Incorporeal Revisited


Rules Discussion


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This old problem has come back again with avengence in the Book of the Dead. The Incorporeal trait. The problem being that
An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects

Its completely clear in the rules that swinging an axe is a strength based check and so that effect just fizzles and fails unless a ghost touch rune is in play.

Yes a check is everything read here and here. It is the title of two rules sections its not undefined or unclear in the slightest.

Its also clear that a majority of GMs play the game as if that isn't the case they read it as Strength-based Skill checks ie Athletics checks. Only a minority of GMs like myself stuck strictly to the rule as we were happy for there to be a relatively strong monster immunity in the game.

In the base game it was all fine. All incorporeal creatures only had finesse attacks. The rules were applied consistently.

Clearly this interpretation on the part of GMs has now been adopted for the Book of the Dead.

Why? Because of the Ghost Archetype and the Ghost Undead Companion

These of course are fundamentally broken by the rules. They trivialise a large portion of encounters.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Well, I see a small set of options available for the tiny handful people that have been running things that way.

1. Keep doing it that way, and accept that ghost PCs will break everything.

2. Don't allow ghost PCs or companions.

3. Run incorporeal the way that makes any sense, like everyone else has been doing.

4. Bite the bullet and run player and non-player incorporeality asymmetrically.

Number two is probably cleanest if you want to stick with the "ghosts are immune to greatswords but not to arrows and rapiers" idea for whatever reason.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:


Its also clear that a majority of GMs play the game as if that isn't the case they read it as Strength-based Skill checks ie Athletics checks. Only a minority of GMs like myself stuck strictly to the rule as we were happy for there to be a relatively strong monster immunity in the game.

I suppose this gives strong reason to believe they really did miss 'skill' word in the intial trait:

Someone said wrote:

Strength

Unlike most incorporeal creatures, your Strength modifier is not –5; you keep the same Strength score you had before you became a ghost, though you can only attempt Strength-based skill checks—typically Athletics checks—against other incorporeal creatures, as normal for an incorporeal creature. Against incorporeal creatures, use your Strength normally to determine the results of Athletics checks, Strikes with melee weapons, and any other checks or damage rolls dependent on Strength.

But this book seems especially bad in consistency and not really polished... Also I don't see any reason to not include that 'skill' word in any of the previous erratas.

P.S. Ok, this notion is probably not even an argument: given that Ghost achetype automatically makes your weapons ghost touch, even with the rule that you can't use Strength-based attacks against corporeal creatures it would be cancelled.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes the Ghost archetype text is horribly confused. The new text explicitly states that Strikes with melee weapons are Strength checks. Then fails to understand the implications.

They explicitly refer you back to the incoporeal trait. They provide an appropriate warning that maybe letting PCs walk through walls is a bad idea. But they miss that maybe making a PC immune to the majority of Strikes is a problem too.

I'd have been perfectly happy if they had released clarifying errata at the same time. But no such luck.

I am left with a strong sense that Paizo doesn't understand what they have written, or maybe they have just forgotten.

As it is written it is seriously broken.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

If your reading of the rules comes out with an interpretation that is seriously broken, maybe you should adjust your reading of the rules. In fact, the Core Rulebook tells you to do so explicitly.


This is what I am seeing. Not quite an errata of the CRB text of the trait, but it is pretty close. Should be enough to clear things up for playing a Ghost character at least.

Strength: Unlike most incorporeal creatures, your Strength modifier is not –5; you keep the same Strength score you had before you became a ghost, though you can only attempt Strength-based skill checks—typically Athletics checks—against other incorporeal creatures, as normal for an incorporeal creature. Against incorporeal creatures, use your Strength normally to determine the results of Athletics checks, Strikes with melee weapons, and any other checks or damage rolls dependent on Strength.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:

This is what I am seeing. Not quite an errata of the CRB text of the trait, but it is pretty close. Should be enough to clear things up for playing a Ghost character at least.

Strength: Unlike most incorporeal creatures, your Strength modifier is not –5; you keep the same Strength score you had before you became a ghost, though you can only attempt Strength-based skill checks—typically Athletics checks—against other incorporeal creatures, as normal for an incorporeal creature. Against incorporeal creatures, use your Strength normally to determine the results of Athletics checks, Strikes with melee weapons, and any other checks or damage rolls dependent on Strength.

