D&D General Familiars and Spiritual weapon, Turrets and Tentacles, some have HP some do not, why?

[tomBitonti]

Reading the 5e description of spiritual weapon, nothing says that it cannot be attacked or grabbed. However, it has no hit points, harness, or AC, and is described as being spectral. Ghost touch, or the equivalent would be necessary to interact with it. I’d say that it takes on a physical aspect when striking (giving itself a force surface), so it shout be parryable.

A creature should attempt to interact with it, depending on their senses and intelligence. I’d imagine a creature would either ignore It (a mindless undead might not be aware of it), or attack it (say, a golem or other creature without the capacity to learn), or would grow frustrated and either switch targets or retreat.

Characters ought to be required to make a spellcraft (or similar check) to understand that attacking it was pointless. Until they saw that their action was having no effect.

This last point is debatable. Some tables allow players to have perfect meta knowledge. Other tables do not. This can cause player friction, if a player with meta knowledge sees another player make an ineffective action.

TomB

 

[Lyxen]

Reading the 5e description of spiritual weapon, nothing says that it cannot be attacked or grabbed.

Most spells and attacks need a target, and these are usually objects and creatures (for example for an attack, it's only: "a creature, an object, or a location.", so it cannot be attacked or grappled). A spiritual weapon is neither.

 

[tomBitonti]

Most spells and attacks need a target, and these are usually objects and creatures (for example for an attack, it's only: "a creature, an object, or a location.", so it cannot be attacked or grappled). A spiritual weapon is neither.

Is it that a spectral weapon cannot be attacked, or that attacks against one won’t do anything? Certainly, an arrow could be shot at one.

Backing up a little, would a wall of force block the movement of a spiritual weapon? I can accept that the visible manifestation is akin to the dot from a laser pointer, arriving from unseen dimensions. Then, a block attempt would have no more effect than a drawn line would have for blocking the movement of the dot from a light pen. Or, a spiritual weapon might really be there, in a fashion similar to arcane hand. But, being spectral, most interactions wouldn’t do anything to it.

Regardless, that doesn’t mean an opponent (or character) would know that an attack would be ineffective.

TomB

 

[Composer99]

Xanathar's has a thing about choosing invalid spell targets (pp 85-86) that IMO you can extend to targeting perceptible phenomena with attacks. That's how I'd rule such things if they came up in a game.

 

[Lyxen]

Is it that a spectral weapon cannot be attacked, or that attacks against one won’t do anything? Certainly, an arrow could be shot at one.

An arrow is an object, but a spiritual weapon is not one, it's just a spell effect, so theoretically and according to the rules, although you can shoot an arrow at one, it cannot be attacked (in the technical sense of the game) and therefore cannot be damaged.

You might, however - and this is one of the beauties of 5e, although some consider it a curse - decide that spiritual weapon, as it creates a weapon, and weapons are usually objects, creates an object shaped like a weapon. My take is that is not what is intended here, since spells only do what they say they are doing, and spells which create objects specifically say that (see for examnple fabricate). It also has the drawback (which is one more reason not to interpret the spell that way) of leaving you to define the characteristics of the objects. YOu might use those of the weapon created, but first these are not precise in the books, and it also starts to be discriminating towards the divinity, some spiritual weapons becoming more powerful and resistant than others.

Backing up a little, would a wall of force block the movement of a spiritual weapon? I can accept that the visible manifestation is akin to the dot from a laser pointer, arriving from unseen dimensions. Then, a block attempt would have no more effect than a drawn line would have for blocking the movement of the dot from a light pen. Or, a spiritual weapon might really be there, in a fashion similar to arcane hand. But, being spectral, most interactions wouldn’t do anything to it.

Wall of Force is a tricky spell. It blocks everything physical, so it provides total cover, and you therefore cannot cast spiritual weapon behind it, since you need a line between you and your spell effect. However, as is the case for example with fireball, if you cast it somewhat to the side, the effects can extend behind the wall, since the restriction is at casting time only. You could cast spiritual weapon to the side and then move it behind the wall for example. But you could not cast it inside the sphere.

