So an idea Im playing with: spiritual weapon can take whatever form you choose according to the text.
So it should be allowed to make it in your character's image.
For roleplay, do you think this could be allowed give any kind of advantage against creatures with low intelligence, like they might burn an attack or 2 on it? Or would the image be like a ghostly, floating statue, so it would still not look like a creature?
While the weapon can take whatever form you choose, it doesn't give any advantage or benefit whatsoever regardless of the form chosen.
Well sure, not mechanically.
But in terms of roleplay, like with silent image or any other spell that is specifically flavor and doesn't "have" a stated mechanical effect on some target. If a player at your table did this, would the enemies react any differently?
Not sure what you are asking. You stated "for role play" which would indicate you would like the enemies to have some sort of reaction. You also ask if it would give advantage which is a mechanic. The DM can role play how enemies react but RAW it won't change the mechanics unless the two of you have agreed on it. Basically Spiritual Weapon is just that - a weapon that does damage on a successful attack roll. The advantage for clerics is that it is a bonus action that doesn't require concentration so they can do other things and still get in a few whacks.
I mean, mechanically you can make it whatever image you want, so the role play value is built in. Its a mechanic that lets you do something with it besides just be the basic weapon.
I would say no. Because the spell creates a WEAPON. So unless your PC looks like a greatsword or a bow or something along those lines then you are out of luck.
What you are referring to is this part of the spell's description:
"The weapon can take whatever form you choose. Clerics of deities who are associated with a particular weapon (as St. Cuthbert is known for his mace and Thor for his hammer) make this spell's effect resemble that weapon."
Notice how the example given by the spell is a mace and hammer and not St. Cuthbert or Thor himself?
While the weapon can take whatever form you choose, it doesn't give any advantage or benefit whatsoever regardless of the form chosen.
Well sure, not mechanically.
But in terms of roleplay, like with silent image or any other spell that is specifically flavor and doesn't "have" a stated mechanical effect on some target. If a player at your table did this, would the enemies react any differently?
At my table, i'd require the form chosen to be a weapon, not a creature.
I mean, the text you cite follows what I said. It doesn't say the form of the weapon must be a weapon, but whatever form the caster chooses.
And I think that ought to have some effect on the role play of the situation. The same way silent image mechanically just creates a source of cover, but will function differently in play if you cast it as a pile of old planks to hide in vs a 10ft tall purple troll to hide behind.
OK. The reason people are telling you no is because while you are saying role-play, we all hear exploit. If somebody asks the DM for a reflavored spiritual weapon for actual role play reasons the DM will likely say yes. If the DM smells that you want mechanical advantage or even role play advantage the answer will likely be no ("role play" advantages seem to eventually lead to requests for mechanical advantages).
Spiritual weapon is a great, great spell. It doesn't need an exploit. Just shape it as a cool weapon and enjoy your weaponized bonus action.
I mean, the text you cite follows what I said. It doesn't say the form of the weapon must be a weapon, but whatever form the caster chooses.
The spell specifically say you create a weapon and the weapon can have whatever form you choose. At my table, creatures are not weapons.
You create a floating, spectral weapon within range
Wait... you're saying you create an actual weapon then? As in, you can pick it up and wield it but also cast a spell attack through it as a bonus action?
I mean, I didn't think the "weapon" was either a creature or a literal weapon, just a spectral illusion through which the spell attack is made. Thinking of it as an actual floating weapon that you summon is way weirder than letting someone choose the illusory form of the spell effect.
A weapon doesn't have to be physical to be a weapon. It is something intended by design to cause damage.
Personally, I like them create whatever they want that doesn't grant benefits or advantages beyond the spell. So, no, you can't make a second "you" to try and fool enemies and make them waste attacks. That is not the point or purpose of the spell.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I mean, the text you cite follows what I said. It doesn't say the form of the weapon must be a weapon, but whatever form the caster chooses.
The spell specifically say you create a weapon and the weapon can have whatever form you choose. At my table, creatures are not weapons.
You create a floating, spectral weapon within range
Wait... you're saying you create an actual weapon then? As in, you can pick it up and wield it but also cast a spell attack through it as a bonus action?
I mean, I didn't think the "weapon" was either a creature or a literal weapon, just a spectral illusion through which the spell attack is made. Thinking of it as an actual floating weapon that you summon is way weirder than letting someone choose the illusory form of the spell effect.
I say you create a floating, spectral weapon. If the DM want it to take any other form it's up to DM
I mean, the text you cite follows what I said. It doesn't say the form of the weapon must be a weapon, but whatever form the caster chooses.
