Okay, so I need help with some mechanics. The Monk in 2024 now has Deflect Attack which works on Melee and Ranged attacks. I was recently in a game where a Monk was attacked by a Death Dog and used their Deflect Attack to reduce the damage to 0 and spent a Focus Point to redirect the attack. Now, logic would dictate that as the damage was reduced to 0 and was redirected,that the disease/poison effect would be negated(the attack is now a Miss) and the Monk wouldn't have to make a Con save. There was an argument where it was stated that the attack still hit, but the Damage Reduction functions like a Barbarians whilst in rage.
As both features are written, the DM is right. Deflect Attack doesn't eliminate other side effects of getting hit, and the Death Dog's bite doesn't have an exception for when damage is reduced to 0. The monster's description states that its saliva is harmful, so that could be intentional.
Personally, I don't like when a technicality in the rules ruins a player's good time, especially when it's something that's not immediately obvious at first glance. The fun of Deflect Attacks comes from turning the tables on an enemy, and it's not guaranteed to succeed. I would've let the player get away with it and say they completely avoided the bite.
Thank you for the clarification. While I agree with you that the Damage Reduction should have negated everything, the whole situation turned into an argument and the game was derailed.
My group has this same problem: Should the monk get grappled by the Kraken if he can reduce the damage to zero? Should he suffer the effects of a vampire bite necrotic drain if he can reduce the piercing damage to zero? The extra effects are known as 'riders', and as written, these riders go into effect on a hit, not on damage dealt. The monk becomes too powerful otherwise, able to totally nullify a monster attack. And at the same time, if a vampire's teeth don't puncture the skin, i.g. do damage, then how does the necrotic damage and vampire healing take effect???
As the DM of my group, I propose a middle ground: why not let the monk expend a ki point to avoid the rider? Most of the time I expect that they will do this, and that's fine because they are expending an already heavily relied upon resource. Avoid one effect now, but you'll have one less use of the flurry of blows later. They can already expend a ki point to redirect an attack. This feels more balanced in game mechanics and lets them feel powerful.
My group has this same problem: Should the monk get grappled by the Kraken if he can reduce the damage to zero? Should he suffer the effects of a vampire bite necrotic drain if he can reduce the piercing damage to zero? The extra effects are known as 'riders', and as written, these riders go into effect on a hit, not on damage dealt. The monk becomes too powerful otherwise, able to totally nullify a monster attack. And at the same time, if a vampire's teeth don't puncture the skin, i.g. do damage, then how does the necrotic damage and vampire healing take effect???
As the DM of my group, I propose a middle ground: why not let the monk expend a ki point to avoid the rider? Most of the time I expect that they will do this, and that's fine because they are expending an already heavily relied upon resource. Avoid one effect now, but you'll have one less use of the flurry of blows later. They can already expend a ki point to redirect an attack. This feels more balanced in game mechanics and lets them feel powerful.
Well, each case should be handled separately. As far as reasoning goes, I'd say that in the case of the kraken, they were able to redirect enough force to avoid harm but weren't able to dodge the attack altogether (which is what AC represents, both armor and dodge ability). In the case of the vampire, the damage dealt isn't the thing everything else uses, the damage taken is. If they don't take damage, the HP Max reduction and healing already don't apply.
The names of the abilities are a bit misleading. When you deflect the attack, you reduce the damage but never cause it to miss. All effects under Hit (any rules that follow the damage that is not prefixed by Miss or Hit or Miss) and Hit or Miss still apply in full. When you "redirect the attack", the attack again has still hit you, but you get the option to deal damage against a target for a focus point. If anything, it's following through with the momentum of the attack to hit a creature (which could be the original attacker).
If you consider it as carrying the momentum of the attack that hit you into another target, the mechanics may sit better with the monk's player.
