Looks like page 15 of the Ultimate Combat book. I checked the Variant Rules section on the PRD for Ultimate Combat but it doesn't include it.
I did just confirm the text in my PDF of UC. It's rather annoying for it to be buried like that, honestly. :P
|
There are a few confusing a re-rolled attack and additional attacks.
If I hit and get an attack deflected, an ability that grants me a re-roll does not grant an additional attack, so if I attack a monk with crane style and he defects the shot, a re-roll would still be deflected as it is not granting an additional attack but a second chance to get a better result on the original attack. Unless the ability specifically states its grants an additional attack many of the re-roll questions I've seen here are moot.Is this confirmed in the rules somewhere? My group uses re-rolls a lot and I'd always assumed that a re-roll restarts the attack process from the top - you roll to hit AC, then roll miss chance if you hit AC, then roll damage.
Not that I don't think it makes sense, just realizing I've never seen re-rolling procedures explicitly defined (and it normally would only matter if miss chance or attack negation were involved).
An ability that let you re-roll an attack is different from one that allow you to re-roll a miss chance that is different from an ability that allow you to re-roll damage.
AFAIK a ability that allow you to re-roll an attack allow you to re-roll the d20 used for the attack, it has nothing to do with the miss chance for blur or rolling a low damage.You roll your to hit and decide if you want to keep it or no. After that you see if blur make you miss and you can't re-roll the miss chance with an ability that allow you to re-roll the attack.
|
Okay, I found the answer to this. As it turns out, this is really not a FAQ. A "miss" is defined in the rules.
Some have been saying that because a deflected attack in some cases mentions that damage is not done and does not expressly say that it is a miss, this must mean that it is a hit that does no damage. If you would, this would be a third category alongside hits and misses.
However, if you look in Ultimate Equipment under Arms and Armor in the Variant Rules section of all places, Paizo answered the question just in passing.
Paizo wrote:
The armor and Armor Class system is an abstraction where an attack roll that "misses" represents actual misses as well as attacks that fail to hit the target hard or accurately enough to cause harm. Some players and GMs may prefer a different system where a failed attack roll is an actual miss, and armor absorbs points of damage from successful attacks.So it turns out the attacks that do no harm because the fail to hit the target accurately enough are also considered misses. Deflections from Crane Style and Deflect Arrow would fall into this category.
Further, Paizo states that "misses" used in Pathfinder are not "misses" in the most strict interpretation of the word miss.
Finally, Paizo states that a variant system has been developed for those who believe it more satisfying to have misses be actual misses.
This means any critical hit that fails to overcome DR is actually a miss, which seems strange.
-Skeld
|
|
Looks like page 15 of the Ultimate Combat book. I checked the Variant Rules section on the PRD for Ultimate Combat but it doesn't include it.
I did just confirm the text in my PDF of UC. It's rather annoying for it to be buried like that, honestly. :P
That piece of text has a very important header:
Variant Rule: Armor as DR
To repeat it Variant rule, so it is a 0 value when speaking of the standard rules. You can use it if you want to use the Armor as DR variant rule, but it has no bearing if you aren't using that rule.
Variant Rules
Presented in this section are several optional rules variants for combat that may be swapped out with the existing rules. As these options significantly revise how the game works, players and GMs should be extremely careful when deciding whether or not to incorporate these optional rules into an existing campaign, and should be prepared for an additional layer of complexity and potential slowdowns in gameplay as everyone at the table works on getting up to speed.[/quote+
Okay, I found the answer to this. As it turns out, this is really not a FAQ. A "miss" is defined in the rules.
It's not actually a definition of the "miss" under the normal rules, and it's also under a variant rule, which is not enacted in this situation.
What it actually says is that when the attack roll is made, if the attack failed to make the AC target number the attack may have missed the target, or it may have struck the target's armour and failed to score damage. This is nothing we didn't already know, and does not change the definition of a 'hit' under normal roles being a successful attack roll.
