You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat. 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. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. Attempting to deflect a ranged attack doesn't count as an action. Unusually massive ranged weapons (such as boulders or ballista bolts) and ranged attacks generated by natural attacks or spell effects can't be deflected.
Notice that it says 'from a ranged weapon'. According to the raw rules, this means anyone with the Deflect Arrows feat can also deflect bullets.
So, are we going to ignore how impossible this is? Deflecting arrows is one thing, but bullets? I wouldn't mind this if monks couldn't do this until very high levels, but it isn't uncommon for a monk to have this at 2nd level. Though, I suppose this could be a case of "monks need nice things anyway, leave him alone".
Though, the real issue with this in my opinion is that this renders monks immune to gunslingers who haven't found some trick to get off more than one shot per round. There are only two ways around this right now: fire multiple guns per round or lighting reload deed.
We ignore the impossible every time a dragon takes flight or a wizard creates fire from guano. This is no different. There's no problem here.
If there IS a GM out there who is ass-hat enough to neuter the gunslinger EVEN MORE THAN IT IS, than I guess one could consider bullets to be unusual weapons in much the same manner natural attacks and siege weapons are (and thus cannot be deflected).
Touch Sneak Attack is neutered?
"We ignore the impossible every time a dragon takes flight or a wizard creates fire from guano." REALLY?
Deflect'em?! Psh! They can catch'em!
Why not? Let 'em Dodge them and Snatch them. It's a magical world, and magic ain't just for the guys in the pointy hats. Once you start making exceptions willy-nilly things get tired, cumbersome to keep track of and boring.
Randy
Growing Up Gamers
|
This is one of the inherent problems with firearms in fantasy... People suddenly stop abstracting and bring in the 'how is this possible' etc.
Which is ridiculous, since people are already suspending disbelief enough to accept wizards, dragons, and far more strange things than martial artists who can deflect bullets bare-handed--which as was pointed out, we have regularly in modern movies. =p
This is one of the inherent problems with firearms in fantasy... People suddenly stop abstracting and bring in the 'how is this possible' etc.Which is ridiculous, since people are already suspending disbelief enough to accept wizards, dragons, and far more strange things than martial artists who can deflect bullets bare-handed--which as was pointed out, we have regularly in modern movies. =p
Sure, there is a lot of stuff that people suspend disbelief for in these games. However, feats are supposed to be based on things that are (somewhat) physically possible. I would understand if this was some sort of high level monk ability, but theoretically any level 1 human commoner can take improved unarmed strike and deflect arrows and render himself nearly immune to bullets. That's stretching my suspension of disbelief a little too far.
I guess I mistyped my topic a bit XD My issue isn't so much that it is possible for monks to deflect bullets. I think it would be cool for a class to be able to do that at high levels. My issue is that it is so easy for anyone to do it at extremely low levels.
Well that, and I was curious about Paizo's opinion on it.
We ignore the impossible every time a dragon takes flight or a wizard creates fire from guano. This is no different. There's no problem here.
But we are pretending guns are realistic!
We ignore the impossible every time a dragon takes flight or a wizard creates fire from guano. This is no different. There's no problem here.But we are pretending guns are realistic!
This is a good point, lol. Guns already don't follow the rules that the rest of the game follows ;)
However, feats are supposed to be based on things that are (somewhat) physically possible.
What?
The word feat is derived from mythological warriors doing impossible tasks.
Feat literally comes from something that is not normally physically possible.
Bulletproof Monk had monks deflecting bullets,
I thought he just dodged them.
However, feats are supposed to be based on things that are (somewhat) physically possible.What?
The word feat is derived from mythological warriors doing impossible tasks.
Feat literally comes from something that is not normally physically possible.
I'll admit that maybe that I said the wrong thing there (Even if I can't find your definition of Feat anywhere), but I think you're focusing on the wrong part of what I was saying.
A monk can use dimension door.
A monk's fists end up counting as adamantine, lawful, and magic
A monk can outrun horses.
A monk uses Chi to outrun horses even more, dodge like crazy, and perform such awesome feats.
With the right feat, you can even walk on water.
And this isn't even counting the archetypes! Firewater breath, reincarnate, etc
And yet dodging bullets is a bad thing? Right....
A monk can use dimension door.
