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.
I think the confusion may have stemmed from the fact that you seem to have been trying to answer a question — "Does the target of the redirected attack suffer any conditions that would've been applied to the target of the original attack?" — which no one actually asked and which was not present in the comment you were replying to.
If what you were saying was that the target of the redirected attack doesn't suffer any conditions that would've been applied to the target of the original attack, then you're correct, but that's not what this thread was about.
If what you were saying is that the Monk doesn't suffer any conditions applied by an attack if they use Deflect Attacks to reduce its damage down to zero, then you're not correct, for the reasons that Smite explained.
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.
I think the confusion may have stemmed from the fact that you seem to have been trying to answer a question — "Does the target of the redirected attack suffer any conditions that would've been applied to the target of the original attack?" — which no one actually asked and which was not present in the comment you were replying to.
Actually you are incorrect. This was the premise of the OP:
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.
The OP’s question was about whether the Monk still suffered non-damaging effects of an attack if the damage was reduced down to zero, not about whether such effects would be applied to the target of a redirected attack.
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.
If a monk is hit and uses deflect damage, regardless of anything else, the monk was still hit by the initial attack and anything that happens on a hit applies to the monk and only the monk.
If the monk reduces the damage down to 0, they were still hit and any effects, other than the damage of the initial attack apply to the monk.
If the monk reduces the damage down to 0 and spends a Focus point to "redirect the attack", the monk was still hit by the initial attack and suffers any secondary effects. A new target now makes a save and, on a failure, takes damage from the monk. The damage type is based on the initial attack, but it is the monk dealing the damage regardless of the flavor of redirecting the attack. Secondary effects of the initial attack do not apply.
The OP’s question was about whether the Monk still suffered non-damaging effects of an attack if the damage was reduced down to zero, not about whether such effects would be applied to the target of a redirected attack.
I literally responded that they don't suffer any conditions because it doesn't hit them.
The OP’s question was about whether the Monk still suffered non-damaging effects of an attack if the damage was reduced down to zero, not about whether such effects would be applied to the target of a redirected attack.
I literally responded that they don't suffer any conditions because it doesn't hit them.
If by “them”, you mean the Monk, then that’s incorrect, for reasons that have already been quite well explained.
If by “them”, you mean the creature the attack was redirected to, then that’s correct, but not what the question was.
By them yes the Monk, doesn't suffer any conditions. And yes I am correct.
You are not correct. Reducing the damage of a successful attack down to 0 does not turn it into a miss, nor does it have any impact on other non-damaging effects the attack might have caused. This has been explained in this thread multiple times; I suggest you read through the rest of the thread.
By them yes the Monk, doesn't suffer any conditions. And yes I am correct.
You are not correct. Reducing the damage of a successful attack down to 0 does not turn it into a miss, nor does it have any impact on other non-damaging effects the attack might have caused. This has been explained in this thread multiple times; I suggest you read through the rest of the thread.
That is incorrect. I've already stated my reasons to support My position, which is correct. I think this dialog has come to its conclusion
By them yes the Monk, doesn't suffer any conditions. And yes I am correct.
You are not correct. Reducing the damage of a successful attack down to 0 does not turn it into a miss, nor does it have any impact on other non-damaging effects the attack might have caused. This has been explained in this thread multiple times; I suggest you read through the rest of the thread.
That is incorrect. I've already stated my reasons to support My position, which is correct. I think this dialog has come to its conclusion
Your reasons have no basis in the rules of the game. The Deflect Attacks ability never says that the attack misses if the damage is reduced to 0. Once you are dealt damage, you have been hit and the ability only reduces the damage and does not reduce or negate any other aspect of that hit. If you expend a Focus Point, you direct some of the momentum into a target, but that is a new attack (offensive act requiring a saving throw, not an attack roll) originating from the monk.
When you reduce the damage to 0, it doesn't even declare the attack as deflected, which wouldn't have mechanical weight even if it did. The attack remains a hit.
