Is grapple deflectable by Crane Wing?

[skuro]

Crane Wing: "you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you"

Combat maneuvers are special attacks, as such does Crane Wing deflect a grapple attempt?

[Fozbek]

Keep reading Crane Wing. It doesn't cause the attack to miss, it causes it to deal zero damage. The CMB check to initiate a grapple is an attack roll, but the result doesn't deal damage, so using Crane Wing on it doesn't really do any good. Crane Wing does not cause attacks to miss.

[Interzone]

that and grappling is not a melee weapon.

[skuro]

Ok, thanks!

[Aelryinth]

grappling uses melee weapons, i.e. hands, claws, or weapons. It would work from that standpoint.

Oddly enough, you'd also get your AoO, which might then spoil the grapple attempt. You did reduce the incoming attack to 0, even if was already 0, and so you'd get the AoO.

==Aelryinth

[Maxximilius]

Note that some maneuvers ARE attack rolls (trip, sunder, disarm...) which would be deflected. Fozbek's reading I'm not so sure about.

[Interzone]

Aelryinth wrote:

grappling uses melee weapons, i.e. hands, claws, or weapons. It would work from that standpoint.

Oddly enough, you'd also get your AoO, which might then spoil the grapple attempt. You did reduce the incoming attack to 0, even if was already 0, and so you'd get the AoO.

==Aelryinth

Edit: that and grappling is not a melee weapon ATTACK

[TOZ]

Here we go again.

[blackbloodtroll]

TOZ wrote:

Here we go again.

...on my own? Going down the only road I've ever known? Like a drifter I was born to walk alone?

[Fozbek]

Maxximilius wrote:

Note that some maneuvers ARE attack rolls (trip, sunder, disarm...) which would be deflected. Fozbek's reading I'm not so sure about.

All CMB checks are attack rolls:

SRD wrote:

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.

This has been upheld by Jason and Sean multiple times.

Now, I did forget that Crane Wing only works against melee weapons. Grapple is not a melee weapon attack unless a weapon with the "grapple" special quality or an attack with the "grab" special ability is used (and even then, I think the grab might technically not be considered an actual weapon attack).

[Interzone]

exactly.

[Mr. Green]

Fozbek wrote:

Maxximilius wrote:

Note that some maneuvers ARE attack rolls (trip, sunder, disarm...) which would be deflected. Fozbek's reading I'm not so sure about.

All CMB checks are attack rolls:

SRD wrote:

When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus.

This has been upheld by Jason and Sean multiple times.

Now, I did forget that Crane Wing only works against melee weapons. Grapple is not a melee weapon attack unless a weapon with the "grapple" special quality or an attack with the "grab" special ability is used (and even then, I think the grab might technically not be considered an actual weapon attack).

Technically if one uses arms, legs, or such it is a unarmed weapon which counts as a light melee weapon by the rules.

For further hurting of ones head, you can do crane wing while your hands have no weapons in them. I don't believe it requires a weapon in your hand to deflect.....

[Maddigan]

I don't allow Crane Wing to be used against abilities that replace a melee attack like Sunder, Disarm, or Trip. I wouldn't allow it against combat maneuvers.

[Interzone]

I'm with you on that one

[Nightskies]

Sunder causes damage. Shouldn't that be deflected by the crane wing?

[Lobolusk]

SO has there been an official ruling on whether Crane wing just makes the attack not do damage or does the attack miss all together? I try to stay awya form "touchy" subjects of late and I am not up on my PAIZO board "hot button issue" posts.

[skuro]

Hm, so the way Crane Wing works is controversial. But everyone seems to agree that it does not make the attack miss, just nullify the damage.

[Laithoron]

PRD wrote:

Crane Wing

Benefit: Benefit: 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 deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed. An attack so deflected deals no damage to you.

Emphasis mine.

The fact that it states that a deflected attack deals no damage does not appear to be a mandate that the attack has to be capable of dealing damage. Rather, it seems to simply spell things out for those who might want to try and tack on rider effects that are dependent upon touch (or something to that effect).

