Only able to strike incorporeal creatures with finesse / ranged attacks?

An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects.

Does this mean a Strike attack roll can't be attempted against an incorporeal creature unless the weapon/unarmed attack is ranged or has the finesse trait?

Off-topic: WOW I hate the new archivesofnethys layout.

Attack Rolls:

"When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."

"Melee attack rolls use Strength as their ability modifier by default."

"Attack rolls are compared to a special difficulty class called an Armor Class (AC), which measures how hard it is for your foes to hit you with Strikes and other attack actions. Just like for any other check and DC, the result of an attack roll must meet or exceed your AC to be successful, which allows your foe to deal damage to you."

Hrmm. Without doing any digging through the Forums, you might have a point..

Hilariously, as pointed out in this thread from a couple years ago, a Ghost would be unable to make any attacks itself, since they don't have the Finesse Trait, and therefore default to being Strength-based.

So this is probably a good case for applying the Ambiguous Rules rule: ghosts should be able to be attacked in melee just as they should be able to attack in melee.

EDIT: searching archivesofnethys is super annoying right now, so it took me a bit, but the base ghost does use Finesse; it's the Ghost Pirate and its cutlass that doesn't.

I thought we were just discussing this not too long ago. Since Book of the Dead came out even.

Speaking of which, Ghost archetype indicates that it is assumed that incorporeal creatures have always only had the restriction on Strength based skill checks.

you can only attempt Strength-based skill checks—typically Athletics checks—against other incorporeal creatures, as normal for an incorporeal creature.

Though it is indeed not actually written that way in the CRB.

Hilariously, as pointed out in this thread from a couple years ago, a Ghost would be unable to make any attacks itself, since they don't have the Finesse Trait, and therefore default to being Strength-based.

So probably a good case for applying the Ambiguous Rules rule: ghosts should be able to be attacked in melee just as they should be able to attack in melee.

EDIT: searching archivesofnethys is super annoying right now, so it took me a bit, but the base ghost does use Finesse; it's the Ghost Pirate and its cutlass that doesn't.

My understanding is every monster and option with Incorporeal had Finesse based attack for this reason. Its just the new ones in Book of the Dead that have dropped the ball here. It used to be Strength based Checks for a reason.

Either its a deliberate change and they didn't bother to tell us,
Or the designers don't know the rules that well.

It was nice and consistent, unambiguous and 100% tight. But we obviously can't play it that way now that players can easily get incorporeal.
So Strength based Skill Checks it becomes.

They really need to update the CRB and errata the trait. But wait didn't they just do an errata?

Its best I do not express my dissapointment further.

Being immune to strength-based strikes would be one of the best defenses of any monster in the game by a huuuuge distance. So big that it would make no sense to hide it behind several layers of rules indirection for only the very sharp-eyed to notice. If something is that big and important, it should be stated explicitly and dramatically.

Also, incorporeal creatures would have to have some other big weaknesses to compensate, otherwise they'd just be far more powerful than other creatures of the same level. And that goes against the whole idea of creature level being an accurate indication of how powerful a creature is, which PF2 is pretty strict in. But there's no sign of that.

So I think it's pretty clear that what Book of the Dead refers to as normal is indeed how it's always been meant to be done.

It was nice and consistent, unambiguous and 100% tight.

No, it was a hilariously broken rules hiccup that, frankly, I saw most tables simply ignore outright.

It's best I do not express my disappointment further.

Sadly I'm regularly reminded that "We love feedback!" is just a PR statement at this point.

CRB wrote:

An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects.

Does this mean a Strike attack roll can't be attempted against an incorporeal creature unless the weapon/unarmed attack is ranged or has the finesse trait?

Where in the CRB is that quote from? I can't seem to find it.

Incorporeal
Source Bestiary pg. 346
"An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects."

It MIGHT be in CRB, but ATM I can't get nethys to search correctly for me.

Incorporeal (from Bestiary)

Oh, it's in the Bestiary. The OP said it was in the CRB so I was searching that pdf.

