A miss is a miss. You rolled to hit, and you did not meet or exceed the target's AC.
If you do meet or exceed the target's AC but are deflected by, e.g., Crane Wing, you do not hit, but you also do not miss.
Edit: The FAQ clarifies a situation in which the rules vary from the common language definition of "miss" (i.e., "attempted to hit and failed"). In all other cases, a "miss" is still Exactly What It Says On The Tin.
A hit is defined under attack roll.
"If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage."
Nothing in using the opposite contradicts that. A Miss is an attack that does not equal of beat the target's AC.
Which falls very neatly in line with the Crane Wing FAQ (the attack hit, but was deflected. However, it is not a miss because the attack roll DID meet or exceed the target AC).
Knowing what a word means is not houseruling (there's a lot of that going around lately).
The rules do not have to define every single word that comprises them. That would be impossible without cyclical definitions.
There is no reason to believe that the rules do not treat "miss" in the same fashion as common language.
But let's call it like it is.
Oy, don't tempt me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow ... that's some mighty impressive rules-weaseling.
Rynjin, I sense anger or something emotional in your response. Let's not escalate the conversation that way. I will respond to you and then let things sit for a day before I chime in again to let things simmer down.
There's not, or at least not directed at you. The last thread with a similar topic pissed me off a little bit (it had a bit more of an agenda behind it than your post does) so that may be slipping in unintentionally.
Okay now responding. Look at the quote you cite. An attack roll that beats you armor class is not a hit. An attack roll the beats your AC is a hit that deals damage.
Ah ah ah, that's not what it says.
It says it is a hit AND it deals damage, not it is a hit THAT deals damage.
"If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage."
Two separate things there. It can be expressed as two sentences.
"If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit. If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you deal damage."
Two separate ideas expressed in a single sentence.
And I think that kinda obsoletes the rest of your reply, since it was based on a faulty assumption from the start.
Crane Wing is an exception to this rule, since it allows you to negate that sentence. In essence, a Deflection is defined as "When your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, your hit is deflected and you do not deal damage."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your conclusion is that the Crane Wing (et al.) FAQ changes what we might expect a "miss" to be. I disagree. It creates an exception specific to those things.
The standard, expected definition of miss still applies (even if it's undefined).
Man, talk about going way too far in attempting to play "Let's pretend the rules are unclear about something they are absolutely clear on".
It says it is a hit AND it deals damage, not it is a hit THAT deals damage.
Of course that damage can be reduced to 0 points (f.ex from DR) without it becoming a miss.
The first quote in the OP is strictly not a definition but a clarification of what the AC abstraction usually means. If it were a definition, this thread would argue what "effectively causing harm" means when fighting a 300 hp boss with fast healing and DR.
The separation of hit and damage seems to me to be confirmed by splash weapons where misses still cause damage.
Attacking and failing to beat AC (of the appropriate type (touch or regular) for the attack being made)) is a miss. Certain abilities can allow (some) damage to be done even on a miss (elemental fist combined with certain styles, for example), but it's still a miss.
Attacking and meeting or exceeding the appropriate AC may still be a miss due to factors such as concealment (miss chance from blur, etc.). It's rather like a critical threat in that you need to make the confirmation roll (miss chance roll).
Attacking a mirrored imaged target and destroying an image isn't a miss, it is a hit on the wrong target.
As FAQed, attacking and meeting or exceeding the appropriate AC against a user of Crane Wing produces a hit that may be deflected so as to do no damage, but does not create a miss that triggers other things like Snake Style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules don't need to define 'miss' because it means what the word means in normal English usage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
OK, I'm one of the most outspoken people on the boards, when it comes to advocating clear definitions, consistent rules, and elimination of sloppy rules language. I have been known to harp mercilessly on people who say things like "can I enchant my sword," by providing whole paragraphs on how mundane swords are mindless and hence not subject to [charm] and [compulsion] effects.
And even I don't think a "miss" can reasonably be defined as occuring only on a natural 1.
Your right.
"You're right," meaning that I am correct, not that I have an inherent property or condition empowering me to do so.
See what I mean?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take away the sarcasism and the off topic comments and all that is left is a bunch of people agreeing that miss is never defined anywhere.
