Incorporeal attacks

[Hypersmurf]

Mage armour is also a force affect. And since force affects affect all incoporeal creatures (Ghost's can't move thru a wall of force, for example) it affects them. It was even in one or two of the eratta's and FAQ's

That's not the point they're making. Incorporeal creatures are affected by Mage Armor, but Touch Attacks aren't, so the logic runs that an Incorporeal Touch Attack is just as unaffected by Mage Armor as a normal touch attack.

You need to view it as an incorporeal touch attack rather than an incorporeal touch attack before you can even begin to rationalise it.

(Oh, and I still maintain that the advantage for a ghost of using a ghost touch weapon is that it allows the ghost to make corporeal attacks... )

-Hyp.

 

[jlhorner1974]

If they had just deleted the word "touch" from the spectre's Monter Manual entry, this would work like everyone expects and this would be a non issue.

I personally will house rule that incorporeal creatures do not make touch attacks but instead make regular incorporeal attacks, so the incorporeal creature does have to get through the defender's armor if it is ghost touch or made of force.

I think the designers just saw the obvious similarities between an incorporeal creature's normal attack and a touch attack and misstated the way the spectre's attack works.

They both ignore armor, but difference is, of course, that a normal attack from an incorporeal creature is subject to armor that is ghost touch or made of force, while a touch attack always ignores armor, not matter what kind it is (since you only need to touch it and not penetrate it).

 

[jlhorner1974]

{deleted double post]

 

[AuraSeer]

You need to view it as an incorporeal touch attack rather than an incorporeal touch attack before you can even begin to rationalise it.

Hmm. At this point you and IceBear have me halfway convinced.

It does seem plausible that "incorporeal touch" is a special attack type, which has no relation to an actual touch attack. (After all, an 'armor bonus' and a 'natural armor bonus' are different.) In that case the rule is still reasonable, but it's a terrible choice of wording.

I think I'll send a query to the Sage about this.

 

[jlhorner1974]

Hypersmurf, I think that is exactly what the problem is. The way you show the different emphasis illustrates the problem perfectly.

Still, I contend that the "incorporeal touch attack" wording is poor and easily misinterpreted.

"touch attack" implies: "always ignores armor, shield, and natural armor, regardless of its type"

"incorporeal" implies: "ignores armor, shield, and natural armor unless it is ghost touch or made of force"

So if you say "touch attack", "incorporeal" is redundant.

If they would have said, "Incorporeal slam attack" instead, it would be clear what they meant.

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, I'm sure by the rules the mage armor should be ignored,, like you say. However, that just seems counter to all the stuff about mage armor and force effects blocking incorpreal attacks. IF there had been some incorpreal attacks that weren't touch attacks I could swallow it, but since there aren't I suspect that they meant for mage armor to count against an incorpreal touch attack.

I had thought the Sage had been asked this before, but since no one has posted a response, I guess we have to wait for an answer to your request. Remember, put in as much detail as possible (maybe even include a link to this thread) to get the "best" possible answer from Skip.

IceBear

 

[IceBear]

Hypersmurf, I think that is exactly what the problem is. The way you show the different emphasis illustrates the problem perfectly.

Still, I contend that the "incorporeal touch attack" wording is poor and easily misinterpreted.

Obviously, or we wouldn't be having this discussion

IceBear

 

[jlhorner1974]

Yeah, but isn't it weird that everyone who had different opinions at the beginning of this thread has basically already agreed on how it should work, without a Sage ruling?

Has this ever happened before?

 

[Wippit Guud]

Yeah, but isn't it weird that everyone who had different opinions at the beginning of this thread has basically already agreed on how it should work, without a Sage ruling?

Has this ever happened before?

Hmmm...


Signs of the Apocalypse Seen: 1
Signs remaining to be seen: 6

We're on our way!

 

[IceBear]

Yeah, but isn't it weird that everyone who had different opinions at the beginning of this thread has basically already agreed on how it should work, without a Sage ruling?

Has this ever happened before?

Hehehhe - good point. In my memory, I don't think so - at least not in any discussion I've been in

IceBear