage. A rogue, who is already limited to finesse and agile weapons by sneak attack, isn't going to make that sacrifice. So they get a weaker dual wielding feat. They can get Double Slice, but it costs them their 2nd and 4th level feat, compared to the fighter's 1st.

Reactive Shield is in the same situation.

Not entirely true.

1) a fighter can forgo his secondary hit at full power by using a shield as second weapon for double slice.

Having the secondary double slice attack with a -2, but in exchange the possibility to have raise shield ac and shield block, could be worth it.

Not saying it is a must, but the alternative is real and good.

Same goes with reactive shield, if you need to save actions instead of reactions. Really balanced to have both.

2) twin feint is good in s 1v1 scenario since you will get your secondary attack flat footed, but you can also get it by positioning, feint, and so in.

This to say that a thief could go for double slice too.

In my opinion is good to have more than 1 possibility.

Also, if the rogue is intended to fight more than social stuff, he will definitely go for the fighter dedication.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do like the idea of it being declared after you know if it will hit or miss.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:

One of the big issues with Nimble Dodge, though, is that Raising Your Shield applies to every attack attempted against you until the start of your next turn, while Nimble Dodge works only against one attack.

Raising a shield is also an Action and not a Reaction. Why people keep drawing the comparison to using a shield is beyond me. Comparing it to reactive shield is fine, but people forget the biggest issue with Reactive Shield:

It competes with Shield Block, which is a powerful damage mitigation tool.

It's objectively a good Feat. And "only one attack" is underselling it. The attack you are likely to use this on is the attack that is most likely to hit you which is almost always the first attack a creature makes in a round.

Which means you almost always know exactly which attack you should be using your Nimble Dodge to avoid.

Being able to increase the miss chance (and reduce crit chance) of the most likely attack to hit you every round is just straight up good. Compare this to any of the other Class Feats at level one, and it's easily going to get the most mileage.

A Thief Rogue with 18 AC at level 1 and Nimble Dodge and high mobility tactics (which a thief is likely to employ) is going to find a lot of value here.

If you want to argue that there are builds where it's worse or better, go ahead and argue it, but it's a solid feat.

In a tight math system like PF2, it's not even up for debate. That +2 matters a lot.

This.

Reactions and actions are not the same and are not weighed the same. As to it being a bad feat because its not works for his player so far, I could say the exact opposite. The rogue in my game has been extremely successful with his.
I suggest doing exactly what Midnightoker said. Use it on the first attack, that is where you need the increase in AC the most, all subsequent attacks already take a penalty. The first attack not only has the best chance to strike but also the best chance to crit under the new system. This feat is great at lowering both of those chances down, it's far from a bad feat.

As to changing it to being usable after the hit roll, that would make it much too strong. Again its a reaction not an action.

If this feat doesn't speak to you that's fine, just buy a shield (and boss/spike), deal with the loss of an action every turn to raise it, loss of a free hand and the added bulk if any. Nothing is stopping you from doing that.

Sovereign Court

SuperBidi wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:

Would it break the game if you allowed the rogue to declare his Nimble Dodge *after* the DM said that he just got hit or criticalled?

There are so many moving parts in the game that this small divergence or backpeddling in favor of a vulnerable PC doesn't seem out of line.

Strictly speaking, this would be a house rule, but it's not a huge reach.

This would be a big and enjoyable improvement.

Current situation:
GM: I'm going to strike.
Rogue: I do Nimble Dodge
GM: Oh, I rolled low, you would not have been hit anyway. I strike again.
Rogue: okay...
GM: ...and I hit.

New situation:
GM: I'm going to strike and I get X
Rogue: Feh, that isn't close.
GM: I strike again and get Y
Rogue: Hah! I nimble dodge and just avoid it!
GM: Drat.

That's way to strong. During a single round, you won't take that many attacks. Chances are high that only one attack will be just 1 or 2 points ahead your AC. So, basically, it's equivalent to saying that you have +2 AC. So, now, Nimble Dodge becomes a Raise a Shield action for the cost of a reaction and no need for a shield. Expect greatsword Fighters with the same AC than sword and board ones. Way way overpowered.