Further, the rules state in all specific cases where an attack misses due to other effects than straight AC vs Attack roll that the attack does indeed miss - you pointed this out yourself. Crane Wing is not one such, clarification is needed if an attack that is deflected and causes no damage is a miss or a hit, or something else. Right now there's nothing here that tells me it's not something else.
I think the point that Driver was making is that while it's in a variant rule section, that particular portion of the text appears to be referring to the default rules system, describing how it functions, and then offering up an alternate to it.
If you read the text, basically what it's saying is, "Here's how the normal rules behave. If you don't like it, here's an alternate rule set where a miss is really a complete lack of physical contact, and hits that would have been classified as misses due to deflection or lack of damage are instead covered by an alternative "Armor as DR" system."
This is not the variant rule at all. You have to look at the link. It tells you where the variant rules can be found, but in doing so it explains what the real definition of miss is in the regular rules.
It says that sometimes a miss when you failed to roll high enough to overcome AC in the normal system was foiled by armour. This is not anything we didn't already know. Crane Wing specifically avoids the term "miss" where other effects that prevent attacks that would otherwise succeeding specifically include it (you yourself pointed this out), and only takes place AFTER an attack roll has secured a "hit". It is therefore at the very least unclear that Crane Wing's deflection counts as a "miss" or a "hit" and very probably indicates neither.
An elegant articulation is not the be-all of a good communicator. While I'm sure that it won't really matter to you, your abrasiveness in response - especially when someone is agreeing with you... Such an attitude does more harm than good to proving your point.
[edit]
I'd like to thank those who had a civil discussion on the issue. I don't plan on chiming in further.
Because the question is too vague. Read SKR posts in this thread about how the FAQ system work. The Paizo staff will only see your post, get no context, no reason for the question, nothing. Probably they will not reply and it they reply there is a good chance that without background on your question the reply will be useless or create more problems.Why? Why would you rather FAQ 5 separate questions when getting a single one answered will answer all of it?
For my 2 cents, I think you're over thinking hit. Hit or miss is a bit of a binary thing. It doesn't matter how the miss is achieved, just that there is one. Either through poor aim or deflection or by hitting a shadow clone, you still missed the target.
But hey, who knows, I could be wrong. Hence the question: What is a miss?
Err, perhaps we got something different from this thread. I posted it like this BECAUSE of what SKR posted.
A short, concise question is much more likely to get a FAQ than a post that is a page of supposition, links to other discussions, and no actual question presented.
A post with one question on one topic is much more likely to get a FAQ than a post with multiple questions, especially if they are about different topics. This is because we can't clear a FAQ-flag for just part of a post, which means we have to answer all questions in that post to clear it, and some of those questions may be harder to answer than others.
Harder meaning "requires more than a couple of minutes to put an answer together."
I posted a single question requiring a single answer in a short, concise way. The fact that answering this would settle more than one debate doesn't change that fact.
Official Rules Response
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnz
Deflecting Attacks: Does an attack that is deflected count as a miss?
It depends on the ability that is deflecting the attack.
For example, the Deflect Arrows feat says, "Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it." It doesn't say the attack is a miss or is treated as a miss--instead, you take no damage from the attack. Because it is not a miss, effects that would trigger on a miss (such as Efreeti Style or Snake Fang from Ultimate Combat) are not triggered.
Likewise, the Crane Wing feat (Ultimate Combat) uses similar language and does not say the deflected attack is a miss or treated as a miss.
Note that the Snatch Arrows feat counts as a deflected attack--you do not take damage if you choose to catch the weapons instead of just deflecting it, and catching the weapon does not mean the attack was a miss.
Am disappoint. Ah well.
Thanks for the quick FAQ/Reply though!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am relieved more than anything. I think I will stay out of the next debate. I did not know they went on for days and that you can lose so much time trying to get your point across. It is exhausting.
