Will-o’-Wisp, question about its corporeality, as well as magical immunity (vs indirect magic)

[Loreguard]

Is it true that Will-o'-Wisps are not corporeal, they are just invisible glowing physical creatures, fully susceptible to all non-magical damage?

And they are immune to all magic. Obviously, magic weapons do damage to them, and do extra damage. I feel confident to presume that a spellstrike done against them does no additional magical damage from the spell, due to their immunity unless the spell used happened to be something they were susceptible to.

I also felt like it made sense that spells boosted attacks in obvious magical ways, (adding fire damage, etc.) would be something it is immune to. So as an example the spell Envenom Companion. It would seem the poison was magical/spell related so it would be immune. But then as I consider, you could argue that runic weapon spell which replicates making the weapon as it has a run on it temporarily, could be ruled as not applicable, and then you might go further and say that weapon runes don't apply, but it seems like that is a given to not be true. (I think this is either based on having read specifically, or based on having read that in a no-magic zone, weapon fundamental runes such as striking continue to have their normal effect.)

However this made me start questioning, if they would only be immune to direct effects, and thus something like Envenom Companion would work because it is buffing the valid target of the companion to boost its attack, and then the attack is normal, save it now also has poison, but is otherwise the same attack. This seems like a very legitimate interpretation of it, but I'm not certain if that is the intended interpretation.

[NorrKnekten]

There are three parts to Immunity Rules as Written;

-When you have immunity to a specific type of damage, you ignore all damage of that type.
-If you have immunity to a specific condition or type of effect, you can't be affected by that condition or any effect of that type. You can still be targeted by an ability that includes an effect or condition you are immune to; you just don't apply that particular effect or condition.
-If you have immunity to effects with a certain trait (such as death effects, poison, or disease), you are unaffected by effects with that trait.

Underneath the strict raw of what an effect is you are correct, A spell that adds additional damage to an attack is a separate effect from the attack with these additional dice and thus these are applied to a wisp. But something like Echoing Weapon is specifically part of the spells effect and thus cannot damage it despite it not directly targeting the wisp.

Theres alot of ambigious territory here obviously but the gist of it is not new considering how its mentioned in How It's Played

[Gortle]

There is another factor here. Traits don't inherit. So even though a weapon rune is magical:
- the weapon rune will detect for magic, but not the weapon itself. Except that it is sp[ecifically mentioned under fundamental runes.
- the damage the weapon does when it strikes is not magical
- the strike isn't a magical effect or a spell effect even if it is benefiting from one.

A spellstrike is magical and arcane overwritting that 3rd point, but it is not a spell.

The detail of the Will'o'Wisp Magical Immunity says it is immune to spells so spellstrike itself works just fine. However spellstrike calls out that it is two parts a strike and also a spell. So the way I rule it is the strike can suceed but the spell effect fizzles unless it is one of those one specifically listed by the Will'o'Wisp.

The detail of the Will'o'Wisp Magical Immunity disagrees with the line Immunities: Magic in the Will'o'Wisp stat block. I tend to view this as less specific and read the detail as precise. Some other GMs may differ.

[Squiggit]

Gortle wrote:

- the weapon rune will detect for magic, but not the weapon itself.

This isn't correct. Magic Weapons (per GM Core) have the magical trait.

Quote:

- the damage the weapon does when it strikes is not magical

- the strike isn't a magical effect or a spell effect even if it is benefiting from one.

This isn't entirely correct either. A Strike with a magical weapon isn't a magical ability, but the rules on damage types specifically highlight that a magical mace would bypass an effect like "double resistance vs non-magical"

None of this matters for Wisps though, because their immunity specifically confers immunity to spells.

[Gortle]

Squiggit wrote:

Gortle wrote:

- the weapon rune will detect for magic, but not the weapon itself.

This isn't correct. Magic Weapons (per GM Core) have the magical trait.

Yrp sorry I've made that point myself before

[NorrKnekten]

Gortle wrote:

The detail of the Will'o'Wisp Magical Immunity disagrees with the line Immunities: Magic in the Will'o'Wisp stat block. I tend to view this as less specific and read the detail as precise. Some other GMs may differ.

