It strikes as a spell, not a weapon. As long as you could see the guy when you targeted him, the spell description says what factors adjust the spiritual weapon's attack and neither vision nor concealment are among them.
So, a Scorching Ray would also ignore invisibility and concealment?
It strikes as a spell, not a weapon. As long as you could see the guy when you targeted him, the spell description says what factors adjust the spiritual weapon's attack and neither vision nor concealment are among them.So, a Scorching Ray would also ignore invisibility and concealment?
Scorching Ray and Spiritual Weapon aren't the same spells, so they don't get the same benefits.
Spiritual Hammers do not suffer penalties from lack of visibility or from concealment (unless it is natural total concealment, which is the DM's discretion) if they were already directed at a target before hand. However, I should bring this point up:
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.
If you lose sight of the target, would you no longer be able to direct it (due to not being able to see the target), and have the weapon return to you?
|
It strikes as a spell, not a weapon. As long as you could see the guy when you targeted him, the spell description says what factors adjust the spiritual weapon's attack and neither vision nor concealment are among them.So, a Scorching Ray would also ignore invisibility and concealment?
A scorching ray requires a ranged attack by the caster, so is subject to all the benefits and drawbacks that apply to the caster's attacks. Spiritual weapon makes its own attacks, although it uses the caster's BAB and Wisdom modifier.
|
|
However, I should bring this point up:
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.If you lose sight of the target, would you no longer be able to direct it (due to not being able to see the target), and have the weapon return to you?
It's very unclear to me what that clause means, actually. Unless you direct the weapon to a new target, it continues to attack the same target. Does it stop if you're unconscious? What if you're not unconscious, but unable to take actions?
However, the weapon continues attacking if you direct it. I don't see a requirement for you to continue to target it. That would be a much stricter condition.
However, I should bring this point up:
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.If you lose sight of the target, would you no longer be able to direct it (due to not being able to see the target), and have the weapon return to you?It's very unclear to me what that clause means, actually. Unless you direct the weapon to a new target, it continues to attack the same target. Does it stop if you're unconscious? What if you're not unconscious, but unable to take actions?
However, the weapon continues attacking if you direct it. I don't see a requirement for you to continue to target it. That would be a much stricter condition.
My argument is that if you can't see the target, how can you direct who you want it to attack (which I think is a move action to direct a Spiritual Weapon) when they just vanished, and your character can't see them?
Honestly, the clause regarding vision and stuff are penalties they would suffer for striking invisible or concealed targets. This one refers to the conditions for it to stop attacking the target, which is if they try to go out of the spell's range in distance from the caster, if you can't see it, or if you're not telling it who and where to strike.
So again I ask, how can a character continue to direct the weapon to attack an invisible target if they can no longer see them or tell them where they are? That's what directing is, to guide them to the target they are attacking. If the character can't see them, the weapons can't really be directed at them due to the character's vision.
|
|
My argument is that if you can't see the target, how can you direct who you want it to attack (which I think is a move action to direct a Spiritual Weapon) when they just vanished, and your character can't see them?However, I should bring this point up:
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.If you lose sight of the target, would you no longer be able to direct it (due to not being able to see the target), and have the weapon return to you?It's very unclear to me what that clause means, actually. Unless you direct the weapon to a new target, it continues to attack the same target. Does it stop if you're unconscious? What if you're not unconscious, but unable to take actions?
However, the weapon continues attacking if you direct it. I don't see a requirement for you to continue to target it. That would be a much stricter condition.
You certainly couldn't redirect the weapon to attack an invisible opponent. However directing, as opposed to redirecting, is not any kind of action on the caster's part, which is why I wonder what conditions would prevent him doing it.
You certainly couldn't redirect the weapon to attack an invisible opponent. However directing, as opposed to redirecting, is not any kind of action on the caster's part, which is why I wonder what conditions would prevent him doing it.My argument is that if you can't see the target, how can you direct who you want it to attack (which I think is a move action to direct a Spiritual Weapon) when they just vanished, and your character can't see them?However, I should bring this point up:
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.If you lose sight of the target, would you no longer be able to direct it (due to not being able to see the target), and have the weapon return to you?It's very unclear to me what that clause means, actually. Unless you direct the weapon to a new target, it continues to attack the same target. Does it stop if you're unconscious? What if you're not unconscious, but unable to take actions?