No, you're left with a bunch of people telling you to use common sense - which, coincidentally, is the answer that the designers normally give to questions such as this. I know that will come off as snarky, but it's also absolutely true.
From a standpoint of definition, "miss" is the opposite of "hit". So by taking the opposite of the definition of "hit", we can know the game meaning of "miss".
Hit is defined in two ways:
-An attack roll which equals or exceeds the target's AC. As Rynjin points out, the "and deal damage" is clause is an effect of the hit, not part of the hit itself
-An attack roll that comes up a natural 20
The fact that a "miss" is mechanically the antonym of a "hit" is reinforced by the fact that in the Automatic Hits and Misses section, it defines the extreme opposite die roll - a 1 - as always a miss.
So in that case, we know that miss is defined in two ways:
-An attack roll which is less than the target's AC
-An attack roll that comes up a natural 1
The Crane Wing FAQ in no way violates this. An attack that deals no damage but otherwise equals or exceeds the target's AC is not a hit (and therefore deals no damage and triggers no additional effects that normally occur on a hit), nor is it a miss.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It just goes to show that when we all operate from a practical standpoint, we are comfortable with houserules even in a rule based society like PFS
Ah, now we know why this thread exists. You disagreed with someone in PFS and "lost", with the given reason being that the rules said something else.
I can understand your desire to defend your position, and I realize that PFS in some ways operates under a drastically different philosophy than most home games and it can be hard to make the shift, but the ability to willfully misinterpret rules does not make the point you were hoping it would.
Next time, consider handling disagreements through open and good-hearted dialogue with that person, rather than bending over backwards to try and show everyone how wrong that person is. The former can end with everyone happy, while the latter just makes you look petty.
Your right."You're right," meaning that I am correct, not that I have an inherent property or condition empowering me to do so.
See what I mean?
Other than correcting my typewritten English (thank you), no I don't see what you mean.
So what, there are two different common usage meanings for "right."
Okay, thanks for enlightening me.
I will check back in 24 hours to see if someone has a thought that disproves what I am saying.
I have been known to admit being wrong on these threads.
I already gave you that thought. It's right here:
Your conclusion is that the Crane Wing (et al.) FAQ changes what we might expect a "miss" to be. I disagree. It creates an exception specific to those things.
The standard, expected definition of miss still applies (even if it's undefined).
That FAQ does not redefine what it means to hit somebody. It simply creates an exception specific to a certain subset of rules and how they interact with other rules and function in battle.
That's the fault in your logical. Ergo, your conclusion, which is based upon that fault, is invalid.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could care less about PFS.
The implication here is that you have some existing level of concern, so that it is possible or even desireable for you to lower that level. (On the other hand, if you'd said, "I couldn't care less," that would be a clear statement that your level of concern is already zero.)
However, despite that error, the intended meaning of your statement was clear to, I would assume, 100% of the readers of this thread. That's as good as it gets, in real terms. Yes, I can still pedantically correct you despite that, but doing so does not actually serve to clarify your meaning any further than it already was.
There comes a point when, even if an error exists, the meaning is so clear that the error has no practical deletorious effect. I'd submit that the game definition of "miss" (or its perceived lack) is one of those few cases. Contrast the lack of clarity in meaning of the Vital Strike rules -- which spawned a dozen discussion threads, hundreds of FAQ requests, and situations in which actual Paizo employees were using the feat incorrectly -- and, in comparison, I think we can all agree that the word "miss" in this context is low on the scale of things needing clarification.
Calling the miss rules under which the game operates a house rule falls into the same category of senselessness as claiming that RAW allows a dead person to take actions because the rules don't state otherwise.
I think I understand where the OP is coming from.
Ill give an example. Lets say we have a fighter wearing a fullplate suit of armor and a rogue with the dodge feat and 26 in dex and no armor. Both fighter and rogue have 19AC.
Now the rogue is hard to hit because he's very dexterous and we picture in our mind the rogue dodging or sidestepping to miss the attack.
Now the fighter in fullplate...are we thinking the fighter is also dodging and sidestepping the attacks as well or are we thinking the attacks have no effects on the fighter in fullplate because he's so armored up that the attacker didn't hit a spot that woukd have dealt dmg?
