I'm of the opinion that because of this line:
Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon.
The Spiritual Weapon is distinct enough from the character that the AC bonus from Smite Evil would not apply on attacks from the Spiritual Weapon, only against attacks from the smite'd creature (the cleric).
It's not a creature and is distinctly a spell effect, I completely agree.
But:
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
The important thing to note is that the cleric isn't the one making the attacks. It's a spell that the cleric directs to attack certain things (similar to how a wizard might summon a creature and order it to attack) and then does so separately from anything else the cleric does.
I guess it comes down to I (and your GM) see the Spiritual Weapon as a distinct and separate thing from the cleric. It's a spell effect created by the cleric, but it is not the cleric. As Smite only affects a single creature, it cannot affect the weapon created by Spiritual Weapon.
You see the spiritual weapon as an extension of cleric, though I can't see the same conclusion myself.
I'm of the opinion that because of this line:
Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon.The Spiritual Weapon is distinct enough from the character that the AC bonus from Smite Evil would not apply on attacks from the Spiritual Weapon, only against attacks from the smite'd creature (the cleric).
Since spiritual weapon uses the cleric's attack values, and is directed by said cleric, I'd find for the paladin player on this one. It's no different that if the cleric was firing on the paladin with a longbow.
It doesn't use the cleric's attack value though.
It uses the cleric's BAB and his wisdom to generate an attack value, why that is the case is unclear. But it doesn't benefit from things like power attack or weapon focus on anything else. In order for the cleric to be the one making the attack, those things would need to apply IMO.
Why the evoked (it's evocation and not conjuration, weird right?) weapon uses the clerics BAB and wisdom...well I can only imagine that the spell was designed to be useful but not too good, and instead of saying you summon a weapon that has an attack bonus equal to your wisdom and BAB it just says:
It uses your base attack bonus (possibly allowing it multiple attacks per round in subsequent rounds) plus your Wisdom modifier as its attack bonus.
I will however agree that it could be more clear that the weapon created is a separate entity from the cleric.
Since spiritual weapon uses the cleric's attack values, and is directed by said cleric, I'd find for the paladin player on this one. It's no different that if the cleric was firing on the paladin with a longbow.I'm of the opinion that because of this line:
Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon.The Spiritual Weapon is distinct enough from the character that the AC bonus from Smite Evil would not apply on attacks from the Spiritual Weapon, only against attacks from the smite'd creature (the cleric).
When was Spiritual Weapon a projectile fired from a creature?
It's not a projectile. It's a spell. To be more accurate, it's a Weapon-like Spell, that attacks independently from whatever the Cleric might be doing in the future rounds. (Maybe casting another Spiritual Weapon just to tick the misunderstood Paladin player off, make him go Chaotic, and thereby make him fall? Joking aside...)
He could sit there and completely forget about a Spiritual Weapon still going (let's say a Mind Blank spell was cast on him, if only to humor the example), and it would still be beating on the same person he originally targeted with the spell, because the Cleric's actions, outside of the spell allowing him to re-target the Spiritual Weapon with his Move Action, have zero impact on what the Spiritual Weapon does; it is its own entity, which takes its own actions and attacks, and can be targeted individually, just like any other entity, what with Dispel Magic, Rods of Cancellation, etc.
Claxon's Summoned Monster argument should've put the nail in the coffin. If your argument is "The Spiritual Weapon is an extension of the Cleric," then how come I don't get my Smite Bonii when I'm fighting Druids or Wizards who summon Evil entities? They're just as much an extension as a Spiritual Weapon, they're both spells, they both make things that can attack me, they both can be targeted, destroyed, et. al.
As an aside, if the Cleric was using a Longbow as a Spiritual Weapon, I'd question how it would even function; does it create its own ammunition? Can I provide ammunition for it? What if the weapon can be thrown, can I choose how it attacks? If I decide to throw it because reasons, does it only get the one attack and my spell goes poof?
I'll say that it's possible to have a Longbow as a Spiritual Weapon, for the record, as this text here proves it:
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.
But it really brings into question how a ranged weapon, which usually involves throwing or projectile weapons, and they are basically 1-shot options; projectile weapons, I'll add, require ammunition to even attack which the spell doesn't provide, so...yeah.
I will also raise how you would empathize this argument with the likes of Spiritual Ally, something which is almost identical to how Spiritual Weapon works, but actually creates a Force combatant who can flank, make AoO's, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So you say if a wizard casts a poison arrow and trhows it at me it doesn't apply either because... acid is not the evil wizard.
