Normally, it would be, but Deflect Attacks reduces the total damage. How do you know the total damage before applying vulnerability?
You sum up all the attack components. Reducing total damage is just specifying that for an attack that does more than one type of damage, it's applied only once but can reduce all types of damage as long as you have enough points of reduction.
Normally, it would be, but Deflect Attacks reduces the total damage. How do you know the total damage before applying vulnerability?
You sum up all the attack components. Reducing total damage is just specifying that for an attack that does more than one type of damage, it's applied only once but can reduce all types of damage as long as you have enough points of reduction.
Yes, you sum up the components.
Normally, for each damage type you would:
start with the base damage (usually rolled)
add or subtract modifiers to the damage
halve the result if resistant and round down
double the result if vulnerable
Finally, you would add all the results for each damage type. Then we know the total damage. Since we need to know the total before reducing the damage with Deflect Attacks, it's a specific rule that overrides the general order of operations. It has to be applied after normal reductions and additions, after resistance, after vulnerability. Then, as long as one of the damage types is bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, you can use Deflect Attacks to reduce the total damage.
It is going to pretty rare that the order matters, but it may come up.
At that point, there's actually three takes, in my opinion:
The attacker decides what damage is reduced first
The defender decides what damage is reduced first
The total hit point damage is reduced, but even if the total is reduced to 0, each damage type is considered to have dealt damage (this may matter for injury poisons, for example).
I can't really see anyone taking the third option but there is a degree of technical logic there. I think personally, I would rule the second option. Combined with the exception to order of operations, this is a really advantageous take, but I don't think the difference will be that significant.
Finally, you would add all the results for each damage type. Then we know the total damage. Since we need to know the total before reducing the damage with Deflect Attacks, it's a specific rule that overrides the general order of operations.
Incorrect. The order is:
Roll all damage.
If any of the damage is of an eligible type, you may subtract your deflect attacks roll from damage done. For mixed damage types, you must split the subtraction between the various types; the rules do not specify which you reduce first.
Apply resistance or vulnerability to remaining damage.
Thus, if you had a skeleton (vulnerable to bludgeoning) monk hit by a mace of disruption (+2d6 radiant vs undead) for 10 points of bludgeoning and 7 points of radiant, and it uses deflect attacks and rolls a total of 15, you subtract a total of 15 points from that 17, which thus leaves 2 points, which might be all bludgeoning, all radiant, or half and half -- rules don't specify. Then you apply vulnerability, so depending on which damage type was reduced, the final result is 2, 3, or 4.
Finally, you would add all the results for each damage type. Then we know the total damage. Since we need to know the total before reducing the damage with Deflect Attacks, it's a specific rule that overrides the general order of operations.
Incorrect. The order is:
Roll all damage.
If any of the damage is of an eligible type, you may subtract your deflect attacks roll from damage done. For mixed damage types, you must split the subtraction between the various types; the rules do not specify which you reduce first.
Apply resistance or vulnerability to remaining damage.
Incorrect in this case alone (to my knowledge). Since the ability reduces the total damage, you must apply resistance and vulnerabilities first. You don't know the total before then.
You gave the general rule. Deflect Attacks is a specific rule with odd wording that forces the order to be changed for this one ability. It may or may not be RAI.
Let's say you are a level 18 Monk with Superior Defense active and are taking 20 points of Bludgeoning Damage, 20 points of Fire Damage, and 20 points of Force Damage. You have an effect that you reduce damage from a source by 5 without using your reaction due to a doohickey of protection. That's not 60 total damage or 55 total damage.
You start with 20 Bludgeoning, 20 Fire, and 20 Force damage
Your doohickey of protection reduces damage by 5 first. Let's go with the approach that the defender decides how to reduce the damage and chooses to reduce the force by 5. You now have 20 Bludgeoning, 20 Fire, and 15 Force damage.
Superior Defense applies resistance to the Bludgeoning and Fire damage. You now have 10 Bludgeoning, 10 Fire, and 15 Force damage.
You don't have any Vulnerabilities so the end result is you now have 10 Bludgeoning, 10 Fire, and 15 Force damage for 35 total damage.
From your reaction, you roll d20 + 18 +5 for your Deflect Attacks reduction and get a 10 for 33 damage reduction.
Again, taking the approach that the defender chooses what mixed damage it applies to, 2 points of Force damage gets through.
