Incorporeal creatures and the dreaded 15ft thick wall

[glass]

Well, we've had DM's that had incorporeal undead coming in and out of the walls and floor in dungeons and caverns before. It was extremely annoying trying to fight them for one. And, they'd just stick their eyes out to see where we were before moving around and such.

So, yeah. It's nice to see a hard rule.

But nothing in this rule prevents any of that, as long as the walls were 5ft thick or less. And even if they were thicker than that they could still move along inside the wall and pop out somewhere else on the same side.

I think it's a silly rule, and I shall continue to think that unless someone comes up with a reason why it might be important.


glass.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But nothing in this rule prevents any of that, as long as the walls were 5ft thick or less. And even if they were thicker than that they could still move along inside the wall and pop out somewhere else on the same side.

I think it's a silly rule, and I shall continue to think that unless someone comes up with a reason why it might be important.

Yes, it's worthwhile to note that an incorporeal creature can ENTER a wall, and stay inside of it so no one can see then, but they have to stay right by the surface. They cannot pass THROUGH the wall if is bigger than they are (I always interpret that as the WHOLE object, so I almost never let them go THROUGH any wall, because there are not normally 5 ft sections of walls lying around).

It's not an EXTREMELY important rule, but what it means is that incorporeal creatures in order to get to the end of, say a dungeon, have to actually pass "through" all the doorways and hallways, being subject to wards put into place and not being able to get into completely sealed rooms. Also, to get to the middle of the dungeon still takes about the same about of time because you can't just go in a straight line.

It just means that if the PCs hear rumors of an ancient, underground cavern, they need to look for an entrance rather than turn incorporeal.

Without this rule, I can see incorporeal being more powerful than it should be.

 

[Three_Haligonians]

I don't know what the "15' foot bit" is, but the bit mentioned by Three_Haligonians is certainly "part of the rules".

-Hyp.

Sorry,

The 15 foot bit is based on the idea that a medium sized incorporeal creature with its 5 feet of space couldn't pass through a wall 15 feet thick since the rules say it has to remain adjacent to the exterior of the wall at all times.

Which, IMO, is kind of dumb. However I fully understand that they felt something needed to stop incorporeal PCs from being totally unbalanced but really, how many ways can a PC become incorporeal anyway?

J from Three Haligonians

 

[Infiniti2000]

And doesn't that seem strange? Would it be so bad if one were to "forget" that rule?

I don't think it makes a big difference. You could similarly forget a lot of rules that are probably entirely flavor-based. Why not remove a lycanthropes DR/silver? A vampire's vulnerability to sunlight? Eliminate a wolf's trip? Etc.

It's obvious that this rule will not really prevent abuse, because there's no abuse to be had.

Personally, I like it. To me, it makes sense and fits the concept of what I feel the incorporeal subtype possesses. If you get rid of it, IMO you should also get rid of what I would call the corrolaries: that it can sense creatures/objects in a neighboring square, and that it can move at full speed even when it cannot see.

 

[Jarrod]

The question is, why? Say that senses do not work inside a solid object. Why can't they just "close their eyes" and step across to the other side of the wall? How 'bout getting lost?

There is something about stone and other dense substances that completely confuses an incoporeal creature's sense of direction. Or maybe they don't have one to start with. In either case, if an incoporeal creature loses contact with the surface, they can quite literally "wander" for ages inside a relatively thin block of stone before making their way to the other side, much like an early ship that lost sight of shore (and can't use the sun/stars to navigate).

Tell the PCs: You step into the wall, and in front of you you perceive a vast void that seems to be sucking you in. The "light" from behind you gets dimmer and dimmer...


Heh. They'll never look at a wall in the same way again.

 

[glass]

I don't think it makes a big difference. You could similarly forget a lot of rules that are probably entirely flavor-based. Why not remove a lycanthropes DR/silver? A vampire's vulnerability to sunlight? Eliminate a wolf's trip? Etc.

But, all of those things add flavour. Incorporeals having this rule takes away flavour IMO, bacause it creates a disconect. They can walk through that first 5 ft of stone as if it wasn't there, but that second five feet is as solid for them as everyone else. Why?


glass.

 

[glass]

Yes, it's worthwhile to note that an incorporeal creature can ENTER a wall, and stay inside of it so no one can see then, but they have to stay right by the surface. They cannot pass THROUGH the wall if is bigger than they are (I always interpret that as the WHOLE object, so I almost never let them go THROUGH any wall, because there are not normally 5 ft sections of walls lying around).

On the contrary, walls are almost never as much as 5 ft thick. In the ancient walls thicker walls would be more common, but even so very few walls would be over 5ft+ thick (maybe major walls in castles and cathedrals, but that'd be about it).

It's not an EXTREMELY important rule, but what it means is that incorporeal creatures in order to get to the end of, say a dungeon, have to actually pass "through" all the doorways and hallways, being subject to wards put into place and not being able to get into completely sealed rooms.

No, you can just walk down the wall adjacent to the hallway. Aslong as you are never more than 5 ft from a surface (for a medium creature) your golden.


glass.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But, all of those things add flavour. Incorporeals having this rule takes away flavour IMO, bacause it creates a disconect. They can walk through that first 5 ft of stone as if it wasn't there, but that second five feet is as solid for them as everyone else. Why?

For the same reason: it adds flavor (I thought I already said this). Making a vampire vulnerable to sunlight is a restriction that adds flavor to vampires. The same thing applies to the incorporeal subtype and thick walls. If you can't drum up a flavor-reason why, then don't use it. Simple as that. Jarrod comes up with one such explanation, I'm sure there could be more. Sure, it might not be as crystal clear as the connection between vampires and sunlight, but it could be seen to add depth to incorporeal subtype creatures.

 

[glass]

For the same reason: it adds flavor (I thought I already said this). Making a vampire vulnerable to sunlight is a restriction that adds flavor to vampires. The same thing applies to the incorporeal subtype and thick walls. If you can't drum up a flavor-reason why, then don't use it. Simple as that. Jarrod comes up with one such explanation, I'm sure there could be more. Sure, it might not be as crystal clear as the connection between vampires and sunlight, but it could be seen to add depth to incorporeal subtype creatures.

Obviously, flavour is a matter of opinion rather than fact, so we'll not convince each other, but I'll have a go at clarifying my position one more time:

Making vampires vulnerable to sunlight makes them more vampiric in my mind. Not allowing incorporeals to walk through walls makes them less incorporeal in my mind.

YMM and obviously does V.


glass.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I think that's because Monster Manual III modified the definition of Incorporeal which was then copied (and explained) in Libris Mortis. So DMG is lagging behind at this stage, and it ought to be mentioned in any future DMG errata document.

It won't because the primary source is considered to be the correct one. I believe there is a blurb like this at the beginning of ALL official errata documents:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.​

​

If MM3 modified the definition then it contradicts the primary source which would be either the DMG or MM(1) [the DMG is primary source for conditions, MM would be primary source for templates and monster abilities].

But so far as I can tell, the MM III defintion supercedes the DMG for all purposes of defining Incorporeal.

Nope. The DMG supercedes if you're talking about Incorporeal being a condition. The MM supercedes if you're talking about a monster supernatural ability.

Of course, that's just as far as OFFICIAL ERRATA is concerned and this is graphic evidence why you should not put too much stock in OFFICIAL errata. If the modifed approach given in MM3 clears up problems that you find from the DMG or MM then there is every reason in the world why you should IGNORE the official errata.