Incorporeal

Source Bestiary pg. 346
"An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects."

It MIGHT be in CRB, but ATM I can't get nethys to search correctly for me.

It's not there but it was only available to monsters, so the Bestairy not the CRB is the right place for it.

Gortle wrote:

It was nice and consistent, unambiguous and 100% tight.

No, it was a hilariously broken rules hiccup that, frankly, I saw most tables simply ignore outright.

Rubbish.

Its a monster ability, or rather was, not a player ability it didn't need to be nerfed/balanced to the same extent. There are plently of hints that that was how it should be played. Ghostly weapons are now fairly pointless unless you are a specialist ghost hunter.

Many GMs are rushed and just go with the details in the monsters. They saw resistance text on the monster and assumed that was it. That most people never played it that way was accidental not deliberate.

I want GMs to have tools that will make the players stop and try another tactic rather than just get the Barbarian to smash it with his magic weapon and ignore it's resistances/weaknesses. Resistances should mean something or its just as bad as D&D5 where magic weapon solves 99% of resistance scenarios, and you might as well remove the concept from the game.

I want GMs to have tools that will make the players stop and try another tactic rather than just get the Barbarian to smash it with his magic weapon and ignore it's resistances/weaknesses. Resistances should mean something or its just as bad as D&D5 where magic weapon solves 99% of resistance scenarios, and you might as well remove the concept from the game.

Well sure. Having to use different tactics on different enemies is a good thing.

But knowing that those different tactics are needed and what is going to be effective should make sense - both from the game mechanics perspective and in-world.

Having the Barbarian's main (strength-based) weapon - even if it is magical - be completely unable to work, but having a non-magical dagger work reasonably well doesn't make sense. I can't explain that in-world at all, and the game mechanics are really questionable.

Edit: Or even less explainable in-world: A shortsword won't work at all if you use Strength to attack with, but the same sword works fine if you use the Finesse trait to make the attack with your DEX bonus instead.

Gortle wrote:

I want GMs to have tools that will make the players stop and try another tactic rather than just get the Barbarian to smash it with his magic weapon and ignore it's resistances/weaknesses. Resistances should mean something or its just as bad as D&D5 where magic weapon solves 99% of resistance scenarios, and you might as well remove the concept from the game.

Well sure. Having to use different tactics on different enemies is a good thing.

But knowing that those different tactics are needed and what is going to be effective should make sense - both from the game mechanics perspective and in-world.

Having the Barbarian's main (strength-based) weapon - even if it is magical - be completely unable to work, but having a non-magical dagger work reasonably well doesn't make sense. I can't explain that in-world at all, and the game mechanics are really questionable.

Edit: Or even less explainable in-world: A shortsword won't work at all if you use Strength to attack with, but the same sword works fine if you use the Finesse trait to make the attack with your DEX bonus instead.

Its like the Dune Holtzman shield - you have to do it right. Its all in the technique

Ghostly weapons are now fairly pointless unless you are a specialist ghost hunter.

Ghost touch does exactly what it says on the tin, same as always.

That most people never played it that way was accidental not deliberate.

Some people, yeah, because it was such an unintuitive and oddly broken mechanic.

Other people read the rules carefully and realized ghosts being vulnerable to shortswords but not longswords was an obvious error and promptly discarded it.

I want GMs to have tools that will make the players stop and try another tactic

Encouraging people to try new tactics is great! Having literally no way to contribute to a fight because you're a level 2 Barbarian and the GM ruled you can't make Strikes against the enemy is not Cool Tactics or engaging gameplay though. I guess it's a good way to get a player to spend a whole fight browsing tiktok on their phone or something though. Maybe they'll make a demoralize check before checking out of the fight, if they're specced for it.

Resistances should mean something

But your version of the ability renders resistances meaningless because you can't actually make an attack in the first place.

Quote:

Resistances should mean something

But your version of the ability renders resistances meaningless because you can't actually make an attack in the first place.

