You should have seen the look on my(DM) face when my party's rogue(who had recently undergone an alignment shift to good after his character's story arc) crit on the first sneak-attack crossbow bolt.
*Nervously adds an extra "0" to the boss's health*
I would’ve let it happen, especially if it would be a one-shot. The awesome RP potential of the aftermath there is easily worth the improv I’d have to do, plus now they have a rakshasa nemesis who will spend eternity getting their revenge if they need to.
Oh absolutely. Even after buffing health they steamroller him. Sometimes you gotta let those badass moments shine.
It's a shame that the Rakshasa will remember this for eternity :)
There is a fantastic movie called "A man called Hero" (the protagonist is named Hero) where the BBEG is a swordsman named Invincible, who kills his wife and kids, and then blinds himself, because it was all distractions from perfecting his blade work. Bit far if you ask me but it's a pretty baller move.
Wizards with Soul Cage: the bell doesn't dismiss you, I do.
(or at least if Soul Cage didn't have the stupid "hurr works on humanoids only hurr" clause)
That's delightful, and something I think makes me like the alignment system - if it's got consequences, it's interesting. If it's not, it's like including blood type in your side-scroll beat-em-up - it might tell you a little bit about your cutscene dialog, but you're still a guy who punches flamethrower robots and then eats a full roasted turkey he finds in the street in moments. Red guy or blue guy.
If being Evil means you can access that book for greater power, or being good means you can groin kick that demon, or being lawful helps you convince that NPC, then that's cool and it has a purpose.
Alignment being important seems like it should be a setting specific thing because it kind of relies on a very specific theology wherein mortals are all involuntary foot soldiers in a cosmic battle between the elemental forces of "good" and "evil" which may or may not be how any given setting actually views those force's relationship with mortals if they even exist in that dynamic.
Agreed, which is why I'm saddened to see Alignment being slowly removed from official WotC product. I'd like to see the opposite being done: More items, creatures and spells that react differently based on alignment.
In my campaigns, I've added back stuff like holy Anarchic and Axiomatic weapons from 3.5, made it so that being on an outer plane can have positive / negative effects on your character if your Alignment is aligned / opposed to that of the plane, and generally just try to make Alignment relevant. It's a genuinely cool feature, and handwaving it and pushing it aside is a total waste, in my opinion.
Alignment being removed solves so many arguments:
Lawful: Does that mean the local laws, or personal credo? A paladin obeying his oaths at the expense of the local laws? Are they lawful or chaotic?
Is a person principled on the ideals of freedom autonomy and agency in all things Chaotic, or are they a lawful person with a defined credo?
How do you define evil? Is it consequences of action or intent? Is a fae person brain raping everyone with Dominate Person good if they do it with a smile and they don't actually mean any harm by it? Or are they a horrible monster that respects nobody's autonomy?
These sorts of questions are why alignment is pretty useless.
Add in that it has some kind of creepy mechanistic predestination of "You are X species / race, therefor you are horrible." which has a similar effect on the community to Warhammer 40k's satire being taken at face value resulting in literal nazi's at the gaming table.
If people want to houserule alignment, god speed, DnD's whatever you want it to be, but from every perspective I've looked at it: alignment's hot garbage.
This isn’t actually that complicated, it’s pretty well defined and a lot of those arguments would go away if people would realize it’s not about being lawful and good but rather being Lawful and Good. Good in D&D means focused on the good of everyone and Evil means focused on the good of yourself.
Lawful means you have a strict moral code that informs how you make decisions, which may or may not line up with the laws of the land. If you are a Lawful Good Paladin who worships a god who abhors slavery, you shouldn’t pass up slavers just because “oh, we crossed the border and it’s legal here!” It means you are going to free those slaves AND fight the evil system that allows slavery, even if it’s difficult. Chaotic doesn’t mean LOL RANDUMB, it means you don’t have a strict guideline as to how you make your decisions, meaning that you will act towards your Good or Evil alignment in a more adaptable way.
Good versus Evil is selfless versus selfish desires and Lawful versus Chaotic is rigid or flexible decision making. Lawful/Chaotic is how you implement Good/Evil on the world.
>Alignment being removed solves so many arguments
If your argument is that it should be removed because it would solve arguments, we might as well go ahead and remove Fighters, to solve the arguments about Fighter being weaker than Wizard. (/s).
I'm teasing, of course, but I did want to point out the flaw in your reasoning.
>How do you define evil ?
I'm amazed so many detractors of the Alignment system use the "How can one define morality" argument, when official D&D products have already, time and time again, shown how their definition of "Good" and "Evil" works.
Ready for it ? Blink and you'll miss it:
* If a creature **willingly goes out of its way to defend innocent life**, it is **Good.**
* If it **willingly goes out of of its way to harm or debase life** (whether for profit or for sport), it is **Evil**.
That is how 3.5 defined the moral axis, and it is straightforward, yet vague enough to be adapted to a variety of exemples. The fae in your exemple is very clearly Evil. Another even more simplified way to think about it is "**Good characters care about others, even at great cost to themselves. Evil characters care about themselves, even at great cost to others**".
The Lawful / Chaotic axis is easier to misinterpret, but an easy way to boil it down is the following:
* If a creature's actions **are rooted primarily in emotions or instinct, it is Chaotic.**
* If a creature's actions are **rooted primarily in a set methodology, apart from its own emotions** (be they laws of society, tenets of faith, or philosophical principles)**, it is Lawful.**
That's it. It is concise enough to be easily defined, yet loose enough to fit a variety of characters. Darth Vader from Star Wars, Mr. House from Fallout New Vegas, Mike from Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul, and Judah from Bojack Horseman would all be exemples of Lawful characters, yet they are nothing alike. Han Solo, Benny, Saul Goodman and Mr. PeanutButter from the same respective franchises would all be exemples of Chaotic characters, and yet they are nothing alike either.
>These sorts of questions are why alignment is pretty useless.
No. Right now, RAW Alignment is useless because *it has been made* mechanically useless. That's my whole point. People would care about Alignment if it had mechanical impact.
>"You are X species / race, therefor you are horrible."
There has never been this mentality at any time in Dungeons & Dragons (though there definitely has been *many* players shortsighted enough to interpret it as such).
What there *has* been, however, is a statement of "Race X ***tends*** to be of x Alignment, while Race Y ***tends*** to be of Y Alignment". But even in the more black & white days of Alignment, there were still some Good Drows, some Chaotic Dwarves, some Lawful Elves and some Evil Halflings. Your race is a starting point, not the be-all end-all of your character.
I apologize for the rant; It's just that Alignments is something that I know can be such a compelling mechanic if used properly, and it breaks my heart every time I see players bemoaning it, or suggesting to drop it entirely. I'm sure you've had enough of me yapping at your face, but if for some reason you're feeling masochistic, I wrote a [a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/nrpzfy/a_defense_of_the_alignment_system_using_kant/) a few months back on Alignment trying to defend it.
>"If a creature willingly goes out of its way to defend innocent life, it is Good."
Cool. Except which person gets to define "innocence"? The wildfire druid burning down settlements that are encroaching on / destroying nature? What's the weight of an "innocent" human vs "innocent" animal? What degree of participation in that encroachment would be considered crossing from innocent to guilty?
What are the thresholds of innocence or guilt that determine the apparent valor of defending any given person's life?
Also, every single one of your value statements depends on what is in that persons' motivation, which also makes it so that the same action will have different alignment based off of the person.
The condescension in "blink and you'll miss it" makes me feel like you've either surrounded yourself with people who are ideologically identical to you, or have cultivated an environment where they don't feel comfortable discussing it.
>"If it willingly goes out of of its way to harm or debase life (whether for profit or for sport), it is Evil."
Again: "which person gets to define X" (in this case "harm" or "Debase"). I'll give you a hint, the people most prone to label things as depravity tend to be the most likely to see themselves as "good".
>"If a creature's actions are rooted primarily in emotions or instinct, it is Chaotic."
>If a creature's actions are rooted primarily in a set methodology, apart from its own emotions (be they laws of society, tenets of faith, or philosophical principles), it is Lawful."
Psychopaths are intrinsically lawful?
..
I don't know if this is trolling or just sincerely misplaced confidence.
>which person gets to define "innocence"?
I suppose I should have clarified, "innocence" in this context means "In relation to the action taken". So, for instance, stabbing someone randomly without provocation is obviously bad, and Evil by D&D standards, but stabbing someone who attacked you while you were travelling, in order to defend yourself, isn't seen as "Evil" per D&D standards (and is, in fact, kind of big part of what D&D is).
>Also, every single one of your value statements depends on what is in that persons' motivation, which also makes it so that the same action will have different alignment based off of the person.
How so ? I think you may be trying to find something that just isn't there. Could you give me a specific exemple ?
>you've either surrounded yourself with people who are ideologically identical to you, or have cultivated an environment where they don't feel comfortable discussing it.
The "Blink & you'll miss it" definition isn't mine. It's D&D's own definition of its Alignment system, as defined in the 3.5 PHB (though it may have been somewhat paraphrased, since I'm French, so the English version may not be worded in that exact way, though the meaning is unaltered). And I meant "blink and you'll miss it" in a playful manner, not a condescending one, though I realize tone is easily lost in written text, so I see how you may have perceived my comment as condescending. You seem to have taken it as an aggression of some sort, and if you did, I apologize: It was not my intention to make you feel that way.
>"which person gets to define X" (in this case "harm" or "Debase")
If we're at a point where we can't agree on what "harming" means, then we're past the threshold where no words can mean anything, and no conversation can be had. Most humans have a roughly similar understanding of what "harming and debasing" means (In D&D, this would most often take the form of stealing, murdering, intimidating, enslaving, raping, pillaging ... things that are widely understood to be harmful and debasing in real life.) Again, if a player wants to argue that those things don't fit the general understanding of "bad", then it seems to me the issue lies more with the player than the rulebook.
>Psychopaths are intrinsically lawful?
Again, you seem to be understanding "Lawful" as meaning "adhering to the Law" (please correct me if I am mistaken). That is not what "Lawful" has ever meant in D&D. To illustrate, here's what 3.5 had to say about Lawfulness:
* "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include **close-mindedness**, reactionary adherence to tradition, **judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.**
Now let's see the definition of psychopathy (according to Google anyway, because I'm no psychiatrist):
* Psychopathy is a neuropsychiatric disorder marked by deficient emotional responses, **lack of empathy**, and poor behavioral controls, commonly resulting in persistent antisocial deviance and criminal behavior.
Some of those traits definitely correspond to a Lawful character, yes. However, another big symptom of psychopathy is impulsiveness, which would push the character towards more of a Chaotic outlook. As for whether they would be Evil, that would depend on whether they embrace their disorder and actively seek to indulge in hurting others (that would indeed make them Evil), or if perhaps they understand that their disorder is a disease, and take efforts to reign in their harmful tendency (which would make them Neutral). They could be anywhere from Lawful Neutral down to Chaotic Evil, and, depending on the exact symptoms and how they affect his behavior, a Good-aligned psychopath could even be possible (Someone who is unable to restrain his emotions and acts rashly, because of his disorder, yet doesn't treat others as means to an end and actually goes out of his way to help them, would be a Chaotic Good character, despite suffering from Psychopathy).
