Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="the Jester" data-source="post: 6491035" data-attributes="member: 1210">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.</blockquote>

Verification