Talk:Dodge bonus

The list of so-called "dodge bonuses" is almost entirely wrong. In all of DDO, there are only two ways to get a dodge bonus: the Haste spell, or Chaosgarde bracers. Everything else is a different kind of bonus. Even the Dodge feat gives a Feat bonus, not a Dodge bonus.

---

That is incorrect. There are multiple ways to get Dodge bonuses in DDO, and there is no such thing as a 'Feat' bonus to AC. A feat can provide a type of bonus, though. Saying there are 'Feat' bonuses would b like saying there are 'Spell' bonuses. Now since DDO is so bad at labeling in-game bonsues, we have to rely on PnP knowledge of how AC works. Since DDO does follow PnP rules that works well. I will elaborate:

• Enhancement: Action Boosts - provide the specified bonus to AC. While not specifically labled a Dodge bonus, the bonus stacks with all other bonuses. Since only Dodge bonuses stack with each other, it's understandable to classify it under the Dodge bonuses. Since the discussion on AC should include all possible ways to increase one's AC, if the Action Boosts aren't filed under this section what section should they be in?

• Enhancement: Fighter's Dodge +1 (requires Dodge feat) - clearly labled as a Dodge bonus

• Enhancement: Fighter's Combat Expertise I +2 (requires Combat Expertise feat) - clearly labled as a Dodge bonus

• Enhancement: Fighter's Combat Expertise II +4 (requires Combat Expertise feat) - clearly labled as a Dodge bonus

• Enhancement: Fighter's Mobility I +1 (only while tumbling; requires Mobility feat) - clearly labled as a Dodge bonus

• Enhancement: Fighter's Mobility II +2 (only while tumbling; requires Mobility feat) - clearly labled as a Dodge bonus

• Enhancement: Giant Dodger I +4 vs. attacks from giant-type creatures (dwarf only)

• Feat: Defensive Fighting +2 (toggle this on to get a -4 to hit and a +2 dodge bonus to AC) - clearly labled as a Dodge bonus

• Feat: Dodge +1 - clearly labled as a Dodge bonus

• Feat: Combat Expertise +1-5 (toggle this to get a varying penalty to hit, but get a dodge bonus to AC) - clearly labled as a Dodge bonus

• Feat: Mobility +4 (only while tumbling) - clearly labled as a Dodge bonus

• Feat: Sunder -4 (decreases AC for 12 seconds; usually only used on monsters) - since there is no such thing in PnP DnD as a generic decrease to AC, the penalty to AC has to be classified as something. Classifying it as a penalty to Dodge is just as good as anything since it stacks with other bonuses.

• Feat: Improved Sunder -5 (decreases AC for 24 seconds; usually only used on monsters) - see Sunder

• Racial: Dwarf +4 vs. attacks from giant-type creatures (dwarf only) - clearly labled as a Dodge bonus

• Spell: Haste +1 - clearly labled as a Dodge bonus

The key here is to provide a list of all the types of bonses one can get to AC. By just removing all the methods and not putting them in another section the Wiki is lacking knowledge.--Hammersong 16:59, August 18, 2006 (EDT)

Created the Miscellaneous Bonus section and moved the Actions Boosts, Sunder, and Imp Sunder there.--Hammersong 17:51, August 18, 2006 (EDT)

That's CIRCULAR REASONING. You have decided that feats must give dodge bonuses, because you think that only dodge bonuses stack. Therefore you ignore the fact that they are CLEARLY LABELLED as "Feat" bonuses, and decided they are really Dodge bonuses instead. In reality, it would be simpler and more consistent to acknowledge that OTHER kinds of bonuses stack, besides just "Dodge".

Hammersong, your definition of "clearly labelled as a Dodge bonus" is insane. Turn on Combat Expertise, and it displays "+5 Feat". I agree that is a clear label, but it says FEAT, not DODGE.

I also think only true Dodge bonuses should belong to this page. I also agree with Hammersong that we want all information on the Wiki, so creating a misc bonus type was a good idea. I'm now going to double check all sources of AC bonus to verify the information is correct. Tihocan 14:52, August 21, 2006 (EDT)

It depends on your definition of "correct". If you go by the in-game description, it's going to be nearly impossible to tell what each bonus is, and what stacks with each other. From what I can tell, Hammersong's listing concurs pretty much exactly with mine (I linked it in the Talk:Deflection bonus page) Sonil 14:58, August 21, 2006 (EDT)

Well, by correct I mainly mean something that reflects both D&D rules and DDO behavior. In particular, I'd rather not have dodge bonuses that are not officially dodge bonuses, now that we have a miscellaneous bonus section on the Wiki. I won't really have time to look into this today, hopefully I can do this tomorrow. As far as stacking is concerned, until we can find evidence that some misc bonuses do not stack, I think we can consider that they stack. Tihocan 15:49, August 21, 2006 (EDT)

Misc bonuses stack in DDO (In PnP, they're called "Unnamed bonuses" and they stack). I was opposed to the use of "Feat bonuses" which don't exist in PnP, and so we would have no way to discern stacking with them. (I think) it's fairly obvious Dodge gives a Dodge bonus :P Sonil 16:08, August 21, 2006 (EDT)

Yes I don't like "feat bonus" either. As long as the PnP terminology can be used and it corresponds to DDO stacking behavior, that's good enough for me. I don't believe calling "misc bonuses" the PnP "unnamed bonuses" is a big deal, though I wouldn't mind if someone prefers to change that. Tihocan 15:46, August 22, 2006 (EDT)

Dodge Post U14

With the changes to Dodge, this article needs a major overhaul. A survey of current bonuses can be found in: DDO Forums

I started to work on a fresh version in User:Krlkch/Dodge_Bonus. There is the problem of Haste and Alchemical Rituals still granting a dodge typed bonus to AC. Since this is the minority of cases, I suggest to keep Dodge bonus as the article for the Dodge %, and create Dodge bonus (AC) for the few items/spells which still grant an AC bonus to dodge. --Krlkch (Contributions • Message) 08:57, July 12, 2012 (EDT)

I recommend deleting sections 4 and 5 because they are less interesting now. What do other people think about this? --Cru121 (Contributions • Message) 07:14, July 13, 2012 (EDT)

It's not so much that they're less interesting, as that they're kinda irrelevant (especially #4) - the bit about identical dodge not stacking can easily be moved without the ancient quote, assuming any of that is still true. - LrdSlvrhnd (Contributions • Message) 15:15, July 13, 2012 (EDT)

I deliberately left as much as possible intact from the old dodge article, but I agree that it's probably not needed. I still wonder if it is a wise decision to keep one article for the two different notions, but I understand that want to have as few disabiguations as possible. --Krlkch (Contributions • Message) 16:33, July 13, 2012 (EDT)