D&D 5E Spiritual Weapon vs. Fire Shield

[Oofta]

As a game element, it doesn't bother me. From a roleplaying standpoint, it does, because you have to describe this thing that cannot be easily described, but is apparently so common just about any guy who can wiggle their fingers and make magic happen can evoke it.

I always envision force damage as concentrated concussive force, kind of like being hit by a fast moving blunt object. Like being hit by a baseball thrown by a professional pitcher.

 

[James Gasik]

I always envision force damage as concentrated concussive force, kind of like being hit by a fast moving blunt object. Like being hit by a baseball thrown by a professional pitcher.

And that's a perfectly fine description, the problem I run into is that there are several possible descriptions, forcing (heh) everyone to come up with one that works for them. Back in 4e, there were condition cards with a little bit of art showing you what ongoing damage of a particular type would look like, and they allowed me to give players reasonable descriptions of what was happening. For example:

But the force damage one really didn't look like anything distinct. Radiant damage was like a laser, but force?

I don't really know what that is. Another kind of laser? A kinetic beam from the punch dimension? Certainly the art shows that it's smashing the armor it strikes, but what about it is different from, say, me hitting you with a hammer?

This was even worse in 3e, where force had this property that let you beat up ghosts and other incorporeal foes for, uh, reasons. And the only description we got was: "Force is pure magical energy focused into a damaging form. Most effects that deal force damage are spells, including magic missile and spiritual weapon." Yeah, thanks for that. Anyways, this concludes my rant about force as a damage type.

 

[Incenjucar]

It can be any shape you want, but all it will ever do is force damage. It's not "made of" anything, it's a spell that cannot be targeted. The spectral image you see is just that, an image of the cleric's ongoing spell. It's "made of" the same thing that magic missiles are made of.

RAI, absolutely. They meant "appearance" rather than "form". They would not make great lawyers.

 

[Oofta]

RAI, absolutely. They meant "appearance" rather than "form". They would not make great lawyers.

Good thing it's not written like nor intended to be a legal document.

 

[Incenjucar]

Good thing it's not written like nor intended to be a legal document.

Sadly, rules lawyers/arguers are a thing. Hopefully this RAI here is obvious enough to most folks that it doesn't come up, but better word choice is available.

 

[ECMO3]

Simple rules question: If you are within 5ft of a creature that has Fire Shield active and you hit it with a Spiritual Weapon, do you take damage?

Yes. I don't really think this is debatable. You are within 5 feet and you hit him with a melee attack. The shield is going to lash out and retailiate against you - the one who attacked it.

The spiritual weapon is just a weapon, saying it would damaget the weapon is like saying it would damage your sword if you hit it with a sword.

Same thing if you make a melee spell attack and deliver it with your familiar with a reaction. You are standing next to someone and you have your familiar deliver a touch spell like shocking grasp as a reaction, the shield lashes out at you, not the familiar because you are the one who attacked.

Same thing if you are an echo knight and attack from your echo's space while you are within 5 feet. In this case even if you attack from your echos space with your echo 10 feet away using a pole arm but you are standing within 5 feet you take damage.

In any of these cases if you are more than 5 foot away no one/nothing gets damaged by the shield. This is clearly RAW. I also think it is RAI, I think the intent is for the shield to go after the attacker.

 

[Hriston]

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.

I'm unable to parse out what your point is in this post. Perhaps you could reiterate.

So you debunked a claim that doesn’t bolster your position nor undermine my primary position. Great job! Golf clap!

Now maybe address the points I brought up after you done this and before you reiterated it.

If I'm paraphrasing correctly, your point seems to have been that because fire shield requires a creature to hit and because spiritual weapon doesn't specify whether it is the caster, the spectral weapon, or some other agent that hits, but only specifies what happens "On a hit," then it is open to interpretation whether the caster hits when s/he makes a successful attack and therefore whether s/he provokes damage from the shield. Correct me if that's not accurate.

If it's correct, then my response would be that your point fails to comprehend the natural language style in which the rules are written. Variations in phrasing are used interchangeably throughout the text. Most often in the text, it's the attack itself that's said to hit, but sometimes the text mentions the attacker, the weapon, or, in some cases, the spell effect as hitting on a successful attack. And here's the thing: because this is natural language, these variations in phrasing aren't meant to carry any specialized jargonistic meaning. They all describe the same event: a successful attack. On a hit, the attack hits, the attacker hits, and the weapon or spell effect hits. One never happens without the others, so when spiritual weapon says "you can make a melee spell attack", it can be understood that should the attack hit, then you the caster can also be said to have hit. Likewise, when fire shield says "whenever a creature within 5 feet of you hits you with a melee attack", it can be understood that the creature that hit you is the same creature that made the attack.

 

[Oofta]

Sadly, rules lawyers/arguers are a thing. Hopefully this RAI here is obvious enough to most folks that it doesn't come up, but better word choice is available.

Or the DM just makes a ruling after they understand both sides and you move on. If you argue with the DM about their ruling you can move on out the door.

 

[Incenjucar]

Or the DM just makes a ruling after they understand both sides and you move on. If you argue with the DM about their ruling you can move on out the door.

That works for experienced DMs with players to spare, but a lot of folks are busting out the DM screen in their tweens or are otherwise subject to pressure or uncertainty. Better to have better writing than to expect everyone to deal with social conflicts at their tables. Good design makes the game easier for a larger portion of the population to enjoy.

 

[Clint_L]

If the spiritual weapon is attacking B, it can be in any square adjacent to B, or even in B's square. If the spiritual weapon is in A or B's square when it hits, there's no path for the fire shield to follow, no part of C's arm or anything C is physically attached to encroaches on B's space. If the spiritual weapon is in A's square, it's certainly not going to flair out and harm A.

See, that's my issue. Why are you requiring physical attachment for a magical effect to happen? Why is a magical attachment immune to triggering magical effects? It's like you're trying to apply naturalistic physics to something that by definition is supernatural. How do you know that from a magical perspective the connection between the cleric and the spiritual weapon is not obvious and direct? The spell effect suggests that it is, and that this is not controversial in a world where magic is real.

My argument is to use RAW because in a world where magic is a thing, using a weapon made of steel with your hand is no more real than using a weapon made of force with your magic. In both cases, you are making a melee attack within range of a magical effect that is triggered by making a melee attack, and that specifically hits whoever made said attack. You hit the fire shield, so the fire shield hits you, if you are within range.