I'll try to sum this up as best as possible...
NORMAL HITS
The text for Crane Wing (and a couple other feats such as Deflect Arrows) included verbiage that says
"you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you"
Note the emphasis on "normally". I cannot find a definition for an attack that's resolved "normally". For example, does an attack with a natural 20 (which counts as an auto-hit and in my mind isn't normal) resolve "normally" in the same way that a non-20 attack roll that beats the target's AC resolves "normally"? It seems a little strange to me that a 20, which has been an auto-hit for quite some time, can just be knocked aside by a feat.
DECLARATION ORDER
Moving on, when and how is this deflection declared? The ability doesn't state exactly when this is decided. The way it's currently written, an attacker can roll a 20, confirm a crit, roll damage, declare damage, and then the defender can just say, "ooo, that looks painful, too bad I deflect it". I would think that you should have to declare that you're deflecting an attack based on whether or not the first d20 attack roll 'hits'. So if an attacker rolls 4 d20's, the first one misses AC, the second one lands a crit threat on a 20, and the third/fourth hit by beating the AC, the defender should have to declare that they are deflecting one of those attacks before anything else is resolved. However, this is not written out anywhere that I can find...
TOUCH ATTACKS
Let's say a cleric attempts to hit a defender with Inflict Wounds. The defender chooses to "deflect" the attack using this feat. How is this deflection done? I can only imagine that it is done by knocking the attacker's hand away, but based on how discharging stored touch attacks work, knocking the hand away should discharge the attack anyway. How else does one "deflect" an attack if they're empty-handed?
INVISIBLE ATTACKS
Let's say that a defender is aware that there is an invisible magus adjacent to them. The magus spellstrikes using Spell Combat and a full attack. Technically, even though the defender knows that the magus is there, they still shouldn't be able to deflect any of the incoming attacks, right? Shouldn't being invisible make the defender flat-footed and unaware of the incoming attacks?
Agree with everything the above two said. For invisible...I think RAW it has no clause preventing it, but that is a bit odd. I think it'd be fine to houserule it to not work if you're caught flatfooted or lost dex to AC. If you had Uncanny Dodge or Blind-fight (relevant for the OP's example), you should be able to use Crane Wing, though.
It does work against touch attacks. Consider it just knocking away the hand at the wrist or whatever visualization you like. Maybe they're using their chi to do it.
Touch spells only go off if the attacker does the touching.
If the deflection is being done with Ki or any other non-physical contact, I'd be fine with that, but it's not defined. As far as the spell only going off when the attacker does the touching...
Holding the Charge: If you don't discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the charge indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges.
You touching someone and someone touching you really isn't different. And if you were aiming to discharge a spell by touching someone and they tried to knock your hand away, you'd definitely still will the spell to discharge.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
NORMALLY
Means the same as if it had said "otherwise". The "normal" state to which the feat refers is if you didn't have/weren't using the feat. That's just basic grammar.
DECLARATION ORDER
It would be nice if it was a little more explicit, but I think a reasonable way of doing it would be between the attack roll and the damage roll. I say this because generally, you resolve whether or not an attack hits before you roll damage, and you're not really done resolving whether it hits or misses until the target has decided whether or not to deflect it. So that seems the most reasonable to me.
TOUCH ATTACKS
The feat makes no differentiation between touch attacks and other attacks, therefore it works. Fluff it however you like, but there it is.
INVISIBLE ATTACKS
You expend no action to deflect the attack, but you must be aware of it and not flat-footed.
Deflect Arrows says the same thing. So where's the issue coming from?
EDIT: All kinds of ninja'd.
Means the same as if it had said "otherwise". The "normal" state to which the feat refers is if you didn't have/weren't using the feat. That's just basic grammar.
This isn't basic grammar. "Normally" is describing "hit", so it's modifying the type of hit that's being done. If the verbiage said "you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you" then there would be no question, there's no added description on the condition of the hit. But "normally" adds a qualifier.
Deflect Arrows says the same thing. So where's the issue coming from?
