DM Help [3.5] Hank's Energy Bow [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Necroticplague

2017-11-26, 05:24 PM

To answer the Q&A: yes, Wind wall still deflects them.

...it fires arrows of pure magical force

Arrows and bolts are deflected upward and miss, while any other normal ranged weapon passing through the wall has a 30% miss chance.
So, their status as a magical force effect is irrelevant. If it's an arrow, Wind Wall deflects it upward and makes it miss. And arrows made out of force are still arrows.

To answer the second question: Yes, they are piercing. The fact they're force effects is irrelevant. Hank's Energy Bow is still a Composite Longbow, which does Piercing damage. Hank's Energy Bow doesn't have a single word that overrides the normal damage type (note that the arrows don't list what type of damage they deal), so it stays the same type of damage as any other composite longbow.

ExLibrisMortis

2017-11-26, 05:25 PM

Force projectiles automatically bypass any DR, but might suffer from energy resistance against force (which, err, doesn't exist, I don't think--some creatures are immune, though).

As for wind wall, I would rule like this: wind wall works fine against force projectiles; they're really just instantaneous conjurations (think orb of force) that are independent of the bow, and suffer from wind as any unanchored object made of force. I mean, a wall of force stops wind, too, right? Of course, this might imply you can fire them into an antimagic field, which might be too much.

Not RAW, because the whole instantaneous conjuration thing is just my headcanon for Hank's energy bow, but a good option.

zergling.exe

2017-11-26, 11:15 PM

Force projectiles automatically bypass any DR, but might suffer from energy resistance against force (which, err, doesn't exist, I don't think--some creatures are immune, though).

I don't think this is entirely true. The Force weapon property from MiC specifies that they ignore DR and hits incorporeal creatures, but Hank's energy bow only specifies that it hits incorporeal creatures. So by RAW I don't think it ignores DR and only overcomes DR as a piercing weapon.

ExLibrisMortis

2017-11-27, 06:34 AM

I don't think this is entirely true. The Force weapon property from MiC specifies that they ignore DR and hits incorporeal creatures, but Hank's energy bow only specifies that it hits incorporeal creatures. So by RAW I don't think it ignores DR and only overcomes DR as a piercing weapon.
I think you're right by RAW, but I have trouble seeing how the fluff for force effects would be compatible with piercing damage. After all, force effects typically deal untyped damage, not some weapon damage type (even Bigby's hands and Mordenkainen's sword have no damage type), and a force projectile is more like a spell than like an arrow (and spells bypass DR). As such, I think it's more consistent RAI to treat H'sEB as having the force property, even if it's a little less RAW.

Also, did you know the entire Rules Compendium has nothing on force effects against DR? It's such a useless book...

Mutazoia

2017-11-27, 07:12 AM

Any reason why the "arrow" fired by the bow, wouldn't function more or less like a "magic missile" as per the spell (minus the auto hit)?

Hank's Energy Bow, is a direct ripoff of the Heart Bow from the old movie "Archer: Fugitive from the Empire"

Necroticplague

2017-11-27, 10:21 AM

I think you're right by RAW, but I have trouble seeing how the fluff for force effects would be compatible with piercing damage.
Easy: not all force affects apply a special force onto the target. Pick up a Wall of Force and hit someone with it, and it's just normal bludgeoning damage. It's the same reason Riverine weapons still do their normal type of damage. These force affects still do their damage by being pointy, so they're still piercing. To go back to my earlier post: an arrow made of force is still an arrow, and works as such. Force affects have very specific general properties, and auto-beating DR is not among them.

After all, force effects typically deal untyped damage, not some weapon damage type (even Bigby's hands and Mordenkainen's sword have no damage type), and a force projectile is more like a spell than like an arrow (and spells bypass DR).
It's a roughly even split between untyped damage (e.x. Bigsby's Clenched Fist, Orb of Force) and Force damage (e.x. Magic Missiles, Mordenkainen's sword), and an arrow made out of force is still just an arrow.

Also, did you know the entire Rules Compendium has nothing on force effects against DR? It's such a useless book...
Why would it have to? Damage Reduction's rules are clear enough on what they help with: they reduce damage from weapons and natural attacks. Damage type has nothing to do with it, beyond the vulnerability after the slash and energy damage.
Whether something a force affect is irrelevant, it's what it is (weapon, natural attack, or other), and the type of damage it does (energy, weakness, other). These arrows are Force Effects that are weapons doing piercing damage, and so aren't any different from any other arrows for purposes of DR.

Any reason why the "arrow" fired by the bow, wouldn't function more or less like a "magic missile" as per the spell (minus the auto hit)?
In what way? Nothing about the bow seems to indicate its arrows have any relation to magic Missiles.

Telonius

2017-11-27, 11:24 AM

I'd suggest going back to the source material. Re-watch the old D&D cartoon to see if Hank ever tried to shoot through a Wind Wall. :smallbiggrin:

Jowgen

2017-11-27, 11:35 AM

I recall an old thread of mine, which was a lengthy discussion about force effects with many pointless tagents, and I don't think I'd currently agree with old me on a bunch of the points I argue there. Still, link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?388443-Questions-about-Force-effects)as it might be of interest.

Anyways, regarding the issue of whether Wind Wall blocks; Necroticplague is correct that what matters whether the projectile in question still counts as an arrow/bolt. In the case of Hank's bow, it simply shoots arrows that are made of force, so it does. In the case of the Bow of Force (A&E p. 102), it shoots arrows imbued with force, which do then count as "force attacks" but are still arrows and are still blocked.

In case of the MIC Force WSA, they arrows/bolts are explictly transformed into a a "force attack" of "force projectiles", so in this case they are not auto-deflected, although a DM could categorize them as "other normal ranged weapon" for a 30% miss-chance (though that can be overcome with Seeking WSA).

