Okay, after several hours the tide of the thread has turned to defining exactly what (in game terms), is a miss? Interesting. And I could easily concede most of the points in favor of allowing the combo (Crane wing, snake fang, and later crane riposte)... And I really don't want to scroll back through looking for the build, but here's a few points:
One, and I mentioned this before, the game is not reality or even reality based. It is an abstraction. Hit points are an abstraction to make higher level characters tougher to kill. In reality some punk could get lucky with a dagger and kill a much more experienced warrior in one hit, at the beginning of combat. RAW, only if the 20th level fighter is helpless could the math even make that close (and no, I am not talking house rules here. I don't care if your game is more realistic in that manner by allowing chains of natural 20s to up the crit factor or whatever else, it's not RAW, and not at everyone;s table...)
Two: Table talk. As a player, I roll a die, if combat's gone on any length of significant time, I know how much I need to roll in order to hit. If I meet or exceed that number, I announce "I rolled a <number>, that's a hit." As the GM, when my players announce they rolled whatever on the first round of combat, I have them add all the relevant bonuses, and announce, based solely on AC values, that it was a hit or miss. Every table I've ever played at is pretty much the same, in pretty much every system. If someone does it different, I'd like to play that table a time or two. In my case, after the hit is rolled, the player rolls damage, and other circumstances mitigate that damage (re: damage reduction, deflection, or what have you reducing the damage to a lesser number or nullifying it all together).
Three: So it seems like a great combo, get three hits out of one counter -attack when someone hits you... I'm assuming Combat Reflexes is in there somewhere so you can make more than the one attack of opportunity per round (both Crane Riposte and Snake fang define their attacks as attacks of opportunity) there is still a limit. Say, the first attack hits, is deflected, and Crane Riposte goes into effect. If you have another AoO, do you get the Snake Fang (And its possible bonus attack), or do you hold it for the second attack from that opponent and get it when that attack misses? Okay, so maybe this particular argument works both ways (i.e. the player is likely to get both of the attacks anyway, especially at the lower attack value on his opponent's second attack so why not let him get the extra attack(s) in?), but I see using both on the same attack as a way of trying to get that one extra hit in against opponents who don't hit with as many or multiple attacks.
And as a kind of afterthought here:
Given that you're likely to have several missed attacks against you anyway, does the one extra hit per round from possibly using both actions together really cost you that many free (And immediate in the case of second attacks from Snake Fang) actions? With as many AC bonuses as you can stack on for fighting defensively (or total defense) that you have to use anyway, are that many attacks really getting through? It's been a while since I've had a player with a mid or high level monk, so maybe I'm not that current on how they end up playing. Of course, I still feel my original post in this thread is accurate in the regards that either you are hit or you are missed, but not both at the same time, thereby making only one of the two feats have their criteria satisfied...
Further aside: All the arguing about whether a deflected hit is still a hit or a miss because it didn't hit its intended target remind me of the arguments in Minority Report about whether the ball would have hit the ground if the cop hadn't caught it. Funny how human interaction screws up some easily predictable physics, innit?
If a miss has no pathfinder definition, then the definition is the one that is used in common language. Is that somehow not the case? Are we not speaking English any more?
I'm still personally not seeing how "Doesn't hit" isn't "Is a miss", but that's why I made a FAQ thread anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm still personally not seeing how "Doesn't hit" isn't "Is a miss", but that's why I made a FAQ thread anyway.
I understand completely. It's a finicky definition, especially with Crane Wing, but as Driver 325 so clearly showed, when the devs mean miss then they say miss. In the case of Crane Wing, they use other language that imply an attack deflected by Crane Wing is not technically a miss, even though it has no effect.
I want to say just because it's something I remembered, that Crane Wing can only be used once per round, and the 2nd attack from Snake Fang can only be used once per round since it is an immeadiate action and they count as your swift for your upcoming turn.
I still contend that they were not intended to proc together and would like to see an FAQ on it. I think that deflected does not equal miss in game terms, and that using the argument of "because English" to say that if it doesn't "hit" it's a "miss" doesn't work. Words is Pathfinder have a specific meaning, though it is not always clear and defined. If we can get a clear definition of what a miss constitutes than I will abide that ruling. But keep repeating BECAUSE ENGLISH and I'm going to keep ignoring it.
The first part of Snake Fang, is actually a AoO if the target Misses your AC. If that attack succeeds on the target, THEN you can make Another unarmed strike as an Immediate. Crane Wing is a "no action" as in the description; However only once per round as defined in the description.