I think "way way overpowered" is a bit overstated. It's almost the same as reactive shield except that you can do it with a two-handed weapon, except that rogues generally prefer smaller weapons that work with sneak attack. Also, it would still only work on one attack per round. It may need a bit more polishing but I don't think it's all that far from being just right.


Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
Wheldrake wrote:

Would it break the game if you allowed the rogue to declare his Nimble Dodge *after* the DM said that he just got hit or criticalled?

There are so many moving parts in the game that this small divergence or backpeddling in favor of a vulnerable PC doesn't seem out of line.

Strictly speaking, this would be a house rule, but it's not a huge reach.

This would be a big and enjoyable improvement.

Current situation:
GM: I'm going to strike.
Rogue: I do Nimble Dodge
GM: Oh, I rolled low, you would not have been hit anyway. I strike again.
Rogue: okay...
GM: ...and I hit.

New situation:
GM: I'm going to strike and I get X
Rogue: Feh, that isn't close.
GM: I strike again and get Y
Rogue: Hah! I nimble dodge and just avoid it!
GM: Drat.

That's way to strong. During a single round, you won't take that many attacks. Chances are high that only one attack will be just 1 or 2 points ahead your AC. So, basically, it's equivalent to saying that you have +2 AC. So, now, Nimble Dodge becomes a Raise a Shield action for the cost of a reaction and no need for a shield. Expect greatsword Fighters with the same AC than sword and board ones. Way way overpowered.
I think "way way overpowered" is a bit overstated. It's almost the same as reactive shield except that you can do it with a two-handed weapon, except that rogues generally prefer smaller weapons that work with sneak attack. Also, it would still only work on one attack per round. It may need a bit more polishing but I don't think it's all that far from being just right.

Except as a fighter you: a. have to already have a shield, something taking a hand slot and bulk and can also break (if used to block), and b. the fighter loses his reaction and thus his other feature Attack of opportunity. The fighter has to give up much more to do what you want a rogue to do but without the equipment or the loss of some other base feature relying on the reaction at those levels. Rogues have only two reactions to choose from till level4 and both are at level one.

I think if they want to make it stronger they can add a feat at higher levels to improve it to react after hit or make it last longer but that should require an additional feat investment to get that strong.


Ascalaphus wrote:
I think "way way overpowered" is a bit overstated. It's almost the same as reactive shield except that you can do it with a two-handed weapon, except that rogues generally prefer smaller weapons that work with sneak attack. Also, it would still only work on one attack per round. It may need a bit more polishing but I don't think it's all that far from being just right.

On average, you have 20% chance for a +2 to AC to save you from a blow (or critical blow) on the first enemy attack if the enemy is of your level or higher and 10% on any other attack. You need to be attacked more than 10 times in a round for a +2 to AC to save you against more than one blow with a relevant probability. So, your version of Nimble Dodge is equal to +2 to AC for the use of your reaction (and only if it is useful, so it won't take more than one reaction every 5-10 attacks on average).

2 feats to get +2 to AC, especially considering that Rogue Dedication has easy-to-meet prerequisites. With this version of Nimble Dodge, expect all 2-handed martials to get it just for that. That's what I call way way overpowered, when all optimized builds get it.

With your version, you should reduce it's AC bonus to +1, and even with that, it stays a very competitive and partially broken feat (but at least it doesn't invalidate shields).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On the topic of information that players do or not have according to the base assumptions of the game: Pathfinder 2nd edition has a nice clear label it slaps on things that it's not the default rule to let the player know the details of... the 'secret' trait. Anything which doesn't have that trait "should" be communicated to the player (quotes because this is all subjective, including that the secret trait should be tossed out an all info shared transparently because this is a game and if you can't just play it in good faith with the folks at your table, get new folks at your table)

And on the topic of Nimble Dodge appearing in a drow stat block with a different wording:

The Dero Stalker also has Nimble Dodge, but with the same wording as in the core rules for Rogues. The Wererat also has Nimble Dodge, but the requirement of not being encumbered is missing from that entry - it still triggers on being targeted, rather than being hit though.

