Questions about Force effects

[Jowgen]

I would like to have a little chat about Force Effects.

There is arguably nothing more "special" in D&D than Force Effects. They cross planar boundaries, from the material to the ethereal, purely by being force effects. They are inherently indestructible, except for that strange vulnerability to Disintegrate and certain Artifacts. And except for 1 Epic Monster made of Force (the Force Dragon Wan Kenobi) and Argent Savants, there is absolutely nothing that can hope to resist the damage dealt by Force effects.

Now as far as I know, the above three statements are irrefutable; but other than that, the nature of Force Effects are ill-defined. This thread is dedicated to discussing some of those areas in terms of both RAW and RAI.

1. Force Effects and Damage Reduction

Most Force Effects are spell effects (e.g. Magic Missile), and therefore ignore damage reduction regardless of being Force Effects. However, there are such things as weapons or other damage-dealing objects that are made of Force, such as Riverine (Stormwrack), the Javelins created by gloves as endless Javelins, Orbs of Force etc.

The entry of the "Force" WSA from MIC uses the term "Force Attack" and the Psychokinetic WSA from the same book specifically mentions "Force Damage", with both entries suggesting that Force effects have the inherent property to overcome damage reduction, spell effect or not.

Force: A projectile weapon with the force property turns ammunition shot from it into a force attack. 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.

Psychokinetic: Such a weapon deals an extra 1d4 points of force damage on a successful hit. This extra damage is not affected by damage reduction, and it affects incorporeal creatures even if the attack would normally miss due to the incorporeal miss chance.

What are people's RAW and RAI opinions on this? Should anything made of Force be considered to be DR-overcoming? How could this affect play, such as in the case of Riverine weapons or a creature with DR taking damage from falling onto a Force effect?

2. Force as Energy Damage

From a RAW perspective, AFAIK, damage dealt by Force effects/attacks does not qualify as Energy Damage, as only Fire, Cold, Electricity, Acid and Sonic are defined as such in the glossary. It would likely fall into realm of those "weird" damage types, like Radiant and Vile damage, as there are several mentions of "Force Damage" within the books (e.g. A&E Force WSA; DMG Bead of Force; MIC Psychokinetic WSA).

The spell works only on breath weapons that deal energy (acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic) damage. [...] If your breath weapon uses force energy, this bonus is an armor bonus composed of force (like that granted by mage armor) rather than a natural armor bonus.

This spell appears to contradict itself, in that it first limits its use to weapons that deal the standard types of Energy Damage, but then later on makes a special case for when "Force Energy" is used. The Spell was later re-done in Spell Compendium, where it instead just created something like an elemental; but the fact that the Spell Description has been superseded by a later printing doesn't necessarily undo its rule-wise implications. If Force effects do inherently overcome DR it certainly makes sense for them to be an energy type, but the rules are so very unclear/unsupportive.

So what are people's opinions on the RAI and RAW in this case? Are or should Force effects be categorizeable as an Elemental Energy type, and if yes, does/would this have any implications?

3. Force damage and Hardness

Force damage is described as "a special type of damage" in the PHB glossary, which as per question 2, may place it either in the "weird energy" category or have it be an "unloved" elemental energy type. In either case, the question is what this means for the purpose of damaging objects. In the 2008 FAQ, the Sage ruled that Hardness applies to all energy damage and force attacks, directly contracting earlier FAQ and Dragon magazine rulings stating that Hardness only applies to Fire, Electricity and Cold attacks, not Acid, Sonic or Force.

WotC contradicting itself aside, this question actually has wider-reaching effects. There are a myrad of strange damage types out there, some of which may only work on creatures (Vile maybe?), but others carry no such limitation (Radiant I think?). If these other "weird energy" type damages fall into the same category as Force damage, then the same hardness-related rules would (arguably) apply; meaning that these "weird energy" damage types may or may not get to ignore hardness.

So what do people think are the actual RAW and RAI here? Do or should Force and/or (other) types of not-elemental energy damage get to ignore hardness? What implications would this have for actual gameplay, e.g., may Riverine weapons be affected?

