7
\$\begingroup\$

We had this come up in our last game. The cleric was dumping multiple instances of spiritual weapon against the BBEG while bottlenecking the minion stack and protecting the backline. On the round following the third casting of spiritual weapon the BBEG pulled out a scroll of invisibility and turned himself invisible to make the "Grand Escape".

Now, the DM in this case ruled that spiritual weapon was allowed to continue attacking the BBEG because all three instances of the spell had set the BEEG as its target BEFORE the creature went invisible. But with that ruling, everyone was honestly confused on weather or not spiritual weapon "Cares" if the creature is invisible for the 50% miss chance due to concealment.

Can anyone give a clear RAW interpretation on how to correctly run the sequence of interactions:

  1. Cleric casts spiritual weapon on a valid target.
  2. Target later becomes invisible.

So, does spiritual weapon get to continue attacking the invisible target? And if so, how is it handled?

\$\endgroup\$

1 Answer 1

4
\$\begingroup\$

Reasonably sure there is no clear rule explicitly written to cover this case. Spiritual weapon didn’t get a lot of commentary outside its own spell description. This seems to be a case that they either never considered, or just left up to the DM.

But the clearest I can come up with is that this combination of statements suggest that despite looking like, and doing the damage of, some weapon, it isn’t really, mechanically, a floating weapon that makes attacks—it’s just a spell effect.

It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon

The weapon always strikes from your direction.

you can use a move action to redirect the weapon to a new target.

On any round that the weapon switches targets, it gets one attack. Subsequent rounds of attacking that target allow the weapon to make multiple attacks if your base attack bonus would allow it to.

Even if the spiritual weapon is a ranged weapon, use the spell’s range, not the weapon’s normal range increment, and switching targets still is a move action.

Particularly the fact that the spell never discusses the weapon needing to move around—even if your target moves, if you don’t redirect the spell, it still gets a “full attack” where an actual creature would have to move and thus not get a full attack.

So this seems, to me, to indicate that your DM made the right call, spiritual weapon can keep making attacks against a foe who turns invisible, without any risk of losing track of where that foe is. It doesn’t, however, tell you where the foe is? So you can’t just follow the spiritual weapon around and attack into the same square it is, seems like.

On the subject of the 50% miss chance, though, I’m pretty sure that would apply—ultimately, this is a spell attack, the cleric’s spell attack, and those are subject to that miss chance.

\$\endgroup\$
7
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Would losing line of effect to the target of the spell make the spell stop working? \$\endgroup\$ Nov 22, 2021 at 23:33
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @WannabeWarlock Excellent question, and it’s unclear. “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,” might imply not, simply for not being on that list. On the other hand, on some level “range” is kind of affected by things that block line-of-effect (kinda?). The other issue is that it presumably would not “return to you” through whatever is blocking line-of-effect, so... I don’t know? \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Nov 23, 2021 at 1:28
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I think the fact that the weapon returns when it goes out of sight implies that the caster has to keep control of the spell - even if the weapon continues to attack the same target – und thus not only has to see the weapon but also the target. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peregrin
    Nov 23, 2021 at 10:53
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @PeregrinTook This analysis restricts itself to only those rules that are written; what you suggest is certainly sensible, and may well be what they were getting at, but they definitely did not write that. \$\endgroup\$
    – KRyan
    Nov 23, 2021 at 12:07
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Yes, that’s true… but they neither wrote that the spell can follow an target that the caster can’t see. One has to speculate. As you wrote, there is no clear rule. \$\endgroup\$
    – Peregrin
    Nov 23, 2021 at 12:42

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .