View Full Version : Rakshasa vs Magic Stone
Easy_Lee
2017-12-11, 12:20 PM
I don't think there's a correct answer to this, only rulings, but it seemed like a fun discussion.
Rakshasas are immune to nonmagical weapons as well as spells below 6th level (specifically cannot be "affected" by them, whatever that means). But a fighter hitting one with a magical weapon still does damage.
What about Magic Stone?
Magic Stone the spell does not make an attack itself. Instead, it imbues stones with magic. The stones are not created, only imbued. However, each may be used to make a "ranged spell attack." In this way, they're similar to using Catapult to fling magical ammunition at the target.
A druid loads a Magic Stone in a sling and hurls it, making a ranged spell attack using Wisdom against a Raksasha. Can it hit?
I would rule that it can, but I'm curious to learn what others think.
Monavic
2017-12-11, 02:47 PM
I agree that it is unclear if it the stones are a spell or temporary magic weapon. I would most likely let them hurt the Rakshasa as it seems more fun for the players and I can reason the stones are special temporary magic weapons. However by RAW I feel the Rakshasa would be immune party because it is a ranged spell attack but mostly because of the spells last sentence "Whether the attack hits or misses, the spell then ends on the stone.".
Aett_Thorn
2017-12-11, 02:58 PM
I would say that there is likely a RAW answer, a RAI, and a RAF answer to this.
RAW:
Magic stones does not say that it makes the stones magical, just that it imbues them with magic. Compare this to Elemental Weapon which states that a nonmagical weapon becomes a magic weapon. As such, I would say that RAW, it doesn't work.
RAI:
Magic stone imbues the stones with magic, making them a magic weapon. RAI: It works
RAF:
Let the players have a way to do some damage to the thing without having to blow only high-level spell slots. It might make a lower-level party capable of damaging the Rakshasa into retreating or focusing its attacks on the Druid.
Throne12
2017-12-11, 03:32 PM
I treat it the same as shillelagh. It's doing the samething but worded just slightly different slightly.
So let thy cast the first stone.
krugaan
2017-12-11, 03:40 PM
I don't think there's a correct answer to this, only rulings, but it seemed like a fun discussion.
They should carve this on your headstone.
"He thought it would be a fun discussion."
Easy_Lee
2017-12-11, 04:10 PM
They should carve this on your headstone.
"He thought it would be a fun discussion."
If I ever get banned, I hope that's the reason given.
It is exactly the same as the last thread. Per JC, it is unaffected. Per reasonable, sensible rules, it gets a magical stone in the swede. Per your houserules, who gives a toss, it's your houserules. Make it even more vulnerable for all anyone cares.
HolyDraconus
2017-12-11, 05:52 PM
I treat it the same as shillelagh. It's doing the samething but worded just slightly different slightly.
So let thy cast the first stone.
Per JC, they are immune to shillelagh....
Easy_Lee
2017-12-11, 05:54 PM
Per JC, they are immune to shillelagh....
JC is full of crap on that one. He can rule it how he wants, but there is no difference between a permanently magical weapon and a temporarily magical one as far as the PHB is concerned.
And if JC is saying that the information needed to make that ruling is not in the PHB, I call double-bullcrap. You don't blindside players like that.
HolyDraconus
2017-12-11, 05:59 PM
JC is full of crap on that one. He can rule it how he wants, but there is no difference between a permanently magical weapon and a temporarily magical one as far as the PHB is concerned.
And if JC is saying that the information needed to make that ruling is not in the PHB, I call double-bullcrap. You don't blindside players like that.
I hear ya.:smallyuk:
JC is full of crap on that one. He can rule it how he wants, but there is no difference between a permanently magical weapon and a temporarily magical one as far as the PHB is concerned.
And if JC is saying that the information needed to make that ruling is not in the PHB, I call double-bullcrap. You don't blindside players like that.
See my post above. JC is the first and last word in the rules as they are written and designer intent.
And you are correct, there is no difference between temp magic weapon and permanent magic weapon. But there is a difference between a magic weapon and the effect of a spell of 6th level or lower. Which it is unaffected by, if it so wishes. Which extrapolates to hilarious interactions such as being immune to a charscter brought back to life (or undeath) as a result of 6th level spell or lower.
