D&D 5E Spiritual Weapon vs. Fire Shield

[DND_Reborn]

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

Strictly RAW it isn't a point of disagreement...

If you insist on answering that question: the cleric DID hit you with the spiritual weapon as a melee spell attack, which is why the roll is made using the clerics spell attack modifier.

It doesn't matter that the cleric wasn't actually wielding the weapon when the cleric hit you with it.

 

[Incenjucar]

The whole thing would work a lot more cleanly if the weapon was a conjured entity controlled by the caster rather than a melee attack by the caster.

 

[FrogReaver]

Strictly RAW it isn't a point of disagreement...

If you insist on answering that question: the cleric DID hit you with the spiritual weapon as a melee spell attack, which is why the roll is made using the clerics spell attack modifier.

It doesn't matter that the cleric wasn't actually wielding the weapon when the cleric hit you with it.

Foremost, I'm not talking about whether the cleric is wielding the weapon. I don't think that has any impact.

An alternative answer - The Cleric via magic directs the spiritual weapon to attack. The spell directing the cleric to make an attack roll is simply a mechanic used by the game to determine if the spiritual weapon's attack hits.

Note - this view preserves RAW for spiritual weapon and also for Flame Shield while allowing it to function in a sensible manner. IMO, when you have one RAW view that allows abilities to interact sensibly and one that doesn't then one should go with the former over the later.

 

[Mort]

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.

Except it's perfectly reasonable to rule the spiritual weapon is attacking and it is not the caster nor is it a creature.

And frankly this is one of those situations where the result of not ruling that way is odd enough to make that call regardless.

The rules should not be interpreted so rigidly as to lead to absurd/nonsensical results.

 

[Oofta]

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

While I've pointed out why I disagree. There are exceptions to every rule, I think this is one of them.

In every case that I know of other than spiritual weapon the attacker or an object, which is typically a weapon but could be an implement or a hand, needs to physically touch the creature with fire shield.

Since the spiritual weapon is not physically attached to the caster I rule that they are unaffected. Feel free to rule differently.

 

[DND_Reborn]

An alternative answer - The Cleric via magic directs the spiritual weapon to attack. The spell directing the cleric to make an attack roll is simply a mechanic used by the game to determine if the spiritual weapon's attack hits.

And in this process the cleric (the creature which will take the backlash from the fire shield) IS making a melee spell attack:

It doesn't matter if you want to say the cleric is directing it via magic, all that matters for the strict RAW interpretation are:

1. you hit with a melee (spell) attack made via spiritual weapon
2. you are within 5 feet of the creature hit by your spiritual weapon
3. that creature is protected by the fire shield spell.

The rest is fluff which you can say happens however you want.

 

[Clint_L]

I would just go with RAW. I don't see a problem at all, except from trying to logic out an effect which is already completely illogical. The fire shield is a magical effect. If you poke it with a sword from within its range, it doesn't hurt the sword, it hurts the thing using the sword. If you poke it with a spiritual weapon, it doesn't hurt the spiritual weapon, it hurts the thing using the spiritual weapon.

Folks seem to be focused on the idea that if you aren't physically holding the weapon, you aren't connected to it. But you are - you are connected through magic. Which is every bit as real in D&D as physical bodies.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

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).

No need to houserule this part as Fire Shield already states that the attacking creature needs to be within 5' of Fire Shield.


Honestly I personally prefer going with RAW in most cases and it seems there's nothing in the rules that would indicate that the caster is not hit.

I find it's not impossible to reason it out. It's magic. The Fire Shield might know who the attacker is and erupt into that direction and not the direction the attack came from.

 

[FrogReaver]

And in this process the cleric (the creature which will take the backlash from the fire shield) IS making a melee spell attack:

View attachment 267831View attachment 267830
It doesn't matter if you want to say the cleric is directing it via magic, all that matters for the strict RAW interpretation are:

1. you hit with a melee (spell) attack made via spiritual weapon
2. you are within 5 feet of the creature hit by your spiritual weapon
3. that creature is protected by the fire shield spell.

The rest is fluff which you can say happens however you want.

Again. 1 is in dispute. I am saying the cleric does not hit with a melee attack made via the spiritual weapon. The spiritual weapon hits via a melee atttack.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Again. 1 is in dispute. I am saying the cleric does not hit with a melee attack made via the spiritual weapon. The spiritual weapon hits via a melee atttack.

Again. 1 is not in dispute. I reference the highlight part of the spell spiritual weapon. The cleric (you) is making the melee spell attack. Without the cleric directing it, the spiritual weapon does nothing.

 

[Mort]

Again. 1 is not in dispute. I reference the highlight part of the spell spiritual weapon. The cleric (you) is making the melee spell attack. Without the cleric directing it, the spiritual weapon does nothing.

