Mage Armor, incorporeal creatures and unarmed attacks

[Corwin]

Yep, just what the title suggests.

This came up in last night's game.

I have a monk and am good at grapples. We were fighting a wizard in ghostform. This opponent was getting really annoying by popping in and ouot of the walls and floors, casting spells at us, and then taking off.

Because he's incorporeal, he's got the 50% miss for cover and the whole "ghost" thing going.

My mage buddy cast mage armor on me, since it is a force effect, and argues that it would allow me to grab him since my whole boddy was encased in a force effect and that affects incorporeals normally.

The DM, thinking it over, came to a decent ad-hoc ruling (considering he was on the spot, so-to-speak).

Basically, I still had the 50/50 miss chance, but, if successful, I was able to physically deal with him at that moment. But every grapple check or attack I made would be individually subjected to that 50/50.

Thoughts as to how to deal with a situation like this?

I just thought it was an interesting take in lieu of the fact that force effects are "real" to incorps.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Great idea from the player, nice rules solution from the DM.

For further rules justification:

Is an incorporeal creature blocked by a Wall of Force? Is it trapped by a Force Cage? Yes and yes. So, could a creature made of Force (or encased in Mage Armor) grapple an incorporeal creature? Yes.

-z

 

[kreynolds]

Mage Armor isn't a Wall of Force by any stretch of the imagination. A Wall of Force is immune to damage of all kinds. It is totally unaffected by most spells, including dispel magic. Breath weapons, and many spells, cannot pass through the wall in either direction. It blocks ethereal creatures as well as material creatures.

What does Mage Armor do? It gives a +4 armor bonus to AC. It's not even good enough to give a deflection bonus.

Personally, I think the players thoughts were a really big stretch, and I think the DM should have thought it over more thoroughly. Did it ruin the game? Nah. But...you asked.

 

[Corwin]

What does Mage Armor do? It gives a +4 armor bonus to AC. It's not even good enough to give a deflection bonus.

Ah, but it is a [Force] spell and it's AC bonus applies agains incorporeal attackers. So the implication is very much that Mage Armor is physically "real" to incorps.

 

[kreynolds]

Ah, but it is a [Force] spell and it's AC bonus applies agains incorporeal attackers. So the implication is very much that Mage Armor is physically "real" to incorps.

Oh, I never said it wasn't "real". It's certainly "real" enough to make it harder for them to hit you. I simply said that it isn't a Wall of Force.

 

[Corwin]

Oh, I never said it wasn't "real". It's certainly "real" enough to make it harder for them to hit you. I simply said that it isn't a Wall of Force.

Not having my books with me is putting a damper on my day.

Would someone be so kind as to post the rules quote which states that all [Force] effect spells effect incorporeal creatures without the benefit of concealment (50% miss chance).

If I recall corectly, it basically explains that [Force] effect spells are tangible to incorps, right?

Anyway, that was the basis for the argument presented to the DM last night.

 

[kreynolds]

Not having my books with me is putting a damper on my day.

Would someone be so kind as to post the rules quote which states that all [Force] effect spells effect incorporeal creatures without the benefit of concealment (50% miss chance).

I'll see if I can find it.

Here's one. Page 78, DMG...

Even when struck by magic or magic weapons, an incorporeal creature has a 50% chance to ignore any damage from a corporeal source—except for a force effect...

Here's another, same page....

The physical attacks of incorporeal creatures ignore material armor, even magic armor, unless it is made of force or has the ghost touch ability.

But, my absolute favorite?

Corporeal creatures cannot trip or grapple incorporeal creatures.

 

[Corwin]

Corporeal creatures cannot trip or grapple incorporeal creatures.

Ah yes. The joys of context.

Obviously physical creatures cannot do this, they have no ability to interact with the ghostly form. That's all that quote is referencing. It is not in the same section relating to the fact that [Force] effects have a special impact on incorporeals.

I never said a corporeal could grapple an incorporeal. In fact, that was how we were playing it.

It wasn't until the Mage Armor thing came up that the question was raised.

Once you are surrounded by a [Force] effect, does that give you any addition sway? That was the question.

I also never even insinuated that it was like getting free Ghost Touch. You'll notice that, had I chosen to punch the guy even after Mage Armored, I would still have been subject to the 50/50. As evidenced by my statements regarding how the DM ruled.

Anyway, [shrug] that's how we ended up doing it.

 

[IceBear]

I guess it depends on how much [Force] that mage armor gives you. It's obviously not as much as a Wall of Force. I guess that's why he stuck with the 50% miss chance on stuff.

IceBear

 

[kreynolds]

Ah yes. The joys of context.

I just thought it was cute.

I never said <snip>

Whoa! Down boy! Like I said, I just thought it was cute.

Once you are surrounded by a [Force] effect, does that give you any addition sway?

A 1st level force effect that only gives a bonus to AC? Nope. Just a difference of opinon.