Touch spells discharging involuntarily because someone deflected it
It is not discharging involuntarily, you would have already made a touch attack against the targets touch AC and succeeded, then they say "aha! I have crane wing and was fighting defensively, so you do no damage!"
To which I would reply, "you're right, touch attacks do not deal damage, and crane wing does not negate the spell's damage. I did succeed at hitting you, so *zaaaaaaaaaaaap*"
Did you think it prevented the damage from a burning hands spell being delivered also?
Edit: Brain fart. Replace burning hands with shocking grasp.
Yes, I did. For the reasons Rynjin stated.
Also, from what I can tell, with this ruling, it STILL deflects shocking grasp, since that does nothing but damage. So still a poor example. :p
Did you think it prevented the damage from a burning hands spell being delivered also?
Edit: Brain fart. Replace burning hands with shocking grasp.
Yes, I did. For the reasons Rynjin stated.
Also, from what I can tell, with this ruling, it STILL deflects shocking grasp, since that does nothing but damage. So still a poor example. :p
If it deflects it, does that mean the charge is expended?
Also, crane wing specifies "melee weapon attack". As far as I know, touch spells while counting as "armed" are not considered their own weapon (unlike rays).
Well, the charge remains held if you miss. But apparently a deflection is not a miss. So...I guess it is discharged? Maybe?
As for weapons... it can critical hit, it should be considered a weapon...
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.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.
Ah...(sadface)...then not a pure monk after all.
My own understanding of the effect of Crane Wing is that it can deflect any kind of attack. Look at it this way, on attacks that have multiple effects, they all trigger together:
A wraith does 1d6 negative energy damage and 1d6 con drain; if the negative energy damage can be deflected, so logically can the con drain.
An attack with a wyvern's stinger had damage plus poison, stop the damage and you also stop the poison.
In any event, if you are 'holding the charge' of a shocking grasp, you must be holding it ion the hand you are trying to shock the the target with (otherwise it would discharge into the ground through your own feet or something silly). If the block is applied to the forearm, which is how most martial arts blocks I have ever practised work, then you have missed the part with the charge and it will not work.
A wraith does 1d6 negative energy damage and 1d6 con drain; if the negative energy damage can be deflected, so logically can the con drain.
An attack with a wyvern's stinger had damage plus poison, stop the damage and you also stop the poison.
In any event, if you are 'holding the charge' of a shocking grasp, you must be holding it ion the hand you are trying to shock the the target with (otherwise it would discharge into the ground through your own feet or something silly). If the block is applied to the forearm, which is how most martial arts blocks I have ever practised work, then you have missed the part with the charge and it will not work.
The wraith attack does con drain which is not con damage. Crane wing only negates damage, not drain. Therefore, the con drain should still go through.
Wyvern's stinger poison is listed as an injury poison. If no damage was done, the poison delivery method was not met, and so no poison is done. If it was a contact poison, the poison effect would go though, because crane wing only negates damage.
Last, shocking grasp. What if the magus casting it had IUS and made an unarmed attack instead? Crane wing would negate the unarmed strike damage. The shocking grasp damage should still go through, as it is not the damage from the melee attack, but is damage from a spell which successfully touched the target.
Last, shocking grasp. What if the magus casting it had IUS and made an unarmed attack instead? Crane wing would negate the unarmed strike damage. The shocking grasp damage should still go through, as it is not the damage from the melee attack, but is damage from a spell which successfully touched the target.
This may be true as well for spellstrike. Spellstrike just says "If [the melee attack] is successful"; is a successful attack one that hits, or one that deals damage? I always assumed that if I hit with a scimitar, my Shocking Grasp discharges even if the creature's DR nullifies the actual weapon damage.
In this case, I have 'hit' the creature (i.e., exceeded its AC), and made physical contact with the target (required since the target is deflecting my attack).
Last, shocking grasp. What if the magus casting it had IUS and made an unarmed attack instead? Crane wing would negate the unarmed strike damage. The shocking grasp damage should still go through, as it is not the damage from the melee attack, but is damage from a spell which successfully touched the target.This may be true as well for spellstrike. Spellstrike just says "If [the melee attack] is successful"; is a successful attack one that hits, or one that deals damage? I always assumed that if I hit with a scimitar, my Shocking Grasp discharges even if the creature's DR nullifies the actual weapon damage.
In this case, I have 'hit' the creature (i.e., exceeded its AC), and made physical contact with the target (required since the target is deflecting my attack).
