| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish we didn't have these arguments. Can't we just accept that English is hard and use common sense?
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fine I'll tackle this point too
But the opposite is the case. Ghost Touch doesn't actually let you use Strength based checks against ghosts. It only says ghosts can use strength-based checks on objects that have ghost touch. It never actually says ghosts can use strength based checks on creatures that might have ghost touch.and you repeat
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.I know it doesn't say just here that Ghost Touch enables corporeal creature to attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal. It doesn't have to say it directly as the term Likewise does it just fine. Then there is the textThe weapon can harm creatures without physical form.that you want to ignore.
No, it's super clear what that means. Every incorporeal creature has "resistance X to all damage (except ghost touch and Y, Z)". That's what that is referring to.
Incorporeal creatures get this super obvious defense printed front and center in their stat block, and ghost touch interacts with it perfectly.
But you want to believe that apart from that, there's also a deeply buried, even stronger defense stronger than any other defense that any creature in the bestiary has, but not mentioned directly in the statblock. You have to look up a trait, then think deeply about strength based checks, and then suddenly there's a surprise super immunity.
That's simply too weird and farfetched to be true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish we didn't have these arguments. Can't we just accept that English is hard and use common sense?
Yes that sounds nice. It is explicit that Paizo wanted us just to use common sense. But we don't agree about what common sense it. Its bad enough in the real world, but especially in the context of a fantasy game where flavour is king.
People just want different things.
Participaction in this discussion is entirely voluntary. It is only a discussion. I am most frustrated with Pazio that they make such rules and don't step in to clarify them.
Can't we just accept that English is hard and use common sense?
Sure but who decides on what is the standard for common sense: a lot of arguments here are people using what they think is common sense arguing with someone else doing the same just that their conclusion on what that common sense is differs.
My expectation (if the dev's ever admit to things like this) is that whoever wrote the Incorporeal trait in the Bestiary had forgotten that Attack Rolls are not a unique type of roll, but are instead just a standard check with a fancy name, so strength based attack rolls are a subset of strength based checks.
Yeah, this is what my guess would be.
My expectation (if the dev's ever admit to things like this) is that whoever wrote the Incorporeal trait in the Bestiary had forgotten that Attack Rolls are not a unique type of roll, but are instead just a standard check with a fancy name, so strength based attack rolls are a subset of strength based checks.Yeah, this is what my guess would be.
My guess would be was that the first authors did it deliberately - otherwise there is no point in all those finesse attacks, but the second authors who wrote BotD missed it like most of the player base. Why, because the original rule is repeated in the BotD in several places.
I wish we didn't have these arguments. Can't we just accept that English is hard and use common sense?Yes that sounds nice. It is explicit that Paizo wanted us just to use common sense. But we don't agree about what common sense it. Its bad enough in the real world, but especially in the context of a fantasy game where flavour is king.
People just want different things.
Participaction in this discussion is entirely voluntary. It is only a discussion. I am most frustrated with Pazio that they make such rules and don't step in to clarify them.
A good first step to getting good "voluntary discussion" is to not abjectly ignore any evidence to your point.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
My guess would be was that the first authors did it deliberately - otherwise there is no point in all those finesse attacks, but the second authors who wrote BotD missed it like most of the player base. Why, because the original rule is repeated in the BotD in several places.
Copy/Paste is absolutely a thing.
And the prevalence of finesse attacks is probably to not cause raised eyebrows when players notice the -5 STR bonus but still see on-level attack bonuses.
Unlike most incorporeal creatures, your Strength modifier is not –5;
-------
If the authors of the CRB and the Bestiary intended a Giant Instinct Barbarian with 10 DEX to be forced to use a ranged or finesse weapon in order to even attempt attack rolls, they would have changed the Ghosts HP, their resistance values, or both. Because having a Giant Instinct Barbarian not even able to regularly do enough damage to overcome the damage resistance is completely absurd. So much so that if it was intended, it would have been called out more explicitly. Not buried in technical details of rules and traits that you have to piece together just right in order to come to that conclusion.
And I think we are talking in circles here. I am pretty sure that several people have said essentially the same thing several times in this thread and several times in the previous threads on this exact same subject. If those haven't swayed your opinion, I doubt this one will either.
But by all means, continue tilting at windmills.
A good first step to getting good "voluntary discussion" is to not abjectly ignore any evidence to your point.
I do often refrain from repeating myself in a thread, especially when multiple people bring up the same issue. We are onto our third thread on this aren't we? But I don't see any evidence that I have ignored anywhere. Please be specific. So I can specifically reply with where I have addressed it, or apologise and address it.
Copy/Paste is absolutely a thing.
Its more than that, its copy/paste/edit at least.
If the authors of the CRB and the Bestiary intended a Giant Instinct Barbarian with 10 DEX to be forced to use a ranged or finesse weapon in order to even attempt attack rolls, they would have changed the Ghosts HP, their resistance values, or both. Because having a Giant Instinct Barbarian not even able to regularly do enough damage to overcome the damage resistance is completely absurd. So much so that if it was intended, it would have been called out more explicitly. Not buried in technical details of rules and traits that you have to piece together just right in order to come to that conclusion.