The spell specifically say you create a weapon and the weapon can have whatever form you choose. At my table, creatures are not weapons.
You create a floating, spectral weapon within range
Wait... you're saying you create an actual weapon then? As in, you can pick it up and wield it but also cast a spell attack through it as a bonus action?
I mean, I didn't think the "weapon" was either a creature or a literal weapon, just a spectral illusion through which the spell attack is made. Thinking of it as an actual floating weapon that you summon is way weirder than letting someone choose the illusory form of the spell effect.
I say you create a floating, spectral weapon. If the DM want it to take any other form it's up to DM
The DM can rule whatever they want in all cases. But unless the DM overrules' a spell's text, isn't the text the rule?
A weapon doesn't have to be physical to be a weapon. It is something intended by design to cause damage.
Personally, I like them create whatever they want that doesn't grant benefits or advantages beyond the spell. So, no, you can't make a second "you" to try and fool enemies and make them waste attacks. That is not the point or purpose of the spell.
A part and purpose of the spell is letting the caster choose its form. Its still spectral and floating, so its not like its going to have the minor illusion cantrip baked into the spell.
What rule of thumb are we to use to decide some parts of spells aren't an intentional part of the spell? Why not just let all the text be operative?
I suppose some things that don't change the stated effects could be flavor, like letting a firebolt be blue or something. But that is different from just subtracting a sentence from the spell description.
A weapon doesn't have to be physical to be a weapon. It is something intended by design to cause damage.
Personally, I like them create whatever they want that doesn't grant benefits or advantages beyond the spell. So, no, you can't make a second "you" to try and fool enemies and make them waste attacks. That is not the point or purpose of the spell.
A part and purpose of the spell is letting the caster choose its form. Its still spectral and floating, so its not like its going to have the minor illusion cantrip baked into the spell.
What rule of thumb are we to use to decide some parts of spells aren't an intentional part of the spell? Why not just let all the text be operative?
I suppose some things that don't change the stated effects could be flavor, like letting a firebolt be blue or something. But that is different from just subtracting a sentence from the spell description.
If I really have to explain how the intent of the spell is to create a weapon and not to deceive enemies into wasting attacks, there's no hope for you. Best of luck with whatever DM you have.
The test says you create a weapon in the form of choice. Not a person of choice, not anything in any form, - a weapon.
Essentially, look at the weapons table in PHB. Pick one. Customise the appearance - and there you go. Some DMs may let you extend these options into something more - like a statuette or a drumstick or something.
This ain't difficult, dude, come on now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I mean, the text you cite follows what I said. It doesn't say the form of the weapon must be a weapon, but whatever form the caster chooses.
The spell specifically say you create a weapon and the weapon can have whatever form you choose. At my table, creatures are not weapons.
You create a floating, spectral weapon within range
Wait... you're saying you create an actual weapon then? As in, you can pick it up and wield it but also cast a spell attack through it as a bonus action?
I mean, I didn't think the "weapon" was either a creature or a literal weapon, just a spectral illusion through which the spell attack is made. Thinking of it as an actual floating weapon that you summon is way weirder than letting someone choose the illusory form of the spell effect.
I say you create a floating, spectral weapon. If the DM want it to take any other form it's up to DM
The DM can rule whatever they want in all cases. But unless the DM overrules' a spell's text, isn't the text the rule?
I mean, the text you cite follows what I said. It doesn't say the form of the weapon must be a weapon, but whatever form the caster chooses.
The spell specifically say you create a weapon and the weapon can have whatever form you choose. At my table, creatures are not weapons.
You create a floating, spectral weapon within range
Wait... you're saying you create an actual weapon then? As in, you can pick it up and wield it but also cast a spell attack through it as a bonus action?
I mean, I didn't think the "weapon" was either a creature or a literal weapon, just a spectral illusion through which the spell attack is made. Thinking of it as an actual floating weapon that you summon is way weirder than letting someone choose the illusory form of the spell effect.
I say you create a floating, spectral weapon. If the DM want it to take any other form it's up to DM
The DM can rule whatever they want in all cases. But unless the DM overrules' a spell's text, isn't the text the rule?
Yes it is! RAW the spell a spectral weapon.
And raw, "The weapon can take whatever form you choose."
Not "The weapon can take whatever form of weapon you choose"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So an idea Im playing with: spiritual weapon can take whatever form you choose according to the text.
So it should be allowed to make it in your character's image.
