But it's not an attack roll. It's a CMB check with bonuses for carrying a weapon. Very different.You sure about that?
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.
I'll just bold the other part, since that's how I read that.
Also, I know some combat maneuvers require standard actions. Why would those get a buy, since they are all classified as maneuvers?
I don't have access to the Pathfinder SRD here at work, sadly. As I said earlier though, I don't let it work on Maneuvers in my game.
I have a Master of many styles monk with Crane Wing, and Snake Style in my game right now. If Maneuver's didn't work he would be nearly untouchable.
That part talks about the bonus, not that it isn't an attack.
It's all well to say 'that doesn't work in my games', but please avoid the impression that it goes for ALL games.
So how would it work in the case of Dirty Trick and a Dueling weapon?
Clearly you're using the weapon then. When it's a standard action, even with the weapon, you cannot deflect it by your logic.
Now lets add Quick Dirty Trick. Would it now classify as an attack you could deflect more easily just because someone focused on being better at it?
The attack action is just a way to define when you can do it. A combat maneuver is a seperate event the way I read it, which is why it has an entirely different rules section.
The waters get very muddy here, as usual.
|
So how would it work in the case of Dirty Trick and a Dueling weapon?Clearly you're using the weapon then. When it's a standard action, even with the weapon, you cannot deflect it by your logic.
What? I'm saying ALL Combat Maneuvers can be deflected, because all Combat Maneuvers require an attack roll, which can be deflected.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Ninja'ed several times already, but (salient point bolded):
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
Ninja'ed several times already, but (salient point bolded):
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.
Ah, there we go.
I submit. :)
Ninja'ed several times already, but (salient point bolded):
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll.Ah, there we go.
I submit. :)
In Hindsight, that T-Rex is now F'd.
In hindsight nothing, that monk has to crit to hit him. Good luck with that.
What? I'm saying ALL Combat Maneuvers can be deflected, because all Combat Maneuvers require an attack roll, which can be deflected.
So how would it work in the case of Dirty Trick and a Dueling weapon?Clearly you're using the weapon then. When it's a standard action, even with the weapon, you cannot deflect it by your logic.
So he takes no damage, but is disarmed/tripped/grappled?
Meaning he is still in trouble? It doesn't say to ignore the attack just that it does no damage.
What? I'm saying ALL Combat Maneuvers can be deflected, because all Combat Maneuvers require an attack roll, which can be deflected.
So how would it work in the case of Dirty Trick and a Dueling weapon?Clearly you're using the weapon then. When it's a standard action, even with the weapon, you cannot deflect it by your logic.
So he takes no damage, but is disarmed/tripped/grappled?
Meaning he is still in trouble? It doesn't say to ignore the attack just that it does no damage.
Great point. I think that would work.
However, does this mean it can deflect touch attacks? They require attack rolls - and I think we already agreed that natural attacks count as weapons.
Would it work on touch attack spells then? You are considered "armed" with a spell.
I'd change my mind on this feat very quickly if by RAW it allowed this.
That's true, its a hyperbole of an example but it is still an example. But if a DM had chosen to put his pc up against a CR 11 T-rex, or even just a level 4 fighter with a great sword, then he's going to have to ammend his plans, as in change the game, as in game changer.First I'd have to question the GM setting a CR11 on a Level 2 monk regardless of how he's built.
The same monk would be ripped apart by say, a Bear, or six goblins, or any caster with magic missile. These are not uncommon encounters for a character of that level to meet.
It's an impossible example, you need to be level 5 to get the Crane Wing feat that allows you to deflect one attack. Great if you are fighting one creature with one attack. Two creatures? Two attacks? Not so hot, and not so huge a game changer.
What? I'm saying ALL Combat Maneuvers can be deflected, because all Combat Maneuvers require an attack roll, which can be deflected.
So how would it work in the case of Dirty Trick and a Dueling weapon?Clearly you're using the weapon then. When it's a standard action, even with the weapon, you cannot deflect it by your logic.
So he takes no damage, but is disarmed/tripped/grappled?
Meaning he is still in trouble? It doesn't say to ignore the attack just that it does no damage.
Great point. I think that would work.
However, does this mean it can deflect touch attacks? They require attack rolls - and I think we already agreed that natural attacks count as weapons.
