D&D 5E Spiritual Weapon vs. Fire Shield

[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.