Just to add to the confusion, what about a Shield spell? Technically it's effective even against incorporeal attacks, and even it you did "touch" the shield, it's not "connected" to the beneficiary (which Mage Armor arguably is) to channel the touch effect.
I could see it going either way, but maybe not RAW
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is this (bolded):
Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you. It negates magic missile attacks directed at you. The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. The shield has no armor check penalty or arcane spell failure chance.
So yes, Shield protects from incorporeal touch attacks since it explicitly calls it out. Even though shield bonuses normally do not apply to incorporeal touch attacks.
Arguably, Mage Armor falls into the "force effect" category of being able to apply to incorporeal touch attacks. One could make the argument that all incorporeal attacks are touch attacks, as they bypass all normal armor. In which case, the fact that Mage Armor is effective against incorporeal attacks would mean that the armor bonus provided by the spell would still be in place against incorporeal touch attacks.
As I see it, Shield clearly works against incorporeal touch, and Mage Armor could go either way based on interpretation (I say it does at my table).
As force effects, both armor and shield apply against "Incorporeal Touch" attacks. Neither applies against normal "Touch Attacks", such as from Range: Touch or Effect: Ray spells.
"Incorporeal Touch" attacks are called such because they typically ignore the same type of armor bonuses that Touch attacks do (passing right through them), and naming them similarly calls attention to that.
Other things that help: Bracers of Armor, Ring of Force Shield.
Sounds like this will be a judgement call. I can see both sides being right in the discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you need a way to think about it to make the flavor text support the rules...
Incorporeal attacks actually need to physically hit the body, they just get a benefit of being able to pass through armor (but not force effects)
Touch attacks just need to get close, and are presumed to envelope and penetrate any armor that is in the way, so if your force effect isn't a bubble that blocks "line of effect" it isn't sufficient to stop a touch attack.
I apologize for trying to bring this thread back to life.
I understand why some people think mage armor and shield would work against a regular cleric's Harm spell touch attack and I confess I do don't like how most people robotically answer to that with "No. Touch attacks ignore armor and shield bonus." with complete disregard for their logic, especially when I think their view could be right.
Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect.
As I understand, it's saying you actualy need physical contatct for the attack to work, and that's exactly what a tangible field of force surrounding you prevents.
Why is Mage Armor and Armor bonus? Because it works just like an armor, placing a barrier between that guy's axe and your chest. BUT, different from regular armor, it's not touching you.
Why is Shield spell a Shield bonus? Because it works pretty much like a shield, or better in this case, because it must stay like a foot away from you, like the animated shield or considering how it doens't get in the way of the wizard in any way (magically, it's a one way force shield). BUT, it's not touching you.
Now, did you ever wonder why touch attacks ignore armor and shield? I can think of two reasons. For one, it would be hard for a cleric to heal a paladin in a fullplate if it had to actualy touch his skin, so they made it easy for him allowing it to just touch him/his armor. With the same logic, if you can heal a guy through armor, you can also harm him with a inflict wounds spell, and since it would be ridiculous for a vampire to try to get around a tower shield to touch the paladin's armor, they decided that you only had to touch the shield, which is straped to his arm or beeing held by his hand, and that would be enough.
Now, according to that you could just touch the tip of the shield and the attack would work. That doesn't make much sense to me (unless it's a shocking grasp) but since the rules don't diferentiate touching the tip of the shield or the place that's closest to his hand/arm, let's just say you always go for the arm.
So, the whole thing about touch attacks is based on actually physically touching the enemy, and the way I see it that doesn't actually happen with mage armor, shield or even with an animated shield.
These spells don't specify how thick the tangible force fields they create are. Touch attacks also don't say they would work if you got really close to the subject, they just say you really need to touch them, and to do that you would technically need to get though the shield and armor's force field.
One could argue that touching the mage armor is enough, as it would be just like touching a real armor, but that would mean touching a wall of force would affect anyone directly touching the other side. The point is in the specific situation the rules are mute, it's a peculiarity, and you'll have to figure out what you think it's best.