Are we saying when u put on a fullplate u are basically being a dexterous as the rogue OR is he using that massive amount of armor and being protected by dmging hits?
Like i said i see where the OP is coming from when u start to visualize the scenarios but i believe pathfinder when talking about misses isn't talking about actually missing but missing to deal dmg or effect. That in itself covers not only the actual "misses" but contacts that don't deal dmg. Again its a game that does very well incorporating rules, bah hard to explain.
I see where the OP is coming from but I believe he is wrong about everyone doing it wrong.
@Redneckdevil: From a visualization perspective, I understand what you're saying, but like many areas of the game, mechanics and what we visualize don't always neatly align.
Generally speaking, I usually envision armor helping to deflect attacks away from the body rather than 'absorbing' damage (that would be armor as damage reduction, which is optional).
As it stands, though, the mechanics are sound: Hit is defined, and therefore miss is defined through common sense as the opposite of a hit - which doesn't make it a house rule, but (like the "dead things can't take actions") derived RAW.
@Redneckdevil: From a visualization perspective, I understand what you're saying, but like many areas of the game, mechanics and what we visualize don't always neatly align.
Generally speaking, I usually envision armor helping to deflect attacks away from the body rather than 'absorbing' damage (that would be armor as damage reduction, which is optional).
As it stands, though, the mechanics are sound: Hit is defined, and therefore miss is defined through common sense as the opposite of a hit - which doesn't make it a house rule, but (like the "dead things can't take actions") derived RAW.
I totally agree. I as just stating from a visual point of view that I can see where the OP is coming from. Hell in the games I run, I will state the dexterous players dodge or sidestep an atk that didn't hit their AC and I will state that an arrow or atk bounced off a players shield or their armor....for fluffs sake so that thru fluff my players get a sense of difference thru gameplay.
Now is fluff that I'm using RAW or RAI, nope don't believe so. But then again, I would like miss to be classify that u missed a chance to deal dmg or effect that way and not actual "missed" all together. But that's just my personal opionion and I believe the actual rules are that when u don't hit the AC u actually miss all together.
Calling the miss rules under which the game operates a house rule falls into the same category of senselessness as claiming that RAW allows a dead person to take actions because the rules don't state otherwise.
Actually, they do...
The "Dying" condition makes the character unable to take any action, and the "Dead" condition never says it removes the "Dying" condition. So, technically, dead characters are both "Dead" and "Dying", and therefore, can't take any actions.
Actually, they do...
The "Dying" condition makes the character unable to take any action, and the "Dead" condition never says it removes the "Dying" condition. So, technically, dead characters are both "Dead" and "Dying", and therefore, can't take any actions.
If we're really going to go down this road, then applying the same sort of logic used in the first post means a character who immediately achieves the Dead condition without meeting the criteria for the Dying condition - for example, the target of a death effect - is not forbidden from taking actions, since the Dead condition itself doesn't forbid it.
I don't believe that to be true, but since it's not explicitly included in the definition...
The "Dying" condition makes the character unable to take any action, and the "Dead" condition never says it removes the "Dying" condition. So, technically, dead characters are both "Dead" and "Dying", and therefore, can't take any actions.
Ah, but as people have so astutely pointed out before, someone who is Dead has not necessarily been through the Dying condition!
The "Dying" condition makes the character unable to take any action, and the "Dead" condition never says it removes the "Dying" condition. So, technically, dead characters are both "Dead" and "Dying", and therefore, can't take any actions.Ah, but as people have so astutely pointed out before, someone who is Dead has not necessarily been through the Dying condition!
Huh... That's true... In that case, I'll point that out to my GM next time one of my characters dies without "Dying". lol.
Heh... It's actually kinda funny how the "Dying" condition is technically more debilitating than the "Dead" condition...
The Crane Wing ruling said that if its is not specifically called a miss it is not a miss. Therefore, attacks that do not match or exceed your AC are not a miss. Only natural ones are a miss when it comes to attack rolls (spells, concealment and whatever other side detail I may have missed aside).
That's not what the FAQ ruling says. The ruling says that abilities that negate/modify hits do not turn those hits into misses unless the ability says so.
An attack that was never a hit to begin with is unaffected by the FAQ ruling. That attack was already a miss and cannot be affected by any ability that turns hits into something else.