Once again, I am not claiming BOLT with 7d6 is equal to a 7th level spell.only that for the purposes of a rakshasa's immunity, dice=spell level is good first approximation for it to overcome a rakshasa's immunity.Īnd even if I agreed that figuring out what level of spell the bolt was equivalent to, I would still think it's absolutely silly to use a measure that vastly overrates the bolt. That doesn't feel right.īy using a rough dice = spell level equivalent for the purposes of immunity it opens the rakshasa to spell attacks from tough monsters which feels right, but keeps them immune to weaker monsters spell attacks which also feels right. If a CR23 empyrean can't hit a rakshasa then its basically immune to any spell attack from another monster ( I haven't combed the MM to see just how many monsters the rakshasa is immune to that it probably shouldn't be assuming PC spell rules, but I think its safe to assume if its immune to a CR 23 monsters spell attack, its immune most other monsters). Others definitely immune since a 3d6 ranged spell attack is below the immunity threshold no matter how you figure, but so is 7d6 bolt. Why do I go through the mental gymnastics? What if another creature has a 3d6 bolt ranged spell attack? If I go with some people, its a ranged spell attack, not a spell, so not immune. Comparing it loosely with spells is fine, since the Rakshasa's immunity is called out for spells. I am talking about a monsters Ranged Spell Attack for the purposes of a Rakshasa's immunity. But in ruling it overcomes magic immunity, its good to have a process over fiat to apply the ruling to other creature combos should it arise. The very scenario of Rakshasas and Empyreans fighting is outside of RAW so its moot. (typically casters highest level spell slot is 1/2 level, so another 1/2 of that is the bulk of spells available, therefore 1/4). Here's another way to look at it: CR23 Monster, spell attacks are treated as 1/4 CR so its a 5th or 6th level spell equivalent. It does boil down to DM ruling, but I think the OP wants to avoid the DM fiat ruling (because he's asked here, rather than roll with fiat) and try and come up with a systemic reasoning for a ruling. This is not an argument to try and re-cast BOLT as a 7th level spell for PCs to have access to. So, in that non-standard case of a monster fighting a monster, a CR23 monsters 7d6 bolt overcoming a Rakshasa's Magic immunity, treating it as a 7th level spell-equivalent is a valid choice. The point, as per the OP, is whether or not it overcomes a Rakshasha's Mgaic Immunity. As others have noted, this is NOT a spell, its a Ranged Spell Attack but doesn't use any spell slots and has no spell description. This is NOT for a PC, this is for an Empyrean. Let's put it this way: Whats better: Magic Missile in a 7th slot or Delayed blast fireball, finger of death, or prismatic spray? But the comparisons are invalid. I'll stick with the simple rule of thumb: 7d6 ranged spell attack means its a 7th level spell equivalent So treating BOLT like a 7th level spell is possible. the CR of the empyrean is 23.so ostensibly saving against a lightning bolt at those "levels" (cr) is going to happen a lot. Lightning Bolt does similar damage for a third level spell, 8d6 (28avg) and can affect more than one target to boot, but it also grants a save for half (14 avg on save) so perhaps if we look at a 7th level lightning bolt (12d6 - 42avg or 21avg on save). At 17th level a full caster has access to 8th level spells so one could consider this an 8th level spell.įinger of death (7th level) does 7d8+30 damage (avg 61) it is clearly more than 7d6 (24 avg) but it also grants a save for half, but is still slightly better but BOLT can have its damage type adjust, so perhaps a wash. At 17th character level, a fire bolt does 4d10 (22avg) which is on par with the 24 avg 7d6 does for BOLT. Fire Bolt is a cantrip, therefore a-will (like this empyrean ability).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |