In my last adventure I faced a few situation that gave me a question. I play a cleric and did fight some undead (OK, nothing new). Well, now I tried to fight shadows and if I remember right an incorporal undead can ignore 50% of damage from a corporal source (but not from force effects).
Now my question:
If I damage an incorporal undead with positive energy (through a converted “cure” spell), can he ignore this to 50%? Or in other words: Is positive energy some kind of force effect?
Originally posted by Ariadne@Jul 11 2003, 12:23 PM
Now my question:
If I damage an incorporal undead with positive energy (through a converted “cure” spell), can he ignore this to 50%? Or in other words: Is positive energy some kind of force effect?
As far as i know a couple of incorporal undead can only be hit by Silver or +1 weapons,and because silver weapons are considerd holy they are of positive energy, but they are corporal and thus a forse.
so if you damage an incorporal undead with a converted cure spell your hand will be a positive forse with full effect.
I hope i understud your question and helped you with my reply.
Xeres
silver weapons are considerd holy
No they aren’t.
they are of positive energy, but they are corporal and thus a forse
Even if they were (which they aren’t), your conclusion is spurious. Silver weapons (or any + weapon for that matter) are by no means “force effects”.
Spells with the “[force]” descriptor are force effects - nothing else is unless it specifically states otherwise.
CM.
Well, with “force effect” I meant, what I said. A force, same as magic missile or wall of force. Those things can hit uncorporal undead as well as ghost tough weapons. I don’t know if I can add positive energy to this list…
uestion. What is positive energy if its not the
opposite energy of undeath? It would seem to me that positive energy is
specifically for combating undead. I know of no other characteristics of
it.
Kenneth Gauck
question. What is positive energy if its not the
> opposite energy of undeath? It would seem to me that positive energy is
> specifically for combating undead. I know of no other characteristics of
> it.
I was waiting for someone to give a straight rules-answer, yes or no, but no
one has for some reason. So I will, if no one minds. To my understanding,
this was a simple question on how the 3e rules work. I`ll try to be as
detailed and clear as I can in my answer.
Yes, every attack by a corpereal source has a 50% chance of being negated
against a Shadow. Ariadne says that he converted a cure spell. Just so
were clear: a cure spell doesnt have to be converted to anything. You can
convert other spells to cure spells at will if you are a good or neutral
cleric.
The cure spell works by using positive energy on a target. In most cases
this heals hitpoints, but in the case of undead, it will actually cause
damage instead. This is the standard effect of the cure spell and it works
by “inflicting” positive energy.
From the SRD description of INCORPOREALITY:
"Incorporeal creatures can only be harmed by other incorporeal creatures, by
+1 or better weapons, or by spells, spell-like effects, or supernatural
effects. They are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. They are not burned
by normal fires, affected by natural cold, or harmed by mundane acids."
From the SRD description of the SHADOW monster:
"Incorporeal: Can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, +1 or
better magic weapons, or magic, with a 50% chance to ignore any damage from
a corporeal source. Can pass through solid objects at will, and own attacks
pass through armor. Always moves silently."
Thus, as you can see, more than simply force effects like Magic Missile
are capable of hurting the thing. Not only will your cure spell work
effectively against the monster, but all magic spells will. Only attacks
with mundane weapons or non-magical energy will suffer that 50% mischance,
hence the relatively low challenge rating.
As far as I know, Xeres is incorrect regarding that incorperal creatures can
only be hurt by silver weapons and that silver weapons are considered holy.
Both are false in D&D 3e rules. (I have not yet read v3.5)
And finally, because I quoted it above, I feel I should respond to Kenneth`s
post. Yes, positive energy is used to combat undead, but that doesn`t mean
that positive energy can automatically get past defensive abilities and such
“just because”. The situation doesn`t apply with Incorpereal, but if the
undead had magic resistance, it would be protected from positive energy
attacks just as well as other magic spells. (Though I personally wouldn`t
mind a house rule or a feat saying otherwise.) And as for "knowing no other
characteristic," well… the positive energy did come from a “cure” spell.