Would it work on touch attack spells then? You are considered "armed" with a spell.
I'd change my mind on this feat very quickly if by RAW it allowed this.
Seeing as those aren't weapon attacks, but spell attacks, I'd say that he can't deflect a normal Shocking Grasp.
However, he could deflect a Shocking Grasp that's being Spellstriked through a sword by a magus, since he's using a weapon attack.
He could also deflect the attack from a Spiritual Weapon.
Anyone else have a thought on that?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I tend to assume that it would work for anything that's considered an armed melee attack, including touch range spells, but that's ambiguous. There are precedents either way: Weapon Focus and sneak attack work for touch spells, but good hope, favored enemy, and inspire courage, for instance, do not grant a damage bonus to touch spells.
Well with a shocking grasp it's like being attacked with a taser: block it and you get shocked anyway!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Read Deflect Arrow and see that deflecting an attacks means you "suffer no damage from it"... not that by the way, you don't get any penalty like a touch poison on the arrow, or a spell in the hand you deflect.
That's how I see it at least, since the feats have the same RAI.
|
Well with a shocking grasp it's like being attacked with a taser: block it and you get shocked anyway!
Not exactly.
In real life, people are taught to block or strike the arm that holds a weapon to avoid being hit by the weapon.
Spell like weapons should be able to be deflected. As far as I know, there's no overriding rule saying this is impossible. It's more likely specific spells will say it bypasses the normal touch attack rules.
Well with a shocking grasp it's like being attacked with a taser: block it and you get shocked anyway!Not exactly.
In real life, people are taught to block or strike the arm that holds a weapon to avoid being hit by the weapon.
Striking, in the dojo I trained in - usually for a nerve point on the arm, but blocking to the head was considered acceptable.
However, if the attackers entire body is charged (or even just their arm) then any contact could shock you. Generally though, I would agree that yes, a spell attack should be deflected if it requires a melee touch.
|
|
The more I think about this style feat, the more I'm starting to think it might be a bit too good. Not broken at all, but really good, as in, Power Attack good (as in, you really want to have it, almost required).
The Crane Style pre-reqs are pretty low. Feats required are Improved Unarmed Strike and Dodge, BAB 2 or monk 1. Read the rest of the style. It only requires more BAB or monk levels. Those are very low pre-reqs. I didn't realize that from before, assuming lots of style feats were difficult for a non-monk to get them, but this is not the case at all for Crane Style.
To use the feat, it requires a free hand. So the character, let's say a free handed fighter or magus or whatever, does less damage, but in return negates either the best attack or one of the better attacks from a melee opponent. A dumb animal would have trouble doing damage. A powerful melee NPC will lose 2-3 attacks before figuring out what is going on. 2-3 rounds is a lot of time. That's easily 25-75 damage starting around level 6 or so from a powerful fighter.
I'm going to revisit my own plans for the Dawnflower Dervish bard or free hand fighter/duelist that I abandoned because I couldn't figure out a good balance of offense and defense. This changes things because if I can negate hits, I don't need to do quite as much damage.
Almost all poison attacks on weapons or natural weapons are considered "Injury" poison. I'd have to argue that those didn't take effect simply because the attack failed to injure if deflected.
The same would be true of some of the rogue sneak attack modifiers like Crippling Strike and Slow Reactions, because they require the sneak attack to do damage.
Interestingly: negative levels, paralysis, the "Grab" special ability, the rogue "Bleeding Attack" ability and many other things would still apply even if deflected by Crane Wing since they only require you to "hit" the target.
I don't see why Crane Style wouldn't deflect the melee attack to deliver a touch spell (provided you're good with the definition of weapon including touch spells) or touch poison just like anything else. Parry the wrist, parry the haft, parry the weapon with your sleeved arm--there's plenty of fluff to support the description.
All the Crane Wing does is "An attack so deflected deals no damage to you." So, everything but the damage from an attack still takes place, so go ahead and grapple the crane down.
Anyways, that AC shouldn't be game breaking at that level, especially given the crap offense that's left. The broken tactic here is the whole party working together to buff one character into a superman because of some perceived advantage over the rest of them. If the DM doesn't take advantage of that to wreak havoc on the buffers, this tactic will overwhelm a lot of encounters.
|
|
I don't see why Crane Style wouldn't deflect the melee attack to deliver a touch spell (provided you're good with the definition of weapon including touch spells) or touch poison just like anything else. Parry the wrist, parry the haft, parry the weapon with your sleeved arm--there's plenty of fluff to support the description.
