Energy Bow- Quick Question

[Magic Myrmidon]

So Hank's energy bow. It shoots force arrows. Most force effects bypass DR and resistance and the like. But the energy bow doesn't specify it does this. Is there a rule anywhere that would confirm one way or the other?

[silverwolfer]

Look up force missle :)

[TuggyNE]

So Hank's energy bow. It shoots force arrows. Most force effects bypass DR and resistance and the like. But the energy bow doesn't specify it does this. Is there a rule anywhere that would confirm one way or the other?

No.

To elaborate, this has been brought up a few times before, and the comparison made to the Force weapon special ability (which explicitly does bypass all DR), but there really is no hard-and-fast rules text I'm aware of that settles the question.

It's unfortunate, but at least it's not too hard to work out a compromise with your DM on it.

[Curmudgeon]

The simple answer is that you get the properties described for the magic object, and that's all. It's already a pretty nifty magic item, so why be greedy?

[Coidzor]

The simple answer is that you get the properties described for the magic object, and that's all. It's already a pretty nifty magic item, so why be greedy?

Clarity and greed are different animals as you well know.

You also know well that simply taking the rules text in one section as the end-all, be-all of RAW is short-sighted at best given how convoluted it can get.

[Tar Palantir]

In the rules for DR, it specifically says that all energy damage ignores DR, even from nonmagical sources.

[Darrin]

In the rules for DR, it specifically says that all energy damage ignores DR, even from nonmagical sources.

The problem is in 3.5, [force] damage is not explicitly identified as one of the five energy types: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic. The reason most people assume force damage bypasses DR is because in general, the only way to get force damage is to cast a spell, and damage from spells automatically bypass DR. That's entirely because it's a spell, not because [force] = energy damage.

[Eurus]

Also, because again, the "Force" weapon property from MIC makes a bow shoot arrows of force, and goes on to say that it bypasses DR. It's not unreasonable to assume that force arrows from a similar item would have the same effect... but it's still an assumption. Pretty much a DM's call.

[Firechanter]

The problem with Hank's Energy Bow is, if you assume that it bypasses DR, then it's ridiculously underpriced. The Force Property that does bypass DR is a +2 bonus. The bow has a +2 Enhancement bonus on top. So that's a +4 price already, without taking into account the Auto-Mighty or the Power Shot abilities. Even if those were super cheap, the bow would have to cost at least 32.000GP. So the whole package should probably cost something like 36.000GP or so.

Since it's much cheaper, I'd find it only fair not to let it bypass DR.

[Rubik]

The problem with Hank's Energy Bow is, if you assume that it bypasses DR, then it's ridiculously underpriced. The Force Property that does bypass DR is a +2 bonus. The bow has a +2 Enhancement bonus on top. So that's a +4 price already, without taking into account the Auto-Mighty or the Power Shot abilities. Even if those were super cheap, the bow would have to cost at least 32.000GP. So the whole package should probably cost something like 36.000GP or so.

Since it's much cheaper, I'd find it only fair not to let it bypass DR.Except it's only usable by characters named "Hank."

[Darrin]

Except it's only usable by characters named "Hank."

Which is why all my archer characters have the middle name "Hank."

[Mithril Leaf]

I have come to the conclusion that it does indeed bypass due to force being a type of energy and all energy bypassing DR by default.

Somewhere in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251795) we more or less gathered the evidence to prove it was so. Hank's bow ignoring DR was one of the things that was largely agreed upon.

[olentu]

I have come to the conclusion that it does indeed bypass due to force being a type of energy and all energy bypassing DR by default.

Somewhere in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251795) we more or less gathered the evidence to prove it was so. Hank's bow ignoring DR was one of the things that was largely agreed upon.

You might want to condense and restate that evidence as there are a lot of people talking about a lot of things, not all of them right, in there.

[Boci]

You might want to condense and restate that evidence as there are a lot of people talking about a lot of things, not all of them right, in there.

I think it was this post:


When dealing with RAW, rules must be considered all-inclusive or all-exclusive, unless stipulated otherwise. This is the rule of "specific trumps general." If there is no definition of what an "effect" is, and a rule states that "all damage dealt by force effects deal force damage," you must either rule that everything made of force falls under the heading of "force effects" or none of them do, as there is no rule that stipulates othewise.

And if you state that none of them do, that essentially marks the very existence of force damage null and void.

By process of logical inference, RAW dictates that the lances created by the item in question do, indeed, deal force damage. Whether or not this is balanced is up for debate, but to change this would be a house rule, not RAW.

I maintain that RAW is useless when the word in question is never defined (presumably WotC thought they wouldn't need to provide a definition of such a generic word as "effect", but they were wrong). However, if I will acknowledge that the above is probably the closest possible reading to RAW.

Oops, wrong debate. The arrows deal force damage. (The origional debate concerned saggers made of force that didn't explicity deal force damage).

[Mithril Leaf]

You might want to condense and restate that evidence as there are a lot of people talking about a lot of things, not all of them right, in there.

I'll try to summarize, I'm really tired right now.
Basically it goes as follows:
Hank's Energy Bow (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a) is a force effect so it deals force damage.
Force Damage (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_damage&alpha=) is a type of energy damage (similar to positive or negative energy damage) since it doesn't fall in the other available categories.
Damage Reduction (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_damagereduction&alpha=) is bypassed by energy damage.

You can see the thought process and arguments in the thread if this doesn't make sense.

EDIT: Boci once again is here to provide the more balanced side of things. He's good like that.

[Curmudgeon]

I have come to the conclusion that it does indeed bypass due to force being a type of energy and all energy bypassing DR by default.
That bolded statement is directly contradicted by the definition (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_energydamage&alpha=E):
energy damage

Damage caused by one of five types of energy (not counting positive and negative energy): acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic.

Somewhere in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251795) we more or less gathered the evidence to prove it was so. Hank's bow ignoring DR was one of the things that was largely agreed upon.
Well now. Your statement is unproven — and also self-serving — since the "evidence" was entirely in a single post, by you, as the last message of the thread (thus never gaining any feedback). Here it is:
Hank's energy bow in fact does ignore DR, as it is defined as a force effect, as per the definition itself. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_forcedamage&alpha=) We must recreate the general from the specific since we lack any general rulings. To do so, we look at the pool of most similar abilities to get the overall idea on how such a thing works. Since Hank's Energy Bow and the Gloves Of Endless Javelins seem fairly close in their methodology, they are a good set of parameters. The Bow does not explicitly bypass DR, as you were so keen to point out. However, by looking at the RAW defined term of a force effect, which is explicitly called out, you can see that it does in fact bypass DR.