As for the properties of the projectiles, the best summary of the rules regarding force effects I have ever found is strangely from Dragon magazine, specifically a side-bar in issue 323 p. 79. Based on this and other snippets, I do think that Hank's arrows overcome DR and Hardness, even though it doesn't specificy like the two other iterations of the ability.

ExLibrisMortis

2017-11-27, 11:49 AM

Easy: not all force affects apply a special force onto the target. Pick up a Wall of Force and hit someone with it, and it's just normal bludgeoning damage. It's the same reason Riverine weapons still do their normal type of damage. These force affects still do their damage by being pointy, so they're still piercing. To go back to my earlier post: an arrow made of force is still an arrow, and works as such. Force affects have very specific general properties, and auto-beating DR is not among them.
I get your point, but my idea of force effects is not "unbreakable glass" that you can pick up and manipulate as if it's matter. Riverine weapons deal p/b/s damage because they're shaped water, not because of the force effect.

Look at spiritual weapon, Mordenkainen's sword, force weapons, psychokinetic weapons, orb of force, explosive runes, wings of flurry: there's a special damage type for force effects (and untyped damage), and this bow isn't using it. Oversight or intentional? I'd go with the first, because it makes sense when you look at other force effects. There's not one [force] spell in the spell compendium that deals p/b/s damage.

Edit: Thanks for the Dragon reference, Jowgen! If only it wouldn't switch between "spells" and "effects" all the time... I think the writer of that sidebar didn't realize there are some non-spell [force] effects (supernatural abilities, such as the Crystal Helmet soulmeld, for one).

Rerednaw

2017-11-27, 12:10 PM

Necroticplague

2017-11-27, 12:29 PM

As for the properties of the projectiles, the best summary of the rules regarding force effects I have ever found is strangely from Dragon magazine, specifically a side-bar in issue 323 p. 79. Based on this and other snippets, I do think that Hank's arrows overcome DR and Hardness, even though it doesn't specificy like the two other iterations of the ability.
The relevant part of the sidebar is that

Spell with the force descriptor ignore damage reduction....
However, the arrows shot by the bow aren't spells. They're arrows. The attack with the bow is still just an attack with a weapon. Weapon attacks are subject to DR.

Look at spiritual weapon, Mordenkainen's sword, force weapons,psychokinetic weapons, orb of force, explosive runes, wings of flurry: there's a special damage type for force effects (and untyped damage), and this bow isn't using it. Oversight or intentional? I'd go with the first, because it makes sense when you look at other force effects. There's not one [force] spell in the spell compendium that deals p/b/s damage.
Why for the love of anything would you use precedent set by spells for determining how a weapon works? It'd make more sense to compare it to other weapons. In which case, several other weapons that are otherwise rather similar specifically say they overcome DR (Force, Bow of Force, Psychokinetic). Therefore, the fact this doesn't say it does means it doesn't, all else being equal. The Bow is still a weapon, and the arrows are still arrows. They never become spells, so I fail to see why comparisons to them is of any use.
Also, while Force and Psychokinetic do pierce DR (at least partially, for Psychokinetic), they don't say anything about changing the weapon's damage type. A Force bow shoots arrows that still do piercing damage (but bypass DR), while a Psychokinetic bow shoots arrows that do piercing and force damage (the Force portion of which ignores DR). Using these examples, it shows that Energy Bow's arrows should still do piercing damage.
Also, the Dragon link points out that, Force isn't an energy type,so even if we say the bow does Force damage, it doesn't get DR's "The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks.....Damage reduction does not ..., energy damage dealt along with an attack" clause. It's still a weapon, and its not energy damage, so it's reduced.

Nifft

2017-11-27, 01:05 PM

I'd suggest going back to the source material. Re-watch the old D&D cartoon to see if Hank ever tried to shoot through a Wind Wall. :smallbiggrin:

This is the only acceptable solution.

Menzath

2017-11-27, 01:45 PM

The relevant part of the sidebar is that

However, the arrows shot by the bow aren't spells. They're arrows. The attack with the bow is still just an attack with a weapon. Weapon attacks are subject to DR.

Why for the love of anything would you use precedent set by spells for determining how a weapon works? It'd make more sense to compare it to other weapons. In which case, several other weapons that are otherwise rather similar specifically say they overcome DR (Force, Bow of Force, Psychokinetic). Therefore, the fact this doesn't say it does means it doesn't, all else being equal. The Bow is still a weapon, and the arrows are still arrows. They never become spells, so I fail to see why comparisons to them is of any use.
Also, while Force and Psychokinetic do pierce DR (at least partially, for Psychokinetic), they don't say anything about changing the weapon's damage type. A Force bow shoots arrows that still do piercing damage (but bypass DR), while a Psychokinetic bow shoots arrows that do piercing and force damage (the Force portion of which ignores DR). Using these examples, it shows that Energy Bow's arrows should still do piercing damage.
Also, the Dragon link points out that, Force isn't an energy type,so even if we say the bow does Force damage, it doesn't get DR's "The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks.....Damage reduction does not ..., energy damage dealt along with an attack" clause. It's still a weapon, and its not energy damage, so it's reduced.

Good points, but let's take a closer look at some wording of the bow

Hank’s energy bow acts as a +2 composite longbow that accommodates a user of any Strength. Although unstrung, it fires arrows of pure magical force that deal 2d6 points of damage. As they are force effects, the arrows do not suffer a miss chance when used against incorporeal creatures.The bow can be used to fire normal or magic arrows, but in such cases the bow does not confer its damage due to force.When drawn, the energy bow sheds light like a torch.

