Incorporeal Creatures Carrying Objects

[Caliburn101]

@ jgsugden, 5ekyu

The 'logic' offered by those supporting this argument was that having a strength score guarantees the ability interract with physical objects.

No rule states this is right, or wrong.

In using the word 'incorporeal' the writers of the rules deliberately invoked it's literal meaning in context. Either that or they kept on using the wrong term, repeatedly for every incorporeal creature in the game without anyone picking up the mistake through the editing process.

A little unlikely I think you will agree...

Just because they then assign a strength score to it does not in any way make what it is assigned to as a descriptor less incorporeal and therefore a non-literal version of the word - a thing which is insubstantial but which can nevertheless interact with the substantial.

I have no problem with a DM interpreting this either way in their game. House rules can be as they wish, or the room left for individual determination in this rule-less area can be exercised and it will be fine either way.

But I do wish people arguing that their interpretation of the thing is the way the rules are written when they are not would admit it and stop seeking faux-official validity. Words on the other hand DO have a literal meaning and ignoring that when you decide you are the only one who truly understands the truth of the matter is not a credible position to take.

 

[5ekyu]

@ jgsugden, 5ekyu

The 'logic' offered by those supporting this argument was that having a strength score guarantees the ability interract with physical objects.

No rule states this is right, or wrong.

In using the word 'incorporeal' the writers of the rules deliberately invoked it's literal meaning in context. Either that or they kept on using the wrong term, repeatedly for every incorporeal creature in the game without anyone picking up the mistake through the editing process.

A little unlikely I think you will agree...

Just because they then assign a strength score to it does not in any way make what it is assigned to as a descriptor less incorporeal and therefore a non-literal version of the word - a thing which is insubstantial but which can nevertheless interact with the substantial.

I have no problem with a DM interpreting this either way in their game. House rules can be as they wish, or the room left for individual determination in this rule-less area can be exercised and it will be fine either way.

But I do wish people arguing that their interpretation of the thing is the way the rules are written when they are not would admit it and stop seeking faux-official validity. Words on the other hand DO have a literal meaning and ignoring that when you decide you are the only one who truly understands the truth of the matter is not a credible position to take.

No, my argument is that the rules state that you can carry/lift and that the amount is based on your strength.

There is a rule - "The following terms define what you can lift or carry." there is no ambiguity there.

The following paragraphs after that tie that carry to strength

As for the decision to focus on incorporeal and somehow construe that that is the trait in 5e that identifies inability to interact with objects, i refer you to ghosts, wraiths etc where incorporeal appears in the trait "incorporeal movement" which defines the creatures ability to pass thru solid objects and barriers.

Once you have referenced and read that, maybe more than once, i refer you to the will-o-wisp trait Ephemeral which reads - Ephemeral. The will-o’-wisp can’t wear or carry anything.

Note, will-o-wisp ALSO has incorporeal movement - which reads the same as the others... but it has ephemeral in addition to incorporeal movement. that doesn't make much sense, does it, if we assume incorporeal also includes ephemeral by default?

So, while you may be oh so sick and tired of those of us claiming there are in fact rules that answer the question of which creatures can and cannot carry things and interact with objects as far as incorporeal goes - foolish folks we may be - the fact that i can point to the following seems to at least to my tiny little brain give me a basis for saying "the rules support this position":
1 a rule that specifically says it covers what creatures can lift/carry.
2 Creatures with incorporeal, with strength score and without ephemeral traits
3 creatures with both ephemeral and incorporeal

Sorry if that kind of thing bugs you tho. personally, i tend to find discussions referencing actual rules to be common on these forums. if this kind of thing bugged me, made me wish others would stop, i would be elsewhere myself, but thats me.

Edit to add someone pointed out the ephemeral trait snd its being the trait that explicitly states that the creature cannot carry. So kudos to them of course they were ignored by subsequent "there is no rule" claimants.

Meanwhile, going back to the OP, in addition to not mentioning ephemeral, the bigger mistake i think was their decision to assume a creature having the incorporeal movement feature was in fact an "incorporeal creature".

Maybe they were channeling prior editions.