That is the other characteristic of positive energy.
Hoped I helped a little.
-Lord Rahvin
ee, more than simply force effects like Magic Missile
> are capable of hurting the thing. Not only will your cure spell work
> effectively against the monster, but all magic spells will. Only attacks
> with mundane weapons or non-magical energy will suffer that 50% mischance,
> hence the relatively low challenge rating.
My answer was incomplete here. I apologize.
I forgot to address one important issue: “Cure” spells are touch spells.
I`m not sure whether you can use a “touch spell” against an incorperal
target. I believe the answer was yes, you can, but I will find you an exact
rules quote later. Im tired; its 3am. The lines on my screen are all
blurry.
For the sake of thoroughness I also want to remind you that the Shadow gets
a Will save for half damage once you hit him with the “cure” spell.
-Lord Rahvin
Only the DMG will give the answer.
Take a look under “Incorpereality”. There it is clearly stated, that ANY corporeal source - magic and physical - has a 50% miss chance.
Exeptions are “force” effects like mage armor, bracers, magic missile. (DMG p. 78)
Turning Undead is a “Channeling” Ability (Defenders of Faith p 16), where positive energy is used.
As a result the “Cure Spell” has a 50% miss chance since it is only a spell (which uses positive energy).
someone to give a straight rules-answer, yes or no, but
> no
> one has for some reason. So I will, if no one minds. To my
> understanding,
> this was a simple question on how the 3e rules work. I`ll try to be as
detailed and clear as I can in my answer.
Ackk.
I got this all wrong. That`s what I get for posting too hastily… and
without any sleep or caffeine.
Im truly sorry about my previous posts on this subject: theyre all wrong.
Revised analysis is as follows:
spell.
them to be vulnerable to Positive Energy instead of Force spells. Since
when is 3e about making sense?
involve “touching” the opponent at all.
incorperalability. I don`t know where that came from.
Truly, very sorry.
So embarrassing.
-Lord Rahvin
Just to muck the water a little.
If the character missed the creature do to the 50%, or just missed the roll, it is not wasted.
The character can hold the spell and try again next time, as long as you do not cast another spell. They only discharge on use, not attempt.
Originally posted by Birthright-L@Jul 12 2003, 12:56 PM
[b] Revised analysis is as follows:
- Yes, the Shadow would get a 50% chance of being immune to your “cure”
spell.
- Yes, Kenneth is probably right in that it would make a lot more sense for
them to be vulnerable to Positive Energy instead of Force spells. Since
when is 3e about making sense?
- Yes, touch spells can hurt incorpereal targets and don`t necessarily
involve “touching” the opponent at all.
- No, silver weapons still aren`t holy nor can they bypass
incorperalability. I don`t know where that came from.
Truly, very sorry.
So embarrassing.
-Lord Rahvin
[/b]
Thanks, that really helps alot.
For the converted “cure” spell: Sorry for being uncrear, I converted a “bless” into a “cure light wounds”.
PS: I’m female 
Now we can go further with those undead things: It is possible to hurt an incorporal creature as an another incorporal creature. What if someone did cast a “gaseous form” spell. Then he can’t attack corporal creatures (even with spells), but can he hurt an incorporal undead (like spectral scion, shadow or something) now?
converted “cure” spell: Sorry for being uncrear, I converted a “bless” into a “cure light wounds”.
>
> PS: I`m female
Yeah, I figured that. The moment I wrote “he converted a cure spell,” I
just knew somehow that I was using the wrong pronoun there.
My apologies, again. Maybe I should start using that really long
gender-disclaimer in all my posts that can be found at the beginning of any
second edition AD&D player`s handbook…
-Lord Rahvin
/>
> Now we can go further with those undead things: It is possible to hurt an incorporal creature as an another incorporal creature. What if someone did cast a “gaseous form” spell. Then he can`t attack corporal creatures (even with spells), but can he hurt an incorporal undead (like spectral scion, shadow or something) now?
