Q: magic immunity and indirect effects

Dreaddisease said:
What about throwing an Antimagic field in there? We had this question last night while trying to suppress some spells cast on a golem, but our DM was ruling that with magic immunity it wasn't effecting him. Suddenly we had Mr. Invincible Golem.

I agree with the Rakshashas CR problem, though that is really a problem with the spells they have along with the DR and other problems.
Supernatural abilities go bye bye inside of an AM field, but he could just move outside of the range and pop you with a fireball just fine. Or go invisible first, THEN pop you. Yes, the melee attacks aren't bad at all, but given time, he could possibly take out an entire party with his claws and teeth. Too bad you can't get Su abilities while polymorphed. The Rakshasa would be the perfect munchkin choice then...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Rakshashas do have a glaring vulnerability which is definitely factored into their CR. It's neither intuitive nor obvious that... a specific thing kills them (spoiler avoided). They are also not combat-monsters. Most likely a group will know of the presence of a tiger fiend before actually meeting it, or they will be unable to affect it (with magic or weapons) and flee. If they were really on-task, they could cast commune at this point, and I'm sure they would be able to find out that they're up against a Rakshasha, and what its specific weakness is.

And for the rules on magic immunity, it is stated specifically that it counts as unbeatable spell resistance. In the example of claws, as long as they don't offer SR to resist being clawed, they work. Ditto for strange targeted spells like Maze.

-nameless
 

Berk said:
indirect effects still affect creatures with spell immunities. If I cast greater magic weapon on my sword and attack the golem the sword will act like a magical sword. It won't not work on the golem because the golem is immune to that spell.
*waits patiently for time stop to hijack the thread*
Oh, I see where I screwed up before. Sorry Hong.:D To backtrack, IF your magical claws could penetrate the DR, then YES it would work. Also, not sure about the golem issue. Spell Immunity works against any spell that can thwarted by SR right? Since you can't cast GMW on a golem, it follows that a weapon with GMW on it would not work. I may be wrong on this, but that appears to be how the Spell Immunity spell works. Sorry for the aidin' and abettin' on the hijackin'.:D
 

nameless said:
Rakshashas do have a glaring vulnerability which is definitely factored into their CR. It's neither intuitive nor obvious that... a specific thing kills them (spoiler avoided). They are also not combat-monsters. Most likely a group will know of the presence of a tiger fiend before actually meeting it, or they will be unable to affect it (with magic or weapons) and flee. If they were really on-task, they could cast commune at this point, and I'm sure they would be able to find out that they're up against a Rakshasha, and what its specific weakness is.

And for the rules on magic immunity, it is stated specifically that it counts as unbeatable spell resistance. In the example of claws, as long as they don't offer SR to resist being clawed, they work. Ditto for strange targeted spells like Maze.

-nameless

Yes, but it has to do damage to kill it, meaning GMW, not MW. So, basically you practically HAVE to have this spell to defeat it unless one or more party members has a +3 weapon. So yeah, unless you commune, metagame, or are lucky enough to have an extra GMW spell left (or have one going when battle starts up), you could quite easily be TPK'ed or go running for the hills.
 

Since you can't cast GMW on a golem, it follows that a weapon with GMW on it would not work

Course you can't cast GMW on a golem, it isn't a "weapon". You wouldn't be able to cast GMF on the golem since it is immune to it. But if I cast GMF on my legendary wolf or something and the + I get from the GMF is enough to bypass DR then it would affect the golem. It's an indirect effect. I'm not casting the spell on the golem, I already cast the spell on something else and it took effect.
 

Magic immunity is treated as unbeatable SR. Spells that are not subject to SR, including those with indirect effects, are not subject to magic immunity.

One example of such a spell is Reverse Gravity. It's not subject to SR because it affects the local gravitational field, not individual creatures. A golem caught in a reversed gravity field would fall upward, because that's an effect of gravity, not of the magic itself.

If a clay golem hastes itself, and then steps inside an Antimagic Field, the haste effect is suppressed. The AMF is working on the effect, not on the golem itself, so the golem's immunity is moot.

The claws question could go either way. If the spell gives you claws made out of magic-- like a version of Flame Blade or Mordenkainen's Sword-- then spell immunity will protect, because it's the actual magic that does damage. If it transmutes your body, by causing your hands to actually turn into claws, then it is not subect to SR.
 
Last edited:

AuraSeer said:


The claws question could go either way. If the spell gives you claws made out of magic-- like a version of Flame Blade or Mordenkainen's Sword-- then spell immunity will protect, because it's the actual magic that does damage. If it transmutes your body, by causing your hands to actually turn into claws, then it is not subect to SR.

Yeah, that’s kind of the way I thought.

Let’s look at a psion (and pretend it is a spell for this discussion ).

“Claws of the vampire” turns your hands into claws that do 1d8 damage and cure you for the same amount. Would this one work? The claws are physical so I think at least the damaging part would work. I’m not sure if they would work for the curing part though. I don’t have the book with me so I don’t know if SR applies.

Roger Bacon
 

RogerBacon said:


Yeah, that’s kind of the way I thought.

Let’s look at a psion (and pretend it is a spell for this discussion ).

“Claws of the vampire” turns your hands into claws that do 1d8 damage and cure you for the same amount. Would this one work? The claws are physical so I think at least the damaging part would work. I’m not sure if they would work for the curing part though. I don’t have the book with me so I don’t know if SR applies.

Roger Bacon

Does the spell/psion make your claws +3? If not, you'll have a hard time doing 20+ points of damage. In combination with Greater Magic Fang it should work though. However, I'm not certain GMF would enhance magically created claws. Hmmm...
 

Magic Fang

Transmutation
Level: Drd1, Rgr1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: 1 minute/level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

The only SR that applies to magic fang (and greater MF) is that of the target, namely the person/creature who gets the fangs. The golem does not roll SR when hit, just as it doesn't roll SR when hit by a magic weapon, a weapon affected by the GMW spell, or a natural attack from a creature that itself has DR. Hence the golem's spell immunity is moot.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top