To rephrase the question, is a defender aware of an invisible attacker's attacks if the defender has pin-pointed the location of the invisible attacker? Technically, the attacker is still invisible, as are the attacks, so the defender should still be denied dex and be considered unaware of the attacks, no?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Deflect Arrows says the same thing. So where's the issue coming from?To rephrase the question, is a defender aware of an invisible attacker's attacks if the defender has pin-pointed the location of the invisible attacker? Technically, the attacker is still invisible, as are the attacks, so the defender should still be denied dex and be considered unaware of the attacks, no?
Yes, I think any reasonable GM would call the target "unaware" when being attacked from invisibility. After all, you don't know whether he's going to attack, drink a potion, cast a spell, moon you, pick his nose, or leave the room. So how could you be considered "aware" of an incoming attack?
Except there is a difference in you touching someone and someone touching you. By RAW, spells do not go off if you are touched, they go off if you touch someone, and touching someone who is not a willing target requires a successful touch attack roll.
The attacker is trying to hit the defender. The defender physically knocks the attack away, causing direct physical contact. The spell should discharge. Regardless of who makes the contact first, the attacker is attempting to hit the defender, and the defender essentially offers up their limb as a contact point. (if physically knocked away)
As far as the RAW stating that the spells don't go off if the one holding the charge is touched, I don't recall seeing that (and of course I could be wrong). I'm going to look for that manually, but if you could point me in the right direction on that text I'd appreciate it.
On the invisible topic, remember, you're only invisible for the first strike. To be invisible for all the strikes would require improved invisibility. (In other words, yes, I screwed up and misread, you can't block an invisible strike.)
Let's say for the sake of argument that Greater Invisibility was used ;-)
Am I to assume that casting chill touch on oneself before going into battle is a great way to make anything with a natural attack take damage for hitting you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Replace "normally" with "otherwise".
As to the touch spell, nothing in the feat description says that you actually make contact with the hand or weapon (in the case of the magus) delivering the touch. Perhaps you struck the attackers wrist or elbow causing his aim to be a bit off. Perhaps you gave him a foot to the chest causing him to take a (less than 5') step back as he swung so he missed short. It doesn't specify. I would say that because the use of the feat turns what would otherwise be a hit into a miss that the spell does not discharge.
In the case of a greater invisible attacker, unless you make the perception roll to hear him shift, the attacker could five foot step into a different square and then attack, so even if you had him pinpointed before his turn, you'd still be unaware as to what square he's actually attacking from unless he's under some continuous effect like glitterdust.
I'll have to do a bit more research, but exactly when an arrow fired by an invisible attacker becomes visible becomes important for the deflect arrows feat. If the arrow becomes visible as soon as it leaves the bow, then I'd say they're deflectable. If they're not visible until impact, well then you're out of luck.
Edit: Changed "be" to "do", added stuff
Am I to assume that casting chill touch on oneself before going into battle is a great way to make anything with a natural attack take damage for hitting you?
I see what you're saying, but if you're holding the spell as a touch, I would consider that to be in your hand, so logically getting scratched in your back wouldn't discharge it, but grappling your hand would... that's at least how I'm viewing it.
As I said, I am trying to find the text that states that someone touching you doesn't discharge it, but I only have limited time in my schedule to search....
Alrighty... so here's how I'm viewing this:
1. The word "normally" shouldn't be in the text, as it is trying to define that any attack under any circumstances that would hit you is a valid target of this ability.
2. The declaration order of when an attack is deflected should probably be right after the attack roll is determined to be a hit or miss, but as this is not in the text it is still up for interpretation... this needs to be errata'd imo
3. Touch attacks are held in a particular part of the body, and for argument's sake, the deflection could have been done by hitting the arm or elbow of the attacker instead of hitting the hand to prevent discharge.
4. Greater Invisibility removes the capability to use any of these feats unless the defender can see invisibility.
Thoughts?
More or less correct. "Normally" is completely grammatically valid, though.
Thank you all for your input, I appreciate your patience.
I wonder if the feats will be updated to correct that gray area (point #2)...