This suggests to me that some details were missed in editing passes, and the most likely intended result is for all 4 instances of the Nimble Dodge feat to function the same way rather than for the drow and wererat versions to have specifically different, mechanically superior, functionality.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Korre wrote:
Except as a fighter you: a. have to already have a shield, something taking a hand slot and bulk and can also break (if used to block),

The requirement of a shield is a disadvantage to Reactive Shield. The fact that the shield “can break” is immaterial because it doesn’t break as a result of using the reaction — in fact using Reactive Shield prevents the PC from using Shield Block. The option to use Shield Block when you raised your shield normally and didn’t use Reactive Shield is an advantage to shield use.

Again, I’m not exactly arguing that Nimble Dodge needs to work after the dice are rolled, but I also don’t think it’s such a big improvement that it would disrupt balance.

Liberty's Edge

SuperBidi wrote:
With your version, you should reduce it's AC bonus to +1, and even with that, it stays a very competitive and partially broken feat (but at least it doesn't invalidate shields).

Even at +2 it wouldn’t “invalidate” shields because it applies against only one attack and it doesn’t have the ability to soak damage. At +2 it doesn’t even equal shields.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Luke Styer wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
With your version, you should reduce it's AC bonus to +1, and even with that, it stays a very competitive and partially broken feat (but at least it doesn't invalidate shields).
Even at +2 it wouldn’t “invalidate” shields because it applies against only one attack and it doesn’t have the ability to soak damage. At +2 it doesn’t even equal shields.

He’s talking about contextually for two handed fighters especially if they can use it after they know the result of the attack (which nearly guarantees a loss of attack and damage every turn)

And a guaranteed reduction of damage after the fact (even downgrading a crit) is worth way more than any shield block (which could effectively destroy the shield)

A two handed fighter effectively gets to have a shield for an extremely cheap cost, if the person goes the new Swashbuckler MCD when it comes out they could also get nimble dodge.

As a TH fighter not having to spend an action and effectively having a +2 to AC that I can exclusively use on attacks I want to miss or drop from a crit is nuts overpowered IMO, it’s certainly worth an MCD which comes with other goodies.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Alexander Augunas wrote:

Hi everyone! I'm Alex, and I hate Rogue's Dodge.

It started out innocently enough. One of my players took Rogue's Dodge for his rogue character in my Age of Ashes campaign, and MAN, let me tell you, that feat is like the worst feat I've ever seen. It's so bad that my players have made a meme out of tracking how often it actually affects my poor player's fate.

For those who don't know, you use it as a reaction when someone attempts an attack against you, and it gives you +2 to your AC against the triggering attack. On paper, this sounds amazing. In practice, the feat isn't worth it's ink. Allow me to explain.

Since the feat is giving you a +2 bonus, you might think, "Oh, that's a 10% increase to the chance that I won't be hit. That's great." It can turn a Critical Hit into a Hit or a Hit into a Miss. However, since a Critical Hit is attack result = your AC + 10 and a Hit is attack result = your AC, there are actually only four die results wherein Rogue's Dodge actually benefits you.

Let's say you have AC 20 and your opponent has an attack bonus of +12. This means your opponent Hits you if they roll an 8 or better or Crits you if they roll a 16 or better. Since Rogue's Dodge gives a +2 circumstance bonus to AC, using Rogue's Dodge changes those numbers to 10 to Hit or 18 to Crit. In effect, that means Rogue's Dodge only stops a Hit if your opponent rolled a 8 or a 9 (because now they need a 10 to Hit you) and it only turns a Hit into a Critical Hit if your opponent rolled a 16 or a 17. If your opponent's result is 10 through 15, surprise! Rogue's Dodge didn't change the outcome of your opponent's attack. Likewise, if they rolled an 18 or better, Rogue's Dodge did nothing.

TL;DR this feat makes me angry because it's a reaction that never really has more than a 20% chance to do anything. My players track the success/failure rate of Rogue's Dodge, and it's currently at 1:8 (meaning 1 meaningful use to 8 failed ones); this is out of a sample size of about 24 currently and actually fits the napkin
...

I've actually had the opposite experience.

My rogue player who took it actually spared himself numerous hits and criticals (even if they still resulted in normal hits) from bad guys at crucial moments in fights, and was able to defeat enemies due to his appropriate usage of the feat. There were times where it didn't matter, sure, but the player still made good use of the feat.

