Ethereal creatures, incorporeal or not?

[Gauss]

First: let me preface this that I am mainly trying to resolve an inconsistency. I am playing devil's advocate here.

Blink CRB p250 wrote:

An ethereal creature is invisible, incorporeal, and capable of moving in any direction, even up or down.

Ethereal Jaunt CRB p279 wrote:

An ethereal creature is invisible, insubstantial, and capable of moving in any direction, even up or down, albeit at half normal speed.

Ethereal Plane CRB p440 wrote:

Ethereal Plane: The Ethereal Plane is a ghostly realm that exists as a buffer between the Material Plane and the Shadow Plane, overlapping each. A traveler in the Ethereal plane experiences the real world as if the world were an insubstantial ghost, and can move through solid objects without being seen in the real world. Strange creatures dwell in the Ethereal Plane, as well as ghosts and dreams, many of which can sometimes extend their influence into the real world in mysterious and terrifying ways. Powerful spellcasters utilize the Ethereal Plane with spells like blink, etherealness, and ethereal jaunt.

Blink states incorporeal.

Ethereal Jaunt states insubstantial.
Etherealness references to Ethereal Jaunt.
Ethereal Plane states insubstantial and then references the 3 spells above.

A list of things that affect incorporeal creatures: Force spells, Ghost Touch weapons (full damage), magic weapons (50% damage), all remaining spells (half damage or 50% miss chance).

A list of things that are specified to affect ethereal creatures: Force spells and abjuration effects. An unknown list of material creatures or objects that work on the ethereal plane.

Blink and Ethereal Jaunt both have this wording wrote:

Certain material creatures or objects have attacks or effects that work on the Ethereal Plane.

So the question: Are ethereal creatures incorporeal or not? If incorporeal all effects that effect incorporeal creatures would seem to apply. This could be interpreted as being covered by the quote about Certain material creatures or objects.

Please provide proof that does not reference 3.5 materials. In 3.5 ethereal was very different than incorporeal.

- Gauss

P.S. I am of the mind that ethereal is still different from incorporeal and it is the spell blink that is inaccurate.

[Gauss]

Update:

Not being one to let something like this lie I also asked James Jacobs.

His response:

part 1:

James Jacobs wrote:

Gauss wrote:
James,

Assuming a person can see ethereal plane creatures: what material plane attacks can 'strike ethereal creatures'? Some possibilities are listed below.

1) Force and abjuration spells. This is the only answer I am certain of being a yes.
2) All spells do half damage or a 50% chance of affecting ethereal (as per incorporeal)?
3) Magic weapons do half damage to ethereal (as per incorporeal)?
4) Ghost touch weapons do full damage to ethereal (as per incorporeal)?

Alternately, is there a page in the rulebooks you can point me to that states any of this?

Thanks, Gauss

For the most part, you need to go to the Ethereal Plane to fight creatures there. Pathfinder has deliberately pulled away from the idea that monsters can exist on both the Material and Ethereal Plane at the same time—ghosts, in particular, have NO connection to the Ethereal Plane at all.

Furthermore, being incorporeal does NOT mean you're ethereal.

part 2:

James Jacobs wrote:

Gauss wrote:
James, I am not asking if incorporeal => ethereal. I am asking if ethereal => incorporeal. The two statements are different.

Blink states that ethereal creatures are incorporeal. Thus it would seem the incorporeal rules apply...or do they?

Ethereal Jaunt does not state that ethereal creatures are incorporeal.

Thus, either an ethereal creature is incorporeal..or it isnt depending on the spell you look at. The paragraph on page 440 regarding The ethereal plane is silent on the matter.

The problem is: From the material plane what spells, abilities, weapons affect ethereal creatures and where are the rules for this?

Respectfully, Gauss

Pretty much nothing but gaze attacks can cross that barrier between planes (And even then... gaze attacks can't affect Material Plane creatures when the source is on the Ethereal). You have to actually travel to the other plane to affect the other target.

In previous editions of D&D, there was a lot of bleedover between incorporeal and ethereal. In fact... in 2nd edition and earlier, there really WASN'T an "incorporeal" state—it was always ethereal.

In Pathfinder, we've attempted to draw a hard line between the two states, but there are places where the old language still bleeds through. Blink is one of those cases.

Now we just need a FAQ on it.

- Gauss

[jjaamm]

so confusing, just waiting on more experienced people to respond.

[Gauss]

This is actually a repost from the thread about blink rings. Since I posted James Jacob's response so quickly I doubt many people will respond other than to hit the FAQ button.

- Gauss

[Red-Assassin]

Errata please +1 :).

[Gauss]

BTW, if you FAQ it without leaving a message please also bump it so others may see this. - Gauss

[Bobson]

I'm pretty sure that blink is using "incorporeal" in the general sense, not the rules-specific sense. Unfortunately, it is a rules term, with associated rules mechanics, and so is therefore out of place.

[blackbloodtroll]

Unfortunately, "insubstantial" lacks any rules meaning.

[Bobson]

Which is actually a better thing in this case, since it wouldn't be complicating things.

[Mojorat]

I think the confusion involving blink (as i read that thread) is people were reading too much into it. Generally speaking its best to go with it says what it does and does what it says.

In the case of Blink its a 50% miss chance, because they are going in and out of reality, if you Fail you dont still hit them and do less damage you just miss.

Its basically similar to displacement but some drawbacks advantages due to the ehtereal theme.

[Gauss]

Mojorat, you can claim that people were reading too much into it. But the fact is that Blink stated incorporeal which immediately brings the entirety of the incorporeal rules into it. Blink needs to have that word removed.