 

[Caliburn101]

No, my argument is that the rules state that you can carry/lift and that the amount is based on your strength.

There is a rule - "The following terms define what you can lift or carry." there is no ambiguity there.

The following paragraphs after that tie that carry to strength

As for the decision to focus on incorporeal and somehow construe that that is the trait in 5e that identifies inability to interact with objects, i refer you to ghosts, wraiths etc where incorporeal appears in the trait "incorporeal movement" which defines the creatures ability to pass thru solid objects and barriers.

Once you have referenced and read that, maybe more than once, i refer you to the will-o-wisp trait Ephemeral which reads - Ephemeral. The will-o’-wisp can’t wear or carry anything.

Note, will-o-wisp ALSO has incorporeal movement - which reads the same as the others... but it has ephemeral in addition to incorporeal movement. that doesn't make much sense, does it, if we assume incorporeal also includes ephemeral by default?

So, while you may be oh so sick and tired of those of us claiming there are in fact rules that answer the question of which creatures can and cannot carry things and interact with objects as far as incorporeal goes - foolish folks we may be - the fact that i can point to the following seems to at least to my tiny little brain give me a basis for saying "the rules support this position":
1 a rule that specifically says it covers what creatures can lift/carry.
2 Creatures with incorporeal, with strength score and without ephemeral traits
3 creatures with both ephemeral and incorporeal

Sorry if that kind of thing bugs you tho. personally, i tend to find discussions referencing actual rules to be common on these forums. if this kind of thing bugged me, made me wish others would stop, i would be elsewhere myself, but thats me.

Edit to add someone pointed out the ephemeral trait snd its being the trait that explicitly states that the creature cannot carry. So kudos to them of course they were ignored by subsequent "there is no rule" claimants.

Meanwhile, going back to the OP, in addition to not mentioning ephemeral, the bigger mistake i think was their decision to assume a creature having the incorporeal movement feature was in fact an "incorporeal creature".

Maybe they were channeling prior editions.

Thanks for being snarky - that always helps things along on these forums.

You are putting the blame on the wrong side of the issue here.

There is no particular mistake being made by users of the rules in interpreting the rules on Incorporeal Movement as the creature being Incorporeal. The rules are just very badly written, because if WoTC meant just 'incorporeal while moving' then that throws up many situational complications which go unexplained in the rules (see further down this post).

I have been quite clear that I think the rules neither support the carrying of objects by incorporeal creatures nor make it clear that they can and having reviewed the entire passages on Strength, Lifting and Encumbrance your point still doesn't stand on the firm ground you think it does.

You, once again seek to conflate 'can' with 'always can'.

If one was to utilise your inflexible interpretation about how the general rules here mix with the specific, then because the rules say STR allows you to carry anything within a certain maximum amount of weight, and a backpack can contain 30lbs of anything, then 30lbs of liquid water could successfully be carried in the backpack.

Utter nonsense of course - any DM with half a brain would laugh at any such attempt unless the character stitched the backpack up like a waterskin - but it demonstrates my point.

If you throw common sense out of the window and act like a computer reading a rules algorithm you end up with all sorts of failures of common sense like this. Interpreting the RAW without regard for logic, life experience or the literal meaning of the words used in those very rules means your game will not always make any sense when you encounter such grey areas.

Besides, this thread would not exist if this was an issue upon which there was cut and dry clarity!

So tell me... does the rule on incorporeal movement mean when creatures with it travel through solid things everything they are carrying becomes incorporeal? Or are they incorporeal only when they take the move action regardless of passing through solid objects? Or are they incorporeal all the time and somehow the items levitate on their bodies... or do those solid objects only become incorporeal only while they are wearing them? Does that mean if they wear armour it doesn't add an AC? If the items remain physical while carried, does the monster have to drop them all before using incorporeal movement to pass through solid objects?

I could go on of course - but all of these things have to be decided at the table and be consistent next to one another - and they cannot all be true.

So much for the clarity of the rules you claim exists, so being sarcastic about it and talking about other people's 'mistakes' is illustrative of the fact you just haven't grasped the scope of the problem in the RAW.

