What constitutes a miss?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

So, if two monks are fighting (Mortal Kombat!!!) and one of them attacks with Elemental Fist and the technique of Efreet Style and the other deflects it with Crane Style, the defending monk still takes damage due Efreet Style?


This is a pretty good example! ...and another excellent question that could easily be debated.

I'd say for the most part it falls in line with what Dabbler and others are stating.

If the Efreeti Monk overcomes the Crane Monks AC, it hits, but is effectively reduced to 0 damage by the Crane Monks Crane Wing Deflection.

Since it was a hit and reduced to 0 damage, the Efreeti monk would not really get to use the benefit of his Efreeti Style.

I shall also answer your question with another question!

Let's say the Efreeti Monk does not overcome the AC requirement on his/her attack roll. The 1d6 damage of the Efreeti Style comes into play, and is to hit the subject due to the failure to overcome the opponents AC. Could the Crane Monk deflect the 1d6 damage with Crane Wing?

Yay for more confusion :3


Weirdo wrote:

Two other relevant cases (imported from the other thread):

1) Can a character with Snake Fang and Deflect Arrows make an attack of opportunity if they deflect the arrow of an opponent within melee range?

Snake Fang: 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.

So yes, all of the requirements are meet for snake fang and you can make the attack of opportunity.

Quote:
2) The Second Chance ranged weapon ability allows you to, once per round, reroll an attack if you miss. Can you reroll an attack if your arrow is deflected using Deflect Arrows?

Why not, all of the requirements for second chance are met so let the person re-roll. Actually, I kind of like this because it creates a counter for deflect arrow. Most things in the game have a counter. Finally, there is one for deflect arrow.

Quote:
3) Can you use sidestep or Escaping Ward after deflecting an attack with Crane Wing?

Once again, if all the requirements are meet for the abilities, why not.

Quote:
4) Can a character with the Second Chance feat use it when an opponent deflects an attack with either Deflect Arrows or Crane Wing?

Already answered the second chance question as with regards to second chance and the same applies to Crane Wing.

Quote:
Also, I'm noticing a couple of abilities that say "when you miss due to concealment" (ex: Elven Accuracy) which suggests to me that the general "miss" includes attacks that fail due to miss chances (makes sense), but still may not include automatically deflected attacks.

Yes you are correct that a miss means more than just not matching the AC. It includes missing via a miss chance. After all, that is why they call it a miss chance. A miss also happens when you deflect something.

While you made a lot of links, you did not link to ‎Wind Wall or Wall of Vengeance. Both of these explicitly state that a deflected attack is a missed attack. The language in those spells should end all discussion on this topic.

I am hesitant to hit the FAQ button becuase I just don't believe this is a FAQ. It may be true that a hand full are playing devil's advocate in this forum. However, I just can't believe that at any significant amount of gaming tables across America there are GMs pondering whether a deflected attack is a missed attack. Or whether an attack that does not hit due to concealment is a miss attack. I think the overwhelming majority would say that both are a missed attack without hesitation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not really seeing the need for an FAQ here. Both Crane Wing and Deflect Arrows never mention miss. You can deflect attacks that would hit you, causing them to do no damage. It never states anywhere that it turns them into a miss. As a matter of fact, to be able to deflect them, they have to have not missed to begin with.


Reshar wrote:
So, if two monks are fighting (Mortal Kombat!!!) and one of them attacks with Elemental Fist and the technique of Efreet Style and the other deflects it with Crane Style, the defending monk still takes damage due Efreet Style?

Your question only becomes complicated if you join the camp that says that a deflected attack is not a miss. That makes opens a completely never-ending bag of horrors.

However, it you think like most GMs across America and say that a deflected attack is a miss, the answer to your question and many others becomes quite easy. Namely, no the elemental fist does not hit because it was deflected.


Doggan wrote:
I'm not really seeing the need for an FAQ here. Both Crane Wing and Deflect Arrows never mention miss. You can deflect attacks that would hit you, causing them to do no damage. It never states anywhere that it turns them into a miss. As a matter of fact, to be able to deflect them, they have to have not missed to begin with.

