Crane Wing+Snake Fang


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Playing a Moms who wants to take both of these feats. My question is this Does the deflection from Crane Wing trigger the AoO from Snake Fang. I am hearing from a few people locally who believe that it does not due to the wording stating that "A deflected attack deals no damage" it does not say that the attack missed. Clarification desired.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Does moms mean Monk?


vonklinen wrote:
Does moms mean Monk?

Master of Many Styles Monk archetype.

Regarding the question at hand, no, a Crane Wing deflection doesn't count as a "missed" attack. It is an attack that would have hit, but you "nullified" it. Missed attacks are attacks that are attempted but don't surpass the target's AC. So there are really 3 categories of attack effectiveness: Miss, Nullified, Hit.


There is no such nullified term in pathfinder. You are just making stuff up.


The term used by the feat is 'deflected.' So it didn't 'miss,' it was 'deflected' which is explained to mean it does no damage.


If you deflect an attack the attack misses. What type of word games are you guys trying to play. Even when dealing with AC, a sword could hit your armor and be deflected away from you.

I think you guys are just thinking about the result that you want and crafting an argument around that result.

Deflected, dodged, blocked by shield, blocked by armor all equal missed unless you are parsing words to reach some desired end.

Shadow Lodge

There isn't a "nullified" term, but there's an argument that an attack deflected by a special ability (whether Crane Wing, Deflect Arrows, or something else) is not the same thing as a "missed" attack any more than an attack that hits but deals no damage due to DR is a "missed" attack. A barbarian with Snake Fang that gets hit but shrugs off the damage due to DR does not get to make an unarmed attack against that opponent as if the opponent had missed because he was actually hit, even if the attack did no damage.

EDIT: The distinction is that this form of deflection isn't a result of he attacker not hitting your AC. There are at least two instances (this spell and this FAQ) of "hitting/failing to hit your AC" being more important than simply whether damage was dealt or not.

Not sure, though. Hitting FAQ. Suggested general question: "Does a deflected attack (such as by Crane Wing or Deflect Arrows) count as a miss for purposes of effects that activate on being missed with an attack?"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Driver 325 yards wrote:

If you deflect an attack the attack misses. What type of word games are you guys trying to play. Even when dealing with AC, a sword could hit your armor and be deflected away from you.

I think you guys are just thinking about the result that you want and crafting an argument around that result.

Deflected, dodged, blocked by shield, blocked by armor all equal missed unless you are parsing words to reach some desired end.

If you are going to 'make things' up feel free. RAW the attack HIT, the character in question used a reactive ability to 'DEFLECT' the attack which means (quoted from the source) it 'deals no damage to you.' If you spent half a second to actually look at it, you'll notice the lack of anything referring to the word 'miss' or 'missed' in any of the ability details. It doesn't miss RAW.

Crane Wing wrote:
... 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.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am learning that there is an argument for everything on these forums. Normally, the arguments are not based in common sense, but in the desire to have a feat or ability nerfed. As a result, even the clearest of language is constantly being challenged through FAQ or forum arguments under the guise of "ambiguity"

This argument is no different to me. Your example with DR is a bad. DR is more akin to resistance. Of course, if you get hit by an attack dealing 5 points of damage and happen to have DR 5, you were hit but had the damage reduced to zero. The same would apply to fire resistance.

However, a deflected arrow is clearly an arrow that missed its target.

With that said, I would not doubt if the answer to the FAQ came back stating that Crane Wing and Snake Fang don't work together. It will be some very loose reasoning.

If we were being honest, the real question that is being asked and answered is "Paizo, will you continue to let players combine Crane WIng and Snake Fang or will you please nerf it for us."


No it is 'clearly' an attack that hit and dealt no damage due to another ability.

Deflect Arrow has the same wording, it deals no damage.

It has no wording or mechanical description (fluff text is irrelevant, as always, to rules discussion) dealing with making the attack actually miss. The damage it would have dealt is prevented. An attack missing and the damage a successful attack deals being prevented are two completely different situations. Snake Fang triggers off of a miss, not a successful attack being prevented.


