| 16 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
The devs are going to hate this, but here is another question about Deflected attacks:
If an attack is deflected (such as by Deflect Arrows or Crane Wing), do all harmful effects get negated along with just the raw damage of the attack?
For example: A shocking arrow is shot at a monk with deflect arrows, does the successful block negate all damage, or just the physical damage.
Is a melee touch considered an attack that may be deflected?
For example, a wraith's attack of negative energy and con drain, or a wizard's melee touch with a shocking grasp?
In short, is anything harmful to the character that relies on an attack roll negated by the deflection, or is only actual physical damage negated, or something in between?
FAQ'ed.
The answer I expect is something along the lines of: A deflected ('nullified') attack does not count as a hit or a miss for the purposes of triggering any positive or negative effects.
I'm expecting that a deflected attack counts as a touch, but not a hit.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It might depend on the mechanic that's doing the deflecting. For instance, Crane Wing lets you deflect a "melee weapon attack". That knocks out a number of things (like, say, a grapple attempt; or arguably an incorporeal touch attack or a touch spell). On the other hand, a disarm maneuver is a weapon attack; does it still disarm you if you deflect it? Still not doing damage... How about Greater Sunder?
That's two questions. Technically, three.
It might depend on the mechanic that's doing the deflecting. For instance, Crane Wing lets you deflect a "melee weapon attack". That knocks out a number of things (like, say, a grapple attempt; or arguably an incorporeal touch attack or a touch spell). On the other hand, a disarm maneuver is a weapon attack; does it still disarm you if you deflect it? Still not doing damage... How about Greater Sunder?
As far as disarm and greater sunder go. Disarm would still work. The attack is deflected and damage is not dealt, that is the only effect of crane wing. Disarm does not deal damage, so the normal disarm would go through.
Sunder would be similar. You successfully sundered, but because it was deflected it would deal 0 damage to the item being sundered.
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
To make it a single question:
"Does a deflected attack count as a hit?"
The relevance would be for effects such as Stunning Assault, which specifically triggers off a hit, but doesn't rely on any damage having been dealt.
That's two questions. Technically, three.
Well it's a complex issue that touches on what constitutes an attack that can be deflected, and what exactly gets deflected. It could have a simple answer: "Anything requiring an attack roll is an attack, and when deflected the attack is negated completely, whatever it was." Or it may be a complex answer, that touch effects are not deflected but damage is. All the answers touch upon one another, and I don't know how else to phrase this in such a way that will not lead to MORE FAQ questions that will inevitably arise as a result of a partial answer.
So, does a deflected attack have any effect, or none at all?
The devs are going to hate this, but here is another question about Deflected attacks:
If an attack is deflected (such as by Deflect Arrows or Crane Wing), do all harmful effects get negated along with just the raw damage of the attack?
For example: A shocking arrow is shot at a monk with deflect arrows, does the successful block negate all damage, or just the physical damage.
Is a melee touch considered an attack that may be deflected?
For example, a wraith's attack of negative energy and con drain, or a wizard's melee touch with a shocking grasp?
In short, is anything harmful to the character that relies on an attack roll negated by the deflection, or is only actual physical damage negated, or something in between?
Why is this a question? The book never says those energy attacks or touch attacks. If they were a player could announce he was shooting for touch AC instead of normal AC. Better yet a player could argue that even if such weapons did not beat the normal AC it still does damage. they would not even have to call for a shot against touch AC, and the same idea would apply to fire elementals, and other similar monsters.
The deflection could be fluffed as done with a weapon or some other means. The rules seem to be clear.
I'd rather the the answer for touch attacks. So I'd rather see "If a wizard makes an unarmed strike while holding the charge on a touch spell and his target uses Crane Wing to deflect the attack, what is the result?"
I would hope they would address if the spell discharged harmfully, harmlessly, or is still held.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well it's a complex issue that touches on what constitutes an attack that can be deflected...
Nuns. No sense of humor.
