Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Mage Armor, incorporeal creatures and unarmed attacks
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Caliban" data-source="post: 378991" data-attributes="member: 284"><p>It's called obeying the spirit of the rules. You might try it sometime. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Your right. Actually using the spell based what it's description says it can do is just silly. </p><p></p><p>I say that <em>true strike</em> 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. </p><p></p><p>This is where your line of reasoning leads. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This one is, however. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>There are several situtations that the core rules don't cover adequately, and the DM has to improvise. This isn't one of them. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I believe that was something else. And even if we did, it's not relevent to the current discussion. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I do not believe it was within the intent of the spell, the letter of the spell, or the spirit of the rules. </p><p></p><p>I could see this being a reasonable stance if the <em>mage armor</em> 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. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Caliban, post: 378991, member: 284"] It's called obeying the spirit of the rules. You might try it sometime. [b][/b] 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. [b][/b] Your right. Actually using the spell based what it's description says it can do is just silly. I say that [i]true strike[/i] 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. [b][/b] This one is, however. [b][/b] 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. [b][/b] I believe that was something else. And even if we did, it's not relevent to the current discussion. [b][/b] 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 [i]mage armor[/i] 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. [b][/B] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Mage Armor, incorporeal creatures and unarmed attacks
Top