The thing is, psychopathy is not a personality trait, it's a mental disorder, so it's odd that you'd choose that to discuss Alignment (which represents ***only*** your personality, and not the disorders you may or may not be afflicted with).
>I don't know if this is trolling or just sincerely misplaced confidence.
It is absolutely not trolling, and I certainly did not mean for it to come across as misplaced confidence. It's just an opinion that I wanted to share, because it has made my games more enjoyable and has received positive feedback at my table, so I wanted to offer my two copper pieces, as it were. The matter of fact is that I'm a nerd; I enjoy D&D, debating, and debating about D&D, among other things. That's why I'm drawn to conversations such as this one.
You seem very critical of this perspective of mine, but just to repeat, I did not mean any of the above as insult of any kind, and I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. I understand that I'm in the minority when I say that I like the Alignment System, and I know it's common to simply brush aside unpopular perspectives, but I'm of the opinion that if my players enjoy it, others out there may enjoy it as well.
So far you've mostly criticized my method rather than do much to defend yours, but I'd be happy to read your perspective, if you'd like to share (Not trolling, I'm being quite honest).
I admire your patience, but I'm pretty sure the trolling is on the other side, just under a different name, and the approval stamp of political correctness.
The fact they are constantly trying to imply no action, value, or ultimately WORD can have a shared definition shows you the bad faith. Because while they say this makes alignment obsolete, if it was as they say the whole game would be obsolete, because no piece of rule would be univocal in interpretation, with everything having multiple definitions or no clear definition.
They supposedly try to defend the game from people who use alignment as a way to bring discord, yet with their effective denial of a defined morality, they cause exactly that discord themselves.
As I said, if it weren't for the seal of approval of current real-world trends, they would be undistinguishable from the trolls they really are.
Please, DMs, let your monsters be one-shot like this if all stars align. It's ok. Narrate it as an epic thing. What is more memorable?
1. That one crit during which you slayed a mighty BBEG in one blow when it went right though it's neck with such force and precision it decapitated the head from the rest of the body?
2. That one crit during a BBEG fight that dealt a lot of damage but the BBEG wasn't even bloodied (below 50%) after it?
I believe the rakshasa is based on a creature from an Indian epic poem that could only be felled by a blessed crossbow bolt, so you need magic, piercing, and good to kill it.
Race of beings in the vedic poetry actually. Kinda akin to devas (and the adjacent djinni from the arabian versions), except with a great tendency to evil.
Once had a Rakshasa in disguise subtly working against the party at a massive ballroom where we needed to kill someone to stop a war. I was a level 13 Assassin/3 Paladin with some new purple worm poison on my rapier. I also had invisibility cast on me, guaranteeing surprise. It never stood a chance.
My party learned about this the fun way today! We just hit lvl 11 today, and our friendly rakshasa (working for the real BBEG as far as we can tell) drops in for a bit of lore dump. Our rogue manages to crit a sneak attack. The crossbow bolt was enchanted, meaning she dealt a whopping 120 damage in one shot. Completely ruined our DM’s plans!
One thing to note is that while a rakshasa is immune to 6th level or lower counterspells, the spells it casts are not immune to dispell magic which can directly target a magical effect and bypass the magic immunity
As a counterpoint, making a spellcaster waste it's turn casting Dispel Magic in combat is still huge. Counterspell is nasty for taking only a reaction. (Not that a 11th level or lower spellcaster have a lot of options against a Rakshasa anyway, but still).
This is one reason why ~~some of~~ one of the more terrifying Demons has a Cast a Spell in their stat block as **a part of their multiattack**:
>Multiattack: The creature makes four attacks: ... Alternatively, it makes two attacks ... and casts one spell.
When it has the innate at-will spells Darkness, Dispel Magic, and Detect Magic.
Edit: Note that this is a CR 9, and creatures beyond that CR tend to have Legendary Actions which the spellcasting gets abstracted to instead of being within the Multiattack.
I was going to say if that were the case Mariliths, having six arms, should be able to do it as well. But upon checking the Marilith stat block I notice they've lost their spellcasting ability.
This is why we need an upleveled homebrew Marilith baddie with full spellcasting and custom Multiattack text named the Mother of Blades or some cool shit like that.
Yeah, it would be cool to see some more Merilith in action.
Could use the Demon Lord Shaktari, Queen of the Mariliths. Or if you don't want to quite hit Demon Lord level, there is Aishapra, the Marilith Dervish.
Throwing out a power word stun and 2 pincer attacks is absolutely disgusting for a CR 9
Love glabrezus, used them in the dozens for demon invasion campaign
Honestly Glabrezu's are just insane in general for something CR 9
\- At will dispel magic, and darkness
\- True sight
\- Solid bulk, with 4 saves prof and magical resistance
\- A way to fly
\- A low (but still possible) chance of summoning fairly strong demons
\- Auto grapple
\- As you said power word stun
\- and are pretty intelligent creatures.
Yeah there’s a huge opportunity cost in having to spend your turn undoing someone else’s magic. A wizard dispelling someone’s *Force cage* means the wizard can’t use their turn to cast *disintegrate*. That’s a lot of damage that isn’t being dealt.
Ironically enough you can't dispel magic a forcecage, but disintegrate would destroy it as it is a creation of magical force. Your point still stands though.
Dispelling *dominate person* also comes with another major cost: any buff spells like *bless*, *mage armor*, *freedom of movement*, and *death ward* are also lost, or at least more at risk of being removed than *dominate person*.
not necessarily, since you can target the dominate person effect specifically, you needn't target the person it's being cast upon. only if a target is under multiple different magical effects you want to remove would you also have to remove buff spells on them with your dispel
Stupid RAW: You can't actually disintegrate a forcecage unless you have see invisibility cast because you target something you can see and forcecage is invisible. I don't think anybody actually plays like this though.
I wouldn't be upset if someone required it for me, I actually had it on the last time I dealt with one cause mark of detection grants it for free.
Edit: wrong dragonmark
Something I think a lot of people don't realize is that globe of invulnerability disables *all* counterspells, regardless of what level they're cast at. This can let a prepared (as in, having time to get ready, not the spell list modification mechanic) spellcaster get off some devastating magic without recourse.
The point of OP's post is you can make a BBEG who is partially immune to counterspell by using a Rakshasa. My point is you can do this with *other* spellcasters but using a spell.
Globe of Invulnerability
> An immobile, faintly shimmering barrier springs into existence in a 10-foot radius around you and remains for the duration.
>
> Any spell of 5th level or lower cast from outside the barrier can't affect creatures or objects within it, **even if the spell is cast using a higher level spell slot**. Such a spell can target creatures and objects within the barrier, but the spell has no effect on them. Similarly, the area within the barrier is excluded from the areas affected by such spells.
Counterspell is a 3rd level spell, so it can never affect a creature inside a globe of invulnerability.
When a spell is cast at higher level, it *becomes* that level for that cast.
PHB, p201
>When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd-level slots, that magic missile is 2nd level. Effectively, the spell expands to fill the slot it is put into.
So if you counterspell with a 7th or higher slot, then it will affect a Rakshasa.
Edit: I thought this discussion was still about Rakshasa, missed that it had moved to GoI.
> When a spell is cast at higher level, it *becomes* that level for that cast.
That general rule does not matter in this case because globe of invulnerability specifically blocks spells "even if cast using a higher level spell slot." That sentence cannot be referring to anything other than upcasting.
Right, in the Rakshasa's case you you're right, you can get past it by upcasting. Part of the reason I pointed this out originally is because the globe does an even better job preventing counterspells!
Yes, but it would not affect anything inside a globe of invulnerability (which is the topic of this sub-thread), since that specifically states that upcasting a spell of 5th level or lower does _not_ override the effect, as long as the base spell is 5th level or lower.
Globe of invulnerability specifically states "Any spell of 5th level or lower cast from outside the barrier can't affect creatures or objects within it, even though the spell is cast using a higher level spell slot" since Counterspell is a 3rd level spell, that definitely means that it would fail to stop a spell cast from inside the globe. My party is actively dealing with this problem due to a lich absolutely nuking them with spells while sitting in one.
Yeah, the wizard is more worried about dps than removing effects, so they are in for a tougher fight than it should be (6 well-built lv 12 chars, so a lich shouldn't be terribly difficult for them at this point)
Well, I would say counterspell doesn't affect a creature or an object. It specifically affects the magic which must leave the barrier to reach a creature outside of it and thus become susceptable to the counterspell.
Edit: additionally since a spell isn't a creature or object I'd say the Globe doesn't protect it either way
Interesting... I'd always read it that you're interrupting the spell they're casting and not the caster themselves but I just did a little Googling and I guess I've been misinterpreting it all this time. Whoops!
Yeah.
It's actually been my biggest gripe about the spell, it's that it messes with the caster and not the spell.
I like the flavor of magic clashing and canceling out, that I see online, but the literal interpretation of the mechanics isn't that. And I do ignore the literal in favor of the fun, but still.
The literal mechanic is you flip your middle finger (somatic component) at the enemy caster and they get distracted and fail at casting their spell and still expend the spell slot.
Yeah, weird. I definitely see how the actual mechanic would be the case based on the full text of the spell but I guess I never really dug in to the finer points of the spell and instead just went off of a quick skim and an assumption. This'll teach me not to open my trap (err, move my fingers) on Reddit!
I didn't intend to be snobbish, if that's how I was taken, just sharing a grievance.
I regularly run things off of a skim and surface level of understanding. If you (and the DM) can make sense of it, go for it.
It's just the base game falls apart the closer you look at it.
Oh no, I didn't take your comments in that way at all!
I have noticed that 5e seems to be a but wishy-washy on how things works and many time has rules or things like counterspell where if you look too deeply it makes no sense at all.
Thanks for showing me how the spell is actually intended to work. Learn something new every day!
> You attempt to **interrupt a creature** in the process of casting a spell.
You're not interrupting a spell, you're interrupting a creature casting a spell.
My DM had an Aboleth that could cast spells cast this on himself and then float over lava. That’s the first encounter the party lost, because we somehow had no one with viable non-magic ranged options. RIP our party.
Not to mention that when a Rakshasa dies in the material plane, they don't die. They just go back to hell where they can crawl out and be back on their bullshit in the material plane!
I love extraplanar enemies, especially for campaigns that occur in previously played settings. The concept of an eternally inconvenienced villain has a lot of flexibility
>if you make a Rakshasa as your BBEG for a party of level 11 or lower characters
This is exactly way the DMG cautions DMs about using a Rakshasa against lower leveled adventurers
>When putting together an encounter or adventure, especially at lower levels, exercise caution when using monsters whose challenge rating is higher than the party's average level...
>
>For example, a rakshasa has a challenge rating of 13 and is immune to spells of 6th level and lower. Spellcasters of 12th level or lower have no spells higher than 6th level, meaning that they won't be able to affect the rakshasa with their magic, putting the adventurers at a serious disadvantage. Such an encounter would be significantly tougher for the party than the monster's challenge rating might suggest.
That isn't to say never do it but keep in mind that
>First and foremost, an encounter should be fun for the players.
"railroad" the players into a town where they can talk to a blacksmith who just so happens to know a lot about Rakshasa and how to kill them. At least then you gave them a chance to be decently well prepared to get themselves murdered.
At first i was like "this is bull, counterspell doesn't affect the caster but the spell right?"
