| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. Nothing of the sort is true in 2E, regardless of whether the armor is magical or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Losing touch AC is one of the more immersion breaking edition changes, IMO. Doesn't help that touch AC would probably help spell attacks feel better.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It may not make the most sense from a narrative point of view. It is hard to describe how you can Shield Block an attack from a ghost.
But it was done for game balance reasons. The attack bonus of incorporeal creatures would be way too high if they got to ignore armor. Or else the attack bonus of incorporeal creatures would have to be reduced to compensate - at which point the attack bonus would be too low to be useful against characters that use dex and proficiency instead of armor.
So basically, you can't balance the attack bonus of a ghost if it ignores armor. Either the ghost will obliterate a champion because the champion has an effective AC too low, or the ghost will be unable to hit a monk because the monk's gets full AC bonus without relying on armor.
|
[ sarc ]No, you don't get it, there is no way it should ignore the Armor or equipment they're wearing/using, that stuff is literally PART of the Character once held or worn, after all, casting magic to alter someones appearance or actual form alters their equipment, teleporting someone moves all of their equipment and doesn't leave them naked. This is even evidenced by the fact that you can never sunder somebodies equipment directly (except in a very few and extremely rare circumstances, almost all of which are done by monsters not players) but only ever attack their person which is not actually much of a change at all since attacking their equipment is the same thing as attacking their body, only Shields get special treatment in this manner and ONLY if the one wielding the shield actively decides to trigger that distinction while spending extra actions AND reactions to do so. [ /sarc ]
Even more fun is that I get to have the AC stats of armor that Eoran is wearing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes.
Your pet’s save modifiers and AC are equal to yours before applying circumstance or status bonuses or penalties.
Armor bonus is included.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may not make the most sense from a narrative point of view. It is hard to describe how you can Shield Block an attack from a ghost.
But it was done for game balance reasons. The attack bonus of incorporeal creatures would be way too high if they got to ignore armor. Or else the attack bonus of incorporeal creatures would have to be reduced to compensate - at which point the attack bonus would be too low to be useful against characters that use dex and proficiency instead of armor.
So basically, you can't balance the attack bonus of a ghost if it ignores armor. Either the ghost will obliterate a champion because the champion has an effective AC too low, or the ghost will be unable to hit a monk because the monk's gets full AC bonus without relying on armor.
Throwing Shield Block in there is a bit of a topic change. Without special abilities changing it, Shield Block actually IS limited to physical attacks.
It may not make the most sense from a narrative point of view. It is hard to describe how you can Shield Block an attack from a ghost.
But it was done for game balance reasons. The attack bonus of incorporeal creatures would be way too high if they got to ignore armor. Or else the attack bonus of incorporeal creatures would have to be reduced to compensate - at which point the attack bonus would be too low to be useful against characters that use dex and proficiency instead of armor.
So basically, you can't balance the attack bonus of a ghost if it ignores armor. Either the ghost will obliterate a champion because the champion has an effective AC too low, or the ghost will be unable to hit a monk because the monk's gets full AC bonus without relying on armor.
I don't think that's quite right either. Touch AC was still a thing in the PF2 playtest. It just didn't swing as much from regular AC as PF1 touch AC. IIRC Paizo mentioned this was only needed because casters used dex instead of their casting stat in the playtest, but that wouldn't explain ghosts targeting it on PCs and such. I think it is possible to balance a bit of variance between monsters and PCs for this.
I think the truth is touch AC was deemed unnecessary complexity, in much the same way CMB/CMB was more complicated than it needed to be. Of course, they had a really easy replacement for that with athletics and fort/reflex DCs, which allowed some mechanical distinction between "big and tough" vs "lithe and nimble" defenses. AC didn't get that treatment and uses a one size fits all number.
It's another reason maybe the Shadow Signet have been more baked in than a 10th level item. Being able to target reflex DC with certain spell attacks would be a pretty decent way to reflect the fiction.
Throwing Shield Block in there is a bit of a topic change. Without special abilities changing it, Shield Block actually IS limited to physical attacks.
Fair.
Errata that to:
It may not make the most sense from a narrative point of view. It is hard to describe how the +2 bonus from Raise Shield applies to the attack from a ghost.
|
|
Throwing Shield Block in there is a bit of a topic change. Without special abilities changing it, Shield Block actually IS limited to physical attacks.Fair.
Errata that to:
It may not make the most sense from a narrative point of view. It is hard to describe how the +2 bonus from Raise Shield applies to the attack from a ghost.
Because even the ghost cannot see through the shield.
Because even the ghost cannot see through the shield.
Shields don't cause concealment. And Concealed doesn't cause an AC bonus.
Not concealment of the whole body. Hiding the vital points.Because even the ghost cannot see through the shield.Shields don't cause concealment. And Concealed doesn't cause an AC bonus.
My point is that concealment is not how shields work.
It makes absolutely no difference that a ghost can't see through the shield. They don't need to be able to see through the shield in order to attack the target.
Yet, the shield is still giving an AC bonus against the ghost's attacks.
