What is the point of medium and heavy armor?

[Bauglir]

Also, "In essence" means that's not literally what's happening, but they thought that was a simple way of summarizing.

[snakeman830]

The weapon wouldn't need to be incorporeal to harm a physical target, I think, but you would have a tough time wielding it while it was incorporeal.

[BeholderSlayer]

Also, "In essence" means that's not literally what's happening, but they thought that was a simple way of summarizing.

I think you mean "essentially," semantics, I know.

But yes, that too.

Even ignoring that it is just meant to be a summary, the RAW is pretty clear.

I know you just meant to add that, sorry for being redundant.

[Littha]

Thing is even if it was incorporial for your attack it would only have a 50% chance of hitting a corporal target wouldn't it? Im sure i saw that somewhere in the mess that is the incorporiablility rules... ill see if i can find a quote.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

I've got to agree with JaronK on this one. The description says the weapon counts as: "either corporeal or incorporeal at any given time." In order to both be able to hit a corporeal target, and ignore its corporeal armor, the weapon would have to be both incorporeal and corporeal at the same time. It is rather explicit (since "either....or...." makes "and" impossible) that the weapon cannot be both at the same time, thus the statement that ghost touch weapons ignore corporeal armor is false by RAW.

You don't even really have to consider the context. That's exactly what is written even if you only quote that one sentence, or phrase.

Since being completely unable to hit a target with a weapon is less beneficial (it's not a benefit at all, in fact) than having to overcome its corporeal armor, the weapon is corporeal and must deal with that armor bonus.

Ghost Touch Weaponry

An incorporeal creature can pick up and wield a ghost touch weapon even though the creature lacks a Strength score. When the creature makes an attack, it uses its Dexterity modifier to modify the attack roll (even for a melee attack) and no Strength modifier applies to the damage roll. (Because the incorporeal attacker does not have a Strength score, its Strength modifier is +0.)

According to the Dungeon Master's Guide, a ghost touch weapon functions as either a corporeal or incorporeal object, whichever is better for the wielder at the time. This is convenient for an incorporeal creature that wants to carry a ghost touch weapon through a wall. What this means when an incorporeal wielder uses a ghost touch weapon to attack a corporeal foe is not quite clear, though. Presumably, an incorporeal wielder can choose which way the weapon acts at the time of the attack; this does not require an action on the wielder's part, and the wielder can make the choice even when it is not the wielder's turn. (For example, when the wielder uses the ghost touch weapon for an attack of opportunity.)

When an incorporeal attacker wields a ghost touch weapon as a corporeal weapon, the attack is resolved against the defender's normal Armor Class. An incorporeal attacker wielding a ghost touch weapon in this manner can use the weapon to make a disarm or sunder attack. If the weapon can be used for a trip attack (see the weapon's description in Chapter 7 of the Player's Handbook), an incorporeal attacker can make a trip attack with it.

When an incorporeal attacker wields a ghost touchweapon as an incorporeal weapon, the attack is resolved as an incorporeal touch attack. If the attack hits, the weapon deals the normal damage for a weapon of its kind, plus any bonus damage from its enhancement bonus, but no Strength modifier applies. If an incorporeal creature fires ghost touch ammunition or throws a ghost touch weapon, the projectile or weapon becomes corporeal the moment it leaves the incorporeal creature's possession, though it retains the ghost touch property.

The foregoing suggests that a corporeal attacker could choose to wield a ghost touch weapon as either a corporeal or an incorporeal weapon as well, but I don't recommend that you do so. The ghost touch property isn't priced to reflect such a potent ability. If you don't like the disparity in abilities between corporeal and incorporeal wielders, I recommend that you always have attackers use ghost touchweaponry as a corporeal attack (except that the weapon still ignores incorporeal miss chances).

[BeholderSlayer]

Skip smokes crack and wrote those articles while tripping 6400 micrograms of LSD.

[snakeman830]

Simple way to solve it, though.  How would a corporeal wielder hold an incorporeal weapon?  He couldn't!  Sure, you can have the weapon be incorporeal, but then you can't swing it.

[BeholderSlayer]

It really would only benefit classes that have alternative sources of damage, like the rogue (since, based on my interpretation, you'd still get SA dice). It's whatever really, but Skip really does smoke crack and trip acid while writing that stuff.

[Kajhera]

Simple way to solve it, though.  How would a corporeal wielder hold an incorporeal weapon?  He couldn't!  Sure, you can have the weapon be incorporeal, but then you can't swing it.

That runs into a host of other problems that negate the efficacy of the weapon in the first place.
Want it to count as incorporeal so you can hit a ghost? The weapon slips from your grasp and lodges a foot below ground.

Want it to count as incorporeal so as a ghost you can wield it, but corporeal so you can trip someone with it? Sorry, that's not going to work either.

So it's not really a feasible way to solve it.

'Course, we've always apparently played that it's wieldable by incorporeals and hits incorporeals, but nothing particularly interesting beyond that, so... that works for us. Not that I don't want to abuse it now. 

[BeholderSlayer]

While that RotG article doesn't specify this, I'd rule that the weapon may only hit incorporeal targets while used as an incorporeal weapon.

I think this may in fact have been the intended reading of the article, as it makes intuitive sense.

[Bauglir]

Me, I'd say it exists on both the Material and Ethereal planes simultaneously, just as a Force effect does.

[Soda]

As far as Fortification and Sneak Attack, how about keep the percent chance to ignore a critical hit, and change the chance to ignore sneak attack to a flat reduction in dice? Maybe Light Fort is -2d6, Medium is -4d6, and Heavy is -6d6.

And have the Penetrating Strike ACF (which should just be a class feature) cut it in half. So a rogue with 10d6 SA vs someone with Heavy Fort, would do 10d6 - (6d6 / 2) = 7d6. You have the immunity to crits while doing something against SA without negating it. Against someone who doesn't have Rogue3 for Penetrating Strike, it does even more.

[Lycanthromancer]

Simple way to solve it, though.  How would a corporeal wielder hold an incorporeal weapon?  He couldn't!  Sure, you can have the weapon be incorporeal, but then you can't swing it.

You do realize there are ways to become incorporeal as a corporeal creature, right? Bind the apparition ribbon soulmeld, for instance.

[Sunic_Flames]

Which ones exist for dealing with fortification?  The best I know of is an ACF that gives you half sneak attack when it normally wouldn't work at all, but that's hardly impressive.

JaronK

Savvy Rogue + Crippling Strike. It's a non standard workaround, but 2 Str damage a hit + 6-10 hits works well enough.

[The_Mad_Linguist]

Me, I'd say it exists on both the Material and Ethereal planes simultaneously, just as a Force effect does.

That doesn't actually help you hit anything incorporeal other than a ghost, though. 

[JaronK]

Savvy Rogue + Crippling Strike. It's a non standard workaround, but 2 Str damage a hit + 6-10 hits works well enough.

So... feat tax and you need 10 Rogue levels just to get there (13 if you wanted the ability to take 10 instead, which many people like)?  That's  hardly "Only if the many "No, you can SA anyways" methods are removed."  You made it sound like there were many ways to sneak attack anyways.  This doesn't even sneak attack, and basically just means Rogues can't do squat to anyone in heavy armor until at least level 10, plus you've added a feat tax to them (and what will Ninjas do?  How about Rokugan Ninjas, or anyone else that has sneak attack but not 10 Rogue levels?).

It seems to me that the fortification plan is, as I said, a horrible way to screw Rogues unless you uncouple sneak attack from crit immunity.