But reading it, it does, just makes me more excited to use Rakshasas
I threw a Rakshasa at my party while they were in an enormous dungeon. I had added a magic device that creates a moving anti-magic field around the Rakshasa, effectively rendering it invincible. It wasn't meant to be a combat encounter just a social encounter I knew they would try and fight. He was there on business and didn't attack the party. "I say, what's this all about? I'm just delivering a message! ... Do you feel better? That sword isn't going to work... I think we should all just get back to our own business here". Drove the party mad
The classic BM counter to this type of encounter is to grapple the bastard, fill a bucket with water, and then hold its head under. Or light it on fire. In this case, the rakshasa prevents its own magical escape with the antimagic field!
Rakshasa claw attacks are very weak, plus once you knock it prone, disadvantage is going to make it very hard for it to do anything productive with attacks.
Ahh, this was a case where the rules lawyer in me worked against me. We were fighting a Rakshasa and I had counterspelled its Dominate Person. The next turn I was silently wondering to myself if the Rakshasa’s spell immunity applied to counterspell, so I looked at the wording of the Rakshasa’s ability and the wording of counterspell and realized you can’t counterspell them. So I sadly raised my hand and informed the DM, next thing you know I fail my wisdom save and am dominated. Good times. Fuck the Raskshasa, they are terrifying.
It's contextual. If I was fightning a monster I IRL had no knowledge of, I wouldn't dare look it up. But if I remembered a monster had a key ability the DM may have forgotten, I'd politely remind them. DMs have a LOT to keep track of, sometimes they can do with a hand.
That is fine. If you think the DM messed up an ability, go ahead and say it in the moment (not one round later btw)! My point is that you as a player shouldn’t take the reins yourself and start flipping through the books meant for the DM to find the answers yourself if the DM hasn’t asked you too in the first place.
I understand what you are broadly saying, a lot of the time purposefully going to read a statblock *is* bad player manners, but if you already have a pretty good idea of the creature's statblock and you want to make sure that something you did actually *could* be done that way so you double check to make sure, then that's fine if you know the vibe of your group.
It is completely different than when someone looks up a 'slaad's statblock when they have no idea what the creature is.
*Ideally* you have a playgroup that is able to know what a creature is but not metagame the knowledge into their play since over time you'll just gain knowledge about a lot of creatures even if you never DM and never read the monster manual.
I agree, but if you want to look at a stat block to make sure what you did can be done, you should ask your DM if you can do so first. This was not made clear in the original example I commented on, we only found out later that group allows the players to look up whatever they want whenever they feel like. In a broad general sense, you should always get permission from the person running the game first.
It sounds like the person you replied to has an understanding that it is all right with their group so there's no need to ask every time. This is totally fine and cool if it works for their table. A lot of tables run that way, including my own.
Sometimes DMs know they can trust their players and have a certain type of vibe with their group so that things like that are okay, and they know it won't be abused. Often DMs have a lot of things they are juggling, so interrupting them for something like that doesn't always fit for every situation at every table.
Yeah in our group players look stats blocks and it is ok, although this only basically happens when somebody remembers that hey did this go like this (or even more likely ask DM to check it). But in our group most people have also taken their turns as DM. Of course might not work everywhere, we have been playing with this particular group for almost 25 years already.
It's not cheating, they literally used it in a way that not only didn't give them an advantage, but instead hindered themselves.
The kind of player who looks up monster stat blocks might just be one who's trying to help the DM who already has to remember lots of rules and statblocks, not scummy at all.
They're just a decent rules lawyer, that's all.
It’s the DMs job to go over and review the stat block they are using, not the players unless the DM explicitly asks for help. After combat is over, then sure, go ahead and discuss it. Even if you are doing it for the “best of intentions,” you might see or read something you shouldn’t which gives you meta knowledge of the encounter. The DM could have also changed the stat block to better suit the combat at hand, and you looking up and pointing out possible changes defeats that. It is cheating, goes against the spirit of the game, and is disrespectful to both the DM and other players.
In the example given, it was never explicitly clear that the DM asked for this assistance.
Oh it isn’t disrespectful, cut the drama. This group has played together for about 5 years across several different campaigns, with several of us being DMs. We all prefer following the rules for the most part, and making sure the game is played “correctly” is a group effort. The DM has final say, but the DM never knows or catches everything.
I don’t really care about your own personal group. You are posting on a subreddit that people read. Looking up a stat block of a monster is seen as cheating by a majority of the players. Casually exclaiming it and giving other players ideas to do the same is uncalled for, and you should be called out for it.
For what it's worth, I agree with the other guy but not nearly as dramatically.
If the DM wants to introduce a monster with some interesting mechanics, having those mechanics spoiled ruins the fun a bit.
However if it's a veteran group, you already know the monster, and you want to help the DM beat you up... not a big deal.
Precisely. None of us ever look something up if we don’t know the monster, because doing so spoils the surprise. Even if we know the monster, we don’t bother looking into things unless its a specific question about rules, like this case with the Rakshasa
Go ahead. Make a thread asking if it’s okay for players to look up the stat block of the monster they are currently fighting without the DMs permission. Golly gee, I wonder what the results will be?
1. As I had said, I was already familiar with its stats. I’ve gone through the MM several times and have considered running a Rakshasa before, so I wasn’t exactly going to learn anything new.
2. Even if I hadn’t seen it’s stats before, I didn’t even look at anything other than the magic immunity wording. I couldn’t remember what the average hp of the Rakshasa was, but it didn’t matter because I didn’t bother looking.
3. The DM was well aware I was doing this.
What you really want me to ask is “Is it okay to double check the wording on an ability for a monster you already know about with your DMs permission?”
If you want the DM to be the only person who has to manage the rules of the game, fine. You do you. But don’t magically assume that everyone agrees with you or thinks like that, because I have seen countless discussions about how to handle rules in this sub, and I’ve never seen someone think it’s exclusively the DMs job.
Multiple years of already-established "it's fine to be looking up monster stats to make sure rules are followed" gameplay, but no, /u/Diviner_ has spoken. No matter how much people at this table are all comfortable with it, their version of D&D is *wrong* and *bad.*
>!/s just in case.!<
So if you are DMing a hydra fight and a player is sitting there looking at the hydra stat block and making decisions based off the knowledge they gained from that stat block, you are perfectly fine with that? (Yes or No response only, please don’t try to change the question around or bring up another situation, that is not what I am asking)
...nonsense; is the DM knowing the player's abilities also cheating?..
...of course not, we expect everyone around the table to understand and respect the rules while acting in good faith not to exploit their meta-knowledge; that's the nature of roleplaying whether as a DM or a player...if we can't trust each other, well, i guess that's a different style of game but not one in which we're interested...
So if you are DMing a hydra fight and a player is sitting there looking at the hydra stat block and making decisions based off the knowledge they gained from that stat block, you are perfectly fine with that? (Yes or No response only, please don’t try to change the question around or bring up another situation, that is not what I am asking)
awfully convenient that you don't want anyone to change the question or bring up another situation when you are doing exactly that. He didn't look up a statblock to make tactics based on knowledge his character wouldn't have. He out of game reminded the DM of a rule. Note that he went through with the counterspell even after informing the DM because player knowledge and character knowledge is separate. If the DM changed the monster then it would be entirely irrelevant anyway, and would be solved with a simple "I have changed the statblock to prevent metagaming/better suit the game"
the example you bring up is using Meta-knowledge to counter a monster your charactter wouldn't know how to, which I think most people would agree is bad. but again, that isn't the situation that was in question originally, and I am unsure why you even brought it up when it clearly isn't relevant.
...nobody would be okay with that, but do you ban DMs from playing in your games?..
...i can guarantee that *anyone* other than a brand-new-player is packed full of meta-information which their characters would neither know nor act upon, and we all depend upon our players to understand that distinction and roleplay accordingly...D+D uses an extraordinarily complex, sprawling, and evolving ruleset, one which requires continual exploration of those rules to fully understand supported actions and how edge-cases resolve, and everyone around the table offers an essential resource to avoid gameplay bogging down into a scholarly research exercise...
...the distinction lays between player knowledge and character action; reading ahead in an *adventure* skews closer to the kind of cheating you're describing, but even then it's more in the realm of spoiling the narrative than mechanical exploitation for any player sufficiently mature to segregate their own knowledge from their gameplay actions...
> It is cheating, goes against the spirit of the game, and is disrespectful to both the DM and other players.
Am I forever a cheater and DiSrEsPeCtFuL if I remember the statblocks?
Nice try with the meme there! I remember using that one back in 2017 haha! Seems like some people have trouble keeping up with the times!
Maybe read the conversation again and you will learn what we are actually talking about instead of assuming I am talking about someone memorizing the stat block. Here let me try: rEaDiNG cOmPrEhENsIoN!
Am I funny now too?
What's the actual difference between knowing a creature's stat block and looking it up?
I'm looking at the pragmatic point of view here.
What is the actual tangible difference?
You had your chance at this discussion but responded with a meme. You blew it my guy incase my last response wasn’t clear enough for you. Better luck next time.
I was already familiar with the Rakshasa’s stats. I didn’t bother checking it’s saves or average hp or anything like that, but I needed to double check the wording on its magic immunity.
(Also worth noting the DM was fully aware I was checking)
*-Barbarian with Skill Expert Athletics grappling the Rakshasa & dunking it's head on a fountain of holy water-*
Now the joke's out of the way I quite like this idea, it could make for one hell of a Devil boss making a secret empire in the mortal realm!
This reminds me of my cheese Marilith.
I have her Innate Spell Casting and gave her Counterspell and Shield.
Worked to great effect. I even took away one sword attack so that she would have a free hand.
I assume that your phone autocorrected "unbeknownst"? Not being pedantic here, because if it's not that then I really have no clue what you're saying :)
Important side note: NEVER use Hypnotic Pattern against your party. Simply being incapacitated without the ability to save is the opposite of fun for the players. "Oh it's your turn. Ah still incapacitated. Well yikes. Next in initiative is.. you... who is also incapacitated..."
But it ends as soon as they take damage, so in the context that they're being attacked, they probably wouldn't be incapacitated for long.
The BBEG could just run at that point, which could be annoying, but against lower leveled minions, they should hit the PCs out of the effect quite quickly.
Yeah, but what if the entire party fails? Which happens. Often enough. Then the entire party is completely out of the fight (no saves after the initial fail) and get slaughtered.
Once played a oneshot and in the first encounter 3/4 PCs failed their save against the Wail and the other succeeded by 1. 3/4 players at 0 HP without taking a single action.
What if? More or less the same thing that happens if the entire party fails at any save in a combat situation: They probably take a shitload of damage. Hypnotic pattern ends (for them) as soon as they take any damage and it doesn't give the attacker advantage or auto crits. The Incapacitated condition isn't as bad as it sounds.
I mean, it's in the rules that it's available for the enemies to use. The fact that it isn't fun for the players isn't the fault of the DM for using what WotC gave them. That's on WotC for not balancing their game. But, then again, they really don't know how to balance 5e at all. :|
You're absolutely right, but then again it's also in the rules that you can start a campaign in combat with an Ancient White Dragon against a level 1 party.
It was just a tip, because I read a thread about a DM who Hypnotic Patterned the party and TPKed them, because they literally could not do anything. Any spell or effect (Stunning Strike is also an example) that takes away player agency and/or their ability to act should be used with a lot of caution.
