D&D 5E (2014) Spiritual Weapon vs. Fire Shield

[Hriston]

Under Weapons:

The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the fantasy gaming worlds, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess.​

See, weapons can hit too.

 

[Hriston]

Here's another:

Net. A Large or smaller creature hit by a net is restrained until it is freed.​

 

[Oofta]

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?

The caster creates a physical manifestation of a whip that they are holding. So yes, fire shield would work on that because they are wielding a weapon used in the attack, even if the weapon is temporary.

I know we can just say that fire shield somehow "knows" who cast the spiritual weapon spell but at the time of the attack the caster is no longer wielding the spiritual weapon. For me that's what makes it different. Mordenkainen's sword would work the same way, the caster is not physically attached to the sword.

As always, feel free to rule differently but I don't always rule according to the letter of the rules, the result has to make sense. Otherwise you can end up with "the bag of rats" exploit.

 

[Hriston]

Another example from the rules of a weapon hitting:

Poison, Basic. ... A creature hit by the poisoned weapon or ammunition must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or take 1d4 poison damage.​

Spell effects are not special in this way.

 

[Hriston]

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.

How do you interpret this:

When you cast the spell, you can make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon.​

to mean the weapon and not the caster is the one that makes the attack?

 

[FrogReaver]

Under Weapons:

The Weapons table shows the most common weapons used in the fantasy gaming worlds, their price and weight, the damage they deal when they hit, and any special properties they possess.​

See, weapons can hit too.

*Natural language and all

There is no dispute whether a creature wielding a sword, attacking and hitting, met the criteria of flame shield - a creature within 5 feet of you that hits you with a melee attack.

There is a dispute over whether the Spiritual weapon itself hits or the cleric hits.

Just because it can both be said that the weapon hit or the wielder of the weapon hit, doesn't imply the same can be said in every instance. For example, we would say a robot hit, but we wouldn't say the person that programmed the robot hit - even though the robot would do nothing if he hadn't been programmed. *Causality in language is very nuanced and often unclear. Is Spiritual Weapon more like the robot or like the wielded weapon? Seems open to interpretation to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

The rules don't say that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Another example from the rules of a weapon hitting:

Poison, Basic. ... A creature hit by the poisoned weapon or ammunition must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw or take 1d4 poison damage.​

Spell effects are not special in this way.

Arrows can be used in traps and require no creature to roll an attack roll.

Thus, the rule would need to avoid talking about the creature attacking or hitting in this instance to cover all scenarios. *Natural language and all.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I'd say for me it's pretty clear that the caster hits the creature with a melee attack when using Spiritual Weapon.

Because Spiritual Weapon clearly states "you can make a melee spell attack".

If it said you can command the Spiritual Weapon to do a melee spell attack, then I'd agree that the caster doesn't hit the creature and thus doesn't get hit by Fire Shield.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The rules don't say that.

Certainly it does, which I have highlighted in the spell repeatedly yet you seem determined to ignore.

Here, one more time, maybe it will eventually sink in?

When you (the cleric) casts the spell, you (the cleric) make a melee spell attack.

And since you like this so much:

"Your attack (the cleric) bonus with the spell attack..." See that?

You (the cleric) are hitting the fire shield target with the spell effect, because in order for the spell effect (YOUR spell effect) to hit, you must attack with it. The spiritual weapon spell is what you are hitting with, when you succeed and determine "whether the spell effect hits".

The spell effect is nothing, literally, without the cleric making the attack and hitting with it.

Your argument for "natural language" doesn't prove your point of view when you are focused solely on the phrase "spell effect hits". It doesn't hit without you attacking with it, in which case YOU are hitting the target with the spell effect, just as a fighter or whoever hits their target with a weapon attack.