Part of any interpretation of which version is true at any particular table will naturally include a consideration of what the word 'incorporeal' means... literally.

Here is the dictionary entry.

incorporeal
/ˌɪnkɔːˈpɔːrɪəl/
adjective
adjective: incorporeal
not composed of matter; having no material existence.
"a supreme but incorporeal being called God"
synonyms:
intangible, impalpable, non-material, non-physical; More
bodiless, unembodied, disembodied;
ethereal, unsubstantial, insubstantial, airy, aerial;
spiritual, ghostly, spectral, phantom, wraithlike, transcendental, unearthly, supernatural;
unreal, imaginary, illusory, chimerical, hallucinatory;
rare immaterial, discarnate, disincarnate, unbodied, phantasmal, phantasmic
"millions believe in a supreme but incorporeal being"
antonyms:
tangible
Law
having no physical existence.

But the rules don't say anything about any of that despite using a very specific word with a very specific meaning - unfortunately. Your so-very-assured interpretation of the rules doesn't help the DM in any situational need for clarity such as those I have mentioned above.

In fact the Wisp IS the only creature where the Trait makes sense as it is effectively clarified by the Ephemeral Trait which logically should just have been added to the Incorporeal Movement Trait and the whole thing just called 'Incorporeal' to make it mean the same as the word itself.

But WoTC didn't do that - so the rules don't in fact make much sense as written and therefore the rules do not definitively mean what you say - they just can, if you decide to narrate one of the variations I have already mentioned at your table.

But that is a decision you are forced to make because of an incomplete rule, and your take on it isn't not the only one that is valid, or that works at the table.

The rest of us can and will decide for ourselves how we play with equal validity thank you...

 

[5ekyu]

Thanks for being snarky - that always helps things along on these forums.

You are putting the blame on the wrong side of the issue here.

There is no particular mistake being made by users of the rules in interpreting the rules on Incorporeal Movement as the creature being Incorporeal. The rules are just very badly written, because if WoTC meant just 'incorporeal while moving' then that throws up many situational complications which go unexplained in the rules (see further down this post).

I have been quite clear that I think the rules neither support the carrying of objects by incorporeal creatures nor make it clear that they can and having reviewed the entire passages on Strength, Lifting and Encumbrance your point still doesn't stand on the firm ground you think it does.

You, once again seek to conflate 'can' with 'always can'.

If one was to utilise your inflexible interpretation about how the general rules here mix with the specific, then because the rules say STR allows you to carry anything within a certain maximum amount of weight, and a backpack can contain 30lbs of anything, then 30lbs of liquid water could successfully be carried in the backpack.

Utter nonsense of course - any DM with half a brain would laugh at any such attempt unless the character stitched the backpack up like a waterskin - but it demonstrates my point.

If you throw common sense out of the window and act like a computer reading a rules algorithm you end up with all sorts of failures of common sense like this. Interpreting the RAW without regard for logic, life experience or the literal meaning of the words used in those very rules means your game will not always make any sense when you encounter such grey areas.

Besides, this thread would not exist if this was an issue upon which there was cut and dry clarity!

So tell me... does the rule on incorporeal movement mean when creatures with it travel through solid things everything they are carrying becomes incorporeal? Or are they incorporeal only when they take the move action regardless of passing through solid objects? Or are they incorporeal all the time and somehow the items levitate on their bodies... or do those solid objects only become incorporeal only while they are wearing them? Does that mean if they wear armour it doesn't add an AC? If the items remain physical while carried, does the monster have to drop them all before using incorporeal movement to pass through solid objects?

I could go on of course - but all of these things have to be decided at the table and be consistent next to one another - and they cannot all be true.

So much for the clarity of the rules you claim exists, so being sarcastic about it and talking about other people's 'mistakes' is illustrative of the fact you just haven't grasped the scope of the problem in the RAW.

Part of any interpretation of which version is true at any particular table will naturally include a consideration of what the word 'incorporeal' means... literally.