Allow me to enlighten you on the nature of these debates and why you find them so frustrating:
You are not failing to get your point across. You have done this well. Your problem is that you are failing to appreciate the counter-points of others - and by this I do not mean, you don't agree with them, I mean that you dismiss them as without merit. In doing so, you are confusing "people understanding me" with "people agreeing with me" - we understand your point about hitting and missing and all the definitions. Unfortunately we don't think you are interpreting the rules correctly, because there are other aspects of the rules that you are ignoring when they fail to confirm your point. This is a process called "cognitive bias" by psychologists, and every human alive suffers from it to a greater or lesser degree. You are getting too hung up on being "right" about the issue and that's why you are so frustrated - just chill, FAQ it, and if the devs agree with you claim bragging rights if you must.
Edit: I did put in a long and careful explanation of the arguments, but the devs have answered so there seems little point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnz
Deflecting Attacks: Does an attack that is deflected count as a miss?
It depends on the ability that is deflecting the attack.
For example, the Deflect Arrows feat says, "Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it." It doesn't say the attack is a miss or is treated as a miss--instead, you take no damage from the attack. Because it is not a miss, effects that would trigger on a miss (such as Efreeti Style or Snake Fang from Ultimate Combat) are not triggered.
Likewise, the Crane Wing feat (Ultimate Combat) uses similar language and does not say the deflected attack is a miss or treated as a miss.
Note that the Snatch Arrows feat counts as a deflected attack--you do not take damage if you choose to catch the weapons instead of just deflecting it, and catching the weapon does not mean the attack was a miss.
Thanks guys, for taking the time to answer.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnz
Deflecting Attacks: Does an attack that is deflected count as a miss?
It depends on the ability that is deflecting the attack.
For example, the Deflect Arrows feat says, "Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it." It doesn't say the attack is a miss or is treated as a miss--instead, you take no damage from the attack. Because it is not a miss, effects that would trigger on a miss (such as Efreeti Style or Snake Fang from Ultimate Combat) are not triggered.
Likewise, the Crane Wing feat (Ultimate Combat) uses similar language and does not say the deflected attack is a miss or treated as a miss.
Note that the Snatch Arrows feat counts as a deflected attack--you do not take damage if you choose to catch the weapons instead of just deflecting it, and catching the weapon does not mean the attack was a miss.
:) Not to be greedy, but if it doesn't count as a miss, does it count as a hit (for, say, the purposes of Target of Opportunity in my above example)? My assumption is, "No it doesn't," which basically indicates that this is, in fact, a third category of 'attack result' - which is fine and dandy by me. You should leverage it in later feats!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW it would seem it is a hit but has been 'deflected' meaning it does no damage. Now we should open another thread in regards to non damaging attacks or status effects, reason being they are not damage and could still be ruled to take effect technically.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can give me that concession anytime you want.I find the best way to be in these threads is reasonable. Try to never get offended, never insult other posters no matter how obtuse or condescending they are being. If they make a good point, concede it.
[There is great satisfaction in handing a man a shovel and letting him get on with all the digging.
Can Dabbler have his/her shovel back?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnz
Deflecting Attacks: Does an attack that is deflected count as a miss?
It depends on the ability that is deflecting the attack.
For example, the Deflect Arrows feat says, "Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it." It doesn't say the attack is a miss or is treated as a miss--instead, you take no damage from the attack. Because it is not a miss, effects that would trigger on a miss (such as Efreeti Style or Snake Fang from Ultimate Combat) are not triggered.
Likewise, the Crane Wing feat (Ultimate Combat) uses similar language and does not say the deflected attack is a miss or treated as a miss.
Note that the Snatch Arrows feat counts as a deflected attack--you do not take damage if you choose to catch the weapons instead of just deflecting it, and catching the weapon does not mean the attack was a miss.
Thanks for the quick reply on this. That makes sense, although, as others have stated, it leaves open the question of whether such a "deflected" attack would count as a hit still for effects that are concerned with such. I'd probably say, "No," but that's me.
|
|
Am disappoint. Ah well.
Thanks for the quick FAQ/Reply though!
Color me surprised, I thought it was too vague to get a reply.
I must bow to your superior comprehension of how to address posting a FAQ.
