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.
...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 saving throw is not required because the attack causes damage; the saving throw is required because the attack successfully hit. Both damage and the potential poisoning are the result of a successful hit and are not dependent on each other.
If you argue that no damage means no saving throw required, you could likewise argue that a successful save means no damage.
this is an excellent argument. It can be either way but would trust in the Dm’s perspective. Players that argue with dm’s on technicalities need to remember their lane. YOU ARE THE REFEREE. End of discussion.
...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 saving throw is not required because the attack causes damage; the saving throw is required because the attack successfully hit. Both damage and the potential poisoning are the result of a successful hit and are not dependent on each other.
If you argue that no damage means no saving throw required, you could likewise argue that a successful save means no damage.
Would the player wanted to poison his party member as well?
Scenario: Bbeg shoots monk with arrow tipped with injury poison. ("Injury poison: a creature that takes Piercing or Slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects.") The stat block says this poison imposes thr poisoned condition until end of targets next turn.
The rule for deflect attack, as written, says:
"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."
bbeg does 8 piercing and 6 poison damage. It includes piercing damage, so deflect attack can be used. Monk rolls and deflects 12 damage. Now, the rules say the monk reduces the attack's TOTAL damage by 12. Not just the piercing damage. Total damge.
So, rules as written, somehow, the monk takes NO piercing damage and 2 poison damage from an injury poison coated on an arrow that never did piercing damage?
Thosr of you saying the piercing damage goes to zero, but ALL the poison damage gets through, thats not actually what the rules say.
Even weirder, if the arrow did 3 piercing and 6 poison, the monk could roll to deflect 12 damage total, reduce all the piercing and poison damage to zero, but the attack description says target has poisoned condition untik start of next turn, and deflect attavk has no effect on that part. So, rules as written, thr monk used deflect attack to reduce all damage (piercing and poison) to zero, but somehow still gets the poisoned condition until end of its next turn.
Pereonally, i think this rule is badly written. Its going to cause suspension of disbelief in players every time damagr is reduced to zero but some side effect still applies. And it is entirely counter intuitive. Reduce all damage to zero, but get poisined condition anyway? Maybe hardcore players will shrug it off as rules are just rules, but casual or new players just looking to play and have some fun are going to walk out on that outcome.
Y'all can dm however you want, but imma going to approach deflect attack with a much simpler and intuitive rule: if deflect attack reduces bludeoning, piercing, and slashing damage to zero, the attack misses.
And if the attack misses, then no side effects apply. No saving throws imposed. It just misses. My players and i dont have to wonder how all damage was redyced to zero, but the monk still has the poisoned condition, or some other effect. We dont have to figure out how the piercing damage was reduced to zero, but the injury poison still gets through. We dont have to stop and try to come up with a narrative description to explained these weird outcomes. "Well, the arrow scratched the skin, but not enough to do damage, but enough to break the skin and let the poison in." None of that.
If deflect attack reduces all piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing damage to zero, the entire attack misses.
Simple, intuitive, no weird scenarios thay cause suspension of disbelief, easy to resolve and keep.combat moving. Fun.
Would the player wanted to poison his party member as well?
I don't understand the question.
The monk reduced the damage from an attack that hit to 0 and can potentially redirect the damage from attack to another target. I assume the monk would only do this with another enemy and not a party member. If all of that occurs, the following is true:
The monk was hit by the attack.
The monk suffers all results of being hit by the attack, but the hit point damage was reduced to 0.
The monk attempts to damage another target as part of the same reaction.
The target takes damage from the monk on a failed save.
Secondary effects of the original attack do not apply.
Scenario: Bbeg shoots monk with arrow tipped with injury poison. ("Injury poison: a creature that takes Piercing or Slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects.") The stat block says this poison imposes thr poisoned condition until end of targets next turn.
The rule for deflect attack, as written, says:
"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."
bbeg does 8 piercing and 6 poison damage. It includes piercing damage, so deflect attack can be used. Monk rolls and deflects 12 damage. Now, the rules say the monk reduces the attack's TOTAL damage by 12. Not just the piercing damage. Total damge.
So, rules as written, somehow, the monk takes NO piercing damage and 2 poison damage from an injury poison coated on an arrow that never did piercing damage?
No, in that case, the poison is conditional on the attack actually dealing damage. Reducing the damage to 0 prevents the poison damage. A level 3 Monk should have no difficulty reducing 8 damage to 0.
The issue is that the Death Dog's Bite has two effects on a successful hit. One is the damage. The other is the save. It's not an injury poison.
In your hypothetical, reducing the damage to 0 is sufficient. If you prefer, narratively, you could consider the Death Dog's Bite to carry a contact rather than an injury poison and therefore the act of deflecting the attack exposes you to the poison.
"Level 3: Deflect Attackk: 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."
Thinking about it, there is nothing in the rule that says the monk reduces the piercing damage before poison damage.
Monk could reduce all poison damage first.
The more i think about the wording of this rule, the weirder it is.
