Ravenheart87
Explorer
It's an attack, not a spell.
D&D 5E RAKSASHA (Limited Magic Immunity) X Empyrean (Bolt)
- Thread starter maritimo80
- Start date
Fire Bolt is a cantrip, therefore a-will (like this empyrean ability). At 17th character level, a fire bolt does 4d10 (22avg) which is on par with the 24 avg 7d6 does for BOLT. At 17th level a full caster has access to 8th level spells so one could consider this an 8th level spell.
Finger of death (7th level) does 7d8+30 damage (avg 61) it is clearly more than 7d6 (24 avg) but it also grants a save for half, but is still slightly better but BOLT can have its damage type adjust, so perhaps a wash. One could consider it a 7th level spell.
Lightning Bolt does similar damage for a third level spell, 8d6 (28avg) and can affect more than one target to boot, but it also grants a save for half (14 avg on save) so perhaps if we look at a 7th level lightning bolt (12d6 - 42avg or 21avg on save). Here is where it gets tricky. the CR of the empyrean is 23...so ostensibly saving against a lightning bolt at those "levels" (cr) is going to happen a lot. So treating BOLT like a 7th level spell is possible.
I'll stick with the simple rule of thumb: 7d6 ranged spell attack means its a 7th level spell equivalent
It's not a spell. Spells are granted by the Spellcasting trait, and for monsters they are listed in their own area of the stat block, not the "Actions" section.
"Spell attack" means it (probably) uses one of the mental attributes (Int, Wis, Cha) as its attack modifier, but that doesn't make it a spell.
On the other hand, I would agree that it is a magical effect and would not work in an anti-magic field.
"Spell attack" means it (probably) uses one of the mental attributes (Int, Wis, Cha) as its attack modifier, but that doesn't make it a spell.
On the other hand, I would agree that it is a magical effect and would not work in an anti-magic field.
aramis erak
Legend
In 5E, it's almost always wrong to equate dice to level directly.
The table on page 284 of the DMG gives 7d6 as typical of 4th level multiple target spells.
7th level would be 11d10 single target or 12d6 multiple target. Or roughly equivalent damage in other combinations of sides.
The ability to save changes things as well as unlimited use. 7th level would be 11d10 single target with a save allowed and limited use. 7d6 is appropriate for unlimited use, roll to hit, no save. Not perfect, I agree, but as a quick analysis of an at-will, single target, roll to hit attack, 7d6 damage from a CR23 creature is probably safe to approximate it as a 7th level spell for the purposes of immunity.
aramis erak
Legend
No - 7d6 is appropriate, perhaps even a bit low, for a 4th level spell, 3rd if it's single target.
Look at the 5E spells. Look at the 5E DMG.
In prior editions, yes, 1d_ damage per spell level was the rule - it's not true in 5E. Subtract 3d_ to find the rough equivalent.
the Jester
Legend
Let's put it this way- if I was playing a pc choosing a 7th level spell and bolt was on the list alongside delayed blast fireball, finger of death, prismatic spray and symbol, I know which one is first to get tossed out of consideration. And not first by a little; first by a long ways.
Let's put it this way: Whats better: Magic Missile in a 7th slot or Delayed blast fireball, finger of death, or prismatic spray? But the comparisons are invalid. This is NOT for a PC, this is for an Empyrean. Empyrean doesn't get to choose. As others have noted, this is NOT a spell, its a Ranged Spell Attack but doesn't use any spell slots and has no spell description. It is for a CR23 "monster". The point, as per the OP, is whether or not it overcomes a Rakshasha's Mgaic Immunity. So, in that non-standard case of a monster fighting a monster, a CR23 monsters 7d6 bolt overcoming a Rakshasa's Magic immunity, treating it as a 7th level spell-equivalent is a valid choice. This is not an argument to try and re-cast BOLT as a 7th level spell for PCs to have access to. It does boil down to DM ruling, but I think the OP wants to avoid the DM fiat ruling (because he's asked here, rather than roll with fiat) and try and come up with a systemic reasoning for a ruling.
