Spiritual Weapon vs. The Ethereal

[Hypersmurf]

I know there is a difference. This spell requires both, as does most spells.

Spells with a Target entry require both.

Spells with an Area or Effect entry do not require Line of Sight. "Most spells" is certainly an exaggeration.

You can cast your Fireball (Area) into the darkness and hope there's something for it to hit.

You can tell your Summoned Celestial Elephant (Effect) - assuming you speak Elephantish - "swing your trunk around and try and hit invisible people".

Spiritual Weapon is an Effect, and thus Line of Sight is not required. I would contend that if you direct it to attack an ethereal opponent - assuming it cannot discern it, which I'm not certain I'm willing to concede - then it would attack as normal for fighting an invisible opponent: choose a square into which to attack, and take a 50% miss chance due to concealment.

-Hyp.

 

[rhammer2]

The spell specifically says you must have line of sight on the weapon, though I would allow it to attack an unseen target. I would not allow the spell to auto succeed against an unseen target(choose your square, 50% miss). Without magical assistance it is impossible to detect an opponent on the etheral plane (if you are on the prime), so it would be pure chance for the caster to direct the attack to the correct square once the taget moved on the etheral plane.

Spells with a Target entry require both.

Spells with an Area or Effect entry do not require Line of Sight. "Most spells" is certainly an exaggeration.

You can cast your Fireball (Area) into the darkness and hope there's something for it to hit.

You can tell your Summoned Celestial Elephant (Effect) - assuming you speak Elephantish - "swing your trunk around and try and hit invisible people".

Spiritual Weapon is an Effect, and thus Line of Sight is not required. I would contend that if you direct it to attack an ethereal opponent - assuming it cannot discern it, which I'm not certain I'm willing to concede - then it would attack as normal for fighting an invisible opponent: choose a square into which to attack, and take a 50% miss chance due to concealment.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The spell specifically says you must have line of sight on the weapon...

Not relevant to attacking an ethereal opponent, though.

-Hyp.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Two lines from the spell description (PH pg 256) do it for me:

A melee weapon made of pure force springs into existence and attacks opponents at a distance, as you direct it, dealing 1d8 damage per hit.

and

If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers.

The Spiritual Hammer always attacks from your direction, and requires you to continuously direct it or it returns to your side and remains dormant. If you need to direct it, that means that it relies upon your senses to determine what to strike. To me, that means if you can't see the target, then neither can the spell. If the wizard had True Seeing up, then there wouldn't be a problem.

On another note, even if one allowed the Spiritual Weapon to track foes that the wizard cannot see, an Ethereal foe is actually on another plane. I certainly don't think that a 2nd-level spell effect can track its target across planar boundaries. The fact that Spiritual Weapon is a [Force] effect means it can effect a creature on the Ethereal plane in spite of that boundary, but it doesn't mean [Force] spells ignore the boundary altogether.

 

[Mistwell]

Two lines from the spell description (PH pg 256) do it for me:andThe Spiritual Hammer always attacks from your direction, and requires you to continuously direct it or it returns to your side and remains dormant. If you need to direct it, that means that it relies upon your senses to determine what to strike. To me, that means if you can't see the target, then neither can the spell. If the wizard had True Seeing up, then there wouldn't be a problem.

On another note, even if one allowed the Spiritual Weapon to track foes that the wizard cannot see, an Ethereal foe is actually on another plane. I certainly don't think that a 2nd-level spell effect can track its target across planar boundaries. The fact that Spiritual Weapon is a [Force] effect means it can effect a creature on the Ethereal plane in spite of that boundary, but it doesn't mean [Force] spells ignore the boundary altogether.

Ahem, being the guy playing the Cleric in question, I figure I should pipe in on this one (particularly since it is a domain spell for me that will probably be used again in the future, if my Cleric survives of course...).

You forgot to quote the part of the spell that says that,

"...you can use a standard action to switch the weapon to a new target. If you do not, the weapon continues to attack the previous round's target."

So, I contend that once I direct the weapon to attack the phase spider (that I can see at the time, since it is not phased when I direct the spiritual weapon), it "locks on" its target. I no longer have to direct the weapon after that point, as long as I do not wish to change targets, and as long as the WEAPON remains in my line of sight, and in range. There is no requirement that the target of the weapon remain in sight or range.

Otherwise, the spell would probably require concentration on my behalf to continually maintain. For example, if I am in combat and hit, the Spiritual Weapon is not impacted, nor does the spell require that I make a concentration check to maintain "directing" the weapon. I believe there are other spells that do specifically require such maintained concentration that can be interrupted, and the absence of this requirement indicates continual concentrated direction is not required once the weapon is directed to its target.

