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.
It is a weird case though, because in effect what Deflect Missiles does is prevent an attack from hitting, after it hits and rolls damage, so there's some ambiguity here, like when an attack is re-rolled; Deflect Missiles just happens to occur at a later stage.
The strictest of RAW readings is that it hit, therefore it's gone, and that this actually happens before the damage is rolled (as nothing in the rules says the ammunition can't cease to exist before you roll damage, all the rules care about is that the hit occurred) though I doubt that that's intended.
On the other hand, the purpose of Deflect Missiles is to essentially place an attack into a state of limbo, where you've hit and must roll the damage, so you can determine whether the attack is in fact not hit at all. This tenuously works because even when you're rolling the damage the shot hasn't actually hit yet, it's only hit for the purposes of triggering Deflect Missiles, but when Deflect Missiles succeeds the shot has neither hit or missed, it's been caught (a third option not accounted for in "the instant after it hits or misses a target"), and we can get away with it persisting a little longer because Repeating Shot doesn't say it has to hit or miss the target you chose (or do so as part of the same attack).
Honestly I'm not happy with either reading, but I do think that rules as intended repeating shot isn't meant to invalidate Deflect Missiles, as that's giving it a capability I do not believe it was designed to have; the purpose of Repeating Shot is to eliminate the need for ammunition and reloading, but without letting you spawn an infinite pile of ammunition. IMO it should be changed to say "The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes at the end of the turn".
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.
It is a weird case though, because in effect what Deflect Missiles does is prevent an attack from hitting, after it hits and rolls damage, so there's some ambiguity here, like when an attack is re-rolled; Deflect Missiles just happens to occur at a later stage.
"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."
I agree it is a weird case. However, deflect missiles is triggered AFTER the projectile has hit and the reduction is rolled AFTER the damage of the attack has been rolled. Deflect missiles does not prevent the attack from "hitting" in the rules context since if it didn't hit then the monk could not use Deflect Missiles.
Just because the deflect missiles ability is able to reduce the damage to zero doesn't mean that the attack didn't hit and do damage. It hit for zero damage.
Consider a creature that is immune to magical piercing damage. Every shot from the Repeating Shot infusion that hits the target has the damage reduced to zero. If I interpret every roll that hits where the damage is reduced to zero as something that does not hit then I would get a pile of Repeating Shot ammunition accumulating around this creature that is immune to magical piercing damage.
The difference in interpretation is coming back to what "hit" means in the context of the rules. In natural language, if you throw a weapon at someone trying to damage them and they manage to catch it instead, then because it didn't do damage, some folks will say it didn't "hit". On the other hand, others will say that the dagger did "hit" the hand of the person catching it, they just weren't hurt by it. Does a "hit" in the context of D&D need to do damage in order to be considered a "hit"? In my opinion, no but others might have a different opinion.
The strictest of RAW readings is that it hit, therefore it's gone, and that this actually happens before the damage is rolled (as nothing in the rules says the ammunition can't cease to exist before you roll damage, all the rules care about is that the hit occurred) though I doubt that that's intended.
Yep. Probably a poor choice of words. However, it is obvious that what is meant by "hit or miss" is at least the "resolve the attack" step of the Making an attack procedure. On a hit, you roll damage. After that the attack is done.
"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."
On the other hand, the purpose of Deflect Missiles is to essentially place an attack into a state of limbo, where you've hit and must roll the damage, so you can determine whether the attack is in fact not hit at all.
The definition of "hit" is really the question and whether if reducing the damage to zero actually results in a "hit" not occurring. However, if the ammunition doesn't hit ... does it miss? It didn't hit its intended target - it might be considered to have missed the intended target at this point, in which case the ammunition also vanishes.
This tenuously works because even when you're rolling the damage the shot hasn't actually hit yet, it's only hit for the purposes of triggering Deflect Missiles, but when Deflect Missiles succeeds the shot has neither hit or missed, it's been caught (a third option not accounted for in "the instant after it hits or misses a target"), and we can get away with it persisting a little longer because Repeating Shot doesn't say it has to hit or miss the target you chose (or do so as part of the same attack).
Well no. If the ammunition has been caught, then it has missed its target. Or it can be considered to have hit the target but done no damage. Hit and miss is a binary system.
The target of the ammunition was decided by the original shot - the attack either hits or misses its original target. If the monk catches the ammunition then it can either be considered that it hit the monk and did no damage after the missile was deflected (since the monk is holding the ammunition it is pretty clear it hit something since if it didn't hit anything it would have continued flying through the air), or the ammunition could be considered to have missed its intended target when the monk caught it. Either way the ammunition disappears before the monk can throw it back.