I believe the guidelines is that whenever Immunity mentions something that isn't a Damagetype,Trait or Condition/Effect, or in other words does not mention a named mechanical element. Then you are supposed to look at its abilities instead of just assuming total coverage. Which is very confusing because thats quite litterarary opposite to any bonuses against "saves vs magic"

So magic is not a type of effect nor is it a trait, But Magical is a trait and Spells are a type of effect.

Granted I would've preffered a (See below) like you used to see with golems and their immunity:magic but my guess is that the editors did not see it neccesary since the Magic Immunity ability and written immunities aren't that separated.

[Gortle]

There are no such guidelines

[NorrKnekten]

Gortle wrote:

There are no such guidelines

That is what I remember being said in regards to the intention behind Immunity:magic in a one of the many "Ask a developer" things that has come and gone. With the mention that future instances would be written as "magic (see below)" as seen in golems/alumns. So yeah in that aspect Guidelines is the wrong word even if thats the intention behind it.

Not to mention that is what "How its played" says aswell.

Will-o'-Wisp Magic Immunity (Pathfinder 2e Rule Reminder #123) wrote:

When you see a statblock like this that has a wide reaching immunity, always make sure to read the entire statblock. If we take a look at that statblock for the will o wisp and go down a bit. We see that it clarifies exactly what is meant by that magic immunity

[Errenor]

Also, they are fully corporeal, physical creatures. There's no doubt in this at least.

[Ascalaphus]

The way the statblock is formatted,

Quote:

Magic Immunity A will-o’-wisp is immune to all spells except force barrage, quandary, and revealing light.

I think the intended way of reading it is: a wisp has an ability called Magic Immunity and what that ability does is make it immune all spells except those mentioned. That's all it does. It doesn't make them immune to other kinds of magic such as weapons with runes on them. (It's already a pretty dangerous monster.)

[Conscious Meat]

...and immunity to kineticist impulses, since anything that restricts spellcasting or protects against spells also works against impulses.

Things get fuzzier if you consider other spells like magical illusions and barriers (would it be 'immune' to being blocked by a "Wall of Force"?) etc. Not a fan of their magic immunity.

...or their mobility. No ground speed -> no 5' step, and they need to Fly to avoid falling to the ground, so if you want one to not spend all of battle on the floor and to avoid Reactive Strike, it leads to a monotonous Attack -> Go Dark -> Fly rotation.

[NorrKnekten]

Conscious Meat wrote:

Things get fuzzier if you consider other spells like magical illusions and barriers (would it be 'immune' to being blocked by a "Wall of Force"?) etc. Not a fan of their magic immunity.

...or their mobility. No ground speed -> no 5' step, and they need to Fly to avoid falling to the ground, so if you want one to not spend all of battle on the floor and to avoid Reactive Strike, it leads to a monotonous Attack -> Go Dark -> Fly rotation.

I don't think barriers and walls applies to immunity RAW. Depends on what you consider "Applying its effects" to mean. Wall spells have as their effect to create physical or magical obstacles so even any of the wall spells effects isn't applied to the wisp the obstacle is still there.

Similarly it can just stay on the ground without penalty so it needing to use a fly really only applies if its trying to stay out of reach from melee martials while using hit and run tactics. So thats not even the worst part about them, It's the fact that they are magic immune while also having Extreme AC and the means to remain invisible while using hostile actions. The party really need to have considered how to fight invisible targets to make this satisfying as the martials need both a cointoss and probably a 13-14 on the roll to hit.

[Ascalaphus]

I'm surprised they didn't remaster these critters more thoroughly like they did with golems.

[Loreguard]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I'm surprised they didn't remaster these critters more thoroughly like they did with golems.

Thanks, both of you. I had neither thought about the Fly speed potential problem, nor the option of 'landing' between movements to avoid the need to fly each turn.

It is strange mechanics for the concept or understanding of what they were supposed to be. It had seemed they were more of spirits bound to air and light in the past, so that they weren't really corporeal, nor would they be standing on the ground.