JaronK

[zugschef]

It seems to me that the fortification plan is, as I said, a horrible way to screw Rogues unless you uncouple sneak attack from crit immunity.

what plan? fortification as written screws rogues...

the best plan would be to limit the amount of sneak attack dice affected by fortification, maybe depending on the ac bonus, probably x dice of sneak attack negated, whereas x = ac bonus/2.

and i'd really limit moderate and heavy fortification to medium and heavy armor.

[Sunic_Flames]

Savvy Rogue + Crippling Strike. It's a non standard workaround, but 2 Str damage a hit + 6-10 hits works well enough.

So... feat tax and you need 10 Rogue levels just to get there (13 if you wanted the ability to take 10 instead, which many people like)?  That's  hardly "Only if the many "No, you can SA anyways" methods are removed."  You made it sound like there were many ways to sneak attack anyways.  This doesn't even sneak attack, and basically just means Rogues can't do squat to anyone in heavy armor until at least level 10, plus you've added a feat tax to them (and what will Ninjas do?  How about Rokugan Ninjas, or anyone else that has sneak attack but not 10 Rogue levels?).

It seems to me that the fortification plan is, as I said, a horrible way to screw Rogues unless you uncouple sneak attack from crit immunity.

JaronK

Actually, 13. You took PTWF at 10. There are also various class independent methods, though only the half damage one works on Fortification armor. But really, you're a beatstick at high levels. If you only start slacking at 15+, you did a fucking amazing job on your character. And before that you don't encounter Heavy Fort (creature type immunity I've already discussed the bypass methods for).

Who cares about Rogue's gimped cousins and some random not updated 3rd edition class?

Now any means of nerfing the forcefields against Rocket Tag is stupid, and people should feel stupid for suggesting them. They should feel more stupid by trying to limit Heavy Fort to heavy armor. Forcing people to gimp themselves to keep up just breeds resentment. It doesn't make heavy armor any good. Also, casters will have Heavy Fort regardless. It just shoves it to anyone who isn't a primary spellcaster and does not want to use heavy armor.

[JaronK]

Actually, 13. You took PTWF at 10.

Oh god, don't start with that particular bit of wrongheaded out of context nonsense.  And pulling that one out after accusing me of being overly TO in this very thread for suggesting you purchase a domesticated creature to ride on?  Really?  Not too classy.  But I'll just leave you with this quote from the "Feats" section of the PHB, on page 87:

"Acquiring Feats... members of some classes get bonus feats as class features.  ... Prerequisites... Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat."

And I'll ask that when you try to bring up out of context quotes from the Monster Manual, you make note of which sections you got those quotes from, and why you think that section applies to class bonus feats (as opposed to just racial bonus feats).  The PHB was specifically talking about class bonus feats, you see.

There are also various class independent methods, though only the half damage one works on Fortification armor.

So, when I said that other than the half damage one (which really hurts) you're screwed and you said there were "many" ways around that, by "many" what you meant was "none."  Gotcha.

But really, you're a beatstick at high levels. If you only start slacking at 15+, you did a fucking amazing job on your character. And before that you don't encounter Heavy Fort (creature type immunity I've already discussed the bypass methods for).

People have talked about giving a fortification style effect to heavy armor.  So, you'd be seeing a heck of a lot of it at lower levels, thus leaving you horribly gimped.  It would just add one more to the list of "stuff that makes Rogues suck."  Also, this thread is talking about balancing.  Saying "whoops, we screwed another class at higher levels even more" tells you the method isn't going to work.  Me, I'd have no problem with just giving Light Fortification to Medium Armor and Medium Fortification to Heavy Armor (with the enchantment getting you the rest of the way there) but allowing sneak attacks to bypass that entirely (so it only stops critical hits).  That way these armor types get much better (and Mithral isn't so amazing) but Rogues are less screwed.

Who cares about Rogue's gimped cousins and some random not updated 3rd edition class?

People who care about balance, which was the very point of this entire exercise to begin with.  Did you fail to get the memo?

JaronK

[dark_samuari]

Did you fail to get the memo?

JaronK