Except that you are deflecting the attack by touching it. Think about it : if it is a touch effect, you are effectively touching the weapon to "suffer no damage" from the attack. I'm not saying you aren't deflecting the attack of a touch spell, but that it makes no difference since you already suffer no damage from the touch attack itself.
If you use deflect arrows or catch arrows, you touch the projectile, thus inflicting yourself with any associated touch affliction that doesn't need a hit to apply. A spellstrike only delivers on a hit ; a contact poison merely needs to touch your body ; a touch spell may afflict a friend by mistake just by touching him.
And let's recognize it, using a melee touch attack spell against a target with crane style usually means that the spellcaster didn't think his strategy through and isn't gonna make it to the next round.
D&D is abstract, and deflecting does not mean deflecting the weapon - or else a sword would still cut an unarmed deflection, correct? You can, as I mentioned, 'block to the head' when deflecting an attack IRL. If the spell charges, say, the hand with the effect, then that doesn't matter if your deflection is to the upper arm, or if - as most deflections involve both moving yourself and the attack - you simply get out of the way.
|
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.
Weither it misses or hits and does no damage is unclear. The phrase "you can deflect....that would normally hit you" if they meant it reduced the damage to zero instead they would have been more clear instead of the "an attack so deflected deals no damage to you"
"...you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you."
There are two requirements, that it be an attack and that it be a melee weapon.
The following meet the "attack" requirement:
- combat maneuvers
- natural attacks
- touch attacks
- unarmed attacks
- weapon attacks
The following meet the "melee" requirement:
- combat maneuvers
- most natural attacks
- MELEE touch attacks
- unarmed attacks
- MELEE weapon attacks
The following meet the "weapon" requirement:
- combat maneuvers (if used with a weapon)
- natural attacks
- unarmed attacks
- weapon attacks
If it falls on ALL THREE lists, than it can be deflected.
Doesn't strike me as all that complicated.
RD has the nail on the head. A shocking grasp requires an unarmed melee touch attack. Unarmed attack, check. Melee touch attack, check. unarmed attack, check. It's deflected.
RD has the nail on the head. A shocking grasp requires an unarmed melee touch attack. Unarmed attack, check. Melee touch attack, check. unarmed attack, check. It's deflected.
I agree but if holding the charge for shocking grasp, it wouldn't be used if it was deflected this way correct?
I like how when it's a melee attack, everyone says it's unbalanced, but there's 3 feats allowing you to deflect ranged attacks, one of allows you to deflect a ray, and no one says anything about those. /shrug.
Back on topic, it's not op. I think most people who think it is compare the feat in a vacuum, but this game isn't played in a vacuum. Changing/more enemies, ranged encounters, encounters with a lot of lower level mooks where you can only deflect one attack per round and still have 3 or 4 coming your way, creatures with multiple natural attacks all can bypass the feat. And those are all mundane. Magic can just hold person the guy and be done with it. It's not broken.
"...you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you."
There are two requirements, that it be an attack and that it be a melee weapon.
The following meet the "attack" requirement:
- combat maneuvers
- natural attacks
- touch attacks
- unarmed attacks
- weapon attacksThe following meet the "melee" requirement:
- combat maneuvers
- most natural attacks
- MELEE touch attacks
- unarmed attacks
- MELEE weapon attacksThe following meet the "weapon" requirement:
- combat maneuvers (if used with a weapon)
- natural attacks
- unarmed attacks
- weapon attacksIf it falls on ALL THREE lists, than it can be deflected.
Doesn't strike me as all that complicated.
So if I kick you in the side of the leg to hurt you it can be deflected, but if I kick you in the side of the leg to trip (combat manouvre without a weapon) you then it can't deflected?
Yeah, that'd be a little weird. An unarmed attack is a deflectable, a combat maneuver with a weapon is deflectable, but an unarmed combat maneuver is not deflectable?
Is it overpowered for its cost and easy access? Yes, very.
4 feats does not make it easy access.