This is ultimately a risk not unlike when a Fighter or other frontliner decides to raise his shield instead of use another action; you will have points where the shield raise does nothing due to how solid the attack roll is, and where blocking a critical hit destroys your shield. You will also have points where the shield raise does do something, and where a basic attack can be deflected to an attack that does little to no damage.

I'd just chalk your experience up to bad dice rolls. Though I'd also like to point out that if said Rogue is getting hit on an 8 or higher on a regular basis, the problem might not be with the feat, but with the power level of your enemies hitting so often and for so hard.

Liberty's Edge

Midnightoker wrote:
He’s talking about contextually for two handed fighters especially if they can use it after they know the result of the attack (which nearly guarantees a loss of attack and damage every turn)

Still for one hit per round.

Quote:
And a guaranteed reduction of damage after the fact (even downgrading a crit) is worth way more than any shield block (which could effectively destroy the shield)

Reactive Shield is triggered “when an enemy hits you with a melee strike” so it’s but as if this is some radical notion.

Quote:
A two handed fighter effectively gets to have a shield for an extremely cheap cost, if the person goes the new Swashbuckler MCD when it comes out they could also get nimble dodge.

No, the two handed fighter gets part of the benefit of a shield because Nimble Dodge doesn’t have a block function, and I’m not sure that two class feats is “an extremely cheap cost.” The one handed Fighter get a better effect at the price of one feat in the form of Reactive Shield.

For that matter, Admittedly Rogue and Swashbuckler dedications are likely easier for a Fighter to great than Bard, Cleric, Sorcerer, or Wizard, but the Shield cantrip is available with one feat in the form of those various Multiclass Dedication feats.

Quote:
As a TH fighter not having to spend an action and effectively having a +2 to AC that I can exclusively use on attacks I want to miss or drop from a crit is nuts overpowered IMO, it’s certainly worth an MCD which comes with other goodies.

But an MCD wouldn’t give it to you. An MCD plus the Nimble Dodge feat would give it to you.


Luke Styer wrote:
No, the two handed fighter gets part of the benefit of a shield because Nimble Dodge doesn’t have a block function, and I’m not sure that two class feats is “an extremely cheap cost.” The one handed Fighter get a better effect at the price of one feat in the form of Reactive Shield.

This version of Nimble Move is better than having a Shield. With a shield, you use one action to get +2 to AC during one round. With this version of Nimble Move, you get +2 to AC for one reaction every 5 to 10 attacks. Considering the amount of attacks you take per fight, it's roughly one reaction for +2 AC during the whole fight. It totally invalidates the use of a shield as it's better and doesn't even require a hand.

Anyway, as it's a house rule, everyone does what he wants. But it's clearly not a small change.


The OP's argument is so ridiculous, he or she is either trolling or has never played an RPG before. It's a 1st level feat, and it's better than most of them. What do you want, a feat that guarantees you'll never be hit?

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Yes. Alexander Augunas. Never had anything to do with RPGs. Sure.

Anywho as others have brought up this was likely a conflux of bad luck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:
The OP's argument is so ridiculous, he or she is either trolling or has never played an RPG before. It's a 1st level feat, and it's better than most of them. What do you want, a feat that guarantees you'll never be hit?

Alexander Augunas is a freelancer writer for Paizo and has a large amount of 3PP publishing and writing experience. "Never played an RPG before" couldn't be further from the truth.

He's still way off base on Nimble Dodge though. :>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
it's roughly one reaction for +2 AC during the whole fight.

...Assuming you only get attacked once a round.

Which is a pretty convenient assumption given your position.


Squiggit wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
it's roughly one reaction for +2 AC during the whole fight.

...Assuming you only get attacked once a round.

Which is a pretty convenient assumption given your position.

If you're attacked twice in a round, you have 2% chance for it to be useful twice. At 4 attacks, it's still less than 10%. So, at some point, I think I can ignore these extreme rare cases where you are attacked 10 times or more and call it a day. More than 95% of the time, it will trigger no more than once a round.


Squiggit wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
it's roughly one reaction for +2 AC during the whole fight.

...Assuming you only get attacked once a round.

Which is a pretty convenient assumption given your position.