Its not really buried in technical details. Look up a trait. Know what a check is.
Well the Giant Instinct Barbarian when I was GMing abomination vaults just went and got a ghost touch weapon and hasn't looked back. Note that every other resistance he faced he completely ignored and smashed anyway. This is the first one he even noticed
He also doesn't have 10 Dex that would be the heavy armour variant.
And I think we are talking in circles here. I am pretty sure that several people have said essentially the same thing several times in this thread and several times in the previous threads on this exact same subject. If those haven't swayed your opinion, I doubt this one will either.
True. I'm just surprised that you think the clearly stated rules are wrong. But then again it took me a long while to accept that a sprite long bow does the same damage as a gnoll long bow. Its doesn't really make any sense, its just the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would also be really weird if all thrown weapons and ranged weapons could hit a ghost and just have to deal with resistances, but if a strong character is still holding the weapon then suddenly the weapon cannot possibly effect the ghost.
It would also be really weird if mundane falling or thrown boulders could damage a ghost and not a magic long sword. Incorporeal creatures are very resistant to nonmagical attacks, but not immune, and a sufficiently large boulder could do the trick. Neither falling rocks nor ranged boulder attacks are strength based checks and so this improbable ghost is harder to 'slow tap' as it were with a sword than a catapult.
I think the Dune shields comparison is a really cool concept, I'll admit. I rather doubt that they are the cultural legacy which informs Pathfinder's ghost mechanics from such a sidelong and incomplete glance, however.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, brain broke, Will save failed. Consider this a statement not an argument.
Gortle's Logic:
Incorporeal states immunity to STR-based checks, attacks are checks, incorporeal is immune to STR-based attacks.
Ghost Touch states "The weapon can harm creatures without physical form." > this means it overrules the STR-based immunity.
Without the difference between Incorporeal being immune to STR-based checks, there would be "no point" to the Finesse trait.
I also can't accept "Dune" as an argument that this is why it has always been the way works the legalistic way it reads and was intentional. This is also a logical jump requiring far less rigor than was applied to the original premise. Dune is a separate fictional IP (and as far as I know not a game). The physics don't change. There's no reason in the game rules why a Fist can do damage against an incorporeal object (or in any situation) if you use your +2 DEX rather than your +2 STR.
Gortle, if you're so hung up on using English, can you at least please start putting apostrophes in your "its" when it's warranted?
Sorry. I could blame the way the forum mangles quotes sometimes. But my apostrophe use is just poor.
It would also be really weird if all thrown weapons and ranged weapons could hit a ghost and just have to deal with resistances, but if a strong character is still holding the weapon then suddenly the weapon cannot possibly effect the ghost.It would also be really weird if mundane falling or thrown boulders could damage a ghost and not a magic long sword. Incorporeal creatures are very resistant to nonmagical attacks, but not immune, and a sufficiently large boulder could do the trick. Neither falling rocks nor ranged boulder attacks are strength based checks and so this improbable ghost is harder to 'slow tap' as it were with a sword than a catapult.
I think the Dune shields comparison is a really cool concept, I'll admit. I rather doubt that they are the cultural legacy which informs Pathfinder's ghost mechanics from such a sidelong and incomplete glance, however.
Well mundane falling boulders is covered adeguately by the first sentence of the incorporeal trait.
Dune shields was just one idea about how the speed of an attack can be relevant. It is not particularly close to incorporeal, just a vague relation.
I find the traditional d20 approach to incorporeal as being deeply unsatisfying. It is completely expected for a warrior to make a swing at a incorporeal creature and to have their weapon go straight through it. That is the classical use of such a creature in stories. So I find the push back against it as odd.
Its also not strange for careful targeted attack on a creature to have an effect when a broad stroke does not. That not an unreasonable expectation of finesse. Yes precision would be better but the concepts are not unrelated.
In d20 you do get magical weapons as being capable of hitting such creatures. However one of the first things that a martial character picks up is a magical weapon. Its available from level 1 with the Magic Weapon Spell. A +1 magic sword is a level 2 item in a game that goes to level 20. Yet is it level 4 that we start to get incorporeal creatures in the game with ghost commoner? Maybe there is another monster that is lower. So if you play like that, the trope of swing and pass right through the creature, rarely happens. All you have to deal with is a bit of resistance which is pretty mild as incorporeal creatures have lower hitpoints anyway. The ubiquitous nature of magic weapons in this game distorts the narative.
The way I am interpreting it you need a specific type of magic weapon to easily deal with the ghost. Or a specific style of attack. Most parties will be able to deal with it, if they pay attention. If not they can run away (ghosts are often location bound) and come back later when they are set up. I see either of those as being a better outcome than merely blasting through a creature and ignoring its special nature.
Without the difference between Incorporeal being immune to STR-based checks, there would be "no point" to the Finesse trait.
