Touch Attacks

[Scott]

Has anybody considered using touch attacks in AD&D combat? I like the concept and have used it a few times. I'm thinking about making it a permanent addition to my house rules. It makes incorporeal undead truly frightening.
Scott

[dcas]

Could you be more specific?

[Scott]

A touch attack is an attack that just requires a touch to be successful. You don't need to penetrate armor.
An incorporeal undead creature like a spectre that can pass through walls, floors, etc. Should plate armor be an effective defense against such an attack?
The effective AC of the target would just be dexterity and magical bonuses.
Scott

[Casey]

I guess I feel that allowing spectres (and other undead besides ghosts) to become incorporeal is opening a can of wyrms.

Would there be any adverse effects for the spectre if part of its body were to become corporeal after having been thrust through armor? For example, suppose that a spectre thrusts its hand through a character’s breast plate and becomes corporeal in order to drain levels. Does the specter’s arm become severed by the breast plate when said arm becomes material? If the arm isn’t severed, it could be argued that the spectre is unharmed by becoming corporeal inside certain solid objects. Couldn’t the spectre, then, just become discarnate, step into a character’s body, become solid, and kill the pc instantly?

Casey

[Lord Cias]

Casey brings up some good points.

Even if a non-corporeal creature could materialize within a solid body without damage, I still would not allow such a creature to materialize within a living creature to kill it. The reason being that living creatures (at least humans and human-like creatures) have souls or spirits, so they are not just physical objects. Basically, two spirits and/or souls cannot occupy the same space at the same time, just as two physical bodies cannot. The existance of two or more spiritual bodies within one physical body would be more akin to possession.

Most non-corporeal creatures cannot be struck by normal weapons. I take this to mean that normal weapons simply pass through their bodies with no effect. Magical (and silver) weapons, however, usually effect the non-corporeal to full effect. In other words, a sword +1 does d8+1 damage to non-corporeal creatures, not just 1 point of damage (from the magic).

One could apply this same principle to armor. A non-corporeal creature could pass through normal armor with no problem (AC 10 plus dexterity and magical adjustments), but magical armor protects fully. Therefore, a character with normal plate mail would be AC 10, but someone with +1 plate mail would be AC 2 and not AC 9 for attacks from non-corporeal creatures.

[dcas]

Scott said:

A touch attack is an attack that just requires a touch to be successful. You don't need to penetrate armor.
An incorporeal undead creature like a spectre that can pass through walls, floors, etc. Should plate armor be an effective defense against such an attack?
The effective AC of the target would just be dexterity and magical bonuses.

Now I understand. I think I like the "Cias compromise."

[Scott]

yeah

Casey said:

I guess I feel that allowing spectres (and other undead besides ghosts) to become incorporeal is opening a can of wyrms.

Would there be any adverse effects for the spectre if part of its body were to become corporeal after having been thrust through armor? For example, suppose that a spectre thrusts its hand through a character’s breast plate and becomes corporeal in order to drain levels. Does the specter’s arm become severed by the breast plate when said arm becomes material? If the arm isn’t severed, it could be argued that the spectre is unharmed by becoming corporeal inside certain solid objects. Couldn’t the spectre, then, just become discarnate, step into a character’s body, become solid, and kill the pc instantly?

Casey

Spectres are incorporeal. So are wraiths, and shadows. Maybe others I'm forgetting. They are always incorporeal. They can't materialize, so these things aren't an issue.
Scott

[Scott]

Lord said:

One could apply this same principle to armor. A non-corporeal creature could pass through normal armor with no problem (AC 10 plus dexterity and magical adjustments), but magical armor protects fully. Therefore, a character with normal plate mail would be AC 10, but someone with +1 plate mail would be AC 2 and not AC 9 for attacks from non-corporeal creatures.