Maybe it is a bad choice of words. Maybe it's a deliberate choice. Either way, it's a choice of words that interacts with the Specific beats General rule to create a RAW exception to the order of operations. I am not mixing up the order of operations. I am saying Deflect Attacks is an exception because you don't know the total damage until after Vulnerability is applied. If there are still modifiers to be applied to the damage, that's a subtotal.
It's hard for me to see this as an example of Exceptions Supersede General Rules. I think that "total" is there just because damage can include different things: at least Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing, and potentially other types too.
It's hard for me to see this as an example of Exceptions Supersede General Rules. I think that "total" is there just because damage can include different things: at least Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing, and potentially other types too.
EDIT: for clarity.
If that's the case, do you feel that it's necessary?
If they wanted you to reduce only the Bludgeoning, Slashing, and Piercing damage, they could just say "When an attack roll hits you, you can take a Reaction to reduce the attack's Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage against you."
By not specifying the damage reduced, we already apply the damage to all damage types. They could have said: "When an attack roll hits you and its damage includes Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing damage, you can take a Reaction to reduce the attack's damage against you."
I think that says the same thing as what you propose and that "total damage" is unnecessary if that was their intent (which it may have been). There are other phrases, like "any of the damage" if they just wanted to clarify it.
Using the phrase "total damage" changes the rules interaction, intentionally or not. I can definitely see your take being the RAI take. I don't know that the take I am proposing as RAW is RAI. It's certainly weird and hard to remember and I just realized the interaction in this thread.
Just to try, I've been reading the article 2024 Monk vs. 2014 Monk: What’s New again, but I can't find anything that clearly supports my position, apart from the fact that "total" is not used in the explanations.
In any case, if this is your only Exception for similar game features, and you're applying Spirit Shield or Stone's Endurance following the Order of Application rule, I'm happy with that :)
Incorrect in this case alone (to my knowledge). Since the ability reduces the total damage, you must apply resistance and vulnerabilities first. You don't know the total before then.
Even if that was true (it's not; people can do math), it's not actually necessary to know the total. You just subtract damage until one pool or the other runs out.
Specific beats general requires the specific thing to be explicit. If there's a reasonable interpretation where both rules are obeyed, use that interpretation.
Yeah, that rule of thumb can be handy in some cases. But a lot of time when theres confusion, its because there are two rules both more specific than the general rule, but it is unclear which of the two rules is more specific than the other.
I think that says the same thing as what you propose and that "total damage" is unnecessary if that was their intent (which it may have been). There are other phrases, like "any of the damage" if they just wanted to clarify it.
Using the phrase "total damage" changes the rules interaction, intentionally or not. I can definitely see your take being the RAI take. I don't know that the take I am proposing as RAW is RAI. It's certainly weird and hard to remember and I just realized the interaction in this thread.
"Total damage" isn't a defined rules phrase though, it is just you trying to make it have a fixed meaning. And sure, they could have used "any of the damage" instead. But they didn't, they chose "total damage" and that works just as well.
The rules phrases that I would have wanted them to define/use is "damage dealt" and "damage taken" because that follows the process. "dealt" being the total amount damage that the attack tries to inflict with "taken" being the amount that actually is reducing your HP and the process in-between is the one described in the Damage and Healing section.
Maybe it is a bad choice of words. Maybe it's a deliberate choice. Either way, it's a choice of words that interacts with the Specific beats General rule to create a RAW exception to the order of operations. I am not mixing up the order of operations. I am saying Deflect Attacks is an exception because you don't know the total damage until after Vulnerability is applied. If there are still modifiers to be applied to the damage, that's a subtotal.
I have issues with this because the Deflect Attacks feature is also a modifier to the damage of the attack and thus is processed at the same point as all other modifiers. Waiting for all modifiers to be applied before applying resistances/vulnerabilities before applying a modifier gets you stuck in a loop. The Abjurers Arcane Ward feature is an example of a feature that is not a modifier but rather something that takes place after the process laid out in Damage and Healing is done.
Incorrect in this case alone (to my knowledge). Since the ability reduces the total damage, you must apply resistance and vulnerabilities first. You don't know the total before then.
Even if that was true (it's not; people can do math), it's not actually necessary to know the total. You just subtract damage until one pool or the other runs out.
Specific beats general requires the specific thing to be explicit. If there's a reasonable interpretation where both rules are obeyed, use that interpretation.