You deflect it, therefore it misses. Expect people to play word games to make it not so, though.

Skylancer4 wrote:
No it is 'clearly' an attack that hit and dealt no damage due to another ability.

So you're saying if a lich attempt to use its paralyzing touch (ie, no damage involved, just on example) on a monk and the monk uses Crane Wing...he still gets paralyzed?

I'm pretty sure "getting hit anyway" isn't how the feat works...


Also, pop quiz for everyone who says what Crane Wing does is not the same as "missing."

If someone attacks a wizard who has mirror image up and ends up striking an image... did he "miss"? Did he "hit" the image?

Spoiler:
Because I recall quite a few people in the Mirror Image thread of yesteryear arguing that striking an image did not count as hitting anything, for melee things that trigger on a hit, like the Cleave line. Several even explicitly saying the fighter "missed."

Just feel like doing a hypocrisy check.


Skylancer either knows that Paizo is about to nerf this combination or is lost in space.

I agree with StreamOfTheSky's example. Furthermore, here is the complete wording for Crane Wing

Quote:
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.

Now any reasonable person would conclude that they used the phrase "that would normally hit" because in this instance the attack does not hit. Does not hit = miss.

I am tired of these shenanigans. I can't wait to see the nerf. It will be comical to read.


Skylancer4 wrote:

No it is 'clearly' an attack that hit and dealt no damage due to another ability.

Deflect Arrow has the same wording, it deals no damage.

It has no wording or mechanical description (fluff text is irrelevant, as always, to rules discussion) dealing with making the attack actually miss. The damage it would have dealt is prevented. An attack missing and the damage a successful attack deals being prevented are two completely different situations. Snake Fang triggers off of a miss, not a successful attack being prevented.

If it is "clearly an attack that hit and dealt no damage" why does the feat description you quoted state "you can deflect one melee weapon attack that would normally hit you".

ie not get hit.......

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Two words... "GM's call." There is enough doubt for there to be a need for adjudication. Therefore ask your GM, his answer should be final. Simple.

Now, to me, I would be curious as to whether or not it was intended to work in conjunction. Probably not, as you need to be in a stance to use each of them, and the Master of Many Styles can be in both stances at once. In development it could have been overlooked...


Altus Lucrim wrote:
Playing a Moms who wants to take both of these feats. My question is this Does the deflection from Crane Wing trigger the AoO from Snake Fang. I am hearing from a few people locally who believe that it does not due to the wording stating that "A deflected attack deals no damage" it does not say that the attack missed. Clarification desired.

The only thing that comes to mind, is that you have to actually be Hit, before you can "Deflect".

Crane Wing (Combat)
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.

Snake Fang (Combat)
You can unleash attacks against an opponent that has dropped its guard.
Prerequisites: Combat Reflexes, Improved Unarmed Strike, Snake Sidewind, Snake Style, Acrobatics 6 ranks, Sense Motive 9 ranks.
Benefit: While using the Snake Style feat, when an opponent's attack misses you, you can make an unarmed strike against that opponent as an attack of opportunity. If this attack of opportunity hits, you can spend an immediate action to make another unarmed strike against the same opponent.

Look at the wording. "When an opponent's attack misses you, you can make an unarmed strike bla blah." Vs. "You can deflect one melee weapon attack that would Normally Hit You."

As much as I would like this combo to work, the wording to me says that it does not. Technically, you have to "get hit" before you can actually deflect the attack. You can't deflect a miss now can you? Snake Fang is speaking in terms of a Complete and utter MISS from the enemies perspective. Meaning they "roll" crappy, or you're just too evasive with your AC.

It doesn't seem like it dude.


Kazumetsa, what are you talking about? You quoted the right text and completely overlooked what it said. "You can deflect one melee weapon attack the would normally hit" Translation, it did not hit. Yes, it would normally hit, but you deflected so that it does not hit.

does not hit = miss


Quite tricky this wording is >.>


Aeshuura wrote:

Two words... "GM's call." There is enough doubt for there to be a need for adjudication. Therefore ask your GM, his answer should be final. Simple.