In addition, Hank can use the bow to make power shots.To do so, before making attack rolls, choose a number to subtract from your attack rolls up to Hank’s base attack and add this same number to the damage dealt by the bow with any attack that hits. The penalty on attack rolls and bonus on damage rolls last until Hank’s next turn.

Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, magic missile.
Cost to Create: 11,500 gp, 888 XP, 23 days.

So, the force arrows are made of pure magical force. It re-iterates that as a force effect it does not suffer the incorporeal miss chance that other weapons do, while not listing any of the other rules attached to being a force effect (intentional, or oversight?) It has magic missile as a creation req. It lists that the force damage dice aren't added when using any ammunition.

As you said in the dragon mag sidebar there where issues with force damage as an energy type, but as we know from the various spells that use force damage, and from certain special creature abilities, force damage is an energy type(lovely rules contradictions). So as an energy it would bypass DR, but not hardness.

Now are these pure magical force arrows force damage... I lean toward yes, in that it is a magic effect from a magic item that partially emulates a spell effect. Especially since it had a introductory sentence specifically calling out that it is a force effect.
I guess the weirdness comes from it still being an arrow, and that things that directly affect arrows will still effect it. But that has nothing to do with it's damage type or how it damages an enemy/object.

Jowgen

2017-11-27, 01:54 PM

However, the arrows shot by the bow aren't spells. They're arrows. The attack with the bow is still just an attack with a weapon. Weapon attacks are subject to DR.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that that the text from Dragon 323 was specifically pertinent to the issue, I just thought it was worth referencing because OP complained about the lack of clarity with the rules on force effects (i.e. nothing in rules compendium).

Regardless, I do maintain that force effects (inc. but not limited to force spells) as a general rule deal "force damage". That we know for certain from the glossary (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_forcedamage&alpha=F)definition.

Per my understanding, the moment damage gets typed to something other than bludgeon/pierce/slash (can be an energy type, can be something else), it ceases to count as weapon damage for DR purposes. But I might be wrong there, there could be a valid RAW argument that I'm unaware of there.

Malimar

2017-11-27, 02:01 PM

My favorite "feature" of Hank's Energy Bow is that one of its functions only works if the wielder is named Hank.

In addition, Hank can use the bow to make power shots.

Menzath

2017-11-27, 02:39 PM

My favorite "feature" of Hank's Energy Bow is that one of its functions only works if the wielder is named Hank.

Well that's a rules nightmare.
Do you have to have the given name of Hank, or can it be an alias? What if you change your name, or it's a nick name? What if you are a truenamer and that's your true name, but not your known name?
Can this be used as some sort of detection system? Have everyone in a town who is in the guard or important undergo a "hanking" ceremony where they are ser'ed with the title of Hank. Have one of these around and if something seems suspicious have em pick it up and power shot with it?

Thurbane

2017-11-27, 03:48 PM

Just my 2 coppers.
The description makes a distinction between when the bow's wielder can choose to fire arrows or fire a magically created bolt of force which it describes as a force effect. So in my game I treated it a force effect when they were not using arrows, et al (bypassing DR, affecting incorp, etc.)

Now are these pure magical force arrows force damage... I lean toward yes, in that it is a magic effect from a magic item that partially emulates a spell effect. Especially since it had a introductory sentence specifically calling out that it is a force effect.
I guess the weirdness comes from it still being an arrow, and that things that directly affect arrows will still effect it. But that has nothing to do with it's damage type or how it damages an enemy/object.

I'm leaning this way myself.

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.

My favorite "feature" of Hank's Energy Bow is that one of its functions only works if the wielder is named Hank.

It will be slightly reworked for my game, and simply called The Energy Bow" (or something more creative); references to "Hank" will be changed to "the wielder". :smallbiggrin:

Nifft

2017-11-27, 05:20 PM

It will be slightly reworked for my game, and simply called The Energy Bow" (or something more creative); references to "Hank" will be changed to "the wielder". :smallbiggrin:

Name it Hunk's Energy Bow, and you need Str 15+ and Cha 15+ to use it at all.

Jowgen

2017-11-27, 07:43 PM

My favorite "feature" of Hank's Energy Bow is that one of its functions only works if the wielder is named Hank.

Well, it is the one feature of the bow that can't be replicated (in a better fashion...) by a non-specific bow with the right enchantments, so it makes sense to include an extra qualifier.

If the description of the Blinding Claw artificat in Dragon 329 p. 67 is deemed sufficiently similar, a DC 40 UMD check should allow one to emulate being the specific indidivual, race, and/or unit of measurement that is known as "Hank".

Necroticplague

2017-11-27, 08:03 PM

So, the force arrows are made of pure magical force. It re-iterates that as a force effect it does not suffer the incorporeal miss chance that other weapons do, while not listing any of the other rules attached to being a force effect (intentional, or oversight?) It has magic missile as a creation req. It lists that the force damage dice aren't added when using any ammunition.
What 'other rules attached to being a force affect'? both scouring the SRD and the Drag article mentioned have force affects only have 3 special properties:
1. Reach into Ethereal from the Material.
2. Affects Ethereal and Incorporeal creatures.
3. Can't be damaged, not even by other force affects.

Note that 'always beats DR', or even 'deals Force damage' is not one of these properties.

As you said in the dragon mag sidebar there where issues with force damage as an energy type, but as we know from the various spells that use force damage, and from certain special creature abilities, force damage is an energy type(lovely rules contradictions). So as an energy it would bypass DR, but not hardness. There's no contradiction, and you're wrong. Even if we ignore the sidebar specifically saying that Force damage isn't a type of energy damage, there are other sources that back it up (in fact, that sidebar only repeats crap said elsewhere).

energy damage
Damage caused by one of five types of energy (not counting positive and negative energy): acid, cold, electricity, fire, and sonic.
Note that Force isn't on that list. Thus, Force isn't energy damage. It's a type of damage, and some spells deal it, but it's not a type of energy damage, much like its cousins Divine, Holy, Vile, Desiccation, ect.