That's assuming you only get hit once per round, for the improved version that some people want. And the feat worked out more than well enough for my player's high level rogue during the playtest that I see no need for the feat to be improved.

When the feat has good, consistent usage at level 17 as a level 1 feat, it's good enough for me.

Liberty's Edge

SuperBidi wrote:
This version of Nimble Move is better than having a Shield.

No, it’s really not, at least not for Fighters, who get Shield Block as a bonu feat, and has Attack of Opportunity as a reaction option, and that seems to be the concern - that Fighters would invariably spend two class feats to get this option.

Quote:
With a shield, you use one action to get +2 to AC during one round.

No, with a shield you use one action to get +2 to AC for one round and the ability to shield block once in that round.

Quote:
With this version of Nimble Move, you get +2 to AC for one reaction every 5 to 10 attacks.

I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. Are you suggesting that only one in five to ten attacks is going to hit?


Luke Styer wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
With this version of Nimble Move, you get +2 to AC for one reaction every 5 to 10 attacks.
I’m not really sure what you’re saying here. Are you suggesting that only one in five to ten attacks is going to hit?

I believe he's suggesting that a +2 AC makes a difference in one in five to ten attacks. Let say the enemy needs an 8 to hit you, and gets a critical success on an 18.

They roll 11 to hit. You're not going to bother using the reaction, since its going to do you no good and not change anything.

Only if the enemy rolls a 8 or 9, or an 18 or 19 do you use nimble dodge in that case. 4 attack rolls out of 20 you'd want to use it. Or in other words, 1 in 5. So if you get attacked 3 times in a turn, and only 1 of those attacks would change with +2 to AC, its the equivalent to having a shield raised the entire turn in terms of AC.

Now admittedly, sometimes luck will favor the shield and it'll change the outcome of more than 1 attack a turn, and other times, the +2 AC won't make any difference the entire round.


Hiruma has it. With the rule of using Nimble Move after knowing the roll (I'm still speaking of that house rule Ascalaphus was proposing), you'll use it once every 5 to 10 attacks (depending if the enemy can score a critical success on something else than 20). So, you get +2 to AC for one reaction every 3-4 rounds on average. Shields, on the other hand, ask for a truck load of actions. Yes, you can shield block, but you can shield block for one action + one reaction + your weapon damage die reduced by 2 steps. Clearly, it's so bad you'll never bother having a shield as soon as you can get Nimble Move at level 4.

This version of Nimble Move is roughly equivalent to +2 to AC for one level 1 feat.


Lightning Raven wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Likewise, if they rolled an 18 or better, Rogue's Dodge did nothing
What would be the power level of an ability that would undo rolling an 18, 19, or 20?
It would be the power level of Nimble Dodge. Since OP completely missed the point where 16+12=28 not 30 (which would be the target critical), thus making Nimble dodge negate a critical under that circumstance, since it would raise the AC to 22 (crit on 32).

The OP did make a really odd arithmetical error, but it did not really make any difference. Four numbers is 20% even if they are a different four numbers.

That said, I don't think the feat is actually weak, per se. But I can see how it would feel weak, and also annoying. Which is not a good combo.

Reminds me of a time playing poker...:
...when I was dealt 8-3 off suit, which is close to the worse possible starting hand. I was not any kind of blind, so of course I folded. And then the flop came out 8-8-8.

For those who don't know, Four Eights in poker is a very good hand, doubly so in Texas Hold-em where there were only two ways it could possible be beaten: Someone with a pocket pair getting a matching pair on the turn card and river, or having the right combination of cards between turn and river and their own cards to get a running flush. Both of which are long shots.

Folding those cards was absolutely the right decission given the information available at the time, but it was still annoying (doubly so as other people were still playing, so I could not even complain abiut it).

I am not now sure what the point of this was...

_
glass.


I don't know how balanced this would be, but if the issue is the player having fun with the feat (which honestly feels like is the main problem here)

Why not just have it a reaction that forces the attacker to reroll their attack and you take the new result?

Whilst it will always be used on crits, players might will gamble with hits possibly turning into crits, which sounds awesome, especially for those of us who use software that rolls damage with the attacks, because maybe it just hits again... for more damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem here is just one of player frustration caused by unlucky dice rolls. I get it. A streak of bad rolls can be really annoying.

