Yes. There is no caveat for size in the feat. Therefore it works as long as the two conditions - a free hand and a melee attack - are met.
The ability has nothing to do with size. So yes, you can deflect even colossal attacks.
As for being inconceivable, this is a game with magic and dragons, so why is a monk deflecting an attack from a large or bigger enemy be a problem? :)
With that said, if you really want to make it harder to block large and bigger enemy attacks, as a house rule, make it an opposed attack roll. You will probably see a lot less Crane Wing builds.
- Gauss
The question is simple, being a normal medium sized PC can you still deflect attacks form a Large or bigger enemy?
I don't know why the idea of a Monk deflecting a hit from a Morningstar from a Cloud Giant, I just see it as something inconceivable
As I said in another thread, think of it more as a matador with his cape facing off against a Bull than of someone blocking an attack with his bare hands...
I don't understand why two Shield spells aren't better than one, but there it is.
Martial, Martial, Martial, I can explain why two Shield spells aren't better than one. They are both moving to intercept the attack. If you have two shields (one behind the other) is there any difference between that and one shield?
- Gauss
Martial, Martial, Martial, I can explain why two Shield spells aren't better than one. They are both moving to intercept the attack. If you have two shields (one behind the other) is there any difference between that and one shield?
- Gauss
Actually they're moving to intercept the attacks, so presumably against multiple attacks, two shields have a better opportunity to intercept them all than one... and if a single attack is theoretically strong enough to blow past one, well there's the other one to absorb what remains.
The ban on stacking typed bonuses makes mechanical sense (I guess) but they never, ever make common sense.
Perhaps different people have different ideas of what makes common sense?
Each attack is not simultaneous. The shields move to intercept attack 1. They move simultaneously and together. Thus, there is effectively only one shield. After attack 1 is resolved they move to intercept attack 2 with the same result.
In any case, this discussion is far off topic and into theoretical opinions of how a spell might be explained as not stacking. The ban on stacking typed bonuses makes perfect common sense to me.
- Gauss
Perhaps different people have different ideas of what makes common sense?
Each attack is not simultaneous. The shields move to intercept attack 1. They move simultaneously and together. Thus, there is effectively only one shield. After attack 1 is resolved they move to intercept attack 2 with the same result.
In any case, this discussion is far off topic and into theoretical opinions of how a spell might be explained as not stacking. The ban on stacking typed bonuses makes perfect common sense to me.
- Gauss
Let's say you have a shield spell up and it moves to intercept an attack, but the attack hits anyway. Was the shield too slow, too busy blocking other attacks or not powerful enough to withstand the blow? It doesn't matter because in every one of those instances, a second shield would have improved your chance of not getting hit, either by doubling your coverage area or by doubling the force required to penetrate.
Honestly - you're telling me that if I put on a suit of plate armor and then put on an even bigger suit of plate armor over that, I'm not more protected that I would be with just the one suit? Of course the weight and armor penalties would be out of this world, but that's not germaine to the conversation - two layers of steel are stronger than just one.
And such is the case for all stacking bonuses. Having supernaturally tough skin and then putting on an amulet that makes your skin even more supernaturally tough doesn't provide any benefit? Of course it should... but mechanically, it doesn't.
Two layers of steel is not the same thing as an impenetrable force that is either in the way or is not in the way. We each have different visions but the problem is you are stating that yours is the only way to interpret how it may work and thus it does not make sense. It does not make sense to *you* but that does not mean it does not make sense to others.
Why do you think that an Amulet of Natural Armor does not stack with a Natural Armor bonus? One is a Natural Armor bonus, the other is an Enhancement bonus to Natural Armor. They stack.
- Gauss
The ability has nothing to do with size. So yes, you can deflect even colossal attacks.
As for being inconceivable, this is a game with magic and dragons, so why is a monk deflecting an attack from a large or bigger enemy be a problem? :)
With that said, if you really want to make it harder to block large and bigger enemy attacks, as a house rule, make it an opposed attack roll. You will probably see a lot less Crane Wing builds.
- Gauss
Even a first level monk can catch a bullet shot from a gun at first level. So yeah, the game does get crazy even at earlier levels sometimes, lol.
Does it count against Natural Weapon attacks?
Yes, and melee touch attacks as well.
The question is simple, being a normal medium sized PC can you still deflect attacks form a Large or bigger enemy?
I don't know why the idea of a Monk deflecting a hit from a Morningstar from a Cloud Giant, I just see it as something inconceivable
Is it any more inconceivable than the fighter's armor and shield providing any protection from a morningstar bigger than he is?