I encountered a surprising detail about the enchantment wizard's instinctive charm ability in a one-shot tonight: it's not actually considered magical, so magic resistance doesn't work against it. At the time the DM ruled it as nonmagical because it didn't say it was magical in the description, but we made sure to look it up after the session. Here's what I found.
According to the Sage Advice Compendium, whether a given effect is considered magical can be determined with a set of 5 questions. If the answer to any of the questions is yes, then the effect is magical. If all the answers are no, then the effect is not magical.
Is it a magic item?
Is it a spell? Or does it let you create the effects of a spell that’s mentioned in its description?
Is it a spell attack?
Is it fueled by the use of spell slots?
Does its description say it’s magical?
Instinctive charm is not a magic item. It is not a spell, and does not create the effects of a spell. It is not a spell attack. It does not cost spell slots. And most surprisingly of all, nowhere in its description does it say anything about it being magical. Because none of the answers are yes, it is nonmagical. This saved my wizard from being knocked out by a particularly nasty attack (at the expense of knocking out the rogue instead).
By the way, it's interesting to note that hypnotic gaze is explicitly magical but instinctive charm is not.
Interestingly enough, though the name says charm, the creature it's used on does not get the charmed status
Yes, but it does explicitly say " Creatures that can’t be charmed are immune to this effect."
Enchantment wizard is god tier except for charm being such a common immunity at high levels. It's still fantastic though, and interestingly enough there is a UA enchantment spell that, if it makes it out, will be a nice buff to enchanters.
Raulothim’s Psychic Lance (UA)- You unleash a shimmering lance of psychic power from your forehead at a creature that you can see within range. Alternatively, you can utter the creature’s name. If the named target is within range, it gains no benefit from cover or invisibility as the lance homes in on it. If the named target isn’t within range, the lance dissipates, and the spell slot is not expended.
The target must succeed on an Intelligence saving throw or take 10d6 psychic damage and be incapacitated until the start of your next turn.
No charm immunity. Nice damage. Nice save target. Debilitates an enemy for 1 round. Some additional niche utility (use vs invisible creature if you know their name). And it can be twinned with Split Enchantment to target 2 creatures.
Interestingly enough, though the name says charm, the creature it's used on does not get the charmed status
Yes, but it does explicitly say " Creatures that can’t be charmed are immune to this effect."
Enchantment wizard is god tier except for charm being such a common immunity at high levels. It's still fantastic though, and interestingly enough there is a UA enchantment spell that, if it makes it out, will be a nice buff to enchanters.
Raulothim’s Psychic Lance (UA)- You unleash a shimmering lance of psychic power from your forehead at a creature that you can see within range. Alternatively, you can utter the creature’s name. If the named target is within range, it gains no benefit from cover or invisibility as the lance homes in on it. If the named target isn’t within range, the lance dissipates, and the spell slot is not expended.
The target must succeed on an Intelligence saving throw or take 10d6 psychic damage and be incapacitated until the start of your next turn.
No charm immunity. Nice damage. Nice save target. Debilitates an enemy for 1 round. Some additional niche utility (use vs invisible creature if you know their name). And it can be twinned with Split Enchantment to target 2 creatures.
That's a great spell! Kind of strange wording, "If the named target is within range, it gains no benefit from cover.." It's a save spell, so cover doesn't matter. I suppose if it's full cover the issue is you can't see the target. But then, does it work in thick fog if you can't see the target? It's not invisible and it's not behind cover.
The writing crew really needs to dig into the nuances of the game rules and write these better. I think rules as intended, if you know the creature's name you don't need to be able to see the target.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I encountered a surprising detail about the enchantment wizard's instinctive charm ability in a one-shot tonight: it's not actually considered magical, so magic resistance doesn't work against it. At the time the DM ruled it as nonmagical because it didn't say it was magical in the description, but we made sure to look it up after the session. Here's what I found.
According to the Sage Advice Compendium, whether a given effect is considered magical can be determined with a set of 5 questions. If the answer to any of the questions is yes, then the effect is magical. If all the answers are no, then the effect is not magical.
Instinctive charm is not a magic item. It is not a spell, and does not create the effects of a spell. It is not a spell attack. It does not cost spell slots. And most surprisingly of all, nowhere in its description does it say anything about it being magical. Because none of the answers are yes, it is nonmagical. This saved my wizard from being knocked out by a particularly nasty attack (at the expense of knocking out the rogue instead).
By the way, it's interesting to note that hypnotic gaze is explicitly magical but instinctive charm is not.
Good insight. Main problem is that a lot of creatures are immune of Charm effect nevertheless.
Interestingly enough, though the name says charm, the creature it's used on does not get the charmed status
Yes, but it does explicitly say " Creatures that can’t be charmed are immune to this effect."
Enchantment wizard is god tier except for charm being such a common immunity at high levels. It's still fantastic though, and interestingly enough there is a UA enchantment spell that, if it makes it out, will be a nice buff to enchanters.
No charm immunity. Nice damage. Nice save target. Debilitates an enemy for 1 round. Some additional niche utility (use vs invisible creature if you know their name). And it can be twinned with Split Enchantment to target 2 creatures.
That's a great spell! Kind of strange wording, "If the named target is within range, it gains no benefit from cover.." It's a save spell, so cover doesn't matter. I suppose if it's full cover the issue is you can't see the target. But then, does it work in thick fog if you can't see the target? It's not invisible and it's not behind cover.
The writing crew really needs to dig into the nuances of the game rules and write these better. I think rules as intended, if you know the creature's name you don't need to be able to see the target.