So I've been searching for a while and cant find anything that talks about the meeting of an artificers "repeating shot" infusion vs the monks ability "deflect missiles".
The infusion states that "The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target." so does this mean it would vanish as soon as the monk catches the arrow/bolt, or is the monk able to throw the projectile back before it vanishes.
In my head i feel like as soon as the monk has caught the arrow/bolt it would be a miss and therefor it would vanish before being thrown back , but my current DM is putting the arguement forward that the monk would be able to throw it back fast enough before vanishing? But to me this means that the monk would have to
In my head i feel like as soon as the monk has caught the arrow/bolt it would be a miss and therefor it would vanish before being thrown back , but my current DM is putting the arguement forward that the monk would be able to throw it back fast enough before vanishing? But to me this means that the monk would have to
No it absolutely wouldn't be a miss. It has to be a "hit" before the Monk can even try to catch it an any effects that happens on a "hit" is triggered even if the Monk would negate all the damage from it.
That doesn't help much with the question though. I think I would let it all happen as a continuos event and thus allow the Monk to throw it back. It feels right plus there is some support for it from this SAC entry about the Dwarven Thrower (says that a Monk can catch the warhammer and thus negate its returning property). It isn't the exact same thing but it's in the ballpark.
i see what your getting at, but for the monks "deflect missile" ability it has to be caught, therefor has finished its initial flight path towards its initial target? so has therfor hit or missed its target at that point, so would vanish.
In my head i feel like as soon as the monk has caught the arrow/bolt it would be a miss and therefor it would vanish before being thrown back , but my current DM is putting the arguement forward that the monk would be able to throw it back fast enough before vanishing? But to me this means that the monk would have to
No it absolutely wouldn't be a miss. It has to be a "hit" before the Monk can even try to catch it an any effects that happens on a "hit" is triggered even if the Monk would negate all the damage from it.
That doesn't help much with the question though. I think I would let it all happen as a continuos event and thus allow the Monk to throw it back. It feels right plus there is some support for it from this SAC entry about the Dwarven Thrower (says that a Monk can catch the warhammer and thus negate its returning property). It isn't the exact same thing but it's in the ballpark.
ah yes of course, that was just a brain fart from me, as i had just read the deflect missile ability through before posting! But as you say , doesnt change the mechanic anyway as it vanishes on a hit or miss!
with the dwarven thrower, it returns "immediately after the attack" rather than it "vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target" though, so i can see why a monk can catch the hammer, and as it is now held it cant 'return to sender' as it were, whereas with repeating shot, the ammo would just straight up vanish from existance no? I see why thats your comparison though for sure! i just think theres a fair difference between it vanishing and it returning to the thrower.
Yea this will require some DM fiat either way. And I don't think that either answer is wrong really.
Yeah we are currently discussing the mechanics for our campaign wwith regards to this, just ws looking for some outside opinions as well, so thanks for the input!!
The monk has to be hit by the ranged weapon attack in order to use deflect missiles. The monk can then use that ability to reduce the damage taken.
However, repeating shot infusion says that the ammunition vanishes the instant after it hits or misses the target. As a result, there is no ammunition left for the monk to throw back if they reduce the damage to zero. The ammunition hit, the damage was rolled, the monk reduced the damage and the ammunition has disappeared since it disappears instantly after the hit.
RAW seems pretty clear to be honest.
-----------------
Deflect Missiles:
"Starting at 3rd level, you can use your reaction to deflect or catch the missile when you are hit by a ranged weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take from the attack is reduced by 1d10 + your Dexterity modifier + your monk level.
If you reduce the damage to 0, you can catch the missile if it is small enough for you to hold in one hand and you have at least one hand free. If you catch a missile in this way, you can spend 1 ki point to make a ranged attack with the weapon or piece of ammunition you just caught, as part of the same reaction. You make this attack with proficiency, regardless of your weapon proficiencies, and the missile counts as a monk weapon for the attack, which has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."
Repeating Shot Infusion:
"If the weapon lacks ammunition, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when the wielder makes a ranged attack with it. The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target."
