At least one canon monster (the Rakshasa) has immunity to spells of 6th level or lower. Does this immunity work even if a higher level spell slot is used?
For instance: a wizard casts lightning bolt at a Rakshasa, but uses a 7th level spell slot. Does the lightning bolt affect the creature?
The only similar effect or rule I can think to apply is from the spell globe of invulnerability. The text of the spell explicitly says (emphasis mine):
Any spell of 5th level or lower cast from outside the barrier can't affect creatures or objects within it, even if the spell is cast using a higher level spell slot. Such a spell can target creatures and objects within the barrier, but the spell has no effect on them.
To me, this suggests that spell immunity is tied to the spell's "original" level, and not the slot used for casting it. What do y'all think?
As Brian pointed out. Spells become the level of the slot used to cast them.
If you find 2 similar effects, but one specifically says something extra, then you can be sure that the extra bit does not apply to the other effect (otherwise it would not need to say it in the first place).
Thanks, folks. I agree. It backs up what the PHB says in the beginning: the specific supersedes the general.
So in the case of globe of invulnerability, the specific rule - the original level of the spell is what counts, not the slot used - supersedes the general rule (a spell expands to fill the slot used).
No such caveat is provided for the Rakshasa so...a lightning bolt cast using a 7th level spell slot is a 7th level spell, not a 3rd level one.
At least one canon monster (the Rakshasa) has immunity to spells of 6th level or lower. Does this immunity work even if a higher level spell slot is used?
For instance: a wizard casts lightning bolt at a Rakshasa, but uses a 7th level spell slot. Does the lightning bolt affect the creature?
The only similar effect or rule I can think to apply is from the spell globe of invulnerability. The text of the spell explicitly says (emphasis mine):
To me, this suggests that spell immunity is tied to the spell's "original" level, and not the slot used for casting it. What do y'all think?
As Brian pointed out. Spells become the level of the slot used to cast them.
If you find 2 similar effects, but one specifically says something extra, then you can be sure that the extra bit does not apply to the other effect (otherwise it would not need to say it in the first place).
Thanks, folks. I agree. It backs up what the PHB says in the beginning: the specific supersedes the general.
So in the case of globe of invulnerability, the specific rule - the original level of the spell is what counts, not the slot used - supersedes the general rule (a spell expands to fill the slot used).
No such caveat is provided for the Rakshasa so...a lightning bolt cast using a 7th level spell slot is a 7th level spell, not a 3rd level one.