|
| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incorporeal (Ex) An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.
So, what is a corporeal spell or effect?
1) one that has some physical constituent, like glitterdust, ice tomb or stone call?
2) one cast by a corporeal creature?
3) some other thing?
Spells like Searing light are corporeal?
Starting points:
- Force spell and effects effects always work;
- Spells and effects with a physical constituent always suffer from the 50% damage reduction or 50% chance of failure. That surely include some energy effect, like fire and acid.
|
|
Further things posted here not to clutter a possible FAQ post:
Dubious things:
It affect other forms of energy beside fire and acid? electricity I would say highly probable; cold, probable; light, positive/negative energy .... maybe.
Charm monster, magic jar, et similia would work without problem (again, these are my opinions);
Prayer, Holy word and so on again should work without a problem.
Antilife shell, probably work
Cloudkill, would have a 50% failure chance (you re-check every round? I think so)
Color spray "School illusion (pattern) [mind-affecting]" should work
And so on.
A general rule would be nice.
I understand it to be the answer #2: Corporeal effect is the one created by corporeal creature or object.
So the searing light could be corporeal effect if cast by corporeal cleric or incorporeal if cast by ghost cleric.
Is the effect tangible and not incorporeal? Then it's corporeal :)
|
|
I understand it to be the answer #2: Corporeal effect is the one created by corporeal creature or object.
So the searing light could be corporeal effect if cast by corporeal cleric or incorporeal if cast by ghost cleric.
That would make some sense if we were speaking of ethereal things, but incorporeal in Pathfinder has nothing to do with that.
What it the difference between a charm monster launched by a corporeal creature and a incorporeal one?Same spell or SLA, same effect, same everything.
Target of creator of the effect aren't on different planes like in previous editions, so it seem decidedly arbitrary.
If the condition of the one casting a spell change how the spell work, what other effects change that way?
|
|
I've always considered corporeal sources to be non-incorporeal sources. Haven't encountered any confusion, yet*.
*except for ghostbane dirge.
Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy).
When you are applying damage it speak of corporal sources but
Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature.
here it speak of corporal spells and effects not sources.
I'm with Nefreet and Drejk. The effect can be physical or mind-affecting, and that doesn't have nothing to do with it being corporeal or incorporeal. The source of the effect would be what defines corporeality.
|
|
Echolocation and See Invisibility should both work, as neither targets or affects creatures other than the caster (they're both "personal" spells).
Actually Echolocation fails, but for other reasons
Echolocation
...
You can perceive the world by creating high-pitched noises and listening to their echoes.
...
This gives you blindsight to a range of 40 feet.
Incorporeal (Ex)
...
Nonvisual senses, such as scent and blindsight, are either ineffective or only partly effective with regard to incorporeal creatures.
High-pitched are ineffective against a incorporeal creature as they don't bounce back.
- * -
@Numarak
Beside that secondary correction, Nefreet is right, what matter who is affected by the spell. You are confusing spells that affect the caster with spell that affect the incorporeal creature.
See invisibility work, it give a power to the guy that see the invisible, it don't affect in any way the incorporeal entity.
Repulsion surely is affected by incorporeality, it directly affect the repulsed creature. Almost certainly the check is made only once, the first time the repulsed creature try to pass the boudnary of teh spell.
Protection from evil is more problematic as it has several effects.
- It give the protected creature a deflection bonus to AC, deflection bonuses work against incorporeal creatures, so if the incorporeal creature is evil it work.
- It give the protected creature a resistance bonus. It work as it affect the protected creature, not the incorporeal creature.
- It protect against mental domination, again something that affect the target of the spell, not the incorporeal creature, so the protection work.
- It edge out summoned creatures. That effect affect the incorporeal creature, so it is subject to the 50% chance of failure.
Complicated? Yes, for some spell it is complicated, but you can't say that it is a flat 50% of disregarding all non force spells. When the spell don't affect the incorporeal creature it work flawlessly, eve if it give a indirect benefit against the incorporeal creature.
|
Echolocation and See Invisibility should both work, as neither targets or affects creatures other than the caster (they're both "personal" spells).Actually Echolocation fails, but for other reasons
Echolocation
...
You can perceive the world by creating high-pitched noises and listening to their echoes.
...
This gives you blindsight to a range of 40 feet.High-pitched are ineffective against a incorporeal creature as they don't bounce back.Incorporeal (Ex)
...
Nonvisual senses, such as scent and blindsight, are either ineffective or only partly effective with regard to incorporeal creatures.
Ah, good catch. Thanks.