Now, to me, I would be curious as to whether or not it was intended to work in conjunction. Probably not, as you need to be in a stance to use each of them, and the Master of Many Styles can be in both stances at once. In development it could have been overlooked...

Everything is a GM call. That does not help the discussion.

As for your curiosity, we could always be curious, but that does not mean that the wording is not clear.

I could be curious to know if power attack was thought through properly be the creator. It seems that it is taken by all melee fighters. Did Paizo mean to create a feat that almost all melee fighters feel they have to take. Maybe Paizo wants to change their mind. I should post a FAQ to see if Paizo wants to change the wording of Power Attack.

There is nothing unclear with Crane Wing and Snake Fang working together. The truth is that too many of you GMs must have seen it used by PCs and did not like it. Now there is a compaign for Paizo to nerf it.

If all you have to do is wonder whether development overlooked something to call a feat or ability to question then all of the core rules are up in the air. It is a shame that a person can't pick up the core books and read them and accept the language at face value because there is always a challenge to everything based on so called ambiguity or "did the development overlook something."


Just some definitions for terms here:

"Deflect: Cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course."

"Miss: 1. To fail to hit, reach, catch, meet, or otherwise make contact with."

I would say that turning something aside from a straight course would imply that it has failed to hit, reach, catch, meet, or otherwise make contact with the intended target, but that's just me.


Actually, to be completely honest, I'd say you have to make contact in order to deflect something :P Especially since crane wing was designed to imply that your free hand is being used to deflect it.


Think about this: If you try to stab me in the heart with a sword, and I swept your blade aside with my hand, doing no damage to myself in the process, would you say you succeeded in hitting your target?


Rynjin wrote:
Think about this: If you try to stab me in the heart with a sword, and I swept your blade aside with my hand, doing no damage to myself in the process, would you say you succeeded in hitting your target?

hitting, no, making contact, definitely.

By definition I can't not make contact if you touch me. If you touch my blade, I'm by definition touching you.

Miss specifically calls out failing to make contact. We're obviously contacting each other if you're touching it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

But you are not contacting your target. Unless your target was my hand...

Do you not see how silly this line of argument is?

It's the equivalent of when you tell a little kid to "Not touch anything" and he retorts with the ever-so-clever "What about the ground? What about the air? I'm touching those, aren't I?" and you want to strangle the little snotrag for it.


Lol sorry, oddly enough here I choose to look at what I see as common sense, or perhaps newton's 3rd law.

All I see is "physically impossible for him to touch you and you not to touch him"

If his target is you, well your hand is part of you. You're trying to argue that your hand is a different section of yourself. Which might work if it was a called shot not against your hand. But a basic attack only specifies an opponent. Not what section of it.

Grand Lodge

Driver 325 yards wrote:
Aeshuura wrote:

Two words... "GM's call." There is enough doubt for there to be a need for adjudication. Therefore ask your GM, his answer should be final. Simple.

Now, to me, I would be curious as to whether or not it was intended to work in conjunction. Probably not, as you need to be in a stance to use each of them, and the Master of Many Styles can be in both stances at once. In development it could have been overlooked...

Everything is a GM call. That does not help the discussion.

As for your curiosity, we could always be curious, but that does not mean that the wording is not clear.

I could be curious to know if power attack was thought through properly be the creator. It seems that it is taken by all melee fighters. Did Paizo mean to create a feat that almost all melee fighters feel they have to take. Maybe Paizo wants to change their mind. I should post a FAQ to see if Paizo wants to change the wording of Power Attack.

There is nothing unclear with Crane Wing and Snake Fang working together. The truth is that too many of you GMs must have seen it used by PCs and did not like it. Now there is a compaign for Paizo to nerf it.

If all you have to do is wonder whether development overlooked something to call a feat or ability to question then all of the core rules are up in the air. It is a shame that a person can't pick up the core books and read them and accept the language at face value because there is always a challenge to everything based on so called ambiguity or "did the development overlook something."

Dude, that is really uncalled for. You can add your opinion without putting down everyone else on this thread.

