It's quite plain. A melee weapon attack is not a spell attack. Next!
==Aelryinth
See this thread. Doesn't definitively answer the question, but gives a lot of points of view.
My view is that since the description and rules of crane wing say nothing about touch attacks discharging, they don't, either when the attacker gets his attack deflected or when the defender has a held charge. Personally, I don't consider a limb with a held charge as "free" so as to be able to use crane wing, but many people do and I can't definitively say who's right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe whether or not they are weapons is relevant.
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.
Prerequisites: Crane Style, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +5 or monk level 5th.
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.
Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect.
You're deflecting the attacks away with your body. To deflect the attack, it will be touching you, and thus go off since that's all that's required.
"Crane Wing (Combat)
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."
I had a similar question about a year ago and after a great deal of thought here's what we all ended up agreeing on.
Deflecting the attack does not mean that you don't otherwise suffer any effects associated with the attack that are not damage, it means you do not suffer damage from the attack. So any spell effect, supernatural ability or otherwise 'extra' effect from the attack that is not directly weapon damage (the flaming burst from your scimitar is still negated) still gets through.
So no, you cannot deflect a spell touch attack. This is in agreement with the Deflect Arrows feat as well (which specifically states that spell effects cannot be deflected and also that a 'deflect' means you take no damage from the attack, not that it does not hit you).
I disagree. I believe you CAN deflect a touch attack. 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 am not sure that the use of crane wing creates a "miss" that triggers other effects. I think it's cleaner if it transforms the "hit" into a "deflection" that does no damage, does not discharge held touches (either by the attacker or the defender), and does not trigger effects that are triggered by a miss. It's effectively it's own thing. That said, I'd like to see an official clarification, because "it's cleaner this way" doesn't have the force of rule.
I disagree. I believe you CAN deflect a touch attack. 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.
The description of touch attacks that Cheapy quoted above doesn't say that you have to touch with your hand. It just says you have to touch the target. So if you deflect by hitting the attacker's elbow or kicking him in the chest, you still made contact, and the touch attack still goes off.
I was looking for the concept of touch spells only being in "the hand" in the rules, and didn't really find much. You could deliver held spells with unarmed strikes or natural attacks, and since you don't define a limb for the unarmed strikes and natural attacks can be wherever on your body, it stood to reason that there wasn't that sort of concept. It's just "if you touch anything, it discharges."
Then I found this FAQ that discusses the touch spell being in a specific hand. Of course, the response is given in the context of the magus who will have a free hand, so it'd make sense to frame it in that context. So I'm not so sure it's a fatal bullet to my answer, but it at least grazes it.
The description of touch attacks that Cheapy quoted above doesn't say that you have to touch with your hand. It just says you have to touch the target. So if you deflect by hitting the attacker's elbow or kicking him in the chest, you still made contact, and the touch attack still goes off.
I can't agree with this. If it were true that anything touching any part of a creature with a held touch attack spell discharges it, then such a creature could not open a door with his other hand, nor take a step (his foot would touch the ground), or pick up an item from the ground with his other hand. If touching any part of the attacker's entire body discharges his attack, then he'd better be flying or he discharged it when he took a step towards you to attack you.
I content that when you cast a spell that gives you a touch attack, the part of your body that you intend to use to deliver it (or the weapon if you're a magus) is set at that time. If you're a monk, you could choose nearly any part of your body, but if you choose a foot, then you're hopping on the other until you discharge it. If you're some sort of critter with a tail, you can choose the tail, but then you couldn't deliver it with your bite. If you have multiple otherwise identical natural attacks (two claws, say) you have to choose wich one has the charge.
Otherwise, you'd just do your whole attack routine and if ANY of them hit, you'd discharge the spell. That can't be RAI.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I content that when you cast a spell that gives you a touch attack, the part of your body that you intend to use to deliver it (or the weapon if you're a magus) is set at that time.
At least part of this is incorrect.
A magus with a held charge can get disarmed, pick up a different weapon, and then deliver the spell through that different weapon....you'd just do your whole attack routine and if ANY of them hit, you'd discharge the spell. That can't be RAI.
Why not?
At least part of this is incorrect.
A magus with a held charge can get disarmed, pick up a different weapon, and then deliver the spell through that different weapon.
One little missing word: I should have said "or the weapon HAND if you're a magus". Read that FAQ; the magus has the charge in the hand that wields the weapon and can pick up a different weapon. But what he CAN'T do is deliver it with a different weapon NOT in that hand. If he chose the weapon in his hand when he cast the spell, he can't change his mind and deliver it with his barbazeu beard or his boot-blade, only another weapon WITH THAT HAND.
Crane Wing requires you to have a hand free to use the feat, but it doesn't say you have to use the free hand to deflect the attack. You could just as easily use a kama. I highly doubt that was the intent though.