Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7589116" data-attributes="member: 6919838">&quot;In fact the Wisp IS the only creature where the Trait makes sense as it is effectively clarified by the Ephemeral Trait which logically should just have been added to the Incorporeal Movement Trait and the whole thing just called 'Incorporeal' to make it mean the same as the word itself.&quot;It is logical to add ephemeral to the &quot;incorporeal movement&quot; feature only if the intent of that feature was meant to include it.The fact that it was separated, that some creatures have both, others have one, points to a different conclusion. That they were meant to be distinct traits.Also, the&nbsp; 5e &quot;natural language&quot; guideline is specifically called out for non-game terms, things not given specific definitions. The barbarian &quot;Reckless Attack&quot; has defined in game meaning and doesnt open them up to every off-the-cuff penalty that the GM and Dictionary.com shows for the normal language &quot;reckless.&quot; Both &quot;incorporeal movement&quot; and &quot;ephemeral&quot; are shown as specific character features and given specific in-game definitions, not used as a common language expression. Note again, the term is &quot;incorporeal movement&quot; not &quot;incorporeal creature&quot; it is a specific defined movement option, not a general state of the creature. Ghosts, specters, etc are not defined in their description as &quot;incorporeal creatures&quot; they are just given &quot;incorporeal movemt.&quot; The OP guess to equate those two - that it was meant to be that was - was an error in understanding the rules.A GM is certainly free to house rule this away. They can decide incorporeal movement includes all sorts of things such as not carrying object, flight, ethereal sight, time travel, planar travel, ability to hitch a ride in a pouch, whatever they want. They can house rule that any or all of these dont need to be separate listing, even tho quite a few do have them for only some of the incorporeal movement creatures. House rules are great. Use them all the time. Fantastic things. But, when the rules have one well-defined creature feature for &quot;incorporeal movement&quot; and another for &quot;ephemeral&quot; the claim that there are no rules for whether or not s creature can carry things or not ot that its incomplete or vague is frankly going to come across as a not-well-supported one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7589116, member: 6919838"] "In fact the Wisp IS the only creature where the Trait makes sense as it is effectively clarified by the Ephemeral Trait which logically should just have been added to the Incorporeal Movement Trait and the whole thing just called 'Incorporeal' to make it mean the same as the word itself." It is logical to add ephemeral to the "incorporeal movement" feature only if the intent of that feature was meant to include it. The fact that it was separated, that some creatures have both, others have one, points to a different conclusion. That they were meant to be distinct traits. Also, the 5e "natural language" guideline is specifically called out for non-game terms, things not given specific definitions. The barbarian "Reckless Attack" has defined in game meaning and doesnt open them up to every off-the-cuff penalty that the GM and Dictionary.com shows for the normal language "reckless." Both "incorporeal movement" and "ephemeral" are shown as specific character features and given specific in-game definitions, not used as a common language expression. Note again, the term is "incorporeal movement" not "incorporeal creature" it is a specific defined movement option, not a general state of the creature. Ghosts, specters, etc are not defined in their description as "incorporeal creatures" they are just given "incorporeal movemt." The OP guess to equate those two - that it was meant to be that was - was an error in understanding the rules. A GM is certainly free to house rule this away. They can decide incorporeal movement includes all sorts of things such as not carrying object, flight, ethereal sight, time travel, planar travel, ability to hitch a ride in a pouch, whatever they want. They can house rule that any or all of these dont need to be separate listing, even tho quite a few do have them for only some of the incorporeal movement creatures. House rules are great. Use them all the time. Fantastic things. But, when the rules have one well-defined creature feature for "incorporeal movement" and another for "ephemeral" the claim that there are no rules for whether or not s creature can carry things or not ot that its incomplete or vague is frankly going to come across as a not-well-supported one. [/QUOTE]

Verification