All I am saying is that asking the question has validation if the point is that he is trying to get clarification because he is curious, but if it is a question of whether he should allow it as a GM or his GM won't allow it and he is looking for ammo to argue his point, then basically the GM has final say.

You say there is nothing unclear, but several posts on this very thread suggest otherwise. Everyone has their interpretation. I, as a GM would not allow it, but I can see how another GM might.

That is all I am saying. Done.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

All he is trying to say is:

"My opinion is valid, yours is not, and I am better than you."

Why should anyone be offended by that?


Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Lol sorry, oddly enough here I choose to look at what I see as common sense, or perhaps newton's 3rd law.

All I see is "physically impossible for him to touch you and you not to touch him"

If his target is you, well your hand is part of you. You're trying to argue that your hand is a different section of yourself. Which might work if it was a called shot not against your hand. But a basic attack only specifies an opponent. Not what section of it.

Except even if that were true, he still has not contacted you. YOU have contacted HIM at best, moving his attack so that it does not hit (i.e. "misses").

Your explanation is not common sense, it is an argument of semantics in an attempt to DEFY common sense.

If I try to punch you in the stomach and hit you in the head, I missed. If I try to punch you in the stomach and you move out of the way, I missed. If I try to punch you in the stomach and you move my hand out of the way, I missed. In none of those three scenarios did I come into contact with my target, by common sense.

A target is not "that individual" it is "a specific part of that individual" whether the mechanics support that or not.

Grand Lodge

Rynjin wrote:

But you are not contacting your target. Unless your target was my hand...

Do you not see how silly this line of argument is?

It's the equivalent of when you tell a little kid to "Not touch anything" and he retorts with the ever-so-clever "What about the ground? What about the air? I'm touching those, aren't I?" and you want to strangle the little snotrag for it.

But in reading the description, your attack can be turned aside without leaving you open to attack.

"You can unleash attacks against an opponent that has dropped its guard."

This would seem to indicate that the mistake made was in the failure to connect where intended. The feat looks like it was designed to punish the opponent for failing. Of course, this goes far deeper into a simple combat system than I think is intended. AC is a combination of factors, among which deflection is part. But Deflection (as an action) is separate from AC, and so, as a GM, I feel should not be included in the hit-or-miss debate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Lol sorry, oddly enough here I choose to look at what I see as common sense, or perhaps newton's 3rd law.

All I see is "physically impossible for him to touch you and you not to touch him"

If his target is you, well your hand is part of you. You're trying to argue that your hand is a different section of yourself. Which might work if it was a called shot not against your hand. But a basic attack only specifies an opponent. Not what section of it.

Except even if that were true, he still has not contacted you. YOU have contacted HIM at best, moving his attack so that it does not hit (i.e. "misses").

Your explanation is not common sense, it is an argument of semantics in an attempt to DEFY common sense.

If I try to punch you in the stomach and hit you in the head, I missed. If I try to punch you in the stomach and you move out of the way, I missed. If I try to punch you in the stomach and you move my hand out of the way, I missed. In none of those three scenarios did I come into contact with my target, by common sense.

A target is not "that individual" it is "a specific part of that individual" whether the mechanics support that or not.

Except by default you don't aim for the stomach. You don't aim for the head. You aim for them. Any part of them.

Oh, and as noted before, it is impossible for him to contact you without you contacting him. You are attempting to argue a physical impossibility and stating that I"m arguing against common sense.

And no, it is that individual. Sorry buddy, that's the mechanics. There are mechanics for what you're talking about. They're called "called shots." You can't come into a rules argument and say "I don't care what the mechanics of the game state!" They are the rules whether you agree with them or not. Otherwise you'd have to have players declare where they were aiming every time.

Grand Lodge

blackbloodtroll wrote:

All he is trying to say is:

"My opinion is valid, yours is not, and I am better than you."

Why should anyone be offended by that?

Yeah, sorry, I guess I am just sense-i-tive... :p


Thomas Long 175 wrote:


Except by default you don't aim for the stomach. You don't aim for the head. You aim for them. Any part of them.

