Mage Armor, incorporeal creatures and unarmed attacks

[kreynolds]

OK, so how about instead of Mage Armor you're wearing Bracers of Armor +8? Would that give you a chance to grapple?

Not according to the rules. If you want to hit or grapple an incorporeal creature, get a ghost touch weapon or use Ghostform, or something similar.

 

[Corwin]

It doesn't say it surrounds you completely. It may only surround your torso.

It no more says what you are implying than my interpretation. Yet you act as though you are more "right"? I find that perplexing.

I also don't see any evidence that will extend to cover your limbs or weapons when you move them away from your body.

And I don't see it saying it doesn't. And that's not me being fecitious. Seriously, you are reading into it more than the spell implies. And yet you are trying to argue from a rules standpoint. You have no more footing than I.

And most of all, the spell doesn't say that it allows you to attack incorporeal creatures with an unarmed attack, therefore it doesn't allow you to. And that's the by the rules answer.

Pardon me for saying, but that it just plain blind, rules purism. Obviously, not every situation is going to be covered by the rules. If you play with such strict rules reading that nothing can ever be done that isn't expressly covered in the core books, more power to you. Because that is the basis of your argument. And good luck with that.

BTW, didn't you and kreynolds just get into this very subject a few days ago?

Please try to recall that there was never an intent to state that the spell gives you absolute ability to manipulate ethereal creatures. Nope. Never was. I think the DM's call was creative, fair, and within the spirit of the rules.

When and if the situation ever comes up in your game, at least this will have been an opportunity to mull it over prior to the moment it happens. If nothing else, that should help.

 

[Caliban]

BTW, I agree that Mage Armor covers the whole body, just weakly. A Wall of Force is the Grandaddy of force effects, and not all forces are created equal.

Not according to the rules. If it did completely cover your body, it would also cover any item you are carrying, and thus grant it's AC bonus to items you are carrying.

However, when you attempt to strike an item someone is carrying (such as a ring), the item get's the person Dex bonus to AC and their deflection bonus to AC, and since it mage armor gives only gives an Armor bonus, it would not apply.

Since the mage armor AC does not apply, it obviously is not covering that item, and therefore the mage armor doesn't extend to cover your whole body.

Does this seem like a stretch? Yes, but no more of a stretch than saying that mage armor also has an offensive use when attacking incorporeal creatures. Mage Armor is only a defensive spell, it is not intended to be an offensive spell.

 

[Corwin]

Not according to the rules. If it did completely cover your body, it would also cover any item you are carrying, and thus grant it's AC bonus to items you are carrying.

Which, oddly enough, was the exact reasoning behind the Sage's ruling that shields don't stack with the spell. Because the spell envelopes the shield and overlaps it's protection, thus no stacking.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger.

 

[IceBear]

Hmmmm - that makes the theories as to why a shield doesn't stack with mage armor even more tenuous, as many people rationalized it as being a mage armor covered the shield too and thus kept the shield from stacking.

Oh well, it's never made sense to me that shield wouldn't stack with mage armor other than some made up rule for balance so I can live with it

IceBear

 

[Caliban]

It no more says what you are implying than my interpretation. Yet you act as though you are more "right"? I find that perplexing.

It's called obeying the spirit of the rules. You might try it sometime.

And I don't see it saying it doesn't. And that's not me being fecitious. Seriously, you are reading into it more than the spell implies. And yet you are trying to argue from a rules standpoint. You have no more footing than I.

I say that you are reading more into the spell than it implies. In fact, you are trying to add whole new abilities that the spell makes no mention of.

Pardon me for saying, but that it just plain blind, rules purism.

Your right. Actually using the spell based what it's description says it can do is just silly.

I say that true strike should automatically threaten a critical. I mean, it gives a temporary insight into the future and it allows you to place your attack much more accurately (that what the +20 represents after all). Therefore, since it's so much more accurate, I should be hitting them in a really vulnerable spot and critting them.

This is where your line of reasoning leads.

Obviously, not every situation is going to be covered by the rules.

This one is, however.

If you play with such strict rules reading that nothing can ever be done that isn't expressly covered in the core books, more power to you. Because that is the basis of your argument. And good luck with that.

Actually, that's not the basis of my arguement. The basis of my arguement is that spells don't have abilities that are not listed in their spell description.

There are several situtations that the core rules don't cover adequately, and the DM has to improvise. This isn't one of them.

BTW, didn't you and kreynolds just get into this very subject a few days ago?

I believe that was something else. And even if we did, it's not relevent to the current discussion.

Please try to recall that there was never an intent to state that the spell gives you absolute ability to manipulate ethereal creatures. Nope. Never was. I think the DM's call was creative, fair, and within the spirit of the rules.

I do not believe it was within the intent of the spell, the letter of the spell, or the spirit of the rules.

I could see this being a reasonable stance if the mage armor spell were at all vague about what it does for you, but it's not vague at all. It's pretty specific. It grances you a +4 Armor Bonus with the [Force] descriptor. It does not give your physical attacks the [Force] descriptor or it would say so.

When and if the situation ever comes up in your game, at least this will have been an opportunity to mull it over prior to the moment it happens. If nothing else, that should help.

Not really, since the spell is pretty clear on what benefits it gives, and the ability to attack incorporeal creatures bare handed is not one of the listed benefits. No real vagueness there.

 

[Taren Seeker]

Not according to the rules. If it did completely cover your body, it would also cover any item you are carrying, and thus grant it's AC bonus to items you are carrying.