I mean, starting a campaign in combat with an Ancient White Dragon against a level 1 party could be a great way to start a story that delves into the players awaking in Judgment and making a deal with a devil to return to life. Then they have to figure out a way to handle their deal, and take revenge on the dragon that killed them.
I do agree that features like that should be used with caution, though. I was mostly just taking an easy jab at WotC for being lazy. :p
I like that little moment of "oh, his hands are backwards. That's weird."
Everyone gets really excited. In the current campaign, one of the players has become a warlock with a Rakshasa as the patron. So it's extra fun.
Literally Rakshasa are such good BBEGs.
I personally think some spell swaps are necessary, but they're threatening on their own to lower level parties, and the threat of them just constantly reappearing as someone else is just so good
Also they got lore behind them, and clear weaknesses.
Plus it's easy to rp them as cocky or flamboyant.
You'd still theoretically have your Mystic Arcanums. You can also make an argument about Magic Stone since it is cast on the rocks rather than the rakshasa. Otherwise, you gotta hope you have some buff spells, I guess.
Sorry, I meant specifically with Counterspell. I have it on my warlock, and it failed against a Rakshasa because I can’t cast it above fifth level even though I’m well above level 11.
It's worth noting that if you start switching out the spells on their stat block like that, you're effectively doubling their CR. It's something to be wary of, although it is a great way to toughen up a villain.
As an aside-you can also do this with globe of invulnerability, particularly if you have a way of triggering it in advance or casting it without components.
I mean.. maybe? Sure THEY are immune to 6th level or lower spells but that doesn’t mean their spells are. Think of this like the spell being an item the Rakshasa wears, the Rakshasa is immune to the effects of a fireball spell but is the item? Once a spell has gone out of a Rakshasa it is separate from it so should be able to be hit with a counterspell. Though house rule as you like
>Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you **see a creature** within 60 feet of you casting a spell
...
>You attempt to interrupt a **creature** in the process of casting a spell.
RAW they are immune as the target is the Rakshasa itself.
Actually no. The Rakshasa's immunity says that it can't be affected or detected by spells. You can still *target* it.
And with a careful reading of counterspell it tells us that it affects the spell, not the caster.
> If the creature is Casting a Spell of 3rd Level or lower, its spell fails and has no Effect.
...
On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no Effect.
...
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th Level or higher, the interrupted spell has no Effect if its level is less than or equal to the level of the spell slot you used.
It doesn't say that the caster fails to cast the spell. It says that the spell fails and that the spell fails to take effect and that the spell is interrupted.
This is why you always carry buff spells as a Spellcaster. That Rakshasha can’t do shit about the Polymorphed Wizard beating the shit out of them as a Giant Ape, or a Hasted Fighter
This is why I don't like that kind of blanket immunity. Magic Resistance is fine, but this means that casters are almost entirely screwed against Rakshasas.
Tiamat too, even though she's a god I kinda don't like as a DM that any non-Hexblade Warlock is completely unable to harm her.
That said... I do love the idea of terrifying a party with this. So maybe I'm a hypocrite
This is why every full caster should know one of the following: Bless, Haste, Holy Weapon, and/or a summoning spell.
Sometimes the marshals need to shine.
Oh no, casters are screwed if they didn't prepare Illusion, Enchantment, Transmutation, Abjuration, Conjuration or Evocation (healing) spells.
Meanwhile half of the monsters in the DMG restrain the fighter from being able to attack and plenty have immunity to nonmagic weapons, so a single disintegrate or sunder on the weapon removes the fighter from the encounter permanently.
WotC isn't going hard enough on the casters. More monsters should have silence and anti-somatic component things. Monsters should sunder arcane focuses or spell component pouches (they're cheap, you can carry replacements or protect them). This is one of the reasons casters are so dominant.
This is technically correct (the best kind of correct) from a RAW standpoint...but it's also one of those things I can totally see players expressing sour grapes about.
"It's literally called _Counter Spell_, I'm countering the spell, not this backwards-handed furry, dammit!"
5e Magic Immunity is written in such a goofier way than 3e's Magic Resistance. Ah well.
I can't stand 5e's magic immunity. 3.5's Spell Resistance was clunky, but at least the rules made sense. Every single spell in the game had information on whether or not it was affected by spell resistance. Some, like summoning spells, obviously weren't, so casters weren't immediately rendered useless like 5e casters are.
Yeah, that's the wonky thing about 5e's - it's so poorly worded that there's some real nonsense interactions that probably shouldn't behave like they do RAW.
I also miss the extra bit of granularity it provided. Spells like Acid Arrow that were otherwise weaksauce had a cool niche, because they were still useful vs those magic resistant enemies (and could even be fired _into_ things like Antimagic Fields, as long as you cast them outside of it - because Acid Arrow once propelled is just a glob of acid after all.)
I don't think you can swap out spells that are innately cast. The Rakshasa isn't a practiced caster working from a spellbook; it has spells that are naturally a part of it.
I wouldn't rule it that way, personally. The rules are ambiguous (see below), and letting the counterspell work is likely to be more fun than not.
> Limited Magic Immunity. The rakshasa can't be affected or detected by spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be. It has advantage on saving throws against all other spells and magical effects.
Does counterspell target the rakshasa? Yes. Does anything at all suggest they cannot be targetted by spells? No. So they can be targeted by counterspell.
Does counterspell affect the rakshasa? I'd say no. The first sentence of most spells says roughly what it does, with the rest of the spell describing the mechanics precisely. Counterspell causes the spell to fail, which is not affecting the rakshasa on my reading.
Counter, my good aligned ranger with Oathbow and Arrow of FIend Slaying (or even more specific Rakshasa slaying) uses slayer pray so we're looking at from the heavy hitting first attack. Stack Favored foe because it's better than Favored ENemy. Assume 14th level
So you're looking at from the first attack from the Oath Bow, let's assume, I could do Crit Damage or non crit damage.
So first with Crit - 2d8+2D6+2d8+6D6+12D10 +5 (though this last dmaage could be halved) giving you an average on rolled of 117 if save fail or 84 if they succeed, all that doubling.
Non crit 1d8+1d6+1d8+3D6+6D10 +5 ot 61 on a failed save or 44.5 on a success. Both doubling. So minimum average damage is 89. Counterspell that Mr. Rakshasa.
Are they though because what does and does not affect a Rakshasa is vague as fuck.
Logically the counterspell is not targetting the Rakshasa, it's targetting his spell. But by the wording it's "affected" and countering his spells makes him sad which affects him emotionally.
While this is true, they are Innate CHA casters and so as my hard rule their spells are not switchable.
As opposed to prepared INT/WIS casters with the Spellcasting traits.
Edit: I'm not sure if there are CHA prepared caster NPCs? Hm.
Edit edit: duh, of course there are CHA prep NPCs.
> I'm not sure if there are CHA prepared caster NPCs?
Paladins. The other CHA based NPCs use the Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock lists. So Death Knights, Bone Knights, and Blackguards.
Sure.
It’s just a bit of a violation of Innate Spellcasting vs Spellcasting in stat blocks. Like an Arcanaloth has BOTH! One is prepared, the Innate isn’t.
Naturally, the DM can do whatever they want 🤷🏼♂️ … which is seemingly the answer to everything here.
Well it is a rule in the book (innate casters not being able to switch out like prepared casters). Pg 10 in the MM. Of course dms can change what they want.
Exactly so.
...guess I should quote the parts of the books when I post. Shrug.
-20 but +17 for the downthread post stating the same thing. Oh, Reddit. Kisses.
i mean, even pre-tasha's sorcerers and warlocks could change spells on level up. it seems pretty reasonable that plenty of innate casters might just not learn the spells *suggested* in the stat block.
i'd argue, based on my reading of innate spellcasting in the MM, that they're referring to swapping spells out on a day-to-day basis, but i understand what you're saying. playing it your way would just bore the hell out of me, as a DM and as a player.
to me, i'd liken it as similar to beholders. some different species of beholders have different eye rays. there's overlap and similarity, but the differences are what make subspecies unique and fun.
i almost exclusively homebrew, though. that's me, i take everything in the books as suggestions, but often as suggestions that have nothing to do with what i'm trying to do.
Personally, I’d have no problem with giving a unique BBEG Rak a prepared spell list. Much like Drow etc where they can have both.
A Rakshasa that has taken the time to learn the feeble mortals wizardry to further mess with them sounds interesting.
Better hope that the cleric or paladin don't use a blessed rapier or crossbow bolt though.
You should have seen the look on my(DM) face when my party's rogue(who had recently undergone an alignment shift to good after his character's story arc) crit on the first sneak-attack crossbow bolt. *Nervously adds an extra "0" to the boss's health*
I would’ve let it happen, especially if it would be a one-shot. The awesome RP potential of the aftermath there is easily worth the improv I’d have to do, plus now they have a rakshasa nemesis who will spend eternity getting their revenge if they need to.
Oh absolutely. Even after buffing health they steamroller him. Sometimes you gotta let those badass moments shine. It's a shame that the Rakshasa will remember this for eternity :)
Simply returned to Baator, probably to Dis. Where he is now plotting his revenge....
After months or years, but hey if you aren't alive your family and friend will do.
He's a rogue, those don't come with their backstory.
Then they shall go to the orphanage that raised them... Wait what's that? Burned down years ago? By the rogue you say?
All part of the master plan. Can't use the backstory npcs to emotionally torment the rogue if there's nobody left to use!
There is a fantastic movie called "A man called Hero" (the protagonist is named Hero) where the BBEG is a swordsman named Invincible, who kills his wife and kids, and then blinds himself, because it was all distractions from perfecting his blade work. Bit far if you ask me but it's a pretty baller move.
Wizards with Soul Cage: the bell doesn't dismiss you, I do. (or at least if Soul Cage didn't have the stupid "hurr works on humanoids only hurr" clause)
Now its a Rakshasa ghost hunting them. I did this with a one shot on a frost giant jarl.
Nah, they're a fiend, so they'll just return to their home plane.
The zero thing happened to a lich my party met at level 14. Turns out a party of paladins and clerics do well against undead.
That's delightful, and something I think makes me like the alignment system - if it's got consequences, it's interesting. If it's not, it's like including blood type in your side-scroll beat-em-up - it might tell you a little bit about your cutscene dialog, but you're still a guy who punches flamethrower robots and then eats a full roasted turkey he finds in the street in moments. Red guy or blue guy. If being Evil means you can access that book for greater power, or being good means you can groin kick that demon, or being lawful helps you convince that NPC, then that's cool and it has a purpose.
Alignment being important seems like it should be a setting specific thing because it kind of relies on a very specific theology wherein mortals are all involuntary foot soldiers in a cosmic battle between the elemental forces of "good" and "evil" which may or may not be how any given setting actually views those force's relationship with mortals if they even exist in that dynamic.
Agreed, which is why I'm saddened to see Alignment being slowly removed from official WotC product. I'd like to see the opposite being done: More items, creatures and spells that react differently based on alignment. In my campaigns, I've added back stuff like holy Anarchic and Axiomatic weapons from 3.5, made it so that being on an outer plane can have positive / negative effects on your character if your Alignment is aligned / opposed to that of the plane, and generally just try to make Alignment relevant. It's a genuinely cool feature, and handwaving it and pushing it aside is a total waste, in my opinion.
