Incorporeal Creatures Carrying Objects

[Dausuul]

So, I had long assumed that incorporeal creatures couldn't move physical objects unless they had a special ability to let them do so. However, I was just looking over some of the undead in the Monster Manual and realized there does not seem to be any such rule. Ethereal creatures can't interact with the material plane, but most incorporeal* creatures aren't ethereal; and they all have a Strength of at least 1, so they should be able to lift and carry up to (Strength x 15) pounds.

Has this ever come up in your campaign? How did you handle it?

[size=-2]*Strictly speaking, the rules are a little fuzzy on whether "incorporeal" even exists as a distinct concept. It's referenced in a few places, such as the gaseous form spell and tremorsense, which don't work on "incorporeal" creatures; but if you look at creatures like the specter, they only have "incorporeal movement." I'm assuming that "incorporeal movement" and "incorporeal" are equivalent.[/size]

 

[LordEntrails]

Do they have a physical attack? Then they can move objects.

Also, look at Unseen Servant. It's listed as incorporeal, but states it has a strength of 2 and can move objects.

So yea, for me, if it has a strength score or a physical attack, then it can intereact with the physical world.

 

[Harzel]

Do they have a physical attack? Then they can move objects.

At least among the undead that have Incorporeal Movement their attacks do necrotic or force damage. It's not explicitly stated, but to me that indicates that they don't have a 'physical' attack in the usual sense. Is there an example of a creature that has Incorporeal Movement and an attack that does bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing damage?

Also, look at Unseen Servant. It's listed as incorporeal, but states it has a strength of 2 and can move objects.

Looking at the spell description, I don't see the word 'incorporeal'.

So yea, for me, if it has a strength score or a physical attack, then it can intereact with the physical world.

Is there a creature that does not have a strength score? I don't know of any, but I might have missed something.

 

[Harzel]

So, I had long assumed that incorporeal creatures couldn't move physical objects unless they had a special ability to let them do so. However, I was just looking over some of the undead in the Monster Manual and realized there does not seem to be any such rule. Ethereal creatures can't interact with the material plane, but most incorporeal* creatures aren't ethereal; and they all have a Strength of at least 1, so they should be able to lift and carry up to (Strength x 15) pounds.

Has this ever come up in your campaign? How did you handle it?

[SIZE=-2]*Strictly speaking, the rules are a little fuzzy on whether "incorporeal" even exists as a distinct concept. It's referenced in a few places, such as the gaseous form spell and tremorsense, which don't work on "incorporeal" creatures; but if you look at creatures like the specter, they only have "incorporeal movement." I'm assuming that "incorporeal movement" and "incorporeal" are equivalent.[/SIZE]

I think I would allow creatures with Incorporeal Movement to move or carry physical objects, subject to their STR score. However, if they were carrying an object and used Incorporeal Movement to move through a physical barrier (or creature), the object they were carrying would be left behind.

 

[jgsugden]

Creatures can carry objects. There is no rule stating that incorporeal creatures can't. So, your Hexblade's Accursed Specter can carry things for you, or be sent to retrieve things.

However, I believe it is up to the DM whether an incorporeal creature can carry something through a wall as there is no guidance I can find on this point. I would say no.

 

[aco175]

I remember the wraith in LMoP not being able to touch things. Not sure if it was written, or if I assumed so. There was some good roleplaying with the wraith about turning his pages on the book he was reading since he could not. I had thought that the wraith could deal damage since he was interrupting the PCs life force instead of dealing physical damage.

The other point is that incorporeal creatures can damage things and interact with their environment if plot demands it.

 

[TarionzCousin]

Isn't the Mage Hand spell incorporeal and explicitly made to move corporeal objects?*





* And give the middle finger to monsters as you run away with all of their treasure?

 

[Dausuul]

Isn't the Mage Hand spell incorporeal and explicitly made to move corporeal objects?*

Nope. At least, it is not explicitly incorporeal. It is described as "spectral," which has a similar connotation, but nowhere does the spell text mention "incorporeal."

 

[Caliburn101]

Creatures can carry objects. There is no rule stating that incorporeal creatures can't. So, your Hexblade's Accursed Specter can carry things for you, or be sent to retrieve things.

However, I believe it is up to the DM whether an incorporeal creature can carry something through a wall as there is no guidance I can find on this point. I would say no.

The absence of a rule stating an ability does not exist is I would say an unsound basis with which to assume that an ability must therefore exist.

Saying there is no rule saying that an incorporeal creature cannot carry an object, therefore it must be able to, and then saying that when carrying that object it cannot take it through a solid object - when there is no rule saying it's ability to do so is prevented by carrying something is a logical contradiction.

The creature is incorporeal - the definition of which is "...not composed of matter; having no material existence." Therefore the default assumption must logically be that it cannot carry objects having a material existence unless the rules say that is can.

BUT - the rules for incorporeal actually much more accurately reflect semi-corporeal status, in which case they can carry objects.

The interaction of these things and objects is confusing and rather ridiculous and could probably do with a Sage Advice exposition.

 

[jgsugden]

The absence of a rule stating an ability does not exist is I would say an unsound basis with which to assume that an ability must therefore exist.

The absence of an *exception* to a rule, however, is a sound basis. The general rule is that creatures can carry objects. If there is nothing to contradict that for a partcular creature, the general rule applies. This is how the rules are constructed, explicitly.

Saying there is no rule saying that an incorporeal creature cannot carry an object, therefore it must be able to, and then saying that when carrying that object it cannot take it through a solid object - when there is no rule saying it's ability to do so is prevented by carrying something is a logical contradiction.

No, there is a significant difference. We have a general rule that creatures can carry objects. There is no general rule about what can be carried through a wall when incorporeal.

There are a lot of ways to look at this and you can decide what you want to do in your game. I stand by my statements above.