Correction, in order to be deflected, the attack has to have met the AC requirement. This "would normally be a hit," as Crane Style points out, but it is not a hit because it is deflected.

Since it is not a hit it is a miss. Now, if you need to see a place where a deflected attack is specifically called out as a miss, refer to the links to Wind Wall and Wind of Vengeance that I have provided above.

So a deflected attack is a miss, just like an attack avoided be concealment is a miss (thus, the use of terms like 50% miss chance0


Kazumetsa wrote:

This is a pretty good example! ...and another excellent question that could easily be debated.

I'd say for the most part it falls in line with what Dabbler and others are stating.

If the Efreeti Monk overcomes the Crane Monks AC, it hits, but is effectively reduced to 0 damage by the Crane Monks Crane Wing Deflection.

Since it was a hit and reduced to 0 damage, the Efreeti monk would not really get to use the benefit of his Efreeti Style.

I shall also answer your question with another question!

Let's say the Efreeti Monk does not overcome the AC requirement on his/her attack roll. The 1d6 damage of the Efreeti Style comes into play, and is to hit the subject due to the failure to overcome the opponents AC. Could the Crane Monk deflect the 1d6 damage with Crane Wing?

Yay for more confusion :3

It is only confusing because of the position that you have taken. Imagine if you just accepted a deflected attack as a miss how easy everything would become for you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Driver 325 yards wrote:
Doggan wrote:
I'm not really seeing the need for an FAQ here. Both Crane Wing and Deflect Arrows never mention miss. You can deflect attacks that would hit you, causing them to do no damage. It never states anywhere that it turns them into a miss. As a matter of fact, to be able to deflect them, they have to have not missed to begin with.

Correction, in order to be deflected, the attack has to have met the AC requirement. This "would normally be a hit," as Crane Style points out, but it is not a hit because it is deflected.

Since it is not a hit it is a miss. Now, if you need to see a place where a deflected attack is specifically called out as a miss, refer to the links to Wind Wall and Wind of Vengeance that I have provided above.

So a deflected attack is a miss, just like an attack avoided be concealment is a miss (thus, the use of terms like 50% miss chance0

Meeting AC requirement = hit.

Look, I understand the fact that you're trying to rules lawyer this stuff into however you want it to work for whatever reason, but in this case all it takes is a little careful reading.

Wind of Vengeance states that things are deflected and miss.
Windwall states that things are deflected and miss.
Deflect Arrows states that arrows are deflected and do no damage.
Crane Wing states deflected attacks do no damage.

Notice how different the wording is? Two of them specifically state that the attacks miss. The other two say NOTHING about miss. Just that they do no damage.

Doing no damage is not missing.

The only rule attached to Deflect is the Deflection Bonus to AC that certain things give. Anything beyond that is fluff text. Fluff text is not RAW.


Doggan wrote:
I'm not really seeing the need for an FAQ here. Both Crane Wing and Deflect Arrows never mention miss. You can deflect attacks that would hit you, causing them to do no damage. It never states anywhere that it turns them into a miss. As a matter of fact, to be able to deflect them, they have to have not missed to begin with.

It makes perfect sense to me. If it qualified as a Miss, the ability should state that. There are many abilities that do, and obviously many that don't. Judging on that alone I would imagine if it was intended to be a Miss it would state it somewhere in the ability description.

/shrug

I'm sure some developer with the right knowledge and attitude will respond one day :3


Kazumetsa wrote:

This is a pretty good example! ...and another excellent question that could easily be debated.

I'd say for the most part it falls in line with what Dabbler and others are stating.

If the Efreeti Monk overcomes the Crane Monks AC, it hits, but is effectively reduced to 0 damage by the Crane Monks Crane Wing Deflection.

Since it was a hit and reduced to 0 damage, the Efreeti monk would not really get to use the benefit of his Efreeti Style.

