Incorporeal Vs. Bracers of Armor

[Zaruthustran]

Good question

Incorporeal creatures can move through solid objects. So, do solid objects give cover against an incorporeal touch attack?

Man, good question.

The obvious answer is "no, solid objects do not give cover against a creature that can move through solid objects." But I can't think of a specific rule that agrees or disagrees with that answer.

If I was DMing I guess I'd convert the cover to concealment. Or just make sure that the incorporeal thing 5-foot stepped through the cover, then attacked.

DM: A wraith suddenly passes through the wall, entering the room.
PC: I overturn the table between me and the wraith, thereby giving myself a cover bonus against its attacks!
DM: Uh... you did hear me describe how the wraith moved *through* the wall, right? That table isn't doing .

-z

 

[Stalker0]

Cover bonuses are always based on the perspective of the attacker. For a wraith, that cover means squat, it can pass its hands right through it, so it shouldn't count as cover.

As for making it concealment, I think its a good house rule, but definately not a book rule.

As for the tower shield, it grants a cover bonus, so it blocks touch attacks. I think that one should be preety clear.

 

[Caliban]

Cover bonuses are always based on the perspective of the attacker. For a wraith, that cover means squat, it can pass its hands right through it, so it shouldn't count as cover.

I agree.

As for making it concealment, I think its a good house rule, but definately not a book rule.

By the book, concealment is any circumstance that doesn't physically block the blow, but does interfere's with the attackers accuracy. (PHB, page 133, Concealment.)

Unless the incorporeal creature can see through solid objects, cover is effectively concealment as far as they are concerned.

As for the tower shield, it grants a cover bonus, so it blocks touch attacks. I think that one should be preety clear.

It's pretty clear that it doesn't help against targeted spells, which would include touch attack spells. (PHB, page 106, Tower Shield)

 

[HeavyG]

Cover bonuses are always based on the perspective of the attacker. For a wraith, that cover means squat, it can pass its hands right through it, so it shouldn't count as cover.

As for making it concealment, I think its a good house rule, but definately not a book rule.

That's how I've been playing it.

I'm probably not the only one who always makes intelligent undead (and earth elementals) attack with half or more of their bodies in the floor, and thus always having cover unless the PCs are all flying. Right ?

 

[Stalker0]

It's pretty clear that it doesn't help against targeted spells, which would include touch attack spells. (PHB, page 106, Tower Shield)

Yeah, looking on pg. 106 they make a specific exception to tower shields not helping against targetted spells. I would still give the cover bonus to reflex save against area spells though.

 

[Stalker0]

If your going to change cover bonus to concealment, I would go with a +2 AC to a 10% miss chance. If your attack to AC difference is in the normal range (basically you don't have to get a 20 to hit or a 1 to miss) then a +2 to AC is about equivalent to adding 10% chance he'll miss you.

 

[Taren Seeker]

Yeah, looking on pg. 106 they make a specific exception to tower shields not helping against targetted spells. I would still give the cover bonus to reflex save against area spells though.

Yup. An area spell is not a targetted spell so you would get a reflex bonus based on how much cover the tower is giving you against the caster.

 

[Taren Seeker]

If your going to change cover bonus to concealment, I would go with a +2 AC to a 10% miss chance. If your attack to AC difference is in the normal range (basically you don't have to get a 20 to hit or a 1 to miss) then a +2 to AC is about equivalent to adding 10% chance he'll miss you.

It's a decent way to handle it, but in this case IMO it doesn't quite work. Since the creature can see some of you (or know you're hiding behind the cover) it should get a normal attack compared to your AC including the cover bonus. If the attack roll is enough to hit you then it hits, cause he got a piece of you that wasn't behind cover. If the creature misses you but rolls well enough to hit the cover, it's attack passes through and may hit you. Since the creature cannot see the piece of you that it's hitting, it should have a 50% miss chance as you have full concealment.

eg: PC with touch AC 15 has 3/4 cover from a tower shield, giving a total AC of 22 vs a shadow.

Shadow attacks, hits AC 23, normal attack with no miss chance.
Shadow attacks, hits AC 21. Comparing to the PC's AC, it missed by less than 7 so it struck cover. Since the incorp ignores cover it means that it passes through the tower shield and resolves it's attack against the protected portion of your body, as it hit better than AC 15. It can't see this portion, so now roll 50% miss chance for full concealment.

If the PC took full cover behind the shield, the shadow would simply roll a regular touch attack against his touch AC 15 (no cover bonus) with full concealment, giving a 50% miss chance.

I really think its consistent and the best way to handle an unusual situation within the rules.