View Full Version : Raksashas and Sage Advice
So just saw this on Sage Advice, and didn't see anything helpful in JC's answer. Actually, his answer made everything less clear, in my opinion.
Here's the SA:
"@JeremyECrawford Is a Rakshasa immune to the damage of the new Dragon's Breath spell (2nd level) from XGE, even though it is not the target of the spell?"
"As of the Monster Manual errata, the rakshasa's Limited Magic Immunity starts as follows: "The rakshasa can’t be affected or detected by spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be.""
So what the heck does "can't be affected" entail? That wording makes me think it cant be affected by the new spell, because breathing fire onto a raksasha would be an affect of the spell.
However, the spell affects the target (the one who gets to breath fire) the same way Haste does: it allows the target to take specific actions.
So if a raksasha is immune the effects of Dragon Breath's breath attack, shouldn't they therefore be immune to the effects of a Haste extra attack.
So what the heck does "can't be affected" mean?
It gets to choose whether to be affected or not. If you mean the opponent affected by the Haste extra action that's because it is not being affected by haste, it is being affected by an attack roll.
Glorthindel
2017-11-22, 07:37 AM
Seems fairly cut and dried - given a human doesn't naturally breath fire, them doing so due to the spell is an effect of the spell, and therefore the Rakshasa ability allows them to ignore the breath attack. Since they do naturally hit things with swords, the haste spell is not creating any new effect, just speeding an existing natural ability up, so of course the Rakshasa cant ignore the extra attack.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-22, 07:47 AM
So what the heck does "can't be affected" mean?
For me it means that you still get Wis on hit from Shillellag, but you hit for 1d6+str with your enchanted quarterstaff.
TheTeaMustFlow
2017-11-22, 08:03 AM
For me it means that you still get Wis on hit from Shillellag, but you hit for 1d6+str with your enchanted quarterstaff.
Nope. The effect of Shillelagh is making a quarterstaff into a magic weapon. And as it happens, Rakshasa don't like magic weapons.
Coffee_Dragon
2017-11-22, 08:54 AM
So just saw this on Sage Advice, and didn't see anything helpful in JC's answer. Actually, his answer made everything less clear, in my opinion.
It's like it's his special power. You'd think if he didn't really catch what people were getting at with their questions, he'd end up answering them more often by pure accident.
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-22, 09:00 AM
For me it means that you still get Wis on hit from Shillellag, but you hit for 1d6+str with your enchanted quarterstaff.
Nope. The effect of Shillelagh is making a quarterstaff into a magic weapon. And as it happens, Rakshasa don't like magic weapons.
I'm going to have to go with PolarBear on this one.
Yes, the spell makes the quarterstaff magical.
Yes, the Rak ignores the spell. He does not ignore magical items, and he is not immune to magical weapons. He ignores spells.
But it is still a quarterstaff, and as such it deals 1d6+Str damage normally. The spell which the Rak is ignoring changes the damage, but it doesn't change the fact that he just got hit with a staff.
He's immune to the spell affecting the staff if he chooses to be. He isn't immune to the staff itself, because the spell makes it magical.
There could even be an argument for the idea that Shillelagh working 100% normally against him, because he is not immune to magical items/weapons. He's immune to spells.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-22, 09:05 AM
Nope. The effect of Shillelagh is making a quarterstaff into a magic weapon. And as it happens, Rakshasa don't like magic weapons.
It is not a magic weapon for the Rakshasa, exaclty as it wouldn't be a magic weapon a weapon under the Magic Weapon spell. The Rakshasa simply does not sustain the effect of those spells.
Which, as you reminded, means that the damage would be 0.
@DivisibleByZero
I'm obviously assuming that the spell is the only thing making the weapon magical. Since it is still the spell, the weapon is mundane for the Rakshasa. So, i was wrong, it's not even 1d6+str damage :D
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-22, 09:13 AM
It is not a magic weapon for the Rakshasa, exaclty as it wouldn't be a magic weapon a weapon under the Magic Weapon spell. The Rakshasa simply does not sustain the effect of those spells.
Which, as you reminded, means that the damage would be 0.
@DivisibleByZero
I'm obviously assuming that the spell is the only thing making the weapon magical. Since it is still the spell, the weapon is mundane for the Rakshasa. So, i was wrong, it's not even 1d6+str damage :D
The spell makes the staff magical.
That then means that the weapon can damage the Rak.
The argument that Shill works perfectly normally is the one that carries the most weight.
Shill makes it a magical weapon which deals a certain amount of damage.
When you hit him with it, it's the exact same scenario as the former Haste example.
A Rak can basically only be hurt by magic weapons and 7th+ level spells. This lower level spell creates a magic weapon, which bypasses his immunity with a spell of less than 7th level. The spell itself is affecting the weapon, not the Rak. The effects of the attack are the thing affecting the Rak.
And unless I'm mistaken, this is what Tea was getting at (and I misread it at first), meaning I hereby change declaration of going with you and now go with him. :smallsmile:
RedMage125
2017-11-22, 09:16 AM
There could even be an argument for the idea that Shillelagh working 100% normally against him, because he is not immune to magical items/weapons. He's immune to spells.
I would say this is correct.
The Rakshasa is immune to spells that target him, or include him in the area of effect (like fireball).
Shillelagh targets the staff, and works normally against the Rakshasa because he has no immunity to damage from being whacked by a magic staff. Same reason people under the effect of Haste still get their extra attack against a Rakshasa, Haste was cast on the PC, not on the Rakshasa.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-22, 10:31 AM
The spell makes the staff magical.
That then means that the weapon can damage the Rak.
The argument that Shill works perfectly normally is the one that carries the most weight.
Shill makes it a magical weapon which deals a certain amount of damage.
When you hit him with it, it's the exact same scenario as the former Haste example.
A Rak can basically only be hurt by magic weapons and 7th+ level spells. This lower level spell creates a magic weapon, which bypasses his immunity with a spell of less than 7th level. The spell itself is affecting the weapon, not the Rak. The effects of the attack are the thing affecting the Rak.
And unless I'm mistaken, this is what Tea was getting at (and I misread it at first), meaning I hereby change declaration of going with you and now go with him. :smallsmile:
It is not exactly the same scenario. Haste has an indirect effect on the Rakshasa. Shillelagh has a direct effect on the Rakshasa - so direct that it allows a weapon that otherwise would be unable to damage it actually a threat. The direct part is, for me, ignored.
I see it as "striking an antimagic field that nullify any effect on anything that touches them as long as contact lasts", sort of (not really, but explaining).
If you were to strike with a magic weapon, the weapon would not be magical at the moment of the strike.
If a creature was enchanted at the moment of striking with a weapon, the weapon would feel the effects of the antimagic field, not the holder.
Were the creature to strike directly it would not be under "haste" for the fraction of an instant of contact, but the benefits from haste have already been used and even if slowed for a fraction of a second the moment that contact is lost the full benefits would reprise.
Magic weapons bypass the normal weapon damage immunity, but spells that grant magical abilities to weapons do not. The effects of such spells do affect the Rakshasa, unless if cast in a way to bypass the immunity. Note that he is not immune to spells, he is immune to spells that affect him in some way.
Honestly i can see both sides and i would be happy to have a RAI that's clearer than what we have now.
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-22, 11:02 AM
Then you and I disagree, and would use completely different rulings.
Shillelagh, Magic Weapon, and other spells of the like, exist to bypass a creature's normal resistance or immunity to non-magical weapons. That's basically their entire purpose.
These spells do not interact with the Rak at all. They interact with the weapons. The weapon used to have these properties, and now it has these properties instead. No interaction or effect on the Rak in any way.
The weapon becomes magical. The Rak is damaged by magical weapons.
RedMage125
2017-11-22, 11:06 AM
It is not exactly the same scenario. Haste has an indirect effect on the Rakshasa. Shillelagh has a direct effect on the Rakshasa - so direct that it allows a weapon that otherwise would be unable to damage it actually a threat. The direct part is, for me, ignored.
I see it as "striking an antimagic field that nullify any effect on anything that touches them as long as contact lasts", sort of (not really, but explaining).
If you were to strike with a magic weapon, the weapon would not be magical at the moment of the strike.
If a creature was enchanted at the moment of striking with a weapon, the weapon would feel the effects of the antimagic field, not the holder.
Were the creature to strike directly it would not be under "haste" for the fraction of an instant of contact, but the benefits from haste have already been used and even if slowed for a fraction of a second the moment that contact is lost the full benefits would reprise.
Magic weapons bypass the normal weapon damage immunity, but spells that grant magical abilities to weapons do not.
There is nothing in the rules, in this or any previous edition, to support the notion that a Rakshasa's immunity to spells is in any way like an antimagic field that surrounds their bodies. One NEEDS magic weapons to hurt them, so the idea that a magic weapon striking them has its magic nullified for a moment is patently absurd.
If a PC fighter is affected by Haste, the Rakshasa being hit an extra time is not "being affected by Haste"
The effects of such spells do affect the Rakshasa, unless if cast in a way to bypass the immunity. Note that he is not immune to spells, he is immune to spells that affect him in some way.
This is the only coherent and functional way to interpret this. The immunity only affects spells that have the Rakshasa as a target or include the rakshasa in the area of effect (such as an AoE).
To wit: You can use a summoned monster to harm a rakshasa, or a Shillelagh. But you could not hurt him with an Ice Storm.
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-22, 11:41 AM
Does [insert thing here] work against a Rakshasa?
Is it a spell or a weapon?
If it is a spell: Does it affect/target the Rakshasa?
-- If No, then it works.
-- If yes, then what level is it?
-- -- Level 7 or higher: It works.
-- -- Level 6 or lower: It only works if the Rak wants it to.
If it is a weapon: Is it magical?
-- If yes, then it works.
-- If no, then it doesn't.
For Shillelagh, we get the answers:
Yes, it is a spell, and No, it doesn't affect/target the Rak. --> it works
Because it works, the following is also true: Yes, it is a weapon, and Yes, it is magical. --> it works.
Naanomi
2017-11-22, 11:43 AM
Which means, since the effects of Dragon’s Breath are to allow another creature to breath (whatever), much like how Shillelagh effects the club... it should work just fine on the Devil-Kitten?
Also means that, ironically, the Dragon Sorcerer’s damage boost doesn’t apply to it (as it has been ruled not to apply to Elemental Weapon), since the spell isn’t directly doing damage?
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-22, 11:53 AM
Which means, since the effects of Dragon’s Breath are to allow another creature to breath (whatever), much like how Shillelagh effects the club... it should work just fine on the Devil-Kitten?
No, because Dragon's Breath creates an AoE. The rules for Spells tell us that anything which has an AoE affects anything within that AoE. So in this case the Rak chooses whether to be affected or not.
It is a strange spell in that it targets a creature to effectively give it a buff, and that buff is effectively an AoE spell (Burning Hands) usable throughout the duration.
If a PC fighter is affected by Haste, the Rakshasa being hit an extra time is not "being affected by Haste"
Haste affects the Raksasha the same way Dragon Breath does: the Raksasha is dealing with an affect of a spell it was not the target of.
DB is a Transmutation spell, so it physically changes the targets body to allow a breath weapon, making them the equivalent of a dragonborn or a dragon for its duration, in terms of how the breath weapon works.
Haste is also Transmutation, so the magic works the same way.
No, because Dragon's Breath creates an AoE. The rules for Spells tell us that anything which has an AoE affects anything within that AoE. So in this case the Rak chooses whether to be affected or not.
It is a strange spell in that it targets a creature to effectively give it a buff, and that buff is effectively an AoE spell (Burning Hands) usable throughout the duration.
Dragons Breath transmutes a creature to give it the ability to make a special action, same as Haste. If a Rakasha's ability negates actions granted by spells, it should work on Haste and DB equally.
Likewise, if it negates those abilities in creatures, it should probably negate them in items, as well, as Shillelagh is also Transmutation.
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-22, 12:07 PM
Dragons Breath transmutes a creature to give it the ability to make a special action, same as Haste. If a Rakasha's ability negates actions granted by spells, it should work on Haste and DB equally.