I shall also answer your question with another question!

Let's say the Efreeti Monk does not overcome the AC requirement on his/her attack roll. The 1d6 damage of the Efreeti Style comes into play, and is to hit the subject due to the failure to overcome the opponents AC. Could the Crane Monk deflect the 1d6 damage with Crane Wing?

Yay for more confusion :3

By fluff, I would say that Crane Monk still takes damage. Come on, he is trying to deflect flames with a hand!

Now, by text, I also say no. Let's see about Crane Wing first:

Crane Wing wrote:
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 added the bolded part to emphasize that Crane Wing would function against attacks that will hit. Therefore, since in the second example the attack didn't hit to start with, the Crane Monk couldn't deflect the fire damage.

Also, the fire damage taken for a failed Elemental Fist attempt with Efreet Stance isn't an attack per se, so it can´t be deflected by Crane Wing, I think.


Reshar wrote:


By fluff, I would say that Crane Monk still takes damage. Come on, he is trying to deflect flames with a hand!

Now, by text, I also say no. Let's see about Crane Wing first:

Seems fair.

Crane Wing wrote:
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 added the bolded part to emphasize that Crane Wing would function against attacks that will hit. Therefore, since in the second example the attack didn't hit to start with, the Crane Monk couldn't deflect the fire damage.

Also, the fire damage taken for a failed Elemental Fist attempt with Efreet Stance isn't an attack per se, so it can´t be deflected by Crane Wing, I think.

That makes sense. I was just yankin yer chain :P

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The only thing we know for sure about Crane Wing/Deflect Arrows is that they no longer hit you normally; whether they hit you abnormally, don't hit but don't miss, or miss - there's no certainty at all.

Deflection isn't a defined keyword; it's used in a loose way here and there. We can't be sure it means (or was intended to mean) the precisely same thing every time. There's "deflect to miss" and "deflect to do no damage", which is not necessarily equivalent.


Doggan wrote:


Wind of Vengeance states that things are deflected and miss.
Windwall states that things are deflected and miss.
Deflect Arrows states that arrows are deflected and do no damage.
Crane Wing states deflected attacks do no damage.

Notice how different the wording is? Two of them specifically state that the attacks miss. The other two say NOTHING about miss. Just that they do no damage.

Doing no damage is not missing.

The only rule attached to Deflect is the Deflection Bonus to AC that certain things give. Anything beyond that is fluff text. Fluff text is not RAW.

Wow, look how difficult the position is that you are taking to my position. If Paizo were to rule the way you want them to rule they would have to say that some deflected attacks actually miss and other deflected attacks don't miss but do no damage.

In order to handle things the way I suggests and that most people around America would naturally think, they only have to say that a deflected attack is a miss.

Your position opens up a whole bag of worms and makes interpreting the rules very difficult for the casual player and makes for arguments at game tables everywhere.

My way would make people at game tables everywhere just say, "oh, a deflected attack is a miss." "Makes sense."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
driver 325 yards wrote:
In order to handle things the way I suggests and that most people around America would naturally think, they only have to say that a deflected attack is a miss.

It's amazing how often people know the minds of 158 billion other people. :P

I honestly don't have an opinion on this one way or the other; I would point out, however, that the designers have not always ruled based on the most simplistic answer, and that ad populum (especially when it isn't being provided with any possibility of surety) is a fallacy for a reason.


Xaratherus wrote:
driver 325 yards wrote:
In order to handle things the way I suggests and that most people around America would naturally think, they only have to say that a deflected attack is a miss.

It's amazing how often people know the minds of 158 billion other people. :P

I honestly don't have an opinion on this one way or the other; I would point out, however, that the designers have not always ruled based on the most simplistic answer, and that ad populum (especially when it isn't being provided with any possibility of surety) is a fallacy for a reason.