Now are these pure magical force arrows force damage... I lean toward yes, in that it is a magic effect from a magic item that partially emulates a spell effect. Especially since it had a introductory sentence specifically calling out that it is a force effect.
The bolded is pulled directly out of your colon. While it has a spell you need to have in able to make it (barring Artificer or Warlock), its effect has absolutely jack squat to do with that spell.

The italicized is irrelevant because 'does force damage' isn't a property of force affects. Some force affects have this property (Magic Missiles), but others don't (Bigsby's Clenched Fist).

I guess the weirdness comes from it still being an arrow, and that things that directly affect arrows will still effect it. But that has nothing to do with it's damage type or how it damages an enemy/object.
I agree, whether it does force damage is irrelevant to whether DR affects the arrow. Regardless of whether it deals Piercing or Force damage, it's still subject to DR, because it's an attack with a weapon, which is what DR affects.

Menzath

2017-11-28, 12:24 AM

What 'other rules attached to being a force affect'? both scouring the SRD and the Drag article mentioned have force affects only have 3 special properties:
1. Reach into Ethereal from the Material.
2. Affects Ethereal and Incorporeal creatures.
3. Can't be damaged, not even by other force affects.

Note that 'always beats DR', or even 'deals Force damage' is not one of these properties.

There's no contradiction, and you're wrong. Even if we ignore the sidebar specifically saying that Force damage isn't a type of energy damage, there are other sources that back it up (in fact, that sidebar only repeats crap said elsewhere).

Note that Force isn't on that list. Thus, Force isn't energy damage. It's a type of damage, and some spells deal it, but it's not a type of energy damage, much like its cousins Divine, Holy, Vile, Desiccation, ect.

The bolded is pulled directly out of your colon. While it has a spell you need to have in able to make it (barring Artificer or Warlock), its effect has absolutely jack squat to do with that spell.

The italicized is irrelevant because 'does force damage' isn't a property of force affects. Some force affects have this property (Magic Missiles), but others don't (Bigsby's Clenched Fist).

I agree, whether it does force damage is irrelevant to whether DR affects the arrow. Regardless of whether it deals Piercing or Force damage, it's still subject to DR, because it's an attack with a weapon, which is what DR affects.

You make some very good points.
Of which caused me to dig around and I came up with something odd

players handbook, p.g 308
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.

So, I looked three times and I couldn't find this information on SRD. Odd bit to leave out.

And it turns out you are right, force damage is not an energy type, my mistake. The orb line of spells makes me tend to assume it is.

But this does mean that if a force effect does not specify a damage type, it is force damage, and that force damage is a "special" damage type, whatever that means.
And as you listed for the other rules on force effects, 1 and 3, for the rules your listed 1 was not part of Hanks bow, nor was the damage type of the force projectile.
I am going to assume the writer left those parts out because they wanted to keep it short, and also assumed that we knew exactly what everything they wrote could be easily understood or interpreted, which looks to be very un-true.

Also, as a side note, not all weapon attacks are effected by DR. Touch attacks for example. Oddly enough all touch attacks bypass all DR.
There are stupid exceptions to alot of things in 3.5

(And I'm sorry I do ramble on when I should really stop.)

Jowgen

2017-11-28, 05:46 AM

But this does mean that if a force effect does not specify a damage type, it is force damage, and that force damage is a "special" damage type, whatever that means.

This.

Per page 42, "special" damage is a seperate category from Weapon Damage, just like Energy Damage.

Necroticplague

2017-11-28, 06:29 AM

This.

Per page 42, "special" damage is a seperate category from Weapon Damage, just like Energy Damage.
Even if we grant this point for the sake of expedience, this is irrelevant to DR. DR affects the damage from weapons, which is different from weapon damage. Weapons can deal non-weapon damage, which is still subject to DR unless it's energy damage. Examples include Collision, Vicious, and Sneak Attacks .

(incidentally, page 42 of what?)

But this does mean that if a force effect does not specify a damage type, it is force damage, and that force damage is a "special" damage type, whatever that means.
Where are you pulling the bolded from? The statement you quoted just defines terms so that only force affects cause force damage. It doesn't say that all force effects do force damage. In fact, your quote actually works against that interpretation with one key word:

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.
'A'. Not 'the' or 'the only'. Meaning that there are multiple possibilities. So all force damage comes from force effects (by definition of force damage), but not all force effects do force damage. Much like how all humans are mammals, but not all mammals are humans.

Mutazoia

2017-11-28, 06:48 AM

In what way? Nothing about the bow seems to indicate its arrows have any relation to magic Missiles.

If you watch the cartoon (and the movie the bow was ripped off from), there is nothing to indicate anything else. The "arrows" literally ARE missiles made purely out of magic...magic missiles. Even their appearance lends themselves more to magical energy (raw, jagged edges, in a vaguely arrow shape) rather than force energy (smooth, clearly defined lines, that look exactly like an arrow, but "glowing and semi-transparent")

Menzath

2017-11-28, 08:16 AM

Even if we grant this point for the sake of expedience, this is irrelevant to DR. DR affects the damage from weapons, which is different from weapon damage. Weapons can deal non-weapon damage, which is still subject to DR unless it's energy damage. Examples include Collision, Vicious, and Sneak Attacks .

(incidentally, page 42 of what?)