That's what I saw. And then understood that it by no means contradicts the reading that Strength-based attacks don't work against incorporeals (or by incorporeal against corporeal). It says nothing about 'cross-state' attacks. And the problem of Strength-based Ghost archetype PC's attacks solved by making them automatically ghost touch.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

So here is something interesting I noticed when I was looking into this:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1864

This ghost (added with Book of the Dead) attacks do not have the finesse trait so if you take the strict RAW ruling with this ghost they cannot make attacks against physical creatures only other ghosts.


Demicube wrote:

So here is something interesting I noticed when I was looking into this:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1864

This ghost (added with Book of the Dead) attacks do not have the finesse trait so if you take the strict RAW ruling with this ghost they cannot make attacks against physical creatures only other ghosts.

That's not true: ghostly hand crossbow is a ranged attack and that isn't strength based. Now, it's listed melee attack is strength but there is no reason it can't make a Fist attack that has Finesse: even holding both cutlass and hand crossbow, it can still kick [use the same statistics (Fist) for attacks made with any other parts of your body].


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Fair enough about the crossbow wasn't really thinking about it as a ranged attack.

As far it's melee attack goes yeah I guess you could do that? I just thought it was funny that if you are reading this as RAW that it's main attack does nothing to most players and most monsters for that matter.


Demicube wrote:
I just thought it was funny that if you are reading this as RAW that it's main attack does nothing to most players and most monsters for that matter.

It's more of an issue with the Savvy Joinin' Me Crew? ability as that requires reducing a living creature to 0 Hit Points with a melee Strike.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:
If your reading of the rules comes out with an interpretation that is seriously broken, maybe you should adjust your reading of the rules. In fact, the Core Rulebook tells you to do so explicitly.

Its not a reading. Its not debatable any more than 1+1=2. Its black and white.

But obviously yes, as a responsible player of the game we have to find á way to make it work and move on.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
If your reading of the rules comes out with an interpretation that is seriously broken, maybe you should adjust your reading of the rules. In fact, the Core Rulebook tells you to do so explicitly.

Its not a reading. Its not debatable any more than 1+1=2. Its black and white.

But obviously yes, as a responsible player of the game we have to find á way to make it work and move on.

Your interpretation may feel “black and white” to you, but clearly it is not. Evidenced by all the people who don’t share your reading.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:
Gortle wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
If your reading of the rules comes out with an interpretation that is seriously broken, maybe you should adjust your reading of the rules. In fact, the Core Rulebook tells you to do so explicitly.

Its not a reading. Its not debatable any more than 1+1=2. Its black and white.

But obviously yes, as a responsible player of the game we have to find á way to make it work and move on.

Your interpretation may feel “black and white” to you, but clearly it is not. Evidenced by all the people who don’t share your reading.

No. Absolutely not.

Its not an interpretation. People are choosing to read something that isn't there. Which is fine. They are making an assumption, and filling in a hole based on subjective expectation. That is just not what it says. Which the text reinforces by repeating the issue again in a whole new section. Pazio have unequivocally made an error.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:
Gortle wrote:


Its not a reading. Its not debatable any more than 1+1=2. Its black and white.
But obviously yes, as a responsible player of the game we have to find á way to make it work and move on.
Your interpretation may feel “black and white” to you, but clearly it is not. Evidenced by all the people who don’t share your reading.

I also called that a reading, but Gortle is right. It's only a reading because there's another one and it's a reading of what is written.

I'd even say that it is interesting to have more dangerous ghosts, especially in the game where there is so much magic and other types of damage. The only thing apart from balance which bothers me - I can't invent good explanation why DEX physical attacks still work. What is the difference between sword, rapier, arrow, hammer, club, bolt and fist that some work, some don't, some work sometimes? It's too strange.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Gortle wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
If your reading of the rules comes out with an interpretation that is seriously broken, maybe you should adjust your reading of the rules. In fact, the Core Rulebook tells you to do so explicitly.
Its not a reading. Its not debatable any more than 1+1=2. Its black and white.
Your interpretation may feel “black and white” to you, but clearly it is not. Evidenced by all the people who don’t share your reading.

No. Absolutely not.

Its not an interpretation. People are choosing to read something that isn't there. Which is fine. They are making an assumption, and filling in a hole based on subjective expectation. That is just not what it says. Which the text reinforces by repeating the issue again in a whole new section. Pazio have unequivocally made an error.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that a roleplaying game's rules are like computer code or something. I hate to break it to you, but all reading is interpretive. People are not reading into something that isn't there, they are using context clues like we learned in gradeschool English class.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
Pazio have unequivocally made an error.