The monk has to be hit by the ranged weapon attack in order to use deflect missiles. The monk can then use that ability to reduce the damage taken.
However, repeating shot infusion says that the ammunition vanishes the instant after it hits or misses the target. As a result, there is no ammunition left for the monk to throw back if they reduce the damage to zero. The ammunition hit, the damage was rolled, the monk reduced the damage and the ammunition has disappeared since it disappears instantly after the hit.
RAW seems pretty clear to be honest.
I totally agree with you on that. This is how i'd adjudicate this as well.
However, the monk is not actually hit. Consider the Shield spell. You use it in reaction to being hit, but it changes your AC, including for that attack, meaning it can change a hit to a miss. In the case of Deflect Missiles, on success it is changing a hit into a target redirection. It is no longer a hit or a miss, but a new attack against a different target.
The attack must hit for a monk to use Deflect Missile and never does it change that fact. It never turn it into a miss. It simply let you reduce the damage of that hit. This reaction do interrupt it to affects the damage specifically, not the attack roll result like Shield does.
But how does it reduce the damage? It reduces the damage by deflecting the missile. That is the name of the ability after all. If it reduces the damage to zero, it does not actually hit. Instead it gets caught and can be redirected.
Or are you arguing that it hits, bounces off and then gets caught and tossed?
It reduce the damage of an attack that hit by deflecting the missile after it does and the reaction only impact the damage dealt, not wether it still hit or not. An attack can hit and see it's damage reduced and it's exactly what Deflect Missile does, similar to how the Parry maneuver or the Cutting Word feature does.
The attack must hit for a monk to use Deflect Missile and never does it change that fact. It never turn it into a miss. It simply let you reduce the damage of that hit. This reaction do interrupt it to affects the damage specifically, not the attack roll result like Shield does.
But how does it reduce the damage? It reduces the damage by deflecting the missile. That is the name of the ability after all. If it reduces the damage to zero, it does not actually hit. Instead it gets caught and can be redirected.
Or are you arguing that it hits, bounces off and then gets caught and tossed?
The Shield only causes an attack to miss if it raises the target's AC above the attacker's To Hit roll. Deflect Missiles does not alter the targets AC or the attacker's To Hit roll, nor does it state that a hit is turned into a miss. If Deflect Missiles does not reduce the attack's damage all the way then obviously the attack still hit. What about ranged attacks that have effects other than damage such as from a Drow hand crossbow? Do those still apply even if the damage of the attack is reduced to 0? In my opinion the attack still hit and so all effects of the attack would still apply. This is sensible enough for contact poisons as you had to touch the missile to deflect or catch it. For poisons that need to enter the blood stream then I would describe it as the missile causing a minor scratch as it was deflected or caught.
Also for the record, if you consider a ranged attack that has had its damage reduced to 0 by Deflect Missiles to have missed, then the ammunition still vanishes per the Repeating Shot infusion.
However, the monk is not actually hit. Consider the Shield spell. You use it in reaction to being hit, but it changes your AC, including for that attack, meaning it can change a hit to a miss. In the case of Deflect Missiles, on success it is changing a hit into a target redirection. It is no longer a hit or a miss, but a new attack against a different target.
The attack must hit for a monk to use Deflect Missile and never does it change that fact. It never turn it into a miss. It simply let you reduce the damage of that hit. This reaction do interrupt it to affects the damage specifically, not the attack roll result like Shield does.
But how does it reduce the damage? It reduces the damage by deflecting the missile. That is the name of the ability after all. If it reduces the damage to zero, it does not actually hit. Instead it gets caught and can be redirected.
Or are you arguing that it hits, bounces off and then gets caught and tossed?
Rules wise, the monk can only deflect the missile if the attack hit in the first place. If the attack hit then the repeating shot invocation causes the ammunition to disappear immediately afterwards.
However, I think you seem to be trying to define "hit" to mean something else like the attack does damage - but that isn't how "hit" is defined.