Where are you pulling the bolded from? The statement you quoted just defines terms so that only force affects cause force damage. It doesn't say that all force effects do force damage. In fact, your quote actually works against that interpretation with one key word:

'A'. Not 'the' or 'the only'. Meaning that there are multiple possibilities. So all force damage comes from force effects (by definition of force damage), but not all force effects do force damage. Much like how all humans are mammals, but not all mammals are humans.

You are right, not all force effects do force damage, and those are either the exception or those that do no damage at all.
Also the weapon properties you listed and sneak attack, aren't they added damage, which does the same damage as the weapon they are used with unless otherwise specified?

And as for damage reduction, the DMG states that the reduction is only from "normal" attacks. I think an arrow of force, that does force damage which is a special damage type, is anything but normal.

And I kind of want to know what page 42 is being talked about as well.

Jowgen

2017-11-28, 09:54 AM

And I kind of want to know what page 42 is being talked about as well.

Sorry, rules compendium, page on damage types, it lists "special" as a distinct category in the opneing paragraph. From context it looks like positive and negative both also fall into special terriorty.

jdizzlean

2017-11-28, 01:34 PM

Can this be used as some sort of detection system? Have everyone in a town who is in the guard or important undergo a "hanking" ceremony where they are ser'ed with the title of Hank. Have one of these around and if something seems suspicious have em pick it up and power shot with it?

Name it Hunk's Energy Bow, and you need Str 15+ and Cha 15+ to use it at all.

this thread needs more of this.

skunk3

2017-11-28, 01:49 PM

The way that I'd interpret the bow:

1. You don't need to be named Hank to access any of the abilities of the bow, that is nonsense and obviously pedantic.

2. The force arrows coming from the bow are clearly made of pure force, and only 'arrows' in name and appearance. I would rule that wind wall doesn't affect them. A normal arrow or bow firing an arrow with the force property is still a physical arrow with a property attached. If Hank's bow were to shoot other arrows from it, like slaying arrows for example, then they would be affected.

3. Since the arrows created and shot by Hank's bow are pure force, they bypass DR completely.

4. The only tricky part for me is determining whether enhancements made to the bow (like adding the flaming property, for example) would be conferred to the force "arrows." For the sake of simplicity and charity I'd say yes, although it is debatable.

Lapak

2017-11-28, 02:21 PM

Name it Hunk's Energy Bow, and you need Str 15+ and Cha 15+ to use it at all.I’m glad I swallowed my coffee before reading this, because it definitely made me chuckle.

Necroticplague

2017-11-28, 03:10 PM

And as for damage reduction, the DMG states that the reduction is only from "normal" attacks. I think an arrow of force, that does force damage which is a special damage type, is anything but normal.
Given that arrows that come in at angles are significantly less powerful than arrows that come head on, I'd think that most damaging attacks with any types of arrows are relatively normal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_(geometry)) attacks.

More seriously, what the DMG says is irrelevant, because of primary source.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.....Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence..... The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities
So, if the DMG and Monster Manual say something different on what Damage Reduction does, the Monster Manual is correct, because the Monster Manual is the primary source for Extraordinary and Supernatural abilities. And the MM does say something different, making no mention of 'normal attacks, instead saying

A creature with this special quality (extraordinary or supernatural) ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks.
Damage from an Energy Bow is still damage from a weapon, so DR applies, regardless of damage type (unless that damage is energy damage).

skunk3

2017-11-28, 03:14 PM

I disagree. I think that Hank's bow is a special circumstance.

Menzath

2017-11-28, 03:44 PM

Given that arrows that come in at angles are significantly less powerful than arrows that come head on, I'd think that most damaging attacks with any types of arrows are relatively normal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_(geometry)) attacks.

More seriously, what the DMG says is irrelevant, because of primary source.

So, if the DMG and Monster Manual say something different on what Damage Reduction does, the Monster Manual is correct, because the Monster Manual is the primary source for Extraordinary and Supernatural abilities. And the MM does say something different, making no mention of 'normal attacks, instead saying

Damage from an Energy Bow is still damage from a weapon, so DR applies, regardless of damage type (unless that damage is energy damage).

Your right about the MM and DMG saying something different, from reading them both I felt that the sentence referenced in DMG was an omission in the MM and had no conflicts with it, and was then still rules legal.

And by that same note, shouldn't the force arrows be considered a special attack/ability(albeit granted from an item) and then qualify to bypass DR?

Query, if an etherguants etherglaive ray wasn't a ranged touch attack, is your opinion on it that it would not bypass DR(totally hypothetical).

EDIT - After looking over DR in the DMG, MM, and rules compendium, and then looking at a force dragon that has immunity to force damage. I believe that this is a special damage type regardless of what it is on that does bypass DR, especially since there is no 5/force DR in the game.

Thurbane

2017-11-28, 03:55 PM

Blue Jay

2017-11-28, 04:20 PM

So, if the DMG and Monster Manual say something different on what Damage Reduction does, the Monster Manual is correct, because the Monster Manual is the primary source for Extraordinary and Supernatural abilities. And the MM does say something different, making no mention of 'normal attacks, instead saying

A creature with this special quality (extraordinary or supernatural) ignores damage from most weapons and natural attacks.
Damage from an Energy Bow is still damage from a weapon, so DR applies, regardless of damage type (unless that damage is energy damage).
I don't know: this argument isn't resonating well with me, especially with that key word that you de-emphasized: "most." But all I've got is a vague impression that it "doesn't feel right," so I poked around a bit to figure out why. The Damage Reduction section also says this:

The creature takes normal damage from energy attacks (even nonmagical ones), spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities.

The first thing that came to my mind was that magical weapon special abilities ought to qualify for exemption under at least one of those categories. But, I looked around at various sources, and I couldn't find any evidence that magic weapon special abilities were ever classified according to the "spell-SLA-Su-Ex" paradigm.