A monk's fists end up counting as adamantine, lawful, and magic
A monk can outrun horses.
A monk uses Chi to outrun horses even more, dodge like crazy, and perform such awesome feats.
With the right feat, you can even walk on water.
And this isn't even counting the archetypes! Firewater breath, reincarnate, etc
And yet dodging bullets is a bad thing? Right....
'Dodging' bullets isn't a problem ;)
I'm more worried that any level 3 commoner can deflect bullets with his bare hands with just 2 feats.
I'm reminded of why I gave up on discussing things on the internet XD Please read some of the other things that I said a bit deeper into the chain of replies. My real issue is less about monks getting this ability and more that it is something so easy to do at low levels. Any level 3 commoner can do it.A monk can use dimension door.
A monk's fists end up counting as adamantine, lawful, and magic
A monk can outrun horses.
A monk uses Chi to outrun horses even more, dodge like crazy, and perform such awesome feats.
With the right feat, you can even walk on water.
And this isn't even counting the archetypes! Firewater breath, reincarnate, etc
And yet dodging bullets is a bad thing? Right....
I did and again, I reiterate. At low levels, I don't see this as a problem.
Mechanically, that is three feats (two for a monk) you are spending to deflect/snatch a ranged projectile once per round. Now, unless you are only going against 1 ranged person per encounter, this will be useful against one attack. One. Deflecting one bullet when you are fighting multiple gunners isn't a big deal mechanically. Of all of the races that can do this, the monk and fighter can do this the easiest. That said, the fighter would have to be going more of an unarmed route anyways, so no big deal.
Thematically, I don't see a problem with this. You can look at several folktales and stories of heroes doing incredible feats that no man could even dream of doing. I am reminded of Ozymandias from The Watchmen who caught a bullet. Think of all the kung fu and wuxia films that have martial artists that can do crazy stunts like that. And at level 2, when people are shooting two arrows at once (Can you even do that in real life?), shooting fireballs, etc, I don't see this as a big deal.
And pardon my attitude, but I'm just tired of most of the arguments on these boards about lack of realism, casters ruling and martials drooling, Xmas tree effects, and ninjas/psionics not belonging in a game so my ability to reply without some sense of snarkiness is all but gone. :)
EDIT: Why would anyone give a commoner that feat in the first place? O_o
I did and again, I reiterate. At low levels, I don't see this as a problem.Mechanically, that is two feats you are spending to deflect/snatch a ranged projectile once per round. Now, unless you are only going against 1 ranged person per encounter, this will be useful against one attack. One. Deflecting one bullet when you are fighting multiple gunners isn't a big deal mechanically. Of all of the races that can do this, the monk and fighter can do this the easiest. That said, the fighter would have to be going more of an unarmed route anyways, so no big deal.
Thematically, I don't see a problem with this. You can look at several folktales and stories of heroes doing incredible feats that no man could even dream of doing. I am reminded of Ozymandias from The Watchmen who caught a bullet. Think of all the kung fu and wuxia films that have martial artists that can do crazy stunts like that. And at level 2, when people are shooting two arrows at once (Can you even do that in real life?), shooting fireballs, etc, I don't see this as a big deal.
And pardon my attitude, but I'm just tired of most of the arguments on these boards about lack of realism, casters ruling and martials drooling, Xmas tree effects, and ninjas/psionics not belonging in...
Dang, you saw that before I edited my post (I was worried I would start a fight) XD Sorry about that.
Yea, I see what you mean that it isn't too game breaking. I do worry a bit that it is a lot more effective against guns than bows because of their low fire rate. Most gun users won't get off more than one shot per round.
Also, it just seems like 'bullet deflecting' can happen a bit too early. I guess I usually think that the truly 'impossible' seeming abilities that characters can get shouldn't happen till they're level 10 or higher.
Why would anyone give a commoner that feat in the first place? O_o
Hey, I would totally take that feat if it existed IRL :D If guns ever became common in Golareon, it would be the best self defense training ever.
Edit: alright, jokes aside, I wouldn't expect any sensible GM to give commoners that feat. I was just making a point to show that you would think such an impossible ability wouldn't be so easy to get.
commoners get feats?
This is one of the inherent problems with firearms in fantasy... People suddenly stop abstracting and bring in the 'how is this possible' etc.
+1
Thank you.
commoners get feats?