That's a good way to not get a solid hit on ANY part of them, if you just flail your fists around wildly without thinking.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Oh, and as noted before, it is impossible for him to contact you without you contacting him. You are attempting to argue a physical impossibility and stating that I"m arguing against common sense.

In a strictly literal sense, yes.

But you mentioned the term "common sense" which has the connotation that you are not thinking in purely literal terms, because purely literal terms are not common sense.

It is common sense that sarcasm is not to be taken literally. If you take it literally, you are not using common sense.

Much like sarcasm, you don't argue literal "You both have to be touching each other, one person can't touch without being touched" when in an argument about what is considered to be common knowledge and more importantly, ways of thinking.

Two people hugging are two people touching each other.

Someone punching another is one person touching another person.

There's a large difference there.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
And no, it is that individual. Sorry buddy, that's the mechanics. There are mechanics for what you're talking about. They're called "called shots." You can't come into a rules argument and say "I don't care what the mechanics of the game state!" They are the rules whether you agree with them or not. Otherwise you'd have to have players declare where they were aiming every time.

Once again, YOU are the one that brought up common sense, not RAW. RAW I still think it works. If an attack does not hit, it has missed. Period. Anyone reading further into it is overthinking things.

By common sense, there is some argument to be made, possibly. But now you're saying you would like to abandon that avenue of argument?


Rynjin wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


Except by default you don't aim for the stomach. You don't aim for the head. You aim for them. Any part of them.

That's a good way to not get a solid hit on ANY part of them, if you just flail your fists around wildly without thinking.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Oh, and as noted before, it is impossible for him to contact you without you contacting him. You are attempting to argue a physical impossibility and stating that I"m arguing against common sense.

In a strictly literal sense, yes.

But you mentioned the term "common sense" which has the connotation that you are not thinking in purely literal terms, because purely literal terms are not common sense.

It is common sense that sarcasm is not to be taken literally. If you take it literally, you are not using common sense.

Much like sarcasm, you don't argue literal "You both have to be touching each other, one person can't touch without being touched" when in an argument about what is considered to be common knowledge and more importantly, ways of thinking.

Two people hugging are two people touching each other.

Someone punching another is one person touching another person.

There's a large difference there.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:
And no, it is that individual. Sorry buddy, that's the mechanics. There are mechanics for what you're talking about. They're called "called shots." You can't come into a rules argument and say "I don't care what the mechanics of the game state!" They are the rules whether you agree with them or not. Otherwise you'd have to have players declare where they were aiming every time.

Once again, YOU are the one that brought up common sense, not RAW. RAW I still think it works. If an attack does not hit, it has missed. Period. Anyone reading further into it is overthinking things.

By common sense, there is some argument to be made, possibly. But now you're saying you would like to abandon that avenue of argument?

By Raw, it doesn't say he missed.

Regardless of how you picture it or believe how the mechanics "should" work. It attacks all of him. Every part is the target.

And sorry, no its common sense that a person cannot be touching another without them touching them back. That is basic common sense as well as basic physics.

As for your punching example. No, the other person is still touching them. Unwillingly perhaps, unintentionally definitely, but they are still touching them. That is common sense.

RAW doesn't stand with you and neither does common sense. You're trying to argue that just because one person does not intend to touch something or someone, they're not touching them. I fall down and hit the rail. I still touched the rail whether it was intended or wanted.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:


By Raw, it doesn't say he missed.

Regardless of how you picture it or believe how the mechanics "should" work. It attacks all of him. Every part is the target.

Sure, every part is a target.

BUT HE STILL HIT NONE OF THOSE PARTS.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

And sorry, no its common sense that a person cannot be touching another without them touching them back. That is basic common sense as well as basic physics.

As for your punching example. No, the other person is still touching them. Unwillingly perhaps, unintentionally definitely, but they are still touching them. That is common sense.

RAW doesn't stand with you and neither does common sense. You're trying to argue that just because one person does not intend to touch something or someone, they're not touching them. I fall down and hit the rail. I still touched the rail whether it was intended or wanted.

I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that if you surveyed any sample population of any part of the world the majority of them would say that one person touching another unwillingly is NOT "Two people touching" it is "One person touching another".