Also, the only reason I think touch attacks should ignore mage armor and the shield spell is due game balance. Allowing that would make these spells and similar effects more powerfull, maybe beyound their level, But, they also didn't write anywhere that they ruled this way "for game balance" so, I would rule it that these effects do work against touch attacks, including animated shields. It's not game breaking, and I think these little peculiarities, like beeing able to see glittering dust in a non magical darkness, they bring more "realism" to the game, rather than saying "The rules say you need to sleep exactly 8 hours to regain your spells, and you guys only slept 7 hours and 55 minutes before Apocalypse started!".
I guess I could consider touch attacks working agains mage armor, seeing how the touch attack get's as close to the target as it does with regular armor, but this is where the "Force" thing makes it unclear, if it counts as a gap between the "touch" and the target, of if it's so tangible that it counts as touching both sides. I guess the question is: Do tangible force fields conduct touch "effects"? (contact poison would be weird)
I'm sorry guys, but the bottom line is, how the hell can a touch attack affect you if a shield of force stoped the attack half a foot way from you?
Because the rules say so, clearly and unambiguously.
Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect.
Is this not also a rule, since it's in the rulebook, pag. 179?
Stops ghosts, not bullets.
I apologize for trying to bring this thread back to life.
I understand why some people think mage armor and shield would work against a regular cleric's Harm spell touch attack and I confess I do don't like how most people robotically answer to that with "No. Touch attacks ignore armor and shield bonus." with complete disregard for their logic, especially when I think their view could be right.
Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect.
As I understand, it's saying you actualy need physical contatct for the attack to work, and that's exactly what a tangible field of force surrounding you prevents.
Why is Mage Armor and Armor bonus? Because it works just like an armor, placing a barrier between that guy's axe and your chest. BUT, different from regular armor, it's not touching you.
Why is Shield spell a Shield bonus? Because it works pretty much like a shield, or better in this case, because it must stay like a foot away from you, like the animated shield or considering how it doens't get in the way of the wizard in any way (magically, it's a one way force shield). BUT, it's not touching you.
Now, did you ever wonder why touch attacks ignore armor and shield? I can think of two reasons. For one, it would be hard for a cleric to heal a paladin in a fullplate if it had to actualy touch his skin, so they made it easy for him allowing it to just touch him/his armor. With the same logic, if you can heal a guy through armor, you can also harm him with a inflict wounds spell, and since it would be ridiculous for a vampire to try to get around a tower shield to touch the paladin's armor, they decided that you only had to touch the shield, which is straped to his arm or beeing held by his hand, and that would be enough.
Now, according to that you could just touch the tip of the shield and the attack would work. That doesn't make much sense to...
This thread had one side already stop debating so bring it back was pointless unless there is someone at your table that is trying to make this case. From what I read you agree with the majority that mage armor stops incorporeal touch attacks, but not normal touch attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The text for mage armor on the PRD specifically states that it holds up to incorporeal touch attacks, so you're good there.
Regular touch attacks go right through both spells, though.
Edit: also, holy wall of text, Kchaka. TL; DR, and that's saying something coming from me.
I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. Let's forget Mage Armor for now and focus only on the Shield Spell, plz:
Shield: Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you.
Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect.
I have yet to see an argument that explains how does a Monster's touch attack, that according to the rules needs to literally touch the foe through physical contact, affects the foe that's behind a hovering tangible shield of force which is not in contact with the subject, since it hovers, without getting through the shield's defense, +4 to AC?
Btw, this has nothing to do with ghosts and incorporeal attacks.