Like said, feel free to ignore, and make up your own houserule, rather than using a suggestion book. Unless you're playing Adventurers League, in which case, sucks to be you.
Chugger
2017-12-11, 06:05 PM
JC sez they're immune to Shillelagh? What a jerk! I mean sure some of his rulings are okay, but that's silly. Does Magic Weapon not work on them, either?
Glad we can ignore some of his sillier rulings.
krugaan
2017-12-11, 06:07 PM
JC is full of crap on that one. He can rule it how he wants, but there is no difference between a permanently magical weapon and a temporarily magical one as far as the PHB is concerned.
And if JC is saying that the information needed to make that ruling is not in the PHB, I call double-bullcrap. You don't blindside players like that.
WoTC could make a fortune by pulling a Houghton-Mifflin and reprint new editions of the PHB every year with minor errata changes.
Then again, DnD books aren't bought by state governments, so...
Battlebooze
2017-12-11, 06:23 PM
First of all, you need to establish if any ancestor of the Raksasha's attacker has ever had their life saved by a spell under seventh level, before they gave birth to the character's lineage. If they have been contaminated this way, the characters very existence is a direct effect of an under seventh level spell and the Raksasha can ignore anything they do. Since this immunity has no time limit, or scale we have to treat it as if it works from the beginning of time to the end of time, and it reaches to any and all realities.
If somehow this character is one of the chosen few, then of course the answer is still no. Because by JC's apparent definition, any kind of magic effect created by a spell under seventh level can be ignored by the Raksasha, even by indirect interaction. A Raksasha can ignore armor created by fabrication, for example. Or walk through a wall of stone, ten thousand years after it was cast.
JC sez they're immune to Shillelagh? What a jerk! I mean sure some of his rulings are okay, but that's silly. Does Magic Weapon not work on them, either?
Glad we can ignore some of his sillier rulings.
No. If it is an effect caused by a 6th level or lower, it can choose to be unaffected by it. Check out haste, which lets you move double speed. Say for example you are also Mobile. This gives you 70ft speed, and can move, bonus dash, haste dash and action dash for a total 280. However, without haste, you have 120ft max. As soon as you move faster than normal as a result of a 6th level or lower spell, it can target anywhere between your current position and where you would be without that.
Say you move 280ft during your turn across a straight line, as the first time your speed is magically improved by <7th spell. On its turn, using JC's reasoning, the Rak can move to within 60ft of that tangent, at any point between the 120 and 280ft point, and use a 60ft range ability against you.
Imagine how crazy that goes if you've spent 30 rounds a day, ever day for, 6 months, you're looking at a Rak able to choose you to be anywhere between 35-140km of your current position, depending on how many additional actions you took to move. The same applies for your companions.
If you have travelled +100km further than normally available under <7th spell speed alteration effects, and another creature has also done so, but 5 hours and 30km walking distance since after you cross a stream, the second creature also crosses the stream, and then another 5 hours later while you are 60km distant and the other 30km distant, it could wand of fireball both of you.
RickAsWritten
2017-12-11, 06:45 PM
If somehow this character is one of the chosen few, then of course the answer is still no. Because by JC's apparent definition, any kind of magic effect created by a spell under seventh level can be ignored by the Raksasha, even by indirect interaction. A Raksasha can ignore armor created by fabrication, for example. Or walk through a wall of stone, ten thousand years after it was cast.
Two Rakshasa walk into a bar...and pass right through it because it was created by a Fabricate spell.
Sorry...couldn't help myself.
Battlebooze
2017-12-11, 06:50 PM
Two Rakshasa walk into a bar...and pass right through it because it was created by a Fabricate spell.
Sorry...couldn't help myself.
They can choose to interact with the effect if they wish. So they can still get drunk, then ignore the hangover after. :D
krugaan
2017-12-11, 06:53 PM
They can choose to interact with the effect if they wish. So they can still get drunk, then ignore the hangover after. :D
Huh ... if I were a rakshasa, I'd make a labyrinth out of wall of stone as my lair. I could look through the maze with impunity and pelt adventurers with spells because I have line of sight and they don't!
