D&D 5E Spectral weapon and similar - who is the attacker

Rya.Reisender · May 28, 2018

Some skills refer to an attacker. For example Uncanny Dodge says it applies when you can see the attacker. This makes me wonder who the attacker is in case of some spells like Spiritual Weapon. Let's say the spellcaster is unseen but the spectral weapon is right next to the rogue, can he apply Uncanny Dodge or not?

I would say no, the spectral weapon is not a creature, it can't be attacked, it can't hide, so the rogue would need to see the spellcaster instead. What is your take on this?

5ekyu · May 28, 2018

Rya.Reisender said:
Some skills refer to an attacker. For example Uncanny Dodge says it applies when you can see the attacker. This makes me wonder who the attacker is in case of some spells like Spiritual Weapon. Let's say the spellcaster is unseen but the spectral weapon is right next to the rogue, can he apply Uncanny Dodge or not?

I would say no, the spectral weapon is not a creature, it can't be attacked, it can't hide, so the rogue would need to see the spellcaster instead. What is your take on this?

i believe for uncanny dodge and many reaction type things the intent is to require you to see the attack coming, not some guy hiding behind a fence.

There may be exceptions, but as a rule unless there was an obvious intent to focus on the attacker - like say hellish Rebuke sends damage at the one who caused damage - i would say Uncanny Dodge type things require you to see the attack - even if that is just the spiritual weapon.

But i do not think its as easy as a single universal case.

Paul Farquhar · May 28, 2018

The weapon is the attacker. There is no rule that says that the attacker must be a creature, must be targetable or must be able to hide.

jaelis · May 28, 2018

The spell says the caster makes the attack. So by the book that’s who you have to see.

CM · May 28, 2018

"Rulings Over Rules" in this case. The spell effect is the attacker.

Here's another one: Does it make sense for someone with greater invisibility to get advantage on their spiritual weapon's attacks? I say no. Invisibility specifically excludes things the target isn't wearing or carrying, so the spiritual weapon is still visible.

jaelis · May 30, 2018

CM said:
"Rulings Over Rules" in this case. The spell effect is the attacker

I’ve no argument with that, here or anywhere. But I think that if there is in fact a rule, it is worth noting before deciding on a ruling.

Blue · May 30, 2018

jaelis said:
The spell says the caster makes the attack. So by the book that’s who you have to see.

I agree with this. Both when you cast, and when you use a bonus action to attack with it, the spell clearly says that "you" make an attack.

This is further pushed that it a melee spell attack. It's using your spellcasting ability, not some score for a conjured weapon, and it's attacking as a spell not as a weapon.

All of that said, at my table I'd let my players respond if they can see either. But that would be my ruling, not how the rules read.

Harzel · May 31, 2018

I agree that RAW, "attacker" cannot be construed to mean something like a spiritual weapon. However, in the two examples cited so far (evasion and unseen attacker), I would generally rule that it is the visibility of the thing that is going to hit you that is the determining factor. A visible opponent wielding an invisible melee weapon is an interesting corner case to consider, though. Perhaps I'd ask for a Perception check.

Another odd case is an automated mechanism making an attack, such as an arrow trap. You could evade (haha) the issue by using a saving throw instead of an attack roll, but if you do go with an attack roll, is the "attacker" visible?

Paul Farquhar · May 31, 2018

Blue said:
I agree with this. Both when you cast, and when you use a bonus action to attack with it, the spell clearly says that "you" make an attack.

This is further pushed that it a melee spell attack. It's using your spellcasting ability, not some score for a conjured weapon, and it's attacking as a spell not as a weapon.

All of that said, at my table I'd let my players respond if they can see either. But that would be my ruling, not how the rules read.

By that interpretation, the spiritual weapon is an extension of the caster. So I would argue that if the target can see the spiritual weapon, they can see the attacker - i.e. the caster. So even if the caster is hidden or invisible they can be targeted. Hellish Rebuke bounces from the spiritual weapon to the attacker i.e. the caster.

Blue · May 31, 2018

Paul Farquhar said:
By that interpretation, the spiritual weapon is an extension of the caster. So I would argue that if the target can see the spiritual weapon, they can see the attacker - i.e. the caster. So even if the caster is hidden or invisible they can be targeted. Hellish Rebuke bounces from the spiritual weapon to the attacker i.e. the caster.

No, the spell also specifically describes that it creates a weapon. the weapon is created by the spell, not part of the caster. It just needs the caster to direct each attack.

D&D 5E Spectral weapon and similar - who is the attacker

Rya.Reisender

Explorer

5ekyu

Hero

Paul Farquhar

Legend

jaelis

Oh this is where the title goes?

CM

Adventurer

jaelis

Oh this is where the title goes?

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

Harzel

Adventurer

Paul Farquhar

Legend

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal

Similar Threads