I have played at a number of game tables and I have never once, before this thread, heard any GM contend that a deflected attack is not a miss. For example, plenty of GMs along the way could have said, "oh, you deflected that flaming arrow, but you are going to take fire damage because that deflected arrow made contact with you" or "that flaming arrow that you deflected did not miss."

So yes, it is my opinion, but one rooted in reality.

Furthermore, I am suggesting the simplist solution here because, unlike most situations, the "deflect is sometimes a miss and sometimes a hit " is a can of worms that makes the rules unmanageable. You would have to be a person familiar with these types of threads or who constantly trolls the FAQs to know what the actual rules are.

I can't imagine that is a result that the developers want.


By the way, America has more like 350 million people, not 158 billion. But who is counting.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Okay, I have other things to do and can't argue this hit/miss/somewhere in between question any longer. I will submit the following as a FAQ.

Dear Paizo, I have always been of the position since the days of DD that there are hits and there are misses with attacks. Hits, in my mind, have been those times when you have met the AC requirement for the attack and have not had the attack avoided through deflection, magic mirror, concealment, wind wall, wind of vegeance, or the like.

However, I am afraid that now there is a campaign to have the developers declare that some deflects are misses (wind of vengeance, wind wall) and that some deflections are not misses, but actual hits that do no damage (deflect arrows, crane style). Furthermore, a smaller, but no doubt consistent group of people will even argue that avoided attacks due to concealment miss chances, magic mirror, blur, blink, blindness, etc. are also not misses.

I am asking that you rule in the way I and I beleive many others have always naturally thought of misses and hits and not create these alternate categories of attack results. I believe doing so will open up a can of worms that makes interpreting the rules unmanageable. Further, noone has pointed out a single way in which the most simplistic and striaght forward meanings applied to hit and miss will in any way break the game.


How about this:

A miss is any attack where you don't get to roll damage.

Note that you can roll damage against DR even if you have no chance of beating it. It'll be a pointless roll, but you still get to roll.

When your attack is deflected or whatever... You don't roll damage. It's a miss.


Has anyone actually looked up the definition of a deflection?

Quote:


de·flect
/diˈflekt/
Verb

1) Cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course.
2) (of an object) Change direction after hitting something: "the ball deflected off his body".

By both definitions, the deflection is considered to be a hit that has other than expected results...such as no damage or applying the hit to something other than the original target.


I find myself increasingly filled with the hope that they don't answer this supposed "FAQ", and that they instead go to answer some actual question.

They've said over and over again not to read the rules this way. They are not intended to be parsed as though by lawyers in a capital punishment case.

This isn't an FAQ question. Its an easy one.

Did you hit them?
No?
You missed.

Did you hit them?
Yes?
You didn't miss.

All the "you hit but deflected so its not a hit or a miss its a deflection" is just reading more into the rules than they wrote.

Hit= hit.
Not a hit= miss. Whether through feat or spell or deflection bonus or a Style maneuver or miss chance or concealment or whatever.

There IS no 3rd option.

-S

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Lemmy wrote:

How about this:

A miss is any attack where you don't get to roll damage.

Note that you can roll damage against DR even if you have no chance of beating it. It'll be a pointless roll, but you still get to roll.

When your attack is deflected or whatever... You don't roll damage. It's a miss.

No thanks. I'd rather stick to "hits that don't deal damage are still hits" instead of "some hits are actually misses."

-Skeld

Sovereign Court

Why the obsession with what people in America think about it? Do Americans get to vote on Paizo rule policy?

If "deflect" abilities cause a miss, does that mean that spell charges aren't expended, and that you can use reroll abilities that let you retry a failed attack?

Because that would be significant enough to warrant a formal ruling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Miss

noun
1 (Miss) a title prefixed to the name of an unmarried woman or girl, or to that of a married woman retaining her maiden name for professional purposes: Miss Hazel Armstrong.

Hope this helps. ;)

Shadow Lodge

Relixander wrote:

There are a few confusing a re-rolled attack and additional attacks.

