Deflect Arrows vs Cartomancer Witch Spell Deck feature

[UnbindingNote]

Title says it all. Looking for some clarification on the Spell Deck class feature for the thrown spell. Namely, is it still a ranged weapon attack or just a spell attack.

Posting feature details below for ease.

-Spell Deck-
Each cartomancer carries a special harrow deck that allows her to communicate with her patron. Its ability to hold spells functions identically to the way a witch’s spells are granted by her familiar. The cartomancer must consult her harrow deck each day to prepare her spells and cannot prepare spells that are not stored in the deck. The spell deck cannot be used for this purpose if any cards are missing.

This ability replaces the witch’s familiar.

The following familiar ability works differently for a cartomancer.

Deliver Touch Spells (Su)

At 3rd level, when the cartomancer uses the Deadly Dealer feat with a card from her spell deck, the card is not destroyed and gains the returning weapon special ability.

In addition, the cartomancer can deliver a touch spell with a thrown card. This uses the Deadly Dealer feat (see below), except the attack is resolved as a ranged touch attack and the card deals no damage of its own. This ability can be used with any card (not just one from the cartomancer’s spell deck).

At 2nd level, a cartomancer gains the Deadly Dealer feat as a bonus feat, even if she does not meet the prerequisites. The cartomancer gains the benefits of the Arcane Strike feat, but only for the purposes of using Deadly Dealer.

This replaces the witch’s 2nd-level hex.

-Deadly Dealer-
Benefit(s): You can throw a card as though it were a dart, with the same damage, range, and other features. You must use the Arcane Strike feat when throwing a card in this way, or else the card lacks the magical force and precision to deal lethal damage. A card is destroyed when thrown in this way.

Harrow cards are treated as masterwork weapons when thrown using this feat, but are still destroyed after they are thrown. A harrow deck can no longer be used as a fortune-telling device after even a single card is thrown.

A spellcaster with this feat can enhance a deck of cards as though it were a ranged weapon with 54 pieces of ammunition. This enhancement functions only when used in tandem with this feat, and has no affect on any other way the cards might be used.

Only a character who possesses this feat can use an enhanced deck of cards; she must still use the Arcane Strike feat to activate the cards’ enhancement.

-Deflect Arrows-
Benefit: You must have at least one hand free (holding nothing) to use this feat. Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. Attempting to deflect a ranged attack doesn't count as an action. Unusually massive ranged weapons (such as boulders or ballista bolts) and ranged attacks generated by natural attacks or spell effects can't be deflected.

[Anguish]

Looks to me like the spell you cast would normally be a melee touch spell, but instead you throw a physical card as a ranged weapon against touch AC. The card then delivers the spell. Thus Deflect Arrows would work as written to deflect the card.

That said, it wouldn't be unreasonable for a GM to decided that the deflection - which apparently involves a hand - would constitute touching the card, allowing discharging the spell. But that's a GM who's trying to apply physics and logic to the circumstance.

Personally, if this was a rare thing, where a PC with Deflect Arrows was up against an NPC cartomancer, I'd allow the feat. Rule of cool. If it was a PC cartomancer up against a NPC I'd probably explain my thoughts and still allow the feat, since "OMG, one enemy actually had something that works against you... this underlines how cool your PC is normally."

[Pizza Lord]

To me, the wording of Deadly Dealer (with is used by the cartomancer to deliver touch spells at range) implies that the card is a weapon attack, or at least simulates one (ie. a dart), and that it's basically carrying a rider on striking (a touch attack). Deflect Arrows can deflect such things without triggering them. A flaming burst arrow that had contact poison on it similarly doesn't affect someone who deflects it, even if they are barehanded by the rules.

A GM can arbitrate differently in extremely unusual circumstances, but this one seems pretty straightforward. The card is a thrown weapon and the spell is a rider on it.