It sounds like you are saying that if the attack does no damage to the monk then it didn't "hit" them. However, if you want to use a different reading like that then consider that as soon as the monk grabs the ammunition - that ammunition has "hit" something. It hit the monk's hand even if it did no damage. As soon as the ammunition hits anything it instantly disappears. So even if the monk manages to grab the ammunition and deflect all the damage - the ammunition still "hits" their hand and instantly disappears.
Either way, I don't think it can really be read that the monk would be able to throw repeating shot ammunition back at the attacker since RAW, an attack roll was made, and whether it hit or missed the ammunition instantly disappears ... or the monk has to touch the ammunition to deflect it, when the monk does that, the ammunition has "hit" something and as a result also instantly disappears.
Reactions Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. The opportunity attack, described later in this section, is the most common type of reaction.
When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.
Order of events: Creature shoots at monk and hits > Monk declares reaction to deflect missile > Attacking creature's turn is on hold until Monk's Deflect Missile reaction is fully resolved to conclusion > Creature's turn resumes and the ammunition disappears
This probably will never occur outside of PvP, but in any case, I have 2 trains of thought that lead to the same conclusion:
Rules as intended (and as fun a little). The Monk feature is intended to be able to redirect projectiles, the artificer feature is intended to not have to reload, not to give niche protections against effects that trigger off being hit by projectiles. It is not fun for the monk to have an intended effect taken away and have an unintended effect giving to the artificer.
How does the logic follow? Basically what GreyDragon said:
Reactions Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. The opportunity attack, described later in this section, is the most common type of reaction.
When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.
Order of events: Creature shoots at monk and hits > Monk declares reaction to deflect missile > Attacking creature's turn is on hold until Monk's Deflect Missile reaction is fully resolved to conclusion > Creature's turn resumes and the ammunition disappears
Deflect missiles occurs after the hit and before/during damage. If the monk can not replace taking damage with making an attack because the arrow no longer exists, then it wouldn't have existed to deal damage in the first place.
This probably will never occur outside of PvP, but in any case, I have 2 trains of thought that lead to the same conclusion:
Rules as intended (and as fun a little). The Monk feature is intended to be able to redirect projectiles, the artificer feature is intended to not have to reload, not to give niche protections against effects that trigger off being hit by projectiles. It is not fun for the monk to have an intended effect taken away and have an unintended effect giving to the artificer.
How does the logic follow? Basically what GreyDragon said:
Reactions Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. The opportunity attack, described later in this section, is the most common type of reaction.
When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.
Order of events: Creature shoots at monk and hits > Monk declares reaction to deflect missile > Attacking creature's turn is on hold until Monk's Deflect Missile reaction is fully resolved to conclusion > Creature's turn resumes and the ammunition disappears
Deflect missiles occurs after the hit and before/during damage. If the monk can not replace taking damage with making an attack because the arrow no longer exists, then it wouldn't have existed to deal damage in the first place.
I understand the point of view and can see it from the narrative perspective of letting the monk use their ability if they wish (it isn't a great use of ki anyway).
However, the artificer ability is pretty clear that the ammo disappears instantly after a hit or miss. In this case, the ammunition hits the monk, the ammunition does its damage, the monk attempts to reduce the damage by deflecting the missile, even if the monk deflects all of the damage, the ammunition has still hit its target and its damage die was rolled - this triggers the ammunition disappearing based on Repeating Shot.
Narratively, the monk manages to deflect a bolt made of magic, which instantly disappears after the hit. The monk throwing the ammunition back requires another hit roll - which could either hit or miss. I see nothing in the rules that would allow the ammunition to continue to exist for two hits or a hit and a miss.
From a RAW point of view:
"Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."
The attack is resolved when the Artificer rolls to hit and then rolls damage for it. The monk can use their reaction to reduce the damage which interrupts the attack resolution. However, as soon as the damage is reduced or eliminated, the artificers attack is complete and the ammunition disappears instantly. It doesn't stick around for a second attack roll by the monk and a second damage roll.