However, the weapon continues attacking if you direct it. I don't see a requirement for you to continue to target it. That would be a much stricter condition.
Yes, you obviously couldn't, since you cannot see the target to redirect the weapons to.
However, that's re-direction. I'd think that standard direction would still require seeing the target and let the weapons know where they're going and who they're targeting, etc.
It all depends on the RAW, to be honest with you. I'll look it over again, but it would still require some house-ruling with the GM, since subject matter such as this isn't explicitly or generally expanded upon.
Personally? If it was a movement action to direct the weapons, I would believe that it would require visibility on the caster's part for them to direct the weapons, since they must actively direct the weapons (AKA, requiring a consumable action of some type, such as a movement, standard, or full-round action).
WOW! Glad you posted this.
Several years ago I DM'd a session with a guy who argued adamantly that the spiritual hammer spell attacking him should be negated b/c he ducks behind a nearby tree. He said the caster needs line of site, blah, blah. I said the spell is already attacking you!
Anyway, it went on, and on for about 15 minutes.
It held up the whole game, the guy was a problem everytime we played so I just pulled the plug on the night.
I told everyone it just was not fun anymore bickering and getting everything second guessed and questioned by this guy. I never thought I would have to do something like that, ever!
From the 6 players at that table we still have 4 in the rotation! Not bad!
WOW! Glad you posted this.
Several years ago I DM'd a session with a guy who argued adamantly that the spiritual hammer spell attacking him should be negated b/c he ducks behind a nearby tree. He said the caster needs line of site, blah, blah. I said the spell is already attacking you!
Anyway, it went on, and on for about 15 minutes.
It held up the whole game, the guy was a problem everytime we played so I just pulled the plug on the night.
I told everyone it just was not fun anymore bickering and getting everything second guessed and questioned by this guy. I never thought I would have to do something like that, ever!
From the 6 players at that table we still have 4 in the rotation! Not bad!
Well; I can't blame the guy for arguing, because he makes a valid claim, and is only trying to make the fight as smooth and fair/enjoyable as possible (I wouldn't like getting beat to death by a Giant Mallet of Doom and Sadness while I cower in the corner waiting for my party members to down the idiot who cast the spell). Is it lame that you guys had to separate over a silly game's spell, when you guys might have otherwise been pretty cool and friendly with each other? Of course.
A DM/GM is word of God, but to make the game enjoyable/fun, and fair to the players, he should at least hear what the player has to say, and the reasoning behind the statement before just completely debunking it.
We're a 4th level party (5th now, since we leveled from the last battle), and the last fight we had was a cleric cast two spiritual weapons on one of our mages (the character was "Ascended," so it had 2 standards and a movement action on top of it), and were assaulting him. The other mage cast Create Pit and she failed the save, so she fell in the Pit. I charged down there, and the weapons were still assaulting that one mage. It eventually got to the point to where the mage was just about to die, and we had an earlier, useless discrepency about the spell; I looked up the definition, and saw that it required a line of sight from the target/weapon, and that it had a range.
I said that the weapons shouldn't have been hitting the mage, and he asked why; I showed him and quoted the spell's description, saying that since the caster is in a pit, and can't see the target/weapons, that the weapons would have returned to the caster, not continue assaulting the target.
Since it was a valid reason, he agreed, and our mage got some HP back. Problem solved, and the fight got a bit easier due to my perception check (HUZZAH!).
I'm not saying you shouldn't have said no to the guy, but he didn't provide a valid reason, and I don't know what all happened within the argument, so...
Back on topic, I re-read the RAW spell description again; the caster does not need to take an action whatsoever to "direct" the weapon, meaning that even if the target goes invisible, the weapons should still be going after it.
