Fox's cunning and oozes?

[Hypersmurf]

May not be perfect RAW, but I'd consider a spellcasters hand to be a magical weapon when the spellcaster is holding a touch spell.....

Which is one of the possibilities - that the spellcaster is not considered 'nonmagical matter' for that purpose.

-Hyp.

 

[SidusLupus]

If you really wanted to, you could give bull's strength to a ghost via a ghost touch spell storing weapon.

Although, wouldn't those vials that let you coat weapons and temporarily make them ghost touch work on someone's hand's as well?

 

[Laman Stahros]

But it's not the spell that needs to touch the object or creature, it's 'you'.

-Hyp.

Hyp, would you - as a DM - allow a cleric to use a Cure Light Wounds spell to attack an incorporeal creature? I do believe that it would (and should) work.

As to the OP, I would allow the spell to work on the ooze but the ooze would gain no benefit from it. The spell does not require the target to have a value in the proper stat, afterall.

Ps: wow, did I just question Hypersmurf's question on the rules? Ok, who just stopped the world from spinning?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, would you - as a DM - allow a cleric to use a Cure Light Wounds spell to attack an incorporeal creature?

I'd need to decide if the cleric counted as nonmagical matter or not.

After all, if the cleric can't elect not to discharge a spell when touching something (touching anything while holding the charge discharges the spell), why should he be able to elect to discharge a spell while not touching something?

Mass Cure Light Wounds, on the other hand (heh), would be no problem.

-Hyp.

 

[Lopke_Quasath]

To answer the OP: No Fox's Cunning wouldn't work.

The spell grants an enhancement bonus to Int.

Enhancement Bonus

An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score

(emphasis mine)

An ooze has NO Intelligence score, as per the MM Types and Subtypes:

Traits

An ooze possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

* Mindless: No Intelligence score, and immunity to all mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects).

(emphasis mine)

You can't give a bonus to something that isn't there.

Cheers

 

[mvincent]

You can't give a bonus to something that isn't there.

Correct (it would be similar to granting intelligence to an object). Note though that there are exceptions to this in D&D, as demonstrated by Barkskin and Magic Vestment

 

[Lopke_Quasath]

Correct (it would be similar to granting intelligence to an object). Note though that there are exceptions to this in D&D, as demonstrated by Barkskin and Magic Vestment

True, but of course because Fox's Cunning has no such addendum, it doesn't apply.

Also, Barkskin gives an

effective natural armor bonus of +0.

Notice the "+", as compared to the Ooze "-" Int.

Magic Vestment is interesting that is has

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

It grants no AC bonus? So, is that "+0" or "-". Heh, another case of bad definition.

 

[pawsplay]

Well, no AC bonus is not the same as AC -, so it's a finicky thing to worry about. A fighter with no monk levels as no Wisdom bonus to AC, but it doesn't mean he has Wis - or AC -. It's enough to know that it's armor, and hence can be enhanced. Whether the spell provides an enhancement bonus to aC or an enhancement bonus to AC +0 is a very small matter.

 

[Lopke_Quasath]

True, I'm nitpicking, but that's what all this is about

For more nitpicking-->

Is: No Intelligence score = No AC bonus? Neither grant anything. They are both non-existing.

I know it's the "Counts as an armor bonus" that matters, I'm just saying the previous examples of Barkskin and Magic Vestment can't be used for the oozes and Fox's Cunning argument.

Those spells have specific write-ups explaining how to use them. The specific write-ups inclusion does not infer that because Fox's Cunning doesn't have a specific write-up, they can be used as examples to show it should have one.

Okay, I tried my lawyer rules talk...and I think I failed. Ah, well. had to give it a shot

 

[Legildur]

I'd need to decide if the cleric counted as nonmagical matter or not.

After all, if the cleric can't elect not to discharge a spell when touching something (touching anything while holding the charge discharges the spell), why should he be able to elect to discharge a spell while not touching something?

From the MM p310 (under the Incorporeal Subtype) [my emphasis bolded]:

Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source (except for positive energy, negative energy, force effects such as magic missile, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons).

And from PHB p215 (under Cure Light Wounds) "...you channel positive energy that cures....".

Does that answer that? With CLW having a Target: creature touched, and chance to ignore not applicable due to it being positive energy (even though from a corporeal source).