I've already explained to you that common sense is not literal, and it is not even necessarily "correct" it is just what the majority of people take for granted.

Waaay back before it was proposed otherwise, it was common sense that the earth was flat. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.


Rynjin wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:


By Raw, it doesn't say he missed.

Regardless of how you picture it or believe how the mechanics "should" work. It attacks all of him. Every part is the target.

Sure, every part is a target.

BUT HE STILL HIT NONE OF THOSE PARTS.

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

And sorry, no its common sense that a person cannot be touching another without them touching them back. That is basic common sense as well as basic physics.

As for your punching example. No, the other person is still touching them. Unwillingly perhaps, unintentionally definitely, but they are still touching them. That is common sense.

RAW doesn't stand with you and neither does common sense. You're trying to argue that just because one person does not intend to touch something or someone, they're not touching them. I fall down and hit the rail. I still touched the rail whether it was intended or wanted.

I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that if you surveyed any sample population of any part of the world the majority of them would say that one person touching another unwillingly is NOT "Two people touching" it is "One person touching another".

I've already explained to you that common sense is not literal, and it is not even necessarily "correct" it is just what the majority of people take for granted.

Waaay back before it was proposed otherwise, it was common sense that the earth was flat. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant.

He contacted him. Missing is failing to contact.

You "explained" nothing. Try walking into any engineering or physics hall. People will be literally angry at you for suggesting something so ridiculous as one thing can touch another without the other touching them back.

And regardless of whether common sense is always correct or not, my statement that in order to deflect it you have to contact it, meaning by definition its contacting you, holds firm by common sense and by physics.

Regardless we've both made our points here, we understand each other's positions and arguments, and we both thoroughly reject them. Arguing any further does nothing but clutter the place.

Night Rynjin, nice talking to you.


Missing is not failing to contact. Misses occur all the time where the attack glances off armor or natural armor.

Likewise with touch attacks, the distinction is that you have to touch the foe; not that they touch you. Holding the charge on vampiric touch doesn't mean you get to discharge it w/o having to spend an action on your own turn when a dragon swoops in to bite you.

Shadow Lodge

StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Also, pop quiz for everyone who says what Crane Wing does is not the same as "missing."

If someone attacks a wizard who has mirror image up and ends up striking an image... did he "miss"? Did he "hit" the image?

** spoiler below**
Because I recall quite a few people in the Mirror Image thread of yesteryear arguing that striking an image did not count as hitting anything, for melee things that trigger on a hit, like the Cleave line. Several even explicitly saying the fighter "missed."
Just feel like doing a hypocrisy check.

And the FAQ on that was that you did "hit" with your attack, whether you hit an image or the caster, but that cleaving to and from images still didn't work for other reasons. So I think I'm justified in my confusion over how deflected attacks are supposed to work with abilities that trigger on a hit or a miss.

FAQ wrote:
If your initial attack hit the caster, you can’t cleave to an image as if it were an actual creature. If your initial attack hit an image, you failed to hit your intended target (the caster), and therefore can’t cleave. As you can’t specifically target an image (because you can’t tell the images from the actual caster), you likewise can’t aim for an image and try to cleave to another image.


StreamOfTheSky wrote:

Missing is not failing to contact. Misses occur all the time where the attack glances off armor or natural armor.

Bolded: Do you have RAW/FAQs to justify that statement mechanically? It sounds like you are making up a description for the results of a game mechanic. A 'miss' is fairly well defined in the game mechanics. Typically from a miss chance (concealment) or failure to hit a predefined number with your attack roll, the attack is stated to miss.

Italics: YAY Flavor text and Fluff! Unfortunately neither of those impact the actual game mechanics. A miss is a miss regardless of how your AC stacks up from whatever sources and bonuses. The game makes no differentiation of such matters regardless of how you want to describe it...

An attack roll of 14 misses the monster with a natural armor bonus of +6 and a base AC of 10. It misses, it doesn't glance off, it doesn't go 'thud' and deal no damage. It missed.

Crane Wing says the successful attack deals no damage, it does not say it made the attack actually miss. The end result may be the same, but the mechanics of each are absolutely different by the wording and description of the ability opposed to a roll resulting in a miss.