4. Force effects and Anti-Magic

Wall of Force is famously immune to being dispelled, but immediately falls prey to disintegrate. Some Force effects are described as working like Wall of Force in all aspects, some don't mention Wall of Force at all, and yet others are only explicitly stated to work like Wall of Force in some cases. The most famous example is of course Forcecage, which by RAW, can't be dispelled but does technically fall prey to Anti-magic field (making it a bad choice for containing dragons).

So what are people's opinions on the RAI and RAW regarding the interaction between force effects and anti-magic effects? Can/should any force effect be immune to dispelling and anti-magic fields, or is it clearly determined/intended that only Wall of Force gets that special bonus? By the same coin, should all Force effects be affected by disintegrate in the same way?

5. The very nature of (the) Force

This last issue is more or less a combination of all of the above. What is "Force" and what are its inherent properties by RAW or should be by RAI? I've heard arguments that Force is simply pure magic, others say its pure kinetic energy or "compressed space" created/shaped by magic, others say its a 6th element, there are those who do not believe that Force actually exists beyond being a Spell Descriptor, and these are likely to not be the only opinions on the matter.

Where do you stand?


All contributions are welcome and feel free to suggest other "grey areas" that should be discussed :smallsmile:

[Jowgen]

Huh, I thought the topic would be at least somewhat popular. Maybe I ought to change the thread name? :smallconfused:

[d20familiar]

A pity, this was supposed to be quite an interesting discussion :smallfrown:.

[TheMooch]

1. I run force effect as overcoming DR. I get this ruling from power claws/weapon (CP) it states that force damage overcomes DR as if it were a spell

2. I don't consider force as an energy type. Fire, electric, acid, sonic, cold are energies. Radiant, vile and dessication are not energy types (I think but I could be wrong, I don't remember reading a rule about this)

3. I have ruled that force overcomes hardness and applies to the specified energy types.

4. Force wall only gets the special effect because it is in the spell description. Other force effects are suppressed or dispelled as normal

[Taveena]

I think part of the reason behind the lack of discussion is your post was just... really damn intelligent and you explored so many avenues it's hard to think of what to say, heh. All I can say is that the Acid/Sonic/Force ignoring hardness ruling makes more sense to me than the alternative.

Also, City damage can certainly be applied to objects.

[jedipotter]

1. Force always bypasses damage reduction.
2. A Force effect is not energy damage.
3. Hardness only applies to Fire, Electricity and Cold attacks, not Acid, Sonic or Force.
4. Wall of Force is special. Any Force effect can be dispelled, unless the spell states otherwise. After all lots of spells are immune to dispel magic, but you don't jump and say ''all fire spells are immune'' from that. All Force effects are affected by disintegrate in the same way.
5. I go with ''solid magic'', but not ''pure magic''.

[Jowgen]

Yay! Interest in the topic! :smallbiggrin:

So so far opinions are pretty uniform with 1) Overcomes DR 2) Not an energy type 3) Overcomes Hardness 4) Dispel normally, and one suggestion that Force is "pure magic".

I personally agree with 1) and 3), do agree with 4) -although I could see a good RAI case against it; but 2) deserves a bit more attention, I think.

Other than the Animate Breath spell from the OP, I've now come across something in Dragon Magazine. Issue 338, page 98, has a bunch of Grimoires, which are mostly just masterwork knowledge tools. One of the Grimoires is titled "The Theory and Application of Force Magic", is allegedly the "best reference about force magic ever written", and it "examines force magic as a mysterious power akin to a 5th element".

I wouldn't be particularly hung up on this point if Sonic didn't get to be an Energy Type. What does Sonic have that Force doesn't? :smallmad:


I think part of the reason behind the lack of discussion is your post was just... really damn intelligent and you explored so many avenues it's hard to think of what to say, heh.

Oh stop it you :smallredface:

[Taveena]

Strictly speaking cold is a LACK of energy. The energy types should be heat (fire), chemical (acid), electric (... electricity), sonic (kinetic), and... positive. Maybe.