A scorching ray requires a ranged attack by the caster, so is subject to all the benefits and drawbacks that apply to the caster's attacks. Spiritual weapon makes its own attacks, although it uses the caster's BAB and Wisdom modifier.It strikes as a spell, not a weapon. As long as you could see the guy when you targeted him, the spell description says what factors adjust the spiritual weapon's attack and neither vision nor concealment are among them.So, a Scorching Ray would also ignore invisibility and concealment?
So which benefits and drawbacks is the Spiritual Weapon subject to? I assumed all of them except flanking, since that's the only one mentioned in spell description.
Does the target get the benefit of his Dodge bonus to his AC?
Can he use his tower shield for full cover?
Does the target get penalties to AC for being prone?
Can the weapon get a bonus to attack for being on higher ground?
What rationales do you use to determine what applies to a Spiritual Weapon and what doesn't? References to RAW would greatly help alleviate my confusion.
A scorching ray requires a ranged attack by the caster, so is subject to all the benefits and drawbacks that apply to the caster's attacks. Spiritual weapon makes its own attacks, although it uses the caster's BAB and Wisdom modifier.It strikes as a spell, not a weapon. As long as you could see the guy when you targeted him, the spell description says what factors adjust the spiritual weapon's attack and neither vision nor concealment are among them.So, a Scorching Ray would also ignore invisibility and concealment?So which benefits and drawbacks is the Spiritual Weapon subject to? I assumed all of them except flanking, since that's the only one mentioned in spell description.
Does the target get the benefit of his Dodge bonus to his AC?
Can he use his tower shield for full cover?
Does the target get penalties to AC for being prone?
Can the weapon get a bonus to attack for being on higher ground?
What rationales do you use to determine what applies to a Spiritual Weapon and what doesn't? References to RAW would greatly help alleviate my confusion.
It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction. As a force effect, it can strike incorporeal creatures without the reduction in damage associated with incorporeality. The weapon always strikes from your direction. It does not get a flanking bonus or help a combatant get one. Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon. 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.
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.
If an attacked creature has spell resistance, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against that spell resistance the first time the spiritual weapon strikes it. If the weapon is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the weapon has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell.
I copied all that text from the RAW and pasted it here. It is a general summary of examples that differentiate it from the spell Scorching Ray, as well as conventional melee attacks.
I copied all that text from the RAW and pasted it here. It is a general summary of examples that differentiate it from the spell Scorching Ray, as well as conventional melee attacks.It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction. As a force effect, it can strike incorporeal creatures without the reduction in damage associated with incorporeality. The weapon always strikes from your direction. It does not get a flanking bonus or help a combatant get one. Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon. 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.
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.
If an attacked creature has spell resistance, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against that spell resistance the first time the spiritual weapon strikes it. If the weapon is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the weapon has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell.
Yes, but where does it say that concealment doesn't apply?
Also, does this answer any of my other questions, I'm having trouble deciphering specific answers?
I copied all that text from the RAW and pasted it here. It is a general summary of examples that differentiate it from the spell Scorching Ray, as well as conventional melee attacks.It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction. As a force effect, it can strike incorporeal creatures without the reduction in damage associated with incorporeality. The weapon always strikes from your direction. It does not get a flanking bonus or help a combatant get one. Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon. 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.
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.
If an attacked creature has spell resistance, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against that spell resistance the first time the spiritual weapon strikes it. If the weapon is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the weapon has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell.
Yes, but where does it say that concealment doesn't apply?
Also, does this answer any of my other questions, I'm having trouble deciphering specific answers?
I'll list what the weapon does in regards to your questions from first asked to last asked:
If the creature is previously Flat-footed, paralyzed, petrified, etc., then no dodge bonus. Otherwise, yes.
Depends on the weapon. Using Tower Shield for Full Cover is only useful against ranged weapons/ammunition. If the weapon is, for example, a Longsword, the Full Cover aspect, as far as I know, would not receive benefits, since last I checked the Full Cover option only applies to ranged attacks.
If the target they are attacking on their turn is currently prone, then yes, the weapon gets the benefits of that penalty to their AC. Otherwise, no.
If the weapon is on a square that is 5 ft higher (in elevation) than its target, and adjacent to it, then yes, it gets elevation bonuses. If it is not adjacent or on ground higher than its target, it does not receive elevation bonuses.