RAW, the succesful attack is deflected and deals no damage. Words straight from the ability. The term 'miss' is NEVER used. You can describe it as a 'miss' if it hurts your head to do otherwise but RAW says mechanically it hit and something happened so it was ineffective.

Shadow Lodge

Skylancer4 wrote:
Italics: YAY Flavor text and Fluff! Unfortunately neither of those impact the actual game mechanics. A miss is a miss regardless of how your AC stacks up from whatever sources and bonuses. The game makes no differentiation of such matters regardless of how you want to describe it...

Unfortunately true. DR can also be used to represent a tough hide or skin, but the mechanical effects of DR are different from those of natural armour. If you have a flaming sword, you get to deal the energy damage to creatures with DR even if your weapon damage can't bypass the DR, but you can't deal energy damage to creatures with natural armour if your attack rolls can't hit the AC. EDIT: probably why the "armour as DR" variant exists - makes the flavour a bit more consistent with the mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Skylancer4 wrote:

Bolded: Do you have RAW/FAQs to justify that statement mechanically? It sounds like you are making up a description for the results of a game mechanic. A 'miss' is fairly well defined in the game mechanics. Typically from a miss chance (concealment) or failure to hit a predefined number with your attack roll, the attack is stated to miss.

Italics: YAY Flavor text and Fluff! Unfortunately neither of those impact the actual game mechanics. A miss is a miss regardless of how your AC stacks up from whatever sources and bonuses. The game makes no differentiation of such matters regardless of how you want to describe it...

An attack roll of 14 misses the monster with a natural armor bonus of +6 and a base AC of 10. It misses, it doesn't glance off, it doesn't go 'thud' and deal no damage. It missed.

Quote:
Your Armor Class (AC) represents how hard it is for opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you.

Note that it does not say "for an opponent to touch you" it says "For opponents to land a solid, damaging blow on you".

Skylancer4 wrote:
Crane Wing says the successful attack deals no damage, it does not say it made the attack actually miss. The end result may be the same, but the mechanics of each are absolutely different by the wording and description of the ability opposed to a roll resulting in a miss.

The end result IS the same: A miss. How you achieve the miss is irrelevant. The attack still missed.


Congrats, you posted some flavor text regarding AC and how they described what the mechanical value does in game...?

Two paths that lead to the same destination are not the same because they end up at the same location.... the details make a difference.

The lack of the word 'miss' being used and the authors instead describing an entirely DIFFERENT way to get the same result, not using that word...

They aren't the same, I'm sorry. If it was a miss, you don't think they would have saved on word count and just stated 'the attack misses/missed/some other version of miss....'?

Seriously?

No, they used the term deflected and then went to explain that means the successful attack deals no damage when targeted by the effect of Crane Wing....

If you want to keep on arguing, I can't stop you. At least the boards are useful for a good chuckle here and there. Just try and do something useful, like click the FAQ if you haven't already, while you try and convince people that the word 'miss' is buried someplace in the rule mechanics regarding Crane Wing.


I can't...Are you SERIOUSLY saying your entire argument lies on the "Well they never use the word miss...exactly, they just use a word that is practically synonymous and it results in the same effect!" bit?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
I can't...Are you SERIOUSLY saying your entire argument lies on the "Well they never use the word miss...exactly, they just use a word that is practically synonymous and it results in the same effect!" bit?

Practically synonymous is not exactly synonymous. Since one effect only happens if the effect hits, and the other only happens when the attack misses, they cannot logically be used at the same time. Either the attack hits (and triggers Crane Wing), or it misses (and triggers Snake Fang). Especially given the feat Crane Riposte, which allows you to make an attack after deflecting an attack with Crane Wing.

Recap: Two different, and opposing triggers (re: You can't miss if you hit, and you can't hit if you miss) as well as the same effect you are looking for via a different feat with harsher restrictions (re: no secondary attack should the first one hit). Yes, I know this isn't strictly logical in a real life sense (i.e. that an attack that doesn't reach its target by necessity missed), but it doesn't have to. the game is an abstraction. The attack officially hit when the roll to hit overcame the target armor class. From then on it was a hit, whether the damage happened or not.

