Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lightblade 08-05-07, 11:06 PM	Before people think this is an obvious question, my archer has Favored Enemy: Undead and the Swift Hunter feat, so I can skirmish undead just fine. From the feat: "In addition, your skirmish extra damage applies against any creature you have selected as a favored enemy, even if it is normally immune to extra damage from critical hits or skirmish attacks." Now, the small problem with incorporealness, as found in the DMG (pg 295). "Incorporeal creatures are immune to critical hits, extra damage from from being favored enemies, and from sneak attacks." Is the skirmish damage I get against incorporeal undead a result of it being my favored enemy? If so, no skirmish for me.
Puggle Halfwine 08-05-07, 11:36 PM	I would say your skirmish works. The text of the feat overrides the immunities listed in the DMG. You wouldn't get your favoured enemy bonus damage, but you would get your skirmish.
_metz_ 08-05-07, 11:44 PM	I would say your skirmish works. The text of the feat overrides the immunities listed in the DMG. You wouldn't get your favoured enemy bonus damage, but you would get your skirmish. That would be ignoring the rules. It doesn't override the immunities, its more complicated than that. The specific statement of 'ignoring favoured enemies' states that skirmish works on creatures immune to criticals and sneak attack, but only ones that your favoured enemy rule applies to. As Incorporeals are immune to favoured enemy, the class feature doesn't work on them. (They cannot be your favoured enemy as they are immune to it) I would rule no Skirmish for you. Its the Favoured enemy that is giving it to you in the case of the undead.
Lightblade 08-05-07, 11:53 PM	That would be ignoring the rules. The specific statement of 'ignoring favoured enemies' states that skirmish works on creatures immune to criticals and sneak attack, but only ones that your favoured enemy rule applies to. As Incorporeals are immune to favoured enemy, the class feature doesn't work on them. (They cannot be your favoured enemy as they are immune to it) Hence no Skirmish for you. Its the Favoured enemy that is giving it to you in the case of the undead. They are not immune to being my favored enemy, only "extra damage from favored enemy". I still get my bonuses to spot them or whatnot. The question is more of "Is skirmish damage 'extra damage from being a favored enemy' in this case?".
_metz_ 08-05-07, 11:56 PM	They are not immune to being my favored enemy, only "extra damage from favored enemy". I still get my bonuses to spot them or whatnot. The question is more of "Is skirmish damage 'extra damage from being a favored enemy' in this case?". In that particular situation, expect table variation. Skirmish damage in this case is extra damage precluded on the favoured enemy, so some judges would allow it, others would not. I personally probably wouldn't allow it, as I see one being linked to the other directly (in this case), but some other judges might allow it, and I wouldn't hold it against them for doing so. Its definitely a core rules issue though.
Jay_Ibero_911 08-06-07, 12:23 AM	I could have sworn that somewhere it was errata'd or faq's that favored enemy does work on incorporeals because it's not precision damage, but I can't seem to find it anywhere, so it must've been my imagination, even though I can't think of the justification for it not working anyway...I thought it'd be funny for a swift hunter to pummel a ghost adding skirmish to damage from a wand of cure light wounds.
DuctShuiTengu 08-06-07, 12:26 AM	Personally, I wouldn't allow it. With incorporeal creatures being immune to crits/sneak attack (and thus skirmish), and damage from being favored enemies, I'd say they have you coming and going. Undead normally aren't vulnerable to skirmish damage. Due to Swift Hunter, you're able to apply skirmish damage to undead because they are your favored enemy. Incorporeal creatures are immune to "extra damage from from being favored enemies." Since them being a favored enemy is what allows you to apply skirmish damge even though they're undead, I'd say that it gets caught by the extra damage from favored enemy clause.
JamesMaissen 08-06-07, 02:38 AM	Personally, I wouldn't allow it. With incorporeal creatures being immune to crits/sneak attack (and thus skirmish), and damage from being favored enemies, I'd say they have you coming and going. Undead normally aren't vulnerable to skirmish damage. Due to Swift Hunter, you're able to apply skirmish damage to undead because they are your favored enemy. Incorporeal creatures are immune to "extra damage from from being favored enemies." Since them being a favored enemy is what allows you to apply skirmish damge even though they're undead, I'd say that it gets caught by the extra damage from favored enemy clause. Swift Hunter allows skirmish damage against favored enemies despite being immune to crits. It doesn't matter *how* one is immune to crits.. just that they are a favored enemy. The damage is from skirmish and NOT favored enemy. Also, shouldn't that DMG information also be in the MMs? -James
Arvagor 08-06-07, 10:21 PM	I could have sworn that somewhere it was errata'd or faq's that favored enemy does work on incorporeals because it's not precision damage, but I can't seem to find it anywhere, [...]FAQ, 7/13/07, page 22, right after the Ranger heading: Does a ranger still deal extra damage to a favored enemy immune to critical hits (such as constructs or undead)? Yes.
Jay_Ibero_911 08-06-07, 10:28 PM	FAQ, 7/13/07, page 22, right after the Ranger heading: Does a ranger still deal extra damage to a favored enemy immune to critical hits (such as constructs or undead)? Yes. Ah, but that doesn't change things for incorporeal undead, because immunity to favored enemy damage is a special trait of being incorporeal, not undead.