Thanks for detailing your objection.
The reason (as far as I can tell) that incorporeal creatures have finesse based attacks, is not necessarily to give them a few plusses to hit. It is because the rules of incorporeal apply forwards as well as backwards.
It's not just a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures the rule also says An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures. So they need to be able to harm the PCs. Finesse enables them to do that.
why do most incorporeal creatures have -5 Strength. They don't need to, they don't interact with the physical world anyway by the rule of incoporeal. They already pass through objects and no one is saying they can easily gab an object. It is just Pazio doubling up again. Which you can see in BotD, where there are now player incorporeal options, so they get into rule gymnastics about incorporeal on incorporeal athletics actions.
Note that even in BotD they continue to use the term check even here under Ghost archetype where they describe a Strike in the context of a strength check: 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. Though I guess you will read this sentence and group the phrases differently.
It is not just one place that the term check includes strikes. The rules do read consistently on this even right through the new incorporeal sections.
Just so you know I am trying to be balanced. Just like there is the Bright Walker that is incorporeal and does not have the typical resistances. There is one exception - an incorporeal creature without Finesse that uses Strength to attack - the Feathered Bear but that creature uses Force damage. Probably Force could be assumed to be an exception to the incorporeal problem, but only by analogy the rule is not explicit (Force shows up as an exception to incorporeal most places, its also energy damage not physical which is the rationale for incorporeal immunity). However it has other clauses (a bonding process) which complicates expectations here. It also seems to have a protective role against evil creatures.
The following is an argument--not that the rules don't literally preclude STR-based attack rolls--that the designers did not intend the rules the way it turned out, because I was curious.
Ghost hand is "typically" finesse, agile, and magical, but that part's not really important. The ghost crafting rules instruct the GM to give ONE, the most appropriate one, attack the Ghost Hand quality and increase "all other" attacks by +2. It never instructs to make those other attacks finesse. The ghost pirate captain's sword is a pre-made example where this happens: crossbow is ghost hand, cutlass is negative damage with only forceful, sweep, and magical traits.
If I made a ghost otyugh, I would give the jaws OR tentacles Ghost Hand and only modify the other with a +2 to hit. Neither of those attacks is inherently finesse.
So they either made a mistake in incorporeal trait (that they stealth corrected in BotD, maybe) or they made a mistake in ghost creation rules.
But, by the rules, the ghost pirate captain can't use his sword and any custom ghost will be whittled down to one attack (or those creatures already with more than one finesse attack).
Ghost Pirate Captain is BotD, it like the Feathered Bear CRB is using an energy attack not a physical damage attack. Which means something in terms of the text of the incoprporeal trait.
Unlike the bear, the pirate has a negative 5 strength, so I really doubt that it is actually using strength to attack but rather dexterity. Of course its a monster, and they didn't actually specify finesse. But I see that as an oversight.
Yep I agree with your broader conclusion there is a rule mistake. I guess I'm accepting a rule the majority don't like.
BotD didn't clean it up. I know people will argue about that for Ghost Archetype but I reckon it doesn't, and Anchored Incorporeality clearly repeats the problem with Strength Checks.
The only reason I agree it has to change is its insane to have that sort of ability available to PCs at low levels.
Unlike the bear, the pirate has a negative 5 strength, so I really doubt that it is actually using strength to attack but rather dexterity. Of course its a monster, and they didn't actually specify finesse. But I see that as an oversight.
There are several assertions in the last post that I don't agree with, but I want to focus my point.
First, though, if the attack does not list the finesse trait and it's not a spell attack and isn't explicitly a special ability that says the attack uses dexterity, the monster is absolutely using STR to attack (and will suffer a penalty to hit from enfeeble not clumsy).
However, you bring to light a detail that I, personally, think explains how the mistake made its way into the Incorporeal trait.
Monsters aren't constructed and designed the way PCs are. Monsters do not calculate their attack bonus. It is pulled from a level-based chart based on how challenging the monster should be, so there's never a reference to ability scores when giving an attack its bonus.
Consequently, for monsters during the design phase, an attack roll isn't something you'd think of as STR-based or DEX-based checks. It's just an "attack." So if you're writing/editing a book full of monsters constructed using non-stat based rules, and then you write the Incorporeal trait, it's a much easier oversight to imagine.
And for reference, here is everything from the bestiary on how to make a new ghost:
While it's best to create custom ghosts to fill an adventure's specific needs, you can also use the following guidelines to turn existing living creatures into ghosts.
First, increase the creature's level by 2 and change its statistics as follows.
Increase AC, saves, Perception, DCs, and skill modifiers by 2. Increase the most appropriate melee attack modifier by 4 to become ghostly hand (described below), and other attack modifiers by 2.
A ghost has a Strength modifier of –5 and a Constitution modifier of +0.
Do not modify the ghost's Hit Points due to its new level.