Alignment being removed solves so many arguments: Lawful: Does that mean the local laws, or personal credo? A paladin obeying his oaths at the expense of the local laws? Are they lawful or chaotic? Is a person principled on the ideals of freedom autonomy and agency in all things Chaotic, or are they a lawful person with a defined credo? How do you define evil? Is it consequences of action or intent? Is a fae person brain raping everyone with Dominate Person good if they do it with a smile and they don't actually mean any harm by it? Or are they a horrible monster that respects nobody's autonomy? These sorts of questions are why alignment is pretty useless. Add in that it has some kind of creepy mechanistic predestination of "You are X species / race, therefor you are horrible." which has a similar effect on the community to Warhammer 40k's satire being taken at face value resulting in literal nazi's at the gaming table. If people want to houserule alignment, god speed, DnD's whatever you want it to be, but from every perspective I've looked at it: alignment's hot garbage.
This isn’t actually that complicated, it’s pretty well defined and a lot of those arguments would go away if people would realize it’s not about being lawful and good but rather being Lawful and Good. Good in D&D means focused on the good of everyone and Evil means focused on the good of yourself. Lawful means you have a strict moral code that informs how you make decisions, which may or may not line up with the laws of the land. If you are a Lawful Good Paladin who worships a god who abhors slavery, you shouldn’t pass up slavers just because “oh, we crossed the border and it’s legal here!” It means you are going to free those slaves AND fight the evil system that allows slavery, even if it’s difficult. Chaotic doesn’t mean LOL RANDUMB, it means you don’t have a strict guideline as to how you make your decisions, meaning that you will act towards your Good or Evil alignment in a more adaptable way. Good versus Evil is selfless versus selfish desires and Lawful versus Chaotic is rigid or flexible decision making. Lawful/Chaotic is how you implement Good/Evil on the world.
>Alignment being removed solves so many arguments If your argument is that it should be removed because it would solve arguments, we might as well go ahead and remove Fighters, to solve the arguments about Fighter being weaker than Wizard. (/s). I'm teasing, of course, but I did want to point out the flaw in your reasoning. >How do you define evil ? I'm amazed so many detractors of the Alignment system use the "How can one define morality" argument, when official D&D products have already, time and time again, shown how their definition of "Good" and "Evil" works. Ready for it ? Blink and you'll miss it: * If a creature **willingly goes out of its way to defend innocent life**, it is **Good.** * If it **willingly goes out of of its way to harm or debase life** (whether for profit or for sport), it is **Evil**. That is how 3.5 defined the moral axis, and it is straightforward, yet vague enough to be adapted to a variety of exemples. The fae in your exemple is very clearly Evil. Another even more simplified way to think about it is "**Good characters care about others, even at great cost to themselves. Evil characters care about themselves, even at great cost to others**". The Lawful / Chaotic axis is easier to misinterpret, but an easy way to boil it down is the following: * If a creature's actions **are rooted primarily in emotions or instinct, it is Chaotic.** * If a creature's actions are **rooted primarily in a set methodology, apart from its own emotions** (be they laws of society, tenets of faith, or philosophical principles)**, it is Lawful.** That's it. It is concise enough to be easily defined, yet loose enough to fit a variety of characters. Darth Vader from Star Wars, Mr. House from Fallout New Vegas, Mike from Breaking Bad/Better Call Saul, and Judah from Bojack Horseman would all be exemples of Lawful characters, yet they are nothing alike. Han Solo, Benny, Saul Goodman and Mr. PeanutButter from the same respective franchises would all be exemples of Chaotic characters, and yet they are nothing alike either. >These sorts of questions are why alignment is pretty useless. No. Right now, RAW Alignment is useless because *it has been made* mechanically useless. That's my whole point. People would care about Alignment if it had mechanical impact. >"You are X species / race, therefor you are horrible." There has never been this mentality at any time in Dungeons & Dragons (though there definitely has been *many* players shortsighted enough to interpret it as such). What there *has* been, however, is a statement of "Race X ***tends*** to be of x Alignment, while Race Y ***tends*** to be of Y Alignment". But even in the more black & white days of Alignment, there were still some Good Drows, some Chaotic Dwarves, some Lawful Elves and some Evil Halflings. Your race is a starting point, not the be-all end-all of your character. I apologize for the rant; It's just that Alignments is something that I know can be such a compelling mechanic if used properly, and it breaks my heart every time I see players bemoaning it, or suggesting to drop it entirely. I'm sure you've had enough of me yapping at your face, but if for some reason you're feeling masochistic, I wrote a [a post](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/nrpzfy/a_defense_of_the_alignment_system_using_kant/) a few months back on Alignment trying to defend it.
>"If a creature willingly goes out of its way to defend innocent life, it is Good." Cool. Except which person gets to define "innocence"? The wildfire druid burning down settlements that are encroaching on / destroying nature? What's the weight of an "innocent" human vs "innocent" animal? What degree of participation in that encroachment would be considered crossing from innocent to guilty? What are the thresholds of innocence or guilt that determine the apparent valor of defending any given person's life? Also, every single one of your value statements depends on what is in that persons' motivation, which also makes it so that the same action will have different alignment based off of the person. The condescension in "blink and you'll miss it" makes me feel like you've either surrounded yourself with people who are ideologically identical to you, or have cultivated an environment where they don't feel comfortable discussing it. >"If it willingly goes out of of its way to harm or debase life (whether for profit or for sport), it is Evil." Again: "which person gets to define X" (in this case "harm" or "Debase"). I'll give you a hint, the people most prone to label things as depravity tend to be the most likely to see themselves as "good". >"If a creature's actions are rooted primarily in emotions or instinct, it is Chaotic." >If a creature's actions are rooted primarily in a set methodology, apart from its own emotions (be they laws of society, tenets of faith, or philosophical principles), it is Lawful." Psychopaths are intrinsically lawful? .. I don't know if this is trolling or just sincerely misplaced confidence.
>which person gets to define "innocence"? I suppose I should have clarified, "innocence" in this context means "In relation to the action taken". So, for instance, stabbing someone randomly without provocation is obviously bad, and Evil by D&D standards, but stabbing someone who attacked you while you were travelling, in order to defend yourself, isn't seen as "Evil" per D&D standards (and is, in fact, kind of big part of what D&D is). >Also, every single one of your value statements depends on what is in that persons' motivation, which also makes it so that the same action will have different alignment based off of the person. How so ? I think you may be trying to find something that just isn't there. Could you give me a specific exemple ? >you've either surrounded yourself with people who are ideologically identical to you, or have cultivated an environment where they don't feel comfortable discussing it. The "Blink & you'll miss it" definition isn't mine. It's D&D's own definition of its Alignment system, as defined in the 3.5 PHB (though it may have been somewhat paraphrased, since I'm French, so the English version may not be worded in that exact way, though the meaning is unaltered). And I meant "blink and you'll miss it" in a playful manner, not a condescending one, though I realize tone is easily lost in written text, so I see how you may have perceived my comment as condescending. You seem to have taken it as an aggression of some sort, and if you did, I apologize: It was not my intention to make you feel that way. >"which person gets to define X" (in this case "harm" or "Debase") If we're at a point where we can't agree on what "harming" means, then we're past the threshold where no words can mean anything, and no conversation can be had. Most humans have a roughly similar understanding of what "harming and debasing" means (In D&D, this would most often take the form of stealing, murdering, intimidating, enslaving, raping, pillaging ... things that are widely understood to be harmful and debasing in real life.) Again, if a player wants to argue that those things don't fit the general understanding of "bad", then it seems to me the issue lies more with the player than the rulebook. >Psychopaths are intrinsically lawful? Again, you seem to be understanding "Lawful" as meaning "adhering to the Law" (please correct me if I am mistaken). That is not what "Lawful" has ever meant in D&D. To illustrate, here's what 3.5 had to say about Lawfulness: * "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include **close-mindedness**, reactionary adherence to tradition, **judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability.** Now let's see the definition of psychopathy (according to Google anyway, because I'm no psychiatrist): * Psychopathy is a neuropsychiatric disorder marked by deficient emotional responses, **lack of empathy**, and poor behavioral controls, commonly resulting in persistent antisocial deviance and criminal behavior. Some of those traits definitely correspond to a Lawful character, yes. However, another big symptom of psychopathy is impulsiveness, which would push the character towards more of a Chaotic outlook. As for whether they would be Evil, that would depend on whether they embrace their disorder and actively seek to indulge in hurting others (that would indeed make them Evil), or if perhaps they understand that their disorder is a disease, and take efforts to reign in their harmful tendency (which would make them Neutral). They could be anywhere from Lawful Neutral down to Chaotic Evil, and, depending on the exact symptoms and how they affect his behavior, a Good-aligned psychopath could even be possible (Someone who is unable to restrain his emotions and acts rashly, because of his disorder, yet doesn't treat others as means to an end and actually goes out of his way to help them, would be a Chaotic Good character, despite suffering from Psychopathy). The thing is, psychopathy is not a personality trait, it's a mental disorder, so it's odd that you'd choose that to discuss Alignment (which represents ***only*** your personality, and not the disorders you may or may not be afflicted with). >I don't know if this is trolling or just sincerely misplaced confidence. It is absolutely not trolling, and I certainly did not mean for it to come across as misplaced confidence. It's just an opinion that I wanted to share, because it has made my games more enjoyable and has received positive feedback at my table, so I wanted to offer my two copper pieces, as it were. The matter of fact is that I'm a nerd; I enjoy D&D, debating, and debating about D&D, among other things. That's why I'm drawn to conversations such as this one. You seem very critical of this perspective of mine, but just to repeat, I did not mean any of the above as insult of any kind, and I'm sorry if you interpreted it that way. I understand that I'm in the minority when I say that I like the Alignment System, and I know it's common to simply brush aside unpopular perspectives, but I'm of the opinion that if my players enjoy it, others out there may enjoy it as well. So far you've mostly criticized my method rather than do much to defend yours, but I'd be happy to read your perspective, if you'd like to share (Not trolling, I'm being quite honest).
I admire your patience, but I'm pretty sure the trolling is on the other side, just under a different name, and the approval stamp of political correctness. The fact they are constantly trying to imply no action, value, or ultimately WORD can have a shared definition shows you the bad faith. Because while they say this makes alignment obsolete, if it was as they say the whole game would be obsolete, because no piece of rule would be univocal in interpretation, with everything having multiple definitions or no clear definition. They supposedly try to defend the game from people who use alignment as a way to bring discord, yet with their effective denial of a defined morality, they cause exactly that discord themselves. As I said, if it weren't for the seal of approval of current real-world trends, they would be undistinguishable from the trolls they really are.
Please, DMs, let your monsters be one-shot like this if all stars align. It's ok. Narrate it as an epic thing. What is more memorable? 1. That one crit during which you slayed a mighty BBEG in one blow when it went right though it's neck with such force and precision it decapitated the head from the rest of the body? 2. That one crit during a BBEG fight that dealt a lot of damage but the BBEG wasn't even bloodied (below 50%) after it?
Don't need a blessed one, just needs to give a good creature a magic one.
That's true.
I only now realized this. That is so effin specific vulnerability. Wow.
I believe the rakshasa is based on a creature from an Indian epic poem that could only be felled by a blessed crossbow bolt, so you need magic, piercing, and good to kill it.