As for the concealment part, I believe it isn't specifically mentioned due to the fact that it is a property of Force damage/energy. Force Energy is usually unable to be disregarded or avoided (except through directly stated means). The best example I can give you is the classical 1st level Wizard/Sorcerer spell, Magic Missile.
The missiles fired from the spell deal Force Damage, and have unnerving range and accuracy. It does not require an attack roll to hit, always hits, and because of it being Force damage, it disregards all concealment and ethereal miss chances, except Total Concealment (meaning the caster cannot see the target, and therefore cannot cast/direct the spell to them). There are also spells and items that grant the bearer immunity to damage suffered from the spell Magic Missiles, meaning the spell will be castable upon them, but they suffer no damage due to the spell's nature, or the item's properties.
The same concept is applied to the Spiritual Weapon. Because it is a Force weapon (and being a melee weapon can help/hinder this as well), it does not need to bother with concealment, unless the target is completely concealed through natural means (such as teleporting across a room, etc. at the GM/DM's discretion).
I hope that clears things up for you! :)
The fact that it is a force weapon has absolutely nothing to do with concealment, magic missile is an entirely different spell the only remotely related thing is the force damage.
They can affect subjects on the ethereal plane and incorporeal targets normally, concealment is a completely different thing.
* I'd treat it as a dancing weapon or animated object really, I see no point in it being able to ignore concealment but would have it magically 'tracking' the target.
I'll list what the weapon does in regards to your questions from first asked to last asked:
If the creature is previously Flat-footed, paralyzed, petrified, etc., then no dodge bonus. Otherwise, yes.
Depends on the weapon. Using Tower Shield for Full Cover is only useful against ranged weapons/ammunition. If the weapon is, for example, a Longsword, the Full Cover aspect, as far as I know, would not receive benefits, since last I checked the Full Cover option only applies to ranged attacks.
If the target they are attacking on their turn is currently prone, then yes, the weapon gets the benefits of that penalty to their AC. Otherwise, no.
If the weapon is on a square that is 5 ft higher (in elevation) than its target, and adjacent to it, then yes, it gets elevation bonuses. If it is not adjacent or on ground higher than its target, it does not receive elevation bonuses.
Do you have RAW references for any of this? I mean, can you quote the RAW that states these normal rules apply to Spiritual Weapon, but not other normal rules, like concealment?
As for the concealment part, I believe it isn't specifically mentioned due to the fact that it is a property of Force damage/energy. Force Energy is usually unable to be disregarded or avoided (except through directly stated means). The best example I can give you is the classical 1st level Wizard/Sorcerer spell, Magic Missile.
The missiles fired from the spell deal Force Damage, and have unnerving range and accuracy. It does not require an attack roll to hit, always hits, and because of it being Force damage, it disregards all concealment and ethereal miss chances, except Total Concealment (meaning the caster cannot see the target, and therefore cannot cast/direct the spell to them). There are also spells and items that grant the bearer immunity to damage suffered from the spell Magic Missiles, meaning the spell will be castable upon them, but they suffer no damage due to the spell's nature, or the item's properties.
The same concept is applied to the Spiritual Weapon. Because it is a Force weapon (and being a melee weapon can help/hinder this as well), it does not need to bother with concealment, unless the target is completely concealed through natural means (such as teleporting across a room, etc. at the GM/DM's discretion).
I hope that clears things up for you! :)
So all Force damage ignores concealment? Do you have any RAW to back that up? A general statement, I mean, not just an example of a targeted spell. Targeted spells following different rules for targeting than non-targeted spells and all.
What about Force Bombs? Do those ignore concealment? For a direct hit, I mean, not splash.
Force Punch requires the caster to make a melee touch attack. Do it ignore concealment?
As you point out, Magic Missile cannot hit a target with total concealment, so even by your own argument, a Spiritual Weapon cannot hit an invisible creature.
