D&D 5E Spiritual Weapon vs. Fire Shield

[Ancalagon]

Okay, you can create exceptions to fire shield by adding the requirement that there must be a physical connection between the caster and the attacker for the spell to work. This would also except Mordenkainen's sword from triggering damage from fire shield.

What about thorn whip? Would you consider the magically created whip to constitute a physical connection between the attacker and the target?

If the druid is within 5 feet of the target, they would take fireshield damage, because the whip emanates from the druid. The druid is where the spell lashes out.

 

[Ancalagon]

Thanks for bringing that up again.

The caster (cleric within 5 feet of target) makes the attack roll, and hits with the spell effect (his spell), which is a melee spell attack.


Sure, that is the spell's effect, the spiritual weapon the cleric attacked with.

That all satisfies the requirement for fire shield:

View attachment 267883

1. Cleric within 5 feet of target? CHECK!
2. hits with a melee attack? CHECK!

The cleric is (yet again...) hitting with his spiritual weapon spell. It is the same as if a berserker barbarian uses frenzy to make a bonus action melee attack with a hammer. What you are attacking with doesn't matter (as long as it is a melee attack), and then you hit with that attack.

You seem to keep thinking that because the hit is done by the spiritual weapon, fire shield isn't satisfied, but it is.

hmmmmm

"determine whether the spell effect hits"

So it's not the cleric that hits, it's the spell effects

 

[DND_Reborn]

So it's not the cleric that hits, it's the spell effects

By that logic my barbarian attacking with his sword isn't hitting the creature either, the sword is... sigh.

 

[James Gasik]

By that logic my barbarian attacking with his sword isn't hitting the creature either, the sword is... sigh.

Well if the sword is Blackrazor, that might be an accurate assessment.

 

[FrogReaver]

By that logic my barbarian attacking with his sword isn't hitting the creature either, the sword is... sigh.

There is no language like that in the rules for weapon attacks. There is for spells.

Flame shield requires the creature to hit. The spell attack rules say the spell effect hits - not the creature.

IMO RAW supports either ruling.

 

[FrogReaver]

hmmmmm

"determine whether the spell effect hits"

So it's not the cleric that hits, it's the spell effects

Exactly. That’s the basis for my RAW reading.

 

[James Gasik]

By that logic, flame blade foils fire shield as well.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Flame shield requires the creature to hit. The spell attack rules say the spell effect hits - not the creature.

The cleric is hitting, with the spiritual weapon spell. Which is why the cleric makes a melee spell attack roll to determine if he hits with the spell effect.

There is no language like that in the rules for weapon attacks. There is for spells.

Precisely, because you are reading it wrong.

When you make an attack (even with a spell, as in the section you quoted), you roll the attack to determine if the attack hits. In the case of a weapon, it is the weapon hitting. In the case of a spell, it is the spell effect hitting.

Regardless, you are making the attack and hitting with either the weapon or the spell effect. The spell effect isn't hitting independently, nor is a weapon.

Exactly. That’s the basis for my RAW reading.

Which is still incorrect.

 

[Hriston]

This applies to all attack rolls whether they are for weapon attacks or spell attacks (some bolding added):

Rolling 1 or 20​

Sometimes fate blesses or curses a combatant, causing the novice to hit and the veteran to miss.​

​

Surely we aren't supposed to imagine they are talking about novice spell effects.

 

[LordEntrails]

I agree that would be a reasonable change to how the spell works.

That's kind of insulting. It assumes your intepretation of the rule is the one true way, and you ok with people changing it, but your reading in the one one that's "right". Others are saying that the rule can be interpreted either way, and both are acceptable.