It is a little tempting to create a 'Floating' trait for monsters, and basically have it say while it is able to act, it floats in place. If it ever becomes unable to act, it is subject to falling, but does so as if the spell Gentle Landing (Feather Fall) were applied to it. This would make it easier to consider the creature floating as anticipated. IT would however make it easier for it to fly over a creature and attack it from above with less risk of falling. Hm.....

I suppose it is supposed to be an Aberrant Air creature... so I suppose we are supposed to consider the Air it has been bade of to be its corporeal body, and that that are becomes solid of sorts.

But for instance, if invisible, but corporeal, if it is flying above a pond, or bog water, it would be limited in actions per the fly spell above, or it would have to land in the water and make itself functionally visible to its opponents by displacing water. I'm not sure I accounted for all that all the time in the recent combats we had with them. I'll have to think through how I'm going to handle it going forward.

[Errenor]

Loreguard wrote:

It is strange mechanics for the concept or understanding of what they were supposed to be. It had seemed they were more of spirits bound to air and light in the past, so that they weren't really corporeal, nor would they be standing on the ground.

...
I suppose it is supposed to be an Aberrant Air creature... so I suppose we are supposed to consider the Air it has been bade of to be its corporeal body, and that that are becomes solid of sorts.

You continue to repeat that which makes me question whether you've actually read the description of the monster. Have you?

Don't know which past you are talking about either, this is from pf1:
"Their actual bodies are barely visible globes of translucent spongy material 1 foot across and weighing 3 pounds, capable of emitting light from every surface."
Definitely corporeal.
This is from pf2:
"Beneath its glow, a will-o'-wisp's body is a spongy ball approximately 1 foot in diameter and weighing less than 5 pounds."
Still completely corporeal.
Not even talking about the absence of any 'incorporeal' traits or properties.
They have never been made of air in Pathfinder.

BTW air is corporeal by default in mechanics of PF2. I found only one air elemental that is incorporeal (and it's very weird and cool: someone transformed a physical phenomena into a fantasy creature), all others are 'corporeal' even if made completely from air.
[For example, Air Wisp is an air elemental and it's corporeal]

[Captain Morgan]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I'm surprised they didn't remaster these critters more thoroughly like they did with golems.

Me too! Setting aside the overlap with D&D IP, they are bad for the kineticicist.

[Conscious Meat]

They're fully corporeal and living, yup.

They are indeed described as 1' diameter, but that strikes me as a bit small for something that is listed as Small rather than Tiny. *shrug* That particular distinction doesn't seem to be specifically described, though.

[Castilliano]

Yeah, for decades I'd thought of them as tiny until told otherwise, like smaller than a housecat, and they're tiny. *shrug*

[Megistone]

Relevant in our latest session in AV, when fighting

Little spoiler:

the flickerwisp on the pier.

The group has a kineticist and a magus, and they didn't figure out the (almost) blanket magic immunity despite trying different magical approaches and damage types to no avail, and the only Strike that landed dealing damage instead.
Eventually, the kineticist grappled the thing, and I described it as holding air that was somehow 'thicker' than normal.

Going back to the magic immunity thing, at one point the Magus tried a Thunderous Strike, hitting. I ruled that the included Strike did damage despite being part of a spell, without any additional effects of course.

[Kelseus]

While maybe not RAW, I would allow an Air kineticist to be able to target the WoW with their Extract Elements action. It is a spell (as all impulses are) but the clear intent of Extract Elements is to allow a kineticist to target a creature that would otherwise be immune to their impulses. The assumption is that they are immune to the elemental damage of the impulse and not impulses in genera, but I would allow it as RAI.

[NorrKnekten]

Kelseus wrote:

While maybe not RAW, I would allow an Air kineticist to be able to target the WoW with their Extract Elements action. It is a spell (as all impulses are) but the clear intent of Extract Elements is to allow a kineticist to target a creature that would otherwise be immune to their impulses. The assumption is that they are immune to the elemental damage of the impulse and not impulses in genera, but I would allow it as RAI.