Cough. Really, though, what force lacks is a particular real world analogue, I suppose? Like, if you take the various energy types and apply it to, say, Lingering breath. Fire results in there being a field of fire, cold results in a field of cold, acid results in an acid pool, electricity a crackling electrical field, and sonic in a rapidly vibrating resonant area. What would Force be that Sonic wouldn't?

Force effects seem to imply single direction where sonic is, obviously, vibration. So a field of force would... presumably just shove you in a certain direction?

What IS Force? If it's pure magic, then that kinda makes sense, but the name implies a misnomer. So maybe it's that - but then, an Eldritch Blast is pure magic and that's not force damage. (Maybe for balance reasons?)

[Firest Kathon]

I think the effects re damage reduction (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#damageReduction) are quite clear:



A creature with this special quality ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks. [...] The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. [...] Damage reduction does not negate [...] energy damage dealt along with an attack.


So it depends entirely on the source of the energy.



Source
DR applies


Spell
no


Weapon made of force
yes


Weapon which deals additional force damage
no (for the additional damage)



The first two seem to be agreed by the previous posters. Regarding the weapons, I point to the spell Spiritual Weapon (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/spiritualWeapon.htm):

A weapon made of pure force [...] dealing 1d8 force damage per hit [...] It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so, for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction.
The spell description explicitly points out that it overcomes damage reduction because it strikes as a spell, not as a weapon. In my opinion, this allows the deduction that it would not overcome damage reduction if it would strike as a weapon. I'd look up some more spells which create weapons from force, but I am AFB at the moment. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that such weapons are described as dealing slashing, piercing or bludgeoning damage, one more confirmation that they are subject to damage reduction.

[Mr Adventurer]

Strictly speaking cold is a LACK of energy.

Strictly speaking, cold is an energy. It says so right in the book.

[Crake]

Strictly speaking cold is a LACK of energy. The energy types should be heat (fire), chemical (acid), electric (... electricity), sonic (kinetic), and... positive. Maybe.

Cough. Really, though, what force lacks is a particular real world analogue, I suppose? Like, if you take the various energy types and apply it to, say, Lingering breath. Fire results in there being a field of fire, cold results in a field of cold, acid results in an acid pool, electricity a crackling electrical field, and sonic in a rapidly vibrating resonant area. What would Force be that Sonic wouldn't?

Force effects seem to imply single direction where sonic is, obviously, vibration. So a field of force would... presumably just shove you in a certain direction?

What IS Force? If it's pure magic, then that kinda makes sense, but the name implies a misnomer. So maybe it's that - but then, an Eldritch Blast is pure magic and that's not force damage. (Maybe for balance reasons?)

I think you could think of force effects as packets of energy that literally apply a force to something. So in the case of wall of force, it applies an opposing force to anything coming in contact with it. In the case of things like magic missile, it contains a forward force that, when it hits it's target causes essentially tidal effects on the creature, because the force is not being applied evenly. Imagine it like when you come in contact with a magic missile, the part of your body that was hit is shoved in a random direction (presumably that which the missile was travelling), but the rest of your body is not. In that sense the creature is being "pulled apart"

[Jowgen]

Really, though, what force lacks is a particular real world analogue, I suppose?

Interesting you should mention that, I was perusing Compete Arcane and the fluff for the Argent Savant actually talks about that


Of all the energies summoned or shaped by magic, force is perhaps the most pure. No analog for this power exists in the physical world; it comes into being only through the medium of spells, and therefore represents a perfection of intent that contradicts the imperfection of the everchanging world and its mutable elements

This is pretty cool for a bunch of reasons. For one, it suggests that "Force" is energy, but what's far more interesting is the thing about it having no analog in the physical world. If it doesn't exist in the physical world then that rules out a whole bunch of things that it could be. "Kinetic energy" -a popular explenation for force- very much exists in the physical world, so it's not that. It also can't be "pure magic", not nessecarily because magic exists in the physical world, but because it specicifcally states that magic only shapes or summons force.


So a field of force would... presumably just shove you in a certain direction?

Hmmm... Etheral Dragons have a Force breath weapon, but that's not really a field. The vast majority of deflection to AC effects are Force based, so I suppose it would either block you completely out or at least make it very hard to move I suppose. Is Force ever "not solid"?


