Energy Types

[Ariadne]

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?

[Xeres]

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

[CMonkey]

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.

[Ariadne]

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...

[kgauck]

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

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Birthright-L]

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

we`re clear: a cure spell doesn`t 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

[Birthright-L]

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. I`m tired; it`s 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

[Azrai]

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).

[Birthright-L]

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.



I`m truly sorry about my previous posts on this subject: they`re all wrong.



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

[destowe]

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.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Birthright-L@Jul 12 2003, 12:56 PM
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













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 ;)

[Ariadne]

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?

[Birthright-L]

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

[Birthright-L]

/>
> 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 don`t. Ghost touch weapons can`t 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

[kgauck]

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

kgauck@mchsi.com

[RaspK_FOG]

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!

1. 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.

2. 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...

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Well, even incorporeal creatures can be affected by Turning if they are undead... The problem is they are not always undead.

7. 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.

6. 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.

[Peter Lubke]

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?

[kgauck]

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

kgauck@mchsi.com

[geeman]

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

[Birthright-L]

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 that`s happened in the text you`ve 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 isn`t absolute. It`s

not invalid, and it`s certainly a valid point, but it`s 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

isn`t "this can`t 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. That`s great. Sounds like an interesting topic. But don`t attack

other people because they`re answering someone`s 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

[geeman]

3 -0600, Kenneth Gauck wrote:



>Let me reverse the 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.



Isn`t positive energy the same stuff that heals the living? Hence its

damaging effected on the nonliving undead in the same way that the negative

energy wielded by evil or otherwise negatively aligned clerics that damages

the living can heal the undead. By extension, isn`t turning a use of

positive energy and taking control of undead a use of negative energy?



>>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.



The earlier question did specifically mention gaseous form v.

incorporable. While this might not be terribly well spelled out in the

texts it is covered in the rules, and would seem to be pretty accurately

described by the descriptors used above. A character turned into "gaseous

form" is not incorporeal, and cannot therefore attack an incorporeal

creature--at least not any more effectively than s/he could when solid. He

couldn`t pass into an airtight container, while an incorporeal character

could. If a person in gaseous form could attack an incorporeal creature

than what about other energy/material states? Would water elementals be

effective against ghosts? That`s just a few degrees away from gaseous. A

gust of wind could knock over a ghost if the state of matter that was not

"massy" allowed one to "penetrate" into the realm of the incorporeal.



Probably a better way to think of an incorporeal object is to note that it

is shifted into another (usually "adjacent") plane of existence in such a

way that its perceptions are on both, but it`s physical body is on the

alternate plane, and has very limited interaction with the material

plane. Gaseous characters are not plane shifted, and don`t interact any

more directly with the physical aspect of the incorporeal character than

any other material character. You could suck a gaseous creature up in a

giant bellows, but one wouldn`t want a set of rules that allowed one to

suck up a ghost. One needs a specifically designed Ghost Busters type

device for that....



It might even make sense to describe incorporeal creatures by noting the

plane their shifted to (assuming that in the BR cosmology there are

parallel planes from the MotP other than the

SW.) Incorporeal-shadow. Incorporeal-spirit. Incorporeal-ethereal. An

incorporeal-shadow character would not interact with an incorporeal-spirit

character any more than any material character.



>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.



I suppose they could if a struggle between smoke character and steam

character occurred in a campaign at some point, but gaseous combatants

isn`t what`s being addressed here... unless we`re assuming that ghosts are

gaseous instead of incorporeal and I missed that someplace.



Gary

[kgauck]

ge -----

From: <lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET>

Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:13 AM





> 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 that`s happened in the text you`ve quoted is someone agreed with

> that.



The rules invent a distinction between being gaseous and being incorporeal,

there is none in the common meaning of incorporeal. The corpus in question

us fleshm once you become a being of no flesh, whether you are a light

being, a fire being, a spririt, or a gas you are, by common usage

incorporeal. When we draw on sources outside of D&D, such as movies, we

often see cool things we might like to do or try in our games, but conflict

with the definitions of gaseous in the rules. To answer this question we

must ask ourselves what is it about the undead that may or may not make them

vulnerable to gases. What can a character do as a gas. The game provides

some explanations, but its not exhaustive of the whole imagination for what

it might be to become gaseous.