My group has this same problem: Should the monk get grappled by the Kraken if he can reduce the damage to zero? Should he suffer the effects of a vampire bite necrotic drain if he can reduce the piercing damage to zero? The extra effects are known as 'riders', and as written, these riders go into effect on a hit, not on damage dealt. The monk becomes too powerful otherwise, able to totally nullify a monster attack. And at the same time, if a vampire's teeth don't puncture the skin, i.g. do damage, then how does the necrotic damage and vampire healing take effect??? [...]
I agree that the interaction does not always make sense from a narrative point of view, but I agree with what InquisitiveCoder said in #2.
Just considering the PHB, there are many "on a hit", "when you hit", or similar wordings for game features (for example, Battle Maneuvers, Weapon Masteries...) that, if their effects were totally nullified, would give Monks a very strong advantage.
Okay, so I need help with some mechanics. The Monk in 2024 now has Deflect Attack which works on Melee and Ranged attacks. I was recently in a game where a Monk was attacked by a Death Dog and used their Deflect Attack to reduce the damage to 0 and spent a Focus Point to redirect the attack. Now, logic would dictate that as the damage was reduced to 0 and was redirected,that the disease/poison effect would be negated(the attack is now a Miss) and the Monk wouldn't have to make a Con save. There was an argument where it was stated that the attack still hit, but the Damage Reduction functions like a Barbarians whilst in rage.
Now, how should this have all been ruled?
As both features are written, the DM is right. Deflect Attack doesn't eliminate other side effects of getting hit, and the Death Dog's bite doesn't have an exception for when damage is reduced to 0. The monster's description states that its saliva is harmful, so that could be intentional.
Personally, I don't like when a technicality in the rules ruins a player's good time, especially when it's something that's not immediately obvious at first glance. The fun of Deflect Attacks comes from turning the tables on an enemy, and it's not guaranteed to succeed. I would've let the player get away with it and say they completely avoided the bite.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Thank you for the clarification. While I agree with you that the Damage Reduction should have negated everything, the whole situation turned into an argument and the game was derailed.
My group has this same problem: Should the monk get grappled by the Kraken if he can reduce the damage to zero? Should he suffer the effects of a vampire bite necrotic drain if he can reduce the piercing damage to zero? The extra effects are known as 'riders', and as written, these riders go into effect on a hit, not on damage dealt. The monk becomes too powerful otherwise, able to totally nullify a monster attack. And at the same time, if a vampire's teeth don't puncture the skin, i.g. do damage, then how does the necrotic damage and vampire healing take effect???
As the DM of my group, I propose a middle ground: why not let the monk expend a ki point to avoid the rider? Most of the time I expect that they will do this, and that's fine because they are expending an already heavily relied upon resource. Avoid one effect now, but you'll have one less use of the flurry of blows later. They can already expend a ki point to redirect an attack. This feels more balanced in game mechanics and lets them feel powerful.
Well, each case should be handled separately. As far as reasoning goes, I'd say that in the case of the kraken, they were able to redirect enough force to avoid harm but weren't able to dodge the attack altogether (which is what AC represents, both armor and dodge ability). In the case of the vampire, the damage dealt isn't the thing everything else uses, the damage taken is. If they don't take damage, the HP Max reduction and healing already don't apply.
The names of the abilities are a bit misleading. When you deflect the attack, you reduce the damage but never cause it to miss. All effects under Hit (any rules that follow the damage that is not prefixed by Miss or Hit or Miss) and Hit or Miss still apply in full. When you "redirect the attack", the attack again has still hit you, but you get the option to deal damage against a target for a focus point. If anything, it's following through with the momentum of the attack to hit a creature (which could be the original attacker).
If you consider it as carrying the momentum of the attack that hit you into another target, the mechanics may sit better with the monk's player.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I agree that the interaction does not always make sense from a narrative point of view, but I agree with what InquisitiveCoder said in #2.
Just considering the PHB, there are many "on a hit", "when you hit", or similar wordings for game features (for example, Battle Maneuvers, Weapon Masteries...) that, if their effects were totally nullified, would give Monks a very strong advantage.
To keep it simple, Deflect Attacks simply makes the bite not hurt as much. If it makes the bite not hurt at all, great! You were still bitten though.