The Javelins created are also similar to the force projectiles created by a force bow. These projectiles are explicitly called out as bypassing DR. Additionally, the orb of force spell creates an orb of force that bypasses DR. We are lacking in cases of objects made of force not bypassing DR, but we have several examples of it indeed doing so. Even when not explicitly called out in the text. Apparently this is where you think "the definition itself" somehow proves your assertion:
force damage

A special type of damage dealt by force effects, such as a magic missile spell. A force effect can strike incorporeal creatures without the normal miss chance associated with incorporeality. It mentions incorporeal creatures, and makes no claims about bypassing DR at all. There is no general property of force damage which causes it to bypass damage reduction. Instead, there are individual force effects which bypass DR for different specific reasons:

because they are spell effects
because they're generated by an item which explicitly does bypass DR, such as the Force property (Magic Item Compendium, page 35; +2 enhancement cost)
DR bypass doesn't "rub off" onto other force effects simply because there's a group of items with similar properties. Instead, your argument needs to demonstrate a causal link to explain why Hank's Energy Bow (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a) should gain an additional powerful property beyond what is spelled out in the item description. :smallannoyed:

[olentu]

I think it was this post:



I maintain that RAW is useless when the word in question is never defined (presumably WotC thought they wouldn't need to provide a definition of such a generic word as "effect", but they were wrong). However, if I will acknowledge that the above is probably the closest possible reading to RAW.

Oh, that was actually one of the things that I was talking about when I said there was some stuff wrong in that thread.


I'll try to summarize, I'm really tired right now.
Basically it goes as follows:
Hank's Energy Bow (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a) is a force effect so it deals force damage.
Force Damage (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_damage&alpha=) is a type of energy damage (similar to positive or negative energy damage) since it doesn't fall in the other available categories.
Damage Reduction (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_damagereduction&alpha=) is bypassed by energy damage.

You can see the thought process and arguments in the thread if this doesn't make sense.

EDIT: Boci once again is here to provide the more balanced side of things. He's good like that.

Yeah, I would have to disagree. There are assumptions that are being made that I would consider unfounded without further explanation. Such as the assumption that since damage types include weapon damage and energy damage, that damage types are completely composed of only weapon damage and energy damage.

Perhaps a full explanation would clear up the matter, if you feel so inclined when you are not tired, but the quick explanation glosses over several essential steps of logic.

[toapat]

I maintain that RAW is useless when the word in question is never defined (presumably WotC thought they wouldn't need to provide a definition of such a generic word as "effect", but they were wrong). However, if I will acknowledge that the above is probably the closest possible reading to RAW.

actually, alot of RAW issues likely stem from the fact that alot of the terms it uses do not have in game definitions. Battle Blessing and Sword of the Arcane Order are the most obvious ones.


Damage falls into 3 types:

Physical damage: Blunt/Bludgeon, Piercing, and Slash

Energy Damage: Sonic, electric, Fire, Acid, and cold.

We Forgot: Crushing, Possitive, Negative, Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaos, force

[Namfuak]

actually, alot of RAW issues likely stem from the fact that alot of the terms it uses do not have in game definitions. Battle Blessing and Sword of the Arcane Order are the most obvious ones.


Damage falls into 3 types:

Physical damage: Blunt/Bludgeon, Piercing, and Slash

Energy Damage: Sonic, electric, Fire, Acid, and cold.

We Forgot: Crushing, Possitive, Negative, Good, Evil, Lawful, Chaos, force

Check the damage definition on page 308 of the PHB:



...energy damage (positive, negative, acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic)

Look at the quote in Curmudgeon's post again. Positive and Negative damage ARE energy damage, just not when you are talking about energy damage.

[Mithril Leaf]

That bolded statement is directly contradicted by the definition (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_energydamage&alpha=E):

Well now. Your statement is unproven — and also self-serving — since the "evidence" was entirely in a single post, by you, as the last message of the thread (thus never gaining any feedback). Here it is: Apparently this is where you think "the definition itself" somehow proves your assertion: It mentions incorporeal creatures, and makes no claims about bypassing DR at all. There is no general property of force damage which causes it to bypass damage reduction. Instead, there are individual force effects which bypass DR for different specific reasons:

because they are spell effects
because they're generated by an item which explicitly does bypass DR, such as the Force property (Magic Item Compendium, page 35; +2 enhancement cost)
DR bypass doesn't "rub off" onto other force effects simply because there's a group of items with similar properties. Instead, your argument needs to demonstrate a causal link to explain why Hank's Energy Bow (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a) should gain an additional powerful property beyond what is spelled out in the item description. :smallannoyed:

Due to my state of consciousness, I'm not qualified to answer all of this, but I have to ask why not? Could you please provide an example of a force effect not bypassing DR?

[TypoNinja]

Here's a question, when a weapon makes a magical attack is the source sufficiently spell-like to count as bypassing DR as per the DR entry?

a +1 weapon wouldn't because its magically sharp and hard, not because its making a magical attack, stuff like flaming and shock get a pass because they are generating energy damage, but what about say Holy? Or maybe some other enchant in the MIC that might be enlightening.

[only1doug]

I have come to the conclusion that it does indeed bypass due to force being a type of energy and all energy bypassing DR by default.

Somewhere in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251795) we more or less gathered the evidence to prove it was so. Hank's bow ignoring DR was one of the things that was largely agreed upon.

Nope, It wasn't.

Your final post was just a repeat of your previous posts and could have been refuted by simply reposting my previous post word for word.



Due to my state of consciousness, I'm not qualified to answer all of this, but I have to ask why not? Could you please provide an example of a force effect not bypassing DR?

so the burden of proof falls to us? Incorrect, one force property is explicitly called out as bypassing DR that does not mean that all things with force bypass DR.

Can you prove that the light goes off in every fridge when the door is closed?

[Mithril Leaf]

so the burden of proof falls to us? Incorrect, one force property is explicitly called out as bypassing DR that does not mean that all things with force bypass DR.

Can you prove that the light goes off in every fridge when the door is closed?

I provide several examples of force effects bypassing DR. You provide none that don't bypass DR. You do need to find your own evidence to support your point. I'm sorry I won't do your work for you.

[only1doug]

I provide several examples of force effects bypassing DR. You provide none that don't bypass DR. You do need to find your own evidence to support your point. I'm sorry I won't do your work for you.

I'll give you 2 examples:

Hanks energy Bow.

Gloves of Endless Javelins.

Your flawed supposition is that these items automatically bypass DR, They are the examples of Force Items that don't bypass DR because, unlike other force items that do bypass DR, they don't specify that they can.



Hank's Energy Bow (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20061227a) is a force effect so it deals force damage.

I refute your assumption: Hanks Bow shoots arrows that are a force effect so they can damage incorporeal, this does not intrinsically make the damage they deal force damage.


Force Damage (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_damage&alpha=) is a type of energy damage (similar to positive or negative energy damage) since it doesn't fall in the other available categories.

I refute your Assumption: Force damage does not meet any of the criteria to be energy damage, it is not on the list of energy damage types:
energy damage (positive, negative, acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic)


Damage Reduction (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_damagereduction&alpha=) is bypassed by energy damage.

which Hanks Bow does not do (see above).

The stated properties of Hanks Bow are good enough that it doesn't need you assuming that it gets extra unstated ones, if it doesn't say it in the text then it doesn't get them.

