D&D 5E RAKSASHA (Limited Magic Immunity) X Empyrean (Bolt)

[Thyrwyn]

What Jester said. All of it.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Neither one applies here, we're talking about a monster ability that isn't a spell.

If you look at the Cambion, it gets it's DEX to it's spell attack even though it has the same Innate Spellcasting ability the Empyrean has, so the system isn't treating it as a spell.

But the Cambion could just be a misprint because the Empyrean is using it's CHR, it's innate spellcasting stat, for it's Bolt.

I think it just comes down to 5E RAW being more of a random jumble than a consistent system.

Anyway, it clearly says "spell attack" so I'd have a hard time not treating it as a spell, and since it doesn't have a level and is acting a lot like a cantrip I'd give it spell level 0 just like a cantrip.

 

[jrowland]

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 agree. I said the same thing. But, if one were interested in having the the rakshasa be immune to *some* ranged spell attacks but not all, in a reasonable way, what would one do? What method could one use to try and make an approximation that seems to make sense such that some ranged spell attacks (low "spell equivalent") were immune but others were not? I gave my preferred methodology as well as another.

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.

It is. We agree. But I am not saying its equivalent in all ways, but only in the niche case where one WANTS to use Magic Immunity to prevent *some* Spell attacks and not prevent others.

And so is this- there's no actual foundation in rules for this.

yes, DM fiat. Of course it is. But in conjuction with the above, DM fiat can be arbitrary and random or it can be systemic: Banning all elves from play in a campaign is DM fiat, but it is systemic and appropriate. Banning Joe from making an elf, then two weeks later letting lenny make an elf is DM fiat but arbitrary and random. We can agree its DM fiat, but still apply a systemic approach outside RAW.

I disagree, unless you're suggesting that each and every scenario is outside RAW.

No, just this niche area that is outside RAW. The game is designed for PCs against monsters. Monsters are built differently than PCs. Monsters that cast spells have different rules for spellcasting (different progression table, spell lists, etc). Part of that has to do with balance, about the fact that PCs are the stars and Monsters have little table time. There are no RAW that deal with Monsters vs Monsters because its all in the purview of DM fiat. Yes, you can use the RAW to run a Monster vs Monster, but the game isn't designed for that. Thus, we will find more holes in such an undertaking than in PC vs Monsters.

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.

Unless of course, by DM fiat, or table agreement, or mental exercise, you want spell attacks to count as spells. Then you are outside of RAW. But more to the point Rakshasa's as an Ally of PCs is a bit outside of RAI if not RAW. Its not summoned. Its a member of the party. The OP is concerned because something seems out of whack. He could A) get rid of his narrative and the rakshasa (bad choice) b) "nerf" the Rakshasa's immunity c) Make BOLT applicable as per RAW d) Make BOLT applicable but use what I suggested or some other methodology d) Let the Rakshasa be immune to the BOLT. The whole scenario is in the DM fiat regime. Its about the DM-played rakshasa fighting the DM played Empyrean.

"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).

Since that isn't written in the rules, ie RAW, isn't that outside RAW too? FWIW I agree.

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.

Of course it's not supported in the rules. Unless you want to hack the system, or "modify" it outside of RAW to suit your tables preferences. You know, kind of like what 5E is marketed as being friendly to do. I know you might think its BADWRONGFUN, and thank you for your opinion, but if someone WANTED to hack the game to make Rakshasa's immune to Spell Attacks (not spells), what would you propose:

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.

Wrong. You seem to think that I am suggesting BOLT = 7th level spells. I cannot be more clear: For the purposes of HACKING the RAW where one WANTS a RANGED SPELL ATTACK to fall under the purview of MAGIC IMMUNITY treating BOLT as a 7th spell for the PURPOSE (and only that purpose) as 7th level is a valid method, otherwise you NERF a lot of monsters in the MM. Why? RANGED SPELL ATTACKS are not SPELLS are not designed as such...making MAGIC IMMUNITY apply to them makes them too weak so as a counter you have to TREAT THEM AS DICE = SPELL LEVEL in that specific HACK to the SYSTEM. One could come up with all sorts of equivalents to suit their game, but as a FIRST APPROXIMATION a CR 23 MONSTER should be able to hit a CR 13 Monster in the HACK where MAGIC IMMUNITY applies to RANGED SPELL ATTACKS. DICE=SPELL LEVEL does that well enough without parsing every creature. It IS DM fiat, so adjust as it suits your game.

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.

Again. I agree. Its not a spell. It doesn't apply. But:

The BOLT of Empyrean (Ranged Attack Spell) but does not report on what level, or what magic is equivalent, hit or not Raksasha?

That's the OP. His question was not "What is RAW" but what is magic equivalent. I answered THAT and subsequently outlined my reasoning in other postings. If you want to know equivalent spell level for purposes of magic immunity, I've outlined a simple way to determine that. I've stated explicitly it's a first approximation and not perfect, but it gets a DM started should they want to hack it. The RAW is clear and has been answered (but the question not asked).

 

[jrowland]

Anyway, it clearly says "spell attack" so I'd have a hard time not treating it as a spell, and since it doesn't have a level and is acting a lot like a cantrip I'd give it spell level 0 just like a cantrip.

Only issue is then spells like "Globe of Invulnerability" make you immune to an Empyreans (CR23) bolt attack since it would be 0 level spell. If that is ok in your game, go for it.

Obviously you could rule its not a spell and it bypasses Globe of invulnerability.

Or you can opt for treating it as something higher level to bypass such Magic Immunity effects if you want to keep it as a spell.

 

[maritimo80]

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.

In your opinion of the BOLT Empyrean would hit or not Raksasha?