So, rules as written, somehow, the monk takes NO piercing damage and 2 poison damage from an injury poison coated on an arrow that never did piercing damage? [...]
[...] Thinking about it, there is nothing in the rule that says the monk reduces the piercing damage before poison damage. [...]
In a recent thread (Rage, and Spirit Shield VS Mixed Damage Types) it was debated how to deal with mixed or multiple damage types. I like the ruling proposed by jl8e, but the thread includes other ideas too:
[...] This leads to the question of which damage gets reduced, and we have nothing to go on from the rules.(It's not a simultaneous effect question.) IMO:
Whatever ordering is used must be consistent -- it shouldn't matter whose turn it is, nor if a PC or a monster is doing the damage
It should feel fair to the player
It shouldn't lead to weird results
I think we really have only two options:
Attacker picks (AKA, reduce damage in the least advantageous way possible)
Defender picks (AKA, reduce damage in the most advantageous way possible)
I think "defender picks" better fits the criteria I gave above, but you're not wrong for preferring "attacker picks".
"Level 3: Deflect Attackk: 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."
Thinking about it, there is nothing in the rule that says the monk reduces the piercing damage before poison damage.
Scenario: Bbeg shoots monk with arrow tipped with injury poison. ("Injury poison: a creature that takes Piercing or Slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects.") The stat block says this poison imposes thr poisoned condition until end of targets next turn.
Since the poison is an injury poison, the hit and damage must be resolved first. If the damage is reduced to zero, the poison doesn't trigger.
[...] Thinking about it, there is nothing in the rule that says the monk reduces the piercing damage before poison damage. [...]
In a recent thread (Rage, and Spirit Shield VS Mixed Damage Types) it was debated how to deal with mixed or multiple damage types. I like the ruling proposed by jl8e, but the thread includes other ideas too:
In this case, Deflect Attacks explicitly states you reduce the total damage. This is potentially good and bad, but usually good or neutral.
You need to apply all other reductions, apply resistances, and apply vulnerabilities in order to get the total damage of the attack. Then, Deflect Attack reduces it.
It is rare for a PC to have a vulnerability, but resistances can be more common and this can push the effectiveness of Deflect Attack as long as it includes Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing Damage. For example, if you are hit with a Flame Tongue Greatsword for 12 points of slashing and 7 fire, but you resist fire damage, the total damage is 12 + 3 (7/2 rounded down) = 15. To eliminate that attack's damage you need a total reduction of 15 instead of 19.
When reducing damage, check the wording of the individual ability to make sure it doesn't have special timing requirements like Deflect Attacks.
I prefer "if bludgening, piercing, slashing dmg is reduced to zero, the attack misses" Its simple, its fast, its intuitive. it keeps combat moving.
RAW, DeflectAttack is needlessly complex for a minor change in the results it produces.i dont need to impose the poisoned condition or whatever side effect, and i dont want to waste time during the game to explain how the rules as written are completely unintuitive, but the "law".
I run combat heavy campaigns and the only wsy that works is if turns are fast and players zip, boom, bam, through their choices.
[...] You need to apply all other reductions, apply resistances, and apply vulnerabilities in order to get the total damage of the attack. Then, Deflect Attack reduces it. [...]
Is it not the opposite? Deflect Attack involves an adjustment, such as bonuses or penalties, similar to how Spirit Shield or Stone's Endurance works.
Order of Application
Modifiers to damage are applied in the following order: adjustments such as bonuses, penalties, or multipliers are applied first; Resistance is applied second; and Vulnerability is applied third.
[...] You need to apply all other reductions, apply resistances, and apply vulnerabilities in order to get the total damage of the attack. Then, Deflect Attack reduces it. [...]
Is it not the opposite? Deflect Attack involves an adjustment, such as bonuses or penalties, similar to how Spirit Shield or Stone's Endurance works.
Order of Application
Modifiers to damage are applied in the following order: adjustments such as bonuses, penalties, or multipliers are applied first; Resistance is applied second; and Vulnerability is applied third.
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.
The saving throw is not required because the attack causes damage; the saving throw is required because the attack successfully hit. Both damage and the potential poisoning are the result of a successful hit and are not dependent on each other.
If you argue that no damage means no saving throw required, you could likewise argue that a successful save means no damage.
this is an excellent argument. It can be either way but would trust in the Dm’s perspective. Players that argue with dm’s on technicalities need to remember their lane. YOU ARE THE REFEREE. End of discussion.
Would the player wanted to poison his party member as well?
Scenario: Bbeg shoots monk with arrow tipped with injury poison. ("Injury poison: a creature that takes Piercing or Slashing damage from an object coated with the poison is exposed to its effects.") The stat block says this poison imposes thr poisoned condition until end of targets next turn.
The rule for deflect attack, as written, says:
"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."
bbeg does 8 piercing and 6 poison damage. It includes piercing damage, so deflect attack can be used. Monk rolls and deflects 12 damage. Now, the rules say the monk reduces the attack's TOTAL damage by 12. Not just the piercing damage. Total damge.
