How do Bolts From the Grave and a Rakshasa’s Limited Magical Immunity interact?

We recently included an UA Revived Rogue subclass in the group and the players had to face off against a Rakshasa. The question is, Bolt From the Grave says it’s a Ranged Spell Attack, but doesn’t get cast with a spell slot.

Bolts from the Grave. At 3rd level, you have learned to unleash bolts of necrotic energy from within your revived body. Immediately after you use your Cunning Action, you can make a ranged spell attack against a creature within 30 feet of you, provided you haven’t used your Sneak Attack this turn. You are proficient with it, and you add your Dexterity modifier to its attack and damage rolls. A creature hit by this attack takes necrotic damage equal to your Sneak Attack. This uses your Sneak Attack for the turn.

While the Rakshasa has the following:

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.

Previously I had decided that the Paladin ability to detect fiends, undead etc would work to find the Rakshasa (he has an amulet to hide his aura), so I feel like Bolts from the Grave should be effective. I was just wondering what the general thoughts would be on a ruling.

Homunculus Servant using magical items

I’m playing an artificer that recently took the infusion for a Homunculus Servant. The party has an extra animated shield. I -think- the following is acceptable, but I wanted to see if I got it wrong anywhere.

  • Homunculus is considered a creature and thus has three attunement slots it can use. Furthermore being intelligent it could actually do so if directed.

  • Using magical tinkering, I could give it a small item that when tapped would speak the animated shield’s ‘activation’ word.

  • The Homunculus could, therefore, with proper instruction, actively use an Animated shield during combat?

Right? Am I missing anything? That’s all completely legal without bending any rules? Also, we’re using the flanking rules, it should qualify as a threat to be able to flank things right? It has its own attack.

How does supernatural light interact with magical darkness, and vice versa?

Let’s say a character has the exalted feat Nimbus of Light which makes him shed light:

Your radiance sheds light as a common lamp: bright light to a radius of 5 feet and shadowy illumination to 10 feet. You can extinguish this radiance at will and reactivate it again as a free action.

What would happen if he enters the area of a Darkness spell?

Normal lights (torches, candles, lanterns, and so forth) are incapable of brightening the area, as are light spells of lower level. Higher level light spells are not affected by darkness.

Since the light is supernatural (all exalted feats are supernatural) it doesn’t qualify as "normal", it could qualify as a spell, but supernatural abilities don’t have "levels", and often, as in this case, they don’t emulate the effect of a spell like most spell-like abilities do.

So, what would be the proper way to resolve this situation?

  1. Should the DM assign a virtual level to the supernatural ability by comparing it to similar spells?
  2. Since supernatural abilities can’t be dispelled and are not subject to spell resistance would it be reasonable to assume supernatural light behaves like "normal" non-magical light, and it doesn’t shine inside magical darkness?
  3. Does any supernatural light trump over all kinds of magical darkness?

Which features of a wizard’s familiar, if any, are considered magical?

The find familiar spell has a duration of instantaneous, which implies that the familiar itself is not an ongoing magical effect. However, the spell provides a number of ongoing features that are definitely supernatural:

  • The familiar disappears when it drops to 0 HP.
  • The wizard can temporarily or permanently dismiss the familiar.
  • The wizard can communicate with the familiar telepathically.
  • The wizard can observe through the familiar’s eyes and ears.
  • The familiar can deliver touch spells on behalf of the wizard.

Which of these features are considered magical? For example, would any of them show up to a detect magic spell or be suppressed by an antimagic field? In addition, is my assumption above correct that the familiar itself is not considered magical?

Are weapons and armor made of Mithral or Adamantine considered magical?

In a recent dungeon crawl, I was ambushed by some grey ooze. The ooze managed to land a couple successful hits on me, which would normally cause my armor to degrade. However, I was using a set of mithral chain mail that I had found in a previous session. I know that the statistics for mithral and adamant items are found in the DMG, which leads me to believe they are magical, but their descriptions don’t really imply that they are magical.

Is the mithral armor considered magical for the purpose of resisting effects like degrading from the ooze? I also know that adamant armor and weapons exist in our game. Would they follow the same ruling as mithral?

Can you use Wayang Spellhunter and Magical Lineage to make shocking grasp a level 0 cantrip?

One of my players is attempting to use https://aonprd.com/TraitDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Wayang%20Spellhunter https://www.aonprd.com/TraitDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Magical%20Lineage and https://www.aonprd.com/FeatDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Blissful%20Spell His goal is to make Shocking Grasp a level 0 spell/cantrip Is this interaction legal RAW?

Can a Centaur wear and benefit from magical boots, slippers and other non-horseshoes?

It seems agreed upon that Centaur player characters (from Guildmasters’ Guide to Ravnica & Mythic Odysseys of Theros) can wear, and benefit from, magical horseshoes (of speed / of a zephyr).

But what about other types of footwear : slippers of Spider Climbing, boots of speed, etc ? Could a Centaur player character benefit from those too ?

Can a magical net be repaired and keep its properties?

This is a follow-up to this question: Can a magical net be destroyed?

Let’s say you have a +1 net which you throw at a target. The target then uses one of its attacks to attack the net, touching it and dealing enough damage to break it.

After defeating the target, you take the pieces of your destroyed net and mend them back together (using the Mending cantrip). Would that give you back your +1 net, or just a plain non-magical one?

This question is in the scope of Adventurers League, where it is indeed possible to get a +X net (if the magic item is a +X weapon if any kind).

Is there any way for a character to create a magical disguise that wouldn’t be automatically defeated by a creature with Truesight?

I’m attempting to come up with a solution to the question in the title, but have been unsuccessful thus far.

Some monsters have the Truesight ability which states the following (emphasis mine):

A monster with truesight can, out to a specific range, see in normal and magical darkness, see invisible creatures and objects, automatically detect visual illusions and succeed on saving throws against them, and perceive the original form of a shapechanger or a creature that is transformed by magic. Furthermore, the monster can see into the Ethereal Plane within the same range.

This seems like it’d be nearly impossible to utilize any kind of magical disguise against this creature, however a means to thwart players’ using Truesight would be to rely on additional coverage via the Nondetection spell, which says:

For the duration, you hide a target that you touch from divination magic. The target can be a willing creature or a place or an object no larger than 10 feet in any dimension. The target can’t be targeted by any divination magic or perceived through magical scrying sensors.

and Alter Self’s Change Shape option, which says:

You transform your appearance. You decide what you look like, including your height, weight, facial features, sound of your voice, hair length, coloration, and distinguishing characteristics, if any. You can make yourself appear as a member of another race, though none of your statistics change.


As written, this spell combination would defeat players taking advantage of True Seeing spells. However, monsters do not follow the same rules as players, so I don’t think this would work if the players were to attempt to deceive a monster with the True Sight sense as the ability is not inherently divination magic (to my knowledge).

My question is twofold. Are there any rules which specifically state that the monster True Sight ability is considered a magical divination effect that could be countered by Nondetection? If not, is there another combination of spells that could be used to counter a monsters’ True Sight ability for the purposes of effectively passing off a magical disguise?