The attack happens it just has no effect.

Pull out your bow, throw a dagger. Make a Recall Knowledge check. Observe that what other people are doing works.

Why are you giving up so soon? Encourage the players they do have options.

Every style of combat should have limits.

Hope the rest of the party isn't depending on the Barbarian's damage to defeat enemies.

Or are you simply expecting everyone that you play with to be a compulsive rules analyzer too and would just automatically know that they need to have a finesse weapon option available at all times.

Its a monster ability, or rather was, not a player ability it didn't need to be nerfed/balanced to the same extent. There are plently of hints that that was how it should be played. Ghostly weapons are now fairly pointless unless you are a specialist ghost hunter.

My initial question (sorry about citing the wrong rulebook) concerned something that affects players. The restriction on making strength-based checks works both ways. I wouldn't say a lower standard of editing and QA applies.

Gortle wrote:

It's best I do not express my disappointment further.

Sadly I'm regularly reminded that "We love feedback!" is just a PR statement at this point.

For the record? By comparison? It's really, really not.

We get so much more engagement from the designers here than I've seen from other sizeable RPG companies. The playtesting thing is huge. We've seen them change policy based on customer feedback. We've seen errata based on "this one random person said on social media that this thing made them super-uncomfortable and the designers decided that they agreed it wasn't right". They totally do love feedback.

It's just that their errata policies in particular are glacial in nature, and tend to just ignore stuff that came out of APs. Also, they maybe sometimes disagree with us.

Also, just to throw another weasel into the scrum, I'd argue that the ghost touch effect would be more specific than the "cant' use str checks against me" effect. Ghost Touch weapons are clearly intended to counter intangibility immunities, and if you put them on a str-based weapon and it still couldn't hit a ghost, then that would mean that the rune did nothing. So, for Specific vs General....

I'd argue that the ghost touch effect would be more specific than the "cant' use str checks against me" effect. Ghost Touch weapons are clearly intended to counter intangibility immunities, and if you put them on a str-based weapon and it still couldn't hit a ghost, then that would mean that the rune did nothing. So, for Specific vs General....

Thats a very tortured interpretation of both the incorporeal trait and the ghost touch rune.

But neither the Ghostly Weapon spell or the Ghost Touch rune actually say that they allow you to use strength based checks against an incorporeal creature.

So apparently a Ghost Touch longsword can be used by a ghost. And you would be able to touch the ghost with it. But still couldn't make an attack roll with it since that uses strength.

And it doesn't seem any more tortured of an interpretation than saying that you can't use the longsword against a ghost at all in the first place.

Edit: If this was indeed intended, then they should have specified that the Ghostly Weapon spell and the Ghost Touch rune both require a finesse or ranged weapon only.

sigh. As always when this comes up, yes the rules do literally make ghosts arbitrarily immune to some attack types in an interaction that most would (and do) miss since it is nowhere called out explicitly as a reminder that melee attack rolls are technically Strength-based checks. This bizarre interaction, if intended, would drastically alter incorporeal creatures from corporeal and all signs suggest that it is not intended, given that no mention of it comes up in BotD.

I don't think we need to get up in arms about which reading is RAI or RAW, since it is unlikely any amount of insisting on which reading is objectively most correct will actually change how people are already running incorporeality at their tables.

I'd hate to be in the party of the GM that decided to not apply any common sense to the obviously absurd idea of "incorporeal creatures are immune to strength attacks." Hopefully whenever we actually get the Bestiary 1 errata it'll clear this up. This is such an incredibly narrow reading of the rules that it just seems like it only exists to make you players mad.

This is such a ridiculous reading of the rules it reminds me of that thread where someone claimed that Wall of Fire does 0 damage if you stand inside it because it only does damage if you move "through" it. Just a complete unwillingness to consider a specific misreading in the context of the rest of the game.

all signs suggest that it is not intended, given that no mention of it comes up in BotD.