The spell description explicitly points out that it overcomes damage reduction because it strikes as a spell, not as a weapon. In my opinion, this allows the deduction that it would not overcome damage reduction if it would strike as a weapon. I'd look up some more spells which create weapons from force, but I am AFB at the moment. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that such weapons are described as dealing slashing, piercing or bludgeoning damage, one more confirmation that they are subject to damage reduction.

Interesting point. In this specific example, I would nit-pick that Spiritual Weapon allows for Spell Resistance, which is in line with the attack striking as a spell. Compare to Power Claw, which does not allow Power Resistance, in line with it specificifying that the claw "overcomes damage reduction as if it were a spell and not a weapon attack.", rather than striking as a spell like Spiritual Weapon does.

Also, it specifies that the "overcome DR like spell" effect is a result of it dealing force damage. Taking into account that the Force-projectiles created by the Force WSA from MIC overcome DR by virtue of being "Force attack"s, I think it's pretty clear that Force Damage, in in off itself, ignores Damage Reduction.

What this doesn't reliably resolve is whether all things made of Force deal Force Damage.

I'd personally argue that Riverine doesn't because with Weapon Special materials, only the material that makes up the majority of the weapon gives a benefit. Riverine is Force on the outside but its Water for the most part, so while it might not make 'sense", it does follow from the RAW that Riverine weapons do not count as a "Force attack".

As for other things made out of entirely force, it gets trickier. If something gets knocked back hard into a wall of force, would it take force damage? Would a javelin made of force deal piercing damage or force damage? If we define something made of Force dealing damage through contact as a "Force attack", then they would. Also, if we consider "Force" to be a type of energy (as the Argent Savant fluff states), then it would most certainly make sense, in that you'd take fire damage from a sword made of fire.

The crux that remains, however, is the following: If something is stated to be a weapon made of force, and the text doesn't specify what kind of damage it deals, does it deal damage as a Piercing/Slashing/Bludgeoning weapon or as a "Force attack"? I don't see a definitive answer to this. If Force is a type of energy (some support for the notion), then it should be the latter; but you could also treat it as a weapon material and thusly let the weapon-damage-type take precendence (e.g. an adamamtine weapon doesn't deal "adamantine damage"). Could "Force" be considered a weapon special material? Then again, even if it was, I could still see an attack with it being considered a "Force attack" so... *shrug*


I think you could think of force effects as packets of energy that literally apply a force to something. So in the case of wall of force, it applies an opposing force to anything coming in contact with it. In the case of things like magic missile, it contains a forward force that, when it hits it's target causes essentially tidal effects on the creature, because the force is not being applied evenly. Imagine it like when you come in contact with a magic missile, the part of your body that was hit is shoved in a random direction (presumably that which the missile was travelling), but the rest of your body is not. In that sense the creature is being "pulled apart"

Hmmm... that's as straight forward an interpretation as possible, I think. It fits Force being something without a "real world analog", since Kinetic energy can not naturally behave in such a "pocketed" fashion. It fits with it being a type of energy, in that contact doesn't "burn", "freeze", "electrocuted", etc.; but instead simply pulls something out of place without regard for the surrounding structure. It even fits with how Deflection modifiers to AC are supposed to work.

I like it. I think I have a new favorite way to fluff what "Force" is. I bequeath a cookie or similar token reward upon thee, good sir :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Also, this actually fits in context with Force effects being weak to disintegrate. "Pulling apart", "disjoining" or however you put it is exactly what disintegrate does on a very powerful level. So if Force "pockets" this kind of energy, then disintegrate automatically destroying that pocket due to its reverese effect makes abso-friggin-lute sense. I tripple my cookie reward, best of sirs! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

[Ashtagon]

Near as I can tell, RAI is that Force is an energy damage type. As such, it ignores DR. It would theoretically be affected by "force energy resistance" if that existed. This energy type bypasses incorporeality-based defences, and I think etherealuity-based defences too.