Nothing about making additional attacks finesse or DEX-based. There isn't really an instruction to make Ghost Hand attacks finesse either, it just mentions that Ghost Hands are unarmed attacks that "typically" have finesse, agile, and magical traits.
So, for me, I'm confronted with two scenarios where one must be an editing mistake.
1. The custom ghost rules in the Bestiary neglected to instruct us to give all attacks finesse traits and the literal reading of Incorporeal that only DEX-based attacks can be attempted against Incorporeal creatures is correct. I must assume some physical property of finesse weapons that allows a rapier wielded using DEX to hit and disallows the exact same weapon wielded using STR to hit without any rules or in-game definition/explanation for how.
Also, apparently, a monk in flowing wave stance or anyone wielding a whip and opting to substitute DEX for STR in their athletics check can trip a ghost and a mundane fangwire or combat grapnel can grapple a ghost. (ruling)
2. The Incorporeal trait left off the word "skill" before checks or it was neglected that attacks are checks and the rules for creating ghosts is correct, and I don't need to make up an explanation for how anything does or doesn't work nor are there any weird rules interactions with finesse weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it was a minor game feature, I'd be inclined to agree with you. But checks are a major section of rules. They are the first rules element defined in the general rules section. They are also defined in paragraph 2 of the introductory how to play the game. In both cases the only thing before them is preamble and defining some conventions.
A check is THE central rules mechanic of the game.
If you are at all an analytical person you have to pay attention to the definitions. Think of what game mechanics turn on the differences between attack trait, attack roll, and attack.
It's not an oversight in one place under a trait definition. It occurs twice in that one definition. That definition is reworked, not copied, in the new rule on Anchored Incorporeality. None of the rules statements anywhere contradict it.
That there is an exception in one monster where they missed off the word Finesse or a Ghost Touch wording, is quite believable. They cut corners in monster design. They don't actually ever explain why incorporeal creatures get -5 strength.
It is much more likely that they have simply are rushing through their development process and an alternate writer missed the technicality OR they are trusting GMs to control access with the rarity mechanic. An incorporeal PC is less of a problem at high level, but still a problem the GM will have to watch.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, for me, I'm confronted with two scenarios where one must be an editing mistake.
1. The custom ghost rules in the Bestiary neglected to instruct us to give all attacks finesse traits and the literal reading of Incorporeal that only DEX-based attacks can be attempted against Incorporeal creatures is correct. I must assume some physical property of finesse weapons that allows a rapier wielded using DEX to hit and disallows the exact same weapon wielded using STR to hit without any rules or in-game definition/explanation for how.
Also, apparently, a monk in flowing wave stance or anyone wielding a whip and opting to substitute DEX for STR in their athletics check can trip a ghost and a mundane fangwire or combat grapnel can grapple a ghost.
2. The Incorporeal trait left off the word "skill" before checks or it was neglected that attacks are checks and the rules for creating ghosts is correct, and I don't need to make up an explanation for how anything does or doesn't work nor are there any weird rules interactions with finesse weapons.
So glad at least one other person is aware of Occam's Razor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, apparently, a monk in flowing wave stance or anyone wielding a whip and opting to substitute DEX for STR in their athletics check can trip a ghost and a mundane fangwire or combat grapnel can grapple a ghost.
This is out of date. The first CRB errata made Finesse maneuvers not be a thing. (Not that it puts me anywhere near Gortle's position on this one, but that's already been covered in another thread and there's no value in rehashing it).
First, though, if the attack does not list the finesse trait and it's not a spell attack and isn't explicitly a special ability that says the attack uses dexterity, the monster is absolutely using STR to attack (and will suffer a penalty to hit from enfeeble not clumsy).
Yes technically you are correct. If it doesn't say Finesse a monster with -5 Strength is using that score to attack.
But guess what, it acutally does recommend Finesse
Ghostly Hand All ghosts have a ghostly hand unarmed attack that deals negative damage. It typically has the agile, finesse, and magical traits.
So that aspect of your argument is wrong.
As a GM I would not be having the enfeeble condition affect the Ghost Pirate Captain's weapon attack. It's an obvious error.
First, though, if the attack does not list the finesse trait and it's not a spell attack and isn't explicitly a special ability that says the attack uses dexterity, the monster is absolutely using STR to attack (and will suffer a penalty to hit from enfeeble not clumsy).Yes technically you are correct. If it doesn't say Finesse a monster with -5 Strength is using that score to attack.
But guess what, it acutally does recommend Finesse
Ghostly Hand All ghosts have a ghostly hand unarmed attack that deals negative damage. It typically has the agile, finesse, and magical traits.So that aspect of your argument is wrong.
As a GM I would not be having the enfeeble condition affect the Ghost Pirate Captain's weapon attack. It's an obvious error.
The ghost gets ONE ghostly hand attack and the pirate captain put it on the crossbow instead.
The ghost gets ONE ghostly hand attack and the pirate captain put it on the crossbow instead.First, though, if the attack does not list the finesse trait and it's not a spell attack and isn't explicitly a special ability that says the attack uses dexterity, the monster is absolutely using STR to attack (and will suffer a penalty to hit from enfeeble not clumsy).Yes technically you are correct. If it doesn't say Finesse a monster with -5 Strength is using that score to attack.