From a strict reading, I don't disagree. Further supported by looking at dancing sword, which reads:

You can use a bonus action to toss this magic sword into the air and speak the command word. When you do so, the sword begins to hover, flies up to 30 feet, and attacks one creature of your choice within 5 feet of it. The sword uses your attack roll and ability score modifier to damage rolls.

While the sword hovers, you can use a bonus action to cause it to fly up to 30 feet to another spot within 30 feet of you. As part of the same bonus action, you can cause the sword to attack one creature within 5 feet of it.

*****

Notice the dancing sword is EXPRESSLY called out as it's own entity (it merely uses the owners stats, quite different wording), while the spiritual weapon is not.

However, personally, I choose to interpret the spiritual weapon the same way as the dancing sword. Interpreting the spiritual weapon as an extension of the cleric has some interesting implications which I choose not to follow. Interpreting it as it's own thing (like a dancing sword) is just easier conceptually.

Frankly, natural language had these kinds of pitfalls, which is why arguing strict RAW is maddening. I much prefer, for 5e, just looking at what makes the most sense for MY game.

 

[DND_Reborn]

However, personally, I choose to interpret the spiritual weapon the same way as the dancing sword. Interpreting the spiritual weapon as an extension of the cleric has some interesting implications which I choose not to follow. Interpreting it as it's own thing (like a dancing sword) is just easier conceptually.

Frankly, natural language had these kinds of pitfalls, which is why arguing strict RAW is maddening. I much prefer, for 5e, just looking at what makes the most sense for MY game.

While I am arguing the strict RAW point of view, I don't agree with it as far as I would run it.

Especially when you consider the following:

The cleric uses their bonus action to hit with the spiritual weapon, and gets burned by the fire shield.
The cleric then uses their action to attack with a melee weapon, and gets burned by the fire shield again.

As a DM it seems overly punishing against the cleric, and resorting to spiritual weapon is a clever way to attack and avoid the backlash of fire shield.

 

[FarBeyondC]

If the Spiritual Weapon attacks counts as my character making the attack for Fire Shield, it should also count for the purposes of Hex, Spirit Shroud, and a bunch of other effects.

And I'm more than down for that.

 

[James Gasik]

If the Spiritual Weapon attacks counts as my character making the attack for Fire Shield, it should also count for the purposes of Hex, Spirit Shroud, and a bunch of other effects.

And I'm more than down for that.

I don't see any reason why Hex wouldn't apply, since it states: "Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack."

A spell attack is an attack.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If the Spiritual Weapon attacks counts as my character making the attack for Fire Shield, it should also count for the purposes of Hex, Spirit Shroud, and a bunch of other effects.

And I'm more than down for that.

I don't see any reason why Hex wouldn't apply, since it states: "Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 necrotic damage to the target whenever you hit it with an attack."

A spell attack is an attack.

Agreed. I would certainly allow hex to impact attacks made by spiritual weapon.

 

[FrogReaver]

Again. 1 is not in dispute. I reference the highlight part of the spell spiritual weapon. The cleric (you) is making the melee spell attack. Without the cleric directing it, the spiritual weapon does nothing.

Or The cleric is rolling, the spiritual weapon is attacking. - see, disputed.

It doesn’t matter if the cleric directs it just as it wouldn’t matter if the cleric directed a dominated monster to attack.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Or The cleric is rolling, the spiritual weapon is attacking.

It doesn’t matter if the cleric directs it just as it wouldn’t matter if the cleric directed a dominated monster to attack.

The spiritual weapon is not a sentient creature, it is a spectral force, which the cleric directly controls (movement, what to attack, it will NEVER act independently of the cleric) and uses the cleric's spell attack for the roll. The cleric is attacking, it is the cleric's turn, the spell is simply the weapon.

 

[FrogReaver]

The spiritual weapon is not a sentient creature, it is a spectral force, which the cleric directly controls (movement, what to attack, it will NEVER act independently of the cleric) and uses the cleric's spell attack for the roll. The cleric is attacking, it is the cleric's turn, the spell is simply the weapon.

Can non-creatures in D&D attack? I think so.

Doesn’t matter if it acts independently. It matters whether it attacks.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Can non-creatures in D&D attack? I think so.

Doesn’t matter if it acts independently. It matters whether it attacks.

Which it doesn't, the cleric attacks with it.

 

[Hriston]

Except it's perfectly reasonable to rule the spiritual weapon is attacking and it is not the caster nor is it a creature.

There's been a lot of elision of ruling and interpretation in this thread in response to my statement about the interpretation of the spell. To be clear, if the DM decides to rule as you have stated, I agree that would be a reasonable change to how the spell works. However, if we're talking about what the spell says, it explicitly says the caster is the one doing the attacking. That's not open for interpretation.

And frankly this is one of those situations where the result of not ruling that way is odd enough to make that call regardless.

You say this as if it's an objective fact. It is not.

The rules should not be interpreted so rigidly as to lead to absurd/nonsensical results.

I don't find the result any more absurd or nonsensical than in the case of an attack made with a physical melee weapon. It's just magic.