Yes, and it isn't the first or only one.

But all signs point to the idea that even the majority of the game devs think that Incorporeal immunity to STR-based checks only applies to skill checks - not STR-based attack rolls (which yes, are still STR-based checks also).

That distinction is how it is written in the newer Ghost archetype rules - even indicating that this is the normal behavior for CRB-era Incorporeal monsters. So it isn't a new concept. The developer that wrote that didn't think that anything was being changed.

Weapon ineffectiveness against Incorporeal is handled with the damage resistance. Not by having STR-based melee weapons simply not work at all.

The game devs also gave us the Ambiguous or Unclear Rules rule to handle situations like this.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
GM OfAnything wrote:
Your interpretation may feel “black and white” to you, but clearly it is not. Evidenced by all the people who don’t share your reading.

No. Absolutely not.

Its not an interpretation. People are choosing to read something that isn't there. Which is fine. They are making an assumption, and filling in a hole based on subjective expectation.

Regardless of what I think about this specific issue I just wanted to back up Gortle here: just because there is a disagreement doesn't mean that one interpretation is not unequivocally correct. If that was the case then pretty much everything in the game is ambiguous since at least one person will undoubtedly read it wrong and even after it's explained to them still be convinced they're right. Not to mention that the rules forum is a place where many such people congregate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
breithauptclan wrote:
The game devs also gave us the Ambiguous or Unclear Rules rule to handle situations like this.

The issue here is when you don't see any ambiguity and it seems very clear [this is the case with Gortle]. There is also no 'too bad to be true' rule like there is for "too good to be true". ;P

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That you can hit an incorporeal creature with your fist if you use DEX but not if you use STR is nonsensical enough to put the literal reading of RAW in doubt.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
That you can hit an incorporeal creature with your fist if you use DEX but not if you use STR is nonsensical enough to put the literal reading of RAW in doubt.

Its easy enough to explain. What the differenece between a big swing and a carefully placed strike to a particular spot? It just that there are occasionally spots on the ghost that are more solid as it tries to affect the material world. So you have to target those, a generic swing at where the ghost is just fails.

You also seem to be ignoring that all Incoporeal creates only have Finesse attacks themselves. They are carefully following this rule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GM OfAnything wrote:
You seem to be stuck on the idea that a roleplaying game's rules are like computer code or something. I hate to break it to you, but all reading is interpretive. People are not reading into something that isn't there, they are using context clues like we learned in gradeschool English class.

Context clues don't override the clearly written meaning of the words. Context clues are there to resolve ambiguity. The fact that all reading is interpretive doesn't mean that facts or defined information don't exist.

Saying that reading is interpretive is just a fall back position of denial when you have no evidence. Explain how you come to a different position, what is unresolved, or in particular what points to a different interpretation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The ghost archetype has already been cited.

The rules are writen in English, not COBOL, there is inherent ambiguity. There are unwritten rules, expectations of the system, and weird interactions that can all affect how the game is played. To argue that your overly literal interpretation is the only correct one is to take an appeal to ignorance to an extreme.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm just gonna run it the way I think it should be ran: incorporiality providing resistance and all attacks hitting. Seems like a mole hill to me


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WWHsmackdown wrote:
I'm just gonna run it the way I think it should be ran: incorporiality providing resistance and all attacks hitting. Seems like a mole hill to me

It was quite clear to me from reading the rules how it was supposed to be applied. As soon as I realised what a check was. Which I had to look up to see what the Frightened condition applied to. So pretty early on in my PF2 experience.

I will keep playing it that way. It makes incorporeal strong and gives a point to ghost touch runes - otherwise they are marginal enough that they can be safely ignored.

However if a player wants to use the ghost content from book of the dead, I will to agree to play it as Strength based skill check, not the Strength based check it actually says.

Because its broken otherwise.

Not a big deal. As you say. Just frustrated its another thing that Paizo have stuffed up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gortle wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
That you can hit an incorporeal creature with your fist if you use DEX but not if you use STR is nonsensical enough to put the literal reading of RAW in doubt.

Its easy enough to explain. What the differenece between a big swing and a carefully placed strike to a particular spot? It just that there are occasionally spots on the ghost that are more solid as it tries to affect the material world. So you have to target those, a generic swing at where the ghost is just fails.

