Does Exceptional Deflection count against Magic Missiles?

[ainbimagh]

It includes it in the category of ranged attacks.

Q. What does Exceptional Deflection allow you to deflect?
A. Ranged attacks (including spells requiring a ranged touch attack).

Q. From the point of view of Exceptional Deflection, does 'ranged attacks' include 'spells requiring a ranged touch attack'?
A. Yes.

-Hyp.

No incorrect, exceptional deflection does not includ spells requiring a ranged touch attack into the realm of 'ranged attacks', it merely includes it into the realm of things you can deflect. At no point in its entire statement does it say, Which will also be classified as a ranged attack and therefor susceptible to its effect.

So if a spell says this spell sets fire to all wood in the area (including wood not normal susceptible to flames). Does that mean we have to assume that all wood is suspectible to flames in all scenarios now? Or that it is specific to the spell and the wood is not reclassified?

 

[Hypersmurf]

No incorrect, exceptional deflection does not includ spells requiring a ranged touch attack into the realm of 'ranged attacks', it merely includes it into the realm of things you can deflect.

Exceptional Deflection affects one category - ranged attacks. For the purpose of Exceptional Deflection, that category - ranged attacks - includes spells requiring a ranged touch attack.

At no point in its entire statement does it say, Which will also be classified as a ranged attack and therefor susceptible to its effect.

No. But it does say that 'ranged attacks' includes 'spells requiring a ranged touch attack'.

So if a spell says this spell sets fire to all wood in the area (including wood not normal susceptible to flames). Does that mean we have to assume that all wood is suspectible to flames in all scenarios now? Or that it is specific to the spell and the wood is not reclassified?

It's specific to the spell - just like the point under discussion is specific to the feat.

That's why I've said that spells requiring a ranged touch attack are ranged attacks for the purposes of Exceptional Deflection. Not for all purposes; merely for the purposes of the feat... because the feat says they are included as ranged attacks.

The feat text doesn't force Scorching Ray to be considered a ranged attack in all scenarios, any more than the Invisibility spell text forces Detect Magic to be considered an attack in all scenarios. For the purposes of the Invisibility spell, Detect Magic is an attack if its area includes a foe. For the purposes of the Sanctuary spell, Detect Magic is not an attack. For the purposes of the Exceptional Deflection feat, Scorching Ray is a ranged attack. Under other circumstances, it might not be.

-Hyp.

 

[ainbimagh]

Well, ok Hypersmurf, I wont argue with you anymore, apparently your version of the english language determines that parentheses are not inclusive punctual statements but defining punctual statements, so for the sake of back and forth banter or me pulling out 3 pages of grammatical definitions proving you wrong..

So my final statement will be, this..
No where does it state they are INCLUDED AS ranged attacks, it merely states they are included under its effect of deflecting AS ARROWS. The only place the word AS is in the sentance.

 

[Aaron L]

Since it specifies that spells requiring ranged touch attacks are valid targets for the feat, I would be inclined to assume that those spells that do not require a ranged attack roll aren't intended to be included. Otherwise it would have been a pointless sentence, along the lines of "this feat affects all attacks, which includes attacks with a longsword."

While you could probably mangle the semantics enough to label an attack spell as an attack for the purposes of this feat, I think it's pretty dang clear what the intent was.

They didn't design the rules to be picked apart and analyzed like legal documents.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Exceptional Deflection affects one category - ranged attacks. For the purpose of Exceptional Deflection, that category - ranged attacks - includes spells requiring a ranged touch attack.

No.

The definition of ranged attack is what it is. It is not changed anywhere as a result of Exceptional Deflection.

The capability of Exceptional Deflection flows from the definition of ranged attack, the definition of ranged attack does not alter itself for Exceptional Deflection.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Since it specifies that spells requiring ranged touch attacks are valid targets for the feat [...]

What are you referring to with the pronoun "it" in this case?

The description of Exceptional Defelection? It doesn't say anything about affecting spells. In fact, its description effectively excludes all spells that aren't "ranged weapons".

The vast majority of spells are not ranged weapons . . . I suppose, just maybe, some spell that created a magic bow that fired arrows made of solid magical force might allow Exceptional Deflection to work upon those arrows, but that isn't going to be too common.