Spellstrike wasn't the focus of my point. Go with a wizard who took IUS instead. (Unarmed and natural attacks always can discharge held touch spells when they hit.)
But, you did get the jist of the point. The successful attack roll (>= AC) is all that is required for the spell damage to apply. Crane wing does not negate spell damage, only melee attack damage.
Last, shocking grasp. What if the magus casting it had IUS and made an unarmed attack instead? Crane wing would negate the unarmed strike damage. The shocking grasp damage should still go through, as it is not the damage from the melee attack, but is damage from a spell which successfully touched the target.This may be true as well for spellstrike. Spellstrike just says "If [the melee attack] is successful"; is a successful attack one that hits, or one that deals damage? I always assumed that if I hit with a scimitar, my Shocking Grasp discharges even if the creature's DR nullifies the actual weapon damage.
In this case, I have 'hit' the creature (i.e., exceeded its AC), and made physical contact with the target (required since the target is deflecting my attack).
Spellstrike wasn't the focus of my point. Go with a wizard who took IUS instead. (Unarmed and natural attacks always can discharge held touch spells when they hit.)
But, you did get the jist of the point. The successful attack roll (>= AC) is all that is required for the spell damage to apply. Crane wing does not negate spell damage, only melee attack damage.
Yup.
My question is this: Was the FAQ meant to imply that attack results are not binary - i.e., that there is in fact "hit", "miss", and "nullify"? If that's the case, then an argument could be made that a "nullified" attack didn't count as a hit for the purposes of other effects (like discharging touch spells).
The wraith attack does con drain which is not con damage. Crane wing only negates damage, not drain. Therefore, the con drain should still go through.
Wyvern's stinger poison is listed as an injury poison. If no damage was done, the poison delivery method was not met, and so no poison is done. If it was a contact poison, the poison effect would go though, because crane wing only negates damage.
Last, shocking grasp. What if the magus casting it had IUS and made an unarmed attack instead? Crane wing would negate the unarmed strike damage. The shocking grasp damage should still go through, as it is not the damage from the melee attack, but is damage from a spell which successfully touched the target.
I think you are being inconsistent here - you are saying that con drain wouldn't be blocked even though negative energy would be? Why? They are both part of the same attack, and as such connect together. If the one is foiled, so is the other.
You say this is because the con drain is not damage, but then that an attack that does damage (shocking grasp spell) would not be blocked either because a melee touch is not an attack, even though it relies upon an attack roll?
If you shoot a shocking arrow at a person who uses deflect arrows, by your logic they still take the energy damage...
I feel another FAQ coming on...
PS: Crane Wing can only deflect Melee Weapon attacks. Touch Attacks don't qualify as Melee Weapon attacks; just as Armed attacks which is a different animal altogether. And don't argue with me this time people.
Source/Link please ?
I think you are being inconsistent here - you are saying that con drain wouldn't be blocked even though negative energy would be? Why? They are both part of the same attack, and as such connect together. If the one is foiled, so is the other.
You say this is because the con drain is not damage, but then that an attack that does damage (shocking grasp spell) would not be blocked either because a melee touch is not an attack, even though it relies upon an attack roll?
If you shoot a shocking arrow at a person who uses deflect arrows, by your logic they still take the energy damage...
I feel another FAQ coming on...
You're right, I'm not super strong on monster abilities (in fact, I try to stay away from beastiaries so I can get surprised when monsters do things.)
Its a melee touch, so the touch damage would be negated. Which is pointless, because a touch does no damage anyway.
Both the negative energy and con drain should go through.
Shocking arrow? I'm thinking you mean an arrow with the shock weapon quality?
Shock: Upon command, a shock weapon is sheathed in crackling electricity that deals an extra 1d6 points of electricity damage on a successful hit. The electricity does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
It deals extra damage on a successful hit. In effect, it changes the damage of an arrow from a longbow from (1d8) to (1d8+1d6 electricity). The electricity is still part of the attack damage. Therefore it should be negated as well. There is no way to separate the 1d6 electricity from the 1d8 of the arrow.
In contrast, an IUS unarmed strike with held shocking grasp spell damage line looks like Unarmed strike(1d3+Str Mod) and Shocking grasp(1d6xCLmax5). Shocking grasp doesn't add extra damage, it just deals its own damage separately.
