NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jrowland" data-source="post: 6490949" data-attributes="member: 94389">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.</blockquote>

Verification