I believe are statements are in agreement and do not contradict one another at all, it is good to have clarification on topics. Especially if it is felt as unclear. What I think may be clear may not be so to others. I only made the previous statement as a reminder to people of how often these aciton could be performed. So with crane wing and snake fang and being a Master of Many Styles (the only way I know to use two or more style feat chains at the same time which also lacks Flurry of Blows) you can gain 2 additional attacks per round. With Crane Riposte (if it can be stacked) you could possibly get a 3rd extra attack per round. This is sort of just a trade off that may be roughly equal in power to FoB. You can't use them unless you are attacked and other conditions are met, but you also get to make the attacks at your highest BAB bonus instead of at your lower bonus associated with normal itterative attacks. I don't think the combination is broken, but still don't think the deflection should be counted as a "miss".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So To all posters claiming that A deflected attack is not a miss, If an Alchemist throws a bomb and the bomb is deflected by the deflect arrows feat you are not going to roll a scatter dice? because you only roll scatter dice on a miss. That seems absurd to me.
Actually I think the deflector should decide where it goes. After all, they were the last person to redirect it...
Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Normally, if you equal or beat the target AC, you hit and deal damage. Crane wing causes it to deal no damage.
Stream asked if the lich ability Paralyzing Touch would still work. I believe it would. The ability would deal no damage, but still have all other effects applied. The same as you could not crane wing away a touch spell from affecting you. If the Attack Roll is >= your Touch AC for a touch spell, they have touched you, and crane wing would not prevent the touch, for it only negates the from a melee attack, not from the spell discharge.
Wow, and I thought the "Crafting 8 Hours by RAW" thread was an entertaining slap-fest. :P
I FAQ'ed the other thread, by the by. I can see merit in both sides of the argument, and (to me, anyway) saying that the text is clear in one way or the other is a pretty duplicitous statement given the split nature of opinion on the text (ad hominems and straw men notwithstanding).
Wow, and here I thought it was a no brainer that these two worked together.
Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It's the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you.
So, achieving a hit is dealing a solid, damaging blow. A miss is not explicitly defined. We know that a natural 1 is always a miss. Critical hits says this:
Critical Hits: When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a “threat,” meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or “crit”). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to “confirm” the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.) If the confirmation roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit.
The part I bolded seems to imply a certain dichotomy. A miss is anything that isn't a hit. I can't see how this wouldn't include deflection by Crane Wing or Deflect Arrows.
Wow, and here I thought it was a no brainer that these two worked together.
Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It's the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you.So, achieving a hit is dealing a solid, damaging blow. A miss is not explicitly defined. We know that a natural 1 is always a miss. Critical hits says this:
Critical Hits: When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a “threat,” meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or “crit”). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to “confirm” the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.) If the confirmation roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit.The part I bolded seems to imply a certain dichotomy. A miss is anything that isn't a hit. I can't see how this wouldn't include deflection by Crane Wing or Deflect Arrows.
All your bold quote 'proves' is that when an attack roll (confirmation roll) fails to exceed the AC that attack is a miss. This has no bearing on the point at hand, an attack that has already hit being altered to do no damage.
You think they'll be convinced now?
I said on like page 1 that a glancing blow against someone's full plate is a miss in D&D and PF, and everyone thought I was making it up despite that being the rules.
What does some actual quote of the thing we already knew to be true change?
EDIT: Skylancer not only proved my point, but ninja'd me in doing so! Still so confident in the basic rational skills of other people, Driver? :p
My father once told me that "A man convinced against his will is of the same conviction still."
So I beleive they will accept it until they find another angle from which to mount an attack.
I know Dabbler said in one of these threads that he is willing to admit when he is wrong. When I see that, then I will think they are convinced since Dabbler was the leader of the pack on this one.
He also told me if I found a definition for miss he would admit he is wrong.
I am still waiting.
Until you can demonstrate that you are not labouring under a false dichotomy of definitions - that anything not a damage-dealing hit is therefore a miss - you will be waiting a long time. A hit is defined as the attack roll exceeding the AC value, and if there is a definition of a miss here it is that of an attack roll that failed to meet or exceed the AC value (which does not happen in Crane Wing, so strike that). If a successful attack is turned into a miss by the imposition of another factor, this is also clearly stated in the rules for such condition (such as concealment, invisibility, displacement, wind wall etc.) as you yourself pointed out. As such, were Crane Wing to impose a "miss" condition on the attack one would expect it to say so.
The language is specific in each individual instance: everything that results in a miss, says it is a miss. Crane Wing says an attack is deflected and scores no damage, it does not use the term "miss" therefore, so far as I can see from reading the rules, Crane Wing results in an attack that hits (by the definition of the attack roll exceeding the AC value), but does no damage. It's not a miss, it's not a hit, it's a deflected hit.
