Hipsters & Dragons

Because roleplaying is social, creative, fun… and kinda cool!

Dodge & Disengage: Do They Need Tweaking?

Few players at my table ever remember to use the Disengage and Dodge actions, which is probably why it’s taken me about four years to realise they are way too powerful. Or, at the very least, they are immersion breaking.

I can get on board with someone managing to extricate themselves from a fight by taking the Disengage action… but the fact that they can then ‘move around the board’ with impunity doesn’t make any sense to me. A rogue could end up running down a 60 foot corridor of bloodthirsty orcs without them laying a single axe on her fleet frame. Indeed, in RAW, the orcs wouldn’t even try swinging, presumably too bedazzled by her Usain Bolt-esque afterburners.

Don’t worry chaps… we’ll Disengage and make a run for it! (William Barnes Wollen).

Dodge is less problematic, but doesn’t make sense in certain situations… for example when you’re surrounded by a horde of rampaging gnolls, harrying you from all angles. Or you’ve got a dozen archers all taking aim. When the character is an unarmed, and unarmored wizard, it’s hard to visualise how they would be able to go about defending themselves so effectively – imposing disadvantage on ALL attacks. Surely there’s a limit on how many attacks one can defend oneself in a single round? (Perhaps if 5th edition had facing rules, that would help determine which attacks could be seen or not, which in turn would help mitigate the problem… but it doesn’t).

Yep, as you’ve probably guessed by now, I’m going to stick my oar in 5th edition’s lovely elegant design and give it a good whirl.

Disengage: Hipster Remix

When you take the Disengage action you can select a number of creatures equal to your Dexterity modifier (min. 1). Your movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks from those creatures for the rest of the turn.

RAW version here.

Dodge: Hipster Remix

When you take the Dodge action, you focus entirely on avoiding attacks. Until the start of your next turn, you can impose disadvantage on a certain number of attack rolls made against you, provided that you can see the attacker in each case. That number equals your AC minus 10, or 2, whichever is higher. Additionally, you make Dexterity saving throws with advantage. You lose these benefits if you are incapacitated or if your speed drops to 0.

RAW version here.

So what do you think? Pretty reasonable, no? In most cases PCs won’t notice a downgrade in these abilities… but it will make the tight spots they occasionally find themselves in realistically tighter. And if they do end up dead, you can always send them my apologies.

As always, please share your thoughts in the comments…

Previous

15 Things I Love About 5th Edition…

5 Comments

  1. Matt

    Your proposed version of Disengage is better, but it makes Dexterity even more important. Dexterity is already the most important stat.

    The proposed Dodge rule is overly complicated and won’t make a difference in 95% of combat scenarios. If a creature is surrounded by more than two enemies, those enemies are likely not the main threat on the table.

    I really like allowances that are tied to ability scores or modifiers. For example, my home brew rule for holding breath is that a creature without a swim speed can hold its breath for a number of rounds equal to its Constitution score. It’s simple, easy to remember and makes sense. In that vein, I would likely allow a dodging or disengaging character to dodge/disengage up to their DEX or STR modifier.

    • duncan

      hey Matt

      Well I don’t think removing the 1 from in front of your AC is that complicated or hard to remember! I do agree that’s it’s better to tie a new rule direct to the a modifier if you can, but the reason I did it this way – and not Dex modifier + Proficiency mod. , which was my other consideration – is to reflect that, of all the classes you’d bank on being able to shut up shop for a round or two against multiple foes, it would be a heavily armoured fighter with a shield. But as you say, maybe it’s not really worth having an extra rule here, as it won’t come into play very often. Still I like having some kind of a check / limit on the ability.

      By the way your homebrew is a quite a large deviation from RAW… on p.183 of the PH it states that a creature can hold its breath for a number of MINUTES equal to 1 + its Constitution modifier (so 3 minutes with Con 14). After which it can then survive for a number of rounds equal to it’s Constitution mod.

      So 32 rounds (official) vs. 2 rounds (yours) with Con 14. I think the Player’s Handbook is maybe being rather generous, but your homebrew is rather extreme! Maybe in combat it makes sense, but would make diving for pearls for example rather tricky.

      • Matt

        I’m moving away from 5e largely because it’s too abstract and unrealistic for my personal preferences. I cut my teeth on 3.5, moved into Pathfinder and have been dabbling in various other rule sets for a little while.

        I think you misread my house rule. It is : “You can hold your breath for a number of rounds equal to your Constitution Score (not modifier). ” I also think your math is off, or I’m forgetting something. RAW, a character with CON 14 would have 1+2=3 minutes x 6 (rounds per minute) yields 18 rounds, not 32.

        The breath-holding rules, like so many rules in 5e, make no sense. Peak performance humans (Navy Seals) can only hold their breath 2-3 minutes while maintaining aerobic activity.

        This rule is more intuitive for dealing with negative CON scores. Whereas RAW has a caveat “(minimum 30 seconds)”, using the CON score in rounds is simpler for players to understand. At the low end, a CON 8 wizard would have 5 rounds using RAW, and 8 rounds using my system. A CON 20 Barbarian would have 36 rounds RAW vs 20 rounds (still over 3 minutes!) with my rules.

  2. Dennis

    5e is focused on simple rules and heroic fantasy, a genre with plenty of room for unrealistic feats of competence. The Disengage and Dodge RAW seem to fit these fairly well. If you want a bit more gritty realism, perhaps you’d prefer Pathfinder?

    If I were inclined to gripe about lack of realism in D&D, Disengage and Dodge would be very far down the list.

    • duncan

      Hi Dennis

      Interestingly, the DMG notes 11 flavours of fantasy of which Heroic Fantasy is only one… although gritty fantasy or historic fantasy are absent, perhaps tellingly so.

      I def. should pick up the Pathfinder core rules… would be interested to know how they played. I was under the impression it was also heroic fantasy though?

      Overall though there are plenty of reasons why I’m unlikely to switch from D&D (lore, community content, plus many excellent mechanics):

      https://www.hipstersanddragons.com/best-mechanics-of-5e-dnd/

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

%d bloggers like this: