If a Paladin Lays on Hands a incorporal undead, does the 50/50 miss chance apply?
- Thread starter johnsemlak
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
TheEvil said:
Well, no.
Mass Cure Light Wounds, for example, doesn't require a touch to discharge, so it would fall under the normal positive energy clause just fine, and not suffer any miss chance.
-Hyp.
Abstraction
First Post
What I was talking about is that incorporeal creatures cannot be hit at all by non-magical means.
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
Here's the quote I was looking for, from one of Skip's Rules of the Game articles:
Positive Energy: Unfortunately, the game has no positive energy descriptor, so you have to study a spell or effect's description to find out if it involves positive energy. The cleric's ability to turn undead creatures is a positive energy effect. The various cure spells also involve positive energy; however, to deliver a cure spell you must touch a creature and your touch is not a positive energy effect. If you're corporeal, your touch attack has a 50% miss chance and if you fail that chance, your touch attack misses and you don't deliver the spell (but you're still holding the charge as noted on page 176 of the Player's Handbook). If you pass the miss chance, you make a melee touch attack against the incorporeal creature and, if you hit, you deliver the spell. The rules don't say so, but you use the same procedure for any other touch range spell. If your touch attack avoids the miss chance, a successful hit delivers the spell to an incorporeal recipient, even if the spell is not a positive energy effect.
Mass versions of cure spells, such as mass cure light wounds, that deliver positive energy over a distance, don't have a miss chance against incorporeal creatures.
But I don't see why your touch attack has a 50% miss chance. Either you're touching with your hand, which can't hit at all, or you're touching with a Cure Light Wounds spell, which is a positive energy effect. I don't see how he can justify a 50% miss chance with a CLW.
-Hyp.
Positive Energy: Unfortunately, the game has no positive energy descriptor, so you have to study a spell or effect's description to find out if it involves positive energy. The cleric's ability to turn undead creatures is a positive energy effect. The various cure spells also involve positive energy; however, to deliver a cure spell you must touch a creature and your touch is not a positive energy effect. If you're corporeal, your touch attack has a 50% miss chance and if you fail that chance, your touch attack misses and you don't deliver the spell (but you're still holding the charge as noted on page 176 of the Player's Handbook). If you pass the miss chance, you make a melee touch attack against the incorporeal creature and, if you hit, you deliver the spell. The rules don't say so, but you use the same procedure for any other touch range spell. If your touch attack avoids the miss chance, a successful hit delivers the spell to an incorporeal recipient, even if the spell is not a positive energy effect.
Mass versions of cure spells, such as mass cure light wounds, that deliver positive energy over a distance, don't have a miss chance against incorporeal creatures.
But I don't see why your touch attack has a 50% miss chance. Either you're touching with your hand, which can't hit at all, or you're touching with a Cure Light Wounds spell, which is a positive energy effect. I don't see how he can justify a 50% miss chance with a CLW.
-Hyp.
ackron
First Post
The way I read the text in the MM, there is no miss chance involved. Nowhere does it refer to a miss chance or your attacks missing or even concealment. Here is the relevant text:
"It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. 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 missle, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons)."
The way I read that, you can hit an incorporeal creature with any kind of weapon (including a touch attack) as long as you beat its AC, but it is immune to the affects of nonmagical attack forms, in the same way that a swarm is immune to weapon damage (but not to being hit with weapons). Magic weapons hit just like anything else, and if you hit an incorporial creature with them, the attack has a 50% chance of having no affect.
So the way I read this, yes, you can affect an incorpoeal undead creature with both lay on hands and cure light wounds, and there is no "miss chance" involved.
"It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. 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 missle, or attacks made with ghost touch weapons)."
The way I read that, you can hit an incorporeal creature with any kind of weapon (including a touch attack) as long as you beat its AC, but it is immune to the affects of nonmagical attack forms, in the same way that a swarm is immune to weapon damage (but not to being hit with weapons). Magic weapons hit just like anything else, and if you hit an incorporial creature with them, the attack has a 50% chance of having no affect.
So the way I read this, yes, you can affect an incorpoeal undead creature with both lay on hands and cure light wounds, and there is no "miss chance" involved.
ackron
First Post
Hmm, perhaps I was not clear enough. In my understanding, whether an attack is magical or not has nothing to do with whether or not it can hit an incorporial creature (you can hit it with a plain old non-magical longsword if you want, it just won't take any damage). It does determine whether your hit has any affect.
Since you hit the creature with the touch attack, the spell is discharged. Now we check and see whether or not the attack has any effect.
According to the rules, it has to be a magic weapon, spell, spell-like ability, or supernatural ability to harm the creature, since it is a spell effect, it passes that barrier (because its a spell, not because its a magic weapon).
Now it is a spell effect that deals damage, so there would normally be a 50% chance the damage is negated. However, since the damage is from a positive enegry effect, this chance is ignored and the spell deals damage normally (note that the creature still receives a Will Save for half damage from a cure spell).
This also means that incorporal undead can be affected normally by touch spells that do not deal damage (assuming that the undead type does not make them immune) even if they are not postive enegry (ie Bestow Curse).
Whether or not a touch attack with a spell should be considered a magical attack is another debate, but I submit, not one that affects this arguement.
Since you hit the creature with the touch attack, the spell is discharged. Now we check and see whether or not the attack has any effect.
According to the rules, it has to be a magic weapon, spell, spell-like ability, or supernatural ability to harm the creature, since it is a spell effect, it passes that barrier (because its a spell, not because its a magic weapon).
Now it is a spell effect that deals damage, so there would normally be a 50% chance the damage is negated. However, since the damage is from a positive enegry effect, this chance is ignored and the spell deals damage normally (note that the creature still receives a Will Save for half damage from a cure spell).
This also means that incorporal undead can be affected normally by touch spells that do not deal damage (assuming that the undead type does not make them immune) even if they are not postive enegry (ie Bestow Curse).
Whether or not a touch attack with a spell should be considered a magical attack is another debate, but I submit, not one that affects this arguement.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
