Hi I was making a spell caster to go against a monster with magic immunity against spells lower than 6th lv and wanted to know Exactly what that meant. As if I cast a catapult spell would that not damage the creature? The spells effect is to launch a rock just as a normal catapult would so it should still be affected by the damage dealt. Same for other spells like transmute rock. You can target and effect the ceiling to make it fall apart, the damage from the falling rubble. How many other spells have damage not fully attached to the spell but more of the effect it can do. Fire ball and other things would not work because of them being created by magic and so on..
It's funny that this discussion about catapult and the Rakshasa was being discussed just a few days ago in this forum. In the example you gave, it comes down to how the DM wants to play it. Rakshasa is a weird monster unlike any others that I know of. On the one hand, you could say this spell is affecting the creature (perhaps indirectly) and therefore would not work. On the other hand, you can say the spell is only affecting the rock and the rock is affecting the creature and therefore it should work. There is no official guidance on this and it's up to the DM to play it as they see fit. What I can say is that if you are separating the rock from the spell, then you can't really consider it a magical attack (it's a saving throw spell so it's not really an attack at all) and therefore the creature would have immunity to the damage from it anyway.
Well they also happen to have immunity to non-magical Bludgeoning Piercing and Slashing damage. So either it is magical and they're immune or it isn't magical and they're still immune.
I would allow an upcast spell to bypass the limited magical immunity because of the way I interpret this rule from the Player's Handbook.
When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. (PHB p.201)
I would also allow the example Mr. Pockets gave because the spell is affecting the weapon and the magic weapon is attacking, not the spell itself. I cannot speak for the artificer's turret because I'm not familiar enough with it.
Upcast spells should work because it would otherwise say they don't - like for example the Globe of Invulnerability spell - the Rakshasa doesn't have that clause.
I was wondering if a player use a invisibility potion or spell on them self so they (the player) were affected. would the Rakshasa see them. Because they have no way too outside of magic immunity.
No. Just like if a Rakshasa attacks you and you cast shield, the Rakshasa cannot bypass the shield spell you cast on yourself. I'm pretty sure the magic immunity only counts for spells that target them or place them within the area of effect.
I think it could be interpreted that it would only be things directly cast upon them, and that, just for the sake of your poor spellcasters and not making something that isn't a beholder a beholder, indirect effects such as the attacks of conjured or summoned creatures (especially that, really) , transmutation buffs, etc. should not count in the partial magical immunity clause as the things effecting the rakshasa in those cases is not a spell of level 6 or lower i.e. are the snapping jaws of a fey creature a spell of level 6 or lower? Is a devil from the 9 hells (brought forth by the level 5 spell, Infernal Calling) a spell of level 6 or lower in the instance that it decides to get itself involved with combating the Rakshasa?
Rakshaka ignore shield spell it doesn't specify the spell needs to interact with them to be immune only they can choose to ignore its effects if it is 6th level or lower. Unless you upcast shield to 7th level it can ignore it look up Jeremy Crawford's sage advice
Rakshaka ignore shield spell it doesn't specify the spell needs to interact with them to be immune only they can choose to ignore its effects if it is 6th level or lower. Unless you upcast shield to 7th level it can ignore it look up Jeremy Crawford's sage advice
This is incorrect.
"The rakshasa can't be affected or detected by spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be. It has advantage on saving throws against all other spells and magical effects."
A shield spell does not affect the Rakshasa and the spell is not trying to detect it. It only affects the caster. So, no, the Rakshasa cannot ignore the shield spell.
I also cannot find any sage advice or Jeremy Crawford tweet saying otherwise, can you link the source?
I would take my inspiration from Matt's medallion in the Wheel of Time: Magic itself cannot affect the creature, but an object thrown by magic isn't magic itself and would not be covered by that immunity.
However, others have mentioned that the creature in question is also immune to non-magical bludgeoning damage, so the point is kind of moot.
Any spell of 6th level or lower that makes an interaction with the rakshaka it can ignore. Shield adds 5 to your AC and because its immune to the spell level it can ignore the bonus from the spell
The problem with this is that we have to ask where it ends. Can the rakshasa ignore my mage armor when it attacks me? If I am invisible, can it ignore my invisibility and attack me without disadvantage? If someone heals me with cure wounds, can it ignore the restoration to my hit points and kill me anyway? If I cast blink can it ignore the spell and attack me while I am on the ethereal plane?
The answer to all of these questions is no because none of those spell effects include the rakshasa in their scope.
Yes it ignores all of that unless they are casted at 7th level or higher. Feel free to house rule it but RAW all those spells will not effect it aside from cure womds cause that does nit effect the Rakshaka
The rakshasa is not affected or detected by me being invisible or in the ethereal plane. I am. Those spells have nothing to do with someone else's ability to see me or not. That's entirely on them. Now if the rakshasa was invisible, and you cast see invisibility, then they could ignore your attempt to detect them.
Might be necroposting, if so, my apologies. I just wanted to say that this mechanic *sucks* on BBEG fights. It's not fun to not be able to contribute on your turn. At some point, the adds are down or controlled, and so on, and it's just you guys and the boss. Having something that stops basically all of your spells means you can't even use cantrips to be part of the team. Bleh. Please, Adventure writers and monster designers, make better mechanics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi I was making a spell caster to go against a monster with magic immunity against spells lower than 6th lv and wanted to know Exactly what that meant. As if I cast a catapult spell would that not damage the creature? The spells effect is to launch a rock just as a normal catapult would so it should still be affected by the damage dealt. Same for other spells like transmute rock. You can target and effect the ceiling to make it fall apart, the damage from the falling rubble. How many other spells have damage not fully attached to the spell but more of the effect it can do. Fire ball and other things would not work because of them being created by magic and so on..