Not only is your argument unsupported by RAW, it's internally inconsistent! I'm more confused than ever!
so is it affected by mirror image? i realise magic missile isnt
so is it affected by mirror image? i realise magic missile isnt
I'd say so
It seems clear that as it attacks AS A WEAPON, all things that affect weapon attacks would affect this attack as well. Miss chances apply from darkness, blur and such. Concealment would NOT apply if the weapon is a MELEE weapon as it is next to the creature. If you gods weapon is a RANGED weapon and you are attacking from distance then cover/concealment might apply.
I'll list what the weapon does in regards to your questions from first asked to last asked:
If the creature is previously Flat-footed, paralyzed, petrified, etc., then no dodge bonus. Otherwise, yes.
Depends on the weapon. Using Tower Shield for Full Cover is only useful against ranged weapons/ammunition. If the weapon is, for example, a Longsword, the Full Cover aspect, as far as I know, would not receive benefits, since last I checked the Full Cover option only applies to ranged attacks.
If the target they are attacking on their turn is currently prone, then yes, the weapon gets the benefits of that penalty to their AC. Otherwise, no.
If the weapon is on a square that is 5 ft higher (in elevation) than its target, and adjacent to it, then yes, it gets elevation bonuses. If it is not adjacent or on ground higher than its target, it does not receive elevation bonuses.
Do you have RAW references for any of this? I mean, can you quote the RAW that states these normal rules apply to Spiritual Weapon, but not other normal rules, like concealment?
...As for the concealment part, I believe it isn't specifically mentioned due to the fact that it is a property of Force damage/energy. Force Energy is usually unable to be disregarded or avoided (except through directly stated means). The best example I can give you is the classical 1st level Wizard/Sorcerer spell, Magic Missile.
The missiles fired from the spell deal Force Damage, and have unnerving range and accuracy. It does not require an attack roll to hit, always hits, and because of it being Force damage, it disregards all concealment and ethereal miss chances, except Total Concealment (meaning the caster cannot see the target, and therefore cannot cast/direct the spell to them). There are also spells and items that grant the bearer immunity to damage suffered from the spell Magic Missiles, meaning the spell will be castable upon them, but they suffer no damage due to the spell's nature, or
The RAW I use for them is how a melee combatant behaves, since they behave no different than a melee combatant if the spiritual weapon is a melee weapon.
The only text within the spell that states they behave differently from a melee combatant is that they do not receive or offer flanking benefits for/from other players/creatures. All other rules (such as opposing an opponent that has Full Cover from Tower Shield for Ranged Weapons/attacks, dodge bonuses, prone penalties, elevation bonuses, etc.) still apply as they would to a normal creature.
The guy who mentioned the force energy before me corrected me; it was the Magic Missile spell property that ignored concealment. However, Force effects affect Touch attacks and ethereal/intangible miss chances; the only thing I was wrong about was saying that it affected a character's concealment. However, if a Spiritual Weapon is 5 ft. right next to you, it will still ignore concealment through cover from objects.
Honestly, I suggest you look up the Spiritual Ally spell, as how that spell functions in combat compared to Spiritual Weapon is fairly similar. Compare the differences between the two spells; the difference is that Spiritual Ally counts it as a separate creature, and the pros/cons of being an actual creature applies, just as it does for Spiritual Weapon (except as mentioned before, Spiritual Weapon cannot offer/receive flanking bonuses).
Darksol, you may wish to review the Pathfinder versions of some of the things you are quoting. I believe you are blending 3.5 rules in with your interpretations.
For instance, there is no miss chance associated with being ethereal or incorporeal. 3.5 had a 50% chance of no effect (not quite a "miss chance" but close); in Pathfinder, attacks instead do half damage. Both specifically negated by force effects, but completely unrelated to concealment (which is also unrelated to cover by the way).
There is nothing to indicate that a spiritual weapon would ignore any regular combat effects, and a 50% miss chance for concealment makes total sense. I agree with the others who feel that since the spell has already been given its target, it will track an invisible foe (rather useful).
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure there is really an official way to run this. At my table, if someone is making an attack roll with a spell, they have to deal with concealment, invisibility, displacement, mirror image, etc. There is nothing that suggests spiritual hammer ignores these effects.