Personally, I'd suggest ruling on this the same way in which you handle the Deflect Arrows feat. If you rule that as a miss then be consistent and do the same here. If you rule it as a 0-damage hit, then go with that.

Doesn't look like anyone has FAQ'd the issue yet, so it might not be a bad idea to do so...

[Fozbek]

Lobolusk wrote:

SO has there been an official ruling on whether Crane wing just makes the attack not do damage or does the attack miss all together? I try to stay awya form "touchy" subjects of late and I am not up on my PAIZO board "hot button issue" posts.

There does not need to be an official ruling. If they'd intended the attack to miss, that's what they would have written. That isn't what they wrote. They wrote that the attack deals no damage. There's no ambiguity, nothing to rule on. The rules are perfectly clear in that regard.

Maddigan wrote:

I don't allow Crane Wing to be used against abilities that replace a melee attack like Sunder, Disarm, or Trip. I wouldn't allow it against combat maneuvers.

Well, with the exception of Sunder, it doesn't do anything against combat maneuvers, so your draconian stance is making a mountain out of a molehill. That said, it should work against Sunder, because that is a melee weapon attack (unless done via ranged attack with an archetype, naturally) that deals damage. Of course, Monks don't traditionally have a lot to sunder.

[Maxximilius]

Crane Wing :
"You move with the speed and finesse of an avian hunter, your sweeping blocks and graceful motions allowing you to deflect melee attacks with ease."
"you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you [...] An attack so deflected deals no damage to you."

Deflect Arrows :
"You can knock arrows and other projectiles off course, preventing them from hitting you."
"you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it."

Unless you are calling people stupid, the fact you don't agree with the "the attack simply misses" shows there is actually ambiguity here, especially when you compare the wording of both abilities.

[Fozbek]

Both Crane Wing and Deflect Arrows say the same thing: a deflected attack deals no damage. Not a deflected attack misses. Again, if they'd meant that a deflected attack misses, it would have been written that way.

[Jiggy]

Fozbek wrote:

Both Crane Wing and Deflect Arrows say the same thing: a deflected attack deals no damage. Not a deflected attack misses. Again, if they'd meant that a deflected attack misses, it would have been written that way.

Actually, it says you can deflect an attack, and then goes on to later state that "an attack so deflected deals no damage". Thus, "deals no damage" is an effect of "deflected". There is nothing in the text, however, to say that "deals no damage" is the only effect of "deflected".

Furthermore, the very first sentence of Crane Wing's effect states "you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you". Typically (in english - I can't speak for the syntax of other languages), if a statement includes a clause saying "...would normally do X", then you're talking about the possibility of causing X to not happen. Thus, grammar stongly implies that "deflect an attack that would normally hit you" has an implied "causing it instead to not hit you".

Aside:

Aelryinth wrote:

grappling uses melee weapons, i.e. hands, claws, or weapons. It would work from that standpoint.

This is incorrect. Although all combat maneuver checks are considered attack rolls, they do not all use weapons (even unarmed strikes/natural weapons). On the aforementioned blog post, as well as Sean K Reynolds' messageboard post on the discussion thread, it was stated that unarmed strikes/natural weapons are, in fact, weapons; and as such they can be used to deliver disarms, sunders and trips but not the other maneuvers (as they use no weapons at all).

[Fozbek]

Lobolusk wrote:

Well I disagree good sir! deflect by it very nature means it misses. if you deflect blaster bolts they don't hit the target. I cant agree on your jerk bearish ruling.

if somebody stabs you with a spear and cuts you and you dont take damage that is not considered deflection. if somebody stabs you with a spear and you deftly and monkishly move the spear aside that is deflection you not taking damage has nothing to do with it. if i get shot in the face with a blaster bolt and it doesn't do damage it was not "deflected" it was absorbed now if move my light saber in its path and it pings harmlessness off the wall that is deflection. maybe you need to look up "deflection" in the dictionary

You are deflecting attacks with your hands. How do you figure that the attack doesn't make contact with you when you are intentionally making contact with the attack? By the very nature of the ability, the attack makes contact with you. You just turn away the force of the attack so that it deals no damage; it still makes contact with you. In other words, it still hits.