What if the Artificer was an Artificer/Monk who grabs the ammunition and throws it back at the first monk? This gives the Artificer two attacks and damage rolls with the same piece of ammunition that was supposed to disappear after the attack hits or misses - not after three attacks. Narratively it would be hilarious and probably fun :) ... so a DM might allow it on that account but honestly, I really don't think it is RAW.
So I've been searching for a while and cant find anything that talks about the meeting of an artificers "repeating shot" infusion vs the monks ability "deflect missiles".
The infusion states that "The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target." so does this mean it would vanish as soon as the monk catches the arrow/bolt, or is the monk able to throw the projectile back before it vanishes.
In my head i feel like as soon as the monk has caught the arrow/bolt it would be a miss and therefor it would vanish before being thrown back , but my current DM is putting the arguement forward that the monk would be able to throw it back fast enough before vanishing? But to me this means that the monk would have to
Wielder of repeating weapon shoots monk. They have to hit, by definition, for the missile to be deflected, so they hit for our purposes - they do not miss.
Our Monk, as a reaction to being hit, chooses to use Deflect Missiles. Note the timing: damage has not been rolled yet; the Monk has to choose to Deflect before they have any way to know how hard the missile will be to Deflect.
Wielder rolls damage.
Monk reduces damage to 0.
***Finish up all other effects that began during the hit step - we've done damage, but there may be more. For example, if the missile was coated in contact poison that forces the target to make a Con save or be poisoned, do that now, before any possible attack roll is made.***
Monk tries to throw missile and missile tries to vanish at the same time. Per Xanathar's, controlling person decides. This could be any of the following:
Could be the wielder's player, if they're simply attacking on their turn.
Could be any other player or the DM if this attack was made using a Readied action on someone else's turn.
However, we know for certain the Returning Weapon infusion's wording - which is actually less ambiguous for this conversation, because it waits until after the attack, which is radically cleaner wording - was never playtested because of how it punches your DM's attempt at physics square in the gut when you throw a Returning Net, so it's a near-certainty this was never playtested, either. Your general default should be to just obey your DM's fiat ruling in weird situations like this.
Most effects in the game happen in succession, following an order set by the rules or the DM. In rare cases, effects can happen at the same time, especially at the start or end of a creature’s turn. If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen. For example, if two effects occur at the end of a player character’s turn, the player decides which of the two effects happens first.
Note the bit you seem to have missed.
It is the person playing the character using repeating shot who gets to decide the order, not the monk, since it is the repeating shot player's turn not the monks.
Rethinking about it, since the ammunition can't vanish before the attack deal damage and the reaction timing must come before the damage is dealt, which can be thrown back as part of it, it logically occur before it vanish.
Rethinking about it, since the ammunition can't vanish before the attack deal damage and the reaction timing must come before the damage is dealt, which can be thrown back as part of it, it logically occur before it vanish.
Rethinking about it, since the ammunition can't vanish before the attack deal damage and the reaction timing must come before the damage is dealt, which can be thrown back as part of it, it logically occur before it vanish.
However, the attack DID do damage. The attacker rolled the damage die. It did a number of hit points which the monk may or may not reduce to zero. Zero is also a number. After that the ammunition has both hit and rolled for damage even if that damage was zero. A second attack from the monk uses the ammunition to make a second attack roll and roll a second damage die.
The ammunition disappearing, in my opinion, is a case of the specific rule overriding the general rule on reactions. Once the to hit and damage roll have been made by the original piece of ammunition, it disappears instantly.
I also don't really understand the examples below regarding feather fall - it is a completely different situation.
Allowing the specific rule stated for the Repeating Shot ammunition to over ride the timing on reactions, in NO way contradicts the rules that apply generally to reactions.
The wording of feather fall is the following:
"Choose up to five falling creatures within range."
The trigger is falling creatures within range. As soon as there are falling creatures the caster can use feather fall. It takes effect before the creatures hit the ground.