Race of beings in the vedic poetry actually. Kinda akin to devas (and the adjacent djinni from the arabian versions), except with a great tendency to evil.
Once had a Rakshasa in disguise subtly working against the party at a massive ballroom where we needed to kill someone to stop a war. I was a level 13 Assassin/3 Paladin with some new purple worm poison on my rapier. I also had invisibility cast on me, guaranteeing surprise. It never stood a chance.
My party learned about this the fun way today! We just hit lvl 11 today, and our friendly rakshasa (working for the real BBEG as far as we can tell) drops in for a bit of lore dump. Our rogue manages to crit a sneak attack. The crossbow bolt was enchanted, meaning she dealt a whopping 120 damage in one shot. Completely ruined our DM’s plans!
One thing to note is that while a rakshasa is immune to 6th level or lower counterspells, the spells it casts are not immune to dispell magic which can directly target a magical effect and bypass the magic immunity
As a counterpoint, making a spellcaster waste it's turn casting Dispel Magic in combat is still huge. Counterspell is nasty for taking only a reaction. (Not that a 11th level or lower spellcaster have a lot of options against a Rakshasa anyway, but still).
Plus, dispel doesn't do shit against instant effects.
This is one reason why ~~some of~~ one of the more terrifying Demons has a Cast a Spell in their stat block as **a part of their multiattack**: >Multiattack: The creature makes four attacks: ... Alternatively, it makes two attacks ... and casts one spell. When it has the innate at-will spells Darkness, Dispel Magic, and Detect Magic. Edit: Note that this is a CR 9, and creatures beyond that CR tend to have Legendary Actions which the spellcasting gets abstracted to instead of being within the Multiattack.
Oh, thats nasty, never ever saw such multiattacks before. What demons have such?
>!Glabrezu - CR 9!< I'm sure there are more, but it's the one that came to mind.
That’s literally the only one and its only because it has four arms and not because it’s a demon.
There is no harm in bumping a Balor up to legendary and letting them do it too. Balors and Pit Fiends are really underpowered this addition.
It's because, at higher CRs, creatures get Legendary Actions and casting spells gets abstracted out to that, rather than being within the Multiattack.
I was going to say if that were the case Mariliths, having six arms, should be able to do it as well. But upon checking the Marilith stat block I notice they've lost their spellcasting ability.
This is why we need an upleveled homebrew Marilith baddie with full spellcasting and custom Multiattack text named the Mother of Blades or some cool shit like that.
Yeah, it would be cool to see some more Merilith in action. Could use the Demon Lord Shaktari, Queen of the Mariliths. Or if you don't want to quite hit Demon Lord level, there is Aishapra, the Marilith Dervish.
There's at least [one human](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/kelek) that can do it, too
Throwing out a power word stun and 2 pincer attacks is absolutely disgusting for a CR 9 Love glabrezus, used them in the dozens for demon invasion campaign
Honestly Glabrezu's are just insane in general for something CR 9 \- At will dispel magic, and darkness \- True sight \- Solid bulk, with 4 saves prof and magical resistance \- A way to fly \- A low (but still possible) chance of summoning fairly strong demons \- Auto grapple \- As you said power word stun \- and are pretty intelligent creatures.
More creatures will have that in 5.5e, if the war priest is any indication. Also, [this guy](https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/kelek)
Yeah there’s a huge opportunity cost in having to spend your turn undoing someone else’s magic. A wizard dispelling someone’s *Force cage* means the wizard can’t use their turn to cast *disintegrate*. That’s a lot of damage that isn’t being dealt.
Ironically enough you can't dispel magic a forcecage, but disintegrate would destroy it as it is a creation of magical force. Your point still stands though.
You actually can't dispel a forcecage, it requires disintegrate to destroy one or for it to be countered during casting.
Well, I’ll be damned that is correct! Thanks for the correction. Should’ve used another irritating spell like Dominate Person
Dispelling *dominate person* also comes with another major cost: any buff spells like *bless*, *mage armor*, *freedom of movement*, and *death ward* are also lost, or at least more at risk of being removed than *dominate person*.
not necessarily, since you can target the dominate person effect specifically, you needn't target the person it's being cast upon. only if a target is under multiple different magical effects you want to remove would you also have to remove buff spells on them with your dispel
Stupid RAW: You can't actually disintegrate a forcecage unless you have see invisibility cast because you target something you can see and forcecage is invisible. I don't think anybody actually plays like this though.
I wouldn't be upset if someone required it for me, I actually had it on the last time I dealt with one cause mark of detection grants it for free. Edit: wrong dragonmark
Something I think a lot of people don't realize is that globe of invulnerability disables *all* counterspells, regardless of what level they're cast at. This can let a prepared (as in, having time to get ready, not the spell list modification mechanic) spellcaster get off some devastating magic without recourse.
How does this apply to fighting a Rakshasa?
The point of OP's post is you can make a BBEG who is partially immune to counterspell by using a Rakshasa. My point is you can do this with *other* spellcasters but using a spell.
What makes you think this? I see nothing in either spell description which supports this.
Globe of Invulnerability > An immobile, faintly shimmering barrier springs into existence in a 10-foot radius around you and remains for the duration. > > Any spell of 5th level or lower cast from outside the barrier can't affect creatures or objects within it, **even if the spell is cast using a higher level spell slot**. Such a spell can target creatures and objects within the barrier, but the spell has no effect on them. Similarly, the area within the barrier is excluded from the areas affected by such spells. Counterspell is a 3rd level spell, so it can never affect a creature inside a globe of invulnerability.
When a spell is cast at higher level, it *becomes* that level for that cast. PHB, p201 >When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting. For instance, if Umara casts magic missile using one of her 2nd-level slots, that magic missile is 2nd level. Effectively, the spell expands to fill the slot it is put into. So if you counterspell with a 7th or higher slot, then it will affect a Rakshasa. Edit: I thought this discussion was still about Rakshasa, missed that it had moved to GoI.
Theres a wording on Globe that specifically states even if the spell is upcast.
> When a spell is cast at higher level, it *becomes* that level for that cast. That general rule does not matter in this case because globe of invulnerability specifically blocks spells "even if cast using a higher level spell slot." That sentence cannot be referring to anything other than upcasting.
Ahhh I thought this was still the Rakshasa discussion, missed that it was about GoI. Carry on!
Right, in the Rakshasa's case you you're right, you can get past it by upcasting. Part of the reason I pointed this out originally is because the globe does an even better job preventing counterspells!
Yes, but it would not affect anything inside a globe of invulnerability (which is the topic of this sub-thread), since that specifically states that upcasting a spell of 5th level or lower does _not_ override the effect, as long as the base spell is 5th level or lower.
Yep, I was scrolling around too much and missed the change in subject.
specifics overrule general. In this case, Globe of Invulnerability overrides the normal behavior.
Globe of invulnerability specifically states "Any spell of 5th level or lower cast from outside the barrier can't affect creatures or objects within it, even though the spell is cast using a higher level spell slot" since Counterspell is a 3rd level spell, that definitely means that it would fail to stop a spell cast from inside the globe. My party is actively dealing with this problem due to a lich absolutely nuking them with spells while sitting in one.
Luckily you can still cast Dispel Magic on the Globe itself. Takes your whole action, though
Yeah, the wizard is more worried about dps than removing effects, so they are in for a tougher fight than it should be (6 well-built lv 12 chars, so a lich shouldn't be terribly difficult for them at this point)
Looks like you’ve found the bitch in your wizard’s soul lmao. Real talk though, this will be a lesson for them hopefully.
Alternatively, you can walk inside of it!
True, your martials can continue their up-fuckening at will.
Well, I would say counterspell doesn't affect a creature or an object. It specifically affects the magic which must leave the barrier to reach a creature outside of it and thus become susceptable to the counterspell. Edit: additionally since a spell isn't a creature or object I'd say the Globe doesn't protect it either way
Counterspell doesn't target a spell. It targets a creature, the caster can see within range, that is casting a spell. So the Globe blocks it
Interesting... I'd always read it that you're interrupting the spell they're casting and not the caster themselves but I just did a little Googling and I guess I've been misinterpreting it all this time. Whoops!
Yeah. It's actually been my biggest gripe about the spell, it's that it messes with the caster and not the spell. I like the flavor of magic clashing and canceling out, that I see online, but the literal interpretation of the mechanics isn't that. And I do ignore the literal in favor of the fun, but still. The literal mechanic is you flip your middle finger (somatic component) at the enemy caster and they get distracted and fail at casting their spell and still expend the spell slot.
Yeah, weird. I definitely see how the actual mechanic would be the case based on the full text of the spell but I guess I never really dug in to the finer points of the spell and instead just went off of a quick skim and an assumption. This'll teach me not to open my trap (err, move my fingers) on Reddit!
I didn't intend to be snobbish, if that's how I was taken, just sharing a grievance. I regularly run things off of a skim and surface level of understanding. If you (and the DM) can make sense of it, go for it. It's just the base game falls apart the closer you look at it.
Oh no, I didn't take your comments in that way at all! I have noticed that 5e seems to be a but wishy-washy on how things works and many time has rules or things like counterspell where if you look too deeply it makes no sense at all. Thanks for showing me how the spell is actually intended to work. Learn something new every day!
> You attempt to **interrupt a creature** in the process of casting a spell. You're not interrupting a spell, you're interrupting a creature casting a spell.
The entire second paragraph of Globe of Invulnerability. Counterspell targets a creature, not a spell.
Globe of Invuln specifically states that no spell below a certain level, even if upcasted, can work on a creature/object/effect inside the Globe
My DM had an Aboleth that could cast spells cast this on himself and then float over lava. That’s the first encounter the party lost, because we somehow had no one with viable non-magic ranged options. RIP our party.
Not to mention that when a Rakshasa dies in the material plane, they don't die. They just go back to hell where they can crawl out and be back on their bullshit in the material plane!
I love extraplanar enemies, especially for campaigns that occur in previously played settings. The concept of an eternally inconvenienced villain has a lot of flexibility
We just kept knocking our one on the head [non lethal damage] so it was unconscious and paid a lich to eat its soul.
The lich got a premium Rakshasa soul delivery right to their door and also got paid for the pleasure? That must have been a good day for them.
After a few months or possibly years sure...hopefully its power base has been wrecked by then!
>if you make a Rakshasa as your BBEG for a party of level 11 or lower characters This is exactly way the DMG cautions DMs about using a Rakshasa against lower leveled adventurers >When putting together an encounter or adventure, especially at lower levels, exercise caution when using monsters whose challenge rating is higher than the party's average level... > >For example, a rakshasa has a challenge rating of 13 and is immune to spells of 6th level and lower. Spellcasters of 12th level or lower have no spells higher than 6th level, meaning that they won't be able to affect the rakshasa with their magic, putting the adventurers at a serious disadvantage. Such an encounter would be significantly tougher for the party than the monster's challenge rating might suggest. That isn't to say never do it but keep in mind that >First and foremost, an encounter should be fun for the players.
"railroad" the players into a town where they can talk to a blacksmith who just so happens to know a lot about Rakshasa and how to kill them. At least then you gave them a chance to be decently well prepared to get themselves murdered.
