You create a floating, spectral weapon within range that lasts for the duration or until you cast this spell again. When you cast the spell, you can make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon. On a hit, the target takes force damage equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the weapon up to 20 feet and repeat the attack against a creature within 5 feet of it.
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.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for every two slot levels above 2nd.
My question is if the clause "the weapon can take whatever form you choose" still requires the form to be that of a weapon, or if it can literally be any form.
Im imagining things like a floating spectral spirit animal, or a floating spectral statue of a person.
Really out there side question: if it is strictly a weapon, could you grab it and wield it as such?
It can take any form you like. I see no reason to limit it to specifically weapons from the tables in the books, but ymmv with your DM.
You cannot reach out and grab it and wield it as such. First it is spectral, and second it can only do what the spell text tells you (it floats and attacks creatures within 5 feet of it).
The spell specifically say you create a floating, spectral weapon and the weapon can have whatever form you choose. You cannot wield spectral weapon it's more an evocation than a physical object
It can take any form you like. I see no reason to limit it to specifically weapons from the tables in the books, but ymmv with your DM.
You cannot reach out and grab it and wield it as such. First it is spectral, and second it can only do what the spell text tells you (it floats and attacks creatures within 5 feet of it).
Yeah, I think wielding it definitely isn't intended, and isn't RAW since the text doesn't describe it that way.
But spectral doesn't mean immaterial. There are plenty of things in the game that are described as "spectral" but still do interact physically, like the spectral weapons of a bunch of enemies and the spectral bridge from waterdeep. And Crawford has said that spiritual weapon doesn't go through physical things like walls.
Not a debate I'd be willing to pursue though. Just an odd thought.
You could narratively describe yourself wielding it, but that would all be descriptive fluff. Mechanically, it does exactly what it says.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
My question is if the clause "the weapon can take whatever form you choose" still requires the form to be that of a weapon, or if it can literally be any form.
Im imagining things like a floating spectral spirit animal, or a floating spectral statue of a person. ...
That question can really be translated as "does your DM like weird/crazy shit".
The spiritual weapon for Friar Nuthar my Forge Cleric with the cooking feat was a potato masher which was ok as the dm loved it.
coins can be weapons in animate object. If the damage type is force, so might be teddy bears.
Really out there side question: if it is strictly a weapon, could you grab it and wield it as such?
Again up to the DM. Can you grab "a floating, spectral ..." thing that has a normal use to allow you to mentally control it to "make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon"?
A DM could say yes or no. I'd say yes - if you cast it so for it to become a weapon under physical control rather than mental.
So, technically, RAW, it has to be a “weapon.” I don’t imagine that RAI it much matters. RAF, imagine 🐝-slapping the crud out of an enemy with I giant spectral salmon. I once made a Ghost Rider inspired character and reskinned spells like spiritual weapon to represent the cool stuff his chain can do.
You create a floating, spectral weapon within range that lasts for the duration or until you cast this spell again. When you cast the spell, you can make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon. On a hit, the target takes force damage equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the weapon up to 20 feet and repeat the attack against a creature within 5 feet of it.
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.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for every two slot levels above 2nd.
My question is if the clause "the weapon can take whatever form you choose" still requires the form to be that of a weapon, or if it can literally be any form.
Im imagining things like a floating spectral spirit animal, or a floating spectral statue of a person.
Really out there side question: if it is strictly a weapon, could you grab it and wield it as such?
Other than that, it can look like whatever you want - there is a now famous version of the spell that looks like a giant lollipop.
I would not let a PC wield the weapon. It doesn't say you can do so in the spell description and it feels like a waste. It's like telling my players, "Yes, go ahead and make yourself less effective!"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
You create a floating, spectral weapon within range that lasts for the duration or until you cast this spell again. When you cast the spell, you can make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon. On a hit, the target takes force damage equal to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier.
As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the weapon up to 20 feet and repeat the attack against a creature within 5 feet of it.