Here is the dictionary entry.

incorporeal
/ˌɪnkɔːˈpɔːrɪəl/
adjective
adjective: incorporeal
not composed of matter; having no material existence.
"a supreme but incorporeal being called God"
synonyms:
intangible, impalpable, non-material, non-physical; More
bodiless, unembodied, disembodied;
ethereal, unsubstantial, insubstantial, airy, aerial;
spiritual, ghostly, spectral, phantom, wraithlike, transcendental, unearthly, supernatural;
unreal, imaginary, illusory, chimerical, hallucinatory;
rare immaterial, discarnate, disincarnate, unbodied, phantasmal, phantasmic
"millions believe in a supreme but incorporeal being"
antonyms:
tangible
Law
having no physical existence.

But the rules don't say anything about any of that despite using a very specific word with a very specific meaning - unfortunately. Your so-very-assured interpretation of the rules doesn't help the DM in any situational need for clarity such as those I have mentioned above.

In fact the Wisp IS the only creature where the Trait makes sense as it is effectively clarified by the Ephemeral Trait which logically should just have been added to the Incorporeal Movement Trait and the whole thing just called 'Incorporeal' to make it mean the same as the word itself.

But WoTC didn't do that - so the rules don't in fact make much sense as written and therefore the rules do not definitively mean what you say - they just can, if you decide to narrate one of the variations I have already mentioned at your table.

But that is a decision you are forced to make because of an incomplete rule, and your take on it isn't not the only one that is valid, or that works at the table.

The rest of us can and will decide for ourselves how we play with equal validity thank you...

"In fact the Wisp IS the only creature where the Trait makes sense as it is effectively clarified by the Ephemeral Trait which logically should just have been added to the Incorporeal Movement Trait and the whole thing just called 'Incorporeal' to make it mean the same as the word itself."

It is logical to add ephemeral to the "incorporeal movement" feature only if the intent of that feature was meant to include it.

The fact that it was separated, that some creatures have both, others have one, points to a different conclusion. That they were meant to be distinct traits.

Also, the 5e "natural language" guideline is specifically called out for non-game terms, things not given specific definitions. The barbarian "Reckless Attack" has defined in game meaning and doesnt open them up to every off-the-cuff penalty that the GM and Dictionary.com shows for the normal language "reckless."

Both "incorporeal movement" and "ephemeral" are shown as specific character features and given specific in-game definitions, not used as a common language expression.

Note again, the term is "incorporeal movement" not "incorporeal creature" it is a specific defined movement option, not a general state of the creature.

Ghosts, specters, etc are not defined in their description as "incorporeal creatures" they are just given "incorporeal movemt." The OP guess to equate those two - that it was meant to be that was - was an error in understanding the rules.

A GM is certainly free to house rule this away. They can decide incorporeal movement includes all sorts of things such as not carrying object, flight, ethereal sight, time travel, planar travel, ability to hitch a ride in a pouch, whatever they want. They can house rule that any or all of these dont need to be separate listing, even tho quite a few do have them for only some of the incorporeal movement creatures.

House rules are great. Use them all the time. Fantastic things.

But, when the rules have one well-defined creature feature for "incorporeal movement" and another for "ephemeral" the claim that there are no rules for whether or not s creature can carry things or not ot that its incomplete or vague is frankly going to come across as a not-well-supported one.

 

[Caliburn101]

@5ekyu

I note that you sidestepped the entire point of my post and didn't answer any of the situational conflicts the RAW give rise to - concentrating on the only element of your argument that is on solid ground.

Let me make one last appeal to you to answer on the many exceptions to the way in which the rule is supposed to work, but doesn't.

The definition (insofar as it goes...) of the Trait is not the problem. The extremely limited scope of the Incorporeal Trait is. It cannot be utilised at the table as written in any of the circumstances I have described without houseruling.

It cannot.

Therefore a DM is forced to rule what incorporeal means at their table - making the issue of whether they can carry things and if they can under what restrictions and circumstances a necessary consideration for any DM.

What incorporeal means at one table differs from another - there being a suite of different answers to the various interactions with solid objects such monster will make as the DM sees it.

I have already encountered this - and it is plainly because the Trait is very poorly thought out.

If you don't think so - then list the various interactions which can reasonably occur between solid objects and a monster using Incorporeal Movement and quote me the rules telling the DM how that plays out.