Likewise, if it negates those abilities in creatures, it should probably negate them in items, as well, as Shillelagh is also Transmutation.
Old text:
Limited Magic Immunity. The rakshasa is immune to spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be affected.
New text:
The rakshasa can’t be affected or detected by spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be.
Dragon's Breath:
Until the spell ends, the creature can use an action to exhale energy of the chosen type in a 15-foot cone. Each creature in that area must make a Dexterity saving throw, taking 3d6 damage of the chosen type on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Spells (PHB): AoE:
Spells such as burning hands and cone o f cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
Dragon's Breath is a spell. That spell is used to generate an AoE. That AoE affects creatures in its area.
Since this is a 2nd level spell, the Rak chooses whether to be affected or not.
There can be a reasonable debate about whether Shill and MagicWeap work or not.
There can be no reasonable debate about this as far as I'm concerned.
mephnick
2017-11-22, 12:09 PM
Two of you are going to dig in and this is going to go 40 pages.
TheTeaMustFlow
2017-11-22, 12:09 PM
Yeah, I think by strict RAW a Rakshasa would be vulnerable to Dragon's Breath.
While that does seem rather odd, on the other hand they would be vulnerable to an actual dragon's breath weapon, so... maybe RAI?
Dragon's Breath is a spell. That spell is used to generate an AoE. That AoE affects creatures in its area.
Since this is a 2nd level spell, the Rak chooses whether to be affected or not.
There can be a reasonable debate about whether Shill and MagicWeap work or not.
There can be no reasonable debate about this as far as I'm concerned.
The spell is not affecting the Rakshasa in game rules terms, any more than a summoning spell would be if the creature so summoned attacked the Rakshasa, or a attack-roll-buffing spell would be if it caused the fighter to hit when otherwise they would have missed.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-22, 12:10 PM
There is nothing in the rules, in this or any previous edition, to support the notion that a Rakshasa's immunity to spells is in any way like an antimagic field that surrounds their bodies. One NEEDS magic weapons to hurt them, so the idea that a magic weapon striking them has its magic nullified for a moment is patently absurd.
It was an example to explain. I also wrote that i do not think it is a case correct example, but just used to convey what i mean by interaction and "direct". Haste has no direct interaction with a Rakshasa. Shillelagh or Magic Weapon has.
It is the same kind of absurdity if you take it the other way around: Why should a creature that cannot be affected by spells be able to be affected by spells?
Answer: it isn't. Magic weapons are not spells, but a weapon being magic can be the result of a spell, and such a spell should not affect a Rakshasa (if conditions apply).
If a PC fighter is affected by Haste, the Rakshasa being hit an extra time is not "being affected by Haste"
Exactly. Being smacked by a weapon that should not be magical but is, however, is being affected by the spell.
This is the only coherent and functional way to interpret this. The immunity only affects spells that have the Rakshasa as a target or include the rakshasa in the area of effect (such as an AoE).
No? This is A possible coherent and functional way. Not THE ONLY.
To wit: You can use a summoned monster to harm a rakshasa, or a Shillelagh.
Where is the "proof" here? Where is a speck of logic on which to discuss? "You can because you can?" Can a summoned weapon hurt a Rakshasa, magical or not magical? Can a Rakshasa see creatures under the invisibility spell? Can a Rakshasa even see illusions?
For me: If in any way the spell interacts directly with the Rakshasa, the Rakshasa can ignore the effects.
While we're at it, without that healing spell, the Fighter would have died. As the Rak cannot be affected by spells, it is immune to the attacks of the fighter.
I like this kind of discussion.
Naanomi
2017-11-22, 12:15 PM
If I polymorph into something, can the Rakshasa completely ignore anything I do?
If I Fabricate a suit of armor, does the Rakshasa‘s attacks ignore it? Does that change if it was a weapon instead?
Can a familiar effect a Rakshasa? What if it is a warlock’s chain familiar, since that is a class feature?
A messy ability to interpret when we specifically look for exceptions it seems
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-22, 12:17 PM
The spell is not affecting the Rakshasa in game rules terms,
The rules for Areas of Effect disagree with you. That's even the word it uses. Affect.
TheTeaMustFlow
2017-11-22, 12:18 PM
Where is the "proof" here? Where is a speck of logic on which to discuss? "You can because you can?" Can a summoned weapon hurt a Rakshasa, magical or not magical? Can a Rakshasa see creatures under the invisibility spell? Can a Rakshasa even see illusions?
For me: If in any way the spell interacts directly with the Rakshasa, the Rakshasa can ignore the effects.
Meaning, logically, shillelagh, magic weapon, and dragon's breath all work, because they have no direct interaction. The spell is cast on the weapon or the ally, not the Rakshasa. There is no more direct interaction than there is with a bless spell on the Rakshasa's enemies.
TheTeaMustFlow
2017-11-22, 12:22 PM
The rules for Areas of Effect disagree with you. That's even the word it uses. Affect.
No, they don't. The Dragon's Breath spell does not affect the Rakshasa, it affects the person you give the breath weapon to. The breath weapon isn't a spell, it's an ability created by a spell. Just as if you used Polymorph to turn someone into a creature with a Breath Weapon. The fact that Dragon Breath is a transmutation spell rather than an evocation further reinforces this.
Naanomi
2017-11-22, 12:22 PM
The rules for Areas of Effect disagree with you. That's even the word it uses. Affect.
If I use Fabricate to make a bomb with an AoE, can it effect the Rakshasa?
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-22, 12:26 PM
No, they don't. The Dragon's Breath spell does not affect the Rakshasa, it affects the person you give the breath weapon to.
Fireball doesn't affect the Rakshasa, it affects a point in space.
Doesn't matter.
The rules for AoEs specifically state that anyone within the area is affected.
The spell allows you to create an AoE. That is an AoE generated by a spell. That makes anything within that AoE affected by a spell. That means the Rak chooses.
And that is precisely what JC was saying when he answered the tweeted query.
No brains
2017-11-22, 12:31 PM
If you want to go absolutely nuts with the definition of 'affect', then the Rakshasha can't even sense or be aware of spells of 6th-level or lower. Being cognizant of something's existence 'affects' beings. I am affected by things that cause me to make logical choices. If a Rakshasha suddenly cares why there are changes in the world that are caused by low-level spells, it makes its irrefutable choice to be affected by spells.
If you don't use that rule, then the Rakshasha becomes able to selectively edit how spells affect them. A Rakshasha could accept a haste spell, but it could choose not to be affected by the drawback when the spell ends. If it uses one of it's 1/day spells, it can choose to skip the effect of their expenditure. It may even be able to cut out letters from certain spells and paste them back together like a ransom note! Change the text of bless to say: "You... three creatures... make... an attack roll..."!
Of course, this is all stuff a Lawful Evil being would want you to believe.
One thing that should seriously be resolved is when the rakshasha needs to make its choice. Tricking a rakshasha into allowing a spell to affect it and using that spell in a way other than what the rakshasha expects would make a cool story. "I'll polymorph you into a t. rex so you can fight! Turns out I really did polymorph you into a t. rex, but that changed your saves and suppressed your magic immunity! Animal friendship!"
ThePolarBear
2017-11-22, 12:52 PM
While we're at it, without that healing spell, the Fighter would have died. As the Rak cannot be affected by spells, it is immune to the attacks of the fighter.
I like this kind of discussion.
No, the spell is gone by the time the fighter is up.
If I Fabricate a suit of armor, does the Rakshasa‘s attacks ignore it? Does that change if it was a weapon instead? Can a familiar effect a Rakshasa? What if it is a warlock’s chain familiar, since that is a class feature?
No, the spell is istantaneous in nature, the change brought is permanent and non-magical (or at least, not a spell). Chainlock familiar is not a problem regardless.
A messy ability to interpret when we specifically look for exceptions it seems
The only possible problematic spell you brought forward is Polymorph.
If I polymorph into something, can the Rakshasa completely ignore anything I do?
Not really. Damagewise you (well, your attacks) still do not count as magical, so you can chomp on the Rakshasa all day anyway. Polymorph does nothing to the Rakshasa directly, yet again, but it allows you to have different statistics than normal.
So, does the change of form interact with the Rakshasa? Is the underlying magic that is changing the form affecting it? Certainly you can shove it with a higher degree of strenght, but it is not the magic interacting directly, exactly like Haste would.
Now, were you to Shapechange in something that has an attack that is magical, then... yes, things would get more complex, as the spell ihmo would have a direct interaction and therefore could be ignored. But shapechange being a 9th level spell...
Meaning, logically, shillelagh, magic weapon, and dragon's breath all work, because they have no direct interaction. The spell is cast on the weapon or the ally, not the Rakshasa. There is no more direct interaction than there is with a bless spell on the Rakshasa's enemies.
Not targeting directly =/= not having a direct interaction. The moment i hit you, there's a direct interaction between the component that changes the damage portion of those spells. The spells are still active and present and are affecting the Rakshasa.
No, the spell is gone by the time the fighter is up.
I see you arbitrary made up houserules, i see you.
It is being effected a Spell: the fighter lived as a result of the spell, ergo until the fighter dies, it isn't affected.
Mjolnirbear
2017-11-22, 01:01 PM
I'd rule dragons breath affects it. Because the spell doesn't target the rakshasa, it targets your ally, and gifts that ally with a breath weapon. Same with haste, magic weapon, and shillelagh.
Secondary argument: the spell is transmutation, not evocation.
Tertiary argument. You cast it on, say, your ally. The ally is the target of your spell. Now your ally decides where to aim it. You, as the caster, do not make the decision. It is out of your hands. The area of effect, therefore, is not part of the casting of the spell. You're gifting an ability to an ally.
It makes sense to me. But it also makes things simple. The cone is indisputably magic, but it is not the spell, it is the result of a spell. A dragonborn has a breath weapon. A dragon has one. So does a hell hound. All these things are magical but not spells. To use 3.5 terms, the spell grants à supernatural ability.
To make a different choice will lead to examining every bloody spell for minute details,ruling separately on each one. Who has the time for that? Just make it simple. Does the casting of the spell target the rakshasa or enclose it in the area of the spell? If yes, it chooses. If no, it doesn't.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-22, 01:02 PM
I see you arbitrary made up houserules, i see you.
It is being effected a Spell: the fighter lived as a result of the spell, ergo until the fighter dies, it isn't affected.
Look up spell durations Vaz. Also, in the first post there's a font sized "for me". Not saying that anything regarding the Rak's spell immunity is RAW.
However, the fact that the spell is not there IS RAW. The fighter was affected directly, the Rakshasa never came into contact with the magical energies.
Duration matters not. No mention of duration is made, it is flat out unaffected by spells.
Don't hate the player, hate your nonsense reasoning.
Avonar
2017-11-22, 01:22 PM
"You touch one willing creature and imbue it with the power to spew magical energy from its mouth, provided it has one."
I would think that this clearly implies the spewing magical energy is part of the spell. You cannot spew magical energy WITHOUT the spell, therefore it is a product of the spell. Therefore I would say a Rakshasa can choose to be unaffected.
The other examples that have been thrown around:
Shillelagh - Shillelagh changes the properties of a weapon. The act of striking a Rakshasa with a shillelagh'd weapon is NOT a function of the spell, it is an attack action. The spell also has no effect that involves making an attack, so attacking is not a spell effect. Therefore, I would say shillelagh would not be ignored.
Haste - Haste allows an additional action. However the Attack action taken is not technically a spell effect I would say, it is an attack that is possible to be made because of haste. So haste would work fine also.
"You touch one willing creature and imbue it with the power to spew magical energy from its mouth, provided it has one."
I would think that this clearly implies the spewing magical energy is part of the spell. You cannot spew magical energy WITHOUT the spell, therefore it is a product of the spell. Therefore I would say a Rakshasa can choose to be unaffected.
The other examples that have been thrown around:
Shillelagh - Shillelagh changes the properties of a weapon. The act of striking a Rakshasa with a shillelagh'd weapon is NOT a function of the spell, it is an attack action. The spell also has no effect that involves making an attack, so attacking is not a spell effect. Therefore, I would say shillelagh would not be ignored.
