Incorporeal Vs. Bracers of Armor

[Taren Seeker]

Why not? What do you base that on?

I base it on the fact that it's called incorporeal touch, not just touch. Different name, different animal.

I did. The DMG says "physical attacks", it says nothing about touch attacks.

Are you saying that a touch attack isn't a physical attack?

 

[DMFTodd]

I base it on the fact that it's called incorporeal touch, not just touch. Different name, different animal.

So the Rust Monster ("Antenna Touch") and Magmin ("Burning Touch") are not really touch attacks? They have different names.

Are you saying that a touch attack isn't a physical attack?

I'm saying that they are a special type of physical attack with specific, spelled out rules.

That doesn't seem to be the crux of it though. It seems the crux is "did the writers intend 'incorporeal touch' to work like a touch attack or is that just some flavor text and it should be treated like a slam?"

How about this: All spells that drain characteristics (Enervation, Chill Touch, etc.) are all TOUCH attacks (ranged or regular). The creatures we're talking about all do drains.

So it would be consistent at least that the "incorporeal touch" is a real touch, same as the spells.

I see your argument though. It just seems to me that if they wanted the attack to work as you descirbe it, they would have called it "incorporeal slam", not "incorporeal touch".

 

[DMFTodd]

Or how about this, let's take the CON argument to my PRO:

"Incorporeal touch" doesn't really mean touch. It's a slam attack.

Now, I want to make a creature that really does have a touch attack. How would I write that up?

"Incorporeal Touch +3 (Really, a touch attack, I mean it)"?

Sorry, couldn't resist. This is fun.

 

[Caliban]

So the Rust Monster ("Antenna Touch") and Magmin ("Burning Touch") are not really touch attacks? They have different names.

They are specific varieties of touch attacks.

An incorporeal touch attack is identical to a normal touch attack, with the exception that it can't ignore force based armor. Otherwise it would just be a touch attack.

I'm saying that they are a special type of physical attack with specific, spelled out rules.

And incorporeal attacks have specific, spelled out rules as well.

Thus an incorporeal touch attack has the strengths and limitations of both a touch attacks and incorporeal attacks.

That doesn't seem to be the crux of it though. It seems the crux is "did the writers intend 'incorporeal touch' to work like a touch attack or is that just some flavor text and it should be treated like a slam?"

It's a touch attack because it's incorporeal, and thus ignores all normal armor. However, incorporeal attacks by definition do not ignore force based armor. Pretty simple.

How about this: All spells that drain characteristics (Enervation, Chill Touch, etc.) are all TOUCH attacks (ranged or regular). The creatures we're talking about all do drains.

As a physical incorporeal attack, not as a spell.

So it would be consistent at least that the "incorporeal touch" is a real touch, same as the spells.

It is a "real" touch attack that happens to be stopped by force armor, because it has "incorporeal" attributes.

I see your argument though. It just seems to me that if they wanted the attack to work as you descirbe it, they would have called it "incorporeal slam", not "incorporeal touch".

Show me a creature that has an incorporeal attack that is not an incorporeal touch attack.

By your reasoning, there is no incorporeal attack in the core rules that can be stopped by force based armor, and the text in the DMG is completely pointless.

Incorporeal touch attacks are simply a special subset of touch attacks that can't ignore force based armor, but ignore all other types of armor bonuses.

 

[DMFTodd]

Incorporeal touch attacks are simply a special subset of touch attacks that can't ignore force based armor

You've come up with an interesting 3rd option: It really is a touch attack but the rules of Incorporeal/Force supercede the rules of touch attacks.

That's an interesting theory. Where's the rule to support it?


Theory #2 (for those of you playing at home): "Incorporeal touch" doesn't really mean "touch". It's just some flavor text. Treat them like a incorpereal slam attack.

Theory #3 (My perference): They meant touch, it's a touch attack. Yes, Force armor does affect incorporeal attacks. This is a touch attack though, touch attacks ignore armor. Doesn't matter what type of armor or what type the touch is.
This is consistent with the DM78 info on incorporeal and consistent with the rules for touch attacks.

 

[Caliban]

You've come up with an interesting 3rd option: It really is a touch attack but the rules of Incorporeal/Force supercede the rules of touch attacks.

That's an interesting theory. Where's the rule to support it?

DMG, page 78. "The physical attacks of attacks of incorporeal creatures ignore material armor, even magic armor..."

Gee, what do you call an attack that ignores armor in 3rd edition? Oh yeah, that's a touch attack!

".. unless it is made of force (such as mage armor or bracers of armor) or has the ghost touch ability."

Gee, that means that in addition the normal qualities of a touch attack, it's also stopped by "force" based armor. If only we could denote this somehow in the attack description. Hmm..

Hey, it's stopped by force armor armor because it's incorporeal, but it's a touch attack because ignores normal armor. Maybe they could call it an "Incorporeal Touch Attack" so you know it has the qualities of being both "Incorporeal" and a "Touch Attack".

Hey, look! They did! OMFG!

Theory #3 (My perference): They meant touch, it's a touch attack. Yes, Force armor does affect incorporeal attacks. This is a touch attack though, touch attacks ignore armor. Doesn't matter what type of armor or what type the touch is.
This is consistent with the DM78 info on incorporeal and consistent with the rules for touch attacks.

No it is not consistent, because it completely ignores the incorporeal quality.

You never did show even a single creature that has an incorporeal attack that is not a touch attack. I wonder why that is? Hmm....

Maybe it's because being incorporeal means any physical attack is now an incorporeal touch attack.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Caliban, you know I respect your opinion. How would you respond to this situation -- an incorporeal creature with a 'real' (bypassing armor, including force) touch attack?

Or how about this, let's take the CON argument to my PRO:

"Incorporeal touch" doesn't really mean touch. It's a slam attack.

Now, I want to make a creature that really does have a touch attack. How would I write that up?

"Incorporeal Touch +3 (Really, a touch attack, I mean it)"?

 

[Caliban]

Caliban, you know I respect your opinion. How would you respond to this situation -- an incorporeal creature with a 'real' (bypassing armor, including force) touch attack?

That's simple. Denote it as a "touch attack" and not an "incorporeal touch attack", just like every other normal touch attack.

It's only stopped by force armor if it's an incorporeal touch attack.

 

[IceBear]

I have to side with Caliban here. What's the point of stating anywhere in the rules that Force effects apply against incorporal touch attacks if the attack is just going to ignore the armor anyway? Sounds like a waste of space to me to even put that in UNLESS it is an exception to the normal touch attack rules.

The way I see it, a touch attack ignores armor except if it is a touch attack of an incorpreal being against a force effect.

Again, it just doesn't make sense for them to spell out this benefit of Force effects unless it was meant to be used (and if we use this other interpretation it would never come into effect).

IceBear

 

[DMFTodd]

Editted due to finding below.