Those rules that allow energy type substitution generally don't list Force as one of the convertible energytypes, and I'm cool with that.

For me, it is clearly an energy type. I don't, however, like to acknowledge any elemental link to energy tupes, excepty for fire to fire (natch). I also don't see any reason why there should be any particular linkage between force and the other energy damage types. It is a keyword for some special effects, and not an indication that rules for this shouldbe extended to rules for other energy types.

[heavyfuel]

I'll just say that it doesn't make sense that Force effects (and acid, and sonic) get to ignore hardness. I'm no chemist, but it seem it would be tougher for an acid to break through steel than it is for it break through bone. Same goes for sonic waves breaking glass, but not metal. Force effects also don't get off with this... I don't want Persistent Blades (Spell Compendium) breaking through adamantine sealed doors, it also makes no sense that they should.

It makes sense in my mind, and RAW is on my side (despite outdated sage rulings)

[Tarlek Flamehai]

I'll just say that it doesn't make sense that Force effects (and acid, and sonic) get to ignore hardness. I'm no chemist, but it seem it would be tougher for an acid to break through steel than it is for it break through bone. Same goes for sonic waves breaking glass, but not metal. Force effects also don't get off with this... I don't want Persistent Blades (Spell Compendium) breaking through adamantine sealed doors, it also makes no sense that they should.

It makes sense in my mind, and RAW is on my side (despite outdated sage rulings)

Force gets to ignore hardness because it is a made up effect that can be defined in any way the writer wants.

Acid is unaffected by hardness IRL, what matters is how resistant the material is to chemical change. The noble metals are very resistant to acid, but largely consist of very soft elements ie gold and silver.

Hard materials tend to be more brittle and thus vulnerable to vibration. Even with metals, if you make the steel to hard it loses flexibility and the sword breaks in battle.

[heavyfuel]

Force gets to ignore hardness because it is a made up effect that can be defined in any way the writer wants.

Acid is unaffected by hardness IRL, what matters is how resistant the material is to chemical change. The noble metals are very resistant to acid, but largely consist of very soft elements ie gold and silver.

Hard materials tend to be more brittle and thus vulnerable to vibration. Even with metals, if you make the steel to hard it loses flexibility and the sword breaks in battle.

Yes, but it's not how the developers chose to define, given the lack of rule on the subject.

True, but it's still easier to break wood or bone than it is to break metal with acid. Hardness is simply a way of making the game easier t understand, especially since no one should be required to know how resistant to chemical change steel or stone is (though an obvious example should be glass having great resistance given how acid is stored in D&D). Much like your theory on made up effects, made up materials can also be resistant or not. Since the writer doesn't say acid can eat through adamantine or mithral or deep crystal or whatever easily, it can't be default.

Again, true. But by this logic wooden materials should be granted special resistances to sonic damage or something similar. And steel (with is more flexible than iron) shouldn't be broken easily by losing all of its hardness. Special, fictional, materials continue to be special. But as I said, the designers made no such exception and hardness serves as a way of simplifying things for the same reasons I mentioned in the acid paragraph.

[Chronos]

Hardness applies to all attacks except for those that specifically say that they bypass it. Force, acid, and sonic are normally all subject to hardness. Acid and sonic damage do have one benefit with regards to attacking objects: You don't divide the damage by 2 or 4 like you do with fire, cold, or electricity. And effects based on acid or sonic are more likely to have specific rules to let them bypass hardness, but it's not a guarantee.

For instance, a sonic Energy Ball (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/energyBall.htm) bypasses hardness, because the power says that it does. But the Shout (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/shout.htm) spell does not bypass hardness.

I'm not aware of any force attack that bypasses hardness. There might be one out there somewhere, but if so, it'll have to specifically say so.

[Qwertystop]

I think you could think of force effects as packets of energy that literally apply a force to something. So in the case of wall of force, it applies an opposing force to anything coming in contact with it. In the case of things like magic missile, it contains a forward force that, when it hits it's target causes essentially tidal effects on the creature, because the force is not being applied evenly. Imagine it like when you come in contact with a magic missile, the part of your body that was hit is shoved in a random direction (presumably that which the missile was travelling), but the rest of your body is not. In that sense the creature is being "pulled apart"

I like that possibility.