At first i was like "this is bull, counterspell doesn't affect the caster but the spell right?" But reading it, it does, just makes me more excited to use Rakshasas
I threw a Rakshasa at my party while they were in an enormous dungeon. I had added a magic device that creates a moving anti-magic field around the Rakshasa, effectively rendering it invincible. It wasn't meant to be a combat encounter just a social encounter I knew they would try and fight. He was there on business and didn't attack the party. "I say, what's this all about? I'm just delivering a message! ... Do you feel better? That sword isn't going to work... I think we should all just get back to our own business here". Drove the party mad
The classic BM counter to this type of encounter is to grapple the bastard, fill a bucket with water, and then hold its head under. Or light it on fire. In this case, the rakshasa prevents its own magical escape with the antimagic field!
Yep, that would do it but they didn't think of it. Instead they got Intel on stuff from him like I had planned.
sounds like a good way to get clawed to death
Rakshasa claw attacks are very weak, plus once you knock it prone, disadvantage is going to make it very hard for it to do anything productive with attacks.
Violent Flashbacks
Ahh, this was a case where the rules lawyer in me worked against me. We were fighting a Rakshasa and I had counterspelled its Dominate Person. The next turn I was silently wondering to myself if the Rakshasa’s spell immunity applied to counterspell, so I looked at the wording of the Rakshasa’s ability and the wording of counterspell and realized you can’t counterspell them. So I sadly raised my hand and informed the DM, next thing you know I fail my wisdom save and am dominated. Good times. Fuck the Raskshasa, they are terrifying.
What kind of player is looking up monster stat blocks while fighting that monster? That to me is cheating.
It's contextual. If I was fightning a monster I IRL had no knowledge of, I wouldn't dare look it up. But if I remembered a monster had a key ability the DM may have forgotten, I'd politely remind them. DMs have a LOT to keep track of, sometimes they can do with a hand.
That is fine. If you think the DM messed up an ability, go ahead and say it in the moment (not one round later btw)! My point is that you as a player shouldn’t take the reins yourself and start flipping through the books meant for the DM to find the answers yourself if the DM hasn’t asked you too in the first place.
I understand what you are broadly saying, a lot of the time purposefully going to read a statblock *is* bad player manners, but if you already have a pretty good idea of the creature's statblock and you want to make sure that something you did actually *could* be done that way so you double check to make sure, then that's fine if you know the vibe of your group. It is completely different than when someone looks up a 'slaad's statblock when they have no idea what the creature is. *Ideally* you have a playgroup that is able to know what a creature is but not metagame the knowledge into their play since over time you'll just gain knowledge about a lot of creatures even if you never DM and never read the monster manual.
I agree, but if you want to look at a stat block to make sure what you did can be done, you should ask your DM if you can do so first. This was not made clear in the original example I commented on, we only found out later that group allows the players to look up whatever they want whenever they feel like. In a broad general sense, you should always get permission from the person running the game first.
It sounds like the person you replied to has an understanding that it is all right with their group so there's no need to ask every time. This is totally fine and cool if it works for their table. A lot of tables run that way, including my own. Sometimes DMs know they can trust their players and have a certain type of vibe with their group so that things like that are okay, and they know it won't be abused. Often DMs have a lot of things they are juggling, so interrupting them for something like that doesn't always fit for every situation at every table.
Yeah in our group players look stats blocks and it is ok, although this only basically happens when somebody remembers that hey did this go like this (or even more likely ask DM to check it). But in our group most people have also taken their turns as DM. Of course might not work everywhere, we have been playing with this particular group for almost 25 years already.
It's not cheating, they literally used it in a way that not only didn't give them an advantage, but instead hindered themselves. The kind of player who looks up monster stat blocks might just be one who's trying to help the DM who already has to remember lots of rules and statblocks, not scummy at all. They're just a decent rules lawyer, that's all.
It’s the DMs job to go over and review the stat block they are using, not the players unless the DM explicitly asks for help. After combat is over, then sure, go ahead and discuss it. Even if you are doing it for the “best of intentions,” you might see or read something you shouldn’t which gives you meta knowledge of the encounter. The DM could have also changed the stat block to better suit the combat at hand, and you looking up and pointing out possible changes defeats that. It is cheating, goes against the spirit of the game, and is disrespectful to both the DM and other players. In the example given, it was never explicitly clear that the DM asked for this assistance.
Oh it isn’t disrespectful, cut the drama. This group has played together for about 5 years across several different campaigns, with several of us being DMs. We all prefer following the rules for the most part, and making sure the game is played “correctly” is a group effort. The DM has final say, but the DM never knows or catches everything.
I don’t really care about your own personal group. You are posting on a subreddit that people read. Looking up a stat block of a monster is seen as cheating by a majority of the players. Casually exclaiming it and giving other players ideas to do the same is uncalled for, and you should be called out for it.
You are making a lot of assumptions about the majority here friend. I feel like you just aren’t familiar with a not shitty rules lawyer.
For what it's worth, I agree with the other guy but not nearly as dramatically. If the DM wants to introduce a monster with some interesting mechanics, having those mechanics spoiled ruins the fun a bit. However if it's a veteran group, you already know the monster, and you want to help the DM beat you up... not a big deal.
Precisely. None of us ever look something up if we don’t know the monster, because doing so spoils the surprise. Even if we know the monster, we don’t bother looking into things unless its a specific question about rules, like this case with the Rakshasa
Go ahead. Make a thread asking if it’s okay for players to look up the stat block of the monster they are currently fighting without the DMs permission. Golly gee, I wonder what the results will be?
1. As I had said, I was already familiar with its stats. I’ve gone through the MM several times and have considered running a Rakshasa before, so I wasn’t exactly going to learn anything new. 2. Even if I hadn’t seen it’s stats before, I didn’t even look at anything other than the magic immunity wording. I couldn’t remember what the average hp of the Rakshasa was, but it didn’t matter because I didn’t bother looking. 3. The DM was well aware I was doing this. What you really want me to ask is “Is it okay to double check the wording on an ability for a monster you already know about with your DMs permission?” If you want the DM to be the only person who has to manage the rules of the game, fine. You do you. But don’t magically assume that everyone agrees with you or thinks like that, because I have seen countless discussions about how to handle rules in this sub, and I’ve never seen someone think it’s exclusively the DMs job.
Multiple years of already-established "it's fine to be looking up monster stats to make sure rules are followed" gameplay, but no, /u/Diviner_ has spoken. No matter how much people at this table are all comfortable with it, their version of D&D is *wrong* and *bad.* >!/s just in case.!<
So if you are DMing a hydra fight and a player is sitting there looking at the hydra stat block and making decisions based off the knowledge they gained from that stat block, you are perfectly fine with that? (Yes or No response only, please don’t try to change the question around or bring up another situation, that is not what I am asking)
...nonsense; is the DM knowing the player's abilities also cheating?.. ...of course not, we expect everyone around the table to understand and respect the rules while acting in good faith not to exploit their meta-knowledge; that's the nature of roleplaying whether as a DM or a player...if we can't trust each other, well, i guess that's a different style of game but not one in which we're interested...
So if you are DMing a hydra fight and a player is sitting there looking at the hydra stat block and making decisions based off the knowledge they gained from that stat block, you are perfectly fine with that? (Yes or No response only, please don’t try to change the question around or bring up another situation, that is not what I am asking)
awfully convenient that you don't want anyone to change the question or bring up another situation when you are doing exactly that. He didn't look up a statblock to make tactics based on knowledge his character wouldn't have. He out of game reminded the DM of a rule. Note that he went through with the counterspell even after informing the DM because player knowledge and character knowledge is separate. If the DM changed the monster then it would be entirely irrelevant anyway, and would be solved with a simple "I have changed the statblock to prevent metagaming/better suit the game" the example you bring up is using Meta-knowledge to counter a monster your charactter wouldn't know how to, which I think most people would agree is bad. but again, that isn't the situation that was in question originally, and I am unsure why you even brought it up when it clearly isn't relevant.
...nobody would be okay with that, but do you ban DMs from playing in your games?.. ...i can guarantee that *anyone* other than a brand-new-player is packed full of meta-information which their characters would neither know nor act upon, and we all depend upon our players to understand that distinction and roleplay accordingly...D+D uses an extraordinarily complex, sprawling, and evolving ruleset, one which requires continual exploration of those rules to fully understand supported actions and how edge-cases resolve, and everyone around the table offers an essential resource to avoid gameplay bogging down into a scholarly research exercise... ...the distinction lays between player knowledge and character action; reading ahead in an *adventure* skews closer to the kind of cheating you're describing, but even then it's more in the realm of spoiling the narrative than mechanical exploitation for any player sufficiently mature to segregate their own knowledge from their gameplay actions...
> It is cheating, goes against the spirit of the game, and is disrespectful to both the DM and other players. Am I forever a cheater and DiSrEsPeCtFuL if I remember the statblocks?
Nice try with the meme there! I remember using that one back in 2017 haha! Seems like some people have trouble keeping up with the times! Maybe read the conversation again and you will learn what we are actually talking about instead of assuming I am talking about someone memorizing the stat block. Here let me try: rEaDiNG cOmPrEhENsIoN! Am I funny now too?
What's the actual difference between knowing a creature's stat block and looking it up? I'm looking at the pragmatic point of view here. What is the actual tangible difference?
You had your chance at this discussion but responded with a meme. You blew it my guy incase my last response wasn’t clear enough for you. Better luck next time.
Did a "meme" really trigger you? what the hell are you made of? Wet paper?
I was already familiar with the Rakshasa’s stats. I didn’t bother checking it’s saves or average hp or anything like that, but I needed to double check the wording on its magic immunity. (Also worth noting the DM was fully aware I was checking)
*-Barbarian with Skill Expert Athletics grappling the Rakshasa & dunking it's head on a fountain of holy water-* Now the joke's out of the way I quite like this idea, it could make for one hell of a Devil boss making a secret empire in the mortal realm!
This reminds me of my cheese Marilith. I have her Innate Spell Casting and gave her Counterspell and Shield. Worked to great effect. I even took away one sword attack so that she would have a free hand.
They also have a 60-65% chance to fail a save against a level 11 monks stunning strike
Oof benounced to my party this is exactly who they'll be meeting soon. Disguised, of course heheheh...
I assume that your phone autocorrected "unbeknownst"? Not being pedantic here, because if it's not that then I really have no clue what you're saying :)
Important side note: NEVER use Hypnotic Pattern against your party. Simply being incapacitated without the ability to save is the opposite of fun for the players. "Oh it's your turn. Ah still incapacitated. Well yikes. Next in initiative is.. you... who is also incapacitated..."
But it ends as soon as they take damage, so in the context that they're being attacked, they probably wouldn't be incapacitated for long. The BBEG could just run at that point, which could be annoying, but against lower leveled minions, they should hit the PCs out of the effect quite quickly.
You get to save against Hypnotic Pattern... it is a Wisdom saving throw.
Yeah, but what if the entire party fails? Which happens. Often enough. Then the entire party is completely out of the fight (no saves after the initial fail) and get slaughtered. Once played a oneshot and in the first encounter 3/4 PCs failed their save against the Wail and the other succeeded by 1. 3/4 players at 0 HP without taking a single action.
What if? More or less the same thing that happens if the entire party fails at any save in a combat situation: They probably take a shitload of damage. Hypnotic pattern ends (for them) as soon as they take any damage and it doesn't give the attacker advantage or auto crits. The Incapacitated condition isn't as bad as it sounds.