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.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d8 for every two slot levels above 2nd.
My question is if the clause "the weapon can take whatever form you choose" still requires the form to be that of a weapon, or if it can literally be any form.
Im imagining things like a floating spectral spirit animal, or a floating spectral statue of a person.
Really out there side question: if it is strictly a weapon, could you grab it and wield it as such?
Other than that, it can look like whatever you want - there is a now famous version of the spell that looks like a giant lollipop.
I would not let a PC wield the weapon. It doesn't say you can do so in the spell description and it feels like a waste. It's like telling my players, "Yes, go ahead and make yourself less effective!"
Don't forget another version of the spell from the same Critical Role campaign was a bust of Estelle Getty XD
Our party's Lore Bard took Spiritual Weapon as a Magical Secret, and gave it the form of a pair of crashing symbols (unwielded of course.)
I would not let a PC wield the weapon. It doesn't say you can do so in the spell description and it feels like a waste. It's like telling my players, "Yes, go ahead and make yourself less effective!"
There is no reason that wielding it, narratively, would make them any more or less effective. Narrative explanation fluff shouldn't directly interact with the underlying mechanics in any way.
You can describe some cool stuff to explain the results of your rolls. Grabbing onto your spectral weapon and slamming it into an enemy could be a great way to describe it in the heat of combat. Why stop them from describing that? And, how is that description making them less effective?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I would not let a PC wield the weapon. It doesn't say you can do so in the spell description and it feels like a waste. It's like telling my players, "Yes, go ahead and make yourself less effective!"
There is no reason that wielding it, narratively, would make them any more or less effective. Narrative explanation fluff shouldn't directly interact with the underlying mechanics in any way.
You can describe some cool stuff to explain the results of your rolls. Grabbing onto your spectral weapon and slamming it into an enemy could be a great way to describe it in the heat of combat. Why stop them from describing that? And, how is that description making them less effective?
and the DM can decide how it applies.
It's up to the DM to decide on any extent to which you may be able to grab "a floating, spectral ..." thing that has a normal use to allow you to mentally control it and, instead, yus it physically in making attacks. It also would be up to the DM to decide whether you could apply any benefits that you might get from physically making an attack when using "a floating, spectral weapon" that was intended to be controlled mentally. IF your DM agrees, great.
So, technically, RAW, it has to be a “weapon.” I don’t imagine that RAI it much matters. RAF, imagine 🐝-slapping the crud out of an enemy with I giant spectral salmon. I once made a Ghost Rider inspired character and reskinned spells like spiritual weapon to represent the cool stuff his chain can do.
THIS, is perfect.
If your table thinks it's fun to hit your opponents with a salmon, go for it.
You can describe some cool stuff to explain the results of your rolls. Grabbing onto your spectral weapon and slamming it into an enemy could be a great way to describe it in the heat of combat. Why stop them from describing that? And, how is that description making them less effective?
If you have it in your hand you lose your bonus action attack that the weapon would do. You lose the ability to attack an enemy at range.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
You can describe some cool stuff to explain the results of your rolls. Grabbing onto your spectral weapon and slamming it into an enemy could be a great way to describe it in the heat of combat. Why stop them from describing that? And, how is that description making them less effective?
If you have it in your hand you lose your bonus action attack that the weapon would do. You lose the ability to attack an enemy at range.
That might be a valid DM call.
Spiritual Weapon says: "... As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the weapon up to 20 feet and repeat the attack against a creature within 5 feet of it" so, RAW, spiritual weapon can only be used as a bonus action.
If the only agreement was for "Narrative explanation fluff" then the character would still use their bonus action to use the spiritual weapon in the normal way while committing to the distraction of synchronising your personal movements with those of the weapon. Anything else might be subject to DM agreement.
Spectral quality is not defined in 5E. In english, it's related to ghostly form. It's a floating spectral weapon that fly out to hit people as written. DM would have to determine if it can be wielded like a physical weapon despite floating as RAW it doesn't say so.