But guess what, it acutally does recommend Finesse
Ghostly Hand All ghosts have a ghostly hand unarmed attack that deals negative damage. It typically has the agile, finesse, and magical traits.So that aspect of your argument is wrong.
As a GM I would not be having the enfeeble condition affect the Ghost Pirate Captain's weapon attack. It's an obvious error.
Why just one and why are you leaping to the ranged attack when there is a melee attack?
A ghostly hand crossbow or a ghostly hand crossbow? Irrelevant as they don't preserve the term hand elsewhere but amusing.
The monster family guideline says Ghostly Hand All ghosts have a ghostly hand unarmed attack that deals negative damage. It typically has the agile, finesse, and magical traits. Some ghosts wield ghostly memories of weapons they held in life, but the effect is the same. Which does allow for a weapon I just am surprised that you think the crossbow is covering this and not the ghostly cutlasss? Either way the crossbow is not finesse but it is Dexterity based.
The ghostly cutlass should be following the ghost family guidelines.
Regardless the Ghost Pirate Captain does have a basic attack to affect PCs even if you play with my literal interpretation of Strength check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why just one. . .
Increase the most appropriate melee attack modifier by 4 to become ghostly hand (described below), and other attack modifiers by 2.
Ah, you got me there. It is indeed a ghostly hand crossbow based on the damage dice. And it appears the developer overruled the guidance and give it two ghostly hand attacks as both have the same bonus.
However, "typically" != "always" or "must"
And the existence of rules instructing converting other attacks by simply adding a +2 with no mention of ghost hand or adding the finesse trait is either support that ghosts are making non-finesse/STR-based attacks or is the writing editing/error that makes the rules for creating novel ghosts incompatible with the Incorporeal trait.
In regards to the ghost pirate captain, I don't believe the developer "forgot" to add finesse to the ghostly cutlass any more than they "forgot" to add agile.
|
why do most incorporeal creatures have -5 Strength. They don't need to, they don't interact with the physical world anyway by the rule of incorporeal.
Sure they do. A ghost can pick up and wield a Ghost Touch weapon.
Nothing in the Ghost template or rules for Incorporeality prevents a ghost from abiding by the Encumbrance rules, however. So they need that –5 Strength modifier to determine how much they can carry before becoming Encumbered (which is a condition they're not immune to).
"You can carry an amount of Bulk equal to 5 plus your Strength modifier without penalty; if you carry more, you gain the encumbered condition. You can’t hold or carry more Bulk than 10 plus your Strength modifier."
So your standard –5 Strength Ghost can carry 50 Ghost Touch Shortswords, but the moment they pick up one, they become Encumbered.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what gameplay benefit there is from the GM and player sides there are to requiring you to ignore the common sense reading of incorporeal and do a little logic puzzle to identify the most powerful damage resistance in the game?
why do most incorporeal creatures have -5 Strength. They don't need to, they don't interact with the physical world anyway by the rule of incorporeal.Sure they do. A ghost can pick up and wield a Ghost Touch weapon.
Well I was trying to make the opposite point here. That there is no particular reason for an incorporeal creature to be set to -5 Strength. A Strength of -2 or +5 would still be fine, because they can't do anything to the physical world with their Strength. But yes technically they can interact with Ghost Touch or incorporeal items and the Bulk/Encumberance come into play. A -5 Strength gives you a carry capacity of zero.
Perhaps they intended that imagery. But they probably didn't want their clothing or ghostly cutlass to encumber them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But we obviously can't play it that way now that players can easily get incorporeal.
Easily!? I had to wash my GMs car, mow his lawn, and pickup his grandmother from the airport! XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well mundane falling boulders is covered adeguately by the first sentence of the incorporeal trait.
As much as I resist re-engaging in a debate which appears to be founded on precisely one piece of mechanical text (immune to Strength-based checks) and a panoply of deep-seated disagreements about semantics, I must object to one inaccuracy for posterity. I find that this claim does not satisfactorily address the argument I was making with the boulders. Assuming for the benefit of doubt that you meant the second sentence of the incorporeal trait:
An incorporeal creature or object has no physical form. It can pass through solid objects, including walls. When inside an object, an incorporeal creature can’t perceive, attack, or interact with anything outside the object, and if it starts its turn in an object, it is slowed 1. Corporeal creatures can pass through an incorporeal creature, but they can’t end their movement in its space.
... this sentence does not confer immunity to damage caused by objects, mundane or otherwise. If the ability to pass through solid objects including boulders and walls conferred immunity to damage from those objects colliding with them, there appears to be is no logically consistent reason why that same immunity should not apply to all solid weapons, whether they be magical, finesse, or otherwise.