If the weapon were to be coated in contact poison, slapping the weapon away with your hand would still cause you to be poisoned. If it were coated in injury poison, you would not be poisoned, because you were not harmed by the attack.

[Fozbek]

Further, it wouldn't even need to say "a deflected attack deals no damage" if it made attacks miss. Attacks that miss deal no damage as a result of having missed. The very presence of the "deals no damage" clause precludes the possibility of making the attacks miss.

[Stubs McKenzie]

I would suggest that is precisely the reason they added "this attacked deals no damage"... so you wont take damage from a poison or splash damage/AOE damage even though you have to touch the weapon to deflect it. Yes, you would have to touch someone to deflect the grapple attempt, but you touching them does not automatically mean they can still grapple you... if someone reached for my collar and I knock their hand away, it doesn't mean they can automatically grab my hand....

Having said that, I don't think this works with grapple specifically because grappling is not using a melee weapon, whereas tripping, sundering, or disarming all very well could involve such a weapon.

[Fozbek]

Stubs McKenzie wrote:

I would suggest that is precisely the reason they added "this attacked deals no damage"... so you wont take damage from a poison or splash damage/AOE damage even though you have to touch the weapon to deflect it.

That would be exceptionally stupid of them, because if they'd simply said "the attack misses" then the attack would miss and thus have no effect. Saying that the attack deals no damage does not increase the level of protection, it decreases it. If they'd wanted to be really sure of it, they would have said, "The attack misses, and has no effect on you".

I choose to believe that the developers meant what they wrote (the attack deals no damage), not what they didn't write (the attack misses and has no effect at all).

[Stubs McKenzie]

Maybe they meant to leave open those vulnerabilities... I don't know and neither do you... to suggest that your interpretation means you aren't calling the developers morons would suggest those who disagree with you are doing such... which is pretty rude, and a childish way to have a discussion. I would suggest staying away from such statements in the future.

[Eric Clingenpeel]

Fozbek wrote:

You are deflecting attacks with your hands. How do you figure that the attack doesn't make contact with you when you are intentionally making contact with the attack? By the very nature of the ability, the attack makes contact with you. You just turn away the force of the attack so that it deals no damage; it still makes contact with you. In other words, it still hits.

If the weapon were to be coated in contact poison, slapping the weapon away with your hand would still cause you to be poisoned. If it were coated in injury poison, you would not be poisoned, because you were not harmed by the attack.

Actually, there is nothing in the feat that says you're using your hands or any part of your body really. I for one am using this feat with my aldori dueling master, and I've always seen him as deflecting it with his blade, not his hand. So if the attack did have contact poison, it wouldn't connect.

[Fozbek]

Well, you're wrong, Lobolusk. The rules allow for attacks that hit and deal no damage, but still have effects that are based on hitting.

[Chris Mortika]

These discussions would go more smoothly if we said "This is how I understand the rule to work, and how I'll adjudicate it at my table" rather than "This is the way everybody has to read the rule."

for example, at my table ...
a sunder attempt is not an attack that would hit the Crane Wing defender; it would hit (and damage) their gear. Crane Wing won't help.

[Fozbek]

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

Actually, there is nothing in the feat that says you're using your hands or any part of your body really.

PRD wrote:

Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free

You must have a hand free to use Crane Wing. Why? Because you're using that hand to use the feat.

[Gorbacz]

Lobolusk wrote:

You are deflecting attacks with your hands. How do you figure that the attack doesn't make contact with you when you are intentionally making contact with the attack? By the very nature of the ability, the attack makes contact with you. You just turn away the force of the attack so that it deals no damage; it still makes contact with you. In other words, it still hits.

If the weapon were to be coated in contact poison, slapping the weapon away with your hand would still cause you to be poisoned. If it were coated in injury poison, you wou

I tend to look a it like if it doesn't do damage it doesn't hit. you can hit somebody armor and not deal damage/penetrate the metal the attack missed because it deals no damage. just because i slap aside a spear doesn't mean it "hits" for in order for a attack to "hit" it must deal damage in my book at least.