Is there any benefit to wielding the spiritual weapon as opposed to command it? I suspect it's to try to benefit from a feat or feature in some way. Bottom line, clearly, it's not intended to be used in such manner so i would disallow it as a DM, especially if it's to benefit more from it in unintended ways.
Spectral quality is not defined in 5E. In english, it's related to ghostly form. It's a floating spectral weapon that fly out to hit people as written. DM would have to determine if it can be wielded like a physical weapon despite floating as RAW it doesn't say so.
Is there any benefit to wielding the spiritual weapon as opposed to command it? I suspect it's to try to benefit from a feat or feature in some way. Bottom line, clearly, it's not intended to be used in such manner so i would disallow it as a DM, especially if it's to benefit more from it in unintended ways.
We see the spectral description come up repeatedly in resources though. Either as monster weapon descriptions or as descriptions of magical terrain like bridges. It always interacts with physical objects unless specifically stated.
A thing can look "ghostly" without phasing through physical objects.
About the only benefit to wielding spiritual weapon would be to give oneself a weapon to wield in a situation like a prison break. I would assume that, since its just a weapon, it wouldn't have any special statistics except when it makes its bonus action attack. So it could be like Marvel's Thor throwing his hammer and calling it back to his hand to fight with it in melee.
But I don't really see the weapon in spiritual weapon as a literal weapon in either form or function. Its not described as literally hitting anything, its just a focusing point through which the caster makes a melee spell attack.
About the only benefit to wielding spiritual weapon would be to give oneself a weapon to wield in a situation like a prison break. I would assume that, since its just a weapon, it wouldn't have any special statistics except when it makes its bonus action attack. So it could be like Marvel's Thor throwing his hammer and calling it back to his hand to fight with it in melee.
But I don't really see the weapon in spiritual weapon as a literal weapon in either form or function. Its not described as literally hitting anything, its just a focusing point through which the caster makes a melee spell attack.
I don't see the benefit it would have to wield it over simply command it during a prison break. In both situation, you give yourself a way to attack.
It is a weapon in all but resemblance, it doesn't make melee weapon attack but spell attack instead. It's more a ghostly evocation effect that deal force damage as the last sentence says "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"
About the only benefit to wielding spiritual weapon would be to give oneself a weapon to wield in a situation like a prison break. I would assume that, since its just a weapon, it wouldn't have any special statistics except when it makes its bonus action attack. So it could be like Marvel's Thor throwing his hammer and calling it back to his hand to fight with it in melee.
But I don't really see the weapon in spiritual weapon as a literal weapon in either form or function. Its not described as literally hitting anything, its just a focusing point through which the caster makes a melee spell attack.
I don't see the benefit it would have to wield it over simply command it during a prison break. In both situation, you give yourself a way to attack.
It is a weapon in all but resemblance, it doesn't make melee weapon attack but spell attack instead. It's more a ghostly evocation effect that deal force damage as the last sentence says "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"
You're assuming they either wield it for attack actions or use it for their bonus action spell attack. Why not both? Far from being game breaking, it'd probably be suboptimal, since they would be depending different stats for each attack.
If it has to take the form of a weapon because you "create a floating, spectral weapon," then the implication is that its a weapon.
About the only benefit to wielding spiritual weapon would be to give oneself a weapon to wield in a situation like a prison break. I would assume that, since its just a weapon, it wouldn't have any special statistics except when it makes its bonus action attack. So it could be like Marvel's Thor throwing his hammer and calling it back to his hand to fight with it in melee.
But I don't really see the weapon in spiritual weapon as a literal weapon in either form or function. Its not described as literally hitting anything, its just a focusing point through which the caster makes a melee spell attack.
I don't see the benefit it would have to wield it over simply command it during a prison break. In both situation, you give yourself a way to attack.