You also seem to be ignoring that all Incoporeal creates only have Finesse attacks themselves. They are carefully following this rule.

Except they don't all follow this rule. The new Ghost Pirate Captain has a non-finesse melee attack with it's cutlass:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1864

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
That you can hit an incorporeal creature with your fist if you use DEX but not if you use STR is nonsensical enough to put the literal reading of RAW in doubt.

Its easy enough to explain. What the differenece between a big swing and a carefully placed strike to a particular spot? It just that there are occasionally spots on the ghost that are more solid as it tries to affect the material world. So you have to target those, a generic swing at where the ghost is just fails.

You also seem to be ignoring that all Incoporeal creates only have Finesse attacks themselves. They are carefully following this rule.

Wasn't it because they had a -5 STR modifier ?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, I can say your rationale for explaining this otherwise extremely improbable scenario is at least interesting. On the otherhand, outside the blink-and-you-miss-it interaction between the RAW of of the incorporeal trait, there seems to be no reason to believe in the fiction of the world that ghosts must be immune only to strength based attacks.

It is not as though warriors who use strength are not aiming their attacks with as much care as they can muster--heavy armour would have to render the same immunity otherwise. On the otherhand, a ghost is not even immune to sufficiently high mundane damage, such as a rockslide (not strength based) falling though their form.

The idea that you must specifically aim for some part of a ghosts anatomy is pretty neat, but it doesn't really have anything over the explanation that a sufficient force can physically disperse the mist-like ectoplasmic body of a ghost or other incorporeal creature, which at least to me and judging from other responses, most posters, makes more intuitive sense and better models my understanding of incorporeality without rendering ghosts immune to a portion of the notional party without specific preparation, something which 2e has cut down on a lot.

It would be like golems being immune to magic weapons. Granted that is an argument that has existed around here because of attempts to read legalistic accuracy into general language rules, but that's imho only more evidence that the most logical reading is to say that the word skill got missed perhaps to cover for non-Athletics and non-Strike checks, such as swallow whole (even if that's probably secondarily covered by grab immunity--though grab immunity doesn't seem to be explicitly stated in Incorporeal unless I've missed it, meaning a finesse monster with Grab has technically nothing preventing it from grappling ghosts under any present reading of the rules... another minor omission where the only reasonable answer is what makes most sense to the table.)


The Raven Black wrote:
Gortle wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
That you can hit an incorporeal creature with your fist if you use DEX but not if you use STR is nonsensical enough to put the literal reading of RAW in doubt.

Its easy enough to explain. What the differenece between a big swing and a carefully placed strike to a particular spot? It just that there are occasionally spots on the ghost that are more solid as it tries to affect the material world. So you have to target those, a generic swing at where the ghost is just fails.

You also seem to be ignoring that all Incoporeal creates only have Finesse attacks themselves. They are carefully following this rule.

Wasn't it because they had a -5 STR modifier ?

Yes because of the how they can't affect the physical world. Its all related.


Demicube wrote:
Gortle wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
That you can hit an incorporeal creature with your fist if you use DEX but not if you use STR is nonsensical enough to put the literal reading of RAW in doubt.

Its easy enough to explain. What the differenece between a big swing and a carefully placed strike to a particular spot? It just that there are occasionally spots on the ghost that are more solid as it tries to affect the material world. So you have to target those, a generic swing at where the ghost is just fails.

You also seem to be ignoring that all Incoporeal creates only have Finesse attacks themselves. They are carefully following this rule.

Except they don't all follow this rule. The new Ghost Pirate Captain has a non-finesse melee attack with it's cutlass:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1864

I'll adjust my comment:

They were carefully following this rule.
There are now a couple of exceptions.


Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Well, I can say your rationale for explaining this otherwise extremely improbable scenario is at least interesting. On the otherhand, outside the blink-and-you-miss-it interaction between the RAW of of the incorporeal trait, there seems to be no reason to believe in the fiction of the world that ghosts must be immune only to strength based attacks.

It is not as though warriors who use strength are not aiming their attacks with as much care as they can muster--heavy armour would have to render the same immunity otherwise. On the otherhand, a ghost is not even immune to sufficiently high mundane damage, such as a rockslide (not strength based) falling though their form.