You are incorrect and it may help if you reread the ability more closely.
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 total damage against you. The reduction equals 1d10 plus your Dexterity modifier and Monk level.
If you reduce the damage to 0, you can expend 1 Focus Point to redirect some of the attack’s force. If you do so, choose a creature you can see within 5 feet of yourself if the attack was a melee attack or a creature you can see within 60 feet of yourself that isn’t behind Total Cover if the attack was a ranged attack. That creature must succeed on a Dexterity saving throw or take damage equal to two rolls of your Martial Arts die plus your Dexterity modifier. The damage is the same type dealt by the attack.
These are the actual rules. You have made claims about what the rules say but haven't posted the rules so here they are. They do not say what you claimed they say.
You have to be hit to use the ability. It reduces the damage but never turns a hit into a miss. If you redirect the attack, you are redirecting some of the force.
I think the confusion may have stemmed from the fact that you seem to have been trying to answer a question — "Does the target of the redirected attack suffer any conditions that would've been applied to the target of the original attack?" — which no one actually asked and which was not present in the comment you were replying to.
If what you were saying was that the target of the redirected attack doesn't suffer any conditions that would've been applied to the target of the original attack, then you're correct, but that's not what this thread was about.
If what you were saying is that the Monk doesn't suffer any conditions applied by an attack if they use Deflect Attacks to reduce its damage down to zero, then you're not correct, for the reasons that Smite explained.
pronouns: he/she/they
Actually you are incorrect. This was the premise of the OP:
The OP’s question was about whether the Monk still suffered non-damaging effects of an attack if the damage was reduced down to zero, not about whether such effects would be applied to the target of a redirected attack.
pronouns: he/she/they
If a monk is hit and uses deflect damage, regardless of anything else, the monk was still hit by the initial attack and anything that happens on a hit applies to the monk and only the monk.
If the monk reduces the damage down to 0, they were still hit and any effects, other than the damage of the initial attack apply to the monk.
If the monk reduces the damage down to 0 and spends a Focus point to "redirect the attack", the monk was still hit by the initial attack and suffers any secondary effects. A new target now makes a save and, on a failure, takes damage from the monk. The damage type is based on the initial attack, but it is the monk dealing the damage regardless of the flavor of redirecting the attack. Secondary effects of the initial attack do not apply.
Is that clearer?
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I literally responded that they don't suffer any conditions because it doesn't hit them.
I'll agree that you said that. You were wrong (reducing damage to zero does not mean the attack does not hit), but you did say it.
If by “them”, you mean the Monk, then that’s incorrect, for reasons that have already been quite well explained.
If by “them”, you mean the creature the attack was redirected to, then that’s correct, but not what the question was.
pronouns: he/she/they
By them yes the Monk, doesn't suffer any conditions. And yes I am correct.
You are not correct. Reducing the damage of a successful attack down to 0 does not turn it into a miss, nor does it have any impact on other non-damaging effects the attack might have caused. This has been explained in this thread multiple times; I suggest you read through the rest of the thread.
pronouns: he/she/they
That is incorrect. I've already stated my reasons to support My position, which is correct. I think this dialog has come to its conclusion
Your reasons have no basis in the rules of the game. The Deflect Attacks ability never says that the attack misses if the damage is reduced to 0. Once you are dealt damage, you have been hit and the ability only reduces the damage and does not reduce or negate any other aspect of that hit. If you expend a Focus Point, you direct some of the momentum into a target, but that is a new attack (offensive act requiring a saving throw, not an attack roll) originating from the monk.
When you reduce the damage to 0, it doesn't even declare the attack as deflected, which wouldn't have mechanical weight even if it did. The attack remains a hit.
You are incorrect and it may help if you reread the ability more closely.
Deflect Attacks
These are the actual rules. You have made claims about what the rules say but haven't posted the rules so here they are. They do not say what you claimed they say.
You have to be hit to use the ability. It reduces the damage but never turns a hit into a miss. If you redirect the attack, you are redirecting some of the force.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.