It is a weapon in all but resemblance, it doesn't make melee weapon attack but spell attack instead. It's more a ghostly evocation effect that deal force damage as the last sentence says "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"
You're assuming they either wield it for attack actions or use it for their bonus action spell attack. Why not both? Far from being game breaking, it'd probably be suboptimal, since they would be depending different stats for each attack.
If it has to take the form of a weapon because you "create a floating, spectral weapon," then the implication is that its a weapon.
I don't assume it, as written the spell doesn't say you can wield it to make melee weapon attack. Even if you could potentially wield it, we don't have statistic for spectral weapons.
Do all weapons have specific language saying they can be wielded, or is that not a default feature of being a weapon? If not, then the damage dice would be the same for the form the caster chooses for the weapon. Since it is just the form of the weapon, there are no shenanigans with enchanted weapons to worry over.
My question is if the clause "the weapon can take whatever form you choose" still requires the form to be that of a weapon, or if it can literally be any form.
Im imagining things like a floating spectral spirit animal, or a floating spectral statue of a person.
Really out there side question: if it is strictly a weapon, could you grab it and wield it as such?
It can take any form you like. I see no reason to limit it to specifically weapons from the tables in the books, but ymmv with your DM.
You cannot reach out and grab it and wield it as such. First it is spectral, and second it can only do what the spell text tells you (it floats and attacks creatures within 5 feet of it).
The spell specifically say you create a floating, spectral weapon and the weapon can have whatever form you choose. You cannot wield spectral weapon it's more an evocation than a physical object
Yeah, I think wielding it definitely isn't intended, and isn't RAW since the text doesn't describe it that way.
But spectral doesn't mean immaterial. There are plenty of things in the game that are described as "spectral" but still do interact physically, like the spectral weapons of a bunch of enemies and the spectral bridge from waterdeep. And Crawford has said that spiritual weapon doesn't go through physical things like walls.
Not a debate I'd be willing to pursue though. Just an odd thought.
You could narratively describe yourself wielding it, but that would all be descriptive fluff. Mechanically, it does exactly what it says.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That question can really be translated as "does your DM like weird/crazy shit".
The spiritual weapon for Friar Nuthar my Forge Cleric with the cooking feat was a potato masher which was ok as the dm loved it.
coins can be weapons in animate object. If the damage type is force, so might be teddy bears.
Again up to the DM. Can you grab "a floating, spectral ..." thing that has a normal use to allow you to mentally control it to "make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5 feet of the weapon"?
A DM could say yes or no. I'd say yes - if you cast it so for it to become a weapon under physical control rather than mental.
RAW, the answer is in the first few words of the description:
In this edition, this is considered the comprehensive list of every “man portable” weapon that is, or ever will be known in the FR:
(https://www.dndbeyond.com/equipment?filter-search=Weapon&filter-cost-min=&filter-cost-max=1&filter-weight-min=&filter-weight-max=).
Anything not on that list is supposedly just a variation of something that is. As examples: ōdachi (墓)/dà jiàn (大剑), katana (刀)/jian (劍), wakizashi (脇差)/jūndāo (军刀), tantō (短刀)/bǐshǒu (匕首), kama (鎌 or かま)/jī zhuǎ lián (鸡鐮), yari (槍)/qiang (枪), naginata (なぎなた, 薙刀)/yanyuedao (偃月刀)
So, technically, RAW, it has to be a “weapon.” I don’t imagine that RAI it much matters. RAF, imagine 🐝-slapping the crud out of an enemy with I giant spectral salmon. I once made a Ghost Rider inspired character and reskinned spells like spiritual weapon to represent the cool stuff his chain can do.
Edits: typo, bad tooltip
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Having spectral animals or statues fight for you is a different spell like Mordenkainen’s Faithful Hound or Spirit Guardians
Other than that, it can look like whatever you want - there is a now famous version of the spell that looks like a giant lollipop.
