Force is an energy type. It isn't subject to damage reduction. Force bombs are supernatural and as such aren't subject to damage reduction. Spell resistance is out too (due to being supernatural).
You would need the exceptionally rare force resistance, much like the very rare (but not quite as rare) negative energy resistance or positive energy resistance.
The way I think of it is thus:
There are the 'base' energy types: Fire, Cold, Acid, Electricity and Sonic.
Then there are the 'noble' energy types: Negative, Positive and Force.
The things that work against the 'base' types (or natural types) of energy generally won't work on the noble (or supernatural) energy types.
They are both 'energy types' but they aren't on the same level or the same thing overall. In the same way Gold and Iron are both metal but with very different properties.
Regardless of what JJ wrote, whose context is somebody wanting to use a class feature to change Inflict Light Wounds' Negative Energy to Cold Energy, other parts of the rules explicitly treat force as an energy type:
(Ult Combat) Energy Spells and Effects: Crowds tend to respond to flashy spells and effects. If a combatant casts a spell or produces an effect that deals acid, cold, fire, electricity, force, or sonic damage in a visible way (including weapons with special abilities like flaming burst or shocking burst that deal bursts of energy damage on critical hits), she can make a performance combat check as a swift action.
(Magus) Energy Attunement (Su): At 5th level, as a free action, a magus can spend a point of his black blade's arcane pool to have it deal one of the following types of damage instead of weapon damage: cold, electricity, or fire. He can spend 2 points from the black blade's arcane pool to deal sonic or force damage instead of weapon damage. This effect lasts until the start of the magus's next turn.
I'm pretty sure there's a few more examples as well...
I've previously attempted to get clarity/FAQ from Paizo on the subject: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pnz7?Energy-Damage-re-Damaging-Objects#4...Albeit I focused more on Force/Sonic than Positive/Negative, the subject was marked 'Answered in FAQ' when it actually wasn't.
I'm not sure why they don't just institute a "flipping the bird" icon for such cases.
If anything I would include Force in the same list of Fire/Cold/Sonic/etc, even if you want to consider Positive/Negative as distinct. Although that being said, many effects which can apply to different energy types, e.g. Protection from Energy just give a limited list which doesn't include Sonic, and even less commonly include Force. But that doesn't mean these other Energy Types shouldn't use the same general rules on how damage is resolved, vulnerability, etc.
Again, despite what JJ wrote, I don't see why Positive/Negative Energy is exempt from that rule, either. There's just no reasonable reason to not treat Positive/Negative Energy as Energy Damage when they're described as Energy and Damage, and nothing ever states that they don't count as Energy Damage. If they want that to be true, they need Errata/FAQ stating that. (I'm not saying that you should allow Sorceror BL Energy transmutation to allow shifting Positive/Negative to Energy, although that line should probably be better worded to preclude that)
Although Channel Energy has it's own restriction to affecting 'creatures', I don't see why other AoE Positive/Negative Energy effects could happen to NOT have that restriction, and thus theoretically affect objects... Although that would need to be 'living' objects (plants?) or 'unliving' objects (weird necromantic furniture? undead forests?) Even if it doesn't come up very often, I don't see why those are not just as much Energy Damage and thus pertaining to that rule-set.
I only know of creatures with vulnerability to Sonic (and more standard energies), but vulnerability to Force should also affect the damage dealt, just like it does for all energy types. Same should go for any creature with vulnerability vs. Positive/Negative energy, it should also affect the damage, not just penalize the Saves (as Vulnerabilities to non-Energy Types do). There isn't really anything that has vulnerability or resistance to Positive/Negative energy per se, only Channel Resistance, which grants a Save Bonus vs. Channel specifically, but not vs. Positive/Negative Energy in general, so that isn't really in conflict with Pos/Neg being Energy Types.