Arrow did 8 piercing + 6 poison = 14 damage TOTAL.
Monk deflects 12 damage.
So, rules as written, somehow, the monk takes NO piercing damage and 2 poison damage from an injury poison coated on an arrow that never did piercing damage?
Thosr of you saying the piercing damage goes to zero, but ALL the poison damage gets through, thats not actually what the rules say.
Even weirder, if the arrow did 3 piercing and 6 poison, the monk could roll to deflect 12 damage total, reduce all the piercing and poison damage to zero, but the attack description says target has poisoned condition untik start of next turn, and deflect attavk has no effect on that part. So, rules as written, thr monk used deflect attack to reduce all damage (piercing and poison) to zero, but somehow still gets the poisoned condition until end of its next turn.
Pereonally, i think this rule is badly written. Its going to cause suspension of disbelief in players every time damagr is reduced to zero but some side effect still applies. And it is entirely counter intuitive. Reduce all damage to zero, but get poisined condition anyway? Maybe hardcore players will shrug it off as rules are just rules, but casual or new players just looking to play and have some fun are going to walk out on that outcome.
Y'all can dm however you want, but imma going to approach deflect attack with a much simpler and intuitive rule: if deflect attack reduces bludeoning, piercing, and slashing damage to zero, the attack misses.
And if the attack misses, then no side effects apply. No saving throws imposed. It just misses. My players and i dont have to wonder how all damage was redyced to zero, but the monk still has the poisoned condition, or some other effect. We dont have to figure out how the piercing damage was reduced to zero, but the injury poison still gets through. We dont have to stop and try to come up with a narrative description to explained these weird outcomes. "Well, the arrow scratched the skin, but not enough to do damage, but enough to break the skin and let the poison in." None of that.
If deflect attack reduces all piercing, bludgeoning, and slashing damage to zero, the entire attack misses.
Simple, intuitive, no weird scenarios thay cause suspension of disbelief, easy to resolve and keep.combat moving. Fun.
I don't understand the question.
The monk reduced the damage from an attack that hit to 0 and can potentially redirect the damage from attack to another target. I assume the monk would only do this with another enemy and not a party member. If all of that occurs, the following is true:
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
No, in that case, the poison is conditional on the attack actually dealing damage. Reducing the damage to 0 prevents the poison damage. A level 3 Monk should have no difficulty reducing 8 damage to 0.
The issue is that the Death Dog's Bite has two effects on a successful hit. One is the damage. The other is the save. It's not an injury poison.
In your hypothetical, reducing the damage to 0 is sufficient. If you prefer, narratively, you could consider the Death Dog's Bite to carry a contact rather than an injury poison and therefore the act of deflecting the attack exposes you to the poison.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
"Level 3: Deflect Attackk: 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."
Thinking about it, there is nothing in the rule that says the monk reduces the piercing damage before poison damage.
Monk could reduce all poison damage first.
The more i think about the wording of this rule, the weirder it is.
In a recent thread (Rage, and Spirit Shield VS Mixed Damage Types) it was debated how to deal with mixed or multiple damage types. I like the ruling proposed by jl8e, but the thread includes other ideas too:
In your scenario, that is not an option.
Since the poison is an injury poison, the hit and damage must be resolved first. If the damage is reduced to zero, the poison doesn't trigger.
In this case, Deflect Attacks explicitly states you reduce the total damage. This is potentially good and bad, but usually good or neutral.
You need to apply all other reductions, apply resistances, and apply vulnerabilities in order to get the total damage of the attack. Then, Deflect Attack reduces it.
It is rare for a PC to have a vulnerability, but resistances can be more common and this can push the effectiveness of Deflect Attack as long as it includes Bludgeoning, Piercing, or Slashing Damage. For example, if you are hit with a Flame Tongue Greatsword for 12 points of slashing and 7 fire, but you resist fire damage, the total damage is 12 + 3 (7/2 rounded down) = 15. To eliminate that attack's damage you need a total reduction of 15 instead of 19.
When reducing damage, check the wording of the individual ability to make sure it doesn't have special timing requirements like Deflect Attacks.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
I prefer "if bludgening, piercing, slashing dmg is reduced to zero, the attack misses" Its simple, its fast, its intuitive. it keeps combat moving.
RAW, DeflectAttack is needlessly complex for a minor change in the results it produces.i dont need to impose the poisoned condition or whatever side effect, and i dont want to waste time during the game to explain how the rules as written are completely unintuitive, but the "law".
I run combat heavy campaigns and the only wsy that works is if turns are fast and players zip, boom, bam, through their choices.
Is it not the opposite? Deflect Attack involves an adjustment, such as bonuses or penalties, similar to how Spirit Shield or Stone's Endurance works.
Related thread: Monkey Toughness.
Normally, it would be, but Deflect Attacks reduces the total damage. How do you know the total damage before applying vulnerability?
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.