Same with telekinesis. It is a force effect, not a summoning spell.
The weapon(and the ally) are spells, not entities, that act like something else, it says so in the description.
If you are saying Smite evil doesn't apply to spells, please show me where it says so.
The spells you mentioned are targeted using the caster's own attack or CMB roll and action. Spiritual Weapon (and similar effects like Mage's Sword) are independent creations that attack on their own, much like a summoned monster. That's the distinction.
Since the cleric himself isn't making the attack action (the spiritual weapon is making its own) I don't think Smite Evil would apply to the spiritual weapon.
The cleric creates a spell effect that attacks for him, but the cleric is not making the attack. The cleric can die and the spell would keep going. I am sure nobody is arguing that a dead cleric is attacking.
It strikes the opponent you designate, starting with one attack in the round the spell is cast and continuing each round thereafter on your turn.
and
Each round after the first, you can use a move action to redirect the weapon to a new target. If you do not, the weapon continues to attack the previous round's target.
If the cleric dies, it will keep attacking unless the target moves out of range.
Whoops. Missed that line somehow. Regardless, I'm not entirely sure how being affected by SR or it needing to be directed invalidates what we've been saying.
I'm sorry you're not happy with our judgment/interpretation, but I simply don't see it as "an extension" of the caster. It is much closer to a summoned creature even though it isn't a summoned creature.
Ultimately its up to your GM to decide as it's not crystal clear. However, I agree with his original ruling.
So you say if a wizard casts a poison arrow and trhows it at me it doesn't apply either because... acid is not the evil wizard.
Same with telekinesis. It is a force effect, not a summoning spell.
The weapon(and the ally) are spells, not entities, that act like something else, it says so in the description.
If you are saying Smite evil doesn't apply to spells, please show me where it says so.
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite.
The bolded part is important to the argument we're making. The thing is, the AC bonus specifically says you only get the benefit against attacks made by the target that you Smite, in your instance, the Cleric. If the attack is made by anyone, or anything other than the Cleric, the AC bonus does not apply. If the effect affecting you is not an attack, or doesn't require any sort of attack roll to affect you (such as Fireball or Lightning Bolt), it doesn't apply. That's it. Them's the breaks.
So, in your Acid Arrow example, since the Wizard is the target of your Smite, and the Wizard is making an attack roll against you (and not the Acid Arrow), you would get your Charisma to your AC as a Deflection Bonus against that attack.
However, in the Spiritual Weapon example, you wouldn't get it because the Cleric is not making the attack roll, the Spiritual Weapon is. You would have to Smite the Spiritual Weapon (a wasted effort) in order to receive your AC benefits against it, because the Spiritual Weapon makes the attack(s), independent of the Cleric actively directing its focus.
How would you adjudicate Spiritual Ally? It's essntially a beefed up Spiritual Weapon (using similar language for attack bonuses, etc. and even referencing the spell). Really at its core, it's the same spell, just better (think Magic Weapon and Greater Magic Weapon). Same mechanics for attacks and everything.
But the argument that Spiritual Ally is just an extension of the caster is a lot harder to make. So if it doesn't make sense for Spiritual Ally ...
Hmm, good question. I can definitely see some table variation.
Since it is an evocation effect and not a conjuration effect, I would rule that smite bonuses do apply.
It's a spell you casted and you make it attack. That you make the attack indirectly doesn't mean you are not attacking. When I DM it would break invisibility too. Just as I would if an alchemist threw bombs to an "open space" that is luckyly next to your enemy.
Invisibility has a completely different set of rules from something like Smite Evil's interaction with Spiritual Weapon, and those rules sets are not applicable to everyday rulings.
The funny thing is, even by your definition of what you think breaks Invisibility, Spiritual Weapon would technically not trigger Invisibility, and that's because Invisibility has specific conditions for what triggers Invisibility to no longer function, and shouldn't be used as general rulings for other stuff:
The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character's perceptions. Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.
It says that spells which target a foe or have an area of effect which includes a foe would break invisibility, but then goes on to say that summoning monsters to attack your enemies (or in other words, casting Spiritual Weapons to attack your enemies) would be causing harm indirectly (i.e. independant from the caster), and therefore would not break Invisibility.
The best part is? Spiritual Weapon is a spell that doesn't have a "target" line, or an "area" line, meaning it can't be a spell that targets a foe, or have an area of effect that includes a foe. All it has, is an "effect" line that says "magic weapon of force." Just like how Summon Monster has an "effect" line that says "one summoned creature," and is likewise lacking the "target" or "area" lines.