The idea that you must specifically aim for some part of a ghosts anatomy is pretty neat, but it doesn't really have anything over the explanation that a sufficient force can physically disperse the mist-like ectoplasmic body of a ghost or other incorporeal creature, which at least to me and judging from other responses, most posters, makes more intuitive sense and better models my understanding of incorporeality without rendering ghosts immune to a portion of the notional party without specific preparation, something which 2e has cut down on a lot.

It would be like golems being immune to magic weapons. Granted that is an argument that has existed around here because of attempts to read legalistic accuracy into general language rules, but that's imho only more evidence that the most logical reading is to say that the word skill got missed perhaps to cover for non-Athletics and non-Strike checks, such as swallow whole (even if that's probably secondarily covered by grab immunity--though grab immunity doesn't seem to be explicitly stated in Incorporeal unless I've missed it, meaning a finesse monster with Grab has technically nothing preventing it from grappling ghosts under any present reading of the rules... another minor omission where the only reasonable answer is what makes most sense to the table.)

I really don't get the oh its too legalistic approach. The rules actually say what they say. It is one word. It is not hidden or super complex. It is used consistently. The word is the primary subject of two whole rules sections.

It would be example like the government making a rule which banned the use of jackets. You are complaining my interpretation is legalist because obviously they only meant to ban orange jackets.

Thats how complex it is.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ambiguous Rules wrote:
Sometimes a rule could be interpreted multiple ways. If one version is too good to be true, it probably is. If a rule seems to have wording with problematic repercussions or doesn’t work as intended, work with your group to find a good solution, rather than just playing with the rule as printed.


I think it's fair to say that a rule which most people seem to be unaware exists and which asymmetrically affects only some kinds of Strike is one which would either be clarified in explanatory text, or be reasonably considered a mistake in the writing or reading of the rule. Except that most incorporeal creatures use finesse (because they have no strength) and the fact that Str-based checks include some Strikes, there is little reason to believe that one line of text in the incorporeal trait would upend something so fundamental to the core gameplay as melee strikes without additional clarifying text. On the contrary, there seems to be ample reason to believe that ghosts can be hit even by nonmagical strikes if they hit hard enough, rather than arbitrarily delineating some strikes as more precise than others--when precision damage is also irrelevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
I think it's fair to say that a rule which most people seem to be unaware exists

I'm 100% with you here.

Why do are people not aware it exists? Becuase you have to look up a trait to see it. 90% of people will only look up a trait if they are prompted to.

I didn't make these rules. Paizo did. I didn't start Paizo's writing style of burying things in multiple places. This is their rules and their format.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
and which asymmetrically affects only some kinds of Strike is one which would either be clarified in explanatory text, or be reasonably considered a mistake in the writing or reading of the rule. Except that most incorporeal creatures use finesse (because they have no strength) and the fact that Str-based checks include some Strikes, there is little reason to believe that one line of text in the incorporeal trait would upend something so fundamental to the core gameplay as melee strikes without additional clarifying text.

It basically only affects ghosts. Its not core to the game. I've been running through Abomination Vault and now just started in Fists of the Phoenix and well there are plently of Ghosts.

It not just one line of text - they rewrote it in their latest book. It's not a copy and paste. But it is the same thing for the new trait Anchored Incorporeality as the Incoporeal Trait. So its at least two lines of text.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:
On the contrary, there seems to be ample reason to believe that ghosts can be hit even by nonmagical strikes if they hit hard enough, rather than arbitrarily delineating some strikes as more precise than others--when precision damage is also irrelevant.

No. Your only defence is ignorance. You can only think that way if you don't look at it. Which is what most people choose to do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Gortle, it appears as though you've decided that this inconsistency in handling of incorporeal creatures has broken the game in some irreparable way. Given your adherence to rules text, I can only assume this is the case given that the rules text also advises taking the least problematic interpretation, or making small adjustments to make things work for your table.

With that said, let's say we all agree with you. What are you hoping to accomplish with this post? A paizo employee to drop from the rafters and award you for best rule's reader? The community to rise up in anger because the game can't be played now?

You're talking about defense, but what precisely are we at war about here?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
cavernshark wrote:
Gortle, it appears as though you've decided that this inconsistency in handling of incorporeal creatures has broken the game in some irreparable way.

Of course not. The game is repairable. This is only one particular corner of it.

cavernshark wrote:
Given your adherence to rules text, I can only assume this is the case given that the rules text also advises taking the least problematic interpretation, or making small adjustments to make things work for your table.

