Yea, what ShadowcatX said.
This feat "interrupts" the attack, negating it. Critical hits are not special in this regard, and this would stop what would be a critical hit from even hitting.
You know, personally, I'd ask you whether you were deflecting it before even rolling confirmation (or damage, for that matter).
It does quite clearly state "that would normally hit", so you do need to see if it'd hit.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You know, personally, I'd ask you whether you were deflecting it before even rolling confirmation (or damage, for that matter).It does quite clearly state "that would normally hit", so you do need to see if it'd hit.
Which has what to do with confirmation or damage, exactly?
Which has what to do with confirmation or damage, exactly?You know, personally, I'd ask you whether you were deflecting it before even rolling confirmation (or damage, for that matter).It does quite clearly state "that would normally hit", so you do need to see if it'd hit.
I took "confirmation" to mean "the attack roll". Suppose I should've kept the context of critical hits in my head.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The text says "normally hit" rather than "otherwise hit".
One could argue* that this distinguishes a normal hit from a critical hit. If the attack would hit normally (that is, for baseline damage) it can be deflected.
*and argue, and argue, and argue,
But, barring clarification from the developers, I would consider that a poorly-supported position.
I have a character currently with the crane style, crane wing, and crane riposte. He is multiclassing with the Aldori Swordlord Archtype.
And I must say its quite an impressive combination. The Icing on the cake is of course the Crane Riposte.
As for how it works, well pretty darn good. Yes you deflect an attack (critical) or otherwise, it must be a melee attack.
My ST has ruled that the deflection can only deflect attacks made with a melee weapon, and unarmed attacks. Any combat manuver made with a melee weapon or unarmed strike are also included.
However touch spells, natural weapons, and the like he has ruled can not be deflected.
This has not removed the enjoyment of the feat and has kept it fun.
Of course I'm worried about trolls, and big natural monsters because it will not deflect in his game.
So are natural attacks considered melee attacks?
Yes, natural attacks are melee attacks.
If the intent was to only work with manufactured weapons, it would have said so.
Yes, natural attacks are melee attacks.
If the intent was to only work with manufactured weapons, it would have said so.
If the intent was melee attacks it would have said so. Instead, it says weapon attacks. (Yeah, yeah, I read Sean's post, I just found it more snarky than useful.)
I think it's more than reasonable to say that the attack has to be from a "weapon" listed on the weapon chart somewhere. Manufactured weapons are listed on that chart -- so are unarmed strikes, which, by the way, are specifically called out as being considered light weapons in their description text. How 'bout bites and claws and tails and hair and horns?
***
I actually find the natural 20 argument interesting. It's never really occurred to me, but reading the natural 20 rule gives me pause. I'm no longer so certain that Crane Wing deflects a natural 20.
Note: "A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit."
Always. Neat word. It trumps missing because of AC obviously. Without the word always I wouldn't have given this a second thought. With the word always I'm not so sure.
Whelp, no use arguing with someone who ignores official clarification.
Yes, natural attacks are melee attacks.
If the intent was to only work with manufactured weapons, it would have said so.
If the intent was melee attacks it would have said so. Instead, it says weapon attacks. (Yeah, yeah, I read Sean's post, I just found it more snarky than useful.)
I think it's more than reasonable to say that the attack has to be from a "weapon" listed on the weapon chart somewhere. Manufactured weapons are listed on that chart -- so are unarmed strikes, which, by the way, are specifically called out as being considered light weapons in their description text. How 'bout bites and claws and tails and hair and horns?
***
I actually find the natural 20 argument interesting. It's never really occurred to me, but reading the natural 20 rule gives me pause. I'm no longer so certain that Crane Wing deflects a natural 20.
Note: "A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit."
Always. Neat word. It trumps missing because of AC obviously. Without the word always I wouldn't have given this a second thought. With the word always I'm not so sure.
Works just fine for Deflect arrows, has since before it's first steps away from D&D, and it will probably work for the foreseeable future.
A natural 20 always hits. So it would normally hit. In which case it doesn't since crane wing stops something that would normally hit.
Specific trumps general. "A natural 20. . ." is the general rule. Crane style feat is the specific exception. Gotta love an exception-based rules system. ; )
Yes, natural attacks are melee attacks.