PS: Crane Wing can only deflect Melee Weapon attacks. Touch Attacks don't qualify as Melee Weapon attacks; just as Armed attacks which is a different animal altogether. And don't argue with me this time people.Source/Link please ?
Crane Wing:
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.Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).
It is considered to be "armed" but is not a weapon in its own right. You cannot take Weapon Focus (touch attacks).
OK, raised an FAQ on this here, as we seem to have a lack of clarity.
Again.
Thanks for that... not sure we'll get an answer, its a bit mouthy of a question.
Tarantula, I disagree. Since Crane Wing can deflect natural attacks (I'll find the forums post if I must given a little time for search-fu), I don't see why it can't deflect unarmed attacks (IUS or no) or other strikes (including those attempting to deliver a touch spell) as well.
EDIT: Search-fu Thread = Ugh. Crane Wing
It is not a matter of deflecting the unarmed attack; it is the fact that the damage from the touch spell is completely separate from the damage of the attack itself, coupled with the fact that a touch spell automatically discharges upon "intentional"* contact with your target (which is occurring here; in order to deflect the attack, it must have first made some type of contact with the target).
*At least in regards to hitting an enemy; you can accidentally discharge the spell unintentionally as well.
Tarantula, I disagree. Since Crane Wing can deflect natural attacks (I'll find the forums post if I must given a little time for search-fu), I don't see why it can't deflect unarmed attacks (IUS or no) or other strikes (including those attempting to deliver a touch spell) as well.
EDIT: Search-fu Thread = Ugh. Crane Wing
Yes, of course it can deflect an unarmed attack.
How much damage does the touch of a touch attack deal? None.
Does crane wing deflect spell damage? No.
Therefore, it can deflect the damage dealt by the touch attack (or unarmed strike/natural attack), but not the spell damage.
An example:
Wizard with IUS casts shocking grasp and holds the charge. Next turn he makes an unarmed strike attack. His damage is Unarmed Strike(1d3+Str mod) and Shocking Grasp(1d6xCLmax5). The crane wing can deflect the unarmed strike (melee weapon) damage, not the shocking grasp (spell) damage.
I understand your arguement better now. I thought you were contending that since a touch attack is not a melee weapon attack, it could not be deflected by Crane Wing. I now think that you are contending that while Crane Wing does deflect the "Armed" unarmed attack, there is no effect from doing so, because the effect of a deflection is the "zeroing out" of the strike's damage and the damage is not from the strike but from the spell rider.
I think that new FAQ entry needs to be expanded. It has told us the use of Crane Wing does not create a miss from a hit, but does not clarify that touch attacks do indeed discharge on a deflection (although that interpretation has gained some weight).
I understand your arguement better now. I thought you were contending that since a touch attack is not a melee weapon attack, it could not be deflected by Crane Wing. I now think that you are contending that while Crane Wing does deflect the "Armed" unarmed attack, there is no effect from doing so, because the effect of a deflection is the "zeroing out" of the strike's damage and the damage is not from the strike but from the spell rider.
I think that new FAQ entry needs to be expanded. It has told us the use of Crane Wing does not create a miss from a hit, but does not clarify that touch attacks do indeed discharge on a deflection (although that interpretation has gained some weight).
They just updated the FAQ in the thread Dabbler created for that purpose (see 4-5 posts up from yours). A deflected attack counts as neither a miss (for the stated purposes in the current FAQ) nor a hit (for the purposes of touch spells or secondary harmful effects such as a paralyze).
They just updated the FAQ in the thread Dabbler created for that purpose (see 4-5 posts up from yours). A deflected attack counts as neither a miss (for the stated purposes in the current FAQ) nor a hit (for the purposes of touch spells or secondary harmful effects such as a paralyze).I understand your arguement better now. I thought you were contending that since a touch attack is not a melee weapon attack, it could not be deflected by Crane Wing. I now think that you are contending that while Crane Wing does deflect the "Armed" unarmed attack, there is no effect from doing so, because the effect of a deflection is the "zeroing out" of the strike's damage and the damage is not from the strike but from the spell rider.
I think that new FAQ entry needs to be expanded. It has told us the use of Crane Wing does not create a miss from a hit, but does not clarify that touch attacks do indeed discharge on a deflection (although that interpretation has gained some weight).
Could not disagree more with this ruling. When was commons sense thrown out the window? If an attack is deflected, it clearly missed...
Could not disagree more with this ruling. When was commons sense thrown out the window? If an attack is deflected, it clearly missed...
