Ethereal dispel of material wall of force

[coriolis]

My group encountered an interesting situation in our game yesterday: while exploring a mysterious monolith, the sorcerer became ethereal and was blocked by a wall of force effect. He then asked if he could attempt to dispel or disintegrate it, his reasoning being that if a force effect on the Prime Material extends onto the Ethereal plane, then he should be able to treat it as an ethereal object.

If you were the DM, what would you have answered?

 

[blargney the second]

Absolutely! If it's there, it's there.

 

[Jhaelen]

He then asked if he could attempt to dispel or disintegrate it, his reasoning being that if a force effect on the Prime Material extends onto the Ethereal plane, then he should be able to treat it as an ethereal object.

I'd allow him to affect it as normal, i.e. he would be able to disintegrate it but he wouldn't be able to dispel it.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I agree with Jhaelen, but just to clarify: wall of force is specifically unaffected by dispel magic, so it doesn't matter whether you're on the Ethereal Plane or the Material Plane ... dispel magic won't work, but (e.g., disintegrate will.

 

[Jack Simth]

Don't forget to have an ethereal beasty bull-rush a Wizard in Mage Armor (or Bracers of Armor) some time. Much fun to be had by all. After all, the extending to the Ethereal plane is a property of Force effects (it's under Etherealness in Special Abilities and Conditions) not part of the Wall of Force spell itself.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Don't forget to have an ethereal beasty bull-rush a Wizard in Mage Armor (or Bracers of Armor) some time. Much fun to be had by all. After all, the extending to the Ethereal plane is a property of Force effects (it's under Etherealness in Special Abilities and Conditions) not part of the Wall of Force spell itself.

Hmm...I don't know if I like that interpretatation. If you can touch the mage armor and thus bull rush the wizard, why can't you then also deliver touch spells and effects, too? Allowing that could lead to some pretty nasty abuses, and not necessarily just by the NPCs...

 

[Vegepygmy]

Don't forget to have an ethereal beasty bull-rush a Wizard in Mage Armor (or Bracers of Armor) some time.

Some people don't care what the FAQ says, but...well, here's what it says:

Can an ethereal creature or a ghost that isn’t manifesting (and thus has a Strength score) grapple someone wearing bracers of armor or who has the mage armor spell cast on them? What about an incorporeal creature, such as a spectre? What if it’s the other way around? Can a person that has a mage armor effect on him bull rush an ethereal ghost or an incorporeal spectre?

Mage armor and bracers of armor aren’t powerful enough to allow a material creature to interact normally with either incorporeal or ethereal opponents (or vice-versa). While the armor bonus from the mage armor spell or bracers of armor applies against incorporeal touch attacks, it doesn’t turn the affected creature into a force effect himself. A monk wearing bracers of armor can’t affect incorporeal or ethereal creatures with her unarmed strikes any more easily than she normally could, and neither could a fighter “wearing” mage armor bull rush an incorporeal or ethereal foe.​

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Some people don't care what the FAQ says

I care!

The FAQ supports my position? I denounce my original stance! I denounce my original stance!

Seriously, I've learned to treat any FAQ ruling as "guilty until proven innocent" -- it's wrong until proven right. Cause...that's the natural result when a source is wrong so often.