[Telok]

I'm just adding information here. I'm on the fence about it myself.

Spiritual Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spiritualWeapon.htm) explicitly states that it hits as a spell instead of a weapon and that this is what allows it to bypass DR.

Blade Barrier (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/bladeBarrier.htm) is silent on the issue but it creates blades formed from force that cut people.

Clenched Fist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/clenchedFist.htm) is also silent on the issue but I've never heard anyone argue that it doesn't do the big bludgeoning type of damage.

Wall of Force can "do damage" via Dungeon Crasher or falling damage, and that's going to be blunt force trauma like any normal wall.

[Mithril Leaf]

I'll give you 2 examples:

Hanks energy Bow.

Gloves of Endless Javelins.

Your flawed supposition is that these items automatically bypass DR, They are the examples of Force Items that don't bypass DR because, unlike other force items that do bypass DR, they don't specify that they can.




I refute your assumption: Hanks Bow shoots arrows that are a force effect so they can damage incorporeal, this does not intrinsically make the damage they deal force damage.



I refute your Assumption: Force damage does not meet any of the criteria to be energy damage, it is not on the list of energy damage types:



which Hanks Bow does not do (see above).

The stated properties of Hanks Bow are good enough that it doesn't need you assuming that it gets extra unstated ones, if it doesn't say it in the text then it doesn't get them.

Does force fall under the category of damages that are in any way represented by DR? Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing are damage types that DR can be ignored by. Material types are things that DR can be ignored by. When does DR get bypassed by only Force Damage? Additionally, the bow mimics magic missile, a spell which does bypass DR by merit of being a force spell.

[only1doug]

Does force fall under the category of damages that are in any way represented by DR? Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing are damage types that DR can be ignored by. Material types are things that DR can be ignored by. When does DR get bypassed by only Force Damage? Additionally, the bow mimics magic missile, a spell which does bypass DR by merit of being a force spell.

It's a bow, it creates arrows of force and therefore does piercing damage.

The Bow does not mimic magic missile, which autohits and bypasses DR by merit of being a spell. (Not by merit of being a force spell, just being a spell is sufficient).
The Bow requires magic missile spell to be crafted, that doesn't mean it creates magic missiles.

Can you justify why you feel that the Bow should gain all the benefits of the Force magic item property? That would make it a +4 weapon (and a bit more besides, with the strength bonus addition and the 2d6 base damage), which it clearly isn't by the price listed.

[TuggyNE]

Note that while I am not at all certain of this, I lean a bit toward allowing the energy bow to bypass DR. It's not an article of faith, though, and I'd appreciate a sound and thorough correction.


I'll give you 2 examples:

Hanks energy Bow.

Gloves of Endless Javelins.

Your flawed supposition is that these items automatically bypass DR, They are the examples of Force Items that don't bypass DR because, unlike other force items that do bypass DR, they don't specify that they can.

Actually, because these items are actually the ones the discussion (or argument) is about, that's begging the question; they can't be assumed either to bypass DR or not, because we're trying to decide whether they do or not. So, there are a number of spells, and at least one weapon enhancement, that specifically do bypass DR (for various given reasons that are presumably not exhaustive). There are no force effects or force damage so far cited that are unquestionably subject to DR, however.


I refute your assumption: Hanks Bow shoots arrows that are a force effect so they can damage incorporeal, this does not intrinsically make the damage they deal force damage.

Well, that's more of a counter-interpretation; it's not a refutation, merely a statement to the contrary with no particular evidence.


The stated properties of Hanks Bow are good enough that it doesn't need you assuming that it gets extra unstated ones, if it doesn't say it in the text then it doesn't get them.

The energy bow is, indeed, quite nice; however, that does not automatically mean it was not intended to be nicer yet, nor does it mean it does not by strict RAW gain certain non-obvious benefits. There are many other places where the benefits of a particular weapon, spell, or feat depend on a web of definitions and abilities, or even frequency of occurrence of some quality among monsters. Do you deny the "unstated", implied benefits likewise in those cases? (For example, Undead are immune to poison by the definition of the type, but the zombie entry doesn't mention that specifically, so are zombies susceptible to poison?)

So, to sum up: RAW is dubious, RAI is almost unknowable (as so often), RACSD might cautiously suggest logical consistency, and balance indicates the proposed generous reading might be out of whack with other sources. Convince of clear and inarguable RAW, indicate a strong reason to believe RAI, or show a counter to RACSD, but do so correctly, OK?

[Zrak]

I always assumed all types of damage that weren't energy damage were subtypes of force damage. The various energy types all cause damage in another way, by changing a subject's temperature enough to cause harm, damaging the fundamental viability of a subject's un/life, causing chemical corrosion, etc. The other types of damage, conversely, rely on something hitting a target with sufficient force to harm it. In other words, the mechanism by which force damage causes harm is more similar to the mechanism by which, say, piercing damage causes harm than it is to the way cold or acid damage would cause harm. Why the MIC force enchantment specifically does bypass DR (or where sonic damage fits into all of this) I couldn't say, but that's what's always made the most sense to me.

Also, I generally agree with those who've pointed out that, if force always bypassed DR, there would be no reason to specify that the force enchantment does bypass DR; the description for freezing burst, after all, doesn't say "+2d6 cold damage which bypasses damage reduction." Similarly, to respond to the question about zombies and poison, the fact that the entry for zombies does not specifically mention poison is in line with this argument. If undead are immune to poison, and zombies are undead, there is no need to state that zombies are immune to poison. Following from this, the Lich entry does not note that Liches, also undead, are immune to poison. It does, however, specifically mention their immunities to cold, electricity, and paralysis. This does not mean that zombies are similarly immune to cold or electricity.

[Mithril Leaf]

I always assumed all types of damage that weren't energy damage were subtypes of force damage. The various energy types all cause damage in another way, by changing a subject's temperature enough to cause harm, damaging the fundamental viability of a subject's un/life, causing chemical corrosion, etc. The other types of damage, conversely, rely on something hitting a target with sufficient force to harm it. In other words, the mechanism by which force damage causes harm is more similar to the mechanism by which, say, piercing damage causes harm than it is to the way cold or acid damage would cause harm. Why the MIC force enchantment specifically does bypass DR (or where sonic damage fits into all of this) I couldn't say, but that's what's always made the most sense to me.