Here's another way to look at it: CR23 Monster, spell attacks are treated as 1/4 CR so its a 5th or 6th level spell equivalent. (typically casters highest level spell slot is 1/2 level, so another 1/2 of that is the bulk of spells available, therefore 1/4).
We could do this all day. Is it "correct" by RAW? Probably not. Doesn't matter. The very scenario of Rakshasas and Empyreans fighting is outside of RAW so its moot. But in ruling it overcomes magic immunity, its good to have a process over fiat to apply the ruling to other creature combos should it arise.
Last edited:
I agree. But, I am not talking about spells. I am talking about a monsters Ranged Spell Attack for the purposes of a Rakshasa's immunity. Comparing it loosely with spells is fine, since the Rakshasa's immunity is called out for spells.
Why do I go through the mental gymnastics? What if another creature has a 3d6 bolt ranged spell attack? If I go with some people, its a ranged spell attack, not a spell, so not immune. Others definitely immune since a 3d6 ranged spell attack is below the immunity threshold no matter how you figure, but so is 7d6 bolt. But that is an all or nothing approach. If a CR23 empyrean can't hit a rakshasa then its basically immune to any spell attack from another monster ( I haven't combed the MM to see just how many monsters the rakshasa is immune to that it probably shouldn't be assuming PC spell rules, but I think its safe to assume if its immune to a CR 23 monsters spell attack, its immune most other monsters). That doesn't feel right.
By using a rough dice = spell level equivalent for the purposes of immunity it opens the rakshasa to spell attacks from tough monsters which feels right, but keeps them immune to weaker monsters spell attacks which also feels right.
Once again, I am not claiming BOLT with 7d6 is equal to a 7th level spell...only that for the purposes of a rakshasa's immunity, dice=spell level is good first approximation for it to overcome a rakshasa's immunity.
the Jester
Legend
Neither one applies here, we're talking about a monster ability that isn't a spell.
It's not a spell at all and nothing indicates that it is, so the rakshasa's "immune to spells under 7th level" clause doesn't apply.
I'm pretty sure that arbitrarily deciding that an ability that isn't a spell and that does far less damage than any 7th level spell is equivalent to a 7th level spell is the very definition of DM fiat.
And so is this- there's no actual foundation in rules for this.
I disagree, unless you're suggesting that each and every scenario is outside RAW. Otherwise, I'm not even sure what you're suggesting here. There are two stat blocks fighting. Just because neither one is a pc doesn't make it "outside RAW". You can run the combat just fine by applying the standard rules of the game, and Bolt isn't a spell, nor is it presented as a spell in any way. If it was a spell, it would be- as someone else pointed out- under an Innate Spellcasting trait.
"Ranged spell attack" is convenient shorthand (or at least appears to be) for "ranged attack without a physical weapon". Just as a "weapon attack" includes attacks with boulders, fists, horns, tentacles and teeth, a "ranged spell attack" includes any attack not using a physical weapon (c.f. will-o'-wisp, green slaad, etc).
I disagree. By adding a rough dice = spell level equivalent that isn't supported anywhere in the rules, you're engaging DM fiat where it doesn't need to be engaged. There is absolutely nothing that suggests that this ability should be treated like a spell in the rules.
And even if I agreed that figuring out what level of spell the bolt was equivalent to, I would still think it's absolutely silly to use a measure that vastly overrates the bolt. You're talking about an ability that's barely above the strength of a cantrip cast by a high-level caster! Declaring that it's approximately equal to a 7th level spell is just baffling to me. If I was ruling that it needed to be "equivalent to a 7th level spell" to bypass the rakshasa's spell immunity, it would absolutely fail the test. But it doesn't- it's not a spell, nothing actually in the rules suggests that it is, nothing in the rakshasa's spell immunity suggests that it applies to anything but spells. Likewise, if someone used a magic item on it that produced a unique affect, only the "advantage on saves vs. other magical effects" clause would apply. No save? No effect.
Obviously, YMMV. Play how you like. But couching this ruling as somehow not DM fiat is absolutely backwards, in my opinion.
Similar Threads