Which I advised doing half way down the previous page in this thread!?

It's funny how quick people are to assign motivations which are much more nebulous to determine.

cavernshark wrote:
With that said, let's say we all agree with you. What are you hoping to accomplish with this post? A paizo employee to drop from the rafters and award you for best rule's reader? The community to rise up in anger because the game can't be played now?

An acknowledgement that it is a problem. Preferably it showing up in an errata at some point. I know its a shock, but an actual fix would be nice. Mostly just providing a reference for other gamers to find later. But I'd be very happy for someone to point out where I was wrong as well.

Its funny that people will claim its all relative and that the majority are clearly right, when they don't have any points of substance to make. Now you are getting personal and trying to get a rise via insults. So we have moved on the the next level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gortle wrote:
cavernshark wrote:
Gortle, it appears as though you've decided that this inconsistency in handling of incorporeal creatures has broken the game in some irreparable way.

Of course not. The game is repairable. This is only one particular corner of it.

cavernshark wrote:
Given your adherence to rules text, I can only assume this is the case given that the rules text also advises taking the least problematic interpretation, or making small adjustments to make things work for your table.

Which I advised doing half way down the previous page in this thread!?

It's funny how quick people are to assign motivations which are much more nebulous to determine.

cavernshark wrote:
With that said, let's say we all agree with you. What are you hoping to accomplish with this post? A paizo employee to drop from the rafters and award you for best rule's reader? The community to rise up in anger because the game can't be played now?

An acknowledgement that it is a problem. Preferably it showing up in an errata at some point. I know its a shock, but an actual fix would be nice. Mostly just providing a reference for other gamers to find later. But I'd be very happy for someone to point out where I was wrong as well.

Its funny that people will claim its all relative and that the majority are clearly right, when they don't have any points of substance to make. Now you are getting personal and trying to get a rise via insults. So we have moved on the the next level.

Please note that I've assigned no motivations to you and, in fact, asked you directly what your motivations are only after you chose to basically calling Sibelius Eos Owm ignorant for not agreeing with you. I watched this thread until recently because it seemed like a pretty trivial issue to me, something easily fixed at a table. Others appear to agree it's the same. It appears that it is more than that to you.

If your desire is simply to flag the inconsistency, as you state, then you did it! There's now a record. But I wouldn't necessarily keep hope alive that there's going to be a quick or immediate fix here on the forums. If anything, if you do want errata, you'll probably want to focus your attention later when the book has been out for more than a week. I think Paizo employees have indicated they're working on some other older titles for errata first. This would likely fall several months to a year from now where you might be able to exact the change you're hoping for.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Besides "too good to be true" and "too bad to be true" there is also "too weird to be true".

Hitting a ghost with a light hammer (agile, thrown) doesn't work, but throwing the hammer at it does? Because that's dex based and hitting a precise spot, on the ghost that is immune to precision damage? That's too weird to be true.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:

Besides "too good to be true" and "too bad to be true" there is also "too weird to be true".

Hitting a ghost with a light hammer (agile, thrown) doesn't work, but throwing the hammer at it does? Because that's dex based and hitting a precise spot, on the ghost that is immune to precision damage? That's too weird to be true.

Is it any weirder than being able to attack and hit it with a whip (Disarm, Finesse, Nonlethal, Reach, Trip) but not being able to Trip with it (Athletics (Str))? I mean if we're throwing stuff away because it's weird, I've got a LOT I find too weird with bulk, say a 1/2ling being able to carry around multiple other 1/2lings around all day without penalty... :P


Ha ha. Thanks Ascalaphus for that I needed a laugh today. The thought that swinging and missing a ghost sometimes because they are insubstantial is too weird.

Weird is the theme of my current PF2 party. I've got a Stuffed Quadruped Poppet Summoner with a Construct Eidolon that shares his life force. There is Goblin so rubbery he bounces, a 9 inch Sprite with a Longbow that does the same damage as a 7 foot tall version, a Conrasu monk, a Goblin gunslinger, a Lizardfolk priest of a Storm god. Last week we had a discussion about whether the Poppet was anatomically correct. Oh and he is the medic in the part you can heal people with one action, and it doesn't seem to matter if he is healing the woven poppet, the iron construct, the wooden monk, the rubber goblin, but he does have to have bandages. Apparently one type suits all.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Incorporeal Revisited All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.