D&D 5E Does spiritual weapon negate invisibility?

[Lanefan]

Invisibility states that "The spell ends for [the invisible] target that attacks" and spiritual weapon states "When you cast the spell, you can make a melee spell attack".

"Can", not "must"; and the question is whether casting the spell but not using it to attack right away blows your invis. If-when you do attack with it then yes, you're visible.

I don't see how there's any gray area here. The caster is making an attack. End of story. Am I missing something? The caster is making a melee spell attack, no different than the wording for shocking grasp.

Shocking grasp resolves immediately and is gone; if you don't attack with it then and there, what was the point?

Spiritual weapon, at least in the versions I'm used to, goes on for a while.

 

[Mort]

"Can", not "must"; and the question is whether casting the spell but not using it to attack right away blows your invis. If-when you do attack with it then yes, you're visible.

The thread is labeled 5e. In 5e simply casting a spell, ANY spell, breaks invisibility. Now that can be changed by the DM but it's clearly the default.

Shocking grasp resolves immediately and is gone; if you don't attack with it then and there, what was the point?

Spiritual weapon, at least in the versions I'm used to, goes on for a while.

Also in 5e, attacking with a spiritual weapon is akin to making an attack yourself (per the wording of the spiritual weapon spell), so again attacking with the spiritual weapon breaks invisibility.

Now, since spiritual weapon is not concentration, you could cast it THEN cast invisibility (or have it cast on you) and only lose the invisibility upon attacking with the spell.

The wording of spells, across editions, is different enough that you MUST stick to a specific edition when discussing intended effects for that edition. The answers across editions might easily be different, even if the spells name and apparent affects are the same.

 

[Lanefan]

The thread is labeled 5e. In 5e simply casting a spell, ANY spell, breaks invisibility.

Stupid rule. Worthy of nothing but the tiny bit of effort it takes to ignore it.

Also in 5e, attacking with a spiritual weapon is akin to making an attack yourself (per the wording of the spiritual weapon spell), so again attacking with the spiritual weapon breaks invisibility.

Yes, I'm not disagreeing with this bit at all.

Now, since spiritual weapon is not concentration, you could cast it THEN cast invisibility (or have it cast on you) and only lose the invisibility upon attacking with the spell.

The wording of spells, across editions, is different enough that you MUST stick to a specific edition when discussing intended effects for that edition.

If I disagree with how an edition handles things I'm going to express that disagreement.

 

[Mort]

Stupid rule. Worthy of nothing but the tiny bit of effort it takes to ignore it.

I disagree. I like the fact that the rule is 1. clear. and 2. inflexible. I HATE flexible, creative spell use in D&D. Magic is already so powerful and able to completely trivialize so many things that having it ALSO be flexible and able to be used creatively is IMO just too much.

If I disagree with how an edition handles things I'm going to express that disagreement.

Yep, that's what the internet is for!

I just prefer to draw a line between disagreement on what the rules say something does (what the rules are) and what it should do (what the rules should be).

 

[Oofta]

"Can", not "must"; and the question is whether casting the spell but not using it to attack right away blows your invis. If-when you do attack with it then yes, you're visible.

Shocking grasp resolves immediately and is gone; if you don't attack with it then and there, what was the point?

Spiritual weapon, at least in the versions I'm used to, goes on for a while.

I was responding to the OP:

Does attacking with a spiritual weapon count for negating invisibility?

You don't have to attack on your turn, you can. But if you do chose to attack you are, indeed, attacking. The rules are clear.

 

[Stalker0]

Thank you all, based on your notes I agree it’s pretty clear that it would negate invisibility by the book. Thank you!

 

[Clint_L]

I'd rule that casting it would but using it to attack wouldn't. But that's me.

I'd rule both - the text for invisibility seems pretty straightforward: "The spell ends for a target that attacks or casts a spell." Not much to debate.