This question was prompted by this question about the relation to the rogue's uncanny dodge feature and being able to see the attacker when spiritual weapon is used.


When a creature is subject to the magic melee attack of spiritual weapon what is considered to be the attacker?

  • Is the caster considered the attacker?
  • Is the spiritual weapon itself considered the attacker?
  • Are both?


This has implications for uncanny dodge, in that it would answer if the dodging rogue needs to see the caster or the weapon.

This has implications for hellish rebuke in that if the spirit weapon is the attacker, then hellish rebuke can't do damage to the caster.


Nowhere in the official rules is the word "attacker" defined.

Jeremy Crawford once tweeted how he'd rule on a similar issue in an unofficial tweet from April 2016:

Does a Spiritual Weapon attack get Adv, DisAdv, or n/a to hit rolls if the caster is 5ft away from a prone target?

Yes. The spellcaster is the attacker with spiritual weapon—the one doing the targeting.

This was a response to the 'attacker' being within 5 feet of a prone target, but translates straight across here. This gives us the only definition of the word attacker in regards to 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons: "the one doing the targeting".

In the case of the scenarios presented in this question:

  • The spellcaster must be visible for the defender to gain the benefit of Uncanny Dodge.
  • The spellcaster must be visible in order for hellish rebuke to hit him/her, but it will target the spellcaster.
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Just piggybacking on that as well. His singlular tweet provides a snapshot into how he'd rule at the time he wrote the tweet. He may have changed his mind later or earlier. Can you support your answer beyond an unofficial tweet? \$\endgroup\$ – NautArch May 15 '20 at 13:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ @NautArch as far as I can tell, this singular tweet is the only place, official rules or not, that the word 'Attacker' is actually defined - the one doing the targeting. Nowhere in the errata, the official SageAdvice, or any of the core books is the phrase Attacker defined. The only place in the core rules it is even located, is in spells and abilities such as Hellish rebuke, and in the rules for unseen attacker. Thus I must take word of god, however official/unofficial, into account in my answer. \$\endgroup\$ – That_Knight_Guy May 16 '20 at 1:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ The answer may potentially also be supported by citing the description of spiritual weapon itself: "When you cast the spell, you can make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon. [...] As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the weapon up to 20 feet and repeat the attack against a creature within 5 feet of it." It says "you" make the attack - that's presumably part of what Crawford's basing his ruling on. \$\endgroup\$ – V2Blast May 16 '20 at 6:17
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I notice that the basis for this is that someone asked Crawford a multiple-choice question and he answered "yes". If he answered that way here, we would probably delete it. It doesn't come anywhere near our standards for evidence or even clarity. \$\endgroup\$ – Mark Wells May 16 '20 at 6:44

There is no "the attacker".

Here are some generally correct statements about "the attacker".

  1. The attacker's action is used to make the attack.
  2. The attacker's attack bonus is added to the attack roll.
  3. The attacker's weapon die and ability modifier are used to roll for damage.
  4. The attacker needs to be within reach of the target.
  5. The attacker gets hit with damage if the target uses hellish rebuke.
  6. If the attacker can't see the target, the attack roll has disadvantage.
  7. If the target can't see the attacker, the attack roll has advantage.

Usually, the "attacker" in all of these is the same creature, but spiritual weapon bends that a little: the caster uses their bonus action and attack bonus, but the spell effect has to be within reach of the target. (Note that this is a melee attack with 5-foot reach, despite the caster potentially being much further away.) The concept of "attacker" is split between two entities depending on why we need to know.

So, the "attacker" in #1 and #2 is the caster. In #4 the attacker is the spell effect. (I'm not going to worry about #3: damage is based on the spell effect, not the weapon, but that's perfectly normal for spells that inflict damage.)

Consider #5. Does hellish rebuke even apply here? It strikes the creature that damaged you, and in this case you weren't damaged by a creature but by a freestanding magical effect. On the other hand that effect was directed at you by a creature. The rules don't strictly define what it means to be "damaged" by another creature, so there is no right answer. Make a ruling.

Consider #6. Well, the spell effect can't see anything; it's just a spell effect. So that leaves the caster as the "attacker" for this purpose. The caster is clearly exerting some control--they must use their bonus action to command the weapon, and they choose the target.

How about #7? This is different: the spell effect can't see but it can be seen, so it could be the "attacker" for this purpose. I argue that it is, because what the unseen-attacker rule is trying to represent is the difficulty in defending against an attack you can't see, and the attack in this case takes the form of a big glowy weapon swinging at your head. Being able to see the caster is not necessary; the attack is happening at your location, not theirs. But again, the rules don't answer this. Make a ruling.

The point is that the answer to "What is the attacker?" depends on why you are asking.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.