Throne12
2017-12-11, 07:02 PM
So does that mean the warlocks pact blade don't work. Or how about the devotion paladin's magic weapon.
Lets make it easy. Is it a spell? Is it <7th level? Congrats, any potential chaos theory effect it is immune to.
Dude uses Mold earth to dig out a hole in the ground, causing a landslide, waking an Ancient Dragon when it otherwise wouldn't have done. Congrats, Rak is now immune to the Dragon.
Is person dead as a result of a <7th spell? The Rak can ignore that, and treat it as still alive. Killed Shopwner with Fireball? Haha, nope, shop is still intact, keeper still alive.
Of all JC's tweets, this is my favourite.
HolyDraconus
2017-12-11, 08:10 PM
Oh gods! The madness is here! .... and people wonder why the house of illusions in White Wolf Masquerade was annihilated before they grew to power.
Coffee_Dragon
2017-12-11, 08:19 PM
Or JC's distinction between magical weapons and attack spells with a physical aspect is completely sensible, and the "but in that case causality lol" argument has relevance at no table.
Easy_Lee
2017-12-11, 09:24 PM
Or JC's distinction between magical weapons and attack spells with a physical aspect is completely sensible, and the "but in that case causality lol" argument has relevance at no table.
Or JC's tweets have no relevance at the table.
Battlebooze
2017-12-11, 09:32 PM
Wait a minute, technically, any minions of a Raksahsa should also be covered by this. I mean, if a Raksasha's pet goblin gets hit by a fire ball, it's death will have an effect on the Raksasha's plans right?
So the goblin is protected!
In fact, if said goblin hadn't even met the Raksasha yet, it would be protected if it would eventually meet one and then become it's minion!
Kane0
2017-12-11, 10:25 PM
Alrighty so here's my thoughts:
What is the design purpose of Magic Stone (and Shillelagh)? One, to give a caster a reliable weapon attack. Two, to provide a magical weapon from sticks and stones. You wouldn't pick these cantrips for raw damage output, there are better options for that, nor is it a utility spell. The only problem here is that it's a spell attack that deals bludgeoning damage, so this is murky already.
What is the target/effect? Magic Stone (and Shillelagh) targets (read: affects) stones/sticks, making them magical. If you cast Magic Stone on a creature, it would do nothing since a creature is not one to three pebbles.
Now lets consider the Rakshasa.
What parts of a Rakshasa interact with these? Spell immunity and damage resistance.
Spell immunity ignores the effects of spells on the rakshasa
Damage resistance is breached by magic weapons.
When you have a magic stone or enchanted stick in your hand, is that a weapon or a spell? Spells make spell attacks, weapons make weapon attacks. Now your DM might rule that using a sling for Magic Stone makes it a weapon attack, but as written you don't need a sling to cast the stone and it is a spell attack, and so appears to be sitting on the fence but falling on the spell side. I personally think it would make more sense as a weapon attack (for a couple reasons) but hey, that's what the books say.
So as a spell attack a rakshasa would benefit from it's spell immunity, and its damage resistance functions against weapon attacks (from, you know, weapons).
So unfortunately it appears that the Rakshasa is immune to Magic Stone as written, though the intent seems to be that it should work ALA Shillelagh/Magic Weapon. I truly think the spell hasn't been written right, at least compared to similar like Shillelagh and Magic Weapon and abilities like Pact Weapon and Bonded Weapon.
Temperjoke
2017-12-11, 10:36 PM
What if the Rakshasa doesn't realize that it's enchanted magically? I mean, he chooses whether to be affected or not, is it a default "always on" or does he have to mentally activate the immunity to magic? What I'm envisioning is that he sees the druid swinging a stick at him and arrogantly ignores it since it's obviously not a magical weapon, and gets a tooth knocked out from the strike across his face.