Also, I generally agree with those who've pointed out that, if force always bypassed DR, there would be no reason to specify that the force enchantment does bypass DR; the description for freezing burst, after all, doesn't say "+2d6 cold damage which bypasses damage reduction." Similarly, to respond to the question about zombies and poison, the fact that the entry for zombies does not specifically mention poison is in line with this argument. If undead are immune to poison, and zombies are undead, there is no need to state that zombies are immune to poison. Following from this, the Lich entry does not note that Liches, also undead, are immune to poison. It does, however, specifically mention their immunities to cold, electricity, and paralysis. This does not mean that zombies are similarly immune to cold or electricity.
Ah, but then why would the force projectiles bypass DR if that were the case? From the Magic Item Compendium:

These force projectiles automatically overcome damage reduction and
suffer no miss chance against incorporeal targets, but they don't damage creatures immune to force effects.
Why would turning arrows into force allow them to bypass DR if being force didn't somehow confer that property? They also state that they allow hitting incorporeal targets which is explicitly designated as part of the function of force damage. Sometimes they explicitly state things that are implied such as in the definition of the paladin's Remove Disease ability:

Divine Health (Ex):
At 3rd level, a paladin gains immunity to all diseases, including supernatural and magical diseases.
It adds including supernatural and magical diseases despite that logically being included in the category of all.

[Namfuak]

Ah, but then why would the force projectiles bypass DR if that were the case? From the Magic Item Compendium:

Why would turning arrows into force allow them to bypass DR if being force didn't somehow confer that property? They also state that they allow hitting incorporeal targets which is explicitly designated as part of the function of force damage.


These force projectiles

Note the bold. The Force property specifically states that only projectiles enhanced by that property have this effect, not force effects in general.

[Mithril Leaf]

Note the bold. The Force property specifically states that only projectiles enhanced by that property have this effect, not force effects in general.

But logically, why would making them force allow them to bypass DR if things made of force didn't bypass DR?

[Zrak]

Ah, but then why would the force projectiles bypass DR if that were the case? From the Magic Item Compendium:

Why would turning arrows into force allow them to bypass DR if being force didn't somehow confer that property?

As I said, I don't really have a good explanation for that. Or for sonic damage, really. If put on the spot, I'd say it's because of the difference between shooting projectiles made of force and turning existing projectiles into force; Hank's bow is enchanted so that it fires arrows of force when no arrows are provided, while the enchantment in the Magic Item Compendium, as I recall, specifically states that the enchantment turns physical projectiles into force projectiles. I don't know what I'd say about sonic damage. At all. But my witch can damage enemies by screaming and I don't look a gift horse in the mouth.


They also state that they allow hitting incorporeal targets which is explicitly designated as part of the function of force damage. Sometimes they explicitly state things that are implied such as in the definition of the paladin's Remove Disease ability:

It adds including supernatural and magical diseases despite that logically being included in the category of all.
Sure, that happens; in the lich example that I just used, the entry mentions that the lich is immune to mind-affecting effects, though this is a trait given to all undead. Just because entries are sometimes redundant does not mean one should assume all specific details should be generalized, however. In other words, it's fair to assume zombies have an immunity to mind-affecting effects because, while that is not mentioned specifically in their entry, as it is in liches' entry, it is mentioned as a general undead trait. Since immunity to cold and electricity are not undead traits, there's no reason to assume one undead monster has those immunities simply because a different undead monster does. In other words, I'm not arguing that an explicit statement in a specific entry can't mean something applies more generally, but that the explicit statement in a specific entry of something which is not stated to be true of the type generally is, most likely, not true of the type generally, but specific to that item/monster/instance/&c.

[TuggyNE]

In other words, I'm not arguing that an explicit statement in a specific entry can't mean something applies more generally, but that the explicit statement in a specific entry of something which is not stated to be true of the type generally is, most likely, not true of the type generally, but specific to that item/monster/instance/&c.

Essentially, it's rather inconclusive, just like most of the evidence so far.

[Curmudgeon]

But logically, why would making them force allow them to bypass DR if things made of force didn't bypass DR?
The magic property doesn't specify that causal link you're claiming. Generating projectiles of force, bypassing DR, and suffering no miss chance against incorporeal opponents are all properties of the Force enhancement. These are all things your +2 enhancement cost buys you.

Here's an excerpt from another magic weapon property from MIC:
Each diamond set into the pommel or haft of an energy surge weapon radiates a different color that corresponds to the energy damage dealt by the weapon: green (acid), blue (cold), yellow (electricity), or red (fire). Adding a yellow diamond to the pommel of a dagger isn't enough to make it an electricity surge weapon. Yes, having that yellow diamond is a property of an electricity surge weapon, but the diamond alone isn't what causes the energy surge.

[Namfuak]

But logically, why would making them force allow them to bypass DR if things made of force didn't bypass DR?

Arguably, whether or not it is "logical" does not come into a RAW debate, but it isn't that far-fetched to imagine that the magic in the Force enhancement is tailored differently than the magic in Hank's Energy Bow, such that the former is absolutely able to get through damage reduction effects, whereas the latter is simply a force effect.

[TuggyNE]

Arguably, whether or not it is "logical" does not come into a RAW debate, but it isn't that far-fetched to imagine that the magic in the Force enhancement is tailored differently than the magic in Hank's Energy Bow, such that the former is absolutely able to get through damage reduction effects, whereas the latter is simply a force effect.

You can really justify it either way; it might be more reasonable to hypothesize that "force" is a sort of distilled essence of kinetic energy (and therefore bypasses all DR) or you could suppose that it's merely a constructed projectile made out of an unusual substance (and therefore has no special DR-bypassing properties). No conclusive argument can be made in either case based on that.

[Zrak]

Essentially, it's rather inconclusive, just like most of the evidence so far.

By the same logic, the evidence of whether or not zombies have are immune to cold and electricity damage is "rather inconclusive." I mean, another monster of the undead type has those immunities, and nowhere in the zombie entry does it say that zombies don't have them.

In other words, since the definition of force effects states that they ignore the miss chance associated incorporeality, that may be assumed to be true of all force effects, regardless of whether or not it is mentioned in specific entries. Since penetrating DR is not a defined trait of force effects, it should not be assumed to be true of any and all force effects because it is explicitly mentioned as a trait of some force effects. If this reasoning still seems rather inconclusive, try applying the alternative argument to any other type of effect.

[Mithril Leaf]

I have a general question which might help sway some. What type of damage is force damage? Is it energy damage or physical damage? These are the two categories that exist and are defined, weapon damage and energy damage. Of these two, which does force damage fall into, remembering that it is under the definition of neither.

[toapat]

What type of damage is force damage?

Kinetic or Concordanant Opposition, depending on exactly the magic used to create the effect.

[TypoNinja]

I have a general question which might help sway some. What type of damage is force damage? Is it energy damage or physical damage? These are the two categories that exist and are defined, weapon damage and energy damage. Of these two, which does force damage fall into, remembering that it is under the definition of neither.

To my knowledge force damage is only generated by magic, which probably is what leads to the assumption that it bypasses DR, since any magic does. Also, all the force spells I can think of off the top of my head are from the evocation school, and its description is "Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end."

This makes me think of it as part of the energy category despite it not being a listed type, since its nature and source are so divergent from the more mundane applications of physical force (Ie, hitting somebody with a weapon).

On the other hand the "unseen source of power" is broad enough language that you could make loopholes out of it big enough to sail a carrier group through.

I'm more curious if there are any other sources of force damage that don't come from a source that doesn't already bypass DR by its nature. If this bow is unique, my first instinct would be to say lack of specifics are an oversight.