There are several possible reasons for this imposition of a new condition:
First possibility, that this was intentional that a deflected attack be neither a hit nor a miss, so that Crane Riposte has specific conditions to trigger, as did Snake Fang, and that these conditions would not overlap.
Second possibility, that the developers made an error and meant for the "miss" condition to be imposed. I think this is the more unlikely of the two as it would be easier to say "the attack misses" as opposed to "the attack is deflected and deals no damage" especially as word count in these books matters.
Third possibility, is that the feat was developed by one developer and edited by another. The original developer may have intended for Crane Wing to result in a miss, but the editing developer may have considered that if the attack was deflected when it would have otherwise hit was not actually a miss as such, and altered the language to inadvertently create the current confusion.
Hence, we need the FAQ.
All your bold quote 'proves' is that when an attack roll (confirmation roll) fails to exceed the AC that attack is a miss. This has no bearing on the point at hand, an attack that has already hit being altered to do no damage.Wow, and here I thought it was a no brainer that these two worked together.
Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you. It's the attack roll result that an opponent needs to achieve to hit you.So, achieving a hit is dealing a solid, damaging blow. A miss is not explicitly defined. We know that a natural 1 is always a miss. Critical hits says this:
Critical Hits: When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a “threat,” meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or “crit”). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to “confirm” the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit. (The critical roll just needs to hit to give you a crit, it doesn't need to come up 20 again.) If the confirmation roll is a miss, then your hit is just a regular hit.The part I bolded seems to imply a certain dichotomy. A miss is anything that isn't a hit. I can't see how this wouldn't include deflection by Crane Wing or Deflect Arrows.
I think you're confused on something.
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.
The attack would have been a hit, had crane wing not been used.
"Would normally hit you" does not mean "did hit you, but did no damage" just like "I would have been late" doesn't mean "I was late, but it didn't matter."
Official Rules Response
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnz
Deflecting Attacks: Does an attack that is deflected count as a miss?
It depends on the ability that is deflecting the attack.
For example, the Deflect Arrows feat says, "Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it." It doesn't say the attack is a miss or is treated as a miss--instead, you take no damage from the attack. Because it is not a miss, effects that would trigger on a miss (such as Efreeti Style or Snake Fang from Ultimate Combat) are not triggered.
Likewise, the Crane Wing feat (Ultimate Combat) uses similar language and does not say the deflected attack is a miss or treated as a miss.
Note that the Snatch Arrows feat counts as a deflected attack--you do not take damage if you choose to catch the weapons instead of just deflecting it, and catching the weapon does not mean the attack was a miss.
I love the FAQ team right now. You guys are on top of things!
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnz
Deflecting Attacks: Does an attack that is deflected count as a miss?
It depends on the ability that is deflecting the attack.
For example, the Deflect Arrows feat says, "Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it." It doesn't say the attack is a miss or is treated as a miss--instead, you take no damage from the attack. Because it is not a miss, effects that would trigger on a miss (such as Efreeti Style or Snake Fang from Ultimate Combat) are not triggered.
Likewise, the Crane Wing feat (Ultimate Combat) uses similar language and does not say the deflected attack is a miss or treated as a miss.
Note that the Snatch Arrows feat counts as a deflected attack--you do not take damage if you choose to catch the weapons instead of just deflecting it, and catching the weapon does not mean the attack was a miss.
Would it be possible to know if it's treated as a hit? :)
And this is why I did not hit FAQ.
Rules made a pretty good case for it being a miss, but never underestimate PF's eagerness to nerf monk with errata/FAQ when asked (recall the Improved Natural Attack feat, which clearly worked by RAW...that changed fast!).
Now not only does Crane Wing not combine with Snake Fang, which is pretty small potatoes, it also does nothing against non-damaging attacks like a Lich's paralyzing touch or a touch of fatigue spell. Despite the fact that melee touch attacks require the attacker to touch the defender, not vice-versa.
Yay! O_o
TBH, I'd rather know exactly how things work (even though my favorite class is Monk) than not, so arguments about it cease, I can houserule to my heart's content (while KNOWING it's a houserule so it doesn't mess with Rules discussions), and then lobby to have it officially changed at a later date.
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnz
Deflecting Attacks: Does an attack that is deflected count as a miss?
It depends on the ability that is deflecting the attack.
For example, the Deflect Arrows feat says, "Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it." It doesn't say the attack is a miss or is treated as a miss--instead, you take no damage from the attack. Because it is not a miss, effects that would trigger on a miss (such as Efreeti Style or Snake Fang from Ultimate Combat) are not triggered.
