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

[rmcoen]

I'm in the "at some point during your round, you've whipped a weapon through the spectral thing - it didn't connect, dodge, or react in any way" camp. Otherwise, I'd feel compelled to give everything "physicality mechanics", and then rules on how other things now can interact with the object. And then I'd have to think about how game balance has changed - if a 1st level mage can kill the 3rd level cleric's spiritual weapon with his magic missile for example? Can the radiant energy sword hit it? what about the fireball that was just cast, or the roper's tentacle or the dragon's breath... or the lava field it just floated over? Or wait, can I create a spiritual shield (it shield bashes for damage, yeah...)... and then interpose it between me and a source fo danger? And so on...

I forget who made this comment, but I liked "The PCs and monsters live in a magical world... monsters should know about common low-level spells, just like PCs know about trolls and fire." That makes sense; everyone should know roughly how cure wounds, spiritual weapon, magic missile, and fireball work, and probably every cantrip. Your average armsman knows how far an archer can shoot, he probably also knows how far a wizard can firebolt him.

All that being said... this is 5e. This is the system that wants "rulings, not rules". So if the cleric wanted to use his glowing spiritual laser pointer to distract the saber-tooth displacer beast, and lead it away from the group... I'd probably give an attribute/skill check for the creative use of resources, and go with it! [And remember, any hijinks allowed to the PCs are also allowed to the villains!]

 

[tomBitonti]

I'm in the "at some point during your round, you've whipped a weapon through the spectral thing - it didn't connect, dodge, or react in any way" camp. Otherwise, I'd feel compelled to give everything "physicality mechanics", and then rules on how other things now can interact with the object. And then I'd have to think about how game balance has changed - if a 1st level mage can kill the 3rd level cleric's spiritual weapon with his magic missile for example? Can the radiant energy sword hit it? what about the fireball that was just cast, or the roper's tentacle or the dragon's breath... or the lava field it just floated over? Or wait, can I create a spiritual shield (it shield bashes for damage, yeah...)... and then interpose it between me and a source fo danger? And so on...

I forget who made this comment, but I liked "The PCs and monsters live in a magical world... monsters should know about common low-level spells, just like PCs know about trolls and fire." That makes sense; everyone should know roughly how cure wounds, spiritual weapon, magic missile, and fireball work, and probably every cantrip. Your average armsman knows how far an archer can shoot, he probably also knows how far a wizard can firebolt him.

All that being said... this is 5e. This is the system that wants "rulings, not rules". So if the cleric wanted to use his glowing spiritual laser pointer to distract the saber-tooth displacer beast, and lead it away from the group... I'd probably give an attribute/skill check for the creative use of resources, and go with it! [And remember, any hijinks allowed to the PCs are also allowed to the villains!]

There is a simplicity in playing this way. Yet, I feel that this is the beginning of unmooring of role playing from the game. How much are players making decisions based on the imagined perceptions of their characters, and how much are they finding optimal choices in rules-space.

Continuing with the Spiritual Weapon example, how many would identify a glowing insubstantial looking mace floating nearby with the actual spell without spell knowledge?

TomB

 

[Lyxen]

There is a simplicity in playing this way. Yet, I feel that this is the beginning of unmooring of role playing from the game.

Hmmm, no. Simply no. Why would roleplaying be impacted one way or another (see below in particular).

How much are players making decisions based on the imagined perceptions of their characters, and how much are they finding optimal choices in rules-space.

Continuing with the Spiritual Weapon example, how many would identify a glowing insubstantial looking mace floating nearby with the actual spell without spell knowledge?

Just as you, living in the real world, know a lot of things about how weapons work even if you have not seen that specific thing yourself before. It's also part of roleplaying someone living in a fantasy world.

 

[rmcoen]

There is a simplicity in playing this way. Yet, I feel that this is the beginning of unmooring of role playing from the game. How much are players making decisions based on the imagined perceptions of their characters, and how much are they finding optimal choices in rules-space.

Continuing with the Spiritual Weapon example, how many would identify a glowing insubstantial looking mace floating nearby with the actual spell without spell knowledge?

TomB

It's a good question, though. My answer, for my game, comes down to the way I describe things, and the questions players ask. I go to a certain level of trouble to describe the effect of attacks against resistances, immunities, and "non-interactions". For example, a nonmagical weapon doing 0 damage to an incorporeal target (say, a wraith) might get described as "the weapon passes through the creature's form, disrupting it as if pushing a mist, but then the creature reforms unchanged"; the same weapon, magical, might end with "... but then the creature reforms... you can tell it is a little less distinct/solid" (i.e. some damage, partially resisted). A ghost touch weapon in the same circumstance would instead be "Your weapon slams into the creature's misty form as solidly as if striking flesh, and it visibly recoils from the unexpected impact!"

All three of those weapons, "attacking" a spiritual weapon, would be "your weapon passes through the 'weapon' like passing through an image - there is no visible change to the 'weapon', no effect whatsoever."

If there's no caster nearby clearly directing the weapon, then I might expect my players to ask some questions about the effect - probably something as direct as "is this a spell effect? can I harm it? do recognize it?", which might result in "make an INT/Arcana check", or might be "Bromnum (the cleric IMC), you realize that this is clearly a spiritual weapon, but you know there is usually a cleric nearby controlling it, and you don't see one!"

[In another campaign, we keep running into the same monster we've previously killed (and burned its corpse), and it is clearly the same thing we initially defeated. After the third "repeat", I finally went "wait! maybe that medallion we took is its phylactery? Maybe it's reforming near us like a lich?" The DM called for an Arcana check... too bad I'm a Sorc without training in that skill! A result of "10" ended with "Well, each time you've heard it approaching, from the stairs or the hallway..." So I might have figured it out, and we should destroy the medallion, or I might be wrong, but I don't know enough about magic to tell...]