It's funny that this discussion about catapult and the Rakshasa was being discussed just a few days ago in this forum. In the example you gave, it comes down to how the DM wants to play it. Rakshasa is a weird monster unlike any others that I know of. On the one hand, you could say this spell is affecting the creature (perhaps indirectly) and therefore would not work. On the other hand, you can say the spell is only affecting the rock and the rock is affecting the creature and therefore it should work. There is no official guidance on this and it's up to the DM to play it as they see fit. What I can say is that if you are separating the rock from the spell, then you can't really consider it a magical attack (it's a saving throw spell so it's not really an attack at all) and therefore the creature would have immunity to the damage from it anyway.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Well they also happen to have immunity to non-magical Bludgeoning Piercing and Slashing damage. So either it is magical and they're immune or it isn't magical and they're still immune.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
So you can cast a 2nd lv spell to make a weapon magical and it does work? Would an artiticifers turrets do any damage at all?
I'm going to work on the assumption that you're talking about the Rakshasa, or something with the same wording as the spell immunity in there.
Personally, I would rule that any spells or spell effects of spells 6th level or lower have no effect on a Rakshasa.
Note that this includes up-casted spells - Magic Missile cast at 7th level would have no effect (in my opinion).I would say that magical effects and items still effect it - so a turret would still effect it because the turret is not a spell using a spell slot.
I would allow an upcast spell to bypass the limited magical immunity because of the way I interpret this rule from the Player's Handbook.
I would also allow the example Mr. Pockets gave because the spell is affecting the weapon and the magic weapon is attacking, not the spell itself. I cannot speak for the artificer's turret because I'm not familiar enough with it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Upcast spells should work because it would otherwise say they don't - like for example the Globe of Invulnerability spell - the Rakshasa doesn't have that clause.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Oh yeah... totally forgot. ;)
Good points. Edited my post.
I was wondering if a player use a invisibility potion or spell on them self so they (the player) were affected. would the Rakshasa see them. Because they have no way too outside of magic immunity.
No. Just like if a Rakshasa attacks you and you cast shield, the Rakshasa cannot bypass the shield spell you cast on yourself. I'm pretty sure the magic immunity only counts for spells that target them or place them within the area of effect.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
cool thanks for the info
I think it could be interpreted that it would only be things directly cast upon them, and that, just for the sake of your poor spellcasters and not making something that isn't a beholder a beholder, indirect effects such as the attacks of conjured or summoned creatures (especially that, really) , transmutation buffs, etc. should not count in the partial magical immunity clause as the things effecting the rakshasa in those cases is not a spell of level 6 or lower i.e. are the snapping jaws of a fey creature a spell of level 6 or lower? Is a devil from the 9 hells (brought forth by the level 5 spell, Infernal Calling) a spell of level 6 or lower in the instance that it decides to get itself involved with combating the Rakshasa?
Rakshaka ignore shield spell it doesn't specify the spell needs to interact with them to be immune only they can choose to ignore its effects if it is 6th level or lower. Unless you upcast shield to 7th level it can ignore it look up Jeremy Crawford's sage advice
This is incorrect.
"The rakshasa can't be affected or detected by spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be. It has advantage on saving throws against all other spells and magical effects."
A shield spell does not affect the Rakshasa and the spell is not trying to detect it. It only affects the caster. So, no, the Rakshasa cannot ignore the shield spell.
I also cannot find any sage advice or Jeremy Crawford tweet saying otherwise, can you link the source?
My Homebrew: Races | Subclasses | Backgrounds | Spells | Magic Items | Feats
Need help with Homebrew? Check out this FAQ/Guide thread by IamSposta
See My Youtube Videos for Tips & Tricks using D&D Beyond
I would take my inspiration from Matt's medallion in the Wheel of Time: Magic itself cannot affect the creature, but an object thrown by magic isn't magic itself and would not be covered by that immunity.
However, others have mentioned that the creature in question is also immune to non-magical bludgeoning damage, so the point is kind of moot.
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/13/does-a-rakshasas-limited-magic-immunity-protect-it-from-weapons-enhanced-by-shillelagh/
Any spell of 6th level or lower that makes an interaction with the rakshaka it can ignore. Shield adds 5 to your AC and because its immune to the spell level it can ignore the bonus from the spell
The problem with this is that we have to ask where it ends. Can the rakshasa ignore my mage armor when it attacks me? If I am invisible, can it ignore my invisibility and attack me without disadvantage? If someone heals me with cure wounds, can it ignore the restoration to my hit points and kill me anyway? If I cast blink can it ignore the spell and attack me while I am on the ethereal plane?
The answer to all of these questions is no because none of those spell effects include the rakshasa in their scope.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yes it ignores all of that unless they are casted at 7th level or higher. Feel free to house rule it but RAW all those spells will not effect it aside from cure womds cause that does nit effect the Rakshaka
The rakshasa is not affected or detected by me being invisible or in the ethereal plane. I am. Those spells have nothing to do with someone else's ability to see me or not. That's entirely on them. Now if the rakshasa was invisible, and you cast see invisibility, then they could ignore your attempt to detect them.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Might be necroposting, if so, my apologies. I just wanted to say that this mechanic *sucks* on BBEG fights. It's not fun to not be able to contribute on your turn. At some point, the adds are down or controlled, and so on, and it's just you guys and the boss. Having something that stops basically all of your spells means you can't even use cantrips to be part of the team. Bleh. Please, Adventure writers and monster designers, make better mechanics.