Hmm, good question. I can definitely see some table variation.
Since it is an evocation effect and not a conjuration effect, I would rule that smite bonuses do apply.
Arcane Schools have no relevance to whether it's a legitimate effect that Smite Evil can benefit from, and they're almost doubly irrelevant in regards to Divine Spellcasting.
All that's relevant in terms of Smite Evil, is if the attack roll is coming from the target of their Smite. If no attack roll is coming from the Cleric (it's coming from the spell effect making its attacks independent from the Cleric), then it's not applying, period, end of discussion.
If the Paladin can prove that it's the Cleric himself making the attack roll, then by all means he can have his Smite AC. Unfortunately, he'll have a hard time rationalizing the Cleric making the attack roll; because if he is, it wouldn't be a Force effect, meaning it'd do physical damage, it would be using his Strength modifier for attack and damage rolls, which can be higher or lower than his Wisdom modifier, as well as be increased or decreased based on the way he is wielding it, etc.
Now, if we were talking about a character utilizing the likes of Flame Blade, then there would be grounds for applying Smite Evil AC, because the caster makes the attacks with the Flame Blade in his hand, and isn't something that just chases you and makes attacks of its own accord.
Well the schools of magic have extensive rules governing how they function, so I believe they are absolutely relevant when talking about magic. Divine spellcasting is not exempt from the rules of the different schools of magic.
Yeah it's a pretty difficult question. I don't think there will be enough rules evidence to prove either side of the discussion.
Well the schools of magic have extensive rules governing how they function, so I believe they are absolutely relevant when talking about magic. Divine spellcasting is not exempt from the rules of the different schools of magic.
Yeah it's a pretty difficult question. I don't think there will be enough rules evidence to prove either side of the discussion.
In regards to stuff like Polymorph and certain Illusion spells? Sure, I'd agree with that.
But you're talking about Evocation. Here's what it says:
Evocation spells manipulate magical energy or tap an unseen source of power to produce a desired end. In effect, an evocation draws upon magic to create something out of nothing. Many of these spells produce spectacular effects, and evocation spells can deal large amounts of damage.
So we know that Evocation specializes in manipulating energy or force to serve a specific purpose, and on that note, basically tells the laws of Alchemy in Fullmetal Alchemist to go suck eggs. It then says that these spells produce "spectacular effects" (fairly open-ended, as "spectacular" is synonymous with words like amazing or wonderful). A Force Weapon attacking a designated enemy of its own volition is pretty damn amazing and wonderful.
Quite frankly, there's nothing particularly limiting or exclusive in that text. If anything, Evocation is almost as open-ended as a Universalist spell like Wish, according to the definition we're giving of what Evocation spells do or function as.
I mean, given the information presented, the only reason why Summon Monster isn't an Evocation spell (you are creating a random monster or three out of nowhere by tapping into the magical energies of the planes, making three monsters appear for basically nothing at all) is because it's already listed as a Conjuration spell, though such a spell can very easily fall into being Evocation.
Also note that while a lot of people associate Evocation spells to be dealing a lot of damage, or to be offensive, not all of them are, according to the Evocation school entry, only that they can be the high damaging spells.
At this point, using the definition or examples given of what Evocation spells are only muddies the already "supposedly murky" waters into something that cannot be properly explained.
To that end, you're effectively using something that can be easily misconstrued for any other school of magic as proof of a Spiritual Weapon being able to be affected by Smite Evil, which is infinitely more ridiculous and inconclusive than the opposing interpretation(s).
I mean come on, there are two questions you need to ask in regards to the Smite Evil AC: 1. Are you being attacked? 2. Is the attack roll by the target that you Smited? If the answer is No to either of those questions, your Smite Evil AC does not apply to the given situation, period.
Again, in the Spiritual Weapon and Cleric situation, when a Spiritual Weapon attacks, it's the Spiritual Weapon making the attack roll, not the Cleric. The modifiers for these individual subjects use different modifiers, have different means of calculation, and may not even be the same damn weapon that they're using, so saying that it's the Cleric making the attack roll is conclusively false, as the Spiritual Weapon attacks independent of the Cleric attacking.
I like that argument.
"Well the English language is vague and I don't think conjuration makes sense anyways, summoning creatures should be evocation so therefore all this other evocation counts as a separate source of damage".
1) Yes
2) Yes
But at this point you're dissecting the English language and trying to give argument directly counter to the written rules, so I can tell this argument is going nowhere. Feel free to rule at your table however you want, but don't try to force your interpretation upon others as "the only true RAW".