It seems like they ought to fit somewhere on that continuum, though. Generally, they seem to function like Su abilities, but they can also be dispelled as if they were spells or SLA's. So, I guess they're not a perfect fit for any of those categories, but it still seems entirely fishy that the entire gamut of magical special attacks can ignore damage reduction, but projectiles made of pure magic can't. Surely, that can't have been the intent?

But, I don't know: maybe the idea is that "force" is kind of like a special material, rather than an actual magical damage type, but that flies in the face of the glossary definition.

There seem to be pretty good arguments for either one, but I would personally lean towards the interpretation that favors the archer over the spellcaster, because the game already makes it pretty hard for archers to be awesome.

Necroticplague

2017-11-28, 04:59 PM

And by that same note, shouldn't the force arrows be considered a special attack/ability(albeit granted from an item) and then qualify to bypass DR?
No, because 'special attack','special quality', and 'special ability' have very specific meanings, and the attack from an Energy Bow doesn't qualify. Part of the definition is that they're qualities possessed by creatures. This, by definition, means nothing an item does can be a special quality (since it's not a creature).

Query, if an etherguants etherglaive ray wasn't a ranged touch attack, is your opinion on it that it would not bypass DR(totally hypothetical).
Correct. An Etherglaive is a weapon, and it's firing is still an attack with a weapon.

EDIT - After looking over DR in the DMG, MM, and rules compendium, and then looking at a force dragon that has immunity to force damage. I believe that this is a special damage type regardless of what it is on that does bypass DR, especially since there is no 5/force DR in the game.
Correct, Force damage is a special damage type. The Glossary itself says this is the case, and the Rules Compendium backs it up. However, it's energy damage that bypasses DR, not special damage the does. Force is in the same category as such contemporaries as Vile, Dessication, Divine, Untyped, and Nonlethal.

Jowgen

2017-11-28, 05:04 PM

The first thing that came to my mind was that magical weapon special abilities ought to qualify for exemption under at least one of those categories. But, I looked around at various sources, and I couldn't find any evidence that magic weapon special abilities were ever classified according to the "spell-SLA-Su-Ex" paradigm.

The quote below from the SRD rules on spell resistance tell us that enhancement bonuses on weapons are supernatural in nature. Whether or not it is ever clarified that this extends to WSAs, I don't know. Arguably, since we know that they are magical but not spells or SLAs (which are subject to Spell resistance); they have to default to Supernatural.

Only spells and spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance. Extraordinary and supernatural abilities (including enhancement bonuses on magic weapons) are not.

EDIT:
However, it's energy damage that bypasses DR, not special damage the does. Force is in the same category as such contemporaries as Vile, Dessication, Divine, Untyped, and Nonlethal.

To clarify, so per your reading, any of these damage types can be subject to DR if they happen to be dealt by an attack with a weapon?

Nifft

2017-11-28, 05:09 PM

There's a soulmeld in Magic of Incarnum (the Crystal Helm) which turns your melee attacks into [Force] effects.

All that this does is allow you to hit incorporeal critters with no miss chance.

It does not penetrate DR.

This is obviously an example, not a general rule, but it ought to illuminate how [Force] effects can interact with weapon attacks.

Necroticplague

2017-11-28, 05:23 PM

To clarify, so per your reading, any of these damage types can be subject to DR if they happen to be dealt by an attack with a weapon?
Correct.
For example, if you smack an Iron Golem with a a 1d4+3 bite while you have the Vile Natural Attack feat (Making the bite 1d4+3 B&P&S+1 Vile), you won't be getting anywhere barring a crit.

Blue Jay

2017-11-28, 06:46 PM

No, because 'special attack','special quality', and 'special ability' have very specific meanings, and the attack from an Energy Bow doesn't qualify. Part of the definition is that they're qualities possessed by creatures. This, by definition, means nothing an item does can be a special quality (since it's not a creature).

Well, the SRD does use the term "special ability" for the magical features of a magic weapon too, as in this paragraph:

In addition to an enhancement bonus, weapons may have special abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item...

here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm)
So, at the very least, the meaning and extent of "special ability" is not entirely clear or consistent. It could be argued that weapon special abilities must follow the same rules as creature special abilities (except where specifically noted otherwise, as in dispel magic).

For example, if you smack an Iron Golem with a a 1d4+3 bite while you have the Vile Natural Attack feat (Making the bite 1d4+3 B&P&S+1 Vile), you won't be getting anywhere barring a crit.
I know it's just an example, but technically, Vile Natural Attack requires 1d8 base damage.

But, I agree with the principle: vile damage doesn't overcome DR (except, I imagine it would overcome DR / evil).

The quote below from the SRD rules on spell resistance tell us that enhancement bonuses on weapons are supernatural in nature. Whether or not it is ever clarified that this extends to WSAs, I don't know. Arguably, since we know that they are magical but not spells or SLAs (which are subject to Spell resistance); they have to default to Supernatural.

Oh, I didn't notice that. I guess that makes sense.

On the other hand, dispel magic works on weapon special abilities and enhancements, so that would presumably also rule out Supernatural by the same logic. Arguably, the susceptibility to dispel is more informative than the vulnerability to SR, because there is a lot of precedent for spells and SLA's that don't allow SR, but no precedent for Supernatural abilities that are susceptible to dispel.

Jowgen

2017-11-29, 04:09 AM

On the other hand, dispel magic works on weapon special abilities and enhancements, so that would presumably also rule out Supernatural by the same logic. Arguably, the susceptibility to dispel is more informative than the vulnerability to SR, because there is a lot of precedent for spells and SLA's that don't allow SR, but no precedent for Supernatural abilities that are susceptible to dispel.

