Offensive use for Mage Armor?

[Sagan Darkside]

Salutations,

Since an incorporeal creature can not bypass mage armor and it can only be hurt by magic, could the subject of mage armor harm the incorporeal creature with a natural attack?

It seems a stretching of the two, but I don't see a reason why not.

SD

 

[IceBear]

This came up before and I'm pretty sure the conclusion was that this would not work (mainly because it was stretching too much the intention of the spell), but I'm not 100% sure. I'm sure Caliban and the others that were involved in this debate will chime in shortly.

IceBear

 

[Nail]

Well, you can enclose a incorporeal creature in a cube or sphere of force.....and the the Bigby's Hand spells are force spells....

Does it say if the Bibgy's hand spells can harm incorporeal cratures? That may be the place to start.

 

[Zhure]

I'd say don't read too much into the spell. It's clever and a nice house rule, but might make Mage Armor too powerful. It'd also make 2kgp Bracers of Armor a must to have for anyone with IUS.

Then we'd have to extrapolate it over to Inertial Armor for Psions... it just keeps getting uglier. I'd say 'no.'
Greg

 

[Kyramus]

sure. cast Mage Armor on your opponent and have them wail on you more.

It's definitely offensive when you boost up someone else so they are harder to hit while they are wailing on you. (BIG GRIN)

 

[Victim]

Mage Armor creates force field of ARMOR, not a generic force field. As armor, the field would move with the creature you cast it on, not trap them. If it was perfectly rigid so that it could contain an incorporeal creature, it was also contain the wizard casting it on himself. It probably wouldn't be called mage armor then.

 

[dcollins]

No. DMG p. 77:

Incorporeal creatures can only be harmed by other incorporeal creatures, by +1 or better weapons, or by spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural effects.

A creature protected by mage armor is not any of those things, nor are their natural weapons. Mage armor is not an attack spell; that's what magic fang is for.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

I obviously was not clear, for which I apologize:

If a pc casts mage armor on himself, and then punches an incorporeal creature- would he damage it?

The SRD:
Incorporeal

Having no physical body. Incorporeal creatures are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. They can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, +1 or better magical weapons, spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural effects.

Mage Armor
Conjuration (Creation) [Force]

An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of mage armor, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC. Since mage armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can’t bypass it the way they do normal armor.


As a dm, I would not have a problem with it, but I wanted to hear some thoughts on it.

SD

 

[Sagan Darkside]

A creature protected by mage armor is not any of those things, nor are their natural weapons. Mage armor is not an attack spell; that's what magic fang is for.

It does not say an attack spell. It says a spell.

Mage armor surrounds the pc- they have to hit the target with it when they naturally strike them.

SD

 

[dcollins]

It does not say an attack spell. It says a spell.

Again -- is a PC protected by mage armor a "spell"? No, they are not. Thus, they do not qualify as something that affects incorporeal creatures.

If incorporeal creatures were also hit by things-with-a-spell-surrounding-them, then the description of "incorporeal" would have to say that separately. It does not.