Is "No Touching" a worthwhile Armor Property

[Martial_law]

So Im looking at Armor Properties, and I come across Ghost Ward. Is it really a worthwhile property? Are touch attacks really a problem for some people? The campaign is low/no magic, biggest casters are rangers & paladin types.

Are there non-magic attacks that are debilitating enough to make it worth buying?

[rmnimoc]

If you aren't a dragon you don't need to worry about touch attacks that much, especially in a low magic game.

[HammeredWharf]

In a high magic, high op game, touch AC is very important vs. certain spells, such as Orb of X. You can also buy a +1 Ghost Ward armor and get Greater Magic Vestment cast on it.

In your case, the most common and nasty touch attacks you'll see are trip/grapple attempts, which could be quite common, if your DM likes them. However, they're usually attempted by characters with high Attack and will hit you anyway.

[Totema]

Ghost Touch (DMG) fulfills that role pretty nicely, and it gets better with more enhancement bonuses, meaning Magic Vestment will come in handy.

[HammeredWharf]

Ghost Touch is a +3 enchantment and only applies to attacks of incorporeal creatures. Ghost Ward is handy against all touch attacks.

[Totema]

Ghost Touch is a +3 enchantment and only applies to attacks of incorporeal creatures. Ghost Ward is handy against all touch attacks.

Yeah, my bad on this one >.> It's 3 AM here, heheh...

[Erik Vale]

It is...
For a NPC/NPC's going up against a warlock who want to ruin his day [3/4 enough to hit everything at high level, think again mate. We'll wait here whilst you go and cry], and people fighting magic users using ranged touch spells, and as said grapplers [but you really should be looking to FOM for those due to it's wider effect].

Unfortunately however, your always going to loose to inteligently played wizards unless you are a wizard [insert other tier one spellcaster of your choice in place of wizard], your not a NPC and you may well not be going up against large numbers of warlocks, and FOM negates grapplers. This means it's competing with lots of other things as a niche enchantment.

[Spore]

The question is:

Is that world really THAT low magic? Even in an fantasy middle age RPG a real witch could be possible. They are not in plain view however. Do monsters exist in that campaign world? Or will you be fighting only NPCs, animals and the environment.

Keep in mind, Middle-Earth is also low-magic/high fantasy and they meet giant vermin, dragons, and more. But unlike in Faerun, a disease, a wound or a long and strenous journey really poses a threat to your character's health. There is no superhuman cleric in every other town to remove your disease, to restore your exhaustion and no mage academy that teleports you for a rather small amount of gold.

[Naanomi]

Trip attack, Grapple... still touch attacks to initiate right?

[Urpriest]

So Im looking at Armor Properties, and I come across Ghost Ward. Is it really a worthwhile property? Are touch attacks really a problem for some people? The campaign is low/no magic, biggest casters are rangers & paladin types.

Are there non-magic attacks that are debilitating enough to make it worth buying?

Low/no magic doesn't actually mean anything in 3.5. If you can buy armor properties, then clearly some magic exists, and we have no way of knowing how much unless you tell us.

[Eldaran]

Low/no magic doesn't actually mean anything in 3.5. If you can buy armor properties, then clearly some magic exists, and we have no way of knowing how much unless you tell us.

He put right in his post that the biggest casters are Rangers and Paladins, that's a pretty good example of the level of magic.

[Urpriest]

He put right in his post that the biggest casters are Rangers and Paladins, that's a pretty good example of the level of magic.

It's also irrelevant, since most magic is monster-based.

[Spuddles]

It's also irrelevant, since most magic is monster-based.

Beholders, for instance.

[Hangwind]

Yes. One word: Wights.

[Urpriest]

Yes. One word: Wights.

Not a touch attack.

On the other hand, anything incorporeal makes touch attacks. So do those tripping and grappling you, as mentioned, although in general boosting touch AC isn't the best defense against those. So do a few monsters with "beam of X" attacks, like aforementioned Beholders. So do people exploiting Deep Impact (Wild Talent is quite a bit less "casting" than a full Paladin or Ranger), or Wraithstrike (if these Paladins and Rangers take Sword of the Arcane Order). So it really depends.

[Spuddles]

Most monsters that grapple come with improved grab. Not all, like the more humanoid shaped ones, but bears and tigers certainly do.

[Rubik]

I'd go for miss chances. A ring of entropic deflection (8,000 gp, MIC) gives you a miss chance caused by a force effect actually pushing ranged attacks away, and when combined with boots of skating (7,000 gp, XPH) gives you a full 50% miss chance. Combine with Blink (for a miss chance caused by being on another plane entirely), Blur (caused by concealment), and Mirror Image (which isn't actually a miss chance, but it might as well be), it'd be nearly impossible to hit you successfully. And I don't care what the FAQ says; they all stack, since they're from entirely separate effects.

Beyond that, a single level of conjuror wizard could grab you abrupt jaunt, and a shadow cloak (5,500 gp, Drow of the Underdark) gives you the same basic effect 3/day.

[Eldaran]

It's also irrelevant, since most magic is monster-based.

Most campaigns I play tend to have primarily humanoid antagonists, or at least class based rather than monster based enemies. I suppose your experience differs.

[Urpriest]

Most campaigns I play tend to have primarily humanoid antagonists, or at least class based rather than monster based enemies. I suppose your experience differs.

Probably. I'd guess that my experience is more common, though: it's easier for new DMs to use published monsters than to stat out every single humanoid, after all.