Well, Dispel on magic weapons/items works by targeting the item itself and then supressesing it for 1d4 rounds; but lets say the magic weapon's special ability creates an effect seperate from itself, would that seperate effect be subject to dispelling?

Like, lets say one of the elemental-summoning WSAs from DMG 2. Can you dispel the summon away? Or a WSA imposes some kinda condition, like the Dimensional Anchor effect of a Binding weapon or the Impeded Magic condition of an Impeding weapon. Can those be ended early via Dispel?

Metahuman1

2017-11-29, 04:24 AM

Why would it have to? Damage Reduction's rules are clear enough on what they help with: they reduce damage from weapons and natural attacks. Damage type has nothing to do with it, beyond the vulnerability after the slash and energy damage.
Whether something a force affect is irrelevant, it's what it is (weapon, natural attack, or other), and the type of damage it does (energy, weakness, other). These arrows are Force Effects that are weapons doing piercing damage, and so aren't any different from any other arrows for purposes of DR.

In what way? Nothing about the bow seems to indicate its arrows have any relation to magic Missiles.

Emphasis Mine.

On that latter sentence, Magic Missile being a known and castable spell is listed in the bows crafting requirements.

As to the first part, you just said that the bows stated reason for ignoring DR, doesn't work, and thus the bow doesn't ignore DR, which is the justification for about half the 22,600GP price tag, and also is a MASSIVE CRIPPLING NERF to archers.

So, that's a pretty good reason to just let the tier 4 ranger have his fun instead of ruling this way.

Lord Haart

2017-11-29, 04:48 AM

A great corollary to Necroticplague's posts: having DR 10/magic means you can forced march around a very, very hot desert without food and drink, take a stroll over a volcano (140+ degrees F) and ingest as much direct damage-dealing poison as you want (but not ability damage-dealing) — and be too tough for any of this "nonlethal damage" or "dessication damage" or "1d6 lethal damage every round" nonsense. After all, these aren't spell damage nor energy damage.

skunk3

2017-11-29, 05:07 AM

To me, the force arrows shot from Hank's Bow are, as I said, only "arrows" in name and appearance. They are basically a specialized type of magic missile (per se) that is generated and shot from a bow, doing pure force damage, without physical substance. I would rule that all force arrows shot from that bow would bypass DR because it's common knowledge that archery isn't exactly stupendous anyway, so why not let them have nice things? I mean, it's not like EVERY campaign is even going to allow the bow for one reason or another anyway. In the hands of a high-level archer-type character yeah this bow could kick some serious ass, but at lower levels it's not like it's a gamebreaker. Of course the DM could always make them harder to find and not allow purchasing of them at any typical 'magic mart.'

Necroticplague

2017-11-29, 07:43 AM

As to the first part, you just said that the bows stated reason for ignoring DR, doesn't work, and thus the bow doesn't ignore DR, which is the justification for about half the 22,600GP price tag, and also is a MASSIVE CRIPPLING NERF to archers.
Just because something being true has some negative implications, doesn't mean something is false, unless that implication is a contradiction. The fact the bow as the rules actually say it is is weaker than what some interpret it in other ways to be has no bearing on how the bow actually works.

Incidentally, it's only a 'massive nerf to archers' if you expect almost every archer to use the item, regardless of the ruling. Which would indicate that it's still a rather powerful option either way.

A great corollary to Necroticplague's posts: having DR 10/magic means you can forced march around a very, very hot desert without food and drink, take a stroll over a volcano (140+ degrees F) and ingest as much direct damage-dealing poison as you want (but not ability damage-dealing) — and be too tough for any of this "nonlethal damage" or "dessication damage" or "1d6 lethal damage every round" nonsense. After all, these aren't spell damage nor energy damage.
That's not remotely true, and I don't see how you could possibly view that as a corollary to my arguments. DR doesn't apply against all sources of damage. It only applies against one thing: damage from weapons and natural attacks. None of those are damage from attacks, so DR doesn't apply.

Menzath

2017-11-29, 11:02 AM

I rather like the tangents that this thread has gone into so far.
That being said I agree with necrotic on DR and it's effectivity on weapon and natural attacks.
I also would like to point out that the bow does make an arrow(albeit of force) that does require a normal ranged attack, and thus should still qualify to be affected by things that effect arrows.

But I still purpose that force damage is a damage type not effected by DR.
The only other item that makes your attacks a force effect(or considered to be, asides from special weapon properties) would be rings of force armor. But the damage added to your attacks is called out as extra damage, while the damage from being hit is force damage.
Now because the force damage is a reactive effect DR would not be applicable, but if we suppose it was, I do not think it would make a difference either way.
The only similar ability that I could find is the reserve feat blade of force, which also specifies that it is extra damage, and thus the type of the weapon being used.

After a little more digging I went over argent savant and it's ablate force ability which directly reduces damage done by any force spell or effect.

So, we hit a few odd issues where Hanks bow is a weapon, and the force arrow in my opinion also acts as an arrow, both of which make it susceptible to DR, but it's "special" damage type and being an actual force effect contradict this. This weapon also seems to be the only exception of it's type.

What I think this boils down to is bad rules understanding on the writers part or not being able to clearly write their intent.

I would propose to either treat it as a weapon and effected by DR but up the damage to 3d6. Or treat it as a ranged touch and down the damage to 2d4.

Overall I don't think the rules are clear enough on this exception and it boils down to what your table decides.

Thurbane

2017-11-29, 03:50 PM

I'm a bit surprised that Rules Compendium doesn't have much to say on force effects/damage, mainly how they interact with ethereal, incorporeal and gaseous targets.