It is my firm contention that no such rules exist, and so the issue of carrying physical items for a monster with this Trait is far from answered in the neat and simplistic way you claim.

Anyway - I am off to create an encounter with a bunch of Wraiths in adamantine full plate who specialise in grappling PCs and dropping them inside walls forcing them to take the force damage listed. Although hang on, I might create some spiked walls and have my not solid/solid Shadows in the following encounter push the PCs into the spiked walls by body-checking them - adding some heavy piercing to their normal attacks. Of course the Shadows won't take any damage as they will be passing through the spikes... Maybe a phalanx of Ghosts with shields could follow using long spears attacking through an iron gate (they moved this turn... )and then a Banshee holding a megaphone to increase the DC and range of her scream will finish them off. There is so much abusive fun one can have with solid/not-solid enemies - such as a Spectre reaching through a wall to Disarm a PC and then the Spectre next to them picking up the weapon and disappearing through the wall with it leaving the PC disarmed and helpless on the wrong side of a 20ft think stone wall. I think I might also have a Wraith reach out of a wall against a Fighter with Riposte to claw at them and force Disadvantage on the riposte because there is only an arm to attack (not the whole creature), or maybe attacks out of a wall where the Ghosts responsible don't suffer AoO moving in, attack and moving out because they are inside a wall and the AoO cannot hit them.

Nasty...

Yep - all of these scenarios are allowed in the are solid/aren't solid Incorporeal Movement version of the RAW... but pull much of that crapola on players and see how fast they demand some reasonable house rules be created for the game...

The Trait is busted and doesn't define anything close to what it needs to do to work properly.

 

[5ekyu]

@5ekyu

I note that you sidestepped the entire point of my post and didn't answer any of the situational conflicts the RAW give rise to - concentrating on the only element of your argument that is on solid ground.

Let me make one last appeal to you to answer on the many exceptions to the way in which the rule is supposed to work, but doesn't.

The definition (insofar as it goes...) of the Trait is not the problem. The extremely limited scope of the Incorporeal Trait is. It cannot be utilised at the table as written in any of the circumstances I have described without houseruling.

It cannot.

Therefore a DM is forced to rule what incorporeal means at their table - making the issue of whether they can carry things and if they can under what restrictions and circumstances a necessary consideration for any DM.

What incorporeal means at one table differs from another - there being a suite of different answers to the various interactions with solid objects such monster will make as the DM sees it.

I have already encountered this - and it is plainly because the Trait is very poorly thought out.

If you don't think so - then list the various interactions which can reasonably occur between solid objects and a monster using Incorporeal Movement and quote me the rules telling the DM how that plays out.

It is my firm contention that no such rules exist, and so the issue of carrying physical items for a monster with this Trait is far from answered in the neat and simplistic way you claim.

Anyway - I am off to create an encounter with a bunch of Wraiths in adamantine full plate who specialise in grappling PCs and dropping them inside walls forcing them to take the force damage listed. Although hang on, I might create some spiked walls and have my not solid/solid Shadows in the following encounter push the PCs into the spiked walls by body-checking them - adding some heavy piercing to their normal attacks. Of course the Shadows won't take any damage as they will be passing through the spikes... Maybe a phalanx of Ghosts with shields could follow using long spears attacking through an iron gate (they moved this turn... )and then a Banshee holding a megaphone to increase the DC and range of her scream will finish them off. There is so much abusive fun one can have with solid/not-solid enemies - such as a Spectre reaching through a wall to Disarm a PC and then the Spectre next to them picking up the weapon and disappearing through the wall with it leaving the PC disarmed and helpless on the wrong side of a 20ft think stone wall. I think I might also have a Wraith reach out of a wall against a Fighter with Riposte to claw at them and force Disadvantage on the riposte because there is only an arm to attack (not the whole creature), or maybe attacks out of a wall where the Ghosts responsible don't suffer AoO moving in, attack and moving out because they are inside a wall and the AoO cannot hit them.

Nasty...