Haste - Haste allows an additional action. However the Attack action taken is not technically a spell effect I would say, it is an attack that is possible to be made because of haste. So haste would work fine also.
The same exact logic applies. Magic allows you to take an additional action. Here's your exact quote from above but dealing with Haste:
"You cannot [take an additional action] WITHOUT the spell, therefore it is a product of the spell. Therefore I would say a Rakshasa can choose to be unaffected."
It's the same exact logic your using.
Old text:
Limited Magic Immunity. The rakshasa is immune to spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be affected.
New text:
The rakshasa can’t be affected or detected by spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be.
Dragon's Breath:
Until the spell ends, the creature can use an action to exhale energy of the chosen type in a 15-foot cone. Each creature in that area must make a Dexterity saving throw, taking 3d6 damage of the chosen type on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Spells (PHB): AoE:
Spells such as burning hands and cone o f cold cover an area, allowing them to affect multiple creatures at once.
Dragon's Breath is a spell. That spell is used to generate an AoE. That AoE affects creatures in its area.
Since this is a 2nd level spell, the Rak chooses whether to be affected or not.
There can be a reasonable debate about whether Shill and MagicWeap work or not.
There can be no reasonable debate about this as far as I'm concerned.
As others have stated, DB is not an AoE. The examples given for the AoE spell description, Burning Hands and Cone of Cold, are completely different than DB, and aren't even the same type of magic (evocation vs Transmutation).
If multiple creatures were transmuted by DB, then it might be an AoE, but as written it is not.
The magic of DB, changes the target to allow it a special action, same as Haste. Everything else is a secondary effect, using the extra action, and should be treated the same in regards to the rules.
Hrugner
2017-11-22, 01:35 PM
What about spells like invisibility that prevent a normal effect from affecting the Rakshasa.
All this nonsense disappears if we go with the traditional interpretation that they are immune to any spell that they would normally get a save against or that requires a spell attack. The dragon's breath spell is a weird one. It grants the ability to breath fire, but it specifically calls out the fire as magical as opposed to naturally fire breathing creatures breathing mundane fire. It still sounds like it aught to go through this specific type of spell immunity though as the spell isn't passing into the area and you couldn't counterspell the breath as it's being exhaled. Crawford's clarification is useless.
mephnick
2017-11-22, 01:36 PM
Now post conflicting definitions of the word: Affect
KorvinStarmast
2017-11-22, 01:37 PM
However, the spell affects the target (the one who gets to breath fire) the same way Haste does: it allows the target to take specific actions.
So if a raksasha is immune the effects of Dragon Breath's breath attack, shouldn't they therefore be immune to the effects of a Haste extra attack.
So what the heck does "can't be affected" mean? My view is that you are overthinking this. (But you sure got a lot of answers, so maybe not). :smallsmile:
The Rakshasa is immune to spells that target him, or include him in the area of effect (like fireball).
Shillelagh targets the staff, and works normally against the Rakshasa because he has no immunity to damage from being whacked by a magic staff. Same reason people under the effect of Haste still get their extra attack against a Rakshasa, Haste was cast on the PC, not on the Rakshasa.At this point, I thought the thread was done.
Hah, silly me! :smallcool:
Does [insert thing here] work against a Rakshasa?
Is it a spell or a weapon?
If it is a spell: Does it affect/target the Rakshasa?
-- If No, then it works.
-- If yes, then what level is it?
-- -- Level 7 or higher: It works.
-- -- Level 6 or lower: It only works if the Rak wants it to.
If it is a weapon: Is it magical?
-- If yes, then it works.
-- If no, then it doesn't.
For Shillelagh, we get the answers:
Yes, it is a spell, and No, it doesn't affect/target the Rak. --> it works
Because it works, the following is also true: Yes, it is a weapon, and Yes, it is magical. --> it works. Nice logic flow.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-22, 01:40 PM
At this point, I thought the thread was done.
It would have, if the ability read "targets". But it doesn't. So, we dance on instead of doing the wise thing ;D
Outliar
2017-11-22, 02:21 PM
Can a rakshasa walk through a wall of stone?
Can a rakshasa see through a fog cloud?
If someone casts silence on a rakshasa in the forest does it make a sound?
Coffee_Dragon
2017-11-22, 02:39 PM
Do all rakshasa occupy a parallel reality which started diverging from the real one the moment lower-than-6th-level spells were starting to be cast, and now not even closely resembles it?
Do all rakshasa occupy a parallel reality which started diverging from the real one the moment lower-than-6th-level spells were starting to be cast, and now not even closely resembles it?
If a Raksasha falls in love with a human, and that human is slain by a +2 longsword, the Raksasha is very sad at the loss.
However, if the human is slain by a lower-than-6th-level spell, the Raksasha is completely unaffected by the loss.
UrielAwakened
2017-11-22, 03:41 PM
Another case where the simple word "target" would make all of this more clear.
UrielAwakened
2017-11-22, 03:47 PM
Is an area lit by a Light spell actually still dark to a Raksasha? Does that mean it can't be seen in the radius of a Light spell, since technically it's being "affected" by Light when the light reflects off of its body to make it visible?
Can a Raksasha walk around freely in the radius of a Control Water spell? What about possessions it has? Do those stay dry? Or do its clothes get wet but for some reason its fur doesn't?
Does a Raksasha derive any nutritional value from a carrot created with a Creation spell?
No brains
2017-11-22, 04:10 PM
If a rakshasha wishes to be affected by magic, does that stop them from casting wish ever again?
ThePolarBear
2017-11-22, 04:38 PM
RSP29a, did you also notice this tweet?
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/932792921333493760
RSP29a, did you also notice this tweet?
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/932792921333493760
So this would appear to indicate, at least according to JC, Haste's added Action would not affect a Raksasha, nor would DB, Shillelagh, Magic Weapon, a familiar, etc.
Also why I think JC often changes his stance on "official" tweets every now and again (see "Bracers of Ogre Strength" or "Cutting Words Negates a Crit" past rulings).
I can't see the logic actually following through that Raksashas are unaffected by any effect created in anyway by a spell, which appears to be his stance based on this tweet.
RSP29a, did you also notice this tweet?
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/932792921333493760
And thank you for posting the link and bringing this to my attention!
Coffee_Dragon
2017-11-22, 06:18 PM
So this would appear to indicate, at least according to JC, Haste's added Action would not affect a Raksasha
I disagree that it indicates that in particular. I would personally not consider a magic-enabled extra attack or a familiar to be ongoing magical effects in themselves, but DB and Shillelagh are.
I disagree that it indicates that in particular. I would personally not consider a magic-enabled extra attack or a familiar to be ongoing magical effects in themselves, but DB and Shillelagh are.
So a spell effect that changes the properties of a creature allowing it to take a special action is a spell effect, but a spell effect that changes the properties of a creature allowing it to take a special action is not a spell effect. Makes sense.
Unoriginal
2017-11-22, 06:44 PM
Another case where the simple word "target" would make all of this more clear.
The Rakshasa's ability does not use the word "target" because they're immune to spells even if they are not the target.
A Rakshasa isn't fooled by illusions under lvl 7 because even if the target is not the Rakshasa, it's their senses that the spell is trying to fool.
Same for an AoE spell: the Rakshasa can walk into it without effect, even if they're not the target.
Of course, if you alter something with a spell, like making a plant grow, blasting a door open or healing a warrior, the Rakshasa can't influence it, because the spell itself has no effect on them.
Basically it goes like that:
-Does this below 7th lvl have an effect on the Rakshasa themselves?:
-Yes: the Rakshasa can choose to ignore this effect
-No: the Rakshasa cannot chose to ignore the effects
Coffee_Dragon
2017-11-22, 06:50 PM
Evidently we choose different parts of the context to strip out in search of a meaningful generalization.
I would also say that a rakshasa does not experience difficult terrain when inside a Sleet Storm, but does treat rubble from Erupting Earth just like everyone else. Does this seem contradictory as well?
What if I were to cast a low level spell using a 7th level slot?
ThePolarBear
2017-11-22, 07:07 PM
What if I were to cast a low level spell using a 7th level slot?
For rules for spellcasting, the spell is considered to be a 7th level spell
Coffee_Dragon
2017-11-22, 07:18 PM
For rules for spellcasting, the spell is considered to be a 7th level spell
So if your DM rules that a familiar is a spell effect for the purposes of rakshasa, be sure to upcast Find Familiar properly, and your celestial hamster can now nibble demon leg indefinitely.
Unoriginal
2017-11-22, 07:43 PM
Evidently we choose different parts of the context to strip out in search of a meaningful generalization.
I would also say that a rakshasa does not experience difficult terrain when inside a Sleet Storm, but does treat rubble from Erupting Earth just like everyone else. Does this seem contradictory as well?
I don't see how it is contradictory. Even if you're dying of thirst in a desert, you can't gather the ice from Sleet Storm to melt and drink. Because it is magic ice that only exist here and there for a short bit and only as part of the spell. Meanwhile, the rumbles from Erupting Earth are there because you actually busted up the ground.
Same reason that a Rakshasa could ignore Firebolt if you aimed at them, but if you use it to set the oil you put on the ground on fire the Rakshasa still burns.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-22, 07:46 PM
So if your DM rules that a familiar is a spell effect for the purposes of rakshasa, be sure to upcast Find Familiar properly, and your celestial hamster can now nibble demon leg indefinitely.
The Rakshasa is immune to spells. A familiar is not a spell.
Edit: the familiar, unless chainlock, can't attack. So it would probably be a celestial imp.
UrielAwakened
2017-11-22, 08:25 PM
It's bonkers to me that Crawford actually seems to side with the illogical side of this argument.
That opens up so many weird interactions. Like basically every ridiculous idea pointed out so far in this topic is how he thinks it works.
Avonar
2017-11-22, 08:44 PM
The same exact logic applies. Magic allows you to take an additional action. Here's your exact quote from above but dealing with Haste:
"You cannot [take an additional action] WITHOUT the spell, therefore it is a product of the spell. Therefore I would say a Rakshasa can choose to be unaffected."
It's the same exact logic your using.
Nope.
When attacking with a hasted action, the only interraction between you and the creature is the Attack action. The spell does not affect the Rakshasa at all, it allows you an extra action. Just having an extra action does not at all affect any other creature by default.
Dragon's Breath however allows you to use the spells power as an action. In that case, the spell is directly interracting with the Rakshasa.
In short, Haste = Hitting with attack action, Dragon's Breath = Hitting with special spell action.
Nope.
When attacking with a hasted action, the only interraction between you and the creature is the Attack action. The spell does not affect the Rakshasa at all, it allows you an extra action. Just having an extra action does not at all affect any other creature by default.
Dragon's Breath however allows you to use the spells power as an action. In that case, the spell is directly interracting with the Rakshasa.
In short, Haste = Hitting with attack action, Dragon's Breath = Hitting with special spell action.
Haste however allows you to use the spells power as an action. In that case, the spell is directly interracting with the Rakshasa.
In short, Haste=Hitting with special spell action.
All of this is true and are your exact arguments for why DB doesn't effect a Raksasha.
It's bonkers to me that Crawford actually seems to side with the illogical side of this argument.
That opens up so many weird interactions. Like basically every ridiculous idea pointed out so far in this topic is how he thinks it works.
Here's two more:
A PC polymorphs into a Giant Ape and attempts to grapple the Raksasha. Do they use the Giant Ape's stats or the PC's?
A PC is Polymorphed into a Giant Ape, can a Raksasha cast Charm Person on the PC?
The way I see Dragon's Breath is this - you transmute part of the target to give them the physical characteristics (read: dragon's glands or w/e it is that gives dragons the ability to use a breath weapon).
Does a dragon or dragonborn breath weapon affect the Rakshasa? If yes, I don't see a reason as to why the spell shouldn't either as it is a transmutation spell. You transmuted/mutated/transformed a part of the target to have that ability.
Avonar
2017-11-23, 02:34 AM
In short, Haste=Hitting with special spell action.
All of this is true and are your exact arguments for why DB doesn't effect a Raksasha.
Entirely incorrect. Haste gives you the ability to take another Attack action. You are doing it more than you normally could however it is still just using the Attack action. Haste does nothing to alter the attack itself in any way.