Ah, but it does come up in Book of the Dead. In Ghost archetype. It reminds you that the incorporeal trait means that, as normal, you can't use strength based skill checks against corporeal creatures.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

all signs suggest that it is not intended, given that no mention of it comes up in BotD.

Ah, but it does come up in Book of the Dead. In Ghost archetype. It reminds you that the incorporeal trait means that, as normal, you can't use strength based skill checks against corporeal creatures.

The rule in Book of the Dead is Anchored Incorporeality for the Ghost Companion. It repeats the Bestairy

It can't attempt Strength-based checks (such as Grapple) against corporeal creatures and corporeal creatures can't attempt such checks against it.

For the Ghost Archetype it does not say what you (breithauptclan) have claimed at all. You are adding in extra meaning while inverting it. Forgetting that the archetype has also just given out free Ghost Touch runes on all your weapons in the paragraph just prior. The wording is necessary and relevant and does not at all imply what you said.

For one, Anchored Incorporeality is for Ghost Companions and Ghost Familiars. I wasn't even looking at that. And yes, that one does match the wording of the Bestiary. Though it also gives Grapple as the example of a strength based check that wouldn't be allowed, but makes no mention that Strike is also not allowed.

And I'm not sure that the wording for Ghost Archetype is inverted.

An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects

you can only attempt Strength-based skill checks—typically Athletics checks—against other incorporeal creatures, as normal for an incorporeal creature.

One says "can't", the other says "can only". But "can only" is not the same as "can". It isn't giving a permission, it is listing a restriction. The same as "can't" is listing a restriction.

So the Bestiary Incorporeal forbids all strength based checks. The Ghost Archetype forbids only the strength based skill checks. Which implies that strength based checks that are not skill checks are allowed to be made. And it also implies that it has always been this way.

One says "can't", the other says "can only". But "can only" is not the same as "can". It isn't giving a permission, it is listing a restriction. The same as "can't" is listing a restriction.

To better illustrate this, consider a different pair of rules - for a hotel.

If a hotel lists "no pets allowed", that prevents bringing cats and dogs and fish with you when you stay there.

If instead the hotel lists "only dogs under 3 pounds allowed", that is still a restriction. It still prevents bringing all cats and fish, as well as preventing dogs over 3 pounds in weight.

A specific limited permission implies restrictions on things of that category that don't qualify for the permission.

Being arbitrarily immune to all strength based weapons, even ghost touch ones, is Too Good to Be True.

That someone is defending the RAW interpretation makes me once again marvel at this wide world and all the different kinds of people in it.

For one, Anchored Incorporeality is for Ghost Companions and Ghost Familiars. I wasn't even looking at that. And yes, that one does match the wording of the Bestiary. Though it also gives Grapple as the example of a strength based check that wouldn't be allowed, but makes no mention that Strike is also not allowed.

And I'm not sure that the wording for Ghost Archetype is inverted.

Incorporeal wrote:

An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects

Ghost Dedication wrote:

you can only attempt Strength-based skill checks—typically Athletics checks—against other incorporeal creatures, as normal for an incorporeal creature.

One says "can't", the other says "can only". But "can only" is not the same as "can". It isn't giving a permission, it is listing a restriction. The same as "can't" is listing a restriction.

So the Bestiary Incorporeal forbids all strength based checks. The Ghost Archetype forbids only the strength based skill checks. Which implies that strength based checks that are not skill checks are allowed to be made. And it also implies that it has always been this way.

Your deductions are warped. You can not make that conclusion because the paragraph before says Your incorporated weapons gain the benefits of the ghost touch property rune, allowing you to use them normally against both corporeal and incorporeal creatures.

The Ghost Touch effect doesn't actually remove the restrictions of Incorporeal trait preventing using strength based checks.

All it lists for benefits is that

* The weapon can harm creatures without a physical form (rather vague, and may simply apply to weapons using Dex based attacks)
* Mentions that many incorporeal creatures have an exception to their resistances and immunities for weapons with Ghost Touch (not actually a benefit that Ghost Touch gives directly).
* The Incorporeal creatures can touch, hold, and wield items affected by Ghost Touch.