[Internet explanation: it is mildly self deprecatory, not a jab at you]
Edit:
Beside your post it say:
29 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Question unclear
but the it was FAQed, so it wasn't so unclear.
And that is another interesting thing: if you get around 30 hits you are on top of the FAQ list.
Glad there was a FAQ but...
However, it you think like most GMs across America and say that a deflected attack is a miss, the answer to your question and many others becomes quite easy. Namely, no the elemental fist does not hit because it was deflected.
Why is it relevant that you think a lot of GMs that share your opinion are from america?
Is the opinion of GMs from somewhere else less relevant?
Considering independent thought went contrary to what actually turned out to be the FAQ, I'm not sure where your sarcasm is warranted.
|
| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
Follow-up question: is any attack that is "deflected" to cause 0 damage still a hit, since it doesn't count as a miss? Does that mean any effects of the attack that don't depend on the damage still continue if the damage is reduced to 0?
For example:
If a vampire slams a monk (causing damage and energy drain), and the monk uses Crane Wing to deflect the attack so that it deals no damage, does the monk still suffer energy drain?
Another example:
I hit that monk with a shield bash and I have the Shield Slam feat. If the monk uses Crane Wing to reduce the shield's damage to 0, do I still get to Bull Rush him?
Please FAQ if you agree the question is interesting.
Can Dabbler have his shovel back?You can give me that concession anytime you want.I find the best way to be in these threads is reasonable. Try to never get offended, never insult other posters no matter how obtuse or condescending they are being. If they make a good point, concede it.
There is great satisfaction in handing a man a shovel and letting him get on with all the digging.
Nah, he can keep it if he wants to use it again.
Considering independent thought went contrary to what actually turned out to be the FAQ, I'm not sure where your sarcasm is warranted.
I don't know what you call "independent thought" but my own conclusions - which were effectively identical to the ruling - were the result of critical thinking, analysing the rules as known and written to date.
Follow-up question: is any attack that is "deflected" to cause 0 damage still a hit, since it doesn't count as a miss? Does that mean any effects of the attack that don't depend on the damage still continue if the damage is reduced to 0?
For example:
If a vampire slams a monk (causing damage and energy drain), and the monk uses Crane Wing to deflect the attack so that it deals no damage, does the monk still suffer energy drain?Another example:
I hit that monk with a shield bash and I have the Shield Slam feat. If the monk uses Crane Wing to reduce the shield's damage to 0, do I still get to Bull Rush him?Please FAQ if you agree the question is interesting.
If you regard energy drain or maneuver result as damage, then the monk takes none. As most other effects of a "hit" trigger on the target taking hit point damage, I don't think this is anything close to as unclear as the original question.
For example, a wraith's attack deals 1d6 negative energy damage and drains 1d6 con. If the energy damage can be deflected, so presumably can the con damage with it.
Without naming any names: When an issue is clearly subject to debate (as seen in this thread), and someone comes in shouting I HAVE THE TRUE ANSWER THIS IS CLEARLY THE WAY OF THE RULES, that doesn't make them look self-assured or insightful or whatever it is they're going for. It makes them look obnoxious.
Especially if the "true answer" is found by comparing some obscure specific rules and generalizing those across the board while ignoring others.
Anyone who acts like that should probably try to tone it down a bit if they want to be taken seriously.
|
|
If the monster's attack says "characters that take damage from [...] also suffer [...]", then Crane Wing clearly works. This would be in the case of most injection poisons.
But if it says "on a hit, X and Y", negating X doesn't necessarily negate Y. Especially since Crane Wing doesn't actually negate the hit. There's no text to negate Y, only your "presumably". This is the case with Shield Slam and also the vampire.
Regardless of what the final ruling is this will have some conflict with verisimillitude, kinda. If it's ruled that deflected = missed, then you can deflect a touch attack by striking it with your fist... which doesn't make sense. If it's ruled that hit = anything that doesn't explicitly call it a miss (like miss chance or low roll), then you can deflect an attack and still suffer the effects of it (like the wraith mentioned above).
