Parrying Shield and incorporeals [Archive] - Wizards Community

Parrying Shield and incorporeals [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Adolph_Kheebler
07-14-07, 08:15 AM The rules are pretty clear on this, but it still irritates the hell out of me. I have a guy in my game who with his tower shield easily has an AC of 35. He has parrying shield. I throw dread wraiths at them and they still can't hit. I know that this is more of a rant than a quest for advice but it just pisses me off that parrying shield should work for incorporeal touch attacks. What is it, do you block the incorporeal with the shield? How can that work?
Talon Stormwarden
07-14-07, 10:33 AM What is a parrying shield? I'd be very surprised if the definition allows it to count vs incorporeal attacks.
Myzery78
07-14-07, 11:08 AM While its a little odd with the name, in this particular case I'd assume the feat works by hiding yourself behind the shield making it more difficult for the wraith to pinpoint exactly where you are.
Talon Stormwarden
07-14-07, 12:14 PM Ahh, I see, it's a feat not an item, from Lord of Madness. It says you get to add your shield bonus to your touch AC. Shield Ward from PHBII does the same thing and more.

Here's the problem I see with both of these feats. There is no actual definition of 'touch AC' in the SRD or PHB that I can find. Both touch attacks and incorporeal touch attacks define what AC bonuses count and which don't.

An incorporeal creature’s attacks pass through (ignore) natural armor, armor, and shields, although deflection bonuses and force effects (such as mage armor) work normally against it.

Touch Attacks: Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally.

Unless someone can point me to a RAW definition of 'touch AC' (with sources, I thought I knew what touch ac meant, but I couldn't find it anywhere), here's how I'd resolve your quandry. I'd say that 'touch AC' is the AC used in 'touch attacks'. An 'incorporeal touch attack' isn't the same as a 'touch attack', and so the benefit of Parrying Shield and Shield Ward won't apply. This eliminates the apparent logical problem of allowing a shield to count against a ghost's attack.

I'd welcome any dissenting opinions, but that's how I see it at the moment.
Ebonarc
07-14-07, 11:43 PM After a thorough search of the PHB, I didn't find a definition. The best I got was the same passage you quoted.

Based on the SRD passage you quoted, I'd define touch AC as:

touch armor class: The armor class that must be bested when making a touch attack. A touch attack includes all the bonuses of normal armor class with the exception of armor, shield, and natural armor bonuses.
Ebonarc
07-14-07, 11:50 PM Just a thought, but:

It's "incorporeal touch" attack, not incorporeal "touch attack". If that feat only applies to touch attacks, then those dread wraiths got cheated.

"Incorporeal touch" is the name of the attack, just like "slam" or "bite". It doesn't actually say that it is a touch attack, that's just the name of the attack form. Since the attack is incorporeal, the effect is roughly the same, since they ignore the exact same bonuses. However, that doesn't, even with the name as it is, count as a touch attack, IMHO.

Again, if that feats counts towards touch attacks only, those wraiths were cheated.

And even if it doesn't, that still makes no sense.
Andrew
07-15-07, 02:40 AM The feat would not benefit against the wraiths. The incorporeal touch attacks bypass the shield, armor, and other bonuses provided by material armors. The wraith isn't attacking your touch AC, they are ignoring most bonuses from your normal AC, which usually means they are striking against a PC's touch AC.
Anathema
07-15-07, 07:52 PM The idea behind touch attacks is that you're defending yourself only by getting out of the way.

The idea behind incorporeal touch attacks is that the creature is able to reach through any physical barrier, thereby the only way to defend yourself would be to get out of the way.

It might seem like a logical break to allow this feat to apply to incorporeal touches, but sometimes that's the way it goes with D&D rules. This may also be why the feat was listed in a book for DM's.

Sure, a tower shield's +4 shield bonus (plus enhancements) might be tough to get through when applied to touch AC, but a tower shield limiting your max DEX bonus to 2 should keep this in check.

What is the character using to get a 35 AC? (Not that it's difficult to achieve, just wondering what the break down is)
mvincent
07-16-07, 12:01 PM There is no actual definition of 'touch AC' in the SRD or PHB that I can find. Edit: your quotes seemed to give the appropriate definitions

An 'incorporeal touch attack' isn't the same as a 'touch attack', and so the benefit of Parrying Shield and Shield Ward won't apply.Agreed.
Talon Stormwarden
07-17-07, 06:08 PM Edit: your quotes seemed to give the appropriate definitions

Agreed.

Actually, my quotes are simply definitions of 'touch attack' and 'incorporeal touch attack'. Nowhere in the SRD or PHB could I find mention of the term 'touch AC'. Now, I'll grant you that it seems like kind of a 'duh' that everyone knows what 'touch AC' means, but we're talking about RAW here, and arguments have been waged for much less.

I, and it seems most people agree with me, think that 'touch AC' is defined as 'the Armor Class against a touch attack'. But as that's not explicitly defined anywhere in the books, it's not surprising that a player took 'touch AC' to also have some bearing regarding 'incorporeal touch attacks'. That's why he was applying his shield bonus against them by dint of the feat that adds the shield's AC to 'touch AC'.