But it has nothing to do with the feat. Like several in this thread, I had a great experience with Nimble Dodge. It saved my Rogue from a round 1 crit that would have resulted in a desperate situation. The difference with the OP is pure luck of the dice.

The math calculation is correct but unconvincing. A 20% chance to make a difference is great. In fact, I don't think many feats usable every round provide more than a 20% improvement of anything. Most feats that provide a bonus give a +1. Some give more, but are situational (compare with You're Next, the other level 1 Rogue feat that provides a reaction).

As others have mentioned, Nimble Dodge is a fine choice for a level 1 feat, for a class that doesn't have a built-in reaction. At higher levels, it can be upgraded with Nimble Roll, or it can be retrained when stronger reactions become available.

I think the OP has a point, however, when it comes to the Swashbuckler. That class is built for reactions, so it would be a much greater cost for the Swashbuckler to declare Nimble Dodge against his opponent's first attack, making Opportune Riposte unavailable for the rest of the round.

Now, the Swashbuckler is in the playtest phase. Now is the time to provide that feedback, so the designers can consider a new version of Nimble Dodge more appropriate for the Swashbuckler.

My other takeaway is that keeping a log of dice rolls is a bad idea. If the dice have been bad, it's just depressing. It proves exactly nothing. Worse, it gives rise to the false impression that you're somehow "due" better luck in the future.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Nah, I’m fine with people disagreeing with me. Again, surprised in this case because mathematically the feat doesn’t do much

20% damage reduction against the biggest attack you will take in a round for the cost of a Reaction that you don't use often. And that for a level 1 feat. It's a solid choice. You should check your maths before making blog posts about Nimble Dodge.

I don't know much about the Swashbuckler and will wait for a released version before having a final point of view.

I did do my math; it’s in the first post.

Nimble Dodge does not equate to 20% damage reduction. It has a 20% chance to block one attack’s worth of damage (because of a crit becomes a hit you blocked one hit’s worth of damage). Those are different because your way of explaining it implies that when I trigger the reaction, I take 20% less damage. In reality what’s happening is that when I trigger the reaction, of the GM’s die lands on one of four specific results the attack does less damage. It is an all-or nothing gamble of a reaction that statistically is unlikely to stop an attack from harming you. A rogue player isn’t going to care about the statistical damage reduction of this feat over two dozen uses if they tried to dodge two attacks, failed to, and the damage killed them.

"4 specific numbers" in a d20 roll is EXACTLY 20% chance. it's literally 4/20.

so, "statistically" it has EXACTLY 20% chance to stop one attack worth of damage.


I suppose calling a 20% chance statistically unlikely is technically correct, but it doesn’t make too much sense here.


A 20% chance is a 1 in 5 probability, that's not that unlikely.

If you had 5 sandwiches to pick from and 1 of them would definitely make you sick if you ate it but you couldn't know if you'd gotten the wrong sandwich until it was too late... you'd consider that a significant chance, wouldn't you? I know that I would.


thenobledrake wrote:

A 20% chance is a 1 in 5 probability, that's not that unlikely.

If you had 5 sandwiches to pick from and 1 of them would definitely make you sick if you ate it but you couldn't know if you'd gotten the wrong sandwich until it was too late... you'd consider that a significant chance, wouldn't you? I know that I would.

It kinda depends on the context. If your life is on the line, even a 1% chance is pretty daunting.


Nimble Dodge is pretty bad. If it at least worked like Guardian's Deflection (for the fighter), then it would be ok. In that feat, you only use your reaction if the +2 would matter.

As it is, its... something to have until you can get Opportune Backstab. Then you can train out of Nimble Dodge for Trap Finder or something.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

A thing to take in consideration is the REACTIVE SHIELD triggers "An enemy hits you with a MELEE STRIKE".

The NIMBLE DODGE triggers when "A creature targets you with an attack and you can see the attacker".

Caps are mine to point that Nimble Dodge works against ranged atacks, and magical atacks or any kind of atack. The Reactive Shield don´t work against ranged and other melee atacks that are not Strikes (not sure if there is one right now).

51 to 100 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / I Hate Rogue's Dodge, AKA, A Statistical Breakdown of a Lackluster Feat All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.