Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mort" data-source="post: 8837214" data-attributes="member: 762">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.</blockquote>