Honestly I'm not happy with either reading, but I do think that rules as intended repeating shot isn't meant to invalidate Deflect Missiles, as that's giving it a capability I do not believe it was designed to have; the purpose of Repeating Shot is to eliminate the need for ammunition and reloading, but without letting you spawn an infinite pile of ammunition. IMO it should be changed to say "The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes at the end of the turn".
Honestly, :) ... the likelihood of this situation every coming up in a game is so small (it pretty much requires a PVP situation between an artificer and a monk) ... that we have already spent too long talking about it :). If a DM ever runs into it they will rule on the fly and keep going.
It is also such a small effect that I don't see it as a big deal if the ammunition disappears before the monk can throw it back. In play, I have only ever seen a monk use this ability once and that was mostly just for fun to see what is was like - most monks I have met conserve ki for stuns because that effect is so effective and so few creatures are immune to it.
I think the monk is hit by the initial attack, resolves their reaction of deflection once damage is reduced to 0, and then the simultaneous effect of the throw back and disappearance of the ammunition occur in the order of whoever's turn it is (did the monk trigger a readied action?)
A useful analogy to the Repeating Shot and Deflect Missiles interaction is what happens when a Drow hits a Werewolf with their Hand Crossbow attack?
In both the attack roll hits, the damage is reduced to 0, and we need to determine if non-damage effects of the hit still apply or not.
I find this an interesting analogy because they are mechanically identical but I am not sure I would play them the same. Personally I feel it is pretty clear that the Werewolf would still need to save against the poison. However, whether the Monk still gets to throw the ammunition of a Repeating Shot weapon I feel is more of a toss up.
I find this an interesting analogy because they are mechanically identical but I am not sure I would play them the same. Personally I feel it is pretty clear that the Werewolf would still need to save against the poison. However, whether the Monk still gets to throw the ammunition of a Repeating Shot weapon I feel is more of a toss up.
Nope, because it is injury vector - but you are explicitly right for poisons we know are contact vector (Carrion Crawler Mucus and Oil of Taggit). For the vast majority of poisons we don't have information from the DMG table I linked, so we have little choice but to trust the statblock of the NPC with the poison, and as you noticed, NPCs carrying drow poison list it as contact like every other NPC does (the poison says it happens on hit, not on damage). I say little because your DM could attempt to guess the vector based on the damage type of the attack delivering the poison, as injury vector poisons require piercing or slashing, so they could assume all poisons on P/S attacks are injury and everything else is contact.
I know, but the sequencing of simultaneous actions I reference would be dependent on whose turn the initial repeating shot attack occured. If it was the crossbow wielder's turn is different than if the monk say, walked around a corner triggering a readied action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It is a weird case though, because in effect what Deflect Missiles does is prevent an attack from hitting, after it hits and rolls damage, so there's some ambiguity here, like when an attack is re-rolled; Deflect Missiles just happens to occur at a later stage.
The strictest of RAW readings is that it hit, therefore it's gone, and that this actually happens before the damage is rolled (as nothing in the rules says the ammunition can't cease to exist before you roll damage, all the rules care about is that the hit occurred) though I doubt that that's intended.
On the other hand, the purpose of Deflect Missiles is to essentially place an attack into a state of limbo, where you've hit and must roll the damage, so you can determine whether the attack is in fact not hit at all. This tenuously works because even when you're rolling the damage the shot hasn't actually hit yet, it's only hit for the purposes of triggering Deflect Missiles, but when Deflect Missiles succeeds the shot has neither hit or missed, it's been caught (a third option not accounted for in "the instant after it hits or misses a target"), and we can get away with it persisting a little longer because Repeating Shot doesn't say it has to hit or miss the target you chose (or do so as part of the same attack).
Honestly I'm not happy with either reading, but I do think that rules as intended repeating shot isn't meant to invalidate Deflect Missiles, as that's giving it a capability I do not believe it was designed to have; the purpose of Repeating Shot is to eliminate the need for ammunition and reloading, but without letting you spawn an infinite pile of ammunition. IMO it should be changed to say "The ammunition created by the weapon vanishes at the end of the turn".
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
"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."
I agree it is a weird case. However, deflect missiles is triggered AFTER the projectile has hit and the reduction is rolled AFTER the damage of the attack has been rolled. Deflect missiles does not prevent the attack from "hitting" in the rules context since if it didn't hit then the monk could not use Deflect Missiles.
