D&D 5E Spiritual Weapon vs. Fire Shield

[LordEntrails]

Yes, because that's what the spell says it does. The attacker within 5' is caught in the flame eruption and takes damage.

So every creature/target within 5' takes damage ever time? Nice spell!

 

[Hriston]

So every creature/target within 5' takes damage ever time? Nice spell!

No, just those who hit you with a melee attack.

 

[Ancalagon]

No, just those who hit you with a melee attack.

all right...

So how does the spell know which cleric commanded the spiritual weapon to attack the target? Remember, the cleric isn't holding this spiritual weapon. The cleric is just using their minds to control a spell.

I see this spell a bit like a porcupine - you punch a porcupine, you get hurt! You tell your buddy to punch a porcupine, THEY get hurt

 

[Ancalagon]

Why would it do that? That's not what the spell says it does. Why would it recognize that a melee weapon is being wielded by an attacker but not recognize that a spiritual weapon is being wielded by an attacker?

But the cleric isn't where the spiritual weapon is! It's not in their hand, it's floating around. How would the spell know where the cleric is, or which cleric controlled the spiritual weapon?

 

[Hriston]

all right...

So how does the spell know which cleric commanded the spiritual weapon to attack the target? Remember, the cleric isn't holding this spiritual weapon. The cleric is just using their minds to control a spell.

I see this spell a bit like a porcupine - you punch a porcupine, you get hurt! You tell your buddy to punch a porcupine, THEY get hurt

But the cleric isn't where the spiritual weapon is! It's not in their hand, it's floating around. How would the spell know where the cleric is, or which cleric controlled the spiritual weapon?

"How would the spell know which creature wielded the melee weapon?" is just as valid a question to ask about this spell. You seem to think "because the creature is holding the melee weapon" is a good answer, but I would say that boils down to "because magic" just like any other explanation for how the spell works. For some reason, you're privileging melee spell attacks over melee weapon attacks with respect to this spell, which you're free to do, this is a game of make believe after all, but you'd have to explain to me why you're doing that. Also, I'd hope you'd tell your players before hand that this spell doesn't work on melee spell attacks in your game, before they choose the spell.

 

[Ancalagon]

"How would the spell know which creature wielded the melee weapon?" is just as valid a question to ask about this spell.

Yes, and that question has an EASY ANSWER. Poke explody fire thing, exploding fire thing pokes you. Hence the porcupine example... you did understand the porcupine example?

So in my game, when a spiritual weapon attacks someone with fireshield, the fireshield blasts at the spiritual weapon... wiiiiich does nothing.

For some reason, you're privileging melee spell attacks over melee weapon attacks with respect to this spell,

It's a much, much narrower case than that. If someone did an inflict wound spell, or a booming blade, they would get blasted by the fire shield because they poked the fire shield.

Also, I'd hope you'd tell your players before hand that this spell doesn't work on melee spell attacks in your game, before they choose the spell.

I've been DMing for over 3 decades but I'm sure I will change how I run my games based on some random person on the web who fundamentally doesn't agree with me on how magic works.

 

[Hriston]

Yes, and that question has an EASY ANSWER. Poke explody fire thing, exploding fire thing pokes you. Hence the porcupine example... you did understand the porcupine example?

That works equally well for spiritual weapon. The caster is "poking" the caster of fire shield using a spiritual weapon just as much as if they were wielding an actual melee weapon.

So in my game, when a spiritual weapon attacks someone with fireshield, the fireshield blasts at the spiritual weapon... wiiiiich does nothing.

Spiritual weapons don't attack people. Clerics attack people using spiritual weapons.

It's a much, much narrower case than that. If someone did an inflict wound spell, or a booming blade, they would get blasted by the fire shield because they poked the fire shield.

The caster of spiritual weapon is also "poking the fire shield". What's the difference?

I've been DMing for over 3 decades but I'm sure I will change how I run my games based on some random person on the web who fundamentally doesn't agree with me on how magic works.

Okay, so you don't tell your players when you houserule their spells. Why not?

 

[billd91]

Okay, so you don't tell your players when you houserule their spells. Why not?

This case isn‘t a house rule. It’s making a different interpretation than yours.

 

[Hriston]

This case isn‘t a house rule. It’s making a different interpretation than yours.

whenever a creature within 5 feet of you hits you with a melee attack, the shield erupts with flame. The attacker takes 2d8 fire damage from a warm shield, or 2d8 cold damage from a cold shield.​

The spell is pretty clear in its meaning. There's not a lot of room for interpretation there.

 

[billd91]

whenever a creature within 5 feet of you hits you with a melee attack, the shield erupts with flame. The attacker takes 2d8 fire damage from a warm shield, or 2d8 cold damage from a cold shield.​

The spell is pretty clear in its meaning. There's not a lot of room for interpretation there.

Hitting someone with a spiritual weapon isn‘t the same as making a direct attack on them. It’s an entirely reasonable interpretation to consider that the fire shield would lash out (impotently) at the spiritual weapon.