Incorporeal Vs. Bracers of Armor

[DMFTodd]

Editted due to FAQ below.

 

[DMFTodd]

I Eat Crow

From the D&D FAQ (go figure, they answered it):

A touch attack or ranged touch attack bypasses any armor bonus or natural armor bonus. Incorporeal touch attacks bypass armor and natural armor bonuses, except for armor bonuses that come from force effects

I'm wrong. Caliban is right.

I hate that.

 

[Caliban]

Actually, it's an incorporeal attack that ignores armor, not a touch attack. A touch attack only allows you to use size modifier, deflection, and dex bonus.

A common misconception.

A touch attack ignores armor and natural armor bonuses. Anything else still applies.

Yep, right, I agree. But armor, of whatever type, is ignored in a touch attack. I would add a "if armor were to apply" to that quote from the book.

Yes, but we are talking about incorporeal touch attacks here, not a normal touch attack.

You've decided that the Force/Incorporeal rule takes precedence over the Touch rules. I don't see it.

*shrug* Then get better glasses.

See, if it was just a touch attack, it would just be denoted as a touch attack. If it's an incorporeal touch attack, then it's not a normal touch attack. Pretty simple.

Let me make sure I understand: It is actually a touch attack but the force rules mean that force armor applies to the touch attack even though the touch attack rule says no armor applies.

Apparently you don't. It's actually an incorporeal touch attack. Normal touch attacks ignore all armor, but incorporeal attacks don't ignore force armor.

Or, with Bracers on, a corporeal creature touches me easier (they ignore armor) than an incorporeal?

With bracers on normal touch attacks hit you easier than incorporeal touch attacks. Incorporeal touch attacks aren't as effective an normal touch attacks.

So, incoporeal allows force armor to apply to an attack when it would not normally apply?

Incorporeal allows a physical attack to ignore armor when it normally can't, by making it an incorporeal touch attack. It just doesn't penetrate force armor any better than it did before.

Force armor behaves differently whether it is a corporeal or an incorporeal person attacking?

Force armor is more effective against incorporeal touch attacks than normal touch attcks.

If the corporeal attack is not a touch attack, force armor is just as effective as real armor.

If it is an incorporeal attack, force armor is more effective than normal armor, because incorporeal creatures/attacks have a specific weakness against Force effects.

If it is a normal touch attack, then force armor is just as effective as normal armor.

Incoporeal ignores armor. Touch attacks do not take armor into account. I don't "ignore" the incoporeal, it doesn't come into play by my reading.

You really don't get it do you?

There's only 4 incorpereal creatures in the MM. They all have "touch" attacks because they all have drain attacks.

That's all I have book-wise here. Do you have a book with an incoporeal creature without a drain attack? If so, how do they list it?

*sigh* You won't find any incorporeal creatures with a slam attack, because they have no Str and no material form to damage you with (that's kind of what "incorporeal" means, you know). The only way they can hurt you is by casting spells, using a ghost touch weapon, or doing a level or ability drain.

 

[Christian]

Re: I Eat Crow

I'm wrong. Caliban is right.

I hate that.

Welcome to the club!

 

[Taren Seeker]

The club of being forgotten when Caliban enters the thread apparently...

You go offline for a few hours and miss everything...that's how it always is.

Seriously though, I'm glad that DMFTodd has seen the light p again) but I would've hoped that the arguements presented in this thread would've been more convincing than a simple quote from the FAQ.

 

[IceBear]

What the heck do you want for more convincing? The FAQ *is* an official channel for rule clarifications so why is it when something is spelled out in black and white in it that people won't accept it as being convincing?

Also, IF you could find a monster that would make the Force Effect rule in the DMG have some meaning (using the other interpretation of incorporal touch attacks) then there might be some doubt, but as far as I know there isn't any. Why would they go to the trouble of actually stating a rule in the book if it wasn't to be used?

IceBear

 

[Thanee]

Dunno if this has been said, havn't read it all...

The Incorporeal Touch Attack is a LIMITED form of Touch Attack!

It works much like a regular Touch Attack, but it cannot ignore force effects, that grant armor bonuses, this is the limitation (due to the kind of this attack, which is also the reason why it is a touch attack in the first place).

Bye
Thanee

P.S. And of course, Caliban is correct!

 

[IceBear]

Thanks Thanee - that's basically a restatement of what Caliban and I have been saying but it seems that some people don't believe it - even with the FAQ quote

IceBear

 

[Taren Seeker]

What the heck do you want for more convincing? The FAQ *is* an official channel for rule clarifications so why is it when something is spelled out in black and white in it that people won't accept it as being convincing?

IceBear

Uh Icebear, you may want to read what I wrote. I was always arguing against the position that force armor doesn't work against incorp touch attacks.

I was just stating my disappointment that the excellent posts made in this thread to prove that bracers DO work against incorp touch were apparently less convincing than a one line quote from a document that is not official errata and often disagrees with core rules.

 

[aliensex]

Now, what about Luck bonuses to AC?