Just because the deflect missiles ability is able to reduce the damage to zero doesn't mean that the attack didn't hit and do damage. It hit for zero damage.
Consider a creature that is immune to magical piercing damage. Every shot from the Repeating Shot infusion that hits the target has the damage reduced to zero. If I interpret every roll that hits where the damage is reduced to zero as something that does not hit then I would get a pile of Repeating Shot ammunition accumulating around this creature that is immune to magical piercing damage.
The difference in interpretation is coming back to what "hit" means in the context of the rules. In natural language, if you throw a weapon at someone trying to damage them and they manage to catch it instead, then because it didn't do damage, some folks will say it didn't "hit". On the other hand, others will say that the dagger did "hit" the hand of the person catching it, they just weren't hurt by it. Does a "hit" in the context of D&D need to do damage in order to be considered a "hit"? In my opinion, no but others might have a different opinion.
Yep. Probably a poor choice of words. However, it is obvious that what is meant by "hit or miss" is at least the "resolve the attack" step of the Making an attack procedure. On a hit, you roll damage. After that the attack is done.
"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."
The definition of "hit" is really the question and whether if reducing the damage to zero actually results in a "hit" not occurring. However, if the ammunition doesn't hit ... does it miss? It didn't hit its intended target - it might be considered to have missed the intended target at this point, in which case the ammunition also vanishes.
Well no. If the ammunition has been caught, then it has missed its target. Or it can be considered to have hit the target but done no damage. Hit and miss is a binary system.
The target of the ammunition was decided by the original shot - the attack either hits or misses its original target. If the monk catches the ammunition then it can either be considered that it hit the monk and did no damage after the missile was deflected (since the monk is holding the ammunition it is pretty clear it hit something since if it didn't hit anything it would have continued flying through the air), or the ammunition could be considered to have missed its intended target when the monk caught it. Either way the ammunition disappears before the monk can throw it back.
Honestly, :) ... the likelihood of this situation every coming up in a game is so small (it pretty much requires a PVP situation between an artificer and a monk) ... that we have already spent too long talking about it :). If a DM ever runs into it they will rule on the fly and keep going.
It is also such a small effect that I don't see it as a big deal if the ammunition disappears before the monk can throw it back. In play, I have only ever seen a monk use this ability once and that was mostly just for fun to see what is was like - most monks I have met conserve ki for stuns because that effect is so effective and so few creatures are immune to it.
I think the monk is hit by the initial attack, resolves their reaction of deflection once damage is reduced to 0, and then the simultaneous effect of the throw back and disappearance of the ammunition occur in the order of whoever's turn it is (did the monk trigger a readied action?)
A useful analogy to the Repeating Shot and Deflect Missiles interaction is what happens when a Drow hits a Werewolf with their Hand Crossbow attack?
In both the attack roll hits, the damage is reduced to 0, and we need to determine if non-damage effects of the hit still apply or not.
I find this an interesting analogy because they are mechanically identical but I am not sure I would play them the same. Personally I feel it is pretty clear that the Werewolf would still need to save against the poison. However, whether the Monk still gets to throw the ammunition of a Repeating Shot weapon I feel is more of a toss up.
We have absolutely crystal-clear RAW on this, which is rare for a poison - almost no poisons clarify whether they're injury or contact. Drow poison is injury vector, which means a creature that takes piercing or slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects. We have no need whatsoever to speculate.
Nope, because it is injury vector - but you are explicitly right for poisons we know are contact vector (Carrion Crawler Mucus and Oil of Taggit). For the vast majority of poisons we don't have information from the DMG table I linked, so we have little choice but to trust the statblock of the NPC with the poison, and as you noticed, NPCs carrying drow poison list it as contact like every other NPC does (the poison says it happens on hit, not on damage). I say little because your DM could attempt to guess the vector based on the damage type of the attack delivering the poison, as injury vector poisons require piercing or slashing, so they could assume all poisons on P/S attacks are injury and everything else is contact.
Thanks for pointing this out, indeed I had just looked at the Monster stat block overlooked this more detailed description of the poison.
A better example would have then been does a Werewolf bitten by a Crocodile still need to save against being grappled?
I know, but the sequencing of simultaneous actions I reference would be dependent on whose turn the initial repeating shot attack occured. If it was the crossbow wielder's turn is different than if the monk say, walked around a corner triggering a readied action.