The "Official" FAQ also has very little to say about it either, and nothing directly related to the topic at hand:

Hardness applies to force attacks. These attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to objects (when applicable), and thus would deal normal damage to an animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever damage a magic missile spell deals to the animated table in your example. A magic missile spell normally cannot be aimed at an object. Because an animated object is a creature, however, it can affect the animated table in the example.

...there are also a few references to how force effects interact with ethereal targets.

The glossary does define force as a type of damage: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_forcedamage&alpha=F

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.
Source: PHB

Mutazoia

2017-11-30, 07:39 AM

Darrin

2017-11-30, 08:40 AM

Necroticplague

2017-11-30, 10:47 AM

It's a bit dysfunctional because in 3.0 force was considered a type of energy damage, and in 3.5 it isn't. However, most people don't notice this because almost all examples of [force] damage come from spells, and spell damage bypasses DR... not because it's energy damage, but because it's spell damage.

So this creates a problem whenever you have a [force] effect that is not generated as part of a spell. This tends to happen with magic weapons, so the designer has to 1) be aware that there's a discrepancy with how [force] effects work in 3.5 and 2) add a note in the item description about whether damage reduction works or not. As far as I am aware, there are only two examples where the designers didn't catch this: Hank's Energy Bow and the Gloves of Endless Javelins.

So, as a DM, you have to decide if it's worth the fuss and bother to stick with RAW here, or treat [force] damage from magic weapons as the designers "intended" it to work. In my opinion, it's not really worth the bother to get fussy with RAW here. Magic weapons that deal [force] damage should bypass DR like energy or spell damage. Don't bog down the game to get all nitpicky over RAW.

(Riverine appears to be a special case, but the terse description is devoid of any clues about how the designers intended it to work. I think they got as far as: "Hey, I want a special material made out of magic water!" "Huh? That's dumb... how would you forge it or shape it... it's like, liquid!" "Huh... I hadn't thought of that. Uh... maybe it's encased in walls of force?" "But... how... why--" "Shut up! Deadline!")

The Energy Bows case goes back even further into this confusion by not even specifying if it is force damage in the first place, so we end up at the similarly ambiguous point of if force affects by definition do force damage. Based on just a surface reading of the Bow itself, three possibilities that seem reasonable come up:
1. Piercing. It’s still an attack from a bow, so it does the damage type of the bow.
2. Untyped. It doesn’t say what type of damage it deals, so it’s damage doesn’t have any kind of type, much like Disintegrate.
3. Force. It’s a force effect, so it does force damage.

Personally, I think 1 is the most likely, based off of similar ‘untyped mod to typed base’ affects like precision damage. I see a lot of people in this thread arguing for 3, but I also don’t see any evidence the unwritten premise of that syllogism is true. The definition of force damage proves the converse, that things that do force damage are force effects, is true, but nothing about the statement itself.

ericgrau

2017-11-30, 11:58 AM

Bronk

2017-11-30, 12:48 PM

It all depends if the arrows are really physical arrows or if they are actually energy bolts shaped like arrows. If the force forms a solid object, they're deflected. If it's pure energy like a spell blast, then it's not deflected. I'd go watch the cartoon for insight to see whether or not the arrows act like physical objects or not.

I'm leaning towards "they're pure energy not physical" from the description, but seeing examples would help make it sure.

Oh yeah, the cartoon totally had it as pure energy drawn from an empty bow.

Of course, also going by the cartoon, the whole thing is moot because it was an 80s cartoon and the bow was pretty much harmless, at most dealing subdual damage to creatures. Thinking back, the real questions should be:

"Hank mostly uses this thing on objects: Should it bypass hardness?"

and

"Should it also be able to turn into a rope?" (Could have sworn that happened.)

Maybe it should grant a bonus to intimidate too...

Menzath

2017-11-30, 01:19 PM

Again I think alot of contention arises simply for the fact that force damage is so ill defined.
And I can't think of many abilities or weapons that have a separate attack mode that changes how your attack functions while also being completely unspecific about what damage type it is.
And as far as my belief that it does force damage, as for all the other force effects that don't do force damage specify that it is extra damage or non-force damage. And since this is a force effect, and it is stated that force effects do force damage(unless a specific rule says otherwise) I don't see why this wouldn't.

But I still think with how DR is worded and how these force arrows are still said to be arrows there is a reason why some would say DR is still applicable.

I mean what we know about this force arrow so far is
1- is an arrow
2 - is a force effect
3 - unspecified damage?

And the biggest issues I see are that without #2 going into more depth, we are unsure of #3, #3 may or may not contradict #1 in regards to DR.
And sadly besides rule 0 I don't see a RAW way that this could be easily resolved.

Necroticplague

2017-11-30, 04:21 PM

And as far as my belief that it does force damage, as for all the other force effects that don't do force damage specify that it is extra damage or non-force damage. Clenched Fist, Orb of Force, Blade Barrier, Battering Ram, Caligarde's Claw, Choke, Crushing Fist of Spite. All of these simply do 'damage', without stating what type, not even 'extra'. Note, that list isn't even remotely exhaustive.

I mean what we know about this force arrow so far is
1- is an arrow
2 - is a force effect
3 - unspecified damage?

And the biggest issues I see are that without #2 going into more depth, we are unsure of #3, #3 may or may not contradict #1 in regards to DR.
And sadly besides rule 0 I don't see a RAW way that this could be easily resolved.

Actually, #3 isn't relevant to DR. Regardless of the three possible damage types, DR will still apply. For all 3 choices, it's not energy damage, and it is from an attack, so DR applies. The relevant question of #3 is whether it counts as piercing for overcoming the DR that definitely applies to it.