You just love stirring up trouble, don`t you? : )
I hate taking the role of a rules lawyer but the Obsessed DM in me won`t let
me rest until this whole thread is resolved.
Yes, if you can make yourself incorpereal, then you can attack incorpereal
creatures.
No, gaseous form does not make you incorpereal. It makes you translucent
and insubstantial and some other properties of being incorpereal, but you`re
not incorpereal. Also, you have certain properties that incorpereal
creatures dont. Ghost touch weapons cant harm you if you`re gaseous. And
in gaseous form, you can`t attack or cast spells. Period. If you enemies
are Incorpereal, gaseous, or whatever… no hurting them.
If you cast the Clr5/WizSor7 spell, Ethereal Jaunt, then you can actually
make yourself Incorpereal and attack Shadows. But you can`t do it with the
3rd level gaseous form.
-Lord Rahvin
ge -----
From: “Ariadne” <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 12:02 PM
> Now we can go further with those undead things: It is possible to
> hurt an incorporal creature as an another incorporal creature. What
> if someone did cast a “gaseous form” spell. Then he
> can`t attack corporal creatures (even with spells), but can he hurt an
> incorporal undead (like spectral scion, shadow or something) now?
Gaseous is incorporeal, but its differently incorporeal, so no. Incorporal
undead are typically existing on some alternate plane (shadow world or
ethereal, what have you) and so to become corporal in their plane, you did
to do more than just become incorporeal. What about being undead makes you
vulnerable to gasses?
Kenneth Gauck
This thread reminds me of the one time I made the nistake to check out the FAQs that people have made when WotC post them online… Simple logic can help you in such a crisis, and reading between the lines is even better!
First of all, a force effect is a form of effect where force, as in a “force field”, that is the tangible feeling that some effects can give, like mage armour, takes place. Force in D&D represents a special form of what is known as force in physics, aka the application of strength. Ghost touch items also have force effects.
Yes, incorporeality allows any creature to avoid 50% of the time any damage inflicted by any corporeal source, except if there is a force effect involved…
Gaseous Form simply turns your body in a form of vapors. If you want to become incorporeal with a similar effect, you could check out Ghost Form in Tome and Blood.
Azrai is correct. Defenders of the Faith is full with more uses of Positive energy… You could check it out, or you could give me your email to send you more info before you do.
Well, even incorporeal creatures can be affected by Turning if they are undead… The problem is they are not always undead.
If you did not understand it, the source referred to in the given quote is the wielder of the means that dealt the damage. If you are corporeal, your non-force-effects attacks deal damage 50% of the time.
Last but not least, a touch spell is defined as any spell that must be delivered by the caster to a target in close proximity. A touch is always involved, and that is the reason Dexterity, Dodge, Shield, and Haste modifiers to AC apply against touch attacks. If you cast a Melf’s acid arrow, for example, it must still reach and touch the opponent, even if in this case we are talking about a ranged touch and thus the case is different. In the case of incorporeal creatures, your hand goes right through the them and you unleash the spell. That’s how it is.
t 06:46, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: “Ariadne” <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
> Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2003 12:02 PM
>
>
> > Now we can go further with those undead things: It is possible to
> > hurt an incorporal creature as an another incorporal creature. What
> > if someone did cast a “gaseous form” spell. Then he
> > can`t attack corporal creatures (even with spells), but can he hurt an
incorporal undead (like spectral scion, shadow or something) now?
Gaseous is incorporeal, but its differently incorporeal, so no. Incorporal
I disagree. Incorporeal is a “no body” state, while gaseous form is a
“gaseous body” state, i.e. you still have a body but it`s been “changed”
to a different state (e.g. ice, water, steam).
> undead are typically existing on some alternate plane (shadow world or
> ethereal, what have you) and so to become corporal in their plane, you did
> to do more than just become incorporeal.
I don`t think that “natural” states on alternate planes are necessarily
corporeal, e.g. etherealness is the natural state of being on the
ethereal plane, where all beings and things are composed more or less of
the same “stuff”.