If I hit and get an attack deflected, an ability that grants me a re-roll does not grant an additional attack, so if I attack a monk with crane style and he defects the shot, a re-roll would still be deflected as it is not granting an additional attack but a second chance to get a better result on the original attack. Unless the ability specifically states its grants an additional attack many of the re-roll questions I've seen here are moot.

Is this confirmed in the rules somewhere? My group uses re-rolls a lot and I'd always assumed that a re-roll restarts the attack process from the top - you roll to hit AC, then roll miss chance if you hit AC, then roll damage.

Not that I don't think it makes sense, just realizing I've never seen re-rolling procedures explicitly defined (and it normally would only matter if miss chance or attack negation were involved).


I wonder...

A Paladin with dex 10 (or less)in a (mundane) full plate has AC 19... Then he is attacked by some random orc warrior.

The orc has +3 Str modifier and +3 BAB... He rolls a 10. Total attack score 16, that's below the Paladin's AC, but just because he's wearing a full plate, since he has no Dex modifier and the Orc rolled above the base AC value (10).

I suppose we all agree that's a miss, right?

Thing is... Since the full plate doesn't make the Paladin faster or more agile (in fact it hinders his movement and Dex based skill checks), so the only plausible explanation is that the armor deflected the attack.

Is that a "deflected hit" because of that?

What if I use a shield instead of a full plate, and the orc still misses. The obvious explanation is that the Paladin used the shield to block/deflect the attack. Is that not a miss? Is it a block or deflected hit instead?

That's why I keep saying, it's either a miss or a hit. If you get to roll for damage, that's a hit, otherwise it's a miss.


Driver 325 yards wrote:
Wow, look how difficult the position is that you are taking to my position.

Simple is not the same as right. That goes for people as well as arguments.

Driver 325 yards wrote:
If Paizo were to rule the way you want them to rule they would have to say that some deflected attacks actually miss and other deflected attacks don't miss but do no damage.

That is actually what the rules say; where a deflection results in a miss, it is made clear that a miss is what occurs. Where it does not, they don't. There's no ruling required there, we just want it clarified for the rules-lawyers.

Driver 325 yards wrote:
In order to handle things the way I suggests and that most people around America would naturally think, they only have to say that a deflected attack is a miss.

If the posters on this forum are a representative group, this is a false claim. Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary such as opinion poles, sample groups etc.? No, I do not think you do. You are just voicing your opinion that you are right more and trying to claim greater authority for it - and said authority is as lacking in substance as your argument.

Driver 325 yards wrote:

Your position opens up a whole bag of worms and makes interpreting the rules very difficult for the casual player and makes for arguments at game tables everywhere.

My way would make people at game tables everywhere just say, "oh, a deflected attack is a miss." "Makes sense."

Doing no damage is not missing. Your entire premise is based upon a false dichotomy - that is to say, you are arguing that there are only X and Y options, and anything not X is Y. It ignores that there are other states that are neither X nor Y.

Reshar wrote:
By fluff, I would say that Crane Monk still takes damage. Come on, he is trying to deflect flames with a hand!

Is the attacker's entire arm aflame, or just his hand? He can deflect a sword, a morningstar, or a claw without damage, after all.


When 1/3 people say the answer is clearly X, and 1/3 say it's clearly Y, and 1/3 say it's ambigous, that's a pretty strong case for a FAQ needed.


Dabbler wrote:
Driver 325 yards wrote:

Your position opens up a whole bag of worms and makes interpreting the rules very difficult for the casual player and makes for arguments at game tables everywhere.

My way would make people at game tables everywhere just say, "oh, a deflected attack is a miss." "Makes sense."

Doing no damage is not missing. Your entire premise is based upon a false dichotomy - that is to say, you are arguing that there are only X and Y options, and anything not X is Y. It ignores that there are other states that are neither X nor Y.

Reshar wrote:
By fluff, I would say that Crane Monk still takes damage. Come on, he is trying to deflect flames with a hand!
Is the attacker's entire arm aflame, or just his hand? He can deflect a sword, a morningstar, or a claw without damage, after all.