[zza ni]

deflect arrows (as well as crane wing ability) were ruled in this FAQ to make an attack count as neither a hit nor a miss.
As such that effects that trigger from a hit or from a miss do not trigger when the attack is deflected -that include the spell attached to the card.

since the Cartomancer ability work like the feat that itself work like throwing darts (only the Cartomancer's ability change it into touch attack) it is still an attack the deflect arrows would work on. same as if used any other weapon with a touch attack (say a net or a needle from the robe of needles).

touch attacks get no special ability to overcome this (from the FAQ):
"If the deflected attack is a touch spell or other effect that requires "holding the charge," the charge is not expended...If a shocking grasp touch attack is deflected, the attacker is still "holding the charge."... "

this is some1 using his bare hands (crane style require a bare hand) to deflect a touch attacked charged with electricity - and it still works even though he touches a charged spell that is meant to release on any contact (such as grappling etc. see delivering touch spells).

[DeathlessOne]

I'm not going to provide much reasoning for my answer, as it pretty much aligns with zza_ni's post in the rules. I am simply going to state how such a situation would be resolved at my table.

Deflect Arrows can deflect the Cartomancer's attempt to deliver the touch attack through the throwing of the card, without triggering the attached (rider) spell effect. Since the card has the 'returning' feature, the Cartomancer does not expend the spell on a 'miss' and can attempt to deliver the spell with another action on their next turn (as if holding a charge). Knowing that the enemy has Deflect Arrows, it would be WISE of them to wait until another ranged attack was made (or make one themselves before throwing the loaded card) so that the use of Deflect Arrows is expended for the round.

[UnbindingNote]

Thanks everyone, the main confusion came from Spell Deck's "This uses the Deadly Dealer feat (see below), except the attack is resolved as a ranged touch attack and the card deals no damage of its own." Reason being; the "dart" itself already does not deal damage, it is only providing the ranged touch attack for the 'rider' - it was assumed that it would require Smash from the Air since Deflected rulings call out weapon damage in addition to ridden effects, thereby making the deflect in this instance as vs the spell and not the none damage 'dart'.

So deflecting doesn't require the 'ridden' weapon to deal damage, it just needs the 'ridden' weapon to be a weapon?

Covering my bases, lol

[zza ni]

DeathlessOne wrote:

I'm not going to provide much reasoning for my answer, as it pretty much aligns with zza_ni's post in the rules. I am simply going to state how such a situation would be resolved at my table.

Deflect Arrows can deflect the Cartomancer's attempt to deliver the touch attack through the throwing of the card, without triggering the attached (rider) spell effect. Since the card has the 'returning' feature, the Cartomancer does not expend the spell on a 'miss' and can attempt to deliver the spell with another action on their next turn (as if holding a charge). Knowing that the enemy has Deflect Arrows, it would be WISE of them to wait until another ranged attack was made (or make one themselves before throwing the loaded card) so that the use of Deflect Arrows is expended for the round.

yes i agree.

as the attack is not considered a miss ether so the spell is not lost. it's still on the card. and a magus who touch a weapon that held his charge doesn't discharge it (this faq call out that " the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell")

[DeathlessOne]

UnbindingNote wrote:

So deflecting doesn't require the 'ridden' weapon to deal damage, it just needs the 'ridden' weapon to be a weapon?

Covering my bases, lol

Correct. So long as it is a 'weapon' that is being thrown or ammunition shot at the opponent with Deflect Arrows (and fit the criteria of what that feat can deflect), that opponent pretty much gets to say "LOL, NOPE" to that particular attack, and any rider effects unless there is specific language to overrule that specific scenario. "...you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it..." has no specific language as to HOW you deflect it, merely that you need a hand free to do so.

Deflect Arrows is a great feat. It is not flashy like a lot of the other feats, and has another feat as a requirement that is meh, but it has its uses.

[Diego Rossi]

zza ni wrote:

DeathlessOne wrote:

I'm not going to provide much reasoning for my answer, as it pretty much aligns with zza_ni's post in the rules. I am simply going to state how such a situation would be resolved at my table.

