Offensive use for Mage Armor?

[the Jester]

I'll come down on the "absolutely not" side of this argument.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Thus, they do not qualify as something that affects incorporeal creatures.

The description of mage armor goes out of its way to disagree with you, but I thank you for your thoughts.

SD

 

[IceBear]

Sagan, this came up before. If I remember correctly a DM allowed a monk character to use it against a specter as he had screwed up and the party was in dire straights.

Yes, I think a good argument could be made for someone with mage armor to be able to harm an incorporal creature. However, none of use know how exactly mage armor works. Does it COMPLETELY cover the user, including the hands (it is only +4 AC after all). That might cause issues with picking things up, etc. If it does completely cover the user, then maybe it's not "hard" enough (it's only +4) to cause damage to an incorporal creature. Anyway, I don't think that's this ability was intended by the spell.

IceBear

 

[Wippit Guud]

Well, look at it from this standpoint....

If there's a force surrounding the mage, then hitting a corporeal person would hurt more. The same way wearing a gauntlet would hurt more (and there are rules for gauntlets).

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Anyway, I don't think that's this ability was intended by the spell.

Interesting points. Thank you, it is time to reconsider the situation.

With appreciation
SD

 

[Wippit Guud]

If it does completely cover the user, then maybe it's not "hard" enough (it's only +4) to cause damage to an incorporal creature.

A chain shirt is only +4, and hitting someone with one of those would hurt.

 

[Chun-tzu]

Just because Mage Armor protects you from incorporeal creatures does not mean it can necessarily hurt them.

Imagine the Mage Armor is a plastic baggie around your hand, and the incorporeal creature is a water elemental. The plastic baggie protects you from getting wet, but when you punch the water elemental, it's still not affected by you.

 

[IceBear]

A chain shirt is only +4, and hitting someone with one of those would hurt.

Yes, it would, but a chain shirt doesn't cover your hands - it's a shirt, so maybe mage armor does the same?

As you pointed out above, if mage armor covered your hands in a force effect powerful enough to cause damage to incorpreal creatures, then maybe it should do more damage to corpreal creatures. Since the spell mentions neither of these points, then I stand by my opinion that they didn't intend for the spell to allow it.

IceBear

 

[Wippit Guud]

Best spell to draw prescidence from is anti-life shell. You can't force a creature to take damage by sandwiching it between the shell and a wall.

In the same way, I would rule you can't make a creature take damage simply because the force exists.

 

[Nail]

The "plastic baggie" analogy holds water, I think.

Only, the Mage Armor is more like a Kevlar baggie. The spell says nothing about the force field being rigid.

Then again, being a rigid force field necessary to cause damage? A force whip?