[olentu]

I have a general question which might help sway some. What type of damage is force damage? Is it energy damage or physical damage? These are the two categories that exist and are defined, weapon damage and energy damage. Of these two, which does force damage fall into, remembering that it is under the definition of neither.

So, why again would force damage have to be energy damage or physical damage.

[TuggyNE]

By the same logic, the evidence of whether or not zombies have are immune to cold and electricity damage is "rather inconclusive." I mean, another monster of the undead type has those immunities, and nowhere in the zombie entry does it say that zombies don't have them.

Not exactly. Nowhere is cold/electricity immunity linked to the undead type, even by implication.


In other words, since the definition of force effects states that they ignore the miss chance associated incorporeality, that may be assumed to be true of all force effects, regardless of whether or not it is mentioned in specific entries. Since penetrating DR is not a defined trait of force effects, it should not be assumed to be true of any and all force effects because it is explicitly mentioned as a trait of some force effects. If this reasoning still seems rather inconclusive, try applying the alternative argument to any other type of effect.

However, you are probably correct that the tendency to attribute DR bypass to all force effects is a combination of slightly ambiguous wording (i.e., whether the spell or the [force] descriptor is responsible) and assumptions about what force means.

The lack of any reliable counter-examples (i.e., force effects that definitely do not bypass DR) makes this harder to figure out, certainly.


To my knowledge force damage is only generated by magic, which probably is what leads to the assumption that it bypasses DR, since any magic does. Also, all the force spells I can think of off the top of my head are from the evocation school, and its description is "Evocation spells manipulate energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end."

This makes me think of it as part of the energy category despite it not being a listed type, since its nature and source are so divergent from the more mundane applications of physical force (Ie, hitting somebody with a weapon).

On the other hand the "unseen source of power" is broad enough language that you could make loopholes out of it big enough to sail a carrier group through.

Basically, this.


I'm more curious if there are any other sources of force damage that don't come from a source that doesn't already bypass DR by its nature. If this bow is unique, my first instinct would be to say lack of specifics are an oversight.

Well, the previously-mentioned Force weapon special ability, which makes an explicit exception to usual weapon DR rules. I am fairly sure, though, that the lack of any language about DR in the Energy Bow description is an oversight (one way or another).

[Mithril Leaf]

So, why again would force damage have to be energy damage or physical damage.

Those are the two categories of damage that are defined. Does anyone argue that force damage is explicitly weapon damage? You can chose an out of an untyped damage if you like.

[olentu]

Those are the two categories of damage that are defined. Does anyone argue that force damage is explicitly weapon damage? You can chose an out of an untyped damage if you like.

So, would you mind pointing out where it defines those two types of damage as an exclusive list of all possible types of damage.

[Mithril Leaf]

So, would you mind pointing out where it defines those two types of damage as an exclusive list of all possible types of damage.

They're the two types defined by the glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_damage&alpha=).

Would you say it's weapon damage though? That's what really matters.

[olentu]

They're the two types defined by the glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_damage&alpha=).

Would you say it's weapon damage though? That's what really matters.

That does not really answer my question.

As for being weapon damage, maybe, maybe not. Would you mind explaining why that matters as I do not really see what the reason would be. I would guess that you are making assumptions about the name of the damage type and therefore equating "weapon damage" to be the exact equal in every way as "damage from weapons" in order to use that assumed equality to get around the damage reduction rules. But that would just be a guess.

[toapat]

They're the two types defined by the glossary (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_damage&alpha=).

Would you say it's weapon damage though? That's what really matters.

RAW it is typeless, thus bypassing DR and energy resistance.

which actually kinda makes sense, as Force is the evocation of an effect, not any specific damage type

the only problem is, Force and Light both are common damage types

[Mithril Leaf]

That does not really answer my question.

As for being weapon damage, maybe, maybe not. Would you mind explaining why that matters as I do not really see what the reason would be. I would guess that you are making assumptions about the name of the damage type and therefore equating "weapon damage" to be the exact equal in every way as "damage from weapons" in order to use that assumed equality to get around the damage reduction rules. But that would just be a guess.

By the definition of Damage Reduction, DR is only applicable to Weapon Damage, as from weapons and natural attacks.

[olentu]

By the definition of Damage Reduction, DR is only applicable to Weapon Damage, as from weapons and natural attacks.

Ah exactly what I guessed. But the thing is it does not actually say "weapon damage" so far as I can see, rather it says "damage from most weapons and natural attacks."

[Mithril Leaf]

RAW it is typeless, thus bypassing DR and energy resistance.

which actually kinda makes sense, as Force is the evocation of an effect, not any specific damage type

the only problem is, Force and Light both are common damage types

This is quite pertinent, is light damage subject to DR?

[Zrak]

I don't really see any implication that force bypasses DR, anywhere, either. If I said "these red apples are rotten," would that imply that all red apples are rotten?

Force damage isn't defined as energy damage, nor is force included as an energy type, anywhere. Hank's energy bow is not a spell, SLA, or supernatural ability. It is a weapon. DR applies to damage from "most weapons." I really don't see the problem here. There is no statement or implication that it, specifically, or force effects, generally, bypass DR in the description of the bow itself, force effects, or damage reduction.

[Mithril Leaf]

I don't really see any implication that force bypasses DR, anywhere, either. If I said "these red apples are rotten," would that imply that all red apples are rotten?

Force damage isn't defined as energy damage, nor is force included as an energy type, anywhere. Hank's energy bow is not a spell, SLA, or supernatural ability. It is a weapon. DR applies to damage from "most weapons." I really don't see the problem here. There is no statement or implication that it, specifically, or force effects, generally, bypass DR in the description of the bow itself, force effects, or damage reduction.

So you don't think that damage from sources besides positive and negative energy or from fire, cold, electricity, sound, and acid bypass DR? What about Light damage? Vile damage? I feel that DR explicitly protects against certain things while you feel that it is explicitly bypassed by only certain things. In my system, only damage of the weapon variety is affected by DR. In yours only damage of the energy variety bypasses DR. Incidently, in your system having DR basically gives you immunity to poison because ability damage is a type of non-energy damage, and when caused by poison isn't from a spell.

[olentu]

So you don't think that damage from sources besides positive and negative energy or from fire, cold, electricity, sound, and acid bypass DR? What about Light damage? Vile damage? I feel that DR explicitly protects against certain things while you feel that it is explicitly bypassed by only certain things. In my system, only damage of the weapon variety is affected by DR. In yours only damage of the energy variety bypasses DR. Incidently, in your system having DR basically gives you immunity to poison because ability damage is a type of non-energy damage, and when caused by poison isn't from a spell.

I believe you misunderstand the position. It is not that force damage is always subject to DR, but rather that damage from weapons is subject to DR and the energy bow is a weapon. DR protects only against specific things in either case but the things just happen to be different. That is if I understand what the two of you are saying.

