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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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.