About Driver 325's argument, I agree with you.

About my quoted statement, I must say this:

Efreeti Style wrote:
Your mastery of the unpredictable power of flames allows you to unleash scorching strikes that burn your enemies even when you fail to make contact.

Bold emphasis is mine.

So, if the Crane Monk manages to prevent a hit from landing and therefore making contact, the Crane Monk still takes damage from the Efreeti Style.

Imagine that the Efreeti Monk is fighting using round kicks and open blows, emiting flames from the attacking limbs. What is burning the opponent is not the contact, but the heat and flames that surround the Efreeti Monk and are so fierce that it burns anyone who is exchanging blows with him.


Of course, you can also say that the Crane Monk waves his hand so fast that he can "fan the flames", but that sound very forced (cheesy, maybe?) to me.

Efreeti: "Die with the fiery fury of my fists!"
Crane: "Nein, nein!" *waves his hand frantically*


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Doomed Hero wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
No, they did not miss, you deflected it.

They would have hit, but you deflected it, and so it missed.

Obviously!

A thousand times this!

Sovereign Court

Ilja wrote:
When 1/3 people say the answer is clearly X, and 1/3 say it's clearly Y, and 1/3 say it's ambigous, that's a pretty strong case for a FAQ needed.

You said it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

It's not clear.

That is why I wish for people to FAQ this so it stops coming up. All of these things have come up before. Deflected attacks from various things, miss chance, etc. being called out as "not misses" because the only definition of "hit" to be found is "meets or exceeds AC".

The deflected touch spell thing has come up too.

It means that it's an attack that did not make meaningful contact with it's target. Which means you can forget about it unless other rules kick in, such as the mis-direction for thrown missle attacks. Or other operating mechanics such as mirror image.

But if it's just a plain old miss, as in arrow or sword, that means you're done when it comes to that attack.

Or is there an agenda to your question that you have not disclosed?


Reshar wrote:

About my quoted statement, I must say this:

Efreeti Style wrote:
Your mastery of the unpredictable power of flames allows you to unleash scorching strikes that burn your enemies even when you fail to make contact.

Bold emphasis is mine.

So, if the Crane Monk manages to prevent a hit from landing and therefore making contact, the Crane Monk still takes damage from the Efreeti Style.

Can't argue with that! Point well made, sir.


Ravingdork wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
No, they did not miss, you deflected it.

They would have hit, but you deflected it, and so it missed.

Obviously!

A thousand times this!

"No! the red square is not black!"

"Then it must be white! All red is now white!"

The attack did not miss, the attack was on target but was deflected and scored no damage. There are more than two possible outcomes. To say an attack that was precisely on target was a miss is an oxymoron. The argument is based on a false dichotomy, that there are only two possible outcomes. Paize have made clear a third option: an attack that hits but deals no damage.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is that we have rules, like spell touch attacks, that are very much built based on the idea that there is nothing in between hitting and missing. There's no rules to cover situations where you "deflect through the cracks".


LazarX wrote:


Or is there an agenda to your question that you have not disclosed?

What possible "agenda" could I have for asking for a clarification that very well could turn out going CONTRARY to my stated position?


Rynjin wrote:
LazarX wrote:


Or is there an agenda to your question that you have not disclosed?
What possible "agenda" could I have for asking for a clarification that very well could turn out going CONTRARY to my stated position?

You're trying to redefine the term 'marriage'!

Oh, wait, wrong website...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
The problem is that we have rules, like spell touch attacks, that are very much built based on the idea that there is nothing in between hitting and missing. There's no rules to cover situations where you "deflect through the cracks".

And yet the situation exists because of the specific wording of Crane Wing. In other cases where an effect causes an attack to miss, the attack is specifically stated to miss. In Crane Wing, the attack is deflected and deals no damage. The word "miss" is notable by it's absence. Hence the need for a clarification.


Kazumetsa wrote:
yeti1069 wrote:

What a dick.

