Understanding Spiritual Weapon (Post errata)

[bearcatbd]

In the errata the Attack tag was removed from Spiritual Weapon. The spell description states you make a Strike with it and it contributes to multi-attack penalty. I assume we are still rolling a Spell Attack both when you first fire off the spell and when sustained. How does this spell NOT have the attack tag? Mistake or am I missing something here?

[mrspaghetti]

bearcatbd wrote:

In the errata the Attack tag was removed from Spiritual Weapon. The spell description states you make a Strike with it and it contributes to multi-attack penalty. I assume we are still rolling a Spell Attack both when you first fire off the spell and when sustained. How does this spell NOT have the attack tag? Mistake or am I missing something here?

Looks like we need an Errata Errata.

Definitely appears to be a mistake.

[MEATSHED]

I believe the spell itself doesn't have the attack trait because if it did then actually casting it would contribute to your multiple attack penalty along with the strikes it makes, so you would be at -10 MAP for casting spiritual weapon despite only making one strike with it. Also most abilities that cause you to strike, such as power attack, don't have the attack trait, as they have a strike which does.

[Zapp]

MEATSHED wrote:

because if it did then actually casting it would contribute to your multiple attack penalty

This. This is why the change was made.

[shroudb]

It's the same reason why feats like "power attack" and etc do not have a seperate Attack trait.

the trait is already in the Strike

[mrspaghetti]

Makes sense

[bearcatbd]

I have always felt the initial attack was part of the two action cast. Cast spell, weapon moves and makes first attack, hence Attack tag. Third action if sustained is at -5. Not cast spell (counts as attack) then the weapon makes a strike action (2nd attack).

"When you cast the spell, the weapon appears next to a foe you choose within range and makes a Strike against it."

I saw in another post where a person might want to cast but not attack (therefor not suffer the attack penalty as well). This situation I could see why it shouldn't be on the spell cast itself but I also might argue that not attacking isn't an option since the spell description say it "makes a strike".

[AnimatedPaper]

I think your interpretation that you cannot not make the strike is correct, but the strike really is separate from the spell cast.

It's a pretty fine hair I'll admit, and I could see it legitimately falling either way. But that just means this explanation works well enough, as along as we know which one they're going with.

This clause probably was what tipped the scale:

Spiritual Weapon wrote:

Despite making a spell attack, the spiritual weapon is a weapon for purposes of triggers, resistances, and so forth.

[bearcatbd]

Okay, thanks for helping me wrap my cranium around this one ;-)