Every non-damaging spell/effect cast on an incorporeal being by a corporeal source (under the "incorporeal spells are those cast by incorporeal beings" train of thought) has 50% of working.
Or: any incorporeal being ignores non-damaging spells/effects by a corporeal source 50% of time.
If the source is corporeal but the effect/spell is [force] or ectoplasmatic, it has full effect.
Incorporeal are half-out of sync, half-beings or such.
|
|
Numarak, the examples you are giving don't really work for what you're trying to prove.
Protection from Evil, just like See Invisibility, Echolocation, or any other "buff" spell, doesn't target the incorporeal creature, so there is no 50% chance of the spell fizzling.
If a Ghost were to somehow cast Mage Armor, my corporeal caster could still try to Dispel it. Again, you're not targeting the incorporeal creature, so no 50% chance of the spell fizzling.
If a Ghost were to somehow cast Mage Armor, my corporeal caster could still try to Dispel it. Again, you're not targeting the incorporeal creature, so no 50% chance of the spell fizzling.
But it is targeting a spell cast by the Insub. Is the Mage Armor incorporeal? Or does it overlap automatically because it is a force effect?
If the latter, what if the Insub casts Protection from Good? That's not a force effect but is cast by an incorporeal source. Is the effect incorporeal?
Nothing in the Incorporeal description prevents spells cast by an incorporeal creature affecting corporeal beings. In fact, other ways to gain the Incorporeal subtype and ability (like the Eidolon evolution) say that while you are incorporeal your non-damaging spells and abilities FULLY affect corporeal beings.
|
|
All this argue is for one reason, I do not mind RAW be clear on one side or the other, but I can't stand rules being so open to RAI.
Ok, how many spells in the CRB?
To have a RAW answer Pazo would have to analyze each spell, spell like power, supernatural power, exceptional ability and each effect in the cam and explain what happen when it is used against a incorporeal creature or by an incorporeal creature on itself, and how each of those effects will interact which each other when some in the presence of a incorporeal creature.I doubt that all the US lawyers would be capable to do that, so Paizo with its limited number of Developers has no chance.
What they can do is giving us a general rule, and I feel that the current rule can be improved, but they can't give us a RAW answer for each situation. That is why we have a GM.
You dismiss my PfE reply on the basis of "*It creates a magical barrier around the subject at a distance of 1 foot." your choice if you are the GM, but the spell give specific effects, independent from the area of the barrier:
- a deflection bonus to Ac
- resistance bonus
- resistance to charm and compulsions
The only effect that is dependent on the barrier ability to stop something is the edging out of summoned creatures, all the other effects are on the target, i.e. the guy with PfE on him, not the attacker, i.e the incorporeal creature.
Understanding "Incorporeal Shield" as a Shield spell cast by an incorporeal being? As it's a [force] effect, it ignores if the attacker or the target are corporeal, incorporeal (or ethereal). I don't think it would have a 50% of being affected by a corporeal Dispel Magic, but a 100%.
Line? The corporeal Shatter would have 50% of affecting the incorporeal portrait. An incorporeal caster is "in sync" with the incorporeal portrait.
An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities (...) Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). (...) Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature.
There may be other doubts around incorporeality, but it's clearly worded that it offers no special protection against other incorporeal beings.
And of course, I believe that the best interpretation is premise 2)
Why? Because can you find a place in the rules where "Corporeal" is defined? No. Then, just seems logical to use the natural language.
I strongly disagree. As "corporeal" is not defined but "incorporeal" is -and it needs the special quality incorporeal to be such-, we can, without supose anything, positively say what an incorporeal being is and what a corporeal being is, according to it having the subtype and/or special quality or not. In fact UNLESS it has the Incorporeal Quality or/and SQ, any creature is corporeal. The default is corporeality.
Only creatures, then, are defined by RAW as Corporeal or Incorporeal (capital C and I, as such now far away from the dictionary and into the realm of game rules terminology). There are other easy words that could have been used (physical, mind-affecting) but that weren't used: the only duality presented was corporeal and incorporeal.
There are also spells and effects which can be considered Incorporeal (according to the Incorporeal description), but we also know there isn't such descriptor to define them. The path of lesser resistance, from there, is supposing that,
1. if having the Incorporeal SQ/subtype is mandatory for a creature being Incorporeal.
2. Incorporeal effects are only refered in regards of the Incorporeal SQ
...then spells and effects are only incorporeal as they are cast or used by an incorporeal being. It also unifies the effect magic has on an incorporeal being: it does damage? Half. It's non-damaging? Works fully, on half of the occasions (because being half-controlled or half-protected would be more complicated to define). Neat, easy, direct, universal.