To clarify, it seems that I we agree on the understood definition of 'touch AC', I'm just pointing out how the lack of an actual definition in the rules could lead to the situation the OP encountered.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Adolph_Kheebler 07-14-07, 08:15 AM	The rules are pretty clear on this, but it still irritates the hell out of me. I have a guy in my game who with his tower shield easily has an AC of 35. He has parrying shield. I throw dread wraiths at them and they still can't hit. I know that this is more of a rant than a quest for advice but it just pisses me off that parrying shield should work for incorporeal touch attacks. What is it, do you block the incorporeal with the shield? How can that work?
Talon Stormwarden 07-14-07, 10:33 AM	What is a parrying shield? I'd be very surprised if the definition allows it to count vs incorporeal attacks.
Myzery78 07-14-07, 11:08 AM	While its a little odd with the name, in this particular case I'd assume the feat works by hiding yourself behind the shield making it more difficult for the wraith to pinpoint exactly where you are.
Talon Stormwarden 07-14-07, 12:14 PM	Ahh, I see, it's a feat not an item, from Lord of Madness. It says you get to add your shield bonus to your touch AC. Shield Ward from PHBII does the same thing and more. Here's the problem I see with both of these feats. There is no actual definition of 'touch AC' in the SRD or PHB that I can find. Both touch attacks and incorporeal touch attacks define what AC bonuses count and which don't. An incorporeal creature’s attacks pass through (ignore) natural armor, armor, and shields, although deflection bonuses and force effects (such as mage armor) work normally against it. Touch Attacks: Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. Unless someone can point me to a RAW definition of 'touch AC' (with sources, I thought I knew what touch ac meant, but I couldn't find it anywhere), here's how I'd resolve your quandry. I'd say that 'touch AC' is the AC used in 'touch attacks'. An 'incorporeal touch attack' isn't the same as a 'touch attack', and so the benefit of Parrying Shield and Shield Ward won't apply. This eliminates the apparent logical problem of allowing a shield to count against a ghost's attack. I'd welcome any dissenting opinions, but that's how I see it at the moment.
Ebonarc 07-14-07, 11:43 PM	After a thorough search of the PHB, I didn't find a definition. The best I got was the same passage you quoted. Based on the SRD passage you quoted, I'd define touch AC as: touch armor class: The armor class that must be bested when making a touch attack. A touch attack includes all the bonuses of normal armor class with the exception of armor, shield, and natural armor bonuses.
Ebonarc 07-14-07, 11:50 PM	Just a thought, but: It's "incorporeal touch" attack, not incorporeal "touch attack". If that feat only applies to touch attacks, then those dread wraiths got cheated. "Incorporeal touch" is the name of the attack, just like "slam" or "bite". It doesn't actually say that it is a touch attack, that's just the name of the attack form. Since the attack is incorporeal, the effect is roughly the same, since they ignore the exact same bonuses. However, that doesn't, even with the name as it is, count as a touch attack, IMHO. Again, if that feats counts towards touch attacks only, those wraiths were cheated. And even if it doesn't, that still makes no sense.
Andrew 07-15-07, 02:40 AM	The feat would not benefit against the wraiths. The incorporeal touch attacks bypass the shield, armor, and other bonuses provided by material armors. The wraith isn't attacking your touch AC, they are ignoring most bonuses from your normal AC, which usually means they are striking against a PC's touch AC.
Anathema 07-15-07, 07:52 PM	The idea behind touch attacks is that you're defending yourself only by getting out of the way. The idea behind incorporeal touch attacks is that the creature is able to reach through any physical barrier, thereby the only way to defend yourself would be to get out of the way. It might seem like a logical break to allow this feat to apply to incorporeal touches, but sometimes that's the way it goes with D&D rules. This may also be why the feat was listed in a book for DM's. Sure, a tower shield's +4 shield bonus (plus enhancements) might be tough to get through when applied to touch AC, but a tower shield limiting your max DEX bonus to 2 should keep this in check. What is the character using to get a 35 AC? (Not that it's difficult to achieve, just wondering what the break down is)
mvincent 07-16-07, 12:01 PM	There is no actual definition of 'touch AC' in the SRD or PHB that I can find. Edit: your quotes seemed to give the appropriate definitions An 'incorporeal touch attack' isn't the same as a 'touch attack', and so the benefit of Parrying Shield and Shield Ward won't apply.Agreed.
Talon Stormwarden 07-17-07, 06:08 PM	Edit: your quotes seemed to give the appropriate definitions Agreed. Actually, my quotes are simply definitions of 'touch attack' and 'incorporeal touch attack'. Nowhere in the SRD or PHB could I find mention of the term 'touch AC'. Now, I'll grant you that it seems like kind of a 'duh' that everyone knows what 'touch AC' means, but we're talking about RAW here, and arguments have been waged for much less. I, and it seems most people agree with me, think that 'touch AC' is defined as 'the Armor Class against a touch attack'. But as that's not explicitly defined anywhere in the books, it's not surprising that a player took 'touch AC' to also have some bearing regarding 'incorporeal touch attacks'. That's why he was applying his shield bonus against them by dint of the feat that adds the shield's AC to 'touch AC'. To clarify, it seems that I we agree on the understood definition of 'touch AC', I'm just pointing out how the lack of an actual definition in the rules could lead to the situation the OP encountered.