Sure, all NPCs get feats http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/npc-classes/non-player-characters
commoners get feats?Sure, all NPCs get feats http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/npc-classes/non-player-characters
Hey! don't add a step to me making NPCs now!
Creative Director
|
Personally, I have no problems with fantasy monks deflecting bullets. They do this ALL THE TIME in movies.
That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see in Ultimate Combat a sidebar or something that talks about Deflecting Bullets that basically says, "Hey, if you as the GM think it's cool for Deflect Arrows to work on bullets, go for it! But if you don't, that's fine too!"
I'd say they could only do it if they had the cool bracers like Wonder Woman!
so why is it impossible to believe you could catch a bullet (and need different rules for) than it its to catch an arrow?
When I was a kid I watched a guy on TV catch a bullet in his TEETH.
As far as a fantasy game is concerned, whats the difference?
They do the same damage, but the bow has much better range. As printed the bow is a better weapon, so wouldn't it be harder to catch an arrow than a bullet using that logic?
so why is it impossible to believe you could catch a bullet (and need different rules for) than it its to catch an arrow?
When I was a kid I watched a guy on TV catch a bullet in his TEETH.
As far as a fantasy game is concerned, whats the difference?
They do the same damage, but the bow has much better range. As printed the bow is a better weapon, so wouldn't it be harder to catch an arrow than a bullet using that logic?
+1
If a monk's hands have the ability to change hardness (adamantine), I don't see what the big deal is.
The Beast can catch a bullet fired at point-blank range using only two fingers.
|
The Beast can catch a bullet fired at point-blank range using only two fingers.
Dang, you beat me to the punch!
|
|
I'm more worried that any level 3 commoner can deflect bullets with his bare hands with just 2 feats.
Thats your issue, you want people to engage in game balance discussions using an NPC class, a commoner no less. If a GM wants a 3rd level commoner to spend his two feats on Improved unarmed strike and Deflect arrows, and give that commoner 13+ Dex why should we stop him. If you feel it breaks your game then don't do it.
Seriously, how many people here even figure out what feats their commoners have?
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Ultimate Combat a sidebar or something that talks about Deflecting Bullets that basically says, "Hey, if you as the GM think it's cool for Deflect Arrows to work on bullets, go for it! But if you don't, that's fine too!"
For the love of Sarenrae, don't do that please.
In my humble opinion, it ruins the game to have wishy-washy "let the GM decide" rules.
Make the rule be that it does or does not work with Deflect Arrows, and allow the GM the freedom to Rule 0 it any way he likes in the game.
Please!
You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat. 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. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. Attempting to deflect a ranged attack doesn't count as an action. Unusually massive ranged weapons (such as boulders or ballista bolts) and ranged attacks generated by natural attacks or spell effects can't be deflected.Notice that it says 'from a ranged weapon'. According to the raw rules, this means anyone with the Deflect Arrows feat can also deflect bullets.
So, are we going to ignore how impossible this is? Deflecting arrows is one thing, but bullets? I wouldn't mind this if monks couldn't do this until very high levels, but it isn't uncommon for a monk to have this at 2nd level. Though, I suppose this could be a case of "monks need nice things anyway, leave him alone".
Though, the real issue with this in my opinion is that this renders monks immune to gunslingers who haven't found some trick to get off more than one shot per round. There are only two ways around this right now: fire multiple guns per round or lighting reload deed.
Have you seen "The Last Dragon"? ;)
Not that I think every Monk with Deflect Arrows should be able to deflect bullets with their teeth, as awesome as it is, it would get dull real fast, but I prefer to describe it as not "deflecting", per say. More along the lines of "completely Matrix-dodged it". I'd describe the Monk deflecting the bullet if he had a weapon, of course.
Sigh... Three years on the Exalted board, seeing this horse get beaten to a pulp. And Exalted doesn't even have firearms... Now I move onto this board, and obviously the same crud is bound to come up...
Look, people. Pathfinder is not a realistic combat simulator. It's a game engine for recreating high-power cinematic fights. At higher levels, the things any semi-competent character can do unto his enemies are so disassociated from any battlefield reality, they might as well call it Shonen Anime: The Game.