I'm just teasing you a bit, as you say "here is another question" and then proceed to ask three questions. :)
Well it's a complex issue that touches on what constitutes an attack that can be deflected...Nuns. No sense of humor.
I'm just teasing you a bit, as you say "here is another question" and then proceed to ask three questions. :)
I'm not a nun, I'm a practising witch (although I am getting quite good at it). But I tend to take questions literally, as I can't read your tone ;)
The devs are going to hate this, but here is another question about Deflected attacks:
If an attack is deflected (such as by Deflect Arrows or Crane Wing), do all harmful effects get negated along with just the raw damage of the attack?
For example: A shocking arrow is shot at a monk with deflect arrows, does the successful block negate all damage, or just the physical damage.
Is a melee touch considered an attack that may be deflected?
For example, a wraith's attack of negative energy and con drain, or a wizard's melee touch with a shocking grasp?
In short, is anything harmful to the character that relies on an attack roll negated by the deflection, or is only actual physical damage negated, or something in between?
Why is this a question? The book never says those energy attacks or touch attacks. If they were a player could announce he was shooting for touch AC instead of normal AC. Better yet a player could argue that even if such weapons did not beat the normal AC it still does damage. they would not even have to call for a shot against touch AC, and the same idea would apply to fire elementals, and other similar monsters.
The deflection could be fluffed as done with a weapon or some other means. The rules seem to be clear.
The above quote is in my nice voice since it may be similar to the "what is a miss" thread. :)
Official Rules Response
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ updated: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnz
New text added:
Update 5/29/13: If the attack is deflected, not only does the target take no damage, but any other effects (ability drain, negative levels, harmful conditions, and so on) associated with that attack do not occur. If the deflected attack is a touch spell or other effect that requires "holding the charge," the charge is not expended. For example, if a ghoul's claw attack is deflected, the target is not subject to the ghoul's paralysis ability from the attack. If a shocking grasp touch attack is deflected, the attacker is still "holding the charge." The Crane Wing feat will be updated in a future printing of Ultimate Combat to clarify these issues.
Man I love the FAQ team! Hurray for answers!
Thank you for yet another quick answer, PDT! Should we send you gift baskets for all these quick responses lately??
I welcome the offers of gift baskets, especially if they have cool minis in them. :)
I feel like Paizo should set up a product on the site that's a small basket of a random mini, a small bottle of scotch, and...something that Stephen likes. What does Stephen like? Other than designing massive subsystems for hardcovers.
It'd sell well.
FAQ updated: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qnz
New text added:
Update 5/29/13: If the attack is deflected, not only does the target take no damage, but any other effects (ability drain, negative levels, harmful conditions, and so on) associated with that attack do not occur. If the deflected attack is a touch spell or other effect that requires "holding the charge," the charge is not expended. For example, if a ghoul's claw attack is deflected, the target is not subject to the ghoul's paralysis ability from the attack. If a shocking grasp touch attack is deflected, the attacker is still "holding the charge." The Crane Wing feat will be updated in a future printing of Ultimate Combat to clarify these issues.
Dang, you guys are really on the ball! Respect!
Anyone know if this means stuff like trip or grab would get negated too? The examples listed seem to be things the target would have normally have to make a saving throw on a hit for, but what about the attacker getting to make a free maneuver check on a hit?
If the attack does not land then there can be no trip or grab since they rely on the attack hitting.
In other words, the rider affect can not take place if the attack did not land.
Anyone know if this means stuff like trip or grab would get negated too? The examples listed seem to be things the target would have normally have to make a saving throw on a hit for, but what about the attacker getting to make a free maneuver check on a hit?
If it is deflected it is not a hit. Anything requiring a hit does not take effect.
|
@Driver: no. There's quite a few other things that might trigger on a hit or miss that don't work on a deflection. Like rerolling attacks (on a miss), or follow-up maneuvers (on a hit that doesn't do damage but still hits).