Yep - all of these scenarios are allowed in the are solid/aren't solid Incorporeal Movement version of the RAW... but pull much of that crapola on players and see how fast they demand some reasonable house rules be created for the game...

The Trait is busted and doesn't define anything close to what it needs to do to work properly.

"The Trait is busted and doesn't define anything close to what it needs to do to work properly"

See, here is thdvthing.

5e design goals and mode of play is not built around a underpinning of every rule and feature must specify in print hard snd fast every possible interection and unteraction.

I believe the stated intent is "rulings not rules". That does mean on a fairly significant number of cases, these rulings will vary from one GM to the next, by design, not by accident, not by mistake.

So, guess what? If you decide to say for your game that incorporeal movement will allow a creature to grapple creatures and hold them indide solid objects for damage, that's great! Hope your game works well. If on the other hand you apply the ruling differently, hope your game works well.

But, if one comes to 5e expecting every feature yo cover in depth every possible ruling a GM might have to make in order to be "complete" then I am afraid one is going to find a lot of cases of what would be seen as "incomplete features in 5e becsuse that was an intentional "nah, we are not gonna try to reach that" decision.

*Does incorporeal movement say it can take objects or other creatures with it through objects, leave them stuck inside, etc?* Nope. But a GM is free to rule that it can - at their table. They can rule it as s broad "applies everywhere or as a more selective "only items special to the creature" or " attuned only" or whatever works for their game. Just like the gm is meant to answer "is a backpack watertight?" and "can a ring of protection be destroyed by smashing with a hammer?" as opposed to having to have rules for that and the gazillion other intersections of the rules.

How fast does red wine leak out of a backpack on a ridge overlooking a valley? Does it matter if it's cheap red wine, not the fancy stuff?

 

[Caliburn101]

"The Trait is busted and doesn't define anything close to what it needs to do to work properly"

See, here is thdvthing.

5e design goals and mode of play is not built around a underpinning of every rule and feature must specify in print hard snd fast every possible interection and unteraction.

I believe the stated intent is "rulings not rules". That does mean on a fairly significant number of cases, these rulings will vary from one GM to the next, by design, not by accident, not by mistake.

So, guess what? If you decide to say for your game that incorporeal movement will allow a creature to grapple creatures and hold them indide solid objects for damage, that's great! Hope your game works well. If on the other hand you apply the ruling differently, hope your game works well.

But, if one comes to 5e expecting every feature yo cover in depth every possible ruling a GM might have to make in order to be "complete" then I am afraid one is going to find a lot of cases of what would be seen as "incomplete features in 5e becsuse that was an intentional "nah, we are not gonna try to reach that" decision.

*Does incorporeal movement say it can take objects or other creatures with it through objects, leave them stuck inside, etc?* Nope. But a GM is free to rule that it can - at their table. They can rule it as s broad "applies everywhere or as a more selective "only items special to the creature" or " attuned only" or whatever works for their game. Just like the gm is meant to answer "is a backpack watertight?" and "can a ring of protection be destroyed by smashing with a hammer?" as opposed to having to have rules for that and the gazillion other intersections of the rules.

How fast does red wine leak out of a backpack on a ridge overlooking a valley? Does it matter if it's cheap red wine, not the fancy stuff?

So there we are!

We agree, that the OP's question about Incorporeal Creatures Carry Objects is suitably apropos - because the Trait requires liberal amounts of DM ruling.

It just potentially requires a whole lot of rulings once combat is joined - which is a sure sign of a poorly written rule.

 

[5ekyu]

So there we are!

We agree, that the OP's question about Incorporeal Creatures Carry Objects is suitably apropos - because the Trait requires liberal amounts of DM ruling.

It just potentially requires a whole lot of rulings once combat is joined - which is a sure sign of a poorly written rule.

Hilarious.

 

[Caliburn101]

Hilarious.

Not at all - just a shame you don't see it, or if you do, you can't admit it.

 

[jayoungr]

I remember the wraith in LMoP not being able to touch things. Not sure if it was written, or if I assumed so.

I just double-checked, and the adventure does specifically say he cannot interact with physical objects. From page 47: "No longer corporeal, he cannot touch or possess the wealth he enjoyed in life."