Zalabim
2017-11-23, 02:58 AM
Not that it helps any other questions, but I think Dragon's Breath falls under the Goodberry style where using the special action mentioned in the spell's text is considered using the spell.
Entirely incorrect. Haste gives you the ability to take another Attack action. You are doing it more than you normally could however it is still just using the Attack action. Haste does nothing to alter the attack itself in any way.
Haste gives you another action. The Rak is immune to that. It is also immune to the affects of Longstrider if it wishes, so if it has a Wand of Fireballs, it can target where you have been had you not had Longstrider active.
😂
This is ridiculous. Can we all point and laugh?
rollingForInit
2017-11-23, 06:40 AM
It would seem to me that if if the Rakshasa is immune to Shillelagh, then the Rakshasa must also be immune to all weapon damage. Magical items, per the DMG, must be created by spellcasters with spell slots. The implication is that magical item creation is the result of spellcasting. So if the Rakshasa is immune to all effects of spellcasting (6ht level or lower, which includes basic magical weapons), then the Rakshasa would be immune to any weapon created by spellcasters not using 7+ level spell slots. That would reasonable be most basic magic weapons ...
Just seems extremely messy to keep track of.
I would just allow the Rakshasa to be indirectly affected by anything caused by spells. Shillelagh, dropping boulders on them with Telekinesis, Dragon's Breath ... much easier than having to have these kinds of discussions with players.
Additionally, these kinds of logical hoops is what many DM's try to shut down when players do them. It seems like DM's stretching what monsters can do sets a really bad example (even if it is technically possible that it's a RAW interpretation of the rules). So I'd rather just go the easy route with the monster ability that players won't even question.
Glorthindel
2017-11-23, 07:57 AM
I love players. Its funny how Sage Advice is treated as the law when it benefits players (try argueing that the ruling on the lucky Feat is daft, and watch the firestorm), but when it doesn't it suddenly become open to dispute.
krugaan
2017-11-23, 09:03 AM
I think it's just better not to ask JC anything now.
Some of these rulings are just confusing as hell.
Unoriginal
2017-11-23, 09:21 AM
I think it's just better not to ask JC anything now.
Some of these rulings are just confusing as hell.
Or, you know, you could ask JC what happens with the Haste spell, since you don't think what he said previously was clear.
Entirely incorrect. Haste gives you the ability to take another Attack action. You are doing it more than you normally could however it is still just using the Attack action. Haste does nothing to alter the attack itself in any way.
Haste, a lower than 6th level spell, provides an effect that can include magically taking a special action. This is beyond what the character can normally do, sans Haste.
That magical action, if you follow JC's logic, cannot affect a Raksasha, unless the Raksasha chooses to allow it.
The Raksasha also can choose to ignore the AC boost if, and only if, it affects the Raksasha, such as it misses an attack that would have been a hit if Haste wasn't applied.
By JC's tweets, a Raksasha cannot be affected by a higher AC that is the result of a lower than 6th level spell.
Naanomi
2017-11-23, 10:23 AM
I kind of want to give a raksasha a wand of ‘wall of stone’, or maybe a variety of Wall spells, and have a fight with it running around a complex battlefield unimpeded
krugaan
2017-11-23, 05:15 PM
Or, you know, you could ask JC what happens with the Haste spell, since you don't think what he said previously was clear.
a) scared that he'll say the free action doesn't count
b) don't have twitter, cbf to make an account
and
c) I dun WANNA! WAAAAAH!
Sorry JC, in my eyes the rakshasa has immunity to the magical affects of the spells but not the alterations the spell makes to the terrain and the creatures in it.
It can't ignore healing, terrain modification (that remains permanent after the spell effect ends, although I would make the spell area not work on terrain the rakshasa is on / in), etc. Having it break causality is just confusing and infuriating, and possibly not even what JC meant.
It can ignore invisibility, any spell that targets it or directly affects it. Shillelagh and all weapon buffs do not work.
Also, maybe JC should make a blog or something. Perhaps 140 characters is too short for complex rules questions?
RedMage125
2017-11-23, 05:40 PM
At this point, I thought the thread was done.
Hah, silly me! :smallcool:
Nice logic flow.
Me too! I was tempted to add *drop microphone*, clearly, in hindsight, that would have been premature.
Can a rakshasa walk through a wall of stone?
Can a rakshasa see through a fog cloud?
If someone casts silence on a rakshasa in the forest does it make a sound?
Can it fit in a Leomund's Box?
Would it chat with a summoned fox?
Could it ride on an Eberron train?
Can it, would it, be Energy Drained?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
The way I see Dragon's Breath is this - you transmute part of the target to give them the physical characteristics (read: dragon's glands or w/e it is that gives dragons the ability to use a breath weapon).
Does a dragon or dragonborn breath weapon affect the Rakshasa? If yes, I don't see a reason as to why the spell shouldn't either as it is a transmutation spell. You transmuted/mutated/transformed a part of the target to have that ability.
Now, my initial judgment would be that DB does not affect the Rakshasa, but THIS, right here, is the most coherent argument in favor of it. Raif, if I was your DM, you would have just talked me into changing my mind.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-23, 05:43 PM
Perhaps 140 characters is too short for complex rules questions?
Now the limit is 280.
But in the end, it is still "does something affect the Rakshasa?".
The question is up, personally i see an answer that is easy for most spells. Some spells are more in a grey area.
Haste, for me, does not affect the Rakshasa in the slightest. Not even the +2 AC. It would if it was a penality on the Rakshasa, however.
Naanomi
2017-11-23, 05:48 PM
A raksasha should use haste itself... ignore the exhaustion
Coffee_Dragon
2017-11-23, 05:49 PM
The Rakshasa is immune to spells. A familiar is not a spell.
Edit: the familiar, unless chainlock, can't attack. So it would probably be a celestial imp.
Familiars can also do things like deliver touch spells, unless of course ruled to be ignorable. (I agree a familiar is not a spell, but some might call it the effect of a spell.)
Here's two more:
A PC polymorphs into a Giant Ape and attempts to grapple the Raksasha. Do they use the Giant Ape's stats or the PC's?
A PC is Polymorphed into a Giant Ape, can a Raksasha cast Charm Person on the PC?
I'd say ape stats and no. The rakshasa is not immune to the circumstance of the PC being an ape.
The way I see Dragon's Breath is this - you transmute part of the target to give them the physical characteristics (read: dragon's glands or w/e it is that gives dragons the ability to use a breath weapon).
The way I see it is DB transmutes someone to breathe fire magically; the resulting fire is not a perfectly mundane function of a perfectly mundane physiology constructed magically by the spell. It's all part of the magic. The breath of a dragon is also magical/wondrous/mystical/nonmundane, but not a spell.
Haste gives you another action. The Rak is immune to that. It is also immune to the affects of Longstrider if it wishes, so if it has a Wand of Fireballs, it can target where you have been had you not had Longstrider active.
😂
This is ridiculous. Can we all point and laugh?
Pretty sure that most everyone can agree two extreme positions are ridiculous:
First, that rakshasa live in a divergent world where Longstrider people occupy different locations and so on.
Second, that every spell with a physical aspect can be recast as an indirect effect and therefore effective, e.g. Gust of Wind is just moving air just like Telekinesis is moving boulders, and it's not immune to air.
The third indefensible position at this point would be that there's a single objective logic that trivially resolves every case in between.
Magical items, per the DMG, must be created by spellcasters with spell slots. The implication is that magical item creation is the result of spellcasting.
Disagree that the second part follows.
try argueing that the ruling on the lucky Feat is daft, and watch the firestorm
The ruling on the Lucky feat is ultra daft, fight me.
Perhaps 140 characters is too short for complex rules questions?
Pretty sure that's part of the plan. He won't get dragged into analysis to delve into the reasons why people actually ask the questions they do and this way he's guaranteed not to.
krugaan
2017-11-23, 05:50 PM
Now the limit is 280.
But in the end, it is still "does something affect the Rakshasa?".
The question is up, personally i see an answer that is easy for most spells. Some spells are more in a grey area.
Haste, for me, does not affect the Rakshasa in the slightest. Not even the +2 AC. It would if it was a penality on the Rakshasa, however.
Forgot about the 280 thing. Actually, the +2 AC thing is a much more murky area for me than the extra action. I could see how haste giving supernatural speed to a creature might be ignored by the rakshasa. I can't see how a hasted creature gets an attack against someone else, but not against the rakshasa, and i *certainly* can't see how a hasted creature could not use the hasted action for dodge, disengage, or dash if there was a rakshasa within an indeterminate radius who decided "nope."
No brains
2017-11-23, 09:14 PM
Let's just throw acid at the rakshasha and be done with it. No, not use Acid Splash, I mean the item.
MaxWilson
2017-11-23, 09:31 PM
If a Raksasha falls in love with a human, and that human is slain by a +2 longsword, the Raksasha is very sad at the loss.
However, if the human is slain by a lower-than-6th-level spell, the Raksasha is completely unaffected by the loss.
Rsp29a wins the thread!
The Rakshasa is immune to spells. A familiar is not a spell.
Edit: the familiar, unless chainlock, can't attack. So it would probably be a celestial imp.
A familiar is clearly not a spell, however, a familiar gained via the Find Familiar spell, is an effect of a spell that is lower than 6th level, which the Raksasha is immune to, if they do choose.
Therefore, anything that familiar does, can be ignored by said Raksasha (Help Action, wand use, 6+ spell cast through the familiar, attack if also a Chain Pact Familiar, etc)
If this was 3E the Rakshasa could use Iron Heart Surge to destroy the sun to prevent sunburn.
UrielAwakened
2017-11-24, 01:45 AM
We really shouldn't let this die until JC gives us an answer that's not supremely terrible.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-24, 03:50 AM
A familiar is clearly not a spell, however, a familiar gained via the Find Familiar spell, is an effect of a spell that is lower than 6th level, which the Raksasha is immune to, if they do choose.
Therefore, anything that familiar does, can be ignored by said Raksasha (Help Action, wand use, 6+ spell cast through the familiar, attack if also a Chain Pact Familiar, etc)
No, there's no therefore. The spell is the thing that the Rakshasa can choose to ignore. Find Familiar simply calls a spirit and gives it form. The spell is no longer there once the Familiar interacts with the Rakshasa - istantaneous duration.
The familiar being the result of a spell does not make it a spell. You cannot Dispel a familiar (i mean, you can, you can't do so with the intent of making the familiar disappear).
The big difference between Find Familiar and Shillelagh is that Shillelagh does affect the Rakshasa, while Find Familiar doesn't. A familiar does. The magic of the spell is long gone.
No, there's no therefore. The spell is the thing that the Rakshasa can choose to ignore. Find Familiar simply calls a spirit and gives it form. The spell is no longer there once the Familiar interacts with the Rakshasa - istantaneous duration.
The familiar being the result of a spell does not make it a spell. You cannot Dispel a familiar (i mean, you can, you can't do so with the intent of making the familiar disappear).
The big difference between Find Familiar and Shillelagh is that Shillelagh does affect the Rakshasa, while Find Familiar doesn't. A familiar does. The magic of the spell is long gone.
Not according JC. Feel free to houserule otherwise
ThePolarBear
2017-11-24, 04:47 PM
Not according JC. Feel free to houserule otherwise
Have you gone and checked the Duration section of the spellcasting rules? No? That's a shame, because there's no spell in the familiar that's running keeping the familiar there, the familiar is not a spell, and JC has not written anything you think he has written even if you believe that you are correct. In fact, can i direct you to listening to the "Antimagic Field" podcast? Or, even better, ask you to stop using 3e logic in 5e threads?
Have you gone and checked the Duration section of the spellcasting rules? No? That's a shame, because there's no spell in the familiar that's running keeping the familiar there, the familiar is not a spell, and JC has not written anything you think he has written if you believe that you are correct. In fact, can i direct you to listening to the "Antimagic Field" podcast? Or, even better, ask you to stop using 3e logic in 5e threads?
Have you checked where a rakshaha gives a flying flump about duration?