I would certainly allow the magical plusses from the armor, but I wouldn't allow the base armor protection. Plate mail would be AC 10, plate mail +1 would be AC 9.
Same thing would go for certain spells. Shocking Grasp for example, at least if the armor is metal.
Scott

[Casey]

Scott,

My Ad&d library isn't very large and the only information I have on the physical nature of spectres and wraiths is listed in the Monster Manual. I can't find anything in the text about either of the above creatures being incorporeal, ethereal, semi-ethereal, lacking mass, or otherwise lacking material bodies.

Are you accessing an alternative source which describes these creatures as being incorporeal?

Casey

[Scott]

In addition to the illustrations in the MM, I've discussed the monsters with Gygax to clarify. Ghosts, shadows, spectres, and wraiths are all incorporeal. Gygax offers more detail in The Slayers Guide to Undead.
Scott

[GT]

To put it in a different light, neutrinos pass through us all the time, but we are unaware of it. Now, imagine those neutrinos emitting "negative energy"...

[GT]

...or, as Gene might put it--The Flash could vibrate the atoms of his body such that he could pass through an apparently solid wall. In other words, "just because you can't touch it, doesn't mean it can't hurt you!"

[dcas]

Scott said:

I would certainly allow the magical plusses from the armor, but I wouldn't allow the base armor protection. Plate mail would be AC 10, plate mail +1 would be AC 9.

If one followed Cias' logic, that would be analogous to only allowing the magical bonus when such creatures are struck by magical weapons.

[Scott]

Yeah, that is a good point. I will need to consider that a bit.
Scott

[Casey]

I like Cias's argument as well. Who am I, though, to deny you your sadistic pleasure .

Casey

[GT]

Since it is stated that specters and wraiths "exist more strongly in the negative plane", they--like any creature existing partially in the ethereal plane--would not be wholly corporeal in the Prime. This is counter to elementals, for example, which require a quantity of like material to manifest. Plus, I consulted the American Heritage and Oxford Dictionaries which compare spectres and wraiths to "ghosts, apparitions and phantoms", implying a definitely immaterial state... ^__^

[GT]

Oh, yeah... and Gary got the idea for Shadows from the A. Merritt novel "Creep Shadow, Creep" so if you want a good idea on how he envisions them, to quote "Handy" from the Tick: "Read a book!!"

[Casey]

While I intuitively see a connection between existing partially on the ethereal, the prime, and being insubstantial, I don’t think that the issue of corporality is necessarily at issue when other dual plane existences occur.


“...exist more strongly in the negative plane...”

This could mean many different things:

It could mean that 30% of a spectre’s mass exists on the prime and 70% on the negative.
It could mean that 22.5% of it’s energy exists on the prime and 77.5% on the negative.
It could mean something about the planar division of the spectre’s “spirit”, “soul”, or “mojo”.
It could mean about anything.
I think it was wonderfully imaginative writing letting us know that the creature is a bad mutha and can drain life levels.

What I’m saying is that you can make believe, after the fact, why a particular game mechanic exists - rationalizing the rule. You sure can’t apply rigorous logic or physics to such vague (and absurd) cosmological premises.

I appreciate your attempt to intuit the physical properties of spectres, wraiths, etc. from Ad&d’s planar cosmology. I think, though, that imagination and fancy are what ultimately drive these kinds of arguments (which is as it should be).

As for consulting a text outside the game about the properties of a creature which doesn’t actually exist, well, ...

If EGG says that he meant for these fell creatures to be incorporeal, then that’s good enough for me. I have the author’s intention - which is all I can hope for. The rest is in the hands of the people playing the game and their imaginations.

Casey

p.s. love The Tick

[GT]

All of the above were mere reinforcement; the final bit of evidence comes from Gary himself in the "Monsters & Treasure" book (pg. 9)of the OD&D set wherein Mr. Gygax quotes: "SPECTRES: These monsters have no corporeal body which makes them totally impervious toall normal weaponry (but can be struck by all magical weapons)..." ^__^

[GT]

Casey? Is this the same Casey I met at Gen Con while hanging out with Rob Kuntz?? If so, great to hear from you again! If not, great to hear from ya anyway! ^__^