BR (at least in 2e) was not attached to other “planes” except for the
shadow world - which is inconsistent with other contemporary AD&D
products but hey, that`s how it is.
The Shadow world however does seem to be a dark analogue with the
implication of parallel corporeal-ness, i.e. all things have some
presence in both worlds.
> What about being undead makes you
> vulnerable to gasses?
What about being undead make you vulnerable to “anything”? or did you
mean “invulnerable to gases”? Probably depends on the gas, “poison”,
“acid”, what is the real attack form? Most gas attacks are a form of
poison, and as most undead do not require to breathe, then probably they
are commonly invulnerable to most gases - acid though, holy steam?
ge -----
From: “Peter Lubke” <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU>
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 6:22 AM
> I disagree. Incorporeal is a “no body” state, while gaseous form is a
> “gaseous body” state, i.e. you still have a body but it`s been “changed”
to a different state (e.g. ice, water, steam).
That may or may not be a technical definition in the rules, I`m really not
interested in that. There is the broader notion obviously represented in
the original post that being without a body included both technical
incorporality and other kinds of being without a body, like being a gas.
You are too tied to the rules and it leaves you unable to consider
situations not covered in the rules.
> I don`t think that “natural” states on alternate planes are necessarily
corporeal, e.g. etherealness is the natural state of being on the
ethereal plane, where all beings and things are composed more or less of
the same “stuff”.
The point of the reference was that when you are made of the same stuff,
whether you want to say you are embodied or not, direct conflict can occur.
The rest of this is you caught in the rules.
BR (at least in 2e) was not attached to other “planes” except for the
shadow world - which is inconsistent with other contemporary AD&D
products but hey, that`s how it is.
Only in a skewed reading of the materials. BR is obviously attached to
other planes. There are numerous references to such things. BR was not
attached to other game worlds, at least without detours through the shadow
or godly realms. Was there no elemental planes? Did the gods not reside
elsewhere? If so where was that place? BR`s cosmology may be non-standard,
but there is no reason to think it didn`t have its own cosmology, planes
included.
> The Shadow world however does seem to be a dark analogue with the
> implication of parallel corporeal-ness, i.e. all things have some
> presence in both worlds.
Maybe. Maybe that was color. Take it or leave it. Its not, <shudder> a ru
le.
> > What about being undead makes you
> > vulnerable to gasses?
>
> What about being undead make you vulnerable to “anything”? or did you
> mean “invulnerable to gases”? Probably depends on the gas, “poison”,
> “acid”, what is the real attack form? Most gas attacks are a form of
> poison, and as most undead do not require to breathe, then probably they
> are commonly invulnerable to most gases - acid though, holy steam?
This is pure nonsense. First, our notions of undead start in folklore, not
in game rules, so my notions of what undead are like starts there. It may
be modified by a host of factors, but there is conception of a game world
without lashing yourself to the rules so an eagle can dine on your liver
24/7. Just because the rules don`t have seven pages on two gasseous
entities grappling, why is it inconcievable that they could engage in such
combats or entirely new forms of combat? Perhaps gaseaous entites do force
damage. The penumbra of the rules may not serve to explain every
possibility someone can imagine.
Kenneth Gauck
to me that it would be nice to have a table that listed
all the types of attacks (or at least the most typical) and the various
states that characters can be in with a big X for full damage, a dot for no
damage, 50% for half damage, 50/50 for that miss chance… something like
that. It`d make it a lot easier to find answers to issues like that in
this thread.
Gary
poreal is a “no body” state, while gaseous form is a
>> “gaseous body” state, i.e. you still have a body but it`s been “changed”
to a different state (e.g. ice, water, steam).
That may or may not be a technical definition in the rules, I`m really not
> interested in that. There is the broader notion obviously represented in
> the original post that being without a body included both technical
> incorporality and other kinds of being without a body, like being a gas.
> You are too tied to the rules and it leaves you unable to consider
> situations not covered in the rules.