Good day.
Goes out of your sight = returns to you. I would say your sight is pretty limited if you are dead.
What if the attacker(enemy) is already next to the cleric so it doesn't have to move in order to continue attacking?
Goes out of your sight = returns to you. I would say your sight is pretty limited if you are dead.
Also the fact that a cleric may be dead does not change the premise of my original question.
Spiritual Ally is just a better version of spiritual weapon and it does not go back to the caster once it is out of his sight. So now that the dead cleric is using spiritual ally what is you answer?
I like that argument.
"Well the English language is vague and I don't think conjuration makes sense anyways, summoning creatures should be evocation so therefore all this other evocation counts as a separate source of damage".
1) Yes
2) YesBut at this point you're dissecting the English language and trying to give argument directly counter to the written rules, so I can tell this argument is going nowhere. Feel free to rule at your table however you want, but don't try to force your interpretation upon others as "the only true RAW".
Good day.
You clearly misunderstood my point.
I never said that X should be Y. I don't particularly care what school a spell should be, because they have no relevance to what a spell specifically does, they only have reference to what a spell of that school generally functions, as well as their limitations, if any, such as Beast Shape, Form of the Dragon, Mirror Images, et. al. The specifics of the spell can easily overturn the general rules of arcane schools.
I said that X could be Y, according to your argument that the arcane schools properly and concisely explain how spells of each school operate, and their limitations, and the only reason why it's not Y is because the school listed is X. In fact, what I said was that you could put Y in place of X, and the spell would be functionally exactly the same as if it were X.
That's it. All I'm saying is that your argument of "Schools properly explain what each spell does" is just about as valid as any other "expect table variation" answer, which in this instance, isn't acceptable.
I gave my interpretation; it's concise, it's properly explained, there's no flaws to it, and there are no arguments against it besides "I don't like that it works that way" from the OP, to which I say "Tough luck, rule it another way in your home games if you don't like it."
But I can guarantee you that if you played this sort of scenario in a PFS table, they will rule it identical to how I have. If you don't believe me, then try it at a PFS table.
I doubt you know all the DM everywhere, spiritual weapon is clearly a spell, your spell, that you are directing. Would you say the same for spectral hand and interposing hand?
You don't summon a creature, just because it can act in auto mode doesn't mean it's a real entity.
I think spectral hand is actually the caster making the attack, going off of memory.
There is a difference between the caster attacking and a spell effect using his stats.
As an example, black tentacles is not the caster attacking anymore than spiritual ally or spiritual weapon is.
By the way if the caster dies after casting spiritual ally are you saying the caster is still attacking?
PS: I will look up spectral ally and interposing hand and not be lazy about it.
The spell gives you a +2 bonus on your melee touch attack roll, and attacking with the hand counts normally as an attack.
The spell says it is your attack roll so the caster is attacking.
The hand makes saving throws as its caster
That shows that it is not the cast, but gets his saving throws.
Maybe you were looking for a hand spell that does attack.
This spell functions as interposing hand, except that it can also grapple one opponent as grasping hand. Its CMB and CMD for grapple checks use your caster level in place of its base attack bonus, with a +12 bonus for its Strength score (35) and a +1 bonus for being Large (its Dexterity is 10, granting no bonus to the CMD). A crushing hand deals 2d6+12 points of damage on each successful grapple check against an opponent. The crushing hand can instead be directed to bull rush a target (as forceful hand), using the same bonuses outlined above, or it can be directed to interpose itself, as interposing hand does.
I would say it is just like spiritual ally or spiritual weapon, and that the caster is not attacking. Basically unless the spell says the caster is attacking then the caster is not attacking. To avoid any attempt to twist what I am saying I am referring to when the caster creates something that can attack on it's own.
I doubt you know all the DM everywhere, spiritual weapon is clearly a spell, your spell, that you are directing. Would you say the same for spectral hand and interposing hand?
You don't summon a creature, just because it can act in auto mode doesn't mean it's a real entity.
Never claimed to know every GM. All I claimed was that you probably won't pull it off at a PFS table, which is perhaps as by-the-rules as it gets. The GMs are required to abide by the rules posted in the book(s), as well as any FAQs mentioned in the FAQ page on this site, and any questions will be directed to VO's and whatnot, who will give the official ruling if the GM is unclear as to how something functions.
I never said Spiritual Weapon wasn't a spell, nor that it was a spell that the Cleric did not cast. He did cast it, because he used the spell slot, and the spell effect scales based on his Wisdom and his Caster Level. The Cleric can also redirect it to attack someone else as a Move Action. But other than that? It automatically functions on its own, without requiring any other action from the Cleric.