One, it is necessary to know the total in order to reduce the total. You don't need to combine the damage types, because that makes no difference in the outcome thanks to the commutative property of math. A + B - C = -C + B + A.
Two, the issue is that you have to apply any additions, subtractions, multiplications, and divisions before you have the total for each damage type.
And finally, Specific beats General requires that there is a contradiction between a specific rule (Deflect Attacks) and a general one (the Damage and Healing order of operations).
I think that says the same thing as what you propose and that "total damage" is unnecessary if that was their intent (which it may have been). There are other phrases, like "any of the damage" if they just wanted to clarify it.
Using the phrase "total damage" changes the rules interaction, intentionally or not. I can definitely see your take being the RAI take. I don't know that the take I am proposing as RAW is RAI. It's certainly weird and hard to remember and I just realized the interaction in this thread.
"Total damage" isn't a defined rules phrase though, it is just you trying to make it have a fixed meaning. And sure, they could have used "any of the damage" instead. But they didn't, they chose "total damage" and that works just as well.
The rules phrases that I would have wanted them to define/use is "damage dealt" and "damage taken" because that follows the process. "dealt" being the total amount damage that the attack tries to inflict with "taken" being the amount that actually is reducing your HP and the process in-between is the one described in the Damage and Healing section.
It doesn't matter if "total damage" is defined as a "rules phrase." All that matters is that it is rules text that, because of a standard reading of the English language, causes a conflict with another rule. Rules conflicts and Specific beats General has never relied on rules phrases. You can make the case that this is not RAI, but the notion that rules only conflict with "rules phrases" is baseless.
Maybe it is a bad choice of words. Maybe it's a deliberate choice. Either way, it's a choice of words that interacts with the Specific beats General rule to create a RAW exception to the order of operations. I am not mixing up the order of operations. I am saying Deflect Attacks is an exception because you don't know the total damage until after Vulnerability is applied. If there are still modifiers to be applied to the damage, that's a subtotal.
I have issues with this because the Deflect Attacks feature is also a modifier to the damage of the attack and thus is processed at the same point as all other modifiers. Waiting for all modifiers to be applied before applying resistances/vulnerabilities before applying a modifier gets you stuck in a loop. The Abjurers Arcane Ward feature is an example of a feature that is not a modifier but rather something that takes place after the process laid out in Damage and Healing is done.
There is no loop. Regardless of where in the order you place Deflect Attacks, it resolves before anyone or anything takes damage.
One, it is necessary to know the total in order to reduce the total.
No, you do not. Total damage is not defined in the rules, so it's just as plausible to claim that it's the sum of all damage before applying vulnerabilities, resistances, and immunities as to claim it's the sum after, and given that that interpretation means we don't need to deal with conflicting rules, it's the favored interpretation.
One, it is necessary to know the total in order to reduce the total.
No, you do not. Total damage is not defined in the rules, so it's just as plausible to claim that it's the sum of all damage before applying vulnerabilities, resistances, and immunities as to claim it's the sum after, and given that that interpretation means we don't need to deal with conflicting rules, it's the favored interpretation.
That is not a plausible definition of total damage. That would be a subtotal.
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?
The description specifically says if an attack hits you and "it's damage includes BPS", then it's deflected if it is reduce to 0. "Includes" being the important part. Therefore if it was fire lit sword, an electrical charged sword, a poison dagger whatever: if it is reduced to 0, it's redirected to whomever is in the same range it was dealt. You can't get any condition, that never hit you.
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?
The description specifically says if an attack hits you and "it's damage includes BPS", then it's deflected if it is reduce to 0. "Includes" being the important part. Therefore if it was fire lit sword, an electrical charged sword, a poison dagger whatever: if it is reduced to 0, it's redirected to whomever is in the same range it was dealt. You can't get any condition, that never hit you.
The ability never changes a hit into a miss and never redirects the initial attack to another target. You remain hit and are dealt 0 damage. If reduce the damage to 0 and spend a Focus point, you can attempt to deal damage to another creature. The initial attack still hit you and the initial attacker is never dealing damage to the second target, the monk is.
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?
The description specifically says if an attack hits you and "it's damage includes BPS", then it's deflected if it is reduce to 0. "Includes" being the important part. Therefore if it was fire lit sword, an electrical charged sword, a poison dagger whatever: if it is reduced to 0, it's redirected to whomever is in the same range it was dealt. You can't get any condition, that never hit you.