I'm not saying it's the only explanation possible, and that's why an official dev answer would be most welcome. But it seems to be both the fairest and the one that asks of a lesser number of rules/suppositions been made.
|
|
I give another example; imagine a ghost which holds a portrait. The portrait, as the ghost, both are incorporeal. Your character have learned that destroying the portrait is the way for banishing the ghost. Now, the corporeal caster of your party casts a Shatter to destroy the incorporeal portrait, would you apply the 50%. Consistency says you should. But then, why incorporeal spells and effects casted by an incoporeal caster do not benefit from the same rule? Where do you draw the line?
Why you have this habit of making examples that don't work?
1) A ghost (or any incorporeal creature) can't pick up items unless the item has the ghost touch ability. And that mean that it is magic, so not a valid target for shatter.
2) Even if the ghost was capable to pick up an item, that don't make the item incorporeal. The ghost hasn't a power that allow it to make items incorporeal.
3) If your portrait is part of the ghost from the start, it is part of a creature, and so not a valid target for shatter.
In that situation it is not a real item, is part of the apparent equipment of the ghost. A ghost appearance can be that of a full plate armored knight or a frail damsel, but that don't change in any way how they attack, their AC and any other characteristic, it is only a cosmetic change.
|
|
Echolocation and See Invisibility should both work, as neither targets or affects creatures other than the caster (they're both "personal" spells).I disagree. See invisibility uses divination magic to gather information about creatures in your range of vision. I'd say that means it does affect creatures other than the caster. See the mind blank spell:The subject is protected from all devices and spells that gather information about the target through divination magic (such as detect evil, locate creature, scry, and see invisible).
You can see any objects or beings that are invisible within your range of vision, as well as any that are ethereal, as if they were normally visible. Such creatures are visible to you as translucent shapes, allowing you easily to discern the difference between visible, invisible, and ethereal creatures
It give a power to you, it don't target the incorporeal creature.
Mind blank is an extremely powerful anti divination spell. It work against all divination spells including Commune, that in no way target the creature on which you are asking informations.
|
|
@KalEl (1)Extract from the rules. First entrance of Incorporeal:
"An incorporeal creature has no physical body."
Actually, the rest of the entrance explains effects derived from this fact, the fact of not having a physical body in terms of game rules, but those are descriptions of the incorporeality. Yea, incorporeal creatures are immune to precision damage, but not all creatures immune to precision damage are incorporeal. Again, as a matter of fact, all incoporeal creatures does not have a physical body, and all creatures that does not have a physical body, you won't believe this, are, yea, you guess it, incorporeal.
My question is: why if we agree that rules state that incorporeal creatures are first defined as some creature that has no physical body, why in the seven hells, we define the spells or effects by another standard, why we define the corporeality of spells and effect by its source and not with the same logic of the rules, or the logic of the natural language -which I stated in a previous post using an online english dictionary? Would be very simple: a corporeal spell is a spell that has a physical body. Is not that difficult, isn't it?
Instead of that, someone says: no, incorporeal effect or spell has nothing to do with having a physical body, it has something to do with the source of them. Why?
Because originally what is now "incorporeality" was "being ethereal", so you were half in this plane and half in the ethereal plane and that mentality has sticked even when the incorporeal status was applied to other things.
A creature in the ethereal plane attacking another creature on the ethereal plane didn't suffered from the 50% failure rate.
I thought the differentiation was weather or not the spell effected the ethereal plane. Force affects the ethereal plane, for example.
4)
What I told to KalEl was that, actually, au contraire of what he was stating -that there is no such place in the rules that defines Incorporeality as "not having a physical body", and that is the reason why assuming that when we talk about a corporeal spell or effect we have to regress to its source- I pointed out that 'yes', there's actually some -more...
Sorry, can you quote me saying incorporeal creatures isn't defined as "not having a physical body" in any of my answers? Because of course they don't. That's the basis for all this... and I feel we are arguing while agreeing.
What I have said is that "physical" and "corporeal" are not the same. Corporeal in the game is defined as the opposite to Incorporeal. But Corporeal creatures do things both physical and not-physical. Thinking, for example. That doesn't mean thinking is "incorporeal"... mostly because I can't think without a brain.
Now: have you ever seen a spell with a physical body? It's called a scroll or a wand :) Joking. Spells are NOT physical: they may have PHYSICAL origins and PHYSICAL effects, but that's a completely different issue. No spell would be "corporeal" if we followed this route. Yet we know there are corporeal spells and effects. Which could be so per se or due to the caster's [Incorporeal] subtype/SQ or lack of it; that's what we are going round and round.