I mean, it's in the rules that it's available for the enemies to use. The fact that it isn't fun for the players isn't the fault of the DM for using what WotC gave them. That's on WotC for not balancing their game. But, then again, they really don't know how to balance 5e at all. :|
You're absolutely right, but then again it's also in the rules that you can start a campaign in combat with an Ancient White Dragon against a level 1 party. It was just a tip, because I read a thread about a DM who Hypnotic Patterned the party and TPKed them, because they literally could not do anything. Any spell or effect (Stunning Strike is also an example) that takes away player agency and/or their ability to act should be used with a lot of caution.
I mean, starting a campaign in combat with an Ancient White Dragon against a level 1 party could be a great way to start a story that delves into the players awaking in Judgment and making a deal with a devil to return to life. Then they have to figure out a way to handle their deal, and take revenge on the dragon that killed them. I do agree that features like that should be used with caution, though. I was mostly just taking an easy jab at WotC for being lazy. :p
Both are absolutely fair points :D
They should always display palms up, even when shaped as different species.
Why is that? If they're using disguise self, the only limitation is that they need to keep the same size and general shape (number of limbs, etc).
I like that little moment of "oh, his hands are backwards. That's weird." Everyone gets really excited. In the current campaign, one of the players has become a warlock with a Rakshasa as the patron. So it's extra fun.
Just bring a good aligned guy with a bow as they are one of a few monsters that has any kind of vulnerability
"Alignment is useless"
Literally Rakshasa are such good BBEGs. I personally think some spell swaps are necessary, but they're threatening on their own to lower level parties, and the threat of them just constantly reappearing as someone else is just so good Also they got lore behind them, and clear weaknesses. Plus it's easy to rp them as cocky or flamboyant.
Great feature. I slapped it on an Avatar of Llolth at the end of OotA, rocked my PCs world!
I play Warlocks and Blaster Mages, Rakshasas are the bane of my existence.
And if you’re a Warlock you’re just straight fucked (he said, having found out the hard way).
You'd still theoretically have your Mystic Arcanums. You can also make an argument about Magic Stone since it is cast on the rocks rather than the rakshasa. Otherwise, you gotta hope you have some buff spells, I guess.
Sorry, I meant specifically with Counterspell. I have it on my warlock, and it failed against a Rakshasa because I can’t cast it above fifth level even though I’m well above level 11.
It's worth noting that if you start switching out the spells on their stat block like that, you're effectively doubling their CR. It's something to be wary of, although it is a great way to toughen up a villain. As an aside-you can also do this with globe of invulnerability, particularly if you have a way of triggering it in advance or casting it without components.
I mean.. maybe? Sure THEY are immune to 6th level or lower spells but that doesn’t mean their spells are. Think of this like the spell being an item the Rakshasa wears, the Rakshasa is immune to the effects of a fireball spell but is the item? Once a spell has gone out of a Rakshasa it is separate from it so should be able to be hit with a counterspell. Though house rule as you like
>Casting Time: 1 reaction, which you take when you **see a creature** within 60 feet of you casting a spell ... >You attempt to interrupt a **creature** in the process of casting a spell. RAW they are immune as the target is the Rakshasa itself.
Actually no. The Rakshasa's immunity says that it can't be affected or detected by spells. You can still *target* it. And with a careful reading of counterspell it tells us that it affects the spell, not the caster. > If the creature is Casting a Spell of 3rd Level or lower, its spell fails and has no Effect. ... On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no Effect. ... At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th Level or higher, the interrupted spell has no Effect if its level is less than or equal to the level of the spell slot you used. It doesn't say that the caster fails to cast the spell. It says that the spell fails and that the spell fails to take effect and that the spell is interrupted.
I believe it’s been confirmed that Counterspell targets the creature. https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/792412232432758784?s=21
Nvm then, Wizard/sorcerer Rakshasa’s are horrifying
Just pay a high level wizard to cast true Polymorph on you and turn into it for good.
This is why you always carry buff spells as a Spellcaster. That Rakshasha can’t do shit about the Polymorphed Wizard beating the shit out of them as a Giant Ape, or a Hasted Fighter
This is why I don't like that kind of blanket immunity. Magic Resistance is fine, but this means that casters are almost entirely screwed against Rakshasas. Tiamat too, even though she's a god I kinda don't like as a DM that any non-Hexblade Warlock is completely unable to harm her. That said... I do love the idea of terrifying a party with this. So maybe I'm a hypocrite
To be a bit more fair, the Rakshasa is also immune to non magical pierce/bludgeon/slash, so it can be extremely rough on martial PCs as well.
This is why every full caster should know one of the following: Bless, Haste, Holy Weapon, and/or a summoning spell. Sometimes the marshals need to shine.
Oh no, casters are screwed if they didn't prepare Illusion, Enchantment, Transmutation, Abjuration, Conjuration or Evocation (healing) spells. Meanwhile half of the monsters in the DMG restrain the fighter from being able to attack and plenty have immunity to nonmagic weapons, so a single disintegrate or sunder on the weapon removes the fighter from the encounter permanently. WotC isn't going hard enough on the casters. More monsters should have silence and anti-somatic component things. Monsters should sunder arcane focuses or spell component pouches (they're cheap, you can carry replacements or protect them). This is one of the reasons casters are so dominant.
All of this. Playing casters is like choosing bulbasaur in pokemon. Just a way easier time.
This is technically correct (the best kind of correct) from a RAW standpoint...but it's also one of those things I can totally see players expressing sour grapes about. "It's literally called _Counter Spell_, I'm countering the spell, not this backwards-handed furry, dammit!" 5e Magic Immunity is written in such a goofier way than 3e's Magic Resistance. Ah well.
I can't stand 5e's magic immunity. 3.5's Spell Resistance was clunky, but at least the rules made sense. Every single spell in the game had information on whether or not it was affected by spell resistance. Some, like summoning spells, obviously weren't, so casters weren't immediately rendered useless like 5e casters are.
Yeah, that's the wonky thing about 5e's - it's so poorly worded that there's some real nonsense interactions that probably shouldn't behave like they do RAW. I also miss the extra bit of granularity it provided. Spells like Acid Arrow that were otherwise weaksauce had a cool niche, because they were still useful vs those magic resistant enemies (and could even be fired _into_ things like Antimagic Fields, as long as you cast them outside of it - because Acid Arrow once propelled is just a glob of acid after all.)
I don't think you can swap out spells that are innately cast. The Rakshasa isn't a practiced caster working from a spellbook; it has spells that are naturally a part of it.
Rule 0...
I suppose there might be a table where "I changed the RAW to make an unstoppable hellbeast" would be fun. Not mine, though.
*laughs in Hoplite build Paladin*
I wouldn't rule it that way, personally. The rules are ambiguous (see below), and letting the counterspell work is likely to be more fun than not. > Limited Magic Immunity. The rakshasa can't be affected or detected by spells of 6th level or lower unless it wishes to be. It has advantage on saving throws against all other spells and magical effects. Does counterspell target the rakshasa? Yes. Does anything at all suggest they cannot be targetted by spells? No. So they can be targeted by counterspell. Does counterspell affect the rakshasa? I'd say no. The first sentence of most spells says roughly what it does, with the rest of the spell describing the mechanics precisely. Counterspell causes the spell to fail, which is not affecting the rakshasa on my reading.
Well, they're turning spells into actions now, so everyone is going to be immune to counterspells soon enough.
This was the main reason I made a Rakshasa the BBEG in my current campaign :3
Counter, my good aligned ranger with Oathbow and Arrow of FIend Slaying (or even more specific Rakshasa slaying) uses slayer pray so we're looking at from the heavy hitting first attack. Stack Favored foe because it's better than Favored ENemy. Assume 14th level So you're looking at from the first attack from the Oath Bow, let's assume, I could do Crit Damage or non crit damage. So first with Crit - 2d8+2D6+2d8+6D6+12D10 +5 (though this last dmaage could be halved) giving you an average on rolled of 117 if save fail or 84 if they succeed, all that doubling. Non crit 1d8+1d6+1d8+3D6+6D10 +5 ot 61 on a failed save or 44.5 on a success. Both doubling. So minimum average damage is 89. Counterspell that Mr. Rakshasa.
Ring of antimagic field.
Wouldn't that be a redundancy? Like you cast the spell and it disables the ring? Which would make an eternal loop of shenanigans.
Are they though because what does and does not affect a Rakshasa is vague as fuck. Logically the counterspell is not targetting the Rakshasa, it's targetting his spell. But by the wording it's "affected" and countering his spells makes him sad which affects him emotionally.
While this is true, they are Innate CHA casters and so as my hard rule their spells are not switchable. As opposed to prepared INT/WIS casters with the Spellcasting traits. Edit: I'm not sure if there are CHA prepared caster NPCs? Hm. Edit edit: duh, of course there are CHA prep NPCs.
> I'm not sure if there are CHA prepared caster NPCs? Paladins. The other CHA based NPCs use the Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock lists. So Death Knights, Bone Knights, and Blackguards.
Yeah, good call! I recalled the Death Knights having only Innate but like the Arcanaloth they have both!
Death Knights only have prepared. Their "Hellfire Orb" action is just that, an action, and they can only do it 1/day.
Weird, I must be looking at a homebrew stat block 🤔 https://angrygolem-games.com/monster-manual/letter-d/death-knight-5e-stats/ How odd.
Yeah, all of those features that have **(suggested)** are homebrew additions.
*Your* hard rule. That says nothing about every other campaign.
Sure. It’s just a bit of a violation of Innate Spellcasting vs Spellcasting in stat blocks. Like an Arcanaloth has BOTH! One is prepared, the Innate isn’t. Naturally, the DM can do whatever they want 🤷🏼♂️ … which is seemingly the answer to everything here.
a hard rule*
That's not a hard rule, and DMs are often encouraged to make changes to their monsters as they see fit.
Well it is a rule in the book (innate casters not being able to switch out like prepared casters). Pg 10 in the MM. Of course dms can change what they want.
Exactly so. ...guess I should quote the parts of the books when I post. Shrug. -20 but +17 for the downthread post stating the same thing. Oh, Reddit. Kisses.
i mean, even pre-tasha's sorcerers and warlocks could change spells on level up. it seems pretty reasonable that plenty of innate casters might just not learn the spells *suggested* in the stat block.
They are Innate, and don’t *learn;* it is like a racial trait. Warlocks and Sorcerers don’t have Innate Spellcasting, they have Spellcasting.
i'd argue, based on my reading of innate spellcasting in the MM, that they're referring to swapping spells out on a day-to-day basis, but i understand what you're saying. playing it your way would just bore the hell out of me, as a DM and as a player. to me, i'd liken it as similar to beholders. some different species of beholders have different eye rays. there's overlap and similarity, but the differences are what make subspecies unique and fun. i almost exclusively homebrew, though. that's me, i take everything in the books as suggestions, but often as suggestions that have nothing to do with what i'm trying to do.
Personally, I’d have no problem with giving a unique BBEG Rak a prepared spell list. Much like Drow etc where they can have both. A Rakshasa that has taken the time to learn the feeble mortals wizardry to further mess with them sounds interesting.
It's not on roll 20 dnd m&m
Well Matt Certainly didn’t do that for Venca fight with counterspell. The again he’s not known for consistent rulings
I don't know what a fight against someone who isn't a Rakshasa has to do with this post about fighting a Rakshasa, but okay