Get learnt
Beelzebubba
2017-11-24, 05:27 PM
Duration matters not. No mention of duration is made, it is flat out unaffected by spells.
Don't hate the player, hate your nonsense reasoning.
Every once in a while, I click through to validate why I blocked you.
Positively no regrets.
Every once in a while, I click through to validate why I blocked you.
Positively no regrets.
Who are you?
krugaan
2017-11-24, 06:17 PM
Every once in a while, I click through to validate why I blocked you.
Positively no regrets.
How do you do that again? i forget, not appearing on my thingy.
Kuulvheysoon
2017-11-24, 06:24 PM
How do you do that again? i forget, not appearing on my thingy.
Click on someone's name to access their profile, it's one of the options underneath their Avatar (under Send PM and Send Email).
krugaan
2017-11-24, 06:39 PM
Click on someone's name to access their profile, it's one of the options underneath their Avatar (under Send PM and Send Email).
Whoop, no thanks, i figured it out. Back to the topic at hand.
No, there's no therefore. The spell is the thing that the Rakshasa can choose to ignore. Find Familiar simply calls a spirit and gives it form. The spell is no longer there once the Familiar interacts with the Rakshasa - istantaneous duration.
The familiar being the result of a spell does not make it a spell. You cannot Dispel a familiar (i mean, you can, you can't do so with the intent of making the familiar disappear).
The big difference between Find Familiar and Shillelagh is that Shillelagh does affect the Rakshasa, while Find Familiar doesn't. A familiar does. The magic of the spell is long gone.
FF is the result of a spell, or affect, if you will.
The Raksasha can ignore spell effects (lower than 6th). A familiar gotten with FF is a spell effect. A Raksasha can ignore a familiar gotten with FF.
No brains
2017-11-24, 09:08 PM
Here's another thing about ignoring the effects of spells. Some spells allow a creature to avoid their effects. If a creature would be surrounded on all sides by a wall of stone, it gets a reaction to move up to its speed to attempt an escape. Assuming that the rakshasha cannot walk through the wall of stone because the wall is nonmagical (despite being the product of a spell?) the rakshasha would detriment itself by choosing to ignore the spell's effect that allows it to escape before its turn.
If you really want to stir pots, does a rakshasha have to identify a spell as a reaction before it can decide if it wants to be affected by it?
TheUser
2017-11-24, 09:25 PM
The key word "directly" should be implicit guys. I can't believe we are having this conversation...
The intent of the spell immunity is spells which directly affect the Raksasha.
Just because a spell gives you an extra action (haste) doesn't meant you don't get to use it against them; the Raksasha doesn't have dominion over all spells that affect all creatures, only the ones that directly affect it. Hence you still get your extra action, movespeed and AC from Haste when fighting against it.
If a spell creates a Wall of Stone the Raksasha doesn't automatically phase through it. The spell affects the stone directly by shaping it, not the Raksasha.
All dragon's have magical breath and a Raksasha is not immune to them. If you cast Dragon's Breath on a player and they use an action to breath magical energy like a dragon it still affects the Raksasha. HOWEVER, this also means that things like Metamagic or Elemental Adept no longer apply to the breath weapon action (you can still twin the initial spellcast for instance since that is the actual casting of the spell and not the breath weapon action associated with it).
Think of it like this: Can you use Quicken Spell on the Breath attack action provided by Dragon's Breath? If your knee-jerk answer is "no, because it's not a spell being cast" then you've got your answer. The Dragon's Breath spell is a transmutation effect that allows you to breath elemental cones like a dragon does, Raksasha's are not immune to Draconic breath weapons as such they are not immune to this action (just like they are not immune to haste, wall of stone, or grapple attempts from animated objects or monsters).
Hrugner
2017-11-24, 09:38 PM
If you really want to stir pots, does a rakshasha have to identify a spell as a reaction before it can decide if it wants to be affected by it?
There isn't any indication that the Rakshasa knows the spell effect when choosing whether or not to be affected by the spell effect, but also no reason to think they need to know what effect they are ignoring or accepting. We also don't know when the choice is being made. Can the rakshasa have polymorph cast on it, ignore the effect of the spell then stop ignoring the effect of the spell when he wants to be polymorphed?
HolyDraconus
2017-11-24, 10:02 PM
If this was 3E the Rakshasa could use Iron Heart Surge to destroy the sun to prevent sunburn.
The two should team up. It's clear that they have some things in common.
The key word "directly" should be implicit guys. I can't believe we are having this conversation...
The intent of the spell immunity is spells which directly affect the Raksasha.
Just because a spell gives you an extra action (haste) doesn't meant you don't get to use it against them; the Raksasha doesn't have dominion over all spells that affect all creatures, only the ones that directly affect it. Hence you still get your extra action, movespeed and AC from Haste when fighting against it.
If a spell creates a Wall of Stone the Raksasha doesn't automatically phase through it. The spell affects the stone directly by shaping it, not the Raksasha.
All dragon's have magical breath and a Raksasha is not immune to them. If you cast Dragon's Breath on a player and they use an action to breath magical energy like a dragon it still affects the Raksasha. HOWEVER, this also means that things like Metamagic or Elemental Adept no longer apply to the breath weapon action (you can still twin the initial spellcast for instance since that is the actual casting of the spell and not the breath weapon action associated with it).
Think of it like this: Can you use Quicken Spell on the Breath attack action provided by Dragon's Breath? If your knee-jerk answer is "no, because it's not a spell being cast" then you've got your answer. The Dragon's Breath spell is a transmutation effect that allows you to breath elemental cones like a dragon does, Raksasha's are not immune to Draconic breath weapons as such they are not immune to this action (just like they are not immune to haste, wall of stone, or grapple attempts from animated objects or monsters).
Except JC explicitly ruled the other way. I agree it's ridiculous, but it's the current "official" answer. And it's the reason we're coming up with all these situations.
TheUser
2017-11-24, 10:55 PM
Except JC explicitly ruled the other way. I agree it's ridiculous, but it's the current "official" answer. And it's the reason we're coming up with all these situations.
JC's ruling wasn't an answer to the question....
JC's ruling wasn't an answer to the question....
If "directly" was implied in the Raksasha's ability, then DB, Shillelagh and MW would all effect a Raksasha. JC specific stated this isn't the case and referenced that they are spells lower than 6th level.
HolyDraconus
2017-11-24, 11:03 PM
JC's ruling wasn't an answer to the question....
Of course not. It's THE answer. It's stupid. It senseless. And it opens Pandora's Box to a host of silly crap that are equally as stupid, but it's RAW and RAI now.
TheUser
2017-11-24, 11:49 PM
No but he says neither yes or no only what the errata is to the Raksashas spell immunity.
Meaning he just quotes the direct text and gives neither an affirmative or negative.
(I think this is so he can backpedal at any time).
Zalabim
2017-11-25, 03:47 AM
All dragon's have magical breath and a Raksasha is not immune to them. If you cast Dragon's Breath on a player and they use an action to breath magical energy like a dragon it still affects the Raksasha. HOWEVER, this also means that things like Metamagic or Elemental Adept no longer apply to the breath weapon action (you can still twin the initial spellcast for instance since that is the actual casting of the spell and not the breath weapon action associated with it).
Think of it like this: Can you use Quicken Spell on the Breath attack action provided by Dragon's Breath? If your knee-jerk answer is "no, because it's not a spell being cast" then you've got your answer. The Dragon's Breath spell is a transmutation effect that allows you to breath elemental cones like a dragon does, Raksasha's are not immune to Draconic breath weapons as such they are not immune to this action (just like they are not immune to haste, wall of stone, or grapple attempts from animated objects or monsters).
Two things here: Dragons don't have a magical breath and I compare this to Goodberry. You can't use quicken to eat a berry as a bonus action, but it still counts as using a spell to restore HP by the Life Cleric feature. Unless you think it doesn't, but at least this has a direct official answer.
TheTeaMustFlow
2017-11-25, 09:31 AM
Of course not. It's THE answer. It's stupid. It senseless. And it opens Pandora's Box to a host of silly crap that are equally as stupid, but it's RAW and RAI now.
Twitter responses are neither RAW nor RAI, actually. If it got actually published in the sage advice compendium, that would be a little different, but twitter doesn't have any official strength. And he's been explicitly wrong before.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-25, 04:45 PM
FF is the result of a spell, or affect, if you will.
The Raksasha can ignore spell effects (lower than 6th). A familiar gotten with FF is a spell effect. A Raksasha can ignore a familiar gotten with FF.
The Rakshasa can choose to not be affected by a spell.
Affect as you use it does not exist as a word (i mean, it exists as a noun, but it deals with different things...), prehaps you meant "effect". A familiar is not even an "effect" of a spell. The shape of the familiar, the fact that is subservient to you are both effects of Find Familiar. The existence of a familiar isn't.
To affect, in the applicable case, means "to have an effect on". Find Familiar, the spell, does not affect the Rakshasa in any direct way. It doesn't summon Raks, it doesnìt binds it into bubservience, it doesn't attempt to change its shape. In fact, being instantaneous, it isn't active at any time if not the instant just after the casting.
If "directly" was implied in the Raksasha's ability, then DB, Shillelagh and MW would all effect a Raksasha. JC specific stated this isn't the case and referenced that they are spells lower than 6th level.
If it is not "directly", then everything affects everything, and the whole rule loses meaning.
JC didn't say directly that "yes/no they work/they do not work", but when someone answers "a & b are spells, x is can choose to not be affected by spells", one does not have any ground to say that "c" does or does not work, unless you contextualize the answer.
In this case, the answer is to "Is the Rakshasa protected by attacks with weapons under these spells?"
"Those are spells, Rakshasa is immune to spells".
So, why do those spells affect the Rakshasa directly? Because those spells do not transmute an item in a permantent way, but while an item is under those spells the item proprieties are changed: both spells have a direct effect on the Rakshasa - the magic damage. This means that the Rakshasa can be affected by the spells directly and this means that the Rakshasa can ignore them.
Of course not. It's THE answer. It's stupid. It senseless. And it opens Pandora's Box to a host of silly crap that are equally as stupid, but it's RAW and RAI now.
It is AN answer to two specific cases, and the repetition of the general one. We do not know if RAI on Find Familiar is the same for Shillelagh (if we hit a Rakshasa with a weapon under Find Familiar... does it even make sense?), we can only speculate on the reasons behind the answer.
Two things here: Dragons don't have a magical breath and I compare this to Goodberry. You can't use quicken to eat a berry as a bonus action, but it still counts as using a spell to restore HP by the Life Cleric feature. Unless you think it doesn't, but at least this has a direct official answer.
Dragons are magical creatures. However, the magic of dragons is different from a spell, and their magic is intrinsic, just like "magic" in a water elemental.
This kind of magic is "fantasy", as in a fantastic creature, and not "fantasy" as in the manipulation of magic via spells.
"Background magic". The thing Dragons do are magical, even in a "this thing is magical" sense for some of the effects (don't remember breath specifically), but expecially in the "this things do not exist and could not exist in a non magical world" sense.
Eating a berry is not part of the spell. The spell simply creates the berries. Eating them is a mechanic that is described in the relevant spell, since those berries are only created via the spell. You can't dispel the berries and make them disappear. (not that i disagree necessarily with what you are saying. Adding to it.)
I do not have access to Xana, so prehaps i shouldn't have said "yes or no" to a spell i can't readily doublecheck.
Twitter responses are neither RAW nor RAI, actually. If it got actually published in the sage advice compendium, that would be a little different, but twitter doesn't have any official strength. And he's been explicitly wrong before.
Twitter responses from JC can be Official rulings - RAI, most of the time.
"One exception: the game’s lead rules developer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter), can make official rulings and does so in this document and on Twitter"
Being human means the possibility of being wrong. Being skeptical simply means being cautious.
If it is not "directly", then everything affects everything, and the whole rule loses meaning.
JC didn't say directly that "yes/no they work/they do not work", but when someone answers "a & b are spells, x is can choose to not be affected by spells", one does not have any ground to say that "c" does or does not work, unless you contextualize the answer.
In this case, the answer is to "Is the Rakshasa protected by attacks with weapons under these spells?"
"Those are spells, Rakshasa is immune to spells".