Finally, it becomes more an interpretation, but both wall of force and spiritual weapon are "force" and both physically affect the world, the wall by blocking things and the weapon by hitting things physically. It stands to reason that the wall would block the weapon as being physical, but since the weapon is also "spectral", discussions can be had forever as to whether it refers to its appearance, or it's materiality, although you could also consider that "spectral" refers to the ethereal plane (like spectres or ghosts) and is therefore blocked anyway by the wall. 5e is not that precise and these are rulings for your table.

Regardless, that doesn’t mean an opponent (or character) would know that an attack would be ineffective.

It's a floating spectral weapon, it's not illogical that people would think that their attacks would be ineffectual. Also, it does not move or dodge except as commanded, so I assume that just waving something through it without even attacking (consider it "a flourish" that you can use for free during your turn) would reveal it as spectral and immune to your attacks. Even animals would see this quickly, if you want to use some rationalisation here.

Xanathar's has a thing about choosing invalid spell targets (pp 85-86) that IMO you can extend to targeting perceptible phenomena with attacks. That's how I'd rule such things if they came up in a game.

I have not read that ("extend to targeting perceptible phenomena with attacks") in Xanathar at all. The whole section reads: "A spell specifies what a caster can target with it: any type of creature, a creature of a certain type (humanoid or beast, for instance), an object, an area, the caster, or something else. But what happens if a spell targets something that isn’t a valid target? For example,
someone might cast charm person on a creature believed to be a humanoid, not knowing that the target is in fact a vampire. If this issue comes up, handle it using the following rule. If you cast a spell on someone or something that can’t be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn’t attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target."

And that's all. Maybe you refer to something else ?

 

[tomBitonti]

Re: Targetting. What happens if, in a dimly lit area, a Fireball is shot at a location which is in a mirror? Note the differences between the 1e and 5e spell descriptions!

TomB

 

[Lyxen]

Re: Targetting. What happens if, in a dimly lit area, a Fireball is shot at a location which is in a mirror? Note the differences between the 1e and 5e spell descriptions!

5e is less precise, in 1e you would have an explosion on the mirror surface, in 5e you could either invalidate the spell as per Xanathar or you could actually use the 1e description and say that it detonates early, nothing really contradicts it, I think.

 

[Helldritch]

Ok...

So the saying is basically the same as "a wizard did it" - don't think about it, sure - there are all sorts of made up magical "rules" that explains why a spiritual weapon can't be attacked. And that's fine.

I think though that the real question is about the inhabitants of the world, do they know? As @Umbran mentioned, perhaps some are "common knowledge" - like spiritual weapon is probably a fairly well known spell, and monsters know not to bother attacking them (but what about monsters without a culture, like say bears?). But is this true of every effect - like a fathomless spiritual tentacle? Is that well known too?

If you want more than that. You can explain these this way.
Attackable spells stays in the world whereas the non attackable spells only solidify upon attacking.
For example:
The Eldritch canon is always in world. Whenever it attacks, moves or whatever, it is clearly a physical thing.
The spiritual weapon shifts from the ether to the world only when it attacks. It solidifies for just enough time to actually damage the opponent and switch back to an ethereal state right after.

Also, lower level spells will be encountered and faced by opponent much more than higher level ones. There is bound to be some basic knowledge about them. Especially if survival depends on that knowledge. You need not to know how to build a gun to use one, but it is common knowledge that whenever a guns is pointed at you, you better duck to safety. Magic is the gun of fantasy, you might not know how to make it, but you sure can recognize the effect, heard about it or seen about it to make a good guess about what can be done about it and what can't be done.

 

[Composer99]

@Lyxen

I did not suggest the rule already explicitly covers all situations where one targets something perceptible in the game that is not a legitimate target for one's attack, etc.

Rather, since the rule covers a subset of those situations, I stated that it can be extended to cover any such situation. DMs can use it as a basis for ruling on what happens when such situations come up.

So a creature can certainly target a spiritual weapon with a weapon attack, but it will fail to have any effect, for instance, or a berserker who thinks an illusory creature is real can target it with Intimidating Presence, but it will fail to have any effect.

 

[Laurefindel]

Yeah, that’s why I never liked spiritual weapon…

Even if the creature realizes that the spiritual weapon cannot be targeted « off-screen », the likely reaction of many creatures of animal intelligence would be to run away when faced with a threat they cannot defeat.

mind you, there are so many other situations where opponents (or players for that matter) should logically flee but don’t, because we don’t want to spoil the good fight.