I think the base concept is pretty easy;
a) An attack misses outright
b) An attack hits
c) An attack hits but is then negated (deflected) by some ability
In case C, stuff that would trigger on a hit and/or on a miss doesn't happen because the end result isn't a hit and isn't a miss.
|
|
You say "traditionally, a deflection was a miss", but there were many people who didn't read it that way; all the feats say is that the deflected attack deals no damage, so it wasn't clear at all if other effects would stuff would still go on. Whether you could Crane Wing a Trip maneuver for example.
I don't think it was intended to nerf the combo at all. Paizo doesn't often set out to nerf something, and in this case the FAQ is to answer a lot of people asking to clarify what exactly deflecting an attack means, not if they could please nerf this or that.
You are assuming it is just for snake fang. The truth is that the question did not come up until snake fang existed, and it is better to word it like they did to cover all cases instead of calling out just one ability.
Otherwise if another "would be hit" activates another ability in a future book they have to issue another FAQ.
Before the guy playing the MoMS was at the GM's mercy, so now the guy playing the MoMS has a consistent ruling. I never got in the thread, but getting two attacks for one swing was a ruling I had already shutdown because it did not make sense anyway. I am generally pretty good at picking up what RAI is, even when RAW is not clear. That is all this was, an RAI clarification.
After all, if people were asking that question before, the design team would not just now be issuing a ruling on the subject. The answer was obvious before "no you missed so your drain attack does not work" The answer was not obvious after the deflection is not a hit or miss ruling. Thus, they had to issue a ruling that restore the world back to normal.
No, I argued that the deflection stated the attack did no damage. Deflected never equated to "missed" for me. Still doesn't. Because of how they wrote the crane wing ability, they created the 3rd case of deflected. If they truly wanted to avoid having deflected exist, they should have errataed crane wing to cause the attack to miss instead. They did not do this, they have made the call, why are you still complaining about it?
One feat combination that worked under your interpretation now does not work under the official one. Great. So retire that character, ask for a rebuild, or play a different character. It is extremely unlikely that posting further on the issue will cause the design team to change their minds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a unique thing monks get. I'm all for monks (or others picking up crane wing/deflect arrows) getting little weird abilities.
If something requires a hit to work (deliver touch spell) it does not count as a hit, so the spell or effect is not delivered.
Likewise, if something requires a miss to work (such as an ability that grants a re-roll) it does not count as a miss, so you cannot use that ability either.
This lets the monk avoid damage from an attack, and completely neutralizes the attack. Otherwise, you could deflect an attack, have it count as a miss, and if they have an ability to re-roll, suddenly, it hits. Which is weird itself.
Actually there is no confusion. An attack is a hit or miss. That is not messing with any holy grail. It is keeping the two as separate which they should be.
I am failing to see the issue.
This is just my attempt to help everyone understand what they have done.
I don't see people posting questions being confused on how to rule the new FAQ. I think people understand. We can be done now.
It is a unique thing monks get. I'm all for monks (or others picking up crane wing/deflect arrows) getting little weird abilities.
If something requires a hit to work (deliver touch spell) it does not count as a hit, so the spell or effect is not delivered.
Likewise, if something requires a miss to work (such as an ability that grants a re-roll) it does not count as a miss, so you cannot use that ability either.
This lets the monk avoid damage from an attack, and completely neutralizes the attack. Otherwise, you could deflect an attack, have it count as a miss, and if they have an ability to re-roll, suddenly, it hits. Which is weird itself.
^This.
A deflected attack is not a hit and not a miss? really?
A ring of protection gives an AC bonus with the deflection type... so an attack could be deflected by your ring of protection, not hit you, but not count as a miss?
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but this is b#&+#~+$. An attack that is not a hit is a miss. Period.
This is JUST invented to stop the two styles from working together. If they shold not work together, fine, nerf them by saying they are not to work togther, but don't invent stuff like this.
Calm down. Just because you don't like the ruling (which isn't anything like the deflection bonus situation) doesn't mean you should get angry and profane about it.