If the intent was to only work with manufactured weapons, it would have said so.
If the intent was melee attacks it would have said so. Instead, it says weapon attacks. (Yeah, yeah, I read Sean's post, I just found it more snarky than useful.)
I think it's more than reasonable to say that the attack has to be from a "weapon" listed on the weapon chart somewhere. Manufactured weapons are listed on that chart -- so are unarmed strikes, which, by the way, are specifically called out as being considered light weapons in their description text. How 'bout bites and claws and tails and hair and horns?
***
I actually find the natural 20 argument interesting. It's never really occurred to me, but reading the natural 20 rule gives me pause. I'm no longer so certain that Crane Wing deflects a natural 20.
Note: "A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit."
Always. Neat word. It trumps missing because of AC obviously. Without the word always I wouldn't have given this a second thought. With the word always I'm not so sure.
I have to disagree.
Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free and are either fighting defensively or using the total defense action, you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you. You expend no action to def lect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so def lected deals no damage to you.
Lets look at this feat are actually read as the rules are written vs. what one might think.
One time per combat round if you have one had free and (are fighting defensively or using the total defense as a full round action) you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you.
In Logic
IF you have crane wing
---AND you are not flat footed
---AND you are using the standard action fighting defensively
------ OR you are using the full round action of fighting defensively
---AND you have one hand free
THEN you may deflect one melee weapon attack that would hit normally.
A natural 20 is a melee weapon attack that would hit normally.
As to what is considered a melee weapon. Natural Attacks, Improved Unarmed Strike, and any non ranged weapon.
Logic makes this true.
The definition for Melee Attack is an attack made by a melee weapon. So thus any attack that uses a non ranged melee attack roll is a Melee weapon, sense only melee weapons gain the benefit of Melee attacks.
Natural Weapons are Melee attacks according to the description of Natural Attacks, thus to be a melee attack they must be a Melee Weapon, for only Melee weapons get the benefit of Melee Attacks.
There is some wiggle room on spell touch attacks and if they are considered melee weapons. HOwever we know that melee touch spells do count as melee weapons for the selection of feats.
We also know that Natural Attacks count as a melee weapon for the purposes of feats. This is RAW.
To say that natural attacks are not melee weapons means that means that they are not usable with Weapon Focus (which they are).
Heck in the description of Weapon Finesse it states that Natural Weapons are considered light weapons.
Touch range spells as well as touch melee spells are also considered weapons for the purposes of feats. This is not a special property of Natural Weapons or melee touch spells it is a constant state for them
Natural weapons do not provoke, and are light weapons. They allows an AOO
Melee touch spells do not provoke, and can be used with AOO
Improved Unarmed Strike does not provoke, and can be used with AOO
One is considered Armed with all of the above. Armed means carrying a weapon (laymen s definition)
This is how the rules read. when broken down and following the a logical course.
To say that only manufactured weapons apply to this feat, means that this feat does not work for a majority of encounters. Figuring it takes two feat slots and if you are not a monk master of many styles you can not get it until 5th level and must have Crane Style, Dodge, and Improved Unarmed strike.
It has 3 Feats prerequisites, for non monks. For monks it is only allowed at fifth level.
But that is my two cents.
Specific trumps general. "A natural 20. . ." is the general rule. Crane style feat is the specific exception. Gotta love an exception-based rules system. ; )
I'm not saying I'm convinced either way, but, uhm, "always" sounds pretty specific to me.
Here's what it doesn't sound like: sometimes, or most of the time.
I'll bet that if Crane Wing was printed before the rule about a natural 20 always hitting folks would be screaming that natural 20's trump Crane Wing. That's all I'm saying.
It's an interesting argument. I don't think the person making it is out in left field, not at all.
Whelp, no use arguing with someone who ignores official clarification.
That's official clarification?
Errata is official clarification. Faq's are official clarification.
James Jacobs saying that pounce doesn't work with iterative attacks isn't official clarification. At best, it tells us that everyone is not on the same page, and that a faq should be established.
Sean Reynolds saying that certain spells can't be cast on eidolons because they are outsiders is not official clarification. It's specifically something that had to be readdressed when folks pointed out the obvious mistake there.
