| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The rules of the game have a state referred to as 'insubstantial'. This appears under the description of ethereal, gaseous form, and probably other places. The rules do not define anywhere what effect being insubstantial actually has though.
Most (all) of us probably understand its intended effects, but it would be nice to see this formally cleaned up and codified into the rules.
One of the issues to be clarified in this was something brought up in the thread discussing invisibility/total concealment preventing a creature from threatening (do not discuss that here, go to that other thread if you really want to debate that). I'm looking for this to be a FAQ/errata candidate, though I'll give a brief synopsis of what has eventually come out of that thread and why this needs clarification.
Threatening is based upon being able to attack into a square. By pure RAW then, ethereal creatures (which are insubstantial by virtue) can both threaten and be threatened by creatures on the material plane (everyone intuitively understands and screams this is not RAI, logical, common sense, etc.) This condition exists because the material plane and ethereal plane are coexistant, meaning they occupy the same space, so a square in one is the same square (space) in the other.
A definition of what insubstantial actually states should include it in verbage that dictates insubstantial creatures cannot threaten or be threatened (maybe). Off the top of my head I'm not sure if there are any creatures that are naturally insubstantial (there are a number of them that are incorporeal, which already works fine with existing rules). If there is some other portion of the game rules where a insubstantial creature could threaten or be threatened that would need to be fixed/cleaned up/addressed in some fashion.
Good point on that. Ethereal states that ethereal creatures cannot attack a creature on the material plane. This could be clarified in etherealness to encompass more than simply attacking.
Ethereal does already state "An ethereal creature treats other ethereal creatures and ethereal objects as if they were material." so that portion is covered, though it wouldn't hurt to clean up the language and include the effect that they are not insubstantial to each other. E.g, gaseous form is still material - but insubstantial at the same time. So what is meant by material isn't necessarily clear - only inferable within the context of having been ethereal.
Threatening is based upon being able to attack into a square. By pure RAW then, ethereal creatures (which are insubstantial by virtue) can both threaten and be threatened by creatures on the material planeYou're leaving out the part where only force effects (typically) breach the ethereal plane barrier. So while you may "threaten" a square, it doesn't necessarily mean you can have any meaningful effect if they provoke an AoO.
Insubstantial seams to be a fluff term. AFAIK, it doesn't have (or need) any codification.
Threatening effects more than provoking AoO's. Does an ethereal creature provide a flanking partner for his buddy who is not ethereal - even if the ethereal creature can have no physical impact on the material world? What about a host of other abilities that are dependent on threatening?
Force effects would then become an exception to the general rule of what insubstantial actually means in game terms - so its not so much as I'm leaving it out as I think it is a side topic to the core piece.
@RD, appreciate the added reference. That provides some additional data about what the insubstantial state should provide.
@necronus - I'd make a completely new thread for your question.