In any case, James Jacobs himself said this is an issue. The purpose of this thread is NOT to have another back and forth about 'is blink incorporeal+ethereal or just ethereal'. The purpose of this thread IS to prevent such confusion in the future by hitting the FAQ button enough times where Blink gets rectified. Please, continue hitting the FAQ button.

- Gauss

[Mojorat]

I guess part of it is, I never saw any confusion until it was braught up in the Blink thread. Although with blink maybe its an issue of keeping wording from previous editions?

As far as i know blink has basically been described as doing the same thing since 1ed. You blink out to the ethereal plane and because you were not in the material plane when they swung they miss you.

But if the mechanics behind ethereal or whatnot change without changing blink i can see that being an issue.

[Gauss]

No worries Mojorat. I know it is hard to understand how someone (ie: me) can fight so hard for something that he doesn't actually believe in. I compartmentalize very well so I play a pretty decent devil's advocate.

- Gauss

P.S. I compartmentalize so well in part because I practiced playing chess with myself while not letting myself know what myself was thinking. LOL (And yes, that was screwed up wording on purpose.)

[godoffire04]

Yes thank you the wording on these effects had me so confused when playing a gestalt barbarian/oracle - rage prophet! I wrote out a detailed character disability based off incorporeal/ethereal creatures that my DM and I both loved. Then it actually comes up and we were all stumped. Eventually we came to the conclusion they are separate states... But the wording is very misleading in certain cases. Thank you for this clarification and I hit the faq button for you!!!!!!

Edit - my phone did some crazy word replacements.

[jjaamm]

bump

[Aeric Blackberry]

Where is this FAQed?

[Byakko]

After spending quite some time searching, I still can't find any official faq or errata on this, despite it being marked as answered in the FAQ. Yeah, it's a thread necro, but better than starting a new one, right?

The Blink spell, in particular, still needs some serious rewriting and clarification:

If the attacker can see invisible creatures, the miss chance is also only 20%.
Does this mean that if you can see invisible you can see into the ethereal plane? If so, the ramifications of that should certainly be addressed in the see invisibility spell! If it doesn't, why would it have any effect on the miss chance in the first place?

An ethereal creature is invisible, incorporeal, and capable of moving in any direction, even up or down.
Okay, so if you somehow can hit them while they're ethereal, do they still benefit from invisibility and incorporeality? (for example, from a creature on the ethereal plane, such as *gasp* another blinking creature) What bonuses multiple blinking combatants receive versus each other is actually pretty complicated.

For each 5 feet of solid material you walk through, there is a 50% chance that you become material.
It'd be nice to know how rapidly you blink. For a typical 60' move in 6 seconds, that's 5' in half a second. So about one shift between planes per second. Note this also implies that the faster you move the faster you blink!

Finally, if you manage to get into a grapple, when exactly is the grappled condition removed?

[Shoga]

Hmm, I'm going with this definition.

Ethereal : as in the ethereal plane or ethereal creature; Creature from the Ethereal plane. If an ethereal creature comes to the Material plane, its still an ethereal creature but not an incorporeal one.

Incorporeal : without substance, ghost-like. If it has the means, could travel to the ethereal plane or any other plane for that matter and still be an incorporeal creature.

Shogahin

[Protoman]

Sorry to necro, but has this ever actually got "Answered in the FAQ" or errata'd? PRD still has the same wording for both spells and I can't find an FAQ entry about it.

[mogmismo]

I too can't find this in the FAQ. Can we get the "answered" tag removed so it can continue collecting FAQ votes?

[Kazumetsa Raijin]

mogmismo wrote:

I too can't find this in the FAQ. Can we get the "answered" tag removed so it can continue collecting FAQ votes?

Oh good, so I'm not going crazy. I too saw the "Answered in FAQ" but I cannot locate it so far...

[Bellona]

I've been looking for clarification on the issue of "ethereal" vs. "incorporeal" with specific reference to someone using the Blink spell to attack a ghost, as the player claimed that it gave him a 100% chance to hit with any type of attack (weapon/magic/whatever).

My search-fu turned up nothing in the FAQ, so I checked the rules sub-forum. This particular thread has some interesting points.

However, I'm astonished that Paizo claims that this has been addressed in the FAQ - when it hasn't! *insert angry face*

[Kayerloth]

Welcome to the world of Material Plane, 2 Dimensional, Medium-size only thinking with regard to rules and rule terminology (as well as interchanging rules terms with english definition issues) /sarcasm

And given that PF2 now exists I think the likelyhood of a FAQ response is low (assuming the lack of finding an existing one doesn't continue to hold true) our best course would be to try to come to some kind of consensus ourselves.

First the Bestiary text of Phase Spiders and Xill indicate they are natives of the Ethereal. Neither is insubstantial or incorporeal when found on the Ethereal Plane. So the opening post by Gauss contains contradictory material. Xill in particular are entirely corporeal near as I can tell and Phase Spiders are noted to have a weight of 70lbs which is hardly incorporeal (or the typical meaning of insubstantial).

So merely being an Ethereal native does not make one either incorporeal or insubstantial to anyone on the same plane of existance. A fact Blink back up ... you interact normally per the text of Blink.

That would indicate if you "Blink" onto the Ethereal you are facing a corporeal foe. Which would lead me to believe all references to being insubstantial and incorporeal in the spell is when referring to an ethereal foe while the attacker is on the Material (and probably any other time they are on any other plane besides the Ethereal)

As to Bellona's player they would appear to be correct provided they can both see and target the ethereal creature with a spell or effect that can do so. No miss chances involved. The creature though is still effectively incorporeal half the time and many sorts of damage will be reduced by 50% with Force effects striking normally. As far as I can tell anyway.