Normally, I`m among the first in line to howl at the rules lawyers, but was
this really necessary?! First of all, look at the above texts you`ve
quoted. Where is any of that quoted text being “too tied to the rules”…
what? Just because the rules actually cover it?! One is gaseous, one is
not. One is incorpereal, one is not. Yep, the rules are pretty clear there
and all thats happened in the text youve quoted is someone agreed with
that.
One, the person quoted didn`t deserve your attack on him. Two, the
situation is well-covered in the rules and so your last sentence doesn`t
really apply. And third, the original post was a question on the ways the
rules work, so yeah, quoting how the rules work here might actually be a
valid way to go.
>> I don`t think that “natural” states on alternate planes are necessarily
corporeal, e.g. etherealness is the natural state of being on the
ethereal plane, where all beings and things are composed more or less of
the same “stuff”.
The point of the reference was that when you are made of the same stuff,
whether you want to say you are embodied or not, direct conflict can occur.
The rest of this is you caught in the rules.
First of all, the part quoted at the very top already suggested that the two
beings are not the same “stuff” and so your statement isnt absolute. Its
not invalid, and its certainly a valid point, but its not a method of
attack – it in no way invalidates anything being said.
Second, “the rest of this is you caught in the rules”. How so? Rule-like
buzzwords are being used like “ethereal plane” “composed” and "natural
state" I guess, but these aren`t rules being tossed at you. The argument
isnt "this cant be done because it says so on page XX"; its a rational
argument about what form each being is composed of and whether or not those
forms should be able to interact with eachother.
>> > What about being undead makes you
>> > vulnerable to gasses?
>>
>> What about being undead make you vulnerable to “anything”? or did you
>> mean “invulnerable to gases”? Probably depends on the gas, “poison”,
>> “acid”, what is the real attack form? Most gas attacks are a form of
>> poison, and as most undead do not require to breathe, then probably they
>> are commonly invulnerable to most gases - acid though, holy steam?
>
> This is pure nonsense.
Okay this was just a misunderstanding. I myself misunderstood the question
you asked the first time I read it. Taken in context, it makes perfect
sense. Taken out of context, it`s kind of a bizzare question that leads to
bizzare answers…
First, our notions of undead start in folklore, not
in game rules, so my notions of what undead are like starts there. It may
be modified by a host of factors, but there is conception of a game world
without lashing yourself to the rules so an eagle can dine on your liver
24/7. Just because the rules don`t have seven pages on two gasseous
> entities grappling, why is it inconcievable that they could engage in such
> combats or entirely new forms of combat? Perhaps gaseaous entites do force
> damage. The penumbra of the rules may not serve to explain every
> possibility someone can imagine.
This is pure nonsense.
What the hell are you talking about?! Undead should be vulnerable to gases
because your personal notion of what undead are like are more true to the
spirit of folklore which has something to do with eagles eating a lot and
now we`re talking about grappling gases?! Huh?
Okay, I agree… it would be cool to have rules (or better yet a
flexible/adaptable rule system that is easily improvised) to deal with
gaseaous entities grappling with eachother. That would be cool. I`d like
to argue that sometime. But that has nothing to do with anything!!! The
question was can a gaseous entity attack an incorpereal entity, and the
answer was “no” because you have no attack form as a gas and the enemy`s
incorpereal so your attacks would go through him anyway. Dealt with pretty
well in the rules. Somehow you turned this into a gaseous wrestling match
wherein anyone who was talking about the original subject is too tied to the
rules and unable to consider situations not covered in the rules.
If you want to discuss a combat system wherein one gaseous entity attacks
another. Thats great. Sounds like an interesting topic. But dont attack
other people because theyre answering someones question about ghosts and
stuff. First of all, no one (except maybe me, earlier) has been relying
strictly on rules but also on the intelligent basis for those rules, and
second, it was a rules inquiry for chrissake.
The worst part is I think this was all a misunderstanding. I`m fairly
certain you`d both agree with another if you could communicate effectively
and try to see where eachother`s coming from.
-Lord Rahvin