Incorporeal creatures are not even wholly immune to mundane sources of damage. A shadow resists 10 nonmagical damage and a ioton only 4. Explicitly these creatures can be harmed by physical objects passing through their spiritual bodies with enough force. There is insufficient evidence to argue that the ability to pass through objects nor lack of a physical body is meant to apply arbitrarily to damage from a mundane rock, and yet not to damage from a mundane rapier. Since neither are Strength-based checks, either the boulder (or any other sufficiently exemplary blunt object) is equally viable as a source of damage and serves as an argument against the idea that ghosts can only be damaged by precise attacks (but not precision damage), or else the iconic finesse weapon is not.
It has already been said in this thread, but when one argument relies on a host of rationalizations and explanations for why only rapiers and arrows should work on a spirit, but not boulders, or why a thrown hatchet but not a wielded hatchet can harm a ghost, where the other argument requires only the explanation that a single omission was made in the description of the Incorporeal trait, failing to delineate Strikes from grappling/tripping/shoving, the simpler reasoning is more likely to be correct.
I find the traditional d20 approach to incorporeal as being deeply unsatisfying. It is completely expected for a warrior to make a swing at a incorporeal creature and to have their weapon go straight through it. That is the classical use of such a creature in stories. So I find the push back against it as odd.
It is not so odd for a game to moderate story elements which are cool and interesting to read (heroes encountering a challenge they cannot defeat and must instead navigate around or discover a clever plan against) but which which are prone to causing frustration when played (party melee suddenly finds their characters arbitrarily nerfed and forced to rely on tactics they're not as equipped to use; either retreat from the overly tanky for their level monster so that they can find the tools the GM meant to give them or wait through a boring slog of a fight). In a story, as long as the hero can come up with a clever plan (at the author/GM's discretion) their agency never feels taken away, unless like the melee characters of the game the author lets them sit on the sidelines while a different character solves the problem without their contribution.
In short, if your party is having fun playing it this way, more power to you. I don't doubt you when you say it is more engaging to you, but I beg of you, please have the intellectual transparency to acknowledge when you come into a thread like this that there is considerable disagreement whether the incorporeal trait is intended to apply to melee strikes, and the ramifications of choosing to read this one sentence as written, or the much simpler explanation that restricts that sentence to checks which would attempt to take hold of the creature's body. At least until such a time as a designer confirms which argument is in error, the rules' failure to delineate between Strength-based skill checks and attack rolls, or the majority of players' unwillingness to arbitrarily invalidate damage based on whether the weapon was thrown, swung, or dropped onto the target and the lack of any clarifying text as is often found in such exceptional cases clarifying that only certain forms of attack can harm incorporeal creatures and that the ghost touch rune explicitly (rather than implicitly) re-allows strength-based weaponry the ability to target incorporeal creatures, rather than merely bypassing resistance as normal for all other forms of attack.
---
... That was more time than I wish I'd spent on this. TL;DR, if incorporeal creatures are immune to boulders or cannonballs because they can pass through walls, then there is no reason they should not also be immune to arrows or rapiers. If you can punch hard enough to kill a ioton, or blow one up in a (mundane) explosion, I don't agree that giving immunity to great swords (only when wielded, not when thrown) is either consistent or reasonably intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to point out this game doesn't have an explicit rule for striking objects, so I'm pretty happy with the wording in the Incoporeal trait implying immunity to boulders and physical objects. I accept your position disagrees with this.
please have the intellectual transparency to acknowledge when you come into a thread like this that there is considerable disagreement whether the incorporeal trait is intended to apply to melee strikes, and the ramifications of choosing to read this one sentence as written, or the much simpler explanation that restricts that sentence to checks which would attempt to take hold of the creature's body. At least until such a time as a designer confirms which argument is in error, the rules' failure to delineate between Strength-based skill checks and attack rolls, or the majority of players' unwillingness to arbitrarily invalidate damage based on whether the weapon was thrown, swung, or dropped onto the target and the lack of any clarifying text as is often found in such exceptional cases clarifying that only certain forms of attack can harm incorporeal creatures and that the ghost touch rune explicitly (rather than implicitly) re-allows strength-based weaponry the ability to target incorporeal creatures, rather than merely bypassing resistance as normal for all other forms of attack.
I have many times acknowledged the other position. Go back and look. I can't repeat it with every statement. But can you please stop saying it is one sentence? Strength-based checks is mentioned three times in different sentences. Twice in Incoporeal. Once in Anchored Incorporeality. A check is the core mechanic of PF2 it has a clear and explicit definition it is not obscure.
There is nothing that disagrees with this. It is just that the majority of players have thought it unreasonable or just not noticed it. Perfectly OK. The games tells us to ignore unreasonable rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is nothing that disagrees with this. It is just that the majority of players have thought it unreasonable or just not noticed it. Perfectly OK. The games tells us to ignore unreasonable rules.
Yup. Sometimes these glaring errors even get errata.
Like being unable to escape a grapple when in a polymorph battle form spell.
Or Magus Arcane Cascade ending immediately because you violate the requirements once you finish using the action and 'your previous action' is then Arcane Cascade rather than Cast a Spell.