In the monk's case, they take the Deflect Missile reaction to reduce the damage caused by the Repeating Shot ammunition. (The attack has rolled BOTH a to hit roll and a damage roll - the attack with the ammunition is complete). If the monk reduces the damage to zero with their reaction they can grab the ammunition and throw it back. However, the specific rules for the Repeating Shot ammunition state that it disappears instantly after it hits or misses. Since the ammunition had to hit so that the monk could use the reaction ... and the ammunition had to roll damage in order to determine how much the monk must reduce the damage by - the hit resolution is complete as soon as the first part of the monk's reaction is done. At this point the special rules for Repeating Shot ammunition take precedence over the monk's reaction rules causing the ammunition to disappear before it can be thrown back. (Since at this point the ammunition has hit, damage was applied even if it was reduced to zero, and thus it disappears instantly at that point).
That is how I interpret the interaction in terms of specific beating general - I can see other folks ruling differently but I think that ruling is consistent with RAW.
So if you shove someone off a cliff, you get to decide that their feather fall only takes effect after they hit ground, take damage and is thereby irrelevant? You are assuming the effects are, indeed, actually simultaneous, rather than the reaction being an interrupt, setting aside the resolution of the triggering condition until the reaction completes.
Your interpretation makes reactions useless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I've been searching for a while and cant find anything that talks about the meeting of an artificers "repeating shot" infusion vs the monks ability "deflect missiles".
The infusion states that "The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target." so does this mean it would vanish as soon as the monk catches the arrow/bolt, or is the monk able to throw the projectile back before it vanishes.
In my head i feel like as soon as the monk has caught the arrow/bolt it would be a miss and therefor it would vanish before being thrown back , but my current DM is putting the arguement forward that the monk would be able to throw it back fast enough before vanishing? But to me this means that the monk would have to
A. Catch and HOLD a magical piece of ammo
B. Throw it back before it vanishes "Instantly".
whats peoples thoughts?
No it absolutely wouldn't be a miss. It has to be a "hit" before the Monk can even try to catch it an any effects that happens on a "hit" is triggered even if the Monk would negate all the damage from it.
That doesn't help much with the question though. I think I would let it all happen as a continuos event and thus allow the Monk to throw it back. It feels right plus there is some support for it from this SAC entry about the Dwarven Thrower (says that a Monk can catch the warhammer and thus negate its returning property). It isn't the exact same thing but it's in the ballpark.
i see what your getting at, but for the monks "deflect missile" ability it has to be caught, therefor has finished its initial flight path towards its initial target? so has therfor hit or missed its target at that point, so would vanish.
Yea this will require some DM fiat either way. And I don't think that either answer is wrong really.
ah yes of course, that was just a brain fart from me, as i had just read the deflect missile ability through before posting! But as you say , doesnt change the mechanic anyway as it vanishes on a hit or miss!
with the dwarven thrower, it returns "immediately after the attack" rather than it "vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target" though, so i can see why a monk can catch the hammer, and as it is now held it cant 'return to sender' as it were, whereas with repeating shot, the ammo would just straight up vanish from existance no? I see why thats your comparison though for sure! i just think theres a fair difference between it vanishing and it returning to the thrower.
Yeah we are currently discussing the mechanics for our campaign wwith regards to this, just ws looking for some outside opinions as well, so thanks for the input!!
The monk has to be hit by the ranged weapon attack in order to use deflect missiles. The monk can then use that ability to reduce the damage taken.
However, repeating shot infusion says that the ammunition vanishes the instant after it hits or misses the target. As a result, there is no ammunition left for the monk to throw back if they reduce the damage to zero. The ammunition hit, the damage was rolled, the monk reduced the damage and the ammunition has disappeared since it disappears instantly after the hit.
RAW seems pretty clear to be honest.
-----------------
Deflect Missiles:
"Starting at 3rd level, you can use your reaction to deflect or catch the missile when you are hit by a ranged weapon attack. When you do so, the damage you take from the attack is reduced by 1d10 + your Dexterity modifier + your monk level.
If you reduce the damage to 0, you can catch the missile if it is small enough for you to hold in one hand and you have at least one hand free. If you catch a missile in this way, you can spend 1 ki point to make a ranged attack with the weapon or piece of ammunition you just caught, as part of the same reaction. You make this attack with proficiency, regardless of your weapon proficiencies, and the missile counts as a monk weapon for the attack, which has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."