So if you are reading the rules in a strict and pedantic manner, you still can't make a Strength based attack against a Ghost even with a Ghost touch weapon.

And if you are going to relax the pedantry a bit regarding Ghost Touch, why are we even having this conversation in the first place. I think the Ghost Touch rules are a lot more reasonable than preventing strength based attacks against a Ghost entirely.

The Ghost Touch effect doesn't actually remove the restrictions of Incorporeal trait preventing using strength based checks.

All it lists for benefits is that

* The weapon can harm creatures without a physical form (rather vague, and may simply apply to weapons using Dex based attacks)
* Mentions that many incorporeal creatures have an exception to their resistances and immunities for weapons with Ghost Touch (not actually a benefit that Ghost Touch gives directly).
* The Incorporeal creatures can touch, hold, and wield items affected by Ghost Touch.

So if you are reading the rules in a strict and pedantic manner, you still can't make a Strength based attack against a Ghost even with a Ghost touch weapon.

And if you are going to relax the pedantry a bit regarding Ghost Touch, why are we even having this conversation in the first place. I think the Ghost Touch rules are a lot more reasonable than preventing strength based attacks against a Ghost entirely.

Yes its natural English that doesn't mean its irrelevant. The whole point of ghost touch The weapon can harm creatures without physical form is to negate the incorporeal a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures That is the primary reason for Ghost Touch to exist. It is not just a flag to negate a little bit of resistance.

I can be sure my interpretation is correct because the reasoning is explicitly given in the Incoprporeal trait:
An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune then it goes straight on to Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects.
The Ghost Touch is relevant to the check not just the resistance. You are mistaken.

Incorporeal creatures typically have resistance to damage that you can use a ghost touch rune to bypass. That's what you use the rune for.

Let's analyze Ghost Touch then:

The weapon can harm creatures without physical form.

Your typical generic introductory sentence. Too vague to be actual mechanics. Paizo does this all the time, start a paragraph with a generic sentence that sketches out what this thing is about, and then follows it with an actual mechanical implementation.

A ghost touch weapon is particularly effective against incorporeal creatures, which almost always have a specific vulnerability to ghost touch weapons.

Still not mechanical itself, but tells us where to look for those mechanics.

Incorporeal creatures can touch, hold, and wield ghost touch weapons (unlike most physical objects).

Provides actual mechanics, and refers to prior mechanics that it overrides. And it doesn't say anything about authorizing Strength based checks, only about holding objects.

---

So then let's look at how incorporeal creatures have a specific vulnerability (not "weakness", notice the wording) to ghost touch.

Resistances all damage 15 (except force, ghost touch, or positive; double resistance vs. non-magical)

Resistances all 5 (except force, ghost touch, or negative; double resistance vs. non-magical)

Resistances all damage 12 (except force, ghost touch, or positive; double resistance vs. non-magical)

Resistances all damage 10 (except force, ghost touch, or positive, double resistance against non-magical)

Resistances all damage 5 (except force, ghost touch, or positive, double resistance against non-magical)

Resistances all damage 10 (except force, ghost touch, or positive; double resistance vs. non-magical); Weaknesses cold iron 5

Resistances all damage 2 (except force, ghost touch, or positive; double resistance vs. non-magical)

Resistances all 5 (except force, ghost touch, or positive^ double resistance against non-magical)

Resistances all 5 (except force, ghost touch, or positive

Resistances all damage 2 (except force, ghost touch, or positive

Resistances all damage 10 (except force, ghost touch, or positive; double resistance vs. non-magical)

Resistances all 10 (except force, ghost touch, or positive; double resistance vs. non-magical)

Resistances all damage 10 (except force, ghost touch, or positive, double resistance against non-magical)

The only creature that doesn't fit this pattern is the Bright Walker, which comes from Abomination Vaults AP and apparently has some more mechanical problems (spoiler).