 

[maritimo80]

I agree. I said the same thing. But, if one were interested in having the the rakshasa be immune to *some* ranged spell attacks but not all, in a reasonable way, what would one do? What method could one use to try and make an approximation that seems to make sense such that some ranged spell attacks (low "spell equivalent") were immune but others were not? I gave my preferred methodology as well as another.



It is. We agree. But I am not saying its equivalent in all ways, but only in the niche case where one WANTS to use Magic Immunity to prevent *some* Spell attacks and not prevent others.



yes, DM fiat. Of course it is. But in conjuction with the above, DM fiat can be arbitrary and random or it can be systemic: Banning all elves from play in a campaign is DM fiat, but it is systemic and appropriate. Banning Joe from making an elf, then two weeks later letting lenny make an elf is DM fiat but arbitrary and random. We can agree its DM fiat, but still apply a systemic approach outside RAW.



No, just this niche area that is outside RAW. The game is designed for PCs against monsters. Monsters are built differently than PCs. Monsters that cast spells have different rules for spellcasting (different progression table, spell lists, etc). Part of that has to do with balance, about the fact that PCs are the stars and Monsters have little table time. There are no RAW that deal with Monsters vs Monsters because its all in the purview of DM fiat. Yes, you can use the RAW to run a Monster vs Monster, but the game isn't designed for that. Thus, we will find more holes in such an undertaking than in PC vs Monsters.



Unless of course, by DM fiat, or table agreement, or mental exercise, you want spell attacks to count as spells. Then you are outside of RAW. But more to the point Rakshasa's as an Ally of PCs is a bit outside of RAI if not RAW. Its not summoned. Its a member of the party. The OP is concerned because something seems out of whack. He could A) get rid of his narrative and the rakshasa (bad choice) b) "nerf" the Rakshasa's immunity c) Make BOLT applicable as per RAW d) Make BOLT applicable but use what I suggested or some other methodology d) Let the Rakshasa be immune to the BOLT. The whole scenario is in the DM fiat regime. Its about the DM-played rakshasa fighting the DM played Empyrean.



Since that isn't written in the rules, ie RAW, isn't that outside RAW too? FWIW I agree.



Of course it's not supported in the rules. Unless you want to hack the system, or "modify" it outside of RAW to suit your tables preferences. You know, kind of like what 5E is marketed as being friendly to do. I know you might think its BADWRONGFUN, and thank you for your opinion, but if someone WANTED to hack the game to make Rakshasa's immune to Spell Attacks (not spells), what would you propose:



Wrong. You seem to think that I am suggesting BOLT = 7th level spells. I cannot be more clear: For the purposes of HACKING the RAW where one WANTS a RANGED SPELL ATTACK to fall under the purview of MAGIC IMMUNITY treating BOLT as a 7th spell for the PURPOSE (and only that purpose) as 7th level is a valid method, otherwise you NERF a lot of monsters in the MM. Why? RANGED SPELL ATTACKS are not SPELLS are not designed as such...making MAGIC IMMUNITY apply to them makes them too weak so as a counter you have to TREAT THEM AS DICE = SPELL LEVEL in that specific HACK to the SYSTEM. One could come up with all sorts of equivalents to suit their game, but as a FIRST APPROXIMATION a CR 23 MONSTER should be able to hit a CR 13 Monster in the HACK where MAGIC IMMUNITY applies to RANGED SPELL ATTACKS. DICE=SPELL LEVEL does that well enough without parsing every creature. It IS DM fiat, so adjust as it suits your game.



Again. I agree. Its not a spell. It doesn't apply. But:



That's the OP. His question was not "What is RAW" but what is magic equivalent. I answered THAT and subsequently outlined my reasoning in other postings. If you want to know equivalent spell level for purposes of magic immunity, I've outlined a simple way to determine that. I've stated explicitly it's a first approximation and not perfect, but it gets a DM started should they want to hack it. The RAW is clear and has been answered (but the question not asked).

In your opinion of the BOLT Empyrean would hit or not Raksasha?

 

[jrowland]

In your opinion of the BOLT Empyrean would hit or not Raksasha?

IMO, it would hit. BOLT is not a SPELL but a RANGED SPELL ATTACK. Magic Immunity does not apply. But since you are quoting all that text I posted, I'll answer another way:

IF I were to treat BOLT as a SPELL (which I think you may be doing):

It would still hit, since I would count it as 7th level spell for the purposes of Magic Immunity and I like easy dice=level rules of thumb and I don't want globe of invulnerability to invalidate a lot of monster attacks on PCs

It would MISS, If I used 1/4 CR (5th or 6th level spell), but that seems too arbitrary (CR doesn't map well with level) and I have to do maths, so I would not do that.

It would MISS, If I treated it like a Cantrip (0 level), which seems easy, but then I would have PCs running around with Globe of Invulnerability and claiming they are immune to all sorts of monster attacks, so Iwould not do that.

It would MISS, If I used dice-3 levels (4th level spell), but again I have to do maths and Globe of Invulnerability (see above), so I would not do that.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Only issue is then spells like "Globe of Invulnerability" make you immune to an Empyreans (CR23) bolt attack since it would be 0 level spell. If that is ok in your game, go for it.

That is okay in everyone's game. Eldritch Blast is the main attack for Warlocks and your 20th level Warlock is pretty much SOL against Tiamat's magic immunity. 5E has resistance and immunity all over the place, it is what it is.

 

[jrowland]

That is okay in everyone's game. Eldritch Blast is the main attack for Warlocks and your 20th level Warlock is pretty much SOL against Tiamat's magic immunity. 5E has resistance and immunity all over the place, it is what it is.

Unless you change it.

 

[Chocolategravy]

Unless you change it.

Generally when I pay a professional to do work for me I expect to not have to correct their mistakes. If I have to, I hired the wrong one.