Repeating Shot Infusion:
"If the weapon lacks ammunition, it produces its own, automatically creating one piece of magic ammunition when the wielder makes a ranged attack with it. The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes the instant after it hits or misses a target."
I totally agree with you on that. This is how i'd adjudicate this as well.
The attack must hit for a monk to use Deflect Missile and never does it change that fact. It never turn it into a miss. It simply let you reduce the damage of that hit. This reaction do interrupt it to affects the damage specifically, not the attack roll result like Shield does.
It reduce the damage of an attack that hit by deflecting the missile after it does and the reaction only impact the damage dealt, not wether it still hit or not. An attack can hit and see it's damage reduced and it's exactly what Deflect Missile does, similar to how the Parry maneuver or the Cutting Word feature does.
The Shield only causes an attack to miss if it raises the target's AC above the attacker's To Hit roll. Deflect Missiles does not alter the targets AC or the attacker's To Hit roll, nor does it state that a hit is turned into a miss. If Deflect Missiles does not reduce the attack's damage all the way then obviously the attack still hit. What about ranged attacks that have effects other than damage such as from a Drow hand crossbow? Do those still apply even if the damage of the attack is reduced to 0? In my opinion the attack still hit and so all effects of the attack would still apply. This is sensible enough for contact poisons as you had to touch the missile to deflect or catch it. For poisons that need to enter the blood stream then I would describe it as the missile causing a minor scratch as it was deflected or caught.
Also for the record, if you consider a ranged attack that has had its damage reduced to 0 by Deflect Missiles to have missed, then the ammunition still vanishes per the Repeating Shot infusion.
Rules wise, the monk can only deflect the missile if the attack hit in the first place. If the attack hit then the repeating shot invocation causes the ammunition to disappear immediately afterwards.
However, I think you seem to be trying to define "hit" to mean something else like the attack does damage - but that isn't how "hit" is defined.
It sounds like you are saying that if the attack does no damage to the monk then it didn't "hit" them. However, if you want to use a different reading like that then consider that as soon as the monk grabs the ammunition - that ammunition has "hit" something. It hit the monk's hand even if it did no damage. As soon as the ammunition hits anything it instantly disappears. So even if the monk manages to grab the ammunition and deflect all the damage - the ammunition still "hits" their hand and instantly disappears.
Either way, I don't think it can really be read that the monk would be able to throw repeating shot ammunition back at the attacker since RAW, an attack roll was made, and whether it hit or missed the ammunition instantly disappears ... or the monk has to touch the ammunition to deflect it, when the monk does that, the ammunition has "hit" something and as a result also instantly disappears.
Reactions
Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. The opportunity attack, described later in this section, is the most common type of reaction.
When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction.
Order of events: Creature shoots at monk and hits > Monk declares reaction to deflect missile > Attacking creature's turn is on hold until Monk's Deflect Missile reaction is fully resolved to conclusion > Creature's turn resumes and the ammunition disappears
This probably will never occur outside of PvP, but in any case, I have 2 trains of thought that lead to the same conclusion:
Deflect missiles occurs after the hit and before/during damage. If the monk can not replace taking damage with making an attack because the arrow no longer exists, then it wouldn't have existed to deal damage in the first place.
I understand the point of view and can see it from the narrative perspective of letting the monk use their ability if they wish (it isn't a great use of ki anyway).
However, the artificer ability is pretty clear that the ammo disappears instantly after a hit or miss. In this case, the ammunition hits the monk, the ammunition does its damage, the monk attempts to reduce the damage by deflecting the missile, even if the monk deflects all of the damage, the ammunition has still hit its target and its damage die was rolled - this triggers the ammunition disappearing based on Repeating Shot.
Narratively, the monk manages to deflect a bolt made of magic, which instantly disappears after the hit. The monk throwing the ammunition back requires another hit roll - which could either hit or miss. I see nothing in the rules that would allow the ammunition to continue to exist for two hits or a hit and a miss.
