D&D 5E Spiritual Weapon vs. Fire Shield

[Hriston]

*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.

I believe your claim was "There is no language like that in the rules for weapon attacks. There is for spells." The language in question being the following:

Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target.​

I think I've now shown there is ample language like this in the rules for weapon attacks.

 

[FrogReaver]

I believe your claim was "There is no language like that in the rules for weapon attacks. There is for spells." The language in question being the following:

Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target.​

I think I've now shown there is ample language like this in the rules for weapon attacks.

So you debunked a claim that doesn’t bolster your position nor undermine my primary position. Great job! Golf clap!

Now maybe address the points I brought up after you done this and before you reiterated it.

 

[Clint_L]

Again, I think the only problem here is folks not really considering the implications of a world where magic is just as real as physical bodies. As far as I am concerned, the cleric in the OP's example is in range of the fireshield and smacking it with a weapon. The fact that the cleric is holding the weapon with their magic rather than with their hand makes no difference to the magical effect; the cleric is still connected to the weapon and thus takes the fire shield damage if they are within its range.

To me, them not taking the damage would be weird - it would be implying that magic is somehow not as real as physical bodies, when in the game it very much is.

 

[Incenjucar]

The fiction of either result is easy enough to imagine -> RAW version just means that there's a connection between the caster and the weapon that allows them to project a melee attack.

The spell is kind of a mess. Is a spiritual sword metal? Can it be silver or adamantine? Can it instead be a wooden sword? Can you use class features or feats through it? Can it be a net? Etc.

 

[James Gasik]

The fiction of either result is easy enough to imagine -> RAW version just means that there's a connection between the caster and the weapon that allows them to project a melee attack.

The spell is kind of a mess. Is a spiritual sword metal? Can it be silver or adamantine? Can it instead be a wooden sword? Can you use class features or feats through it? Can it be a net? Etc.

Well as for what weapon it can be, the spell says:

The weapon can take whatever form you choose. Clerics of deities who are associated with a particular weapon (as St. Cuthbert is known for his mace and Thor for his hammer) make this spell's Effect resemble that weapon.

However, as always with 5e, there's wiggle room here for a DM to make their own ruling; for example, one could say that "resembling" a weapon does not mean it functions as that particular weapon. So even if your God was known for wielding a greataxe, the spell is only going do to d8 damage.

This sort of ambiguity is supposedly a bug, not a feature, but personally, I find the table variance really bothersome, especially with Adventurer's League play.

 

[Oofta]

The fiction of either result is easy enough to imagine -> RAW version just means that there's a connection between the caster and the weapon that allows them to project a melee attack.

The spell is kind of a mess. Is a spiritual sword metal? Can it be silver or adamantine? Can it instead be a wooden sword? Can you use class features or feats through it? Can it be a net? Etc.

It can be any shape you want, but all it will ever do is force damage. It's not "made of" anything, it's a spell that cannot be targeted. The spectral image you see is just that, an image of the cleric's ongoing spell. It's "made of" the same thing that magic missiles are made of.

 

[James Gasik]

It can be any shape you want, but all it will ever do is force damage. It's not "made of" anything, it's a spell that cannot be targeted. The spectral image you see is just that, an image of the cleric's ongoing spell. It's "made of" the same thing that magic missiles are made of.

But try not to ask what that that thing is. WotC has never been very good at describing force damage. Does it cut? Bruise? Puncture? Depends on what's dealing the force damage.

It's very nearly the "Non-Element"/"True Damage" of the system.

 

[Oofta]

But try not to ask what that that thing is. WotC has never been very good at describing force damage. Does it cut? Bruise? Puncture? Depends on what's dealing the force damage.

It's very nearly the "Non-Element"/"True Damage" of the system.

It doesn't matter if it cuts, bruises or punctures. It's the same "thing" as a magic missile, does it bother you that the spell doesn't describe specifically whether magic missile cuts, bruises or punctures?

 

[James Gasik]

It doesn't matter if it cuts, bruises or punctures. It's the same "thing" as a magic missile, does it bother you that the spell doesn't describe specifically whether magic missile cuts, bruises or punctures?

As a game element, it doesn't bother me. From a roleplaying standpoint, it does, because you have to describe this thing that cannot be easily described, but is apparently so common just about any guy who can wiggle their fingers and make magic happen can evoke it.

 

[Oofta]

Again, I think the only problem here is folks not really considering the implications of a world where magic is just as real as physical bodies. As far as I am concerned, the cleric in the OP's example is in range of the fireshield and smacking it with a weapon. The fact that the cleric is hold the weapon with their magic rather than with their hand makes no difference to the magical effect; the cleric is still connected to the weapon and thus takes the fire shield damage if they are within its range.

To me, them not taking the damage would be weird - it would be implying that magic is somehow not as real as physical bodies, when in the game it very much is.

It's partly just how I envision it. The fire shield obviously isn't blasting out in all directions, if it's exceeding the 5 foot area around the creature that cast it, it's not by enough to catch everyone around it, only the person holding the weapon doing the attack.

So let's say A has a longsword, B has fire shield, C has spiritual weapon, D has a polearm with 10 foot reach. If A attacks B with their longsword, A takes damage. I envision it as a combination of things, A has to physically encroach on B's space in order to attack, their arm is entering B's square. It could just be the arm that is set on fire or it could be that the arm (or even just the weapon) touches the fire and a flare of fire encases A following A's arm up the body. If D attacks B with their polearm, the fire flares out but no part of D's body entered B's space and the flair can't go further than 5 feet so D is unaffected; C is also unaffected of course.

On the other hand, C's spiritual weapon doesn't really exist as anything other than a spectral image that indicates the squares it can target. It's just there as a visible reference point. If it wasn't limited in how far it can be moved in a turn, it would be considered a ranged spell attack.

If the spiritual weapon is attacking B, it can be in any square adjacent to B, or even in B's square. If the spiritual weapon is in A or B's square when it hits, there's no path for the fire shield to follow, no part of C's arm or anything C is physically attached to encroaches on B's space. If the spiritual weapon is in A's square, it's certainly not going to flair out and harm A.

So my logic is fairly simple. For all practical purposes it really is a ranged spell attack, it's a melee spell attack only because as an ongoing spell that can only be moved a limited distance on a turn. Second, no part of C or anything C is holding is encroaching on B's square, there's nothing for the fire shield to directly damage or "follow" with a flair to follow. If fire shield just flared into the square in the direction of the attacker, when D attacks B then C should have taken damage. That doesn't happen because C wasn't the one attacking.

So that's how I rule it and why. I want magic to at least make visual sense, fire shield is not "intelligent" and I think this is just one of those cases that the rules don't cover so it's always going to be a DM's ruling. At the point that B is attacked by the spiritual weapon it's no different than if A had cast magic missile from an adjacent square and should have the same ruling.

Now I have to stop procrastinating and go wash dishes. BTW, having your dishwasher crap out the morning you're having 20 people over is not good timing.