I got an alternative idea when I saw the "no analog" bit: Force effects are "two things can't be in the same place at the same time" without the need for a second thing in that place. It's Evocation imitating Conjuration, or it would be with more consistent schools. Damage is dealt by putting a force effect inside an object, and then working from the same point that teleporting one object or creature into another does. Obstructions like Wall of Force say "there is a solid here" in the complete absence of such a solid.

Force effects are the opposite of spells that make things Ethereal/Incorporeal (I always get them mixed up). Instead of having an object mostly ignored by the universe's collision detection, it triggers the collision detection in the absence of an object. It tags space as "occupied" without bothering to check whether there's actually something there.

[Jowgen]

I believe I have managed to finally track down a definitive answer! :smallbiggrin:

It is from Dragon Magazine 323, which according to my latest RAW thread query (answered by Curmudgeon) can only be over-ruled by official errata (Sage does not qualify), the three primary sourcebooks, which do not provide a definitive answer, or a later publication.

Page 79 has a side-bar dedicated to Force effect rules which includes the following points:


-Force is not an energy type (oh well... :smallfrown:)
-Spells with the Force descriptor overcome damage reduction and hardness, dealing full damage to objects.
-Force affects etheral and incorporeal creatures equally.

The energy type thing is called into question by Complete Arcane's argent savant fluff, since Complete Arcane was published two months after.

The second part on the other hand is pretty clear. All force descriptor spells (even those that strike as weapons rather than spells) overcome Damage Reduction, and flat-out ignore hardness.

Unless there is a rule somewhere that states that Spells in general get to ignore hardness, then then the ability of Force spells to do so can only be attributed to the fact that they use Force. Based on this, I don't think there is any room to argue against Force having an inherent Hardness Ignoring property. :smallsmile:


Now for the whole how this makes sense debate:

I remain a big subscriber to Crake's way of fluffing Force effects, as I explained in my last post. Force affects the physical world on the same level as the disintegrate spell does, directly acting upon the very bonding fabric of things. Disintegrate dissolves these bonds in an area down to dust level, while a Force attack instead "disjoints" or "pulls" them apart in a specific location. So in this, Force would get to ignore Hardness because it's damage applies on a level so small that the composition of whatever it is damaging no longer applies.

Alternatively, one could simply fluff this based on the indestructibility of Force effects. Adamantine and Obdurium get to ignore Hardness less than 20 while having hardness of 20 or higher. The fluff explanation here could simply be that once something reaches a certain level of hardness, that disproportionate hardness somehow results in the hardness of other things no longer mattering on impact. The only repercussion of making this a proper house-rule would be that magically increased hardness might bring other materials into this realm, but it would be easy to house rule that only unmodified hardness works in this context. Again, Riverine wouldn't benefit because the weapon as a whole is mostly water. So with this fluff, Force would get to ignore hardness because its own hardness is maximum.

In either case, the effectiveness of a given Force attack against an object would depend on the mode of application. A Persistent Blade spell might get to ignore the hardness of an Adamantine door, but it would only damage a very small area of that door it which each attack. The door as a whole might have an HP value, but a DM can just as easily use the HP/inch of thickness value to adjucate how far through the door the Persitent blade manages to cut/pierce with each turn. At best you'd be able to very slowly slice a man-sized hole through the door.

As for Sonic and Acid:

I personally can see them Ignoring Hardness. With Sonic, every object has a specific frequency that can cause it to break apart, and pure sonic energy could easily be fluffled as a 'universal frequency'. With Acid, I think the point about chemical resistance works, and a DM could easily adjucate that things other than glass have immunity or take half damage for some reason. In either case, I don't think there is much of an issue really, because even if Hardness is ignored, more durable objects will have more HP, preserving their relative durability.

[(Un)Inspired]

I thought that when the prequel (2e) came out they made it clear that all force effects were generated by microscopic life forms that lived within the cells of all beings named midichlorians.

Is that not still the canon answer to what wall of force and the like are supposed to be?