AM I THE ONLY ONE HERE WHO IS TAKING CRAZY PILLS?

So, Flumph monks can't take the feat? :)

[Lobolusk]

Fozbek wrote:

Well, you're wrong, Lobolusk. The rules allow for attacks that hit and deal no damage, but still have effects that are based on hitting.

what if i don't have any hands!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYYbvzz4RsU

[Fozbek]

Gorbacz wrote:

So, Flumph monks can't take the feat? :)

They can take it, but they can't use it. Hands aren't a requirement to take the feat, but you must have one free hand to use it.

Of course, I'd rule that to be "one free dextrous appendage" for non-humanoid creatures with the feat, as that's the obvious intent, but technically speaking, no, flumphs can't use Crane Wing (or Deflect Arrows, which has the same restriction).

[Fozbek]

Stubs McKenzie wrote:

Maybe they meant to leave open those vulnerabilities... I don't know and neither do you...

No one knows the intent aside from Paizo themselves, of course. However, the rules are clear that those vulnerabilities are left open.

Quote:

to suggest that your interpretation means you aren't calling the developers morons would suggest those who disagree with you are doing such... which is pretty rude, and a childish way to have a discussion. I would suggest staying away from such statements in the future.

You're right about this, however. I apologize, and I've amended my previous post.

[Eric Clingenpeel]

Fozbek wrote:

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

Actually, there is nothing in the feat that says you're using your hands or any part of your body really.

PRD wrote:

Once per round while using Crane Style, when you have at least one hand free

You must have a hand free to use Crane Wing. Why? Because you're using that hand to use the feat.

Not necessarily. It could be for balance or distraction. Having to have a free hand does not equal having to use said hand to deflect. It is one way to do so, yes, but not the only way. You could also kick an attack away (ala karate kid) in that case the free hand is used to balance for the jump and kick.

[Ravingdork]

Fozbek wrote:

Well, you're wrong, Lobolusk. The rules allow for attacks that hit and deal no damage, but still have effects that are based on hitting.

The rules state that whenever something "completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease."

It's in the glossary.

[Fozbek]

Most, not all. And you'll note that I already said injury poison wouldn't affect someone who takes no damage from an attack. Contact poison would, however.

[Fozbek]

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

Not necessarily. It could be for balance or distraction.

You could balance or distract with a hand that's holding something. Or havn't you seen tightrope walkers that carry a pole in both hands to balance with?

[Talonhawke]

So your saying that the deflect feats should be negated if the bad guys start using contact poison fozbek usually we agree but this is one time that i humbly disagree with your reading of the rules as far as when i run.

[Maddigan]

I'm going off my understanding of the Crane Style martial art and assuming the attack misses. I think the Deflect Arrow mechanic was a simple way to define how Crane Style functions, while the intent of the mechanic was that the attack be dodged. Crane Style tends to emphasize defensive movement and attack avoidance, so that's what I'm going with.

[Ross Byers]

I removed some posts. Don't post angry.

[Fozbek]

Talonhawke wrote:

So your saying that the deflect feats should be negated if the bad guys start using contact poison fozbek usually we agree but this is one time that i humbly disagree with your reading of the rules as far as when i run.

No, I don't think the feats should be negated by contact poison. The vast majority of the time, miss and deals no damage are functionally the same; contact poison is one of the few where it matters. However, it would have been much easier and much more effective for them to have written miss if that was their intent. I have to assume they took the route they did for a reason.

[Lobolusk]

Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents. crane wing is not able to deflect grapple. or a combat maneuver. it just causes a melee attack to miss you.

[Ravingdork]

Lobolusk, many others have shown that it negates damage. It doesn't cause the attack to miss. Also, though I believe you to be right about non-weapon combat maneuvers such as grapples, one could easily argue its effective against maneuvers that DO use weapons, such as sunder or disarm.