I would not let a PC wield the weapon. It doesn't say you can do so in the spell description and it feels like a waste. It's like telling my players, "Yes, go ahead and make yourself less effective!"
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Don't forget another version of the spell from the same Critical Role campaign was a bust of Estelle Getty XD
Our party's Lore Bard took Spiritual Weapon as a Magical Secret, and gave it the form of a pair of crashing symbols (unwielded of course.)
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
There is no reason that wielding it, narratively, would make them any more or less effective. Narrative explanation fluff shouldn't directly interact with the underlying mechanics in any way.
You can describe some cool stuff to explain the results of your rolls. Grabbing onto your spectral weapon and slamming it into an enemy could be a great way to describe it in the heat of combat. Why stop them from describing that? And, how is that description making them less effective?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
and the DM can decide how it applies.
It's up to the DM to decide on any extent to which you may be able to grab "a floating, spectral ..." thing that has a normal use to allow you to mentally control it and, instead, yus it physically in making attacks. It also would be up to the DM to decide whether you could apply any benefits that you might get from physically making an attack when using "a floating, spectral weapon" that was intended to be controlled mentally. IF your DM agrees, great.
THIS, is perfect.
If your table thinks it's fun to hit your opponents with a salmon, go for it.
But "when the fun stops, stop!"
If you have it in your hand you lose your bonus action attack that the weapon would do. You lose the ability to attack an enemy at range.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
That might be a valid DM call.
Spiritual Weapon says: "... As a bonus action on your turn, you can move the weapon up to 20 feet and repeat the attack against a creature within 5 feet of it" so, RAW, spiritual weapon can only be used as a bonus action.
If the only agreement was for "Narrative explanation fluff" then the character would still use their bonus action to use the spiritual weapon in the normal way while committing to the distraction of synchronising your personal movements with those of the weapon.
Anything else might be subject to DM agreement.
Spectral quality is not defined in 5E. In english, it's related to ghostly form. It's a floating spectral weapon that fly out to hit people as written. DM would have to determine if it can be wielded like a physical weapon despite floating as RAW it doesn't say so.
Is there any benefit to wielding the spiritual weapon as opposed to command it? I suspect it's to try to benefit from a feat or feature in some way. Bottom line, clearly, it's not intended to be used in such manner so i would disallow it as a DM, especially if it's to benefit more from it in unintended ways.
We see the spectral description come up repeatedly in resources though. Either as monster weapon descriptions or as descriptions of magical terrain like bridges. It always interacts with physical objects unless specifically stated.
A thing can look "ghostly" without phasing through physical objects.
About the only benefit to wielding spiritual weapon would be to give oneself a weapon to wield in a situation like a prison break. I would assume that, since its just a weapon, it wouldn't have any special statistics except when it makes its bonus action attack. So it could be like Marvel's Thor throwing his hammer and calling it back to his hand to fight with it in melee.
But I don't really see the weapon in spiritual weapon as a literal weapon in either form or function. Its not described as literally hitting anything, its just a focusing point through which the caster makes a melee spell attack.
I don't see the benefit it would have to wield it over simply command it during a prison break. In both situation, you give yourself a way to attack.
It is a weapon in all but resemblance, it doesn't make melee weapon attack but spell attack instead. It's more a ghostly evocation effect that deal force damage as the last sentence says "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"
You're assuming they either wield it for attack actions or use it for their bonus action spell attack. Why not both? Far from being game breaking, it'd probably be suboptimal, since they would be depending different stats for each attack.
If it has to take the form of a weapon because you "create a floating, spectral weapon," then the implication is that its a weapon.
I don't assume it, as written the spell doesn't say you can wield it to make melee weapon attack. Even if you could potentially wield it, we don't have statistic for spectral weapons.
Do all weapons have specific language saying they can be wielded, or is that not a default feature of being a weapon? If not, then the damage dice would be the same for the form the caster chooses for the weapon. Since it is just the form of the weapon, there are no shenanigans with enchanted weapons to worry over.