What if the Rakshasa doesn't realize that it's enchanted magically? I mean, he chooses whether to be affected or not, is it a default "always on" or does he have to mentally activate the immunity to magic? What I'm envisioning is that he sees the druid swinging a stick at him and arrogantly ignores it since it's obviously not a magical weapon, and gets a tooth knocked out from the strike across his face.
He has perfect knowledge of the extent of the slell and choose at the moment without needing to take any action. Ref: magical movent example. He doesn' t even nees to use spell recognition. Man just knows.
Easy_Lee
2017-12-12, 09:50 AM
He has perfect knowledge of the extent of the slell and choose at the moment without needing to take any action. Ref: magical movent example. He doesn' t even nees to use spell recognition. Man just knows.
Cast burning hands, Rakshasa say, "man's not hot."
Casf scorching ray, Rakshasa say, "man's not hot!"
Cast fireball, Rakshasa say, "man can never be hot!"
But threaten him with a permanently fire-enchanted dagger wielded by a good creature and that fool is duckin.
Beelzebubba
2017-12-12, 10:25 AM
Wait a minute, technically, any minions of a Raksahsa should also be covered by this. I mean, if a Raksasha's pet goblin gets hit by a fire ball, it's death will have an effect on the Raksasha's plans right?
So the goblin is protected!
It's pretty telling about this place that it took me until here to realize you're trolling for comedy
Easy_Lee
2017-12-12, 10:49 AM
It's pretty telling about this place that it took me until here to realize you're trolling for comedy
Does that say more about this forum, or you?
Demonslayer666
2017-12-12, 02:49 PM
...
JC is the first and last word in the rules as they are written and designer intent.
...
Only when what he says is written in the rules.
Until then, his advice is just advice. Probably pretty good advice, but just advice none the less.
Easy_Lee
2017-12-12, 02:53 PM
Only when what he says is written in the rules.
Until then, his advice is just advice. Probably pretty good advice, but just advice none the less.
To add to this, if JC was "the first and last authority" on RAI and RAW, then what he said would always agree with the text as written, and he and Mearls would rule things the same way. Neither is true.
He's the Sage because he understands the rules pretty well and they trust him to make sensible rulings. That doesn't give his rulings any additional weight unless YOUR DM decides it does.
UrielAwakened
2017-12-12, 04:00 PM
This is my favorite topic in all of 5e.
It's pretty telling about this place that it took me until here to realize you're trolling for comedy
Not really. Given that the effects of a <7th level spell might have killed that minion, the Rak can consider him alive.
Isn't JC wondeful?
Only when what he says is written in the rules.
Until then, his advice is just advice. Probably pretty good advice, but just advice none the less.
Like the Players Handbook. Like the Monster Manual. Like the Dungeon Masters Guide.
Easy_Lee
2017-12-12, 05:00 PM
Like the Players Handbook. Like the Monster Manual. Like the Dungeon Masters Guide.
By his own admission, JC's tweets are not rules text and should not be considered the same as the PHB. He provides his rulings and clarifications, that's all. Ask him if you don't believe me.
By his own admission, JC's tweets are not rules text and should not be considered the same as the PHB. He provides his rulings and clarifications, that's all. Ask him if you don't believe me.
No, you misunderstand me. The PHB is inspirational gibberish with the rules free to be adapted ignored or amended as the group of players see fit. The fact that medium has changed, but the content is in the same vein.
Easy_Lee
2017-12-12, 05:06 PM
No, you misunderstand me. The PHB is inspirational gibberish with the rules free to be adapted ignored or amended as the group of players see fit. The fact that medium has changed, but the content is in the same vein.
Then you're saying anything in the PHB can be overruled by the DM, so that text holds no more weight than JC's tweets? I'd challenge that on the grounds that I believe more people follow the rules in the PHB than follow JC's tweets.
Kane0
2017-12-12, 05:37 PM
I don't think he meant they are both ignored/ignorable to the same extent, merely that none of it is as 'set in stone' as some would have us believe.
What Kane0 said
Then you're saying anything in the PHB can be overruled by the DM, so that text holds no more weight than JC's tweets? I'd challenge that on the grounds that I believe more people follow the rules in the PHB than follow JC's tweets.