So consistently, every creature with incorporeal has resistance to all except some things, one of which is always Ghost Touch. That's what it means to write that ghost touch weapons can harm incorporeal creatures.

---

Put in a different way, let's read the incorporeal trait:

An incorporeal creature or object has no physical form. It can pass through solid objects, including walls. When inside an object, an incorporeal creature can’t perceive, attack, or interact with anything outside the object, and if it starts its turn in an object, it is slowed 1. Corporeal creatures can pass through an incorporeal creature, but they can’t end their movement in its space.

An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects.

Incorporeal creatures usually have immunity to effects or conditions that require a physical body, like disease, poison, and precision damage. They usually have resistance against all damage (except force damage and damage from Strikes with the ghost touch property rune), with double the resistance against non-magical damage.

The second paragraph is about grabbing, pushing etc.

The third paragraph is about what the creature is immune and resistant to. The "usual" immunities are an instruction on what to put in the stat block, they're not automatic, they actually have to be defined there. The resistance to all damage is also explicitly put in the statblock.

But statblocks for incorporeal creatures don't say "immune to X, resistant to all except Y, and not subject to 80% of Strikes".

That would be burying the lead so deep it's never getting back out.

If incorporeal creatures had such a super strong defense on top of their resistance to all damage, it would be directly in the statblock and would be directly referred to in Ghost Touch.

But the opposite is the case. Ghost Touch doesn't actually let you use Strength based checks against ghosts. It only says ghosts can use strength-based checks on objects that have ghost touch. It never actually says ghosts can use strength based checks on creatures that might have ghost touch.

And the "Likewise" sentence doesn't allow you to do anything with ghost touch either, all it says is that corporeal creatures can't use strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures. It doesn't say you can sue strength-based checks against objects if those objects are ghost touch, because that's not necessary to begin with.

So what you might have missed: even with ghost touch objects, you can't maneuver ghosts and ghosts can't use ghost touch to maneuver corporeal creatures.

It makes absolutely no logical sense that finesse weapons could somehow affect a ghost more than any other physical attack. No where else in the game deals with damage from finesse weapons as something different from just physical damage. Especially as any character could still make a strength based attack with a finesse weapon.

Preventing damage is the domain of resistances and immunities and needs to be stated there if it is going to be consistently applied. This is not the only place in the game where it seems like different writers used different terms around checks and attack rolls.

Too vague to be actual mechanics.

You lost me at this point.

The second paragraph is about grabbing, pushing etc.

You have no justification for that position. Strength based checks are crystal clear in the rules. Attacks are checks.

it's super cool how you didn't bother reading ascalaphus' post at all. i know it's probably incredibly hard to imagine, but you are extremely wrong. you came in with a faulty understanding of how things should work and are just jamming your fingers in and yelling "la la la" when very obvious evidence is used to disprove your belief. relax and enjoy the game instead of dying on a hill nobody else would stand on

it's super cool how you didn't bother reading ascalaphus' post at all. i know it's probably incredibly hard to imagine, but you are extremely wrong. you came in with a faulty understanding of how things should work and are just jamming your fingers in and yelling "la la la" when very obvious evidence is used to disprove your belief. relax and enjoy the game instead of dying on a hill nobody else would stand on

Funny how I quote him twice. Explicity calling out where he is ignoring a well defined rule, and yet I'm accused of not reading him. I mean how do I respond to you?

it's super cool how you didn't bother reading ascalaphus' post at all.

The thing is though, Gortle isn't wrong: the second paragraph might be intended to only cover "grabbing, pushing etc" but attack rolls are defined as a type of check and some attack rolls are str based.

Checks
Source Core Rulebook pg. 443
"Pathfinder has many types of checks, from skill checks to attack rolls to saving throws, but they all follow these basic steps."