AC is a mixture of factors all together.
How well you can avoid creatures, how thick your skin is, how well armoured you are, and yes, if part of you is covered by an obstacle (cover), amongst other factors.
Yeah. That is probably the best narrative explanation that is possible.
But you do realize that this is very nicely illustrating my point:
It is hard to describe how the +2 bonus from Raise Shield applies to the attack from a ghost.
That you have to go through all sorts of logical reasoning and create some justifications of several game mechanics (justifications that the rulebooks don't actually provide) in order to get something that makes any sense at all.
The narrative description of "The ghost's incorporeal fist and arm that can easily go through other solid objects like walls, sails straight through your raised shield and your armor without impediment and hits you in the square in the chest" is a lot more intuitive. The only problem with that description, of course, is that it doesn't match up with the game mechanics at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue Raise a Shield makes more sense to avoid a ghost harming you than your actual armor. The ghost can plunge its hand through the shield but it can't actually see how your body is positioned behind it, so a shield might make them whiff. Realistically, a shield should probably give you a lesser circumstance bonus against ghosts than it would against physical attacks, but with you assume that touch AC was removed for simplicity it certainly wouldn't make sense to keep that level of complexity for Raise a Shield.
In other words, it is still somehat immersion breaking but we've made bigger sacrifices on the altar of game design.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, asides of theoreticals, in the vast majority of times that you will be facing incorporeal enemies you will be armed with magical items.
if said magical items interfere with what the ghost is made off enough to harm it, they interfere enough to also block his attacks.
Sure, in very low levels where you might come across the odd shadow before you get your magic items, it may be iffy, but in the majority of cases that won't be the case, so it doesn't break immersion that much.
You don't get magical armor until 5th level, though. And magical shields are probably affordable around the same point (and are a lower priority than weapons.) Using a magic sword to keep a ghost at bay seems more logical than mundane armor or shields.
I like Perpdepog's idea though. Ghosts have the spirit trait, so they're already a bit occult even if they skew more towards divine.
For me, asides of theoreticals, in the vast majority of times that you will be facing incorporeal enemies you will be armed with magical items.
if said magical items interfere with what the ghost is made off enough to harm it, they interfere enough to also block his attacks.
Sure, in very low levels where you might come across the odd shadow before you get your magic items, it may be iffy, but in the majority of cases that won't be the case, so it doesn't break immersion that much.
You don't get magical armor until 5th level, though. And magical shields are probably affordable around the same point (and are a lower priority than weapons.) Using a magic sword to keep a ghost at bay seems more logical than mundane armor or shields.
I like Perpdepog's idea though. Ghosts have the spirit trait, so they're already a bit occult even if they skew more towards divine.
Most incorporeal enemies start appearing after 5 was my point.
Sure, very early on there might be like 1-2 encounters, but after that, there's no reason "magical" armor shouldn't inhibit a ghost any less that it inhibits a bear.
If a magical sword can cut a ghost, I assume that a magical armor can block it.
Fair point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really liking Perp's idea. I was going to say it seems like physical objects have some minute effect on incorporeal creatures because a high enough damage blast can damage and being inside a wall effectively Slows them, so perhaps shields and armour are permeable, but not effortlessly so (and anyway armour works against many targetted spells, too), but when it comes down to it I feel like Perpdepog's idea has more character to it.
If a magical sword can cut a ghost, I assume that a magical armor can block it.
Yup, though it seems the non-magical item bonus from armor/shield should be ignored by ghosts.
I'm not a huge fan of the way they changed armor+dex in 2e in the first place, however.
Definitely not. Ignoring those bonuses entirely would work remarkably badly with the way hits and crits work in this system. Some variation on a reduced bonus (not necessarily identical to the playtest, but following the same concept) could be made to work, possibly, but having a swing of the full value of armor and shield would be an incredibly bad design decision.
Maybe, but as it is, it is silly. I get that this isn't a simulation, but rules should at least make some physical sense.
I think the truth is touch AC was deemed unnecessary complexity, in much the same way CMB/CMB was more complicated than it needed to be. Of course, they had a really easy replacement for that with athletics and fort/reflex DCs, which allowed some mechanical distinction between "big and tough" vs "lithe and nimble" defenses. AC didn't get that treatment and uses a one size fits all number.
AC being the way it is - part of it is being hard to hit, part is being hard to hurt - is very simplistic. But it is also a long held tradition of the game. I doubt there is the will to change.
If you want to simulate touch AC then simply give out a +2 to hit circumstance bonus for "Touch" attacks versus enemies in heavy or equivalent armour. You could even put it on attacks as a trait.
Something like that is the way to do it in the PF2 system.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe, but as it is, it is silly. I get that this isn't a simulation, but rules should at least make some physical sense.
TBF, the idea that ghosts:
1- Exists2- Go through walls and ojects without problems
3- And can still somehow hurt you
doesn't really make physical sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
3- And can still somehow hurt you
doesn't really make physical sense.
Because they are not physical.
Realy what should happen now is that Paizo should change most damage from ghosts to be Spiritual damage.