Question about incorporeality

[VorpalBunny]

Had this problem pop up in this past weekend's game - a cleric character tried to damage a spectre with the use of a healing spell. In the DMG under "Incorporeality" it says that incorporeal creatures have a "50% chance to ignore damage from a corporeal source - except for a force effect or damage inflicted by a ghost touch weapon". Since the spell is not a "force effect" and the damage is from a corporeal source (the cleric's touch) I ruled that the 50% miss chance applied. The player disagreed and said that the damage is not from a corporeal source (the spell's "energy") and therefore should not be subject to the 50% miss chance.

So basically - what constitutes a "corporeal source" is it the caster, or the spell? Would you guys have ruled differently?

 

[tburdett]

You did just fine.

The PC is corporeal. To damage the creature he has to touch it. The source of the attack (his hand) is corporeal. He is subject to the 50% miss chance.

 

[Dr. Zoom]

Energy does not cause wounds, clerics do.

You were correct.

 

[Mahali]

I'd also say that the spell wasn't discharged and is being "held".

 

[VorpalBunny]

I'd also say that the spell wasn't discharged and is being "held".

Yeah, that makes sense . Thanks guys.

 

[DudeLove]

So what Im understanding from the previous posts is that the "positive energy" being discharged by the healing spell isn't what is harming the undead, its the clerics hand...if that were the case why would the cleric have to use a spell at all to harm the undead if indeed the "Energy does not cause wounds, clerics do."

that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.......

It isn't the Cleric that is harming the undead, it's the positive energy channeled from his deity in the form of a spell that is harming the undead...much the same as the positve energy channeled to TURN the undead is. Does this mean that now incorporeal undead get a 50% chance to resist turning?

"The PC is corporeal. To damage the creature he has to touch it. The source of the attack (his hand) is corporeal. He is subject to the 50% miss chance."

The description of the spell does not state that the character has to touch the target, only that he/she must succeed at a touch attack against the target. Does the cleric actually have to touch the target, or do they merely have to get close enough to allow the discharge to arc to the target, seems to me that if they had to actually touch the target they would have to roll a regular unarmed melee attack to hit, after all if the source of the damage is the clerics hand why wouldn't armor block it, as it would a mace or sword wielded against it from a corporeal source?

Incorporeal undead are an effective tool in a D.M.'s arsenal, even more so with the 3rd edition rules, I believe the Cleric's ability to use healing spell against them is a balancing issue that can help keep the game from quickly turning into a bloodbath when an incorporeal undead of half the players level's comes in and rips them apart because the players cant hit it.

The limited number of spells the P.C Cleric can cast keeps the undead from being a joke, but the spells keep the undead from being a threat above their intended value.

 

[hong]

So what Im understanding from the previous posts is that the "positive energy" being discharged by the healing spell isn't what is harming the undead, its the clerics hand...if that were the case why would the cleric have to use a spell at all to harm the undead if indeed the "Energy does not cause wounds, clerics do."

You wouldn't be Vorpalbunny's player, would you?

It isn't the Cleric that is harming the undead, it's the positive energy channeled from his deity in the form of a spell that is harming the undead...much the same as the positve energy channeled to TURN the undead is. Does this mean that now incorporeal undead get a 50% chance to resist turning?

Turning isn't damage.

"The PC is corporeal. To damage the creature he has to touch it. The source of the attack (his hand) is corporeal. He is subject to the 50% miss chance."

The description of the spell does not state that the character has to touch the target, only that he/she must succeed at a touch attack against the target.

Is there a difference?

Does the cleric actually have to touch the target, or do they merely have to get close enough to allow the discharge to arc to the target, seems to me that if they had to actually touch the target they would have to roll a regular unarmed melee attack to hit, after all if the source of the damage is the clerics hand why wouldn't armor block it, as it would a mace or sword wielded against it from a corporeal source?

Because it's a touch attack. The function of armour is to stop blows from damaging you, not to stop people touching you.

 

[Vocenoctum]

I don't think your call was wrong.

That said, I'd allow Holy Energy to damage undead, incorporeal or not. The cleric isn't punching the undead for damage, he's touching it with Holy Energy.

I don't find it unbalancing to give that edge to a cleric.

In a game I play in, my paladin could affect Shadows with Divine Might, just doing the damage caused by the feat.

But, regardless of my opinion, this is a situation where the DM needed to make a call and did. Since the Incorporeal ability specifically says only force effects are unaffected, you're right.

Though, why force effects are allowed to "contact" the undead, while Holy Energy isn't is one of those D&D things...

 

[Dr. Zoom]

So what Im understanding from the previous posts is that the "positive energy" being discharged by the healing spell isn't what is harming the undead, its the clerics hand...if that were the case why would the cleric have to use a spell at all to harm the undead if indeed the "Energy does not cause wounds, clerics do."

that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.......

That was supposed to be a joke. Like "guns don't kill people, people kill people."

It isn't the Cleric that is harming the undead, it's the positive energy channeled from his deity in the form of a spell that is harming the undead

It's both.

For the purpose of the incorporeal miss chance, any attack that originates or comes from a corporeal souce, like a cleric, counts. The cleric's spell comes from a corporeal souce, the cleric, therefore the incorporeal undead has the benefit of the miss chance. The positive energy has little or nothing to do with it. If the cleric was incorporeal for some reason, then the miss chance would not appy.

 

[Caliban]

I don't think your call was wrong.

That said, I'd allow Holy Energy to damage undead, incorporeal or not. The cleric isn't punching the undead for damage, he's touching it with Holy Energy.

I don't find it unbalancing to give that edge to a cleric.

In a game I play in, my paladin could affect Shadows with Divine Might, just doing the damage caused by the feat.

But, regardless of my opinion, this is a situation where the DM needed to make a call and did. Since the Incorporeal ability specifically says only force effects are unaffected, you're right.

Though, why force effects are allowed to "contact" the undead, while Holy Energy isn't is one of those D&D things...

It isn't "Holy Energy", it's Positive Energy. And in this case it's doing damage, and it's from a corporeal source (the cleric), and thus the incorporeal creature has a 50% chance of ignoring it.

Force effects extend into the ethereal plane and can affect incorporeal creatures no matter which plane they happen to be on.

There are some spells that do "Divine" damage, (such as Flamestrike), but the cure spells aren't among them.

Technically incorporeal undead have a 50% chance of ignoring even the Turning Damage from a good cleric turning undead, but many DM's house rule that it so that it affects incorporeal creatures normally.

Incorporeal creatures suck.