Is anything not black always white?
The devs have stated that there is a "hit", a "miss", and a "deflected attack". An attack which was deflected is not a hit (it did not make contact and do damage) and not a miss (it was on target and the attack roll succeeded after all). There are a few other examples of hits that have no effect, and they are not misses - they are hits that have no effect. Because they have no effect, they are not conventionally hits, but they are not misses either.
Just hang onto the idea there are other states of outcome from an attack than hit or miss and it all makes sense.
Ah...(sadface)...then not a pure monk after all.
Nope. I was a pure Monk (Qinggong/MoMS/Drunken Master) for 6 levels until I realized that I was effectively useless in combat compared to the Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin in the group, and didn't have all that much out of combat usage either (though Kn. History/Religion, and Sense Motive ARE surprisingly useful in Serpent's Skull as a whole).
So I asked for a rebuild for that reason, and because of character development (as my character was all about gaining power/strength and eventually perfection and keeping it, you can imagine his disappointment at how easily he was outdone. So he decided the alcoholism was holding him back and purged himself in the woods, far from temptation) and decided to come back as a Qinggong/MoMS 5/Brawler 3 (actually 6 levels of Monk now, we hit 9 before I could come back. We leveled FAST, that was only like 4-5 sessions, though we WERE close to the end of 6 when he left).
Still a cool build though. Kudos to you.
just wrote a novel on this and it didn't post. I'm heart broken, but alas i have a great analogy for how this would work: baseball.
so since Driver is going nuts about wanting this to work (and i feel for him since i too would love this combo in my MoMS) i feel i have to point out that his argument is based entirely inside the realm of the AC as DR alternative rule set. since everything he is arguing is about "if it doesn't hit, then it misses" this would be true if a sword swung at a paladin in full plate hit his armor and he simply stood there and laughed. that's a miss, true. but that is EXACTLY how AC works in the alternative ruleset, not the normal ruleset. in the normal ruleset, a miss means that that same sword swung at the same paladin never hit anything but air.
taking the above as true, then by how snake fang is worded, you only get the AoO if the attack made against you never makes contact.
crane wing only gets activated if the swing of that sword is going to make contact. it works in that split second before it actually does hit and you actively move the sword out of its intended path so as not to let it to damage to you. the attack however (according to what is stated in the what a "hit" is in the core rulebook is still a hit) and is what is activating crane wing.
agreed so far? good. cause here is where it gets tricky...
does crane wing turn a "hit" into a "miss"? ultimately that is what this entire thread is all about. if its a yes like driver says, then crane wing activates snake fang, plane and simple. if no, then it does not.
how do we solve this? simple, if you are playing with the alternative ruleset in which a miss is defined as stated above (when a batter swings and hits a foul ball and its still called a strike) then a parried or deflected attack constitutes a miss. if however you are using normal rules in which the only "miss" is when a a batter swings at a pitch and completely fails to make contact with the ball (swwwwwwwiiiiing and a miss!) then snake fang would not be activated if the hit originally exceeded the AC of the target. in this case you pretty much have two separate triggers for two separate feats. in the alternative ruleset you only have one trigger for all everything.
to prove this, is in the normal ruleset something can have an AC AND a DR and you can "hit" that target and do 4 damage against his DR/5 and ultimately do 0 damage, but you still "hit". in alternative ruleset a thing only has AC (which also includes DR and they are one in the same) and your attack roll must be greater then said AC in order to do the damage for that attack which is equal to the number by which you exceeded the AC when you hit.
basically whenever you swing in the alternative ruleset, you are going to hit, but you arn't always going to do damage. when you swing in normal ruleset you are either going to hit or you are going to miss. if you hit, then you roll damage.
i hope that the OP has gotten some viable arguing points to use with his GM from this.
to sum it all up, if you want to make crane wing and snake fang work together, then you have to be using the AC as DR alternative ruleset.
Shimesen, I kinda feel sorry for you.
Your explanation is decent enough I suppose, and it's quite long (and you wrote it twice), which makes the fact that it's kinda pointless since the FAQ already came through even more saddening.
....i hate you all....
is there at least a link? nvm, ill find it....
It's also on the last page, posted by the Design Team.
Just treat Crane Wing as one attack subjected to DR/infinity. All the same things seem to bypass it.
The ruling on whether a deflected attack is a miss is here.
The ruling on what Crane Wing protects you from is in this thread.