[Mithril Leaf]

I believe you misunderstand the position. It is not that force damage is always subject to DR, but rather that damage from weapons is subject to DR and the energy bow is a weapon. DR protects only against specific things in either case but the things just happen to be different. That is if I understand what the two of you are saying.

The issue is that Force Damage is a type of damage and all types of damage either are affect by DR or bypass it based on their type. Either force damage bypasses it or is affected by it depending on the result of our debate.

[Zrak]

So you don't think that damage from sources besides positive and negative energy or from fire, cold, electricity, sound, and acid bypass DR? What about Light damage? Vile damage?
I believe that damage from sources stated to bypass DR bypasses DR. This includes all damage from the sources you mentioned, along with all spell damage, and damage from any and every other source stated as bypassing the DR in question, including weapons of an appropriate damage type, material, or alignment.


I feel that DR explicitly protects against certain things while you feel that it is explicitly bypassed by only certain things.
I feel DR protects against certain things and is bypassed by other things. The things that I feel DR protects against are the things that the rules say DR protects against, the things by which I feel DR is bypassed are the things by which the rules say DR is bypassed. The former category includes "most weapons," and the latter category does not include "force effects." Therefore, a force effect from a weapon which is not stated to bypass DR does not bypass DR. A force effect from a spell does bypass DR. A force effect from a weapon that is stated to bypass DR bypasses DR.


In my system, only damage of the weapon variety is affected by DR.
You mean, like, damage dealt by a bow, for instance?


Incidently, in your system having DR basically gives you immunity to poison because ability damage is a type of non-energy damage, and when caused by poison isn't from a spell.
I really don't understand where you're getting these ideas about "my system." In "my system," having DR protects against any injury-based poisons if the damage from the initial attack is completed negated by DR, as this means no injury has been caused, and thus an injury-based poison is not introduced. Damage reduction does not affect poisons delivered by contact, inhalation, or ingestion. That's how poison works with DR in "my system" because that's how the rules say poison works with DR.

[Mithril Leaf]

I really don't understand where you're getting these ideas about "my system." In "my system," having DR protects against any injury-based poisons if the damage from the initial attack is completed negated by DR, as this means no injury has been caused, and thus an injury-based poison is not introduced. Damage reduction does not affect poisons delivered by contact, inhalation, or ingestion. That's how poison works with DR in "my system" because that's how the rules say poison works with DR.

No, you say that all damage not explicitly defined as energy damage is subject to DR. Ability damage is a type of damage. Poison deals ability damage without being magical. According to your line of reasoning, that the bypass is explicit, then ability damage dealt by poison is subject to DR.

[TypoNinja]

By the definition of Damage Reduction, DR is only applicable to Weapon Damage, as from weapons and natural attacks.

Except the DR entry had to go give us a list of what does bypass it, thus implying that if its not on that list is doesn't bypass it.

My instincts (rather than RAW because that seems ambiguous at this point) would be that Force damage never got listed as bypassing DR (or not) because all force damage comes from a spell which already does bypass DR by virtue of being a spell. A stance on force damage and DR would be irrelevant, until we were gifted with a legacy item from an old TV show.

This bow and the Force Enchantment from the MIC are the only two instances of non-spell force damage I'm aware of, and the Force enchant says

These force projectiles automatically overcome damage reduction and suffer no miss chance against incorporeal targets, but they don’t damage creatures immune to force effects.
This to me implies an intrinsic effect rather than an additional extra power. For example it wasn't a tag on clause like "These projectiles also bypass DR", but was a single clause grouping together the powers of a force projectile. I admit arguing over phrasing is splitting hairs, but you gotta start from somewhere.


Interestingly the show's age makes it prior to second edition, though on that note, I wonder if there's an episode of the show that would indicate if it bypasses DR or not, him shooting something with high DR and hurting it maybe? Does Cannon count as RAW?

[TuggyNE]

Interestingly the show's age makes it prior to second edition, though on that note, I wonder if there's an episode of the show that would indicate if it bypasses DR or not, him shooting something with high DR and hurting it maybe? Does Cannon count as RAW?

No, although it could reasonably be considered a good hint to RAI.

[olentu]

The issue is that Force Damage is a type of damage and all types of damage either are affect by DR or bypass it based on their type. Either force damage bypasses it or is affected by it depending on the result of our debate.

See that's the thing, when you say all types of damage either are affect by DR or bypass it based on their type that doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. You are making an assumption and that needs to be supported by some rules before it is going to get any traction, well with me at least. So please explain where the rules say that the applicability of damage reduction is by type.

[Zrak]

No, you say that all damage not explicitly defined as energy damage is subject to DR. Ability damage is a type of damage. Poison deals ability damage without being magical. According to your line of reasoning, that the bypass is explicit, then ability damage dealt by poison is subject to DR.

I never said any such thing. I'm not really sure from where you are getting this idea, but perhaps I haven't been clear. I feel as though I've been fairly direct, but to clarify in case I have not been, I believe that damage stated to bypass DR, or damage which DR is stated not to affect, bypasses or is not affected by damage reduction. Since the definition of damage reduction states that it does not affect poisons and diseases, I believe that damage from poisons and diseases is not subject to DR. Since the definition of neither damage reduction nor the definition of force effects contains any such provision, I believe that, unless otherwise stated, force effects are subject to damage reduction, especially force damage dealt by a weapon, since damage from "most weapons" (not "weapon damage") is stated specifically to be subject to damage reduction.


This to me implies an intrinsic effect rather than an additional extra power. For example it wasn't a tag on clause like "These projectiles also bypass DR", but was a single clause grouping together the powers of a force projectile. I admit arguing over phrasing is splitting hairs, but you gotta start from somewhere.
See, I think the phrasing indicates the opposite, for several reasons. Firstly, as I've said, were I to tell you that "these red apples are rotten," would you assume all red apples were rotten? In other words, "these" refers to a specific subset of a general set; "these force projectiles" ignore DR, just as "these red apples" are rotten. On the other hand, the description of Hank's energy bow states "As they are force effects, the arrows do not suffer a miss chance when used against incorporeal creatures." Hank's energy bow mentions a trait which all force effects are defined to possess, and states that the projectiles fired by the bow possess this trait as, or by virtue of being, force effects. Conversely, the language of force weapon refers to the specific force projectiles created by that enchantment, and mentions traits not included in the more general definition of force effects. This would lead me to assume that the traits of the force enchantment that force effects, in general, are not stated to possess are specific to its force projectiles. As you say, splitting hairs, but if they split in one direction, I'd say it's pretty soundly against bypassing DR.

[TypoNinja]

Lets put it another way then, Hanks Energy Bow is the only instance of a force effect I'm aware of that does not bypass DR. And the only other non-spell source of force I know of says it bypasses DR, while this bow doesn't say one way or another.

This makes me lean towards "oversight" in the bow's publication. While RAW nothing gives this bow the ability to bypass DR, from a consistency standpoint, literally every other source of force damage bypasses DR.

Which is why I could still see this going either way.