You need:
Dodge (13 Dex)
Improved Unarmed Strike
Crane Style (BAB+2 or monk level 2)
Then you also need.
Base Attack Bonus of 5
or
Monk Level 5
Now the only class who can bypass these requirements is a Master of Many styles. In which case easy entry into these feats is part of the design.
In order to make use of the deflective attack you need to be fighting defensively and have a hand free.
So:
No two handed weapons.
No two weapon fighting (flurry of blows changes not withstanding)
-2 Penalty to attacks.
You do get a higher AC.
Cannot be done flat footed.
Must be in the stance (swift action)
This is for the ability to deflect one melee attack a round. This doesn't help you with spell attacks, ranged attacks, and perhaps some combat maneuvers (debateable it seems).
You know what's better?
Snake Style.
Don't need a hand free.
Don't need monk levels.
Can qualify much sooner without MoMS(level 3)
Doesn't impose an attack penalty.
Can deflect melee and ranged attacks.
The difference is you need to make a check and it costs you an immediate action.
RD has the nail on the head. A shocking grasp requires an unarmed melee touch attack. Unarmed attack, check. Melee touch attack, check. unarmed attack, check. It's deflected.
Actually, shocking grasp doesn't meet the third requirement: counting as a weapon. It's certainly a melee attack (the first two), and it is certainly dangerous, but it is not considered a weapon in its own right.
So if I kick you in the side of the leg to hurt you it can be deflected, but if I kick you in the side of the leg to trip (combat manouvre without a weapon) you then it can't deflected?
That's exactly right. I never claimed that it made much sense, only that it was easy to understand the RAW rules on the matter.
Is it unbeatable? No.
Is it overpowered for its cost and easy access? Yes, very.
As asked before, where were you folks when Deflect Arrows came out?
RD has the nail on the head. A shocking grasp requires an unarmed melee touch attack. Unarmed attack, check. Melee touch attack, check. unarmed attack, check. It's deflected.I agree but if holding the charge for shocking grasp, it wouldn't be used if it was deflected this way correct?
If the charge was in your hand and I deflect your arm, I haven't touched your hand which retains the charge.
Is it unbeatable? No.
Is it overpowered for its cost and easy access? Yes, very.
It takes two feats, requires you to take a hit on offence, and isn't available until 5th level. Compare to Deflect Arrows, available to the monk at 1st level. Broken? Not so much - just situationally much more useful.
RD has the nail on the head. A shocking grasp requires an unarmed melee touch attack. Unarmed attack, check. Melee touch attack, check. unarmed attack, check. It's deflected.Actually, shocking grasp doesn't meet the third requirement: counting as a weapon. It's certainly a melee attack (the first two), and it is certainly dangerous, but it is not considered a weapon in its own right.
It is still considered an unarmed attack, and that is listed in your list of weapons. Melee touch attack, with a hand = unarmed attack.
So if I kick you in the side of the leg to hurt you it can be deflected, but if I kick you in the side of the leg to trip (combat manouvre without a weapon) you then it can't deflected?That's exactly right. I never claimed that it made much sense, only that it was easy to understand the RAW rules on the matter.
Try: aiming a powerful kick at you to injure you, you can see coming and deflect, curling my toe around your heel to tug you off balance when you overstepped slightly is a different matter.
Try: aiming a powerful kick at you to injure you, you can see coming and deflect, curling my toe around your heel to tug you off balance when you overstepped slightly is a different matter.So if I kick you in the side of the leg to hurt you it can be deflected, but if I kick you in the side of the leg to trip (combat manouvre without a weapon) you then it can't deflected?That's exactly right. I never claimed that it made much sense, only that it was easy to understand the RAW rules on the matter.
Without wanting to enter the realms of the judo v wing chun v aikido etc, a fast kick is easier to deflect than a slow foot? What if the trip is a fast leg sweep? Or if a disarm is simply knocking the weapon out of your opponents grip versus a dextrous twist of the wrist? There is a multitude of fluff to describe the various in-game combat actions.
The rules don't differentiate on that kind of thing, they do, however, differentiate on armed v unarmed, attack to cause damage v combat manoeuvre check, and so on.
It is still considered an unarmed attack, and that is listed in your list of weapons. Melee touch attack, with a hand = unarmed attack.