Because it's an armor (or shield) bonus for balance reasons? That's enough.
|
Think of Armor and Shield spells in terms of the Shield Generator tech from Frank Herbert's Dune series. The force effect deflects rapid attacks, blocking an attempt to do harm by force, but does not block a slower and deliberate touch attack. The spell simply is not designed to react to being tapped on the arm or shoulder as a threat. Because of that the spells block incorporeal creatures attempting to strike you with a slam attack, but even a ghost with a shocking grasp would not be blocked by a shield spell since the shocking grasp attack is only a touch attack and not an slam attack by an incorporeal creature.
I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced. Let's forget Mage Armor for now and focus only on the Shield Spell, plz:
Shield: Shield creates an invisible shield of force that hovers in front of you.
Touch Attacks: Some attacks completely disregard armor, including shields and natural armor—the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect.
I have yet to see an argument that explains how does a Monster's touch attack, that according to the rules needs to literally touch the foe through physical contact, affects the foe that's behind a hovering tangible shield of force which is not in contact with the subject, since it hovers, without getting through the shield's defense, +4 to AC?
Btw, this has nothing to do with ghosts and incorporeal attacks.
Don't confuse flavor with rules. By the rules only certain armor types block touch attacks. Find the "rule" that backs your opinion and then come back.
Ever tried to touch someone behind a shield? Attacking is difficult, but you don't need the right angle and momentum or whatsoever for just a touch. Just to make your arm go behind the shield.
I wouldn't call the Hovering ability a flavor since it allows the wizard to hold a staff with two hands at the same time.
The rule that backs this up is the sentence:the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect.
As I said, even though I know that touch attacks ignore shield bonus "for game balance", I think there's enough written in the rulebook to give reason to think otherwise in the case of the Shield spell, and maybe Mage Armor (if you consider that the "force" tangible field is a imaterial gap, and therefore stops contact).
I think a DM could rule eitherway here, and neither would be totally right or wrong.
I wouldn't call the Hovering ability a flavor since it allows the wizard to hold a staff with two hands at the same time.
The rule that backs this up is the sentence:the aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect.
As I said, even though I know that touch attacks ignore shield bonus "for game balance", I think there's enough written in the rulebook to give reason to think otherwise in the case of the Shield spell, and maybe Mage Armor (if you consider that the "force" tangible field is a imaterial gap, and therefore stops contact).
I think a DM could rule eitherway here, and neither would be totally right or wrong.
Actually he would be wrong if he intends to go by what the rules say.
If you mean he could not be wrong as in "it won't break his game" that is different, but we are in the rules forum.
Are you saying that the "aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect" sentence is not a rule?
"You do not have to touch a person's skin to cast a touch spell on them. You agree to that."
Yes, you only have to touch "him", so touching his armor or the shield straped to him is enough.
"You need to touch a foe, but you "disregard armor, including shields." This means that armor and shields that are in the way cannot block your touch attacks. No armor, no shields."
By "disregard" they don't mean you phase through armor and shield, they mean they offer no protection because you don't have to break through them to touch the foe, you literally just have to touch the armor or the shield straped to his arm.
Are you saying that the "aggressor need only touch a foe for such an attack to take full effect" sentence is not a rule?
"You do not have to touch a person's skin to cast a touch spell on them. You agree to that."
Yes, you only have to touch "him", so touching his armor or the shield straped to him is enough.
"You need to touch a foe, but you "disregard armor, including shields." This means that armor and shields that are in the way cannot block your touch attacks. No armor, no shields."
By "disregard" they don't mean you phase through armor and shield, they mean they offer no protection because you don't have to break through them to touch the foe, you literally just have to touch the armor or the shield straped to his arm.
Mage armor and shield do not count unless it is an incorporeal touch attack.
Yes that shield(magical affect) is actually in front, just like a real shield is but since it is a shield bonus to AC it does not block touch attacks by the rules.So therefore by the rules, if a GM uses to go strictly by the CRB he is wrong/incorrect to say otherwise. If he wishes to use rule 0 that is another topic.
Simple version:Mage armor and shield by the rules do not block "normal" touch attacks.
edited: for simplicity