As for etherialness being a barrier to the spiritual weapon hitting...the text specifically says the spritual weapon attacks as a spell, not as a weapon, and can strike "for example" incorporeal creatures. Spells cast on the material plane can effect something on the etherial plane (and in fact every single summoning spell has an effect on things on other planes). I don't see any "boundary" preventing this spell from hitting it. In fact, really what is the difference between incorporeal and etherial? What other conditions other than incorporeal do you think the authors could have meant by "such as", if etherial isn't one of them?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

As for etherialness being a barrier to the spiritual weapon hitting...the text specifically says the spritual weapon attacks as a spell, not as a weapon, and can strike "for example" incorporeal creatures. Spells cast on the material plane can effect something on the etherial plane (and in fact every single summoning spell has an effect on things on other planes). I don't see any "boundary" preventing this spell from hitting it. In fact, really what is the difference between incorporeal and etherial? What other conditions other than incorporeal do you think the authors could have meant by "such as", if etherial isn't one of them?

You've raised two interesting points here.

Q. What's the difference between incorporeal and ethereal?
A: Everything. Something that is incorporeal is on the Material Plane, but has certainly qualities that make it difficult to hit, as described by the Incorporeal descriptor. Something that is Ethereal is on another plane, the Ethereal Plane. Because the Ethereal Plane is "close" to the Material Plane, certain effects (with the [Force] descriptor) are effective on either plane, regardless of the plane they were cast upon. However, other spells and spell-effects cannot pass the planar boundary.

Q. What could the authors have meant by "such as" if ethereal isn't one of them?
A: For one, they could have been referring to a Minor Globe of Invulnerability. Since the Spiritual Hammer strikes as a spell instead of an actual weapon, it's blocked by the Minor Globe.

Bottom line for me, I don't think the designers intended Spiritual Weapon to be able to attack ethereal creatures unless you can see them. It'd be like casting two 2nd-level spells for the price of one. *shrug* Of course, YMMV.

 

[Mistwell]

You've raised two interesting points here.

Q. What's the difference between incorporeal and ethereal?
A: Everything. Something that is incorporeal is on the Material Plane, but has certainly qualities that make it difficult to hit, as described by the Incorporeal descriptor. Something that is Ethereal is on another plane, the Ethereal Plane. Because the Ethereal Plane is "close" to the Material Plane, certain effects (with the [Force] descriptor) are effective on either plane, regardless of the plane they were cast upon. However, other spells and spell-effects cannot pass the planar boundary.

Q. What could the authors have meant by "such as" if ethereal isn't one of them?
A: For one, they could have been referring to a Minor Globe of Invulnerability. Since the Spiritual Hammer strikes as a spell instead of an actual weapon, it's blocked by the Minor Globe.

Bottom line for me, I don't think the designers intended Spiritual Weapon to be able to attack ethereal creatures unless you can see them. It'd be like casting two 2nd-level spells for the price of one. *shrug* Of course, YMMV.

Where are you getting this ethereal boundary theory? Is this something in any of the core rules?

As for two spells for one...not really. You have to start out seeing the crearture, and later it becomes ethereal, while already trageted by the spell, and during the spell durartion, and within range, and at least one spot within line of sight (but from the direction of the spellcaster). I doubt this situation will ever occur again in all the days of my playing D&D. It's not really unbalancing since it applies to such a truly rare set of circumstances.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Where are you getting this ethereal boundary theory? Is this something in any of the core rules?

DMG p76.

It doesn't use the exact phrase "planar boundary", but it describes what Lord Pendragon said.

-Hyp.

 

[Murrdox]

I dunno... I'm somewhat at a loss here. I'm inclined to agree with Mistwell's "lock-on" description of how spiritual weapon works.

If you had to direct the weapon manually while it was attacking a foe, the spell should require concentration. However, this is a "fire and forget" spell. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't keep attacking its target, even if the target became invisible, etherial, or any other spell affected it.

The only question in my mind is whether or not the spiritual weapon would get a 50% miss chance for attacking an invisible or etherial foe. If the weapon attacks on its own, and it doesn't have eyes, certainly it shouldn't be subject to Invisibility, and is locating its target by some sort of Blindsight. Whether or not this Blindsight would extend into the etherial plane so that it could still sense its target when it became etherial... there's another point for debate.

<update>

Blech, after thinking about it, looking at the spell this way could be ugly. That would mean that this spell can defeat Mirror Image, Blur, and other defensive spells.

 

[Mistwell]

I think it is time for a sage ruling on this one.