Mommy was an Orc 08-06-07, 10:42 PM	Ah, but that doesn't change things for incorporeal undead, because immunity to favored enemy damage is a special trait of being incorporeal, not undead. It actually isn't. Monster Manual overrules DMG in this instance. Monster Manual does not state that and it is the logical place to look such information up 99% of the time when dealing with Incorporeals...
ShinAkuma2 08-07-07, 04:22 AM	It actually isn't. Monster Manual overrules DMG in this instance. Monster Manual does not state that and it is the logical place to look such information up 99% of the time when dealing with Incorporeals... The SRD has "immune to ... extra damage from being favored enemies" as well. The MM entry doesn't say that an Incorporeal creature is immune to crits/Sneak Attack either, while the DMG does...Would you run a non-Undead incorporeal creature as being vulnerable to critical hits? Examples in include Unbodied, an incorporeal monstrous humanoid, Neh-Thalggu, an incorporeal abberation, and Phane, an incorporeal outsider.... As for relevant-to-Greyhawk examples, anything under the effect of Blink is incorporeal, due to being ethereal ("As an incorporeal creature, you can move through solid objects, including living creatures." ~Blink spell). So do you think someone that is Blinking is immune to crits or not?
Mithreinmaethor 08-07-07, 06:35 AM	From the Errata Files.... Errata Rule: Primary Sources When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. A monster’s statistics block supersedes the descriptive text. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player’s Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for PC races, and the base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master’s Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player’s Handbook, you should assume the Player’s Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master’s Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities So an Incorporeal creature is not immune to crits, sneak attack or damage from favored enemy unless it gains these immunities from another type/subtype (i.e undead etc)
Mommy was an Orc 08-07-07, 09:19 AM	The SRD has "immune to ... extra damage from being favored enemies" as well. The MM entry doesn't say that an Incorporeal creature is immune to crits/Sneak Attack either, while the DMG does...Would you run a non-Undead incorporeal creature as being vulnerable to critical hits? Examples in include Unbodied, an incorporeal monstrous humanoid, Neh-Thalggu, an incorporeal abberation, and Phane, an incorporeal outsider.... Yes, I would run a non-Undead incorporeal creature as being vulnerable to critical hits unless the monster specifically said it otherwise for three reasons: Blink - Blink makes you incorporeal, lists its various effects, but mentions nothing about being immune to crits. And given the nature of the spell, I'm not sure why a caster blinking would suddenly be immune to crits - if you get hit, that's because you're in the real world. Or for that matter a targeted force spell - it is hitting you on both the material and ethereal plane - how do you not have vital organs? What it says about Rangers in DMG - in 3.0, Favored Enemy was a form of precision damage - didn't work past 30', didn't affect things immune to crits. i.e. I think it is pretty clear that DMG is using the 3.25 version of Incorporeal(because it included Ranger damage) and Monster Manual is using the 3.5 version. They made a decision to change things for whatever reason - probably to allow the existence of non-undead incorporeals. As above - in terms of Monster abilities, Monster Manual is considered the primary source.
Timlagor 08-07-07, 02:48 PM	It actually isn't. Monster Manual overrules DMG in this instance. Monster Manual does not state that and it is the logical place to look such information up 99% of the time when dealing with Incorporeals... This only applies where there is a contradiction. There is no contradiction in this case.
Mommy was an Orc 08-07-07, 02:57 PM	This only applies where there is a contradiction. There is no contradiction in this case. Monster Manual does not grant immunity to critical hits. DMG does. I'd call that a big contradiction. And it strongly appears that DMG is denying Ranger Favored Enemy on that basis because Ranger 3.0 did precision damage and couldn't hurt things immune to critical hits. i.e. it was written prior to Ranger 3.5 and MM 3.5.
Lightblade 08-07-07, 05:21 PM	This only applies where there is a contradiction. There is no contradiction in this case. We're not looking for a contradiction, only for a disagreement. While I might not say that the two entries contradict one another, I do believe that they disagree.
Timlagor 08-07-07, 05:48 PM	An absence of comment is not a contradiction. You cannot ignore a rule simply because it doesn't appear somewhere you would expect it to be.
Mommy was an Orc 08-07-07, 08:00 PM	An absence of comment is not a contradiction. You cannot ignore a rule simply because it doesn't appear somewhere you would expect it to be. Sure it is a contradiction - it is an obvious cut and paste. Incorporeal should say exactly the same thing in both books as there's no valid reason for saying anything different. And yes, that very well means you can ignore the DMG rule because MM supercedes it.
JamesMaissen 08-09-07, 01:06 AM	An absence of comment is not a contradiction. You cannot ignore a rule simply because it doesn't appear somewhere you would expect it to be. That's nice and academic as the FAQ removes it. It also seems to be a place where they obviously missed a 3.5 change. It would be nice if we could accept these places for what they are and not slavishly adhere to them. But then again I want to be finally freed of the silly random magic item tables, James