No its not. If it were, it would deal 1d3 damage (for a medium creature) and provoke attacks of opportunity.
In fact, the rules for touch spells CLEARLY state that it is an ARMED attack, precluding the possibility of it being an UNARMED attack.
It is still considered an unarmed attack, and that is listed in your list of weapons. Melee touch attack, with a hand = unarmed attack.No its not. If it were, it would deal 1d3 damage (for a medium creature) and provoke attacks of opportunity.
In fact, the rules for touch spells CLEARLY state that it is an ARMED attack, precluding the possibility of it being an UNARMED attack.
A touch attck spell it's a weapon-like attack. A weapon-like attack follow the same rules rules as weapn. You can sneack-attack with them. The are elegible for weapon focus and weapon specializzation. And they can be reflected with crane style. This however does not consume the charge since the attack actually is considered to have missed.
It is still considered an unarmed attack, and that is listed in your list of weapons. Melee touch attack, with a hand = unarmed attack.No its not. If it were, it would deal 1d3 damage (for a medium creature) and provoke attacks of opportunity.
In fact, the rules for touch spells CLEARLY state that it is an ARMED attack, precluding the possibility of it being an UNARMED attack.
That's not terribly convincing. After all, with Improved Unarmed Strike, an unarmed attack is an armed attack. Being considered "armed" does not disqualify an attack from being also "unarmed".
That said, I can never manage to keep up with what is and is not a weapon under this or that conditions. Easier to just pick one and be done with it. For me, by default, any melee attack is a weapon attack unless a situation occurs where it completely breaks suspension of disbelief to view it that way. I haven't seen a situation like that yet, barring obvious silliness like attempting to disarm someone's unarmed strike.
Without wanting to enter the realms of the judo v wing chun v aikido etc, a fast kick is easier to deflect than a slow foot?
Try: aiming a powerful kick at you to injure you, you can see coming and deflect, curling my toe around your heel to tug you off balance when you overstepped slightly is a different matter.So if I kick you in the side of the leg to hurt you it can be deflected, but if I kick you in the side of the leg to trip (combat manouvre without a weapon) you then it can't deflected?That's exactly right. I never claimed that it made much sense, only that it was easy to understand the RAW rules on the matter.
A fast kick can be telegraphed easier than a sneaky foot. It has to come higher and travel further and harder to inflict damage. This means you have more opportunity to see it coming.
What if the trip is a fast leg sweep?
What if it isn't? Should we categorise all maneuvers one way or another based on what a few of them might be? Or should we assume that a skilled combatant will adjust his attack to something appropriate to the defence of his opponent?
Or if a disarm is simply knocking the weapon out of your opponents grip versus a dextrous twist of the wrist?
Or sidestepping a thrust and catching the flat of the blade, or ... the point here being made is that maneuvers can be the same as attacks, or that they can be very different.
There is a multitude of fluff to describe the various in-game combat actions.
This is very true.
The rules don't differentiate on that kind of thing, they do, however, differentiate on armed v unarmed, attack to cause damage v combat manoeuvre check, and so on.
Indeed they do. So at the end of this, where do you categorise a maneuver check? As an attack it might be like or as something different? It might be either in the fluff context, but it has to be one thing or the other all the time in the rules context. It could be an attack that can be blocked, or it could not, I think we have established that. Do we assume it is an attack all the time when it might not be, or do we assume it is a not-attack all the time, which it also might not be?
Thankfully there are a range of attack types that save us, where an attack can be both maneuver AND attack (ie they do damage and then have a chance of the maneuver happening). These definitely Crane Wing can deflect. So perhaps assuming maneuvers alone are not these is not unreasonable?
A weapon-like attack =/= weapon.
Almost all poison attacks on weapons or natural weapons are considered "Injury" poison. I'd have to argue that those didn't take effect simply because the attack failed to injure if deflected.
The same would be true of some of the rogue sneak attack modifiers like Crippling Strike and Slow Reactions, because they require the sneak attack to do damage.
Interestingly: negative levels, paralysis, the "Grab" special ability, the rogue "Bleeding Attack" ability and many other things would still apply even if deflected by Crane Wing since they only require you to "hit" the target.
Except theres an entry where it states if you take no damage from an attack, the special effects alongside it don't come into play.