Why, in my opinion, should a Dominate Monster affect a Raiju in electric body only half of the time? Because my corporeal brain and my mind are trying to give a bunch of electricity orders: there's a mind there, yes, but not a brain. It's so much out of sync with my magically transmited mental patterns as his body is with my fireball. So I can succeed -the beast didn't all of a sudden become immune to mind-affecting spells- but it's harder. About 50% harder.
It's just a matter of adding an Ecoplasmic Spell Metamagic Feat, as I would with the Fireball if I wanted it to fully affect the beast, and gone the problems.
That's why I'm for Corporeal Spells and Effects being all those casted or performed by a corporeal being :)
Is the source of the spell or effect corporeal? If so, then the spell or effect is corporeal. If not, then the spell or effect is incorporeal. Specific exceptions may exist for specific sources, spells, or effects, as always.
Edit: Got the ghost thing backwards, so removed it.
1) Used as an area attack, shatter destroys nonmagical objects of crystal, glass, ceramic, or porcelain.
Alternatively, you can target shatter against a single solid nonmagical object, regardless of composition, weighing up to 10 pounds per caster level.
Incorporeal things don't meet the target requirements of shatter. Either you can't target it, or the area burst doesn't effect incorporeal items.
2) 50% for repulsion. 100% for Pfe.
"Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature (except for channel energy)."
Repulsion targets an area and has creatures make a saving throw to pass into it. Thus it directly affects the creatures.
PFE targets the protected creature, granting it bonuses. Does not directly affect the incorporal creature. Therefore no chance to fail.
5) (Why'd we jump to 5 from 2?) There's no rules for interaction between corporeal spells and incorporeal spells. So 100% normal. Only matters when the spell is corporeal affecting incorporeal in which case there will be a 50% chance it works.
Repulsion? Yes, affected. Stone Wall? Yes, affected. Protection from Evil? No, not affected (this requires an explanation since PfE is not a [Force] effect). See Invisibility? No, not affected (for the sake of the argument I won't require and explanation of this exception, but it needs one, is an exception to the [all]).
Repulsion requires a save from the incorporeal creature, thus is it affecting that creature and has the 50%.
Wall of stone is completely irrelevant to an incorporeal creature. They can go right through it regardless.
Protection from evil: targets the corporeal creature, does not directly affect the incorporeal creature. 100%.
See invisibility: targets the corporeal creature, does not directly affect the incorporeal creature. 100%.
Repulsion you cast on an area (which affects creatures that enter the area).
PFE is cast on a creature, which then improves that creature with some bonuses.
Repulsion provides for creatures entering in the area to make a save to bypass the affect.
PFE provides a save(harmless) if the creature doesn't want the bonuses.
Repulsion explicitly is affecting the creatures inside its area. Same way that a fireball affects the creatures inside its area.
Here's a different example. Say you cast blur on yourself. Then an incorporeal creature attacks. Do you get the 20% miss chance to the attack? I say yes, because blur affects YOU, and grants you a 20% of being missed by attacks. Blur does not affect the incorporeal creature, whether it is there or not makes no difference on the effect. The same goes for PFE. It affects you, the target, and grants you some bonuses.
Question 3 seems to be mind blank and see invisible. See invisible affects only the subject. And mind blank also affects only the subject. Mind blank explicitly protects from see invisible. So an incorporeal creature with mind blank would not be able to be seen by anything with see invisible.
4) The universal monster rules have: "Incorporeal (Ex) An incorporeal creature has no physical body." So yes, it explicitly states incorporeal does not have a physical body.
The effect of protection from evil is an effect on the recipient, not on the attacking creature. The corporeality of the attacking creature has no bearing on protection from evil's effectiveness with respect to the bonuses to AC and saving throws.
If you interpret "effect" broadly enough, anything that ever happens has a 50% chance to simply not happen from the perspective of an incorporeal character. As in, some wizard fireballs a house, and a ghost wanders by. Whoops, the coin landed tails; the house is still standing for the ghost! After all, whether the house is there has an effect on the ghost--namely, whether the ghost sees a house or not. Fortunately, it doesn't work that way. Effects must directly affect the creature in question. Boons to an incorporeal creature's enemies are not effects to be halved or coin-flipped with respect to an incorporeal attacker--unless those boons have a direct effect on the attacker, such as the damage from fire shield.
Blur does not affect the incorporeal attacker; it affects the subject of the blur spell. Affecting whether the creature hits you is not affecting the creature in any sense but the philosophical, and we've already demonstrated how far down that rabbit hole goes.