The ability never changes a hit into a miss and never redirects the initial attack to another target. You remain hit and are dealt 0 damage. If reduce the damage to 0 and spend a Focus point, you can attempt to deal damage to another creature. The initial attack still hit you and the initial attacker is never dealing damage to the second target, the monk is.
Yep. This is one of those abilities where the chrome diverges from the mechanics, because actually making it work the way it's conceptualized is a rules nightmare.
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?
The description specifically says if an attack hits you and "it's damage includes BPS", then it's deflected if it is reduce to 0. "Includes" being the important part. Therefore if it was fire lit sword, an electrical charged sword, a poison dagger whatever: if it is reduced to 0, it's redirected to whomever is in the same range it was dealt. You can't get any condition, that never hit you.
The ability never changes a hit into a miss and never redirects the initial attack to another target. You remain hit and are dealt 0 damage. If reduce the damage to 0 and spend a Focus point, you can attempt to deal damage to another creature. The initial attack still hit you and the initial attacker is never dealing damage to the second target, the monk is.
I'm sorry but I read your reply several times over, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. It appears you are adding something that's not in the description, and thus maybe disagreeing with me somewhere. But in addition to my previous point, a description rule does what it says and nothing more.
Yeah, that's why I mentioned you need some ruling to solve the issue with mixed damage types.
One way could be to reduce/split the damage types proportionally.
Or following jl8e's idea:
And my take is that Deflect Attacks creates a Specific Beats General situation that overrides the order.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
You sum up all the attack components. Reducing total damage is just specifying that for an attack that does more than one type of damage, it's applied only once but can reduce all types of damage as long as you have enough points of reduction.
Yes, you sum up the components.
Normally, for each damage type you would:
Finally, you would add all the results for each damage type. Then we know the total damage. Since we need to know the total before reducing the damage with Deflect Attacks, it's a specific rule that overrides the general order of operations. It has to be applied after normal reductions and additions, after resistance, after vulnerability. Then, as long as one of the damage types is bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage, you can use Deflect Attacks to reduce the total damage.
It is going to pretty rare that the order matters, but it may come up.
At that point, there's actually three takes, in my opinion:
I can't really see anyone taking the third option but there is a degree of technical logic there. I think personally, I would rule the second option. Combined with the exception to order of operations, this is a really advantageous take, but I don't think the difference will be that significant.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Incorrect. The order is:
Thus, if you had a skeleton (vulnerable to bludgeoning) monk hit by a mace of disruption (+2d6 radiant vs undead) for 10 points of bludgeoning and 7 points of radiant, and it uses deflect attacks and rolls a total of 15, you subtract a total of 15 points from that 17, which thus leaves 2 points, which might be all bludgeoning, all radiant, or half and half -- rules don't specify. Then you apply vulnerability, so depending on which damage type was reduced, the final result is 2, 3, or 4.
Incorrect in this case alone (to my knowledge). Since the ability reduces the total damage, you must apply resistance and vulnerabilities first. You don't know the total before then.
You gave the general rule. Deflect Attacks is a specific rule with odd wording that forces the order to be changed for this one ability. It may or may not be RAI.
Let's say you are a level 18 Monk with Superior Defense active and are taking 20 points of Bludgeoning Damage, 20 points of Fire Damage, and 20 points of Force Damage. You have an effect that you reduce damage from a source by 5 without using your reaction due to a doohickey of protection. That's not 60 total damage or 55 total damage.
Maybe it is a bad choice of words. Maybe it's a deliberate choice. Either way, it's a choice of words that interacts with the Specific beats General rule to create a RAW exception to the order of operations. I am not mixing up the order of operations. I am saying Deflect Attacks is an exception because you don't know the total damage until after Vulnerability is applied. If there are still modifiers to be applied to the damage, that's a subtotal.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
It's hard for me to see this as an example of Exceptions Supersede General Rules. I think that "total" is there just because damage can include different things: at least Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing, and potentially other types too.
EDIT: for clarity.
If that's the case, do you feel that it's necessary?
If they wanted you to reduce only the Bludgeoning, Slashing, and Piercing damage, they could just say "When an attack roll hits you, you can take a Reaction to reduce the attack's Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage against you."
By not specifying the damage reduced, we already apply the damage to all damage types. They could have said: "When an attack roll hits you and its damage includes Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing damage, you can take a Reaction to reduce the attack's damage against you."
