-
Monstrous Menagerie II: Hordes & Heroes has a launch date! Mark your calendars for November 12th, 2024. 300+ more monsters for your D&D 2024, or Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition games, plus new horde rules and rules for heroic monsters who level up alongside you--whether they be allies, companions, or foes! Click here to follow on Kickstarter!
D&D 5E Spiritual Weapon vs. Fire Shield
- Thread starter Rya.Reisender
- Start date
Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)
Here's another:
Net. A Large or smaller creature hit by a net is restrained until it is freed.
The caster creates a physical manifestation of a whip that they are holding. So yes, fire shield would work on that because they are wielding a weapon used in the attack, even if the weapon is temporary.
I know we can just say that fire shield somehow "knows" who cast the spiritual weapon spell but at the time of the attack the caster is no longer wielding the spiritual weapon. For me that's what makes it different. Mordenkainen's sword would work the same way, the caster is not physically attached to the sword.
As always, feel free to rule differently but I don't always rule according to the letter of the rules, the result has to make sense. Otherwise you can end up with "the bag of rats" exploit.
Hriston
Dungeon Master of Middle-earth (He/him)
How do you interpret this:
When you cast the spell, you can make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon.
to mean the weapon and not the caster is the one that makes the attack?
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
*Natural language and all
There is no dispute whether a creature wielding a sword, attacking and hitting, met the criteria of flame shield - a creature within 5 feet of you that hits you with a melee attack.
There is a dispute over whether the Spiritual weapon itself hits or the cleric hits.
Just because it can both be said that the weapon hit or the wielder of the weapon hit, doesn't imply the same can be said in every instance. For example, we would say a robot hit, but we wouldn't say the person that programmed the robot hit - even though the robot would do nothing if he hadn't been programmed. *Causality in language is very nuanced and often unclear. Is Spiritual Weapon more like the robot or like the wielded weapon? Seems open to interpretation to me.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
The rules don't say that.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Arrows can be used in traps and require no creature to roll an attack roll.
Thus, the rule would need to avoid talking about the creature attacking or hitting in this instance to cover all scenarios. *Natural language and all.
Rya.Reisender
Explorer
I'd say for me it's pretty clear that the caster hits the creature with a melee attack when using Spiritual Weapon.
Because Spiritual Weapon clearly states "you can make a melee spell attack".
If it said you can command the Spiritual Weapon to do a melee spell attack, then I'd agree that the caster doesn't hit the creature and thus doesn't get hit by Fire Shield.
Because Spiritual Weapon clearly states "you can make a melee spell attack".
If it said you can command the Spiritual Weapon to do a melee spell attack, then I'd agree that the caster doesn't hit the creature and thus doesn't get hit by Fire Shield.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Certainly it does, which I have highlighted in the spell repeatedly yet you seem determined to ignore.
Here, one more time, maybe it will eventually sink in?
When you (the cleric) casts the spell, you (the cleric) make a melee spell attack.
And since you like this so much:
"Your attack (the cleric) bonus with the spell attack..." See that?
You (the cleric) are hitting the fire shield target with the spell effect, because in order for the spell effect (YOUR spell effect) to hit, you must attack with it. The spiritual weapon spell is what you are hitting with, when you succeed and determine "whether the spell effect hits".
The spell effect is nothing, literally, without the cleric making the attack and hitting with it.
Your argument for "natural language" doesn't prove your point of view when you are focused solely on the phrase "spell effect hits". It doesn't hit without you attacking with it, in which case YOU are hitting the target with the spell effect, just as a fighter or whoever hits their target with a weapon attack.
Similar Threads