 

[Aaron L]

What are you referring to with the pronoun "it" in this case?

The description of Exceptional Defelection? It doesn't say anything about affecting spells. In fact, its description effectively excludes all spells that aren't "ranged weapons".

The vast majority of spells are not ranged weapons . . . I suppose, just maybe, some spell that created a magic bow that fired arrows made of solid magical force might allow Exceptional Deflection to work upon those arrows, but that isn't going to be too common.

Exceptional Deflection [Epic]
Prerequisites

Dex 21, Wis 19, Deflect Arrows, Improved Unarmed Strike.
Benefit

You can deflect any ranged attacks (including spells that require ranged touch attacks) as if they were arrows.



I'd say that's saying something about spells.

Maybe you're thinking of of the non-epic Deflect Arrows feat?

 

[Hypersmurf]

The capability of Exceptional Deflection flows from the definition of ranged attack, the definition of ranged attack does not alter itself for Exceptional Deflection.

Within the text of Exceptional Deflection, 'ranged attacks' includes 'spells requiring a ranged touch attack'.

Outside of the text of Exceptional Deflection, that isn't necessarily the case.

But for the purposes of the Exceptional Deflection feat, we know that what the feat allows to be deflected like arrows is ranged attacks, and we know that ranged attacks includes spells requiring a ranged touch attack.

The parenthetical clause does not modify "things that can be deflected like arrows"; it modifies "ranged attacks"... which happen to be, in that sentence, the things that can be deflected like arrows.

What does the clause "including spells requiring a ranged touch attack" cause to include spells requiring a ranged touch attack? Ranged attacks.

-Hyp.

 

[RainOfSteel]

<snip of repeat of feat definition>

I'd say that's saying something about spells.

Maybe you're thinking of of the non-epic Deflect Arrows feat?

The feat was linked at the beginning of this topic, so no, I'm not thinking about another rule.

I'm thinking about exactly the description given.

ranged attack: Any attack made at a distance with a ranged weapon, as opposed to a melee attack.

ranged weapon: A thrown or projectile weapon designed for ranged attacks.

No spell I can think of, off-hand, fits into this description. I am sure that in the many, many thousands of spells that have ever been invented for DnD in its various incarnations that there are one or more spells that, somehow, fit into this set of definitions.

But Magic Missile? Fireball? Lightning Bolt? Meteor Swarm? None of them fit the definition of ranged weapon. Not one.

If the spells don't fit the definition of ranged weapon, and they don't, then they aren't ranged attacks under the game mechanics definitions given in the RAW (as cited).

Exceptional Deflection only works on ranged attacks (even ranged touch attacks, but that doesn't say anything at all about spells that have a ranged touch attack component, because the main clause of the feat's rule has already excluded all spells, by definition.).

-------------------

Some spells are touch spells:

touch spells: A spell that delivers its effect when the caster touches a target or a creature or object. Touch spells are delivered to unwilling targets by touch attacks.

touch attacks: An attack in which the attacker must connect with an opponent but does not need to penetrate armor. Touch attacks may be either melee or ranged. The target's armor bonus, shield bonus, and natural armor bonus (including any enhancement bonuses to those values) do not apply to AC against a touch attack.

Just because a spell is a touch spell that is ranged does not make it a ranged attack.

These are separate and entirely different definitions under the RAW.

Touch spells (that are ranged) are not ranged attacks.

 

[Aaron L]

Some spells are touch spells:

Just because a spell is a touch spell that is ranged does not make it a ranged attack.

These are separate and entirely different definitions under the RAW.

Touch spells (that are ranged) are not ranged attacks.

I am very confused about what you are saying. The feat says that it affects ranged attacks, including spells that require ranged attack rolls (such as Scorching Ray, Melf's Acid Arrow, etc.)

The feat specifically says it affects spells that require ranged attack rolls. I'm not arguing that it affects Magic Missile, I'm saying it affects Rays and other spells that require a ranged attack.

Are you saying that the feat doesn't really mean what it says?

Saying that spells that require ranged touch attack rolls are not actually ranged attacks has got to be the most twisted semantic hairsplitting I've ever seen.