So, why do those spells affect the Rakshasa directly? Because those spells do not transmute an item in a permantent way, but while an item is under those spells the item proprieties are changed: both spells have a direct effect on the Rakshasa - the magic damage. This means that the Rakshasa can be affected by the spells directly and this means that the Rakshasa can ignore them.
While a spirit is under the effect of FF, the spirit's proprieties are changed: FF has a direct effect on the Rakshasa - the magic that allows a familiar to exist, to act, to assist with the Help Action, attack, if able, etc. This means that the Rakshasa can be affected by the spell directly and this means that the Rakshasa can ignore them.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-25, 09:11 PM
While a spirit is under the effect of FF, the spirit's proprieties are changed: FF has a direct effect on the Rakshasa - the magic that allows a familiar to exist, to act, to assist with the Help Action, attack, if able, etc. This means that the Rakshasa can be affected by the spell directly and this means that the Rakshasa can ignore them.
But the spirit is not under the effect of FF! Instantaneous means exactly that! The spell comes, does its thing, and then goes! The familiar can do its thing WITHOUT FF. It can do this things WITH YOU because of Find Familiar. But a Rakshasa is not a part of the bonding process, and is never affected BY FIND FAMILIAR DIRECTLY.
He can be affected by the caster, he can be affected by the familiar, but never by FIND FAMILIAR.
A man manages to have a permit to carry a gun from the state. He comes to buy a gun from me. He proceeds to shoot a guy.
Am i DIRECTLY affecting the guy that was shot? No. My effect on the life on the guy, while important, is absolutely INDIRECT.
Your refusal to understand the concept that the effect of the spell isn't tied to the spell is rather funny.
But the spirit is not under the effect of FF! Instantaneous means exactly that! The spell comes, does its thing, and then goes! The familiar can do its thing WITHOUT FF. It can do this things WITH YOU because of Find Familiar. But a Rakshasa is not a part of the bonding process, and is never affected BY FIND FAMILIAR DIRECTLY.
He can be affected by the caster, he can be affected by the familiar, but never by FIND FAMILIAR.
A man manages to have a permit to carry a gun from the state. He comes to buy a gun from me. He proceeds to shoot a guy.
Am i DIRECTLY affecting the guy that was shot? No. My effect on the life on the guy, while important, is absolutely INDIRECT.
Can a PC cast a touch spell thru any old spirit, at any time? Or is that an affect of the Find Familiar spell?
It's an affect of the FF spell? Oh and what level is the Find Familiar spell? Is it 7th level or higher?
No? It's 1st?
So it's an affect of a 1st level spell? What did JC say about that...
ThePolarBear
2017-11-26, 12:23 PM
Can a PC cast a touch spell thru any old spirit, at any time? Or is that an affect of the Find Familiar spell?
It's an affect of the FF spell? Oh and what level is the Find Familiar spell? Is it 7th level or higher?
No? It's 1st?
So it's an affect of a 1st level spell? What did JC say about that...
Let's try this one last time.
Is the piece of metal or a fold in the piece of metal that has been folded by a metal folding machine a metal folding machine?
If the answer is "generally no", as it is logical to assume, then i have no idea where you lose this line of thinking and reach
"a guy is immune to be affected by metal folding machines, therefore it is immune to the fold on that piece of metal that has been folded by a metal forming machines".
The guy would be immune from being folded himself, but since the fold OR the piece of metal is not a metal forming machine in 99% of the cases, how can you reach the conclusion?
"Because the guy is immune to the effect of a metal forming machine!"
But that's not what the guy is immune to.
Let's try this one last time.
Is the piece of metal or a fold in the piece of metal that has been folded by a metal folding machine a metal folding machine?
If the answer is "generally no", as it is logical to assume, then i have no idea where you lose this line of thinking and reach
"a guy is immune to be affected by metal folding machines, therefore it is immune to the fold on that piece of metal that has been folded by a metal forming machines".
The guy would be immune from being folded himself, but since the fold OR the piece of metal is not a metal forming machine in 99% of the cases, how can you reach the conclusion?
"Because the guy is immune to the effect of a metal forming machine!"
But that's not what the guy is immune to.
But that's not what the JC thinks :) which is what this is about :)
ThePolarBear
2017-11-26, 12:42 PM
But that's not what the JC thinks :) which is what this is about :)
The difference between Find Familiar and both Shillelagh and Magic Weapon is like night and day, and starts from duration.
Both Shillelagh and Magic Weapon would fall into the 1% of the previous case.
Edit: Or more correctly, they would be a strange case where the metal folding machine is temporarly folding the metal piece in a way that the guy is weak to while having the guy inside the metal folding machine itself.
I can't see duration mentioned in Rakshasa entry.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-26, 01:25 PM
I can't see duration mentioned in Rakshasa entry.
You can see it in the rules for spellcasting. And you can check for Find Familiar, Magic Weapon and Shillelagh. You still didn't go and check, i guess.
You can see it in the rules for spellcasting. And you can check for Find Familiar, Magic Weapon and Shillelagh. You still didn't go and check, i guess.
Um no sweetie. The duration of the spell is irrelevant. If there was an instantanepus duration spell to create a block of wood to throw, it would be immune to that effect.
You can't add words there to suit yourself. Although JC seems free to do so. And he is almighty god who can do know wrong so lets use his reasoning and apply it elsewhere.
Let's try this one last time.
Is the piece of metal or a fold in the piece of metal that has been folded by a metal folding machine a metal folding machine?
If the answer is "generally no", as it is logical to assume, then i have no idea where you lose this line of thinking and reach
"a guy is immune to be affected by metal folding machines, therefore it is immune to the fold on that piece of metal that has been folded by a metal forming machines".
The guy would be immune from being folded himself, but since the fold OR the piece of metal is not a metal forming machine in 99% of the cases, how can you reach the conclusion?
"Because the guy is immune to the effect of a metal forming machine!"
But that's not what the guy is immune to.
None of this matters because you're just ignoring the facts:
The Familiar gained from FF is an affect of a spell that is 6th level or lower.
A Raksasha is immune to the affects of spells 6th level and lower.
As long as you ignore this, then you're just trolling.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-26, 03:43 PM
None of this matters because you're just ignoring the facts:
The Familiar gained from FF is an affect of a spell that is 6th level or lower.
A Raksasha is immune to the affects of spells 6th level and lower.
As long as you ignore this, then you're just trolling.
Do you realize that you are using a word that has no meaning in the context? AFFECT, noun, does not mean what you are using it for.
To affect, verb, means "to have an effect on".
The rule is "The rakshasa can’t be affected or detected by spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be."
It translates to "a spell of 6th level or lower cannot have an effect on or detect a rakshasa unless it wishes to be."
What you, Vaz, and i have no idea who else insist it must mean is "the effects or results of a spell of 6th level or lower cannot have an effect on or detect a rakshasa unless it wishes to be."
The two things are already not equal.
Now, you also apply it to things that not only are NOT spells, but are not even EFFECTS OF SPELLS, like the familiar, or to things that are, rule wise, explicitly neither spells NOR effects of spells (like a cube of wood created via a spell).
And i'm the one trolling?
Do you realize that you are using a word that has no meaning in the context? AFFECT, noun, does not mean what you are using it for.
To affect, verb, means "to have an effect on".
The rule is "The rakshasa can’t be affected or detected by spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be."
It translates to "a spell of 6th level or lower cannot have an effect on or detect a rakshasa unless it wishes to be."
What you, Vaz, and i have no idea who else insist it must mean is "the effects or results of a spell of 6th level or lower cannot have an effect on or detect a rakshasa unless it wishes to be."
The two things are already not equal.
Now, you also apply it to things that not only are NOT spells, but are not even EFFECTS OF SPELLS, like the familiar, or to things that are, rule wise, explicitly neither spells NOR effects of spells (like a cube of wood created via a spell).
And i'm the one trolling?
Is the Familiar gained from Find Familiar an effect of the spell, Find Familiar?
Is the ability to cast spells through a Familiar gained from the spell Find Familiar an effect of the spell Find Familiar?
Answer those questions.
Do you realize that you are using a word that has no meaning in the context? AFFECT, noun, does not mean what you are using it for.
To affect, verb, means "to have an effect on".
The rule is "The rakshasa can’t be affected or detected by spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be."
It translates to "a spell of 6th level or lower cannot have an effect on or detect a rakshasa unless it wishes to be."
What you, Vaz, and i have no idea who else insist it must mean is "the effects or results of a spell of 6th level or lower cannot have an effect on or detect a rakshasa unless it wishes to be."
The two things are already not equal.
Now, you also apply it to things that not only are NOT spells, but are not even EFFECTS OF SPELLS, like the familiar, or to things that are, rule wise, explicitly neither spells NOR effects of spells (like a cube of wood created via a spell).
And i'm the one trolling?
I'm going to add this in to help you out as well:
From PHB:
"Duration
A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed."
Find Familiar:
"When the familiar drops to 0 hit points, it disappears, leaving behind no physical form. It reappears after you cast this spell again."
So is FF an example of a spell specifying that it's effects last until the Familiar is destroyed?
Yes.
So is the Familiar an effect of the spell? Yes, and it lasts until it is destroyed.
So a Familiar is an effect of the spell FF and, therefore, can be ignored by a Raksasha.
Battlebooze
2017-11-26, 05:25 PM
So, if your familiar carries an oil flask and drops it on the sleeping Raksasha, it can ignore the flames when you light it on fire.
Wait, if you set a warehouse on fire with a fire bolt, the Raksasha can ignore the burning building too! And then the roof when it collapses on it!
And if your fighter is hurt and the cleric tries to heals him, the wound shouldn't be healed unless the cure wound's spell is up-cast.
No wonder Raksasha are hated, they really warp reality. :P
krugaan
2017-11-26, 05:39 PM
No wonder Raksasha are hated, they really warp reality. :P
Causality too.
But ... magic.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-26, 06:10 PM
Is the Familiar gained from Find Familiar an effect of the spell, Find Familiar?
Is the ability to cast spells through a Familiar gained from the spell Find Familiar an effect of the spell Find Familiar?
Answer those questions.
I'm going to add this in to help you out as well:
From PHB:
"Duration
A spell’s duration is the length of time the spell persists. A duration can be expressed in rounds, minutes, hours, or even years. Some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed."
Find Familiar:
"When the familiar drops to 0 hit points, it disappears, leaving behind no physical form. It reappears after you cast this spell again."
So is FF an example of a spell specifying that it's effects last until the Familiar is destroyed?
Yes.
So is the Familiar an effect of the spell? Yes, and it lasts until it is destroyed.
So a Familiar is an effect of the spell FF and, therefore, can be ignored by a Raksasha.
So, let's start. AGAIN.
No, both are not effects of the Find Familiar spell.
The effects of the find familiar spell are: "You gain the service" and "You chose the form". The second also applies the moment you were to cast it again with your familiar still there. The recreation of the familiar is still another effect of the spell. It can be argued that the appearing is also an effect, but it could also be an ability the familiar has.
Let me help you, since you stopped and didn't read the "Instantaneous" duration:
"INSTANTANEOUS
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant."
So, Find Familiar AND ANY MAGIC CONNECTED TO IT exists only for an instant. There is NO WAY the spell can affect a Rakshasa, unless you are "gaining the service" of one by casting FF, "Choosing its form" by casting FF, "making it appear" by casting FF, "recreating it" by casting FF.
The metal has been formed. The metal is not a metal former.
So, let's start. AGAIN.
No, both are not effects of the Find Familiar spell.
The effects of the find familiar spell are: "You gain the service" and "You chose the form". The second also applies the moment you were to cast it again with your familiar still there. The recreation of the familiar is still another effect of the spell. It can be argued that the appearing is also an effect, but it could also be an ability the familiar has.
Let me help you, since you stopped and didn't read the "Instantaneous" duration:
"INSTANTANEOUS
Many spells are instantaneous. The spell harms, heals, creates, or alters a creature or an object in a way that can't be dispelled, because its magic exists only for an instant."
