| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1DwarfslayerMay 03, 2015 2:52:36 | Does a creature having magic resistance gain advantage on saves against a monk's ki-based attacks, such as stunning strike and open-hand technique? |
| #2KentusMay 03, 2015 3:21:19 | Normally not, even though some DM might to apply it due the workings of their campaigns or because the monster's fluff. But for the standard monk in standard campaigns, magic resistance doesn't work against Ki-attacks. |
| #3lawrencehoyMay 03, 2015 5:15:50 | Kentus is correct; RAW, ki is not magic. Although, as Kentus suggests, some DMs may house rule that ki is magic, in their own settings. |
| #4NoctaemMay 03, 2015 5:44:22 |
|
| #5DwarfslayerMay 03, 2015 7:01:41 |
|
| #6NoctaemMay 03, 2015 7:11:53 |
|
| #7KentusMay 03, 2015 16:09:17 |
|
| #8lawrencehoyMay 03, 2015 18:14:56 |
|
| (Reply to #8)DungeonMasteredPodcast | I agree with Kentus on this one. There are certain ki-based skills that might be classified as magic since they literally state that you are casting something, such as Eternal Mountain Defense, which states that you spend 5 ki to cast Stoneskin on yourself. In cases like that, I suppose that the DM could classify that as magic. However, with other ki based attacks that do not specifically state you are casting something, since the descriptions do not list spell requirements like verbal, material, etc., I personally wouldn't call them magic.
In fact, if I were your DM, I personally wouldn't call any ki-based skill magic, even if it specifically states that you are casting something. |
| #10Tempest_StormwindMay 04, 2015 10:12:11 | Let's go to the rules. There's two to check:
|
| #11reddaemonMay 04, 2015 10:29:31 | I would rule that ki and all effects produced by spending a Ki point (i.e. Stunning Strike) are magic in nature. The description under "The Magic of Ki" seems to support that ruling. Not everyone will rule the same and it's best to check with your DM on their interpretation. |