Rofl.

Try not to feed the trolls mate! They'll just keep comin back.

You should have seen the shenanigans on the other thread. :P

I DID! I neglected to post there because it seemed pointless. Saw this one pop up and hit the FAQ button. Only posted here, because I didn't want to see this devolve into stupid thread on the same topic #2 unnecessarily. That seems to have been a lost cause, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find the best way to be in these threads is reasonable. Try to never get offended, never insult other posters no matter how obtuse or condescending they are being. If they make a good point, concede it.

There is great satisfaction in handing a man a shovel and letting him get on with all the digging.


I'd like to offer up a reason why such a decision can be important:

Let's take a combat between a Ranger and his Inquisitor ally and a Monk. The Inquistor's currently-'active' teamwork feat is Target of Opportunity, which allows him (as an immediate action) to take a ranged attack against a target anytime an ally with the feat successfully hits with a ranged attack; since the Inquisitor can use teamwork feats solo, the Ranger doesn't have it.

The Ranger shoots the Monk. He successfully exceeds the Monk's AC. The Monk deflects the arrow using Deflect Arrow.

Does the Inquisitor get to shoot the Monk? By the arguments on one side, the answer is "Yes", because a deflection equals a miss. The other side's argument is that you hit, and a deflection just keeps you from taking damage - but then if the Monk happens to have Crane Wing, can he then attack the Ranger (assuming they're within melee range of each other)?


Indeed so Dabbler. This is why I highly respect you and look forward to your input on the forums.


Xaratherus wrote:

I'd like to offer up a reason why such a decision can be important:

Let's take a combat between a Ranger and his Inquisitor ally and a Monk. The Inquistor's currently-'active' teamwork feat is Target of Opportunity, which allows him (as an immediate action) to take a ranged attack against a target anytime an ally with the feat successfully hits with a ranged attack; since the Inquisitor can use teamwork feats solo, the Ranger doesn't have it.

The Ranger shoots the Monk. He successfully exceeds the Monk's AC. The Monk deflects the arrow using Deflect Arrow.

Does the Inquisitor get to shoot the Monk? By the arguments on one side, the answer is "Yes", because a deflection equals a miss. The other side's argument is that you hit, and a deflection just keeps you from taking damage - but then if the Monk happens to have Crane Wing, can he then attack the Ranger (assuming they're within melee range of each other)?

Crane Wing, Being a deflection that reduces damage to 0, I would say that because the monk was effectively hit, although deflecting the shot and reducing it's damage to 0, and the Inquisitor would get his immediate ranged attack on the Monk.

If they're all within melee distance, the monk can attack both of them as an AoO if he has Combat reflexes since they are both using Ranged in Melee area. Crane Wing simply deflects the attack... I don't see how that would enable the monk to attack anything.

I feel like you left something out in that scenario.


Kazumetsa wrote:

Crane Wing, Being a deflection that reduces damage to 0, I would say that because the monk was effectively hit, although deflecting the shot and reducing it's damage to 0, and the Inquisitor would get his immediate ranged attack on the Monk.

If they're all within melee distance, the monk can attack both of them as an AoO if he has Combat reflexes since they are both using Ranged in Melee area. Crane Wing simply deflects the attack... I don't see how that would enable the monk to attack anything.

I feel like you left something out in that scenario.

Actually, I mixed up my feats. Crane Wing should be Snake Fang.

Also I assumed that others had been following the train wreck that was the discussion on the interaction of those two particular feats (which is where this thread came from originally - the fact that 'miss' isn't really defined in mechanics terms, and whether a deflected attack counted as a hit or a miss).

If a deflect is a hit, then the Inquisitor gets an extra attack. If a deflect is a miss, then the Monk does (possibly 2 extra attacks). If it's neither a hit or a miss, then it's some unlabeled category and should probably be noted.

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:

Why? Why would you rather FAQ 5 separate questions when getting a single one answered will answer all of it?