As the GM, I COULD be persuaded that Crane Riposte and Snake Fange styles fused together could grant the possibility of the secondary attack, probably based off a sense motive roll (for cohesiveness). Even then, it seems a little ripe for abuse to me.

Also, isn't it enough that you can use a skill roll, with bonuses as your AC, coupled with more bonuses for fighting defensively (or total defense) and deflecting an attack (for free, no roll, no action), and by use of a fifth feat in the chain get any attack out of it at all?


Frankly, considering that "Hit" in Pathfinder game-language really means "Hit and had an effect" I would say that a 'deflected' attack via Crane Wing counts as a 'miss', the same way an attack that hits your armor, shield, or Mage Armor and is 'deflected' by your AC or a spell a 'miss.'

If Snake Fang worked on touch attacks, it would be another story.


This leads to a whole new question if I'm trying to use a touch spell that doesn't damage you does it still go off if you deflect it?


Personally (And bear in mind that I've been up for 19 hours at this point and this is off the cuff) I would be tempted to rule that a nonsense question and you can't use Crane Wing on touch attacks for precisely that reason - to avoid a touch attack is to avoid being touched, and Crane Wing by strictest definition involves touch.

But with sleep I could probably be persuaded there's a rules argument against that interpretation that's valid.

Liberty's Edge

Wow, um really interesting debate. The character in question is level 2 and I was attempting to gain both styles, and fuse them. The GM was ok with this until another player pointed out that he didn't figure they worked, now the GM wants to think about it. It doesn't matter to me much in the Home game, but there is also a PFS element to it, because I have a dupe character there, and our homegame gm is one of the PFS gms I play under a lot.

If someone tried to do it at my table of PFS:
the phrase "when an attack would normally hit" implies that the attack is now considered a miss.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Driver 325 yards wrote:
I am learning that there is an argument for everything on these forums.

There certainly is.

I remember a discussion with another poster on the subject of two-weapon fighting with a duelist. His argument was that you could TWF and not lose any duelist abilities like precise strike as long as you used the extra attacks to parry, not attack. That way you were not attacking with the weapon held in the off-hand, right?

Well no. In order to make a Parry, you have to give up an attack, and that means you have to be attacking. So no dice, you use the off-hand weapon to parry, you lose an attack.

Also there is RAI - the intent was obviously that the duelist attacks with one weapon only, and that's his speciality. So again, even if you think you have a work around on the precise wording, if it runs against everything else in the theme of the class, you probably don't.

In this case it's similar so far as I am concerned: The attack you deflect with Crane Wing has to hit before it can deflected. So it's not a miss, because it hit, THEN it gets deflected. Sure, once it's deflected it's a miss, it does nothing as if it had been a miss, but it still had to hit first.

Also, the intent of the rules is for the feat tree to include Crane Riposte before you get to hit back. Ergo, you are not going to get it through Snake Fang, you need Crane Riposte.

So, you want all those attacks of opportunity? Take Crane Riposte like everyone else has to.


that would normally hit you
that would normally hit you
that would normally hit you
that would normally hit you
that would normally hit you
that would normally hit you
that would normally hit you
that would normally hit you
that would normally hit you
that would normally hit you
that would normally hit you
that would normally hit you
that would normally hit you
that would normally hit you

I hope all you GMs that hate the combo described above get the point. If you want to agrue that the combo is too powerful and should be banned or nerfed then be honest and argue that. However, there is no ambiguity and the intent is clear

Liberty's Edge

Under Normal Circumstances the two cannot even be combined, so certainly they were never intended to function off of one another, HOWEVER the Master of Many Styles can Combine the two forms, I really just do not see how this should not work, My character build does also include Crane Riposte, I see no reason I shouldn't be able to hit him back twice in this instance. Once as an AoO triggered By Crane Riposte, and once as an AoO triggered by him missing me via Snake Fang.

1 to 50 of 182 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Crane Wing+Snake Fang All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.