So. Comments, while valuable, aren't official until they hit the faq.
Heck in the description of Weapon Finesse it states that Natural Weapons are considered light weapons.
The bulk of your argument doesn't compel me. However, the above comment does.
I stand corrected.
Natural attacks are considered light weapons officially. The "special" section in the feat description is considered to be additional, unusual facts about the feat. In this case I accept it as additional, unusual facts relevant to the feat.
|
Note: "A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit."
Always. Neat word. It trumps missing because of AC obviously. Without the word always I wouldn't have given this a second thought. With the word always I'm not so sure.
So, do you also rule that a nat 20 also bypasses concealment? total concealment? why or why not?
I know in my own experience I've had quite a lot of crits that have been negated by displacement and similar effects. I don't see any difference in missing by concealment and missing by crane wing. They both can make an attack that would *normally* hit miss.
Note: "A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit."
Always. Neat word. It trumps missing because of AC obviously. Without the word always I wouldn't have given this a second thought. With the word always I'm not so sure.
So, do you also rule that a nat 20 also bypasses concealment? total concealment? why or why not?
I know in my own experience I've had quite a lot of crits that have been negated by displacement and similar effects. I don't see any difference in missing by concealment and missing by crane wing. They both can make an attack that would *normally* hit miss.
Do you people read? Seriously.
How do I rule it? I rule it that a natural 20 misses in the case of concealment, and I rule it that a natural 20 is deflected in the case of Crane Wing.
As I mentioned and figured I had made clear -- I've just literally (due to this thread) been given pause to consider my past rulings on this matter. I have stated that it is an interesting argument, one I had never considered until now. I don't think the argument is wholly without merit.
Consider: a natural 20 is always a hit. That rule is, by the nature of the rule, an exception. It always hits . . . even when it would otherwise miss due to other circumstances, such as missing due to armor class, and perhaps more.
What's the definition of always?
al·ways/ˈôlˌwāz/
Adverb:
1. At all times; on all occasions.
"On all occasions." Do all occasions not include some occasions?
Concealment offers a miss chance. That's something that "always" doesn't allow by its definition.
Don't get me wrong, I get the argument why the natural 20 would miss. Heck, that's the way I run it, and that's the way I've always ran it. Concealment requires a hit before the defender gets to roll the dice for a miss chance. I've always assumed this was the exception to the rule of a natural 20. But, see, there's nothing really saying that the rule of a natural 20 isn't actually the exception to this concealment rule.
The same goes for Crane Wing. It's really a matter of perspective on which rule is an exception to the other.
To say that the rule of a natural 20 is a general rule and not an exception rule in general is silly. The natural 20 rule is only invoked on a specific occasion -- when the attacker rolls a natural 20. It is an exception rule by its very nature -- it always hits when it otherwise would have missed.
Concealment is obviously a specific rule as well. So is Crane Wing.
In short, if I had a GM that said, "hey, a natural 20 always hits, no ifs, ands or buts," I would be hard pressed to say that there isn't logic buried somewhere in that interesting perspective and interpretation.
***
Regarding Deflect Arrows: I haven't followed the history of deflect arrows. Is there some RAW text that specifically states that deflect arrows trumps a natural 20? Otherwise, it seems like the same issue as above, and while I've always run it where deflect arrows trumps a natural 20, I'm capable of seeing an interpretation to the contrary.
If you read even father into Crane Wing and Deflect Arrows, they don't make the attack miss at all.
The wording does not contain a single instance of the word "miss."
Instead, these feats allow you change the attack so that you take no damage from it. RAW, the attack still actually hits.
How this interacts with riders on the attack like poison or crit feats is another discussion.
Whelp, no use arguing with someone who ignores official clarification.That's official clarification?
Errata is official clarification. Faq's are official clarification.
James Jacobs saying that pounce doesn't work with iterative attacks isn't official clarification. At best, it tells us that everyone is not on the same page, and that a faq should be established.
Sean Reynolds saying that certain spells can't be cast on eidolons because they are outsiders is not official clarification. It's specifically something that had to be readdressed when folks pointed out the obvious mistake there.
So. Comments, while valuable, aren't official until they hit the faq.
Thanks for the laugh.