Fine I'll tackle this point too

But the opposite is the case. Ghost Touch doesn't actually let you use Strength based checks against ghosts. It only says ghosts can use strength-based checks on objects that have ghost touch. It never actually says ghosts can use strength based checks on creatures that might have ghost touch.

and you repeat

An incorporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against physical creatures or objects—only against incorporeal ones—unless those objects have the ghost touch property rune. Likewise, a corporeal creature can’t attempt Strength-based checks against incorporeal creatures or objects.

The weapon can harm creatures without physical form.

that you want to ignore.

Nobody is ignoring it. It's a summary that is then expanded on with the actual details--like nearly every bit of rules text in the entire game. Why are you ignoring that context?

(Also the entire "Makes no sense" part; kind of important in a role-playing game if you don't want to obliterate immersion and verisimilitude.)

It makes absolutely no logical sense that finesse weapons could somehow affect a ghost more than any other physical attack. No where else in the game deals with damage from finesse weapons as something different from just physical damage.

Yes its unusual, but it does show up in fantasy literature. The example I gave before was the Dune Boltzman shield effect, where the slow blade penetrates. Same weapon, same damage type, but one type of attack works and the other does not.

Its perfectly reasonable for a broad weapon swing through an incorporeal creature to totally miss and do nothing. Its actually a classic effect.

Its also perfectly reasonable for precise strikes to find a weak spot ie somewhere that is solid. Its far from unreasonable that this is represented by finesse attacks.

Importantly this is the effect of what the rules acutally say.

Nobody is ignoring it. It's a summary that is then expanded on with the actual details--like nearly every bit of rules text in the entire game. Why are you ignoring that context?

I do accept that sort of writing style. I already explained that the rest of the text is enough by itself.

So you want me to accept that ghost touch weapons can harm creatures without form means only that ghost touch weapons can use athletics traits on incorporeal creatures and not ghost touch weapons can affect incorporeal creatures. Just because they used the word harm instead of affect?

This is a game where we have a specific term for precision damage and (as much as I think it is a problem) splash damage, which scatter guns do completely independent of any other damage type. If damage from a finesse weapon was intended to be something different than damage caused by a strength based attack, then it would need to be spelled out more clearly.

Dune shields are playing with an element of physics way different than dex based attack vs strength based attack, and if anything like them existed in PF2, you would expect to see that laid out explicitly in the text of the shield itself and not nested in a trait without further clarification.

I will give you that the text around the incorporeal trait is not well worded and needs clarification. I agree with that. The specific wording of a number of traits feels like it could a second pass from a lead developer to make sure they cover all the situations they apply to and not just a couple of specific ones. Bringing it up on these boards is a good way to make it happen.

I just think this, like the splash trait, is clearly not what is intended and wouldn’t try to force it into play because it is bad game design on top of not making sense. When the specific resistances of creatures are spelled out in their stat block, that is the right place to put this information.

If it wasn't relevant then Paizo wouldn't have included it.

You must be new here ^_^

So you want me to accept that ghost touch weapons can harm creatures without form means only that ghost touch weapons can use athletics traits on incorporeal creatures and not ghost touch weapons can affect incorporeal creatures. Just because they used the word harm instead of affect?

Seeing as that's entirely unrelated to what I said, no.

It would also be really weird if all thrown weapons and ranged weapons could hit a ghost and just have to deal with resistances, but if a strong character is still holding the weapon then suddenly the weapon cannot possibly effect the ghost.

My expectation (if the dev's ever admit to things like this) is that whoever wrote the Incorporeal trait in the Bestiary had forgotten that Attack Rolls are not a unique type of roll, but are instead just a standard check with a fancy name, so strength based attack rolls are a subset of strength based checks.

Similar to how AC is just a standard DC with a fancy name. It uses the same DC calculation as all other DCs and counts as a Dexterity based DC (though we don't usually write down the Armor bonus since you would never use your armor bonus offensively or actively). That isn't always remembered. And in most places where it is important, such as the Clumsy condition the rules will remind you that AC does qualify as a Dex based DC.

It would also be really weird if all thrown weapons and ranged weapons could hit a ghost and just have to deal with resistances

This reminds me of the divine blade ally paradox.