[JBento]

I can give you a 3rd type of damage. As per Complete Psionic (yes, I know the near entirety of the book is made of suckage - why, Astral Construct, whyyyyy?), damage from powers that is not energy damage, like Crystal Storm (Swarm? I forget - it's been a long time and I'm AFB), is explicitly affected by DR.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Imo it's subject to DM judgement since RAW is unclear.

Considering that allowing the bow to bypass DR makes it ridiculously cheap
instead of just a bargain with unique powers i would not let it ignore DR in a game i run.

[Zrak]

Lets put it another way then, Hanks Energy Bow is the only instance of a force effect I'm aware of that does not bypass DR. And the only other non-spell source of force I know of says it bypasses DR, while this bow doesn't say one way or another.

This makes me lean towards "oversight" in the bow's publication. While RAW nothing gives this bow the ability to bypass DR, from a consistency standpoint, literally every other source of force damage bypasses DR.

Which is why I could still see this going either way.

Well, I mean, considering that all but one of the other sources bypass DR by virtue of being spells, whose damage bypasses DR regardless of the damage type, that's hardly much to go on. So, really, literally one other source of force damage bypasses DR, if you don't count spells (since they give no indication about force effects, as spells ignore DR regardless), and that one feels the need to mention that it, specifically, ignores DR. Note that the caster level of the Force enchantment is lower than that of Hank's energy bow, despite the other effects present on the latter. Sure, it could be an intentional bargain when it comes to price, but it shouldn't have a lower caster level and lower aura DC than an item whose powers it emulates in addition to having other powers.

[Darrin]

Interestingly the show's age makes it prior to second edition, though on that note, I wonder if there's an episode of the show that would indicate if it bypasses DR or not, him shooting something with high DR and hurting it maybe? Does Cannon count as RAW?

I don't recall exactly, but the cartoon would probably be a bad example. The whole reason the bow fires "force bolts" rather than actual arrows was according to network standards you couldn't depict a character using real weapons on a kid's show. That's why on GI Joe, even though every character has very specific and unique weapons, whenever they have to shoot something, they all used the same laser rifle. That's because a "laser" wasn't a "real" weapon by the network censors. Same reason why Hank doesn't shoot any humanoids directly, he shoots the collapsing rocks over their head, pillars, arches, etc. Non-humanoids, monsters, illusions should be ok to shoot.

The animated handbook was designed to be played by more casual fans, so it makes sense not to let the item description get too technical over DR or energy types. I think the intention was to bypass DR, they just forgot to mention it. Undercosting it I think was also deliberate, pretty much all the signature items in that handbook were undercosted in an effort to make them look balanced to each other.

[Zrak]

As I said, undercosting is one thing, but it's weird that its caster level and aura DC are lowered, as well. I feel that, at a certain point, the number of oversights, intentional simplifications, and outright errors involved in an explanation for why the rules should be read a certain way can just become too great, you know?

It really comes down to DM discretion, as people have said, I just really don't understand the arguments for it bypassing DR. So if I seem obstinate, I keep arguing because I'm trying to understand the reasoning, not just to be bull-headed and difficult.

[TuggyNE]

It really comes down to DM discretion, as people have said, I just really don't understand the arguments for it bypassing DR. So if I seem obstinate, I keep arguing because I'm trying to understand the reasoning, not just to be bull-headed and difficult.

I think the reasoning behind why it should is that it's, essentially, firing abstracted arrows of distilled kinetic energy, and as such the shape and other qualities are basically irrelevant to such mundane matters as DR.

At any rate, I feel strongly enough that it should that I would prefer increasing the cost to match a sensible price (and amending the description to fully clarify), rather than abandon the sensible function force arrows should have.

[Mithril Leaf]

I can give you a 3rd type of damage. As per Complete Psionic (yes, I know the near entirety of the book is made of suckage - why, Astral Construct, whyyyyy?), damage from powers that is not energy damage, like Crystal Storm (Swarm? I forget - it's been a long time and I'm AFB), is explicitly affected by DR.

This is pretty important actually. It gives an example of something similar to Orb of Force, being an instant conjuration (or equivalent thereof) which does not bypass DR by merit of being a spell or power. It is also not energy nor force damage. So we have a counter example of something that normally doesn't bypass DR, not doing so, despite being something that normally does. I hate Complete Psionic as much as the next guy, but it does provide a good counter example.
It is RAW that powers (and spells due to transparency) which deal damage that doesn't normally bypass DR, do not bypass DR by nature of being spells. From here, one can go in the other direction and say that spells which do bypass DR, do so by dealing damage that normally does bypass DR. At least in the form of conjured things, such as orbs and crystals.
Following this line of reasoning to it's conclusion leads to the theory that force damage, which when dealt by instantaneous conjuration spells bypasses DR, does in fact bypass DR under normal circumstances.
In addition, there are other force weapon that are not spells which grant DR bypassing via being made force.

[animewatcha]

So Hank's energy bow gets to be a dressed up fancy ghost-touch weapon? And the crystal helm chakra bind that gives melee attacks the force descriptor gets to be made worthless?

[olentu]

This is pretty important actually. It gives an example of something similar to Orb of Force, being an instant conjuration (or equivalent thereof) which does not bypass DR by merit of being a spell or power. It is also not energy nor force damage. So we have a counter example of something that normally doesn't bypass DR, not doing so, despite being something that normally does. I hate Complete Psionic as much as the next guy, but it does provide a good counter example.
It is RAW that powers (and spells due to transparency) which deal damage that doesn't normally bypass DR, do not bypass DR by nature of being spells. From here, one can go in the other direction and say that spells which do bypass DR, do so by dealing damage that normally does bypass DR. At least in the form of conjured things, such as orbs and crystals.
Following this line of reasoning to it's conclusion leads to the theory that force damage, which when dealt by instantaneous conjuration spells bypasses DR, does in fact bypass DR under normal circumstances.
In addition, there are other force weapon that are not spells which grant DR bypassing via being made force.

It's not really that useful of an example. It is an exception that applies only to metacreativity powers and not to those of any other discipline that deals one of those types of damage. Generalizing it is improper and so it is of little import. Not that you would really want it generalized as it would seem that it rather supports the opposing position to yours.

[Mithril Leaf]

It's not really that useful of an example. It is an exception that applies only to metacreativity powers and not to those of any other discipline that deals one of those types of damage. Generalizing it is improper and so it is of little import. Not that you would really want it generalized as it would seem that it rather supports the opposing position to yours.

In what way does it support your position by saying that conjuration/metacreativity spells/powers allow for DR when applicable? If anything, it cements that force damage is one of the types that bypasses DR through it's own merit, rather than due to being from a spell.