Likewise, the Crane Wing feat (Ultimate Combat) uses similar language and does not say the deflected attack is a miss or treated as a miss.
Note that the Snatch Arrows feat counts as a deflected attack--you do not take damage if you choose to catch the weapons instead of just deflecting it, and catching the weapon does not mean the attack was a miss.
Thank you.
Now not only does Crane Wing not combine with Snake Fang, which is pretty small potatoes, it also does nothing against non-damaging attacks like a Lich's paralyzing touch or a touch of fatigue spell. Despite the fact that melee touch attacks require the attacker to touch the defender, not vice-versa.
You thought it would negate those abilities before? They do no damage. Crane wing negates damage. Why would it negate something other than damage?
I'm the fix-the-monk crowd's biggest advocate, but you know I am happy with this ruling - mainly because it does not really nerf the monk. Most designs will only have one style anyway, and nerfing MoMS is fine by me because that archetype is pretty much just for dips for other classes, it really sucks badly played stand-alone.
My MoMS is doing just fine, thanks.
And this is why I did not hit FAQ.
Rules made a pretty good case for it being a miss, but never underestimate PF's eagerness to nerf monk with errata/FAQ when asked (recall the Improved Natural Attack feat, which clearly worked by RAW...that changed fast!).
Now not only does Crane Wing not combine with Snake Fang, which is pretty small potatoes, it also does nothing against non-damaging attacks like a Lich's paralyzing touch or a touch of fatigue spell. Despite the fact that melee touch attacks require the attacker to touch the defender, not vice-versa.
Yay! O_o
Or it could be that it also doesn't count as a 'hit' for the purposes of triggering those effects.
My MoMS is doing just fine, thanks.
I am very happy for you. Seeing any monk perform well brings a warm glow to my heart.
My MoMS is doing just fine, thanks.I am very happy for you. Seeing any monk perform well brings a warm glow to my heart.
Oddly enough, perform is a monk class skill. One of 3 classes to have it. So they can perform rather quite well!
My MoMS is doing just fine, thanks.I am very happy for you. Seeing any monk perform well brings a warm glow to my heart.
It took a rebuild and a 3 level dip of Brawler, don't get me wrong, but IMO they're the most FUN kind of Monk.
Oddly enough, perform is a monk class skill. One of 3 classes to have it. So they can perform rather quite well!My MoMS is doing just fine, thanks.I am very happy for you. Seeing any monk perform well brings a warm glow to my heart.
I'm sure there's a "your MoMS" joke in here, what with "performing well", but I'm just gonna avoid it.
Now not only does Crane Wing not combine with Snake Fang, which is pretty small potatoes, it also does nothing against non-damaging attacks like a Lich's paralyzing touch or a touch of fatigue spell. Despite the fact that melee touch attacks require the attacker to touch the defender, not vice-versa.You thought it would negate those abilities before? They do no damage. Crane wing negates damage. Why would it negate something other than damage?
Because it prevents the attack from hitting. Or at least, it used to. Now I guess the monk just takes a sword to the face like a champ and shrugs it off.
Because it prevents the attack from hitting. Or at least, it used to. Now I guess the monk just takes a sword to the face like a champ and shrugs it off.Now not only does Crane Wing not combine with Snake Fang, which is pretty small potatoes, it also does nothing against non-damaging attacks like a Lich's paralyzing touch or a touch of fatigue spell. Despite the fact that melee touch attacks require the attacker to touch the defender, not vice-versa.You thought it would negate those abilities before? They do no damage. Crane wing negates damage. Why would it negate something other than damage?
Did you think it prevented the damage from a burning hands spell being delivered also?
Edit: Brain fart. Replace burning hands with shocking grasp.
Considering Burning Hands isn't an attack that can be deflected, since it's an AoE, that's kinda irrelevant, dontcha think?
Interesting. So feats that allow you to deflect attacks don't cause said attacks to count as a miss while deflection bonuses to AC make attacks miss all the time.
Considering Burning Hands isn't an attack that can be deflected, since it's an AoE, that's kinda irrelevant, dontcha think?
Brain fart. Replace with shocking grasp.
Ah.
Then yes, I did.
Know why? Touch spells discharging involuntarily because someone deflected it A.) Makes touch spells more powerful for no reason and B.) Is Stupid (capital S stupid, no less) because they should discharge just from you walking or wearing clothes in that case.
Unless the intent of a deflected attack from Crane Wing was that you literally grab the blade or whatever and move it aside and somehow don't cut yourself instead of grabbing the person's wrist and moving it aside harmlessly. In which case that's another case of Stupid.