Deflect Arrows can deflect the Cartomancer's attempt to deliver the touch attack through the throwing of the card, without triggering the attached (rider) spell effect. Since the card has the 'returning' feature, the Cartomancer does not expend the spell on a 'miss' and can attempt to deliver the spell with another action on their next turn (as if holding a charge). Knowing that the enemy has Deflect Arrows, it would be WISE of them to wait until another ranged attack was made (or make one themselves before throwing the loaded card) so that the use of Deflect Arrows is expended for the round.

yes i agree.

as the attack is not considered a miss ether so the spell is not lost. it's still on the card. and a magus who touch a weapon that held his charge doesn't discharge it (this faq call out that " the magus touching his held weapon doesn’t count as “touching anything or anyone” when determining if he discharges the spell")

The Cartomancer is a Witch archetype, and that complicates things. If the charge is held by the card, it would discard when it returns and the Witch touches it again.

Then there is the part that says "the attack is resolved as a ranged touch attack". You held the charge with touch attacks, not ranged touch attacks.
The counter-argument is that it replaces the familiar "Deliver Touch Spells" ability, and the familiar can hold the spell if it fails in delivering it.

All things considered, I think I would rule as you two suggest, but every GM should decide at his table, as the rules are unclear.

[DeathlessOne]

Diego Rossi wrote:

All things considered, I think I would rule as you two suggest, but every GM should decide at his table, as the rules are unclear.

Yeah, that is what it comes down to and why I didn't want to bother explaining my reasoning. It is only because of the 'returning' property that I let the charge remain being held, because ammunition or ranged weapons tend to impact the ground (or something else) on a miss and discharge their energies.

[zza ni]

My resoning is a tad bit different.

As Diego said "The attack is resolved as a ranged touch attack".

But a deflected attack is not resolved as a normal attack. While the attack did happen it didn't hit nor missed so rules that talk about what happen when it does do not apply.
A normal ranged touch spell that miss is lost. But here it never missed nor was it a ranged touch spell (its a touch spell that stay charged untill it diacharged one way or the other) so claiming it stay on the card is relevent. As for the cartomancer not being a magus it got an ability that mimic the ranged spellstrike ability of some magus so it's reasnable to rule the same(at list for discharging by touch).
If the card didnt had returniny i would allow it to effect anyine touching it. Exept the witch who could pick it up and use it. If she didnt cast a different spell in the meanwhile which would make it discharge.

Think of what would happen if a familier got deflected. Or imagine a crazy cat lady wizard who a round after holding her cat familiar to charge it, throw it at the target..

[Pizza Lord]

I would have it discharged and lost. A ranged touch spell is not the same as a touch spell. You don't hold the charge on ranged touch spells.

Touch Spells in Combat wrote:

Ranged Touch Spells in Combat: Some spells allow you to make a ranged touch attack as part of the casting of the spell. These attacks are made as part of the spell and do not require a separate action. Ranged touch attacks provoke an attack of opportunity, even if the spell that causes the attacks was cast defensively. Unless otherwise noted, ranged touch attacks cannot be held until a later turn

Using the cartomancer's ability treats it as a ranged touch attack, not a touch attack. Whether the delivering weapon has returning or not on it makes no difference and there is no 'holding a charge' on a ranged touch spell or ranged attack. You charge the card with the spell, presumably by casting as normal (possibly provoking Ao)) and attack with it, which also provokes an AoO for a ranged attack, which a held charge wouldn't do.

The card either hits or not. The spell is used, whether it hits or misses or neither hits or misses and whether it returns and you catch it or it returns and you don't (because you moved) and it ends up on the ground. If you change a touch spell to a ranged touch using the Reach Spell metamagic, you can't hold the charge when you miss the touch attack.

[DeathlessOne]

All good points for UnbindingNote to consider. Despite being aware of how the rules function in each individual situation, I still wouldn't change how I approach this specific scenario. The interaction between Deflect Arrows and delivering a touch spell through this specific means is unique enough to me to be an exception.