Thanks Abraham. I like that ruling, and will probably use it, (allowing casters to protect themselves from force bombs like they could from a sonic bomb with resist energy)Resist Energy gives you an explicit list, it doesn't matter if Force/Positive/Negative are Energy types, Resist Energy only works vs the specified 5 types:
This abjuration grants a creature limited protection from damage of whichever one of five energy types you select: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic.
And if not, it seems like it is unbalanced with equal level alchemist discoveries such as "sonic bombs". Was this an oversight?
Did you miss that Force Bombs have lower damage than the other bomb types? That's a pretty huge balancing factor.
Yeah I think he might have missed that like he missed the 'exceptionally rare' part about force resistance.
Force bombs aren't equal in level to concussive (sonic) bombs. Concussive are available at 6, Force at 8.
Also Sonic bombs carry a nasty kicker too. Deafness is nothing to shake a stick at.
A deafened character cannot hear. He takes a –4 penalty on initiative checks, automatically fails Perception checks based on sound, takes a –4 penalty on opposed Perception checks, and has a 20% chance of spell failure when casting spells with verbal components. Characters who remain deafened for a long time grow accustomed to these drawbacks and can overcome some of them.
In the case of force damage almost nothing resists it. So basically a uniquie magic item (like a higher level brooch of shielding) or unique monster.
I really recomend against introducing a force redistance spell.
Another thing worth mentioning, while just about nothing has resistance against force damage, there's also nothing that's weak against it. Sure, sonic vulnerability is rare but so is sonic resistance outside of a couple spells. And honestly, no NPC is going to cast sonic energy resistance unless they know for certain they'll be up against someone that does sonic damage in the near future.
I really recomend against introducing a force redistance spell.
I agree with this. Getting by resistances at the cost of never being able to use it to hit a weakness, plus less damage, plus not being able to use a more debilitating discovery with it is balance enough. It has it's own little niche, no need to take that away from it.
In addition, force is an infinity+1 element. Nothing resists it on the ocg at all, as far as i can see.
(In 3.5, it worked on incorporeal creatures for full damage. Not sure if that's still the case)
As for the alchemist, it's balanced just fine. It does less damage, sure, but it's reliable, and that was the point of making it.
just to note, just because a spell has the [force] descriptor doesn't mean that the damage it deals is force energy damage.
only if it states it deals 'NdX+Y force damage' is it dealing force energy damage.
i'm not sure if force resistance is an absolute never no-no, plenty of things can negate other force effects after all (shield, mage armor vs. incorporeal), but it's obviously a 'tier above' normal energy damage and i don't advocate adding it willy-nilly, if anything ever did grant force resistance i assume it would be a higher level effect.
I really recomend against introducing a force redistance spell.I agree with this. Getting by resistances at the cost of never being able to use it to hit a weakness, plus less damage, plus not being able to use a more debilitating discovery with it is balance enough. It has it's own little niche, no need to take that away from it.
Indeed. I'd personally be inclined to take Frost bombs over Force: there's no decrease in damage, staggered is a very nice debuff rider, and the number of creatures with immunity/resistance to cold damage and fire damage is pretty low. As an added bonus, a lot of fire-immune enemies (fire elementals and red dragons spring to mind) have a weakness/vulnerability to cold, and vice-versa.
just to note, just because a spell has the [force] descriptor doesn't mean that the damage it deals is force energy damage.
only if it states it deals 'NdX+Y force damage' is it dealing force energy damage.i'm not sure if force resistance is an absolute never no-no, plenty of things can negate other force effects after all (shield, mage armor vs. incorporeal), but it's obviously a 'tier above' normal energy damage and i don't advocate adding it willy-nilly, if anything ever did grant force resistance i assume it would be a higher level effect.
This bit forom the Designing Spells chapter of the Ultimate Magic seems to indicate that any spell with the Force descriptor that deals damage would deal Force damage.
Spells with the force descriptor create or manipulate magical force. Force spells affect incorporeal creatures normally (as if they were corporeal creatures).
