D&D 5E Spiritual Weapon vs. Fire Shield

[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?