So, Find Familiar AND ANY MAGIC CONNECTED TO IT exists only for an instant. There is NO WAY the spell can affect a Rakshasa, unless you are "gaining the service" of one by casting FF, "Choosing its form" by casting FF, "making it appear" by casting FF, "recreating it" by casting FF.
The metal has been formed. The metal is not a metal former.
So in your games the Familiar is unable to do anything because the rest of the spell description doesn't exist??
It's really quite clear what the effects of the spell are, you just choose to ignore them, and the rules for duration. Yes, some spells are instantaneous and only last for their casting, like Fireball. Others have special durations where they'll specify the effects last until something is destroyed. In the case of FF, it's the Familiar.
The wording of the RAW even specifies "effects."
Animate Dead, Create Undead, Finger of Death, Find Steed. These are all examples of instantaneous spells that also follow the rules for duration: some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.
That's the RAW. Feel free to ignore it, but that's what it is.
Squeeq
2017-11-27, 04:14 AM
Ignoring the previous argument about Find Familiar, I'm trying to codify what makes sense for the rakshasa to be immune to (Also, globe of invulnerability, since they're worded very similarly).
I don't think a shillelagh or a magic weapon should hurt a Rakshasa, since it's a spell itself that's effecting him. This is for the same reason that I think a Rakshas should be immune to flame blade, or vampiric touch, or dragon's breath, or spiritual weapon. The argument of "the spell only creates the shillelagh, so the shillelagh should be able to harm him" is as hollow as "Flame blade only lets you make a magical blade of fire, so he should still be vulnerable to the fire itself." same with things like Lightning Arrow and Flaming Arrows, and all those other good things.
However, I think that Haste should absolutely work unimpeded against a Rakshasa. My reasoning (which isn't particularly rooted, hence my trouble) is that the magical effect isn't touching the Rakshasa in the way that a flame blade or a shillelagh is. The magic's only making your fighter faster. I feel like catapault should work since the object isn't magical, and throwing something at it with telekinesis should work, because (in my very scientific jargon) the magic isn't 'touching' the Rakshasa. The magic of Haste is only touching the person - if they were nonmagical, they'd be dealing nonmagical damage with their attacks, but the damage from magic weapon is absolutely 'touching' it. The magic on the fighter lets him hit more often, so it doesn't get cancelled, but the magic on the shillelagh directly affects the rakshasa, so it is negated with it.
I like the idea of a Rakshasa able to ignore summoned monsters, but considering their attacks are nonmagical anyway, it's sort of moot.
Here's the question that will REALLY get the ball rolling - can a Rakshasa's magic immunity allow it to tear through spells like shield, or shield of faith, that raise AC that way, since it's a projected magical effect? My PREFERENCE is to say yes, because having your fighter throw up their shield spell and then watch the razor-sharp backwards claws of this tiger-faced demon tear through it like paper on the way to their throat is too good of an image to pass up.
ThePolarBear
2017-11-27, 05:18 AM
So in your games the Familiar is unable to do anything because the rest of the spell description doesn't exist??
How did you reach this conclusion?
It's really quite clear what the effects of the spell are, you just choose to ignore them, and the rules for duration.
I just separate the "effects" in fiction and the mechanics.
Yes, some spells are instantaneous and only last for their casting, like Fireball. Others have special durations where they'll specify the effects last until something is destroyed. In the case of FF, it's the Familiar.
I do not negate the existance of the familiar. I do not say that the familiar BEING THERE is not the result of casting Find Familiar. What i say is that the familiar itself is not the effect of FF.
The wording of the RAW even specifies "effects."
Which, again, can also mean results, consequence. Which is completely in line with my line of thinking:
The "effect" of a spell - what the spell itself causes, the direct changes on matter/space/whatever, where the magic interacts (the metal being folded by the metal folding machine)
The "effects" of a spell - the results, the consequences, what has been changed by the casting of a spell, what remains afterwards (the piece of folded metal)
Animate Dead, Create Undead, Finger of Death, Find Steed. These are all examples of instantaneous spells that also follow the rules for duration: some spells specify that their effects last until the spells are dispelled or destroyed.
Absolutely! But the effect of Animate Dead is "create" and "bind for 24h".Create Unded is "create" and "control".Finger is "Decrepify (do damage)" and, conditional "raise zombie" and "control". Find Steed is "Summon" and "shape". Everything else is consequence of the casting, not the casting itself.
That's the RAW. Feel free to ignore it, but that's what it is.
I will, even because i think what you are saying is not RAW. It is just the difference between directly and indirectly.
Also, this is still unimportant, since the "effects" - consequences - are not the spell itself, thus it is not the spell affecting a Rakshasa, thus the Rakshasa cannot chose to ignore them.
Ignoring the previous argument about Find Familiar, I'm trying to codify what makes sense for the rakshasa to be immune to (Also, globe of invulnerability, since they're worded very similarly).
I don't think a shillelagh or a magic weapon should hurt a Rakshasa, since it's a spell itself that's effecting him.
And we have someone that gets it.
However, I think that Haste should absolutely work unimpeded against a Rakshasa. My reasoning (which isn't particularly rooted, hence my trouble) is that the magical effect isn't touching the Rakshasa in the way that a flame blade or a shillelagh is. The magic's only making your fighter faster.
Again, the difference between what a spell does - its effect - and what the consequences of what a spell does - its effects.
I feel like catapault should work since the object isn't magical, and throwing something at it with telekinesis should work, because (in my very scientific jargon) the magic isn't 'touching' the Rakshasa.
Or, as i put it and you put it afterwards, there's no direct interaction.
I like the idea of a Rakshasa able to ignore summoned monsters, but considering their attacks are nonmagical anyway, it's sort of moot.
Yeah. But then, how would you handle shoves or grapples?
Here's the question that will REALLY get the ball rolling - can a Rakshasa's magic immunity allow it to tear through spells like shield, or shield of faith, that raise AC that way, since it's a projected magical effect? My PREFERENCE is to say yes, because having your fighter throw up their shield spell and then watch the razor-sharp backwards claws of this tiger-faced demon tear through it like paper on the way to their throat is too good of an image to pass up.
For me part of the question is also "what is the Rakshasa using". If the Rak is using a sword, then prehaps no. But then again, would a protection from good and evil protect from a charm person cast from a Rakshasa? PFGEE obviously affects the Rakshasa. But could a spell cast by a Rakshasa gain the the special ability, so to say? (assuming the charm is before the PFGEE).
Renduaz
2017-11-27, 05:46 AM
He wouldn't be affected, of course. A much more interesting dilemma is to ask whether a Rakshasa would be able to bump into or be harmed by material made by a "Creation" spell? Unlike "Wall of Stone" for example, the material is not specified to be non-magical. In fact, it is created by pulling on wisps from the shadowfell. The spell then further invalidates the "real" nature of those materials by stating that if you attempt to use them as material components, your spell will fail.
If so, would a Rakshasa walk right through and see straight through a stone object made by "Creation"? If not, then would a Rakshasa also be affected by the acid created by "Acid Splash"?
More dilemmas:
Will a Rakshasa be harmed by "Mordekainen's Faithful Hound"? If yes, then why wouldn't he be harmed by "Spiritual Weapon" for example? If not, then would he be harmed by conjured elementals or animals? And so on.
How did you reach this conclusion?
I just separate the "effects" in fiction and the mechanics.
I do not negate the existance of the familiar. I do not say that the familiar BEING THERE is not the result of casting Find Familiar. What i say is that the familiar itself is not the effect of FF.
Which, again, can also mean results, consequence. Which is completely in line with my line of thinking:
The "effect" of a spell - what the spell itself causes, the direct changes on matter/space/whatever, where the magic interacts (the metal being folded by the metal folding machine)
The "effects" of a spell - the results, the consequences, what has been changed by the casting of a spell, what remains afterwards (the piece of folded metal)
Absolutely! But the effect of Animate Dead is "create" and "bind for 24h".Create Unded is "create" and "control".Finger is "Decrepify (do damage)" and, conditional "raise zombie" and "control". Find Steed is "Summon" and "shape". Everything else is consequence of the casting, not the casting itself.
I will, even because i think what you are saying is not RAW. It is just the difference between directly and indirectly.
Also, this is still unimportant, since the "effects" - consequences - are not the spell itself, thus it is not the spell affecting a Rakshasa, thus the Rakshasa cannot chose to ignore them.
And we have someone that gets it.
Again, the difference between what a spell does - its effect - and what the consequences of what a spell does - its effects.
Or, as i put it and you put it afterwards, there's no direct interaction.
Yeah. But then, how would you handle shoves or grapples?
For me part of the question is also "what is the Rakshasa using". If the Rak is using a sword, then prehaps no. But then again, would a protection from good and evil protect from a charm person cast from a Rakshasa? PFGEE obviously affects the Rakshasa. But could a spell cast by a Rakshasa gain the the special ability, so to say? (assuming the charm is before the PFGEE).
Again, the rules. From the PHB:
"Casting a Spell
When a character casts any spell, the same basic rules are followed, regardless of the character’s class or the spell’s effects.
Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school
of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect."
So, yes, all of what is listed in FF is, in fact, the spell's effects.
Duration isn't an issue because, as stated previously, because duration doesn't necessarily determine how long a spell' effects last; Find Familiar's effects last until the Familiar is destroyed.
So a Familiar is the effect of FF. A Raksasha cannot be affected by it, unless it chooses to be.
I feel like you're just saying "I don't want those to be effects of a spell." And if you're the DM, you can homebrew the word "directly" in the description of the Raksasha's ability if you want, but that's not in the RAW (and would then change lots of spells like Haste, Dragon Breath, Shillelagh, and anything else that changes something other than the Raksasha). You're aware of this, of course.
But the RAW is those are effects of the spell just like Haste, Dragon Breath, Shillelagh, etc. It's dumb, but that's in line with what JC posted.
He wouldn't be affected, of course. A much more interesting dilemma is to ask whether a Rakshasa would be able to bump into or be harmed by material made by a "Creation" spell?
At their choice.
Unlike "Wall of Stone"
The beauty of this wording: be nonmagic as much as it wants, it's the result of a spells affect, which is what the Rak is immune to.
Cast ceremony on a font of water. Tip it over the Rak. It is immune. Give the Rak a wand of Fireballs, it can choose to be unaffected by speed increasing abilities, and can target where the creatures would have been. While simultaneously allowing other ones to take place (knowing instantly when and where they would be). Cause a forestfire with a fire spell of 6th or lower, and its immune to the forest fire. Targeted with Eldritch Blast because the warlock was able to fly despite having full cover? Nah. Summon a Water Elemental? Immune to the wave vortex thing and the rest of its attacks. Have one just generally fight alongside you nah, takes effect. Paladin riding its steed summoned with Find Steed doesn't get Mounted Combatant advantage.
😂 😂
Battlebooze
2017-11-27, 07:39 PM
At their choice.
The beauty unrelenting, story breaking, utter stupidity of this wording: be nonmagic as much as it wants, it's the result of a spells affect, which is what the Rak is immune to.
Cast ceremony on a font of water. Tip it over the Rak. It is immune. Give the Rak a wand of Fireballs, it can choose to be unaffected by speed increasing abilities, and can target where the creatures would have been. While simultaneously allowing other ones to take place (knowing instantly when and where they would be). Cause a forestfire with a fire spell of 6th or lower, and its immune to the forest fire. Targeted with Eldritch Blast because the warlock was able to fly despite having full cover? Nah. Summon a Water Elemental? Immune to the wave vortex thing and the rest of its attacks. Have one just generally fight alongside you nah, takes effect. Paladin riding its steed summoned with Find Steed doesn't get Mounted Combatant advantage.
😂 😂
Since there is no time limit listed, if a characters life was once saved by cure wounds the Rakasha should be able to ignore anything that character does. If a castle was built using tools that were made with fabricate, that castle could be ignored by the Rakasha at will.
In fact, one could argue that all magic weapons that were not created by, say, a wish, would probably be useless.
Renduaz
2017-11-27, 07:44 PM
This reminds about the one with Antimagic Field in the Forgotten Realms, at least. The wording is that "Spells and other magical effects, except those created by an artifact or a deity" are surpassed. Mystra, the Goddess of magic created The Weave, which is an "other magical effect", and The Weave is what all Arcanists draw upon when casting spells or using magic. Therefore, Antimagic Field never works.
