D&D 5E Spiritual Weapon vs. Fire Shield

[Rya.Reisender]

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?

 

[Enrico Poli1]

I would rule NO, because the spell is intended to harm melee attacks within 5'

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Spiritual Weapon is defined as a melee spell attack and the creature is within 5', though. So what would make you rule no?

 

[mellored]

Spiritual Weapon is defined as a melee spell attack and the creature is within 5', though. So what would make you rule no?

The same reason you are asking in the first place. It doesn't make sense from a story perspective, and the DM can make rulings to fit the story.

Rules as written, you would take damage.

 

[Oofta]

I would rule no. This is one of those areas where a purely technical reading of the rules may say otherwise but the caster is not physically swinging the spiritual weapon, they are not in direct physical contact nor are they holding an object (i.e. weapon) making direct physical contact.

 

[DND_Reborn]

RAW yes. As a DM, no.

Interesting idea: since the spectral hammer occupies no space, but must be within 5' of the creature it hits, what if the fire shield erupted into the space the hammer was in?

Example: Cleric casts Spiritual Weapon (SW), which is "in" the space occupied by X, an ally to the fire shield caster. When the hammer hits, the fire shield erupts into the space the attack came from, hitting X instead!

 

[Ancalagon]

Spiritual Weapon is defined as a melee spell attack and the creature is within 5', though. So what would make you rule no?

But it's not you physically interacting with the spell, it's the spiritual weapon. The spiritual weapon is engulfed in flames and ... takes no damage because it doesn't have HP. Would you take damage if your goblin friend attacked the fire-shield warded target? Of course not, the goblin would take damage.

From a rule as written, maybe. But this is why the GM is there, to make sure that things make sense .

 

[Ancalagon]

RAW yes. As a DM, no.

Interesting idea: since the spectral hammer occupies no space, but must be within 5' of the creature it hits, what if the fire shield erupted into the space the hammer was in?

Example: Cleric casts Spiritual Weapon (SW), which is "in" the space occupied by X, an ally to the fire shield caster. When the hammer hits, the fire shield erupts into the space the attack came from, hitting X instead!

View attachment 267757

See now that might hit X. I'm not sure I would run it that way, but it makes more sense than the cleric taking damage...

 

[billd91]

I’d go with no since the melee attack comes through the spiritual weapon, not the caster who just happens to be within 5 feet of the shielded target.

 

[Ancalagon]

No one has used fireshield in a 5e game of mine, but here is another scenario where I would house rule: what if the attacker is 10 feet away and using a melee attack (they have range, say a polearm or large size?)

I would damage the attacker if they were attacking with a natural weapon (they get singed) but not if the attack was delivered with a weapon (pole arm, big sword with big arms).

 

[Blue]

This is a great example of 5e empowering DMs to make reasonable choices when a strict reading would indicate a different response. It's so much better than bloating the rules trying to list every single possible corner case and interaction.

 

[DND_Reborn]

See now that might hit X. I'm not sure I would run it that way, but it makes more sense than the cleric taking damage...

Yeah, I don't know if I would run it that way, either, but I thought it was an interesting idea and I wouldn't be opposed to a DM who ruled it that way.

 

[FrogReaver]

For completeness's sake,

Fire Shield
"...In addition, 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."

Spiritual Weapn
"...You create a floating, spectral weapon within range that lasts for the duration or until you cast this spell again. When you cast the spell, you can make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon. On a hit, the target takes force damage equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the weapon up to 20 feet and repeat the attack against a creature within 5 feet of it..."

Case: Cleric > 5ft from enemy
If the Cleric was greater than 5 ft away then the answer both RAI and RAW is no. The creature attacking must be within 5 ft. Clearly the Cleric is not within 5 ft and thus takes no damage.

Case: Cleric = 5ft from enemy
I believe the line I bolded for Spiritual Weapon above is simply a game rule on how to resolve the hit/miss of the spiritual weapon. The spiritual weapon is still the 'thing' doing the hitting and not the cleric. Thus, I believe RAW supports the ruling that even when the Cleric is 5ft away and uses his bonus action to cause the spiritual weapon to attack (*and it hits) that Fire Shield would not do anything because the Spiritual Weapon is not a creature and Fire Shield requires a creature within 5 feet of you to hit you with a melee attack. I also believe ruling the other way is not against RAW but does cause fictional issues - which makes in an inferior ruling IMO.

 

[Incenjucar]

Why on earth is a ranged attack listed as melee? This is a badly-designed spell that needs to explain its intended function better.

 

[FrogReaver]

Why on earth is a ranged attack listed as melee? This is a badly-designed spell that needs to explain its intended function better.

Because it's not a ranged attack.

 

[TheDelphian]

There is also a difference in Melee attack and Melee spell attack, I would think giving you wiggle room to rule however you want without saying it is RAI or RAW

 

[Shiroiken]

RAW: yes, because you are within 5ft and made a melee attack against it.
RAI: probably not, because it's the hammer making the attack.
RAF: the fire attacks the hammer, turns into psychic damage, and "burns" the mind of the wielder.

 

[Hriston]

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

 

[Ancalagon]

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

Again, what if instead of a spiritual weapon, the thing attacking was a friendly goblin?

Let us imagine that the person with the fireshield spell is surrounded by 4 clerics, each of wich has cast spiritual weapon. The spiritual weapons are floating in a separate square than the clerics.
(C = clerics, W = spiritual weapons, T = target with fire shield)

CCC
CTW
WWW

one cleric uses their spiritual weapon to attack the target. The spell flares and hits... which cleric? How does the spell know which cleric to blast?

To me the easiest explanation is that the spell is not smart, and lashes out at the thing that attacked the warded target. If it's a spiritual weapon well... it gets splashed with flames and nothing happens.

 

[Hriston]

Again, what if instead of a spiritual weapon, the thing attacking was a friendly goblin?

Huh?

Let us imagine that the person with the fireshield spell is surrounded by 4 clerics, each of wich has cast spiritual weapon. The spiritual weapons are floating in a separate square than the clerics.
(C = clerics, W = spiritual weapons, T = target with fire shield)

CCC
CTW
WWW

one cleric uses their spiritual weapon to attack the target. The spell flares and hits... which cleric?

The one that attacked.

How does the spell know which cleric to blast?

The same way it knows to blast someone who attacks you with a melee weapon.

To me the easiest explanation is that the spell is not smart, and lashes out at the thing that attacked the warded target. If it's a spiritual weapon well... it gets splashed with flames and nothing happens.

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?