From a RAW point of view:
"Whether you’re striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack’s range: a creature, an object, or a location.
Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack."
The attack is resolved when the Artificer rolls to hit and then rolls damage for it. The monk can use their reaction to reduce the damage which interrupts the attack resolution. However, as soon as the damage is reduced or eliminated, the artificers attack is complete and the ammunition disappears instantly. It doesn't stick around for a second attack roll by the monk and a second damage roll.
What if the Artificer was an Artificer/Monk who grabs the ammunition and throws it back at the first monk? This gives the Artificer two attacks and damage rolls with the same piece of ammunition that was supposed to disappear after the attack hits or misses - not after three attacks. Narratively it would be hilarious and probably fun :) ... so a DM might allow it on that account but honestly, I really don't think it is RAW.
If two or more things happen at the same time on a character or monster’s turn, the person at the game table — whether player or DM — who controls that creature decides the order in which those things happen.
Deflect Missiles does not cause a miss. It causes a hit to deal less damage, and if the damage is reduced to 0, it causes an effect immediately after the hit resolves.
Hitting and damaging are part of the same step in attack resolution, although you necessarily must roll damage after rolling to hit. Presumably (we don't have very hard RAW on this) vanishing after the hit really means vanishing after the damage, because they are the same step and the alternative is having Repeating Shot cut all damage to 0 because the missile vanishes before it can damage anything, which is inane.
Correct order should therefore be:
However, we know for certain the Returning Weapon infusion's wording - which is actually less ambiguous for this conversation, because it waits until after the attack, which is radically cleaner wording - was never playtested because of how it punches your DM's attempt at physics square in the gut when you throw a Returning Net, so it's a near-certainty this was never playtested, either. Your general default should be to just obey your DM's fiat ruling in weird situations like this.
Note the bit you seem to have missed.
It is the person playing the character using repeating shot who gets to decide the order, not the monk, since it is the repeating shot player's turn not the monks.
Rethinking about it, since the ammunition can't vanish before the attack deal damage and the reaction timing must come before the damage is dealt, which can be thrown back as part of it, it logically occur before it vanish.
That's what I said.
However, the attack DID do damage. The attacker rolled the damage die. It did a number of hit points which the monk may or may not reduce to zero. Zero is also a number. After that the ammunition has both hit and rolled for damage even if that damage was zero. A second attack from the monk uses the ammunition to make a second attack roll and roll a second damage die.
The ammunition disappearing, in my opinion, is a case of the specific rule overriding the general rule on reactions. Once the to hit and damage roll have been made by the original piece of ammunition, it disappears instantly.
I also don't really understand the examples below regarding feather fall - it is a completely different situation.
Allowing the specific rule stated for the Repeating Shot ammunition to over ride the timing on reactions, in NO way contradicts the rules that apply generally to reactions.
The wording of feather fall is the following:
"Choose up to five falling creatures within range."
The trigger is falling creatures within range. As soon as there are falling creatures the caster can use feather fall. It takes effect before the creatures hit the ground.
In the monk's case, they take the Deflect Missile reaction to reduce the damage caused by the Repeating Shot ammunition. (The attack has rolled BOTH a to hit roll and a damage roll - the attack with the ammunition is complete). If the monk reduces the damage to zero with their reaction they can grab the ammunition and throw it back. However, the specific rules for the Repeating Shot ammunition state that it disappears instantly after it hits or misses. Since the ammunition had to hit so that the monk could use the reaction ... and the ammunition had to roll damage in order to determine how much the monk must reduce the damage by - the hit resolution is complete as soon as the first part of the monk's reaction is done. At this point the special rules for Repeating Shot ammunition take precedence over the monk's reaction rules causing the ammunition to disappear before it can be thrown back. (Since at this point the ammunition has hit, damage was applied even if it was reduced to zero, and thus it disappears instantly at that point).
That is how I interpret the interaction in terms of specific beating general - I can see other folks ruling differently but I think that ruling is consistent with RAW.