Wraithstrike laid out the argument clear as day. The rules state you only gain the AC against attacks made by the target of the Smite. If you Smited the Cleric, the Cleric has to be making the attacks, not the spell that he cast which attacks of its own volition. The same is true with summoned monsters, which attack of their own volition (though if the caster can talk to them, he may ask them to redirect their attack).
I already agreed with you in that Acid Arrow would grant you the AC, because the Wizard, who you Smited, is the one making the attack roll, not the Acid Arrow that he created. The Acid Arrow does not act of its own accord, all of its activities involve the Wizard making and performing all of the essential decisions, such as targeting, making the touch attack roll, etc. All of that is done by the Wizard, who you Smited.
The same isn't true for Spiritual Weapon. The caster makes the original target, and serves as a catalyst for how effective the spell is, but the caster isn't required for the spell effect to continue functioning; it can makes attacks regardless of whatever the caster does for future rounds, and beat on the original target until it dies or the duration expires (or runs out of the caster's spell range).
You then went on to say that Spiritual Weapon is not an entity. If it's not an entity, then how can I target it with Dispel Magic, Disintegrate, a Rod of Cancellation, etc., if it's not an entity (and therefore not something that I can target specifically)?
You can Disintegrate a bow and dispel a bless, that don't make it a creature.
This is written in the spell description:
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.
This two lines are what make me think that it needs your intervention
Did I say that Spiritual Weapon was a creature? No. I said it was an entity, something that is distinct from anything else in existence.
That part of the spell description is not relevant to it being its own entity. It has a default option that it takes (hovers at your square) until you direct it to do otherwise, which requires a Move Action on your part.
The same is true for Summoned Monsters; they have a default option (kill all enemies), and act upon it until you speak to it (a Free Action), and if it understands your speech, it will follow any direction you otherwise have for it (keep so-and-so alive, focus whatshisname first, etc).
So your argument is "it's not me, it's my spell that is attacking", with a spell that is totally linked to you and does nothing if you don't direct it or you can't see your enemy. The way I see it, is like i'm just swinging my sword, not my fault you were in the way.
What are your thoughts on Spiritual Ally?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As has been stated previously, the smite bonus only applies vs the target you placed it on. Not from summoned monsters, spiritual weapon, created golems, allied murder-hobos with a shotgun, etc. So any person under the effects of smite can send entities to attack you whenever, however, etc as long as they are not making the attack. They pull out a gun, fire a guided rocket, spray you with mace, hit you with an even bigger mace, try to assault you with the corpse of an unladen African swallow laced with elderberry wine, bad touch you with inflict wounds spells, target you with direct attack spells like searing light or scorching ray or the dreaded donut holes of Dormammu, etc, then you get the AC bonus.
Here's my two coppers:
A weapon made of force appears and attacks foes at a distance, as you direct it, dealing 1d8 force damage per hit, + 1 point per three caster levels (maximum +5 at 15th level).
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite.
The spiritual weapon is what's doing the attacking, not the enemy cleric. I'd say no deflection bonus against it.
A spiritual weapon isn't effected in either direction from a smite.
As discussed, if the target of the smite is not directly making an attack on you, then the AC bonus doesn't apply. Spiritual Weapon is a created force that then makes it own attack roles, under direction, but without action of the caster.
The reverse is true too. IF you have both the ability to smite and cast spiritual weapon, the spiritual weapon won't benefit from the smite when making attack rolls because it, not you, is doing the attacking.
So your argument is "it's not me, it's my spell that is attacking", with a spell that is totally linked to you and does nothing if you don't direct it or you can't see your enemy. The way I see it, is like i'm just swinging my sword, not my fault you were in the way.
I will answer your question when you answer mine.
Is spiritual ally attacking after the cleric is dead your way of saying the dead cleric is attacking someone?I don't want to attribute an argument to you that you are not making so I am asking for the 3rd time.
So your argument is "it's not me, it's my spell that is attacking", with a spell that is totally linked to you and does nothing if you don't direct it or you can't see your enemy. The way I see it, is like i'm just swinging my sword, not my fault you were in the way.
My argument is that yes, in this specific case, it is the spiritual weapon attacking because that's said explicitly in the text.
It's different than you swinging the sword but exactly the same as a dancing sword attacking your opponent or a trap you set being triggered by your opponent or a monster you summoned attacking your opponent or a hireling you've paid attacking your opponent.