However, when you attempt to strike an item someone is carrying (such as a ring), the item get's the person Dex bonus to AC and their deflection bonus to AC, and since it mage armor gives only gives an Armor bonus, it would not apply.

Since the mage armor AC does not apply, it obviously is not covering that item, and therefore the mage armor doesn't extend to cover your whole body.

Does this seem like a stretch? Yes, but no more of a stretch than saying that mage armor also has an offensive use when attacking incorporeal creatures. Mage Armor is only a defensive spell, it is not intended to be an offensive spell.

The flipside to your take on that is that the field is a skin tight one that doesn't extend around any objects. It's a personal effect so I could see that interpretation as well. Regardless, I'm sure there are portions of you body that are not covered, or covered more thinly than others, otherwise you could never grip anything. This doesn't mean that the effect is limited to the torso.

I think that there is enough support there to say that it was a reasonable ruling.

If I was DMing a home game, I'd let it go. If I were judging an LG or LC slot, I'd be more inclined to deny it, since the letter of the rule is what prevails in those cases rather than DM fiat. However, I've heard of worse "table calls" than this one. Like Spring Attacking Shadows being able to see through walls so they could pop out then back in again. *Shudder*

 

[Caliban]

The flipside to your take on that is that the field is a skin tight one that doesn't extend around any objects. It's a personal effect so I could see that interpretation as well. Regardless, I'm sure there are portions of you body that are not covered, or covered more thinly than others, otherwise you could never grip anything. This doesn't mean that the effect is limited to the torso.

I think that there is enough support there to say that it was a reasonable ruling.

What support?

Please show me one single thing in the spell description that supports this?

As you pointed out yourself, if did cover your extremities you would never be able to grip anything.

Come one people, use some common sense! This is a defensive spell. It's not an offensive enhancement spell like magic fang or magic weapon. Those spells will let you attack incorporeal creatures. Mage Armor does not.

 

[Corwin]

It's called obeying the spirit of the rules. You might try it sometime.

Snippy. And a bit of hypocrasy, IMO.

I say that you are reading more into the spell than it implies. In fact, you are trying to add whole new abilities that the spell makes no mention of.

And you are trying to redifine it as well. I mean, really, it's now a torso shield that acts like chain shirt? Where is that in the rules?

Your right. Actually using the spell based what it's description says it can do is just silly.

So is being condescensing and snippy.

I say that true strike should automatically threaten a critical. I mean, it gives a temporary insight into the future and it allows you to place your attack much more accurately (that what the +20 represents after all). Therefore, since it's so much more accurate, I should be hitting them in a really vulnerable spot and critting them.

Do you use a lot of straw men when you can't prove a point?

This one is, however.

Says you. Others say otherwise.

Actually, that's not the basis of my arguement. The basis of my arguement is that spells don't have abilities that are not listed in their spell description.

And that's just not the case. At least, it shouldn't be, within reason. To say that no use of a spell can ever exceed the exact wording of it is just plain silly.

There are several situtations that the core rules don't cover adequately, and the DM has to improvise. This isn't one of them.

And that's final! No one should have any other opinion.

I believe that was something else. And even if we did, it's not relevent to the current discussion.

[shrug] I thought I recalled you to going at it in length about the "spirit" of the rules vs. literal wording. Oh well. That's why I thought it was relevant. I even recall you arguing for spirit over blindly following illogic. Wasn't there even discusion of your dwarven cleric using scrolls? Something like that? I don't recall. Maybe I'm completely getting it wrong. [shrug]

I do not believe it was within the intent of the spell, the letter of the spell, or the spirit of the rules.

And yet, that still doesn't make you "right".

I could see this being a reasonable stance if the mage armor spell were at all vague about what it does for you, but it's not vague at all. It's pretty specific. It grances you a +4 Armor Bonus with the [Force] descriptor. It does not give your physical attacks the [Force] descriptor or it would say so.

And yet it is a [Force] effect and even does discuss it having an effect on incorporeals. [shrug]

Not really, since the spell is pretty clear on what benefits it gives, and the ability to attack incorporeal creatures bare handed is not one of the listed benefits. No real vagueness there.

Yeop...

 

[Taren Seeker]

What support?

Please show me one single thing in the spell description that supports this?

As you pointed out yourself, if did cover your extremities you would never be able to grip anything.

Come one people, use some common sense! This is a defensive spell. It's not an offensive enhancement spell like magic fang or magic weapon. Those spells will let you attack incorporeal creatures. Mage Armor does not.

Support? It surrounds your body, unknown how much, with a force effect of some strength. The spell has the force descriptor

Force affects incorporeal.

Would I allow someone to punch a shadow? No. Like I said, I envision the Mage Armor spell (or Bracers) as not surrounding your hands. Would I allow a grapple? If you were somehow surrounded closely by a flexible Wall of Force, yes. Since the Mage Armor spell is not as strong as a Wall and doesn't cover all of you, I would give you a chance. 50% sounds about right. Maybe less for Mage Armor and more for Bracers +8.

When you say that the spell is intended for defence and it doesn't state anything about offensive uses, you are of course correct. However, just because it doesn't say it doesn't make it expressly forbidden. It's my job as a DM to make the call when the rules are not explicit. (Leaving aside Rule 0 for now) If you find an interesting way to use a defensive spell offensively are you breaking the spirit of the rules, or just being creative and a good player?

As far as unbalancing the spell, if a player REALLY wants to try to grapple a strength-draining shadow, I say go ahead. The grapple won't last long anyways