So a "common sense" argument can go both ways in this case, further adding to the uncertainity.
'Common sense', 'obvious' answers can be based on realism, or game balance, or a literal interpretation of one vaguely relevant piece of text. Often the text is ambiguous or contradictory, and probably written by someone who never even considered the question.
Anyway, the FAQ has been updated now.
"If the attack is deflected, not only does the target take no damage, but any other effects (ability drain, negative levels, harmful conditions, and so on) associated with that attack do not occur. If the deflected attack is a touch spell or other effect that requires "holding the charge," the charge is not expended."
If it's ruled that deflected = missed, then you can deflect a touch attack by striking it with your fist... which doesn't make sense.
Depends on how you block an attack. You do not block a sword with your hand, for example, yet deflecting a sword-blow is perfectly acceptable. Why? because you don't deflect the sword, you deflect the arm that hold sit. You don't deflect the hand bearing the charge of a shocking grasp, you deflect the arm lower down.
You can make it make sense with a bit of lateral thinking.
I don't know what you call "independent thought" but my own conclusions - which were effectively identical to the ruling - were the result of critical thinking, analysing the rules as known and written to date.
Just because you were right does not mean your thought process was superior.
Wouldn't a miss be not hitting?
Based on the FAQ, it seems that deflected is its own thing, being neither a miss (unless the deflecting ability says it is), nor a hit.
Well, I think this thread has little use now that the Paizo staff has given an answer. By the way, take a look at the FAQ, it got updated!
I don't know what you call "independent thought" but my own conclusions - which were effectively identical to the ruling - were the result of critical thinking, analysing the rules as known and written to date.Just because you were right does not mean your thought process was superior.
I never said it was, but you seemed to be implying that something called "independent thought" was involved in your own reasoning. I just wondered what it was, and wanted to underline my own thought processes in arriving at my own conclusion. I wanted to know what process lies behind this. A brief look around for "independent thought" has turned up this quote from the facebook page "Independent Thought":
You're an independent thinker. Social influences and media speculation don't rule your train of thought. You're brave enough to develop your own ideas. You understand your own conclusions rather than rely on someone else to understand for you.
So please explain how you were using "independent thought" to arrive at your own conclusion?
It was just the phrase Gorbacz used. Because of his sarcasm, used as an attempt to insult others by saying they don't have the capability to think for themselves and have to FAQ everything when they're not sure.
Blame him for the word, not me.
Meh, I was never unsure, I was just polite about it.
If it's ruled that deflected = missed, then you can deflect a touch attack by striking it with your fist... which doesn't make sense.Depends on how you block an attack. You do not block a sword with your hand, for example, yet deflecting a sword-blow is perfectly acceptable. Why? because you don't deflect the sword, you deflect the arm that hold sit. You don't deflect the hand bearing the charge of a shocking grasp, you deflect the arm lower down.
You can make it make sense with a bit of lateral thinking.
That works when you deflect a shocking grasp, less so when deflecting the attacks of a fire elemental. "A being of pure flame flails at you with it's burning tendrils" "Oh, I shove them away with my hands"
I'm not saying it's the incorrect interpretation, I'm just saying that reasoning (and the other one) lead to some things working counterintuitively.
If it's ruled that deflected = missed, then you can deflect a touch attack by striking it with your fist... which doesn't make sense.Depends on how you block an attack. You do not block a sword with your hand, for example, yet deflecting a sword-blow is perfectly acceptable. Why? because you don't deflect the sword, you deflect the arm that hold sit. You don't deflect the hand bearing the charge of a shocking grasp, you deflect the arm lower down.
You can make it make sense with a bit of lateral thinking.
That works when you deflect a shocking grasp, less so when deflecting the attacks of a fire elemental. "A being of pure flame flails at you with it's burning tendrils" "Oh, I shove them away with my hands"
I'm not saying it's the incorrect interpretation, I'm just saying that reasoning (and the other one) lead to some things working counterintuitively.
I get that, but does the monk take damage if he hits the fire elemental with unarmed strike?