What led you to think otherwise?
This bit forom the Designing Spells chapter of the Ultimate Magic seems to indicate that any spell with the Force descriptor that deals damage would deal Force damage.
Spells with the force descriptor create or manipulate magical force. Force spells affect incorporeal creatures normally (as if they were corporeal creatures).What led you to think otherwise?
I don't see anything in that quote discussing Force damage or damage, period...?
Magic Missile and most [force] spells specify force damage while also having the Force descriptor. Blade Barrier has the Force descriptor but doesn't specify force damage (probably because it's effect is a wall of whirling blades, i.e. similar to weapons). Equivalent cases do specify the damage type e.g. "fire damage"/Fireball which also has the Fire spell descriptor. Flame Strike specifies that one half of it's damage is fire damage, but the other half isn't really typed at all, although it says fire resistance doesn't apply to it... IF the spell descriptor automatically applied to untyped damage, that would still be fire damage (subject to vulnerability, or creatures which heal from fire damage, for example).
But nothing says that the spell descriptor itself modifies damage types, that's easy enough to do when the damage is described, as countless spells manage to do.
My .02 is that the reduction in damage dice size is to directly take into account that most things aren't supposed to be immmune / resistant to force effects. Your taking a discovery for the explicit reason of using it against creatures that are either
a) Fire (and maybe any other elemental type you took) resistant / immune
b) Incorporeal
Running some numbers for a minute
At 9th level your 5D6 fire damage vs a 5D4 force damage. It's 17.5 vs 12.5. Prior to here (the whole level of it) your better off throwing force bombs at anything with fire resist 5. Here is a break even point.
Past here, your ACTUALLY still better off throwing fire bombs at resist 5. Course.... anything more than 5 and it's force bombs all the way. At the same level, your behind on damage by 3.75 (+ half int modifier) vs incorporeal targets if you use a fire bomb vs a force bomb. Irritating, but no more so than when a pally makes a reflex save vs a fireball.
Do those numbers sound out of line with (say) Feral Mutagen that is available at 1st? Explosive bomb? Dispelling Bomb? Confusion bomb?
Your also contending Force Bombs vs Fast bombs at that level. Fast bombs is a non-trivial thing to delay (at least in my opinion). Your numbers skew again if your taking into account multiple attacks in a round (albeit you run out more quickly). Also given that there is only 1 discovery applicable to any 1 bomb at any time...
Looking at it like that, I think it's a strong discovery, but by no means overpowering.
This bit forom the Designing Spells chapter of the Ultimate Magic seems to indicate that any spell with the Force descriptor that deals damage would deal Force damage.
Spells with the force descriptor create or manipulate magical force. Force spells affect incorporeal creatures normally (as if they were corporeal creatures).What led you to think otherwise?I don't see anything in that quote discussing Force damage or damage, period...?
Magic Missile and most [force] spells specify force damage while also having the Force descriptor. Blade Barrier has the Force descriptor but doesn't specify force damage (probably because it's effect is a wall of whirling blades, i.e. similar to weapons). Equivalent cases do specify the damage type e.g. "fire damage"/Fireball which also has the Fire spell descriptor. Flame Strike specifies that one half of it's damage is fire damage, but the other half isn't really typed at all, although it says fire resistance doesn't apply to it... IF the spell descriptor automatically applied to untyped damage, that would still be fire damage (subject to vulnerability, or creatures which heal from fire damage, for example).
But nothing says that the spell descriptor itself modifies damage types, that's easy enough to do when the damage is described, as countless spells manage to do.
It says Force spells affect incoporeal creatures as if they were coporeal, which is the main advantage of Force damage vs. untyped magical damage. So if a spell like Blade Barrior is only doing untyped magical damage that still does full dam. vs. Incorporeal, does that make sense?
And as you noted Flame Strike is specifically saying half the damage is not fire, so that doesn't prove a precident. It could be an exception called out.