HolyDraconus
2017-11-27, 08:59 PM
IHS, 5e Version it is!
Crgaston
2017-11-27, 09:08 PM
I think I’ve read the whole thread, and forgive me if this has been mentioned, but is the consensus that Mage Armor offers no protection from a Rakshasa? That Bless doesn’t add to an attack against one, or to a save vs a spell cast by one?
It seems to me that a reasonable ruling would be that a spell “affects” a rakshasa if the spell directly targets it, deals damage via AOE, or has some other direct effect on it. Spells like Protection from Evil, Heroism, Mage Armor, Bless et al, fall into a murky area.
This certainly is messily worded and conceptualized.
RedMage125
2017-11-27, 09:41 PM
I think I’ve read the whole thread, and forgive me if this has been mentioned, but is the consensus that Mage Armor offers no protection from a Rakshasa? That Bless doesn’t add to an attack against one, or to a save vs a spell cast by one?
It seems to me that a reasonable ruling would be that a spell “affects” a rakshasa if the spell directly targets it, deals damage via AOE, or has some other direct effect on it. Spells like Protection from Evil, Heroism, Mage Armor, Bless et al, fall into a murky area.
This certainly is messily worded and conceptualized.
Absolutely. This is reasonable.
But there are banal, intellectually dishonest people who think otherwise. People who genuinely cannot understand a concept as simple as Degrees of Separation.
If I cast Enlarge on my party Fighter, and he does more damage to a Rakshasa with his +1 greatsword, these cretins would argue that the Rakshasa is "being affected by the spell", and therefore does not take the extra 1d4 damage that came about from the spell. Which is asinine. The spell is affecting the Fighter, and the Fighter is affecting the Rakshasa. Same with Haste. Arguing that Rakshasas cause Hasted PCs attacking them to "not get the extra attack" is absurd.
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-27, 09:53 PM
Absolutely. This is reasonable.
But there are banal, intellectually dishonest people who think otherwise. People who genuinely cannot understand a concept as simple as Degrees of Separation.
If I cast Enlarge on my party Fighter, and he does more damage to a Rakshasa with his +1 greatsword, these cretins would argue that the Rakshasa is "being affected by the spell", and therefore does not take the extra 1d4 damage that came about from the spell. Which is asinine. The spell is affecting the Fighter, and the Fighter is affecting the Rakshasa. Same with Haste. Arguing that Rakshasas cause Hasted PCs attacking them to "not get the extra attack" is absurd.
This same line of thinking is why the magic weapon and shillalegh spells should work as well. Not by JC apparently, but by anyone who can follow simple logical reasoning.
The spell is affecting the weapon, and the weapon, now magical, is affecting the rakshasa.
I think I’ve read the whole thread, and forgive me if this has been mentioned, but is the consensus that Mage Armor offers no protection from a Rakshasa? That Bless doesn’t add to an attack against one, or to a save vs a spell cast by one?
It seems to me that a reasonable ruling would be that a spell “affects” a rakshasa if the spell directly targets it, deals damage via AOE, or has some other direct effect on it. Spells like Protection from Evil, Heroism, Mage Armor, Bless et al, fall into a murky area.
This certainly is messily worded and conceptualized.
Reasonable? Yes. "Official?" Apparently not.
As a DM, I'd take the stance of "a Raksasha cannot be a target of a spell unless it chooses to be."
Reasonable? Yes. "Official?" Apparently not.
As a DM, I'd take the stance of "a Raksasha cannot be a target of a spell unless it chooses to be."
Gotta take a reaction to recognise the spell as well.
War_lord
2017-11-28, 03:20 AM
But there are banal, intellectually dishonest people who think otherwise. People who genuinely cannot understand a concept as simple as Degrees of Separation.
I don't think it's intellectual dishonesty. Just taking the opportunity to mock this terrible ruling.
Battlebooze
2017-11-28, 04:13 AM
What if there is a trial, and a official uses Detect Thoughts to review the memories of someone assaulted by a Rakasha? The memories are there, but somehow they can't be detected unless the Rakasha doesn't care? How does it know to care if it's not there? Is it also omniscient?
As an intellectual exercise it's fun to see how crazy this can go.
Whole populations would be unable to hurt a Rakasha, if they were ever saved from dying by a low level healing spell. And their children as well, since they only exist because of said healing spell. Eventually there would only be a precious few who were untainted by low level magic.
No spell caster can effect a Rakasha, even with ninth level spells.
Why? because, sometime in the past it's guaranteed that a low level spell saved their life. That makes the rest of their existence a lingering after effect from that spell, free to be ignored by the Rakasha.
I think they need to update the CR of these beasts!
UrielAwakened
2017-11-28, 10:32 AM
Gotta take a reaction to recognise the spell as well.
We've come full circle on stupid 5e rules. I'm proud of you guys.
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-28, 10:46 AM
We've come full circle on stupid 5e rules. I'm proud of you guys.
Once again, "stupid rules" is a subjective statement.
The intention is, and has always been, that you must counter a spell blindly.
The new rules do not change that.
The rules are not what you were hoping for, because you were hoping the rules changed the entire premise of how counterspelling works in 5e.
People wanted rules for identifying spells as they were being cast.
The designers didn't want to slow down combat with every single caster asking to make a check every single time an enemy wiggled his fingers, and in so doing make Counterspell overpowered at the same time.
This is the middle ground. You got your rules, but the game itself remains unchanged from what they wanted counterspelling to be.
If you don't like it, house rule it.
Personally, I agree with this decision and think that this was the right way to handle it, so I don't think it's stupid at all.
UrielAwakened
2017-11-28, 10:54 AM
Once again, "stupid rules" is a subjective statement.
The intention is, and has always been, that you must counter a spell blindly.
The new rules do not change that.
The rules are not what you were hoping for, because you were hoping the rules changed the entire premise of how counterspelling works in 5e.
People wanted rules for identifying spells as they were being cast.
The designers didn't want to slow down combat with every single caster asking to make a check every single time an enemy wiggled his fingers, and in so doing make Counterspell overpowered at the same time.
This is the middle ground. You got your rules, but the game itself remains unchanged from what they wanted counterspelling to be.
If you don't like it, house rule it.
Personally, I agree with this decision and think that this was the right way to handle it, so I don't think it's stupid at all.
If I ignore you when you say that enough times do you stop existing or do I need to be a Rakshasa for that.
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-28, 11:18 AM
If I ignore you when you say that enough times do you stop existing or do I need to be a Rakshasa for that.
That depends on whether you keep calling it stupid when we've already agreed that it's subjective.
UrielAwakened
2017-11-28, 11:25 AM
I'm going to keep calling it stupid because it is.
You can follow me around and shout subjective all you want.
You can also like the rule all you want, lots of people like stupid things. Michael Bay has made a killing off of them.
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-28, 11:31 AM
I'm going to keep calling it stupid because it is.
You can follow me around and shout subjective all you want.
You can also like the rule all you want, lots of people like stupid things. Michael Bay has made a killing off of them.
So you call it stupid. I call it subjective. You call it stupid. I call it subjective. You call it stupid and ask me when I'm going to stop calling it subjective.
Do you see the pattern here. WE can stop this any time. It's not solely on my shoulders like you're pretending.
UrielAwakened
2017-11-28, 12:51 PM
I'm going to keep pointing out that it's stupid any time it comes up.
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-28, 01:11 PM
I'm going to keep pointing out that it's stupid any time it comes up.
I'm going to keep calling it stupid subjective because it is.
You can follow me around and shout subjective stupid all you want.
You can also [dis]like the rule all you want, lots of people [dis]like stupid subjective things. Michael Bay has made a killing off of them.
UrielAwakened
2017-11-28, 01:26 PM
You finished?
DivisibleByZero
2017-11-28, 01:33 PM
Are you?
You're the one that went to the other thread just to step in and call it stupid, in an attempt at provoking a response from me, after you claimed that I "followed" you here.
You know what that's called, right?
You know what that's called, right?
Subjective?
UrielAwakened
2017-11-28, 02:20 PM
That's what I was gonna say.
Also I made the other thread I think I get to post there whenever I want.
Chaosmancer
2017-11-30, 06:35 AM
While the yelling back and forth is mildly amusing it does miss the point as to why the spell ID rules were brought up.
If a Rakshasa can choose whether to ignore a spell or not, and you are playing with the spell ID rules, then to know what spell they are ignoring a Rakshasa would need to spend a reaction to ID.
Now, this is fairly moot, because the safe option is to always ignore the spells of its enemies, but it allows betrayal it's allies, so an evil cleric could cast inflict wounds on the Rakshasa who would have no idea it isn't a heal.
UrielAwakened
2017-11-30, 12:05 PM
While the yelling back and forth is mildly amusing it does miss the point as to why the spell ID rules were brought up.
If a Rakshasa can choose whether to ignore a spell or not, and you are playing with the spell ID rules, then to know what spell they are ignoring a Rakshasa would need to spend a reaction to ID.
Now, this is fairly moot, because the safe option is to always ignore the spells of its enemies, but it allows betrayal it's allies, so an evil cleric could cast inflict wounds on the Rakshasa who would have no idea it isn't a heal.
I am now imagining a Raksasha running full-force into a wall of stone that it just assumes is a spell and then smashing into it Wile E. Coyote style.
Crgaston
2017-11-30, 12:27 PM
I am now imagining a Raksasha running full-force into a wall of stone that it just assumes is a spell and then smashing into it Wile E. Coyote style.
What if it’s a Wall of Stone created by a spell and then made permanent by the caster concentrating the entire duration?
Can Rocky Rakshasa run right through it, regardless?
Btw, the “sh” comes first. Rakshasa, not Raksasha.
UrielAwakened
2017-11-30, 12:34 PM
What if it’s a Wall of Stone created by a spell and then made permanent by the caster concentrating the entire duration?
Can Rocky Rakshasa run right through it, regardless?
Btw, the “sh” comes first. Rakshasa, not Raksasha.
See that's what I thought too but the damn title keeps laughing in my face.
Coffee_Dragon
2017-11-30, 02:36 PM
If a Rakshasa can choose whether to ignore a spell or not, and you are playing with the spell ID rules, then to know what spell they are ignoring a Rakshasa would need to spend a reaction to ID.
Since I'm pretty sure the ability implies rakshasa know what spells come their way by default, the spell ID rules wouldn't change that. Unless they want to Counterspell before they even take effect, of course.
I am now imagining a Raksasha running full-force into a wall of stone that it just assumes is a spell and then smashing into it Wile E. Coyote style.
Also works if you just upcast your walls to level 7 whenever facing a rakshasa.
Chaosmancer
2017-12-01, 01:28 AM
Since I'm pretty sure the ability implies rakshasa know what spells come their way by default, the spell ID rules wouldn't change that. Unless they want to Counterspell.
Let us not open that can of worms just yet. Its just begging trouble if we give only a single monster the ability to ignore this rule that's causing so much strife
Coffee_Dragon
2017-12-01, 02:03 PM
Let us not open that can of worms just yet. Its just begging trouble if we give only a single monster the ability to ignore this rule that's causing so much strife
To be clear about what I'm saying, I don't think a lot of people looked at the rakshasa ability when 5E came out and thought, "Oh, I see, I should resolve this ability the same way I've chosen to resolve spell identification."
For people who, before Xanathar's came out, pictured rakshasas having to look out for people handling bat guano in the shadows before making an informed decision whether to stride unharmed through a fireball, I guess it makes sense to use the new rule for them. For people who just pictured rakshasas being magical, inscrutable, badass outsiders, it makes sense that the new rule isn't at all relevant to their ability. In that picture the rakshasa choosing whether to be affected by a spell is not any sort of action it takes, but merely becomes part of resolving the spell.
However, if I had a rakshasa wanting to Counterspell something before it had taken effect (say, if you're likely to cast something above 6th level at them, they want to protect someone else, or just because), then I would subject them to the same rule or practice I happened to be using for everyone else. For me there is no problem keeping this separate from them also having an immunity ability.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.