I think that says the same thing as what you propose and that "total damage" is unnecessary if that was their intent (which it may have been). There are other phrases, like "any of the damage" if they just wanted to clarify it.
Using the phrase "total damage" changes the rules interaction, intentionally or not. I can definitely see your take being the RAI take. I don't know that the take I am proposing as RAW is RAI. It's certainly weird and hard to remember and I just realized the interaction in this thread.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Just to try, I've been reading the article 2024 Monk vs. 2014 Monk: What’s New again, but I can't find anything that clearly supports my position, apart from the fact that "total" is not used in the explanations.
In any case, if this is your only Exception for similar game features, and you're applying Spirit Shield or Stone's Endurance following the Order of Application rule, I'm happy with that :)
Even if that was true (it's not; people can do math), it's not actually necessary to know the total. You just subtract damage until one pool or the other runs out.
Specific beats general requires the specific thing to be explicit. If there's a reasonable interpretation where both rules are obeyed, use that interpretation.
"Specific beats general"
Yeah, that rule of thumb can be handy in some cases. But a lot of time when theres confusion, its because there are two rules both more specific than the general rule, but it is unclear which of the two rules is more specific than the other.
"Total damage" isn't a defined rules phrase though, it is just you trying to make it have a fixed meaning. And sure, they could have used "any of the damage" instead. But they didn't, they chose "total damage" and that works just as well.
The rules phrases that I would have wanted them to define/use is "damage dealt" and "damage taken" because that follows the process. "dealt" being the total amount damage that the attack tries to inflict with "taken" being the amount that actually is reducing your HP and the process in-between is the one described in the Damage and Healing section.
I have issues with this because the Deflect Attacks feature is also a modifier to the damage of the attack and thus is processed at the same point as all other modifiers. Waiting for all modifiers to be applied before applying resistances/vulnerabilities before applying a modifier gets you stuck in a loop.
The Abjurers Arcane Ward feature is an example of a feature that is not a modifier but rather something that takes place after the process laid out in Damage and Healing is done.
One, it is necessary to know the total in order to reduce the total. You don't need to combine the damage types, because that makes no difference in the outcome thanks to the commutative property of math. A + B - C = -C + B + A.
Two, the issue is that you have to apply any additions, subtractions, multiplications, and divisions before you have the total for each damage type.
And finally, Specific beats General requires that there is a contradiction between a specific rule (Deflect Attacks) and a general one (the Damage and Healing order of operations).
It doesn't matter if "total damage" is defined as a "rules phrase." All that matters is that it is rules text that, because of a standard reading of the English language, causes a conflict with another rule. Rules conflicts and Specific beats General has never relied on rules phrases. You can make the case that this is not RAI, but the notion that rules only conflict with "rules phrases" is baseless.
There is no loop. Regardless of where in the order you place Deflect Attacks, it resolves before anyone or anything takes damage.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
No, you do not. Total damage is not defined in the rules, so it's just as plausible to claim that it's the sum of all damage before applying vulnerabilities, resistances, and immunities as to claim it's the sum after, and given that that interpretation means we don't need to deal with conflicting rules, it's the favored interpretation.
That is not a plausible definition of total damage. That would be a subtotal.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Whelp. I am convinced that homebrewing this to
"Reduce bldg/prc/slsh dmg zero makes thr attack miss"
Is WAAAAAÀAAYYYYYY better than arguing about all this. Easy. Fast. Good.
The description specifically says if an attack hits you and "it's damage includes BPS", then it's deflected if it is reduce to 0. "Includes" being the important part. Therefore if it was fire lit sword, an electrical charged sword, a poison dagger whatever: if it is reduced to 0, it's redirected to whomever is in the same range it was dealt. You can't get any condition, that never hit you.
The ability never changes a hit into a miss and never redirects the initial attack to another target. You remain hit and are dealt 0 damage. If reduce the damage to 0 and spend a Focus point, you can attempt to deal damage to another creature. The initial attack still hit you and the initial attacker is never dealing damage to the second target, the monk is.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Yep. This is one of those abilities where the chrome diverges from the mechanics, because actually making it work the way it's conceptualized is a rules nightmare.
I'm sorry but I read your reply several times over, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. It appears you are adding something that's not in the description, and thus maybe disagreeing with me somewhere. But in addition to my previous point, a description rule does what it says and nothing more.