From what I can tell that is neither RAW nor RAI since

Impulses wrote:

Impulses are magical, and though they aren't spells, some things that affect spells also affect impulses. Abilities that restrict you from casting spells (such as being polymorphed into a battle form) or protect against spells (such as a spell that protects against other spells or a creature's bonus to saves against spells) also apply to impulses.

and

Extract Elements wrote:

Target a creature within 30 feet that has a trait matching one of your kinetic elements or is made of one of your kinetic elements. The target takes 2d4 damage (with no damage type) and becomes susceptible to your impulses, depending on its Fortitude save against your class DC.

Success The creature takes half damage, and you add some of its elemental matter to your kinetic aura. Your impulses bypass any immunity the creature has to their elemental trait or traits, and the target takes a –1 circumstance penalty to its saves and AC against your impulses. If the target normally has a resistance that would apply to damage from one of your impulses, ignore that resistance; if it normally would be immune to that damage type, it instead has resistance equal to its level to damage from the impulse.

The RAI for Extract Elements most likely is that this allows Kineticists to ignore immunity to the elemental traits and resistances of which the Kineticist is using. Blanket spell immunity would still apply, As would immunity to any non-elemental traits. But any damage immunities or resistances wouldn't.

[Ascalaphus]

I think the spell immunities on the WoW are extremely arbitrary, perhaps based on some GM in the 1980s making an ad-hoc decision based on spells that were current back then. I mean, these days - specifying a specific rank 1, 2 and 8 spell vs a level 6 creature? That feels like it's vestigial design, not a fresh look at what this creature should really be like.

I feel like a better design could have been one of the following:

1) just the annoying invisibility stuff, but not the unusually high AC or magic immunity for no particular reason;

2) a far less directly deadly damaging creature, but more incorporeal design. It mainly just tries to lure you into the swamp so you die from natural hazards.

[Squiggit]

Wisps are just kind of garbage enemies. An Wisp played to type is supremely obnoxious, constantly going invisible or darting around, which means even if you have the 'correct' tools it's a chore to fight, and if you have the incorrect tools you just don't really get to contribute meaningfully.

The RAW is that a kineticist simply can't contribute in any significant way to a fight against a wisp, except being a body and seeking when it goes invisible, none of your features work. A number of casters will end up in a similar situation if they don't prepare certain spells.

And as pointed out in the OP, magic immunity is really strangely worded and there's some significant ambiguity over how a bunch of spells work or not. I'd go farther and say that magic immunity is kind of incompatible with a lot of the underpinings of PF2's setting and make the game worse for existing.

They're genuinely trash enemies and I don't know why they survived the remaster.

[NorrKnekten]

The only real thing to do when facing a will o wisp as a caster is to become a cheerleader for your martials, Buff spells still work just fine and arent impacted by the immunity. At most you can become a grappler but even if you point the wisp out they will still remain hidden.

There is certainly a place in the game for enemies that have strong immunities and very anti-caster/anti-martial focus. Either from +to saves against magic or phyisical resistances. But the strong stats it has makes it very hard for martials to deal with unless you start stacking buffs to attack rolls and penalties to AC. Which is another problem as your only real method of putting status penalties is trough Feats that Frighten on hit or Demoralize which is also subject to the flat check.

I feel like if it only lost one of either the invisibility, Extreme AC or Magic immunity it would be fine. Heck even if they were just nerfed.

Invis could be removed upon it using hostile actions instead of just its Feed.
AC could be reduced to a High instead of Extreme, Thats 3 less to overcome.
And its immunity to spells could just aswell be a resistance or inability to be targeted by non-aoe spells.

But we know why golems were remastered, their immunity was "to hard to understand" where as Wisps is just "Nope to all spells, Except these"

[Ascalaphus]

Wikipedia has an extensive article about the WoW. The folklore version of the WoW is mainly dangerous for luring travelers into dangerous terrain at night, and then winking out, leaving the traveler stranded.

So going by that, you'd get a creature that might be incorporeal, and can glow or go invisible at will. But it doesn't really need to have a lot of attack capability; it relies on people following it because they're in a swamp and thought it was a lantern, or that it's a ghost-light that shows where treasure might be buried.

It's more like a shrieker mushroom which isn't even treated as a creature anymore in PF2 but as a hazard.

But the creature version is actually not that clever or subtle at all; it's got a real damaging attack paired with multiple compounding defense mechanisms.