I have many times acknowledged the other position. Go back and look. I can't repeat it with every statement. But can you please stop saying it is one sentence? Strength-based checks is mentioned three times in different sentences. Twice in Incoporeal. Once in Anchored Incorporeality. A check is the core mechanic of PF2 it has a clear and explicit definition it is not obscure.
Fair. Though your first post presents evidence against your position as either a mistake, rule change, or designer incompetence, it is rather more even-handed in its discussion than I recalled. It has been a busy weekend for me, but I admit my error and retract my protest that your introductory comments lacked acknowledgement of the opposition.
Also as an aside, I move that almost identical sentences used in two separate but related descriptions (Incorporeal and Anchored Incorporeality) does not make two separate cases of evidence, certainly not when one of those examples seems to clarify that Grapple is the exemplar check, without mention of attack rolls. I don't see the second occasion you mention in the Incorporeal trait, unless you refer to the sentence allowing ghosts to move through walls.
Regardless, my I have said my piece with regard to non-Str based damage. I grant that you have addressed my objection, regardless my withstanding disagreement.
Oh yes, meant to mention this in my last post, but forgot in my haste. I noticed an interaction which may be of interest to the discussion about whether a ghost has the strength to pick up objects enchanted with ghost touch runes.
The Ectoplasmic Interstice focus spell (Gods & Magic 117) creates a field where the material and ethereal planes overlap, allowing physical contact between corporeal and incorporeal entities. In particular the soul domain spell distinguishes between creatures (incorporeal or otherwise) with a 'normal strength modifier' and incorporeal creatures with a -5 modifier, converting the latter to a +4 modifier. I leave interested parties to debate whether to conclude that ghosts interacting with ghost-touch things have normal strength levels or to dismiss the spell as a bespoke effect.
You force the Material and Ethereal Planes to partially overlap, creating a zone that causes incorporeal and spiritual entities to take on many of the aspects of corporeal creatures. Within the ectoplasmic interstice, incorporeal creatures cannot pass through solid objects or corporeal creatures, and they can manipulate and attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures and objects. An incorporeal PC or other creature with a normal Strength modifier simply uses that modifier, but if the creature had a Strength modifier of –5, like most incorporeal monsters, it uses a +4 modifier instead, increasing its Athletics modifier by 9 accordingly. Attacks against creatures that are within the interstice overcome resistances as if they were by ghost touch weapons.
Thanks. Yes I guess that is related to the -5 Strength Encumberance problem.
I can only assume that the -5 is some sort of leftover from a previous internal test version of the rules. There doesn't seem to be a real use for it with either interpretation of the rules except as a reminder.
Thanks for highlighting a fourth place (Ghostly Wranger) which says Strength-based checks in relation to incorporeal.
It curious that many other powers also explicitly have Strength-based skill checks. Typically I'd say that sort of difference was by design. Though obviously most people see it as an oversight.
I can only assume that the -5 is some sort of leftover from a previous internal test version of the rules. There doesn't seem to be a real use for it with either interpretation of the rules except as a reminder.
It's because all creatures in PF2 have the 6 stats even if that stat is 0 (-5 modifier) unlike PF1 where creatures 1) couldn't have a stat at 0 without suffering some debilitating effect and 2) were allowed to give creatures a score of "-" that meant they functionally did not have that score.
They appear to have converted most of the dashes into 0 in the conversion from 1e to 2e. And some, like zombie's constitution, actually got a score back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fundamental moral of this discussion is that examples given in rules text should explicitly state the most common situation the rule would apply. That way, if there is uncertainty about intention, the fact that attack rolls are 10 times more common than grappling checks would be an instant indicator that you don’t interpret the rule to restrict the more common situation.
I know it can be someone situational what is more common, but in most cases, it should at least be clear what the rule was generally intended for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fundamental moral of this discussion is that examples given in rules text should explicitly state the most common situation the rule would apply.
*cough* Focus points from multiple sources *cough*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the fundamental moral of this discussion is that examples given in rules text should explicitly state the most common situation the rule would apply.
For me the moral would be a timely errata process that actually acknowledged and fixed mistakes. Rather than pretending the answer was obvious. This is a very clear cut case.
Just like not being able to Grapple or Escape while in WildShape despite an explicit athletics score. That took 3 errata's to be fixed even though I was just one of many people complaining loudly about it from the start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't really want to drag this discussion back up like the proverbial necrotic equine, but I have just stumbled on a somewhat obscure example in the text while looking for an unrelated trait which might be worth consideration. In the damage types description the example of incorporeal creatures comes up:
Ghosts and other incorporeal creatures have a high resistance to physical attacks that aren't magical (attacks that lack the magical trait). Furthermore, most incorporeal creatures have additional, though lower, resistance to magical physical damage (such as damage dealt from a mace with the magic trait) and most other damage types.
