Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hypersmurf" data-source="post: 3305558" data-attributes="member: 1656">There are two cases I can find in the Core rules that could be used as precedent to support this line of argument.The first is ghosts, who can manifest in an incorporeal state.  Incorporeal creatures have Str --; the sample ghost has a Str of 16.  Against an ethereal creature, the sample ghost's incorporeal touch attack deals 1d6+3 damage; against a material creature, it only deals 1d6.  The Str bonus is inapplicable, since as an incorporeal creature, the ghost has a Str of -- on the material plane.  But with his Ghost Touch bastard sword, he deals 1d10+3 regardless of whether he's attacking an ethereal or material opponent.  To the material opponent, the sword is considered corporeal; thus, apparently, it includes the Str bonus even though the ghost is incorporeal.By extrapolation, we might rule that a 'ghostly' weapon would not include the Str bonus, even if the wielder were corporeal.The second is the Flame Blade spell, which states "Since the blade is immaterial, your Strength modifier does not apply to the damage."  This might be considered a precedent that could be applied to other immaterial blades - such as one rendered 'ghostly' by a spell, perhaps.I think the Wraithstrike spell as written does not prohibit Str bonus to damage; but I think one might make the case that such a ruling is not completely out of left field... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />-Hyp.</blockquote>

Verification