For my 2 cents, I think you're over thinking hit. Hit or miss is a bit of a binary thing. It doesn't matter how the miss is achieved, just that there is one. Either through poor aim or deflection or by hitting a shadow clone, you still missed the target.

But hey, who knows, I could be wrong. Hence the question: What is a miss?

Because the question is too vague. Read SKR posts in this thread about how the FAQ system work. The Paizo staff will only see your post, get no context, no reason for the question, nothing. Probably they will not reply and it they reply there is a good chance that without background on your question the reply will be useless or create more problems.


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

Okay, I found the answer to this. As it turns out, this is really not a FAQ. A "miss" is defined in the rules.

Some have been saying that because a deflected attack in some cases mentions that damage is not done and does not expressly say that it is a miss, this must mean that it is a hit that does no damage. If you would, this would be a third category alongside hits and misses.

However, if you look in Ultimate Equipment under Arms and Armor in the Variant Rules section of all places, Paizo answered the question just in passing.

Paizo wrote:

Quote:
The armor and Armor Class system is an abstraction where an attack roll that "misses" represents actual misses as well as attacks that fail to hit the target hard or accurately enough to cause harm. Some players and GMs may prefer a different system where a failed attack roll is an actual miss, and armor absorbs points of damage from successful attacks.

So it turns out the attacks that do no harm because the fail to hit the target accurately enough are also considered misses. Deflections from Crane Style and Deflect Arrow would fall into this category.

Further, Paizo states that "misses" used in Pathfinder are not "misses" in the most strict interpretation of the word miss.

Finally, Paizo states that a variant system has been developed for those who believe it more satisfying to have misses be actual misses.


Xaratherus wrote:
Kazumetsa wrote:

Crane Wing, Being a deflection that reduces damage to 0, I would say that because the monk was effectively hit, although deflecting the shot and reducing it's damage to 0, and the Inquisitor would get his immediate ranged attack on the Monk.

If they're all within melee distance, the monk can attack both of them as an AoO if he has Combat reflexes since they are both using Ranged in Melee area. Crane Wing simply deflects the attack... I don't see how that would enable the monk to attack anything.

I feel like you left something out in that scenario.

Actually, I mixed up my feats. Crane Wing should be Snake Fang.

Also I assumed that others had been following the train wreck that was the discussion on the interaction of those two particular feats (which is where this thread came from originally - the fact that 'miss' isn't really defined in mechanics terms, and whether a deflected attack counted as a hit or a miss).

OH. Bwahahaha. Way to confuse me :P

That being the case, The ranger takes his shot in Melee.
The shot successfully exceeds the Monk's AC and hits.
The Monk then deflects this shot with Crane Wing thus reducing it's damage to 0.
Because the initial nearby ranged attack did in fact exceed the AC of the Monk, the Inquisitor now gets to use his immediate/swift action to take a ranged attack on the Monk.
If the Inquisitor does not exceed his AC, the Monk may retort with Snake Fang(on the Inq) - and if that strike hits, he may use an Immediate action to perform another unarmed strike on that target.
If the Inquisitors immediate ranged attack meets or beats his AC, then the Inquisitor does his damage(as crane wing has already been used) and Snake Fang does not get used.
However, the Monk in question could potentially make AoO on both of those targets considering they are making a ranged attack in melee area - depending on what feats they have that could potentially prevent it.

Target of Opportunity (Combat, Teamwork)
You and your allies pelt your enemies with a deadly barrage of missiles.
Prerequisites: Point-Blank Shot, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When an ally who also has this feat makes a ranged attack and hits an opponent within 30 feet of you, you can spend an immediate action to make a single ranged attack against that opponent. Your ranged weapon must be in hand, loaded, and ready to be fired or thrown for you to make the ranged attack.

Based on this, the Inquisitor would in fact get to attack after the ranger since the ranger exceeded the monk's AC to begin with.

That's my point of view at least.

Does that answer anything >_>?

51 to 100 of 152 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What constitutes a miss? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.