For roleplay, do you think this could be allowed give any kind of advantage against creatures with low intelligence, like they might burn an attack or 2 on it? Or would the image be like a ghostly, floating statue, so it would still not look like a creature?
Well sure, not mechanically.
But in terms of roleplay, like with silent image or any other spell that is specifically flavor and doesn't "have" a stated mechanical effect on some target. If a player at your table did this, would the enemies react any differently?
Not sure what you are asking. You stated "for role play" which would indicate you would like the enemies to have some sort of reaction. You also ask if it would give advantage which is a mechanic. The DM can role play how enemies react but RAW it won't change the mechanics unless the two of you have agreed on it. Basically Spiritual Weapon is just that - a weapon that does damage on a successful attack roll. The advantage for clerics is that it is a bonus action that doesn't require concentration so they can do other things and still get in a few whacks.
I mean, mechanically you can make it whatever image you want, so the role play value is built in. Its a mechanic that lets you do something with it besides just be the basic weapon.
I would say no. Because the spell creates a WEAPON. So unless your PC looks like a greatsword or a bow or something along those lines then you are out of luck.
What you are referring to is this part of the spell's description:
"The weapon can take whatever form you choose. Clerics of deities who are associated with a particular weapon (as St. Cuthbert is known for his mace and Thor for his hammer) make this spell's effect resemble that weapon."
Notice how the example given by the spell is a mace and hammer and not St. Cuthbert or Thor himself?
At my table, i'd require the form chosen to be a weapon, not a creature.
I mean, the text you cite follows what I said. It doesn't say the form of the weapon must be a weapon, but whatever form the caster chooses.
And I think that ought to have some effect on the role play of the situation. The same way silent image mechanically just creates a source of cover, but will function differently in play if you cast it as a pile of old planks to hide in vs a 10ft tall purple troll to hide behind.
The spell specifically say you create a weapon and the weapon can have whatever form you choose. At my table, creatures are not weapons.
OK. The reason people are telling you no is because while you are saying role-play, we all hear exploit. If somebody asks the DM for a reflavored spiritual weapon for actual role play reasons the DM will likely say yes. If the DM smells that you want mechanical advantage or even role play advantage the answer will likely be no ("role play" advantages seem to eventually lead to requests for mechanical advantages).
Spiritual weapon is a great, great spell. It doesn't need an exploit. Just shape it as a cool weapon and enjoy your weaponized bonus action.
Wait... you're saying you create an actual weapon then? As in, you can pick it up and wield it but also cast a spell attack through it as a bonus action?
I mean, I didn't think the "weapon" was either a creature or a literal weapon, just a spectral illusion through which the spell attack is made. Thinking of it as an actual floating weapon that you summon is way weirder than letting someone choose the illusory form of the spell effect.
A weapon doesn't have to be physical to be a weapon. It is something intended by design to cause damage.
Personally, I like them create whatever they want that doesn't grant benefits or advantages beyond the spell. So, no, you can't make a second "you" to try and fool enemies and make them waste attacks. That is not the point or purpose of the spell.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
I say you create a floating, spectral weapon. If the DM want it to take any other form it's up to DM
The DM can rule whatever they want in all cases. But unless the DM overrules' a spell's text, isn't the text the rule?
A part and purpose of the spell is letting the caster choose its form. Its still spectral and floating, so its not like its going to have the minor illusion cantrip baked into the spell.
What rule of thumb are we to use to decide some parts of spells aren't an intentional part of the spell? Why not just let all the text be operative?
I suppose some things that don't change the stated effects could be flavor, like letting a firebolt be blue or something. But that is different from just subtracting a sentence from the spell description.
The first words are
"You create a floating, spectral weapon"
If you are not creating a weapon (which has a game definition) then you aren't following the language.
If I really have to explain how the intent of the spell is to create a weapon and not to deceive enemies into wasting attacks, there's no hope for you. Best of luck with whatever DM you have.
The test says you create a weapon in the form of choice. Not a person of choice, not anything in any form, - a weapon.
Essentially, look at the weapons table in PHB. Pick one. Customise the appearance - and there you go. Some DMs may let you extend these options into something more - like a statuette or a drumstick or something.
This ain't difficult, dude, come on now.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Yes it is! RAW the spell a spectral weapon.
"The weapon can take whatever form you choose."
"Whatever form you choose" is "whatever form you choose." You are adding qualifiers that do not exist in the spell description.
And raw, "The weapon can take whatever form you choose."
Not "The weapon can take whatever form of weapon you choose"