Given that he only clarifies rules, I find that hard to believe. If you're following the book, you're doing what he says is the rules says. If you play otherwise, you're not playing it by the book.
Like I said earlier, it's your game, who gives a tiddlywink what the rule is asong as everyone is on board with it. Like me, max attunements is now your Prof bonus. Feats accrue at character levels 4,8,12,16,19, but are no longer half feats. You still get ASI's, which are no longer capped at 20 when your class level tells you. Spell list modification is a thing (Ye, War Cleric, or Yes Paladin, or Yes Hexblade you can have Steel Wind Strike).
These are all modifications to the rules. And who is telling me not to? That guy who said that Eldritch Blast can pick the tick off an elephants testicle nadger at 1200 yards, but couldn't hit the broadside of the barn, sure? K, mate.
Easy_Lee
2017-12-12, 06:14 PM
If you're following the book, you're doing what he says is the rules says. If you play otherwise, you're not playing it by the book.
That assumes that your average DM actually reads Crawford's tweets. It also assumes that, if said DM interpreted the text differently from Crawford, that said DM would notify his players and either change his ruling or create a house rule.
In my experience, most DMs read the book once or twice, then rule based on what they remember of it. That's a far cry from even knowing that Sage Advice exists, let alone following it.
And who are you to judge whether someone is playing by the book? You don't get to decide the rules, and your interpretation is no better than anyone else's. Appealing to Crawford's ruling doesn't give your word any more weight, because it doesn't force anyone else to listen to you.
o.O
doesn't matter whether they read them or not. What he does is tell you what the rule does if you ask him. If you play differently to that, then you are not playing by the rules in the PHB or MM, or DMG, whether you are aware of it or not.
Sort your reading comprehension out. The way I've been ripping JC's rule to shreds and you think I play by his rule? Haha, i know that salt water is denser than water, so I guess that must explain your saltiness too.
Beelzebubba
2017-12-12, 07:46 PM
Does that say more about this forum, or you?
More about people like you, actually. Fitting that you zeroed in on it instantly...almost as if you know.
Easy_Lee
2017-12-12, 11:45 PM
More about people like you, actually. Fitting that you zeroed in on it instantly...almost as if you know.
It's not useful to direct your ire at other people; you can't make us change. If you only see problems without then you'll never solve the problems within. Perhaps you should set your own house in order before you criticize the forum.
Battlebooze
2017-12-13, 01:15 AM
It's pretty telling about this place that it took me until here to realize you're trolling for comedy
I'm not sure I'm trolling or not about how Rakasha's magic immunity is supposed to work.
It is funny though, and it makes me giggle taking things to the extreme.
Beelzebubba
2017-12-13, 07:16 AM
It's not useful to direct your ire at other people; you can't make us change. If you only see problems without then you'll never solve the problems within.
See, it's that sort of passive aggressive dodge that I'm talking about. You're a known aggressive jerk, and your very first tactic when called on it is to try to shift the blame - 'No, *you* are the real racist!'.
It's fundamentally in bad faith, and is trying to 'win' by rhetorical tricks.
The thing is, my first post wasn't an attack as much as it was a knowing joke with a bit of dark humor, and the person I was actually talking to took it as intended - funny. You chose to take it as a broadside and reacted. Which means to me you're a bit defensive about it, and as everyone knows, the best defense is a good offense. So:
Perhaps you should set your own house in order before you criticize the forum.
Take your own advice before you point fingers at anyone else.
Easy_Lee
2017-12-13, 11:11 AM
You're a known aggressive jerk, and your very first tactic when called on it is to try to shift the blame - 'No, *you* are the real racist!'.
Recall:
It's pretty telling about this place that it took me until here to realize you're trolling for comedy
Does that say more about this forum, or you?
More about people like you, actually. Fitting that you zeroed in on it instantly...almost as if you know.
You smelt it, you dealt it.
The funny thing about the internet is, because we can't see each other, we never know the intent of the other person. That leaves us free to make assumptions. If you expect hostile behavior, you'll find it wherever you look.
Aett_Thorn
2017-12-13, 11:12 AM
Well this thread has become well and truly derailed.
