Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7587398" data-attributes="member: 6919838">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 traits3 creatures with both ephemeral and incorporealSorry 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.</blockquote>

Verification