It's not explicit rules text, but it does demonstrate the design assumption that a mace (Str based, non-finesse) has the ability to harm a ghost without the ghost touch rune (or else the mention of resistance would be moot). Obviously, I was already in the camp of reading melee-specific immunity as an error, but I feel this example suggests what the designer intent may have been, or is at least as close to such as we have so far until a designer weighs in ex cathedra on the actual RAI.
It's not explicit rules text
I agree that for me to imply that the mace was only refering to the magical physical damage I would have to torture the language. Maybe it was talking about a Light Mace which does have finesse? You would naturally assume the normal Mace though.
Sadly its not the only case of an example disagreeing with clear rules text. I'd be very happy for Paizo to provide errata either way.
How I'm viewing the Incorporeal Trait Description
First paragraph regards how an incorporeal creature or object moves.
"An incorporeal creature or object has no physical form. It can pass through solid objects, including walls. When inside an object, an incorporeal creature can’t perceive, attack, or interact with anything outside the object, and if it starts its turn in an object, it is slowed 1. Corporeal creatures can pass through an incorporeal creature, but they can’t end their movement in its space."
Second paragraph regards how a incorporeal creature or object interacts with checks.
"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."
Third paragraph regards a incorporeal creature or objects immunizes, resistances, and weaknesses.
"Incorporeal creatures usually have immunity to effects or conditions that require a physical body, like disease, poison, and precision damage. They usually have resistance against all damage (except force damage and damage from Strikes with the ghost touch property rune), with double the resistance against non-magical damage."
Now if their intent is to allow all check types to inflict damage in all cases of incorporeal vs corporeal then adding this to the end of both sentences in the second paragraph should work.
End of first sentence "...or the check is to inflict damage."
End of second sentence "...unless the check is to inflict damage."
-----
Someone gave an example of a bolder falling on to a incorporeal creature and it would do damage. Well although their is no example in the core rule book for how to deal with damage from a falling object. What we do have is damage from traps. Lets look at three traps Slamming Door, Spear Launcher, and Scythe Blades all on Pg.523
All three are mechanical traps so they do non-magical damage.
The slamming door effect is "3d8 bludgeoning damage to anyone beneath or adjacent to the slab when it drops" Before damage is done all being effected by this trap roll a reflex save its a dexterity check so incorporeal creatures roll this check because they can roll the check they can take damage from this trap. But because it takes an athletics check (a strength-based check) to lift the slab a incorporeal creature would not be able to move the slab once its fallen.
The spear launcher effect is "The trap shoots a spear, making a Strike against the creature or object on the floor tile. This strike action the spear trap does is ranged so it dexterity-based so it can make the strike against a incorporeal creature or object thus possible causing non-magical damage to them.
Scythe blades effect is "Both blades swing down, each one Striking all creatures under the ceiling grooves." This strike action the scythe blades do is a melee so its strength-based so no check is made against the incorporeal creature or object.
And yes I know an incorporeal creature would not be able to activate traps in most cases. I'm using them as example for if a incorporeal creature or object where it be hit will damage that's from a source that's not form a creature (or player character).
-----
How I would completely rewrite the second paragraph to make it more clear.
Incorporeal creatures can make checks that use their strength modifier against incorporeal creatures and objects. If an incorporeal creature attempts a check that uses their Strength modifier against corporeal creatures or objects and the result is a success or critical success they get a failure instead unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, if a corporeal creature attempts a check that uses their strength modifier against incorporeal creatures or objects and the result is a success or critical success they get a failure instead.
And again same as before if all check types are suppose to do damage in all cases of incorporeal vs corporeal then adding this to the end of second and third sentences in the second paragraph should work.
End of second sentence "...or the check is to inflict damage."
End of third sentence "...unless the check is to inflict damage."
Why do I use "a check that uses their strength modifier" instead of keeping "Strength-based checks".
I did it so people reading it understand it's the modifier being used in the check that matters not the check itself. In case they have some feat or trait that allows them to use a different modifier then strength for a check that usually uses strength. As for instance with the finesse trait.
Why change from "can't" to "if they preform check and succeed or critical success they fail".
To me I find it very stupid to imply in your rules that an action is impossible to attempt. To me its saying, before you preform a check using strength against a incorporeal creature or object your GM must tell the player no your can't roll that check do something else. I find this stupid, no check should be impossible to roll, instead a impossible checks should have you roll against the appropriate DC but getting a success or critical success always results in a failure. This leaves open the possibility of getting a critical failure.
Also the GM telling the play to do something else stops the player from making a mistake in the game world thus preventing the player and character seeing their check do nothing (in most cases).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. I'm not getting into this again until after the Remaster comes out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To elaborate, the current rules are subject to debate. It is a good idea to talk about them with your table.
Many of us hope that the remastered rules, coming out in a month or two will provide more clarity.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We might have to wait for Bestiary Core to get full answers to these questions, however I do not think the intent is that you can not Strike ghosts with Strength based attacks. It's best to only apply the limitations to Skill Checks like Trip or Grapple, and not Attack Rolls, as those have been explicitly separated in the rules already.