> One, the person quoted didn`t deserve your attack on him.



This a phantom attack, I`ll check my books on undead special attacks. Why

phantom, because it never took place. I suggested the inquiring person

proceed down a line of reasoning. You would have them consult the all

exhaustive and complete rules.



> Two, the situation is well-covered in the rules and so your last sentence

> doesn`t really apply.



Its well covered if the person meant that they become gaseous in a typical

D&D way and confront D&D`s incorporeal undead (outside of D&D, gaseous

vampires are incorporeal undead because they lack flesh yet possess a will).

If the player was asking about some kind of gaseousness that was not typical

D&D you are forced back into plumbing the source material, which if its a

movie, may not answer the question, or trying to reason your way around the

problem.



> 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 didn`t notice the qualifier that we should assume standard qualities.

Because it would be so easy to look up the answer in the well organized

materials, it seems reasonable to suppose there was more to the question

than looking for a simple reference.



> >> 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 isn`t absolute.



Now I have no idea what you are writing about. You earlier mention that

etherealness refers to beings on the ethereal plane and being made of the

same "stuff". I replied to this. Now you want to go back to some other

part of the message and pretend that I was refering to (presumably)

incorporeal and gaseous beings, rather than the seperate paragraph dealing

with becoming manifest on the ethereal plane, that is solid and tangible

with regard to beings there.



> 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

> isn`t "this can`t 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.



Except that you offer no evidence of being able to make sense of some

condition existing outside of the rules. Must a creature, who is a gas, act

in all ways as described on page 77 of the DMG. No gas being could be

created by clever players who could dissolve in water, use a fizz attack

from water (casues dizziness), or attack with force energy blows?



> 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.



If you go back and read my reply, this was the answer I presented as

standard. I on the other hand, was capable if imagining other, alternative

answers, and my answer to the original question works from that possibility.

Maybe someone didn`t have their books handy and was asking what it says on a

certain page about a certain situation. Maybe the questioner was looking

for answers about what is possible regarding gases making attacks. If that

is in fact the case, gasses wrestling other gasses has, in fact, everything

to do with the topic. If the question is contemplating alternatives to

gasses that don`t dissolve in water, can`t fly, and can`t interact with

ethereal or incorporeal beings, then such things must, but their very

nature, escape what the rules say.



> 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.



I don`t think the discussion is about the answer to the question. We both

stated that being incorporeal is different from being gaseous and advised

that gaseous character could not effectively attack incorporeal undead. The

disagreement revolves how we know that.



Kenneth Gauck

kgauck@mchsi.com

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Birthright-L@Jul 12 2003, 07:26 PM
You just love stirring up trouble, don`t you? : )
How do you know? :D

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by kgauck@Jul 14 2003, 09:59 AM
ge -----
From: <lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:13 AM

The worst part is I think this was all a isunderstanding. I`m fairly certain you`d both agree with another if you could communicate effectively and try to see where eachother`s coming from.

I don`t think the discussion is about the answer to the question. We both stated that being incorporeal is different from being gaseous and advise that gaseous character could not effectively attack incorporeal undead. The disagreement revolves how we know that.

Please, please. This is a thread about fighting undead, not fighting each other. It only seems, you're partially of the same opinion... ;)

[Peter Lubke]

t 02:08, Ariadne wrote:

> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=1801

>

> Ariadne wrote:

> ge -----

> From: <lordrahvin@SOFTHOME.NET>

> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2003 1:13 AM

>

> The worst part is I think this was all a isunderstanding. I`m fairly certain you`d both agree with another if you could communicate effectively and try to see where eachother`s coming from.

>

> I don`t think the discussion is about the answer to the question. We both stated that being incorporeal is different from being gaseous and advise that gaseous character could not effectively attack incorporeal undead. The disagreement revolves how we know that.

>

> Please, please. This is a thread about fighting undead, not fighting each other. It only seems, you`re partially of the same opinion... ;)

>

????

I though Kenneth WAS undead

????



** signed **

?Confused?