Crusher
2017-12-13, 11:16 AM
See my post above. JC is the first and last word in the rules as they are written and designer intent.
And you are correct, there is no difference between temp magic weapon and permanent magic weapon. But there is a difference between a magic weapon and the effect of a spell of 6th level or lower. Which it is unaffected by, if it so wishes. Which extrapolates to hilarious interactions such as being immune to a charscter brought back to life (or undeath) as a result of 6th level spell or lower.
Like said, feel free to ignore, and make up your own houserule, rather than using a suggestion book. Unless you're playing Adventurers League, in which case, sucks to be you.
So, infect the Rakshasa with a nasty disease or poison and laugh as anything below a Heal spell bounces off uselessly.
Aett_Thorn
2017-12-13, 11:27 AM
So, infect the Rakshasa with a nasty disease or poison and laugh as anything below a Heal spell bounces off uselessly.
The Rakshasa can CHOOSE to ignore spells, so he can benefit from heals that he wants to.
Easy_Lee
2017-12-13, 12:08 PM
The Rakshasa can CHOOSE to ignore spells, so he can benefit from heals that he wants to.
Well, according to Crawford, it's more like the Rakshasa can choose to ignore spell effects - as in he pretends that the spell was never cast if he chooses to do so and the spell would affect him in any way. But that's not exactly what the text says.
I'm curious whether a Rakshasa with caster levels would be able to choose not to consume slots whenever he casts a spell. After all, the spell consuming a slot certainly "affects" him.
Dalebert
2017-12-13, 01:29 PM
Per JC, they are immune to shillelagh....
The relevant tweet. (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/13/does-a-rakshasas-limited-magic-immunity-protect-it-from-weapons-enhanced-by-shillelagh/)
Aett_Thorn
2017-12-13, 01:35 PM
Well, according to Crawford, it's more like the Rakshasa can choose to ignore spell effects - as in he pretends that the spell was never cast if he chooses to do so and the spell would affect him in any way. But that's not exactly what the text says.
I'm curious whether a Rakshasa with caster levels would be able to choose not to consume slots whenever he casts a spell. After all, the spell consuming a slot certainly "affects" him.
Maybe this is all the reason why Rakshasas aren't in effect more powerful than they are. I mean, with these types of abilities, they should probably be ruling the world. But what if they can't see the world as it really is, because they're ignoring all spell effects of 6th level or under that have ever happened. So they keep trying to kill someone but can't, because he's actually been killed by a fireball three years ago. A Rakshasa tries to take over a city, but that city was destroyed by a mad Druid a century ago who actually reclaimed the city for nature.
Submortimer
2017-12-13, 02:18 PM
I propose we capture a Raksahsha and strap it to a table, then experiment with spell "effects" to see which ones hurt it.
You know, for SCIENCE!
Battlebooze
2017-12-13, 03:21 PM
Maybe this is all the reason why Rakshasas aren't in effect more powerful than they are. I mean, with these types of abilities, they should probably be ruling the world. But what if they can't see the world as it really is, because they're ignoring all spell effects of 6th level or under that have ever happened. So they keep trying to kill someone but can't, because he's actually been killed by a fireball three years ago. A Rakshasa tries to take over a city, but that city was destroyed by a mad Druid a century ago who actually reclaimed the city for nature.
Hahaha! And if they ever succeed, they end up taking over some alternate universe and nobody else ever knows!
Demonslayer666
2017-12-13, 03:57 PM
Like the Players Handbook. Like the Monster Manual. Like the Dungeon Masters Guide.
Surely you can see the difference between those and comments made on-line.
goodpeople25
2017-12-13, 04:08 PM
I propose we capture a Raksahsha and strap it to a table, then experiment with spell "effects" to see which ones hurt it.
You know, for SCIENCE!
Can't they be affected by a spell if they so choose? That possibility might make reaching a scientific conclusion difficult. Not sure if deliberately trying to mess with our results is likely for a Raksahsha but I think we'd need at least 1 more to verify the results of the first regardless, plus I think more subjects and a control group would be more ideal anyway.
FOR SCIENCE OF COURSE!!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.