[TypoNinja]

This is pretty important actually. It gives an example of something similar to Orb of Force, being an instant conjuration (or equivalent thereof) which does not bypass DR by merit of being a spell or power. It is also not energy nor force damage. So we have a counter example of something that normally doesn't bypass DR, not doing so, despite being something that normally does. I hate Complete Psionic as much as the next guy, but it does provide a good counter example.
It is RAW that powers (and spells due to transparency) which deal damage that doesn't normally bypass DR, do not bypass DR by nature of being spells. From here, one can go in the other direction and say that spells which do bypass DR, do so by dealing damage that normally does bypass DR. At least in the form of conjured things, such as orbs and crystals.
Following this line of reasoning to it's conclusion leads to the theory that force damage, which when dealt by instantaneous conjuration spells bypasses DR, does in fact bypass DR under normal circumstances.
In addition, there are other force weapon that are not spells which grant DR bypassing via being made force.

The Orb of Force does bypass DR, despite being a conjuration (why the hell aren't orbs evocations?) by virtue of being a spell. Psionics all would as well according to the magic/psionic transparency rules.

The DR section explicitly calls out that any spells bypass DR. This is where the grey area in this discussion pops up, since non-spell sources of force damage are so rare.

The distinction would be that Conjuration effects may or may not bypass DR depending on their attack method. If it attacks as a spell it should bypass DR, (as per the orbs) if it instead summons something that then does the attacking, its no longer attacking as a spell and may not bypass DR automatically. Spiritual Weapon is a good example of this (despite being evocation) the spell description tells you that it attacks as a spell not the summoned weapon, so still bypasses DR.

While I would concede that RAW force damage does not bypass DR, I believe that RAI it should.

I would also agree that makes Hanks bow around 10k too cheap, but that's a different problem.

[Mithril Leaf]

The Orb of Force does bypass DR, despite being a conjuration (why the hell aren't orbs evocations?) by virtue of being a spell. Psionics all would as well according to the magic/psionic transparency rules.


Except other identical effects that exist as powers don't bypass DR by virtue of being a power. According to Complete Psionic, a created and launched shard of crystal (which is functional identical to an orb spell) doesn't bypass DR because it deals piercing damage, yet and orb of force does. Why is this? I posit that it is because like it's named as energy brothers, force damage also bypasses DR naturally, through virtue of it's type.

[Namfuak]

Except other identical effects that exist as powers don't bypass DR by virtue of being a power. According to Complete Psionic, a created and launched shard of crystal (which is functional identical to an orb spell) doesn't bypass DR because it deals piercing damage, yet and orb of force does. Why is this? I posit that it is because like it's named as energy brothers, force damage also bypasses DR naturally, through virtue of it's type.

Cloud of Knives is a spell that deals damage that does not bypass DR either - such spells are exceptions, not the rule. Orb of Force does not specify that it does not bypass DR - thus, it does. Orb of Force, unlike Hank's Energy Bow, is a spell, which is why it bypasses DR.

This argument is going to go in circles because neither side is willing to accept the other's arguments. It's probably worth dropping, unless someone has some new, really convincing evidence one way or the other to submit.

[TuggyNE]

At this point I think it's safe to say RAW on the matter is self-contradictory, confusing, and incomplete, and may or may not properly represent intent or common sense.


AllNearly all spells bypass DR (the exceptions are called out as such)
Nearly all force effects are known to bypass DR (and the remainder may or may not)
Some powers do not bypass DR, despite transparency
The Energy Bow is priced inconsistently with its possible ability to bypass all DR (since similar special abilities add +2 or so)
Force damage is not well-defined as weapon, energy, or some other variety
A force effect in the shape of a weapon is not well-defined as weapon, energy, spell, or some other sort (?)


Any other bits I've forgotten? (Fake-edit: Bolded is something I'm not actually sure of at all; initially it seemed obvious that that was up in the air, but I'm not so certain on reflection. If it is well-defined, at least in the case of the Energy Bow specifically, that probably settles the question RAW-wise.)

[olentu]

In what way does it support your position by saying that conjuration/metacreativity spells/powers allow for DR when applicable? If anything, it cements that force damage is one of the types that bypasses DR through it's own merit, rather than due to being from a spell.

That it is an exception implies that it is not the type of damage that matters. Other powers deal one of those types of damage and are not placed under this prohibition. The implication is that the type of damage is not the deciding factor, but rather the source of the damage. That is "weapon damage (subdivided into bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing)" versus "damage from most weapons". If type of damage was the deciding factor you would think they would call out all powers that deal piercing, slashing, or bludgeoning damage.

But like I said it is not proper to use such implication as if it really had any weight. It is just fluff and conjecture and the disagreement in the implication is just an example of why it should be ignored.

[Mithril Leaf]

Cloud of Knives is a spell that deals damage that does not bypass DR either - such spells are exceptions, not the rule. Orb of Force does not specify that it does not bypass DR - thus, it does. Orb of Force, unlike Hank's Energy Bow, is a spell, which is why it bypasses DR.

This argument is going to go in circles because neither side is willing to accept the other's arguments. It's probably worth dropping, unless someone has some new, really convincing evidence one way or the other to submit.

I'd be content dropping it due to lack of conclusive evidence for either side. I do still think I'm right, but I'd be willing to call a ceasefire with the other opinion and say that it's really up to a DM to decide.

[Firechanter]

All spells bypass DR



Nup. Ring of Blades comes to mind. The shards count as Magic, Silver and Slashing but otherwise are explicitly affected by DR.

[TuggyNE]

Nup. Ring of Blades comes to mind. The shards count as Magic, Silver and Slashing but otherwise are explicitly affected by DR.

Fair enough, although that doesn't really change the import of that (it just adds the complexity that there are a few spells that explicitly opt in to DR).

[TypoNinja]

Nup. Ring of Blades comes to mind. The shards count as Magic, Silver and Slashing but otherwise are explicitly affected by DR.


Damage Reduction

A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. Wounds heal immediately, or the weapon bounces off harmlessly (in either case, the opponent knows the attack was ineffective). The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. A certain kind of weapon can sometimes damage the creature normally, as noted below.

Spells bypass DR as a baseline, any spell not bypassing DR is an exception. Obvious exceptions would be conjuration effects that summon something else to do the hitting for you instead of the spell doing the damage.

So the statement "All spells bypass DR" is correct if incomplete, the full clause would be "All spells bypass DR, unless the spell says it doesn't" which is at the core of an exception based rules system.

As for Psionics behaving badly despite the magic transparency rules... Yay Psionics?

[olentu]

As for Psionics behaving badly despite the magic transparency rules... Yay Psionics?

Eh, it's not really even an applicable case of officially named transparency I think.

[Zrak]

I think the reasoning behind why it should is that it's, essentially, firing abstracted arrows of distilled kinetic energy, and as such the shape and other qualities are basically irrelevant to such mundane matters as DR.
See, prior to all reasoning related to rules and cost and such, I thought the opposite. Abstracted kinetic energy would cause harm in the same basic way that a weapon would, or at least would cause harm in a means closer to that than the way, say, heat damage would. In other words, I imagine a dastardly villain hit by a force arrow would have a puncture wound (or bruise or whatever), rather than, say, terrible burns or some of his flesh corroded away.