Magic Armor vs. Incorporeal

[Snoring Rock]

Um....does magic armor give any protection vs. incorporeal creatures? You need a magic sword to hit them, why not use a magic shield/armor to stop them?

[Lord Dynel]

There's nothing in the rules for it. I would assume magic armor affords no extra protection over normal armor, other than the plus protection it provides. Interestingly enough, the anti-magic shell spell provides protection against incorporeal undead. I would assume a wall of force blocks them as well, as that spell notes that it blocks ethereal creatures.

[Go0gleplex]

Magic armor vs incorporeal offers only the magical bonus of the armor as protection. Thus, if you had +2 Chainmail, AC would be effectively 12 + Dex vs Incorporeal. Of course a simple touch attack would be handled the same way since the touch does not need to bypass the armor to cause damage. (in my games at least. )

[Arduin]

In my game armour that has at least the same + value as a weapon needed to hit the incorporeal creature makes the armour fully effective.

[Snoring Rock]

How did it work in 1e? I cannot recall.

[Lord Dynel]

It worked like normal attacks, as far as I can recall. There wasn't anything regarding incorporeal attacks, other than it usually took magic or silver weapons to hit such foes. They hit PCs as a normal attack.

[Arduin]

Correct Lord Dynel. I just checked the Ghost entry in AD&D MM. Regular attack roll from the Ghost.

[Treebore]

As much as I hate running 3E D&D the system does have the most rock solid rules. Since C&C is an OGL game based off of those rules, I always look at the free SRD and see how its done in 3E, and then adapt it to my C&C games. Its what I use for my magic item stacking rules, and anything else I want some guidance on. They also did a good job of making Polymorph less problematic near the end with their last bits of errata.

So I would look at the 3E SRD.

[Arduin]

As much as I hate running 3E D&D the system does have the most rock solid rules.

Not sure about that. It (3.X) has the most spaghetti like rules... Seriously though, the D20 mechanics are based on the SRD. The flavour is more 1st edition...

[Treebore]

As much as I hate running 3E D&D the system does have the most rock solid rules.

Not sure about that. It (3.X) has the most spaghetti like rules... Seriously though, the D20 mechanics are based on the SRD. The flavour is more 1st edition...

Believe me, after running C&C weekly for nearly 7 years, and usually playing in 1 or two more additional games every week, I am well aware of what the "flavor" is. Still, 3E has the best write up of the rules for just about every situation, so I refer to it. By all means look back at how it was done in OD&D, 1E or 2E AD&D, because 3E didn't always do it better, but odds are, it did.

[Arduin]

By all means look back at how it was done in OD&D, 1E or 2E AD&D, because 3E didn't always do it better, but odds are, it did.

Hardly, that's why C&C took the rules lite approach, UNLIKE 3.X. Odds are that is because, it DIDN'T "do it better"...

[Treebore]

By all means look back at how it was done in OD&D, 1E or 2E AD&D, because 3E didn't always do it better, but odds are, it did.

Hardly, that's why C&C took the rules lite approach, UNLIKE 3.X. Odds are that is because, it DIDN'T "do it better"...

Well, we are going to have to agree to disagree, then. Obviously we do agree enough that we both use the same rules system. So it appears we only disagree on which system has the best, and clearest, write up of their rules.

[Snoring Rock]

Deflection Bonus fomr the SRD:

"A deflection bonus affects Armor Class and is granted by a spell or magic effect that makes attacks veer off harmlessly. Deflection bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other deflection bonuses. A deflection bonus applies against touch attacks"

So, a deflection is any MAGICAL AC bonus. So, that is where the magical part of the armor becomes important. It bestows a bonus to that touch attack deflection, thus helping against magical or incorporeal critters. But those little +1's and a+2's dont go far.

[Treebore]

Deflection Bonus fomr the SRD:

"A deflection bonus affects Armor Class and is granted by a spell or magic effect that makes attacks veer off harmlessly. Deflection bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC except other deflection bonuses. A deflection bonus applies against touch attacks"

So, a deflection is any MAGICAL AC bonus. So, that is where the magical part of the armor becomes important. It bestows a bonus to that touch attack deflection, thus helping against magical or incorporeal critters. But those little +1's and a+2's dont go far.

They aren't meant to. Thats why you will see me often casting Protection From Evil and other Armor enhancing spells. Even so, incorporeal attacks remain a serious threat, just as they should compared to corporeal attacks.

[serleran]

Magical adjustments nearly always apply; the few cases where one could argue they should not would be against creatures wholly immune to magic -- note, for example, this would not mean golems are unaffected because they are not completely immune to magic, but extremely resistant. That could be interpreted as a house rule, of course, but the intent of magical armor is to provide a bonus against attacks; in accordance with 1e and 2e sources, one could even allow the adjustment from armor to apply to purely physical magical attacks, such as a bonus to save against fireball or against a breath weapon. This is, as I recall, not specified anywhere in the RAW but that certainly does not prevent one (like myself) from using it, pulling from a background of experience with other systems. The core complaint would be that new players would have no concept of this; perhaps, if anything, some clarification of options can be provided, and this is the detail that most causes "issues" with C&C.

Beyond that, a new method that I have not actually used and is very far outside the "source material" is something like this... a magical bonus can outright negate damage from incorporeal attacks, in a similar manner that some creatures can only be harmed by magical weapons. The execution would be as follows:

Bonus ... Max HD Negated
+1 or lower .... --
+2 ... 3
+3 ... 5
+4 ... 7
+5 ... 9

Therefore, if a wraith (let's say it is 5 HD, even if it has more / less by the rules) attacks a fighter, should that fighter's armor be +3 or greater, he has no fear of the attack... it might "hit" but deal no damage, although a level loss still happens because all the wraith needs to do is hit (if it was contingent on successfully dealing damage, like some abilities are, there would be another story.)

Obviously, this makes magic armor very, very valuable.

[Treebore]

In 1E AD&D it does specify that armor bonus does add to saves versus things like Fireball. A rule that I never saw a DM aside from myself use, which is why I remember it.

[serleran]

Yes, previous editions have it as an option but C&C, as I remember, makes no mention of it.

[Treebore]

Yes, previous editions have it as an option but C&C, as I remember, makes no mention of it.

Yeah, it was definitely treated as optional, just like Weapons versus armor and weapon speeds were. Plus a number of other things, depending on the DM.

[Lurker]

In 1E AD&D it does specify that armor bonus does add to saves versus things like Fireball. A rule that I never saw a DM aside from myself use, which is why I remember it.

Wow, I have never heard that before ... You mean all those saves that I was within 1-3 (depending on the character & his armor) of making were good ... To all those DMs from 20 years ago, I feel cheated I want my characters back!!!!!

[serleran]

Page 81, 1st Edition AD&D DMG covers when armor bonuses can be applied to saves and for which attack types.

Please note, though this is more applicable to the thread on expert items, that I also grant a +1 save bonus which is added to that of any magical adjustment, so the minimum +1 chain armor gives +2 on saves.

This is the primary reason why rings of protection do not function with magical armor -- the bonuses would be ridiculous.