D&D 5E Spiritual Weapon vs. Fire Shield

[DND_Reborn]

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.

No, it isn't the same, but that is immaterial according to the strict reading of the spell.

1. creature within 5 feet of you? YES--the cleric is within 5 feet
2. hits you with a melee attack? YES--spiritual weapon is a melee spell attack, which is a melee attack.
3. if both conditions are met, creature (i.e. the cleric) takes 2d8 damage.

Pretty straight forward, really.

Now, in the scheme of things with spiritual weapon does it make a lot of sense? Obviously not.

But it is not reasonable to consider that the fire shield would lash out against the spiritual weapon since it is NOT a creature.

 

[Oofta]

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.

If the cleric that cast the spell is on the opposite side of the spiritual weapon, why would the burst hit them? Let's say you had an enemy A with fire shield on, a person B standing next to said enemy and a third person with a reach weapon 10 feet away C from A. So in a line A - B - C. When C hits A with a halberd, does B take damage because it erupted in their direction?

The thing is if you attack someone while adjacent to them, part of your body, typically the hand holding the weapon such as a sword will typically be encroaching into their space. For a moment, part of you will physically be closer than 5 feet away. It's in that moment that you take damage from the fire shield. Run it how you want, but this is a case of the DM making a ruling because 5E doesn't clarify every extreme edge case.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Or rather - nothing at all since spiritual weapon isn’t a creature

 

[Hriston]

Hitting someone with a spiritual weapon isn‘t the same as making a direct attack on them.

By direct, I assume you mean melee weapon, and I agree. It's not the same. Nevertheless, it satisfies the requirements of the spell.

It’s an entirely reasonable interpretation to consider that the fire shield would lash out (impotently) at the spiritual weapon.

I mean, sure. That could happen, but what about the damage to the attacker the spell describes happening?

 

[FrogReaver]

No, it isn't the same, but that is immaterial according to the strict reading of the spell.

1. creature within 5 feet of you? YES--the cleric is within 5 feet
2. hits you with a melee attack? YES--spiritual weapon is a melee spell attack, which is a melee attack.
3. if both conditions are met, creature (i.e. the cleric) takes 2d8 damage.

Pretty straight forward, really.

Now, in the scheme of things with spiritual weapon does it make a lot of sense? Obviously not.

But it is not reasonable to consider that the fire shield would lash out against the spiritual weapon since it is NOT a creature.

Your (1) is not in dispute. Your (2) is. The essential question is whether the cleric or the spiritual weapon hits the target with the melee attack.

ATTACK ROLLS
"Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus..."

IMO. The spell effect for spiritual weapon is the spiritual weapon hitting the target with force damage. If that's true then by RAW flame shield would not hit a cleric using spiritual weapon in any circumstance.

 

[Hriston]

If the cleric that cast the spell is on the opposite side of the spiritual weapon, why would the burst hit them?

Do you mean from? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

Let's say you had an enemy A with fire shield on, a person B standing next to said enemy and a third person with a reach weapon 10 feet away C from A. So in a line A - B - C. When C hits A with a halberd, does B take damage because it erupted in their direction?

No, that's not how the spell works. Since C isn't within 5 feet of A, the shield doesn't erupt.

The thing is if you attack someone while adjacent to them, part of your body, typically the hand holding the weapon such as a sword will typically be encroaching into their space. For a moment, part of you will physically be closer than 5 feet away. It's in that moment that you take damage from the fire shield.

It could be in that moment or in any other moment that can be imagined in which an adjacent attacker hits the caster with a melee attack, such as when the attacker hits with a spiritual weapon.

Run it how you want, but this is a case of the DM making a ruling because 5E doesn't clarify every extreme edge case.

Thanks, I will, and I have no qualms with a DM making a ruling, which I agree is what this is. What it's not is an interpretation supported by the text of the spell. The spell is clear about how it works.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Your (2) is. The essential question is whether the cleric or the spiritual weapon hits the target with the melee attack.

It doesn't matter. If you are hit by the creature within 5 feet of you, they are affected by the fire shield and take damage. The source of the hit is a melee attack, which spiritual weapon is a melee attack (spell, yes, but still melee). The spiritual weapon is guided by the cleric, the creature making the attack, while the spiritual weapon is simply the weapon used. The fact this is not wielded in hand by the cleric is immaterial.

IMO. The spell effect for spiritual weapon is the spiritual weapon hitting the target with force damage. If that's true then by RAW flame shield would not hit a cleric using spiritual weapon in any circumstance.

As your opinion that is fine, certainly, and I would never dispute a DM who ruled it that way. I am speaking strictly of my interpretation of RAW.

 

[FrogReaver]

It doesn't matter. If you are hit by the creature within 5 feet of you, they are affected by the fire shield and take damage. The source of the hit is a melee attack, which spiritual weapon is a melee attack (spell, yes, but still melee). The spiritual weapon is guided by the cleric, the creature making the attack, while the spiritual weapon is simply the weapon used. The fact this is not wielded in hand by the cleric is immaterial.

The point of disagreement is whether the cleric hit you or the spiritual weapon and that does very much matter.

As your opinion that is fine, certainly, and I would never dispute a DM who ruled it that way. I am speaking strictly of my interpretation of RAW.

So am I.

 

[Oofta]

Do you mean from? I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.


No, that's not how the spell works. Since C isn't within 5 feet of A, the shield doesn't erupt.


It could be in that moment or in any other moment that can be imagined in which an adjacent attacker hits the caster with a melee attack, such as when the attacker hits with a spiritual weapon.


Thanks, I will, and I have no qualms with a DM making a ruling, which I agree is what this is. What it's not is an interpretation supported by the text of the spell. The spell is clear about how it works.

You don't get to just declare that someone else's rulings are incorrect. I gave my reasoning, feel free to rule differently when you DM.

 

[Hriston]

You don't get to just declare that someone else's rulings are incorrect. I gave my reasoning, feel free to rule differently when you DM.

Okay, I haven't done that. The spell says what it says regardless of any ruling someone might make about it.