So, where does deflecting/catching bullets fall into? It's right up there with swords cutting rock like butter, fighters surviving a 200m fall or a meteor rain to the face, dragons flying and breathing fire, and all other stuff that makes this a fantasy game.
TL;DR: It's Kung Fu Magic, people. Don't overthink it.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm more worried that any level 3 commoner can deflect bullets with his bare hands with just 2 feats.
Unlikely, that a commoner would spend his feats on this instead of Skill Focus "Make me Money." Deflect Arrows could only make a commoner money if there is a local carnival.
A guy with a katana could just cut the bullet in half.
The interesting thing about that show is he could do so without seeing the bullet (it was a white bullet against a white/light blue sky) and without having enough time after the bullet was fired to react (so he started moving the sword *before* the shooter pulled the trigger).
I really liked the reaction time bit, since the time for the bullet to be fired and pass the guy with a sword was about half the reaction time of the guy reacting in the reaction time tests. So he was able to reach (somehow) the shooter and know when the shooter (from 100 ft away) was about to pull the trigger before the shooter completed the action of pulling the trigger.
so why is it impossible to believe you could catch a bullet (and need different rules for) than it its to catch an arrow?
When I was a kid I watched a guy on TV catch a bullet in his TEETH.
As far as a fantasy game is concerned, whats the difference?
They do the same damage, but the bow has much better range. As printed the bow is a better weapon, so wouldn't it be harder to catch an arrow than a bullet using that logic?
The thing for catching bullets in your teeth is a confirmed trick. Don't believe everything that magicians want you to believe. Though I will admit the thing that I saw that showed how the trick worked was on TV as well, so maybe I'm the one being tricked ;)
Anyway, since it seems like this is a case of 'working as intended' from Paizo, I'll drop the issue ;) Though personally, I think it would be better to not give the GMs the option on this one. I can easily see this sort of thing turning onto a mid game argument.
Thats your issue, you want people to engage in game balance discussions using an NPC class, a commoner no less.
That was just an example.
Ultimate Combat a sidebar or something that talks about Deflecting Bullets that basically says, "Hey, if you as the GM think it's cool for Deflect Arrows to work on bullets, go for it! But if you don't, that's fine too!"For the love of Sarenrae, don't do that please.
In my humble opinion, it ruins the game to have wishy-washy "let the GM decide" rules.
Make the rule be that it does or does not work with Deflect Arrows, and allow the GM the freedom to Rule 0 it any way he likes in the game.Please!
I have to agree. Wishy-washy rules lead to ambiguity, confusion and misunderstandings. See the numerous posts on Magic Item Creation.
I know from experience.
I'm more worried that any level 3 commoner can deflect bullets with his bare hands with just 2 feats.Thats your issue, you want people to engage in game balance discussions using an NPC class, a commoner no less. If a GM wants a 3rd level commoner to spend his two feats on Improved unarmed strike and Deflect arrows, and give that commoner 13+ Dex why should we stop him. If you feel it breaks your game then don't do it.
Seriously, how many people here even figure out what feats their commoners have?
Sounds like a circus performer to me. What commoner is going to spend two feats on something that won't apply to their career?
Ultimate Combat a sidebar or something that talks about Deflecting Bullets that basically says, "Hey, if you as the GM think it's cool for Deflect Arrows to work on bullets, go for it! But if you don't, that's fine too!"For the love of Sarenrae, don't do that please.
In my humble opinion, it ruins the game to have wishy-washy "let the GM decide" rules.
Make the rule be that it does or does not work with Deflect Arrows, and allow the GM the freedom to Rule 0 it any way he likes in the game.Please!
This game is, was, and alwasy will be a 'let the Gm Decide game'
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
This game is, was, and alwasy will be a 'let the Gm Decide game'
Because I 100% totally agree with you, you clearly fundamentally misunderstood my post.
The rules should assert how the rule works "in the game" in an absolute, matter of fact way.
The GM is always free to operate under a "let the GM Decide" mode.
Kung Fu Hustle.
In 1998 at the USAKF national tournament in New Orleans, LA, some big fat black belt caught a .22 caliber bullet from 50', through a taped pane of glass, and dropped it into a metal pail with a little *pling!*
Did not happen to a friend, I saw it happen with my own eyes. It was significantly awesome.
So yeah.. fantasy monk? Little comparatively slow moving ball of soft hot lead? Totally doable.