Do all weapons have specific language saying they can be wielded, or is that not a default feature of being a weapon? If so, 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.
Weapons are wielded when making melee weapon attack (meaning a melee attack with a weapon)
If what you are trying is to wield the Spiritual Weapon and make melee weapon attack with it that deal 1d8 force damage or the corresponding weapon damage & type, that is not how the spell is intended to work. RAW it only makes melee spell attack for 1d8 force damage.
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.)
In campaign 1, season 2 Pike made a spectral lasso once.
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.
Garbage.
If a cleric wants to describe their Action Longsword attack missing plus bonus action spiritual weapon killing the target as:
"I lunge at the orc with a wild swing of my blade, and as he dodges I leap up, and grab the spinning floating spectral Warhammer of my forefathers and slam it down into him, killing him on the spot."
More power to them. So long as mechanically it all was done right why on earth are you telling them how to narrate a cool scene?
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.
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.
Garbage.
If a cleric wants to describe their Action Longsword attack missing plus bonus action spiritual weapon killing the target as:
"I lunge at the orc with a wild swing of my blade, and as he dodges I leap up, and grab the spinning floating spectral Warhammer of my forefathers and slam it down into him, killing him on the spot."
More power to them. So long as mechanically it all was done right why on earth are you telling them how to narrate a cool scene?
Please be polite.
First comes the question as to whether the DM allows you to hold a spiritual weapon. If so, fine. You strike with the longsword. Was that two-handed or one-handed? If it was two-handed or if you had a shield you need to drop the longsword. If it was one-handed, if your DM allowed you to grab the "floating, spectral weapon", then you could grab it with your off-hand and may use it, at DMs discretion, and still with a potential application of the associated penalties of RAW.
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
Your cleric's longsword isn't a light melee weapon so, RAW, the two-weapon fighting option is discounted immediately.
And is your spiritual weapon in the form of a light melee weapon? Will the DM allow you to use a spiritual weapon in the form of a warhammer and let you wield it in your off-hand despite the RAW restriction? A light melee weapon could at best do 1d6 damage. A spiritual weapon working in it's normal way would do 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Now your cleric wants it to supply a weapon either to replace a dropped longsword so as to be ready for an attack in the next round or wants to use it in conditions in which they could normally only use a light melee weapon and on the condition that you "don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative".
If what you're saying is that you still want the spiritual weapon to be making a "melee spell attack against a creature", which it might normally do in its own free and normal way, I think it would be a fair call for a DM to say that you were interfering by placing physical limitations on something produced to work in a spiritual way. At best I'd allow it if you weren't wielding a longsword.
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.
Garbage.
If a cleric wants to describe their Action Longsword attack missing plus bonus action spiritual weapon killing the target as:
"I lunge at the orc with a wild swing of my blade, and as he dodges I leap up, and grab the spinning floating spectral Warhammer of my forefathers and slam it down into him, killing him on the spot."
More power to them. So long as mechanically it all was done right why on earth are you telling them how to narrate a cool scene?
Please be polite.
First comes the question as to whether the DM allows you to hold a spiritual weapon. If so, fine. You strike with the longsword. Was that two-handed or one-handed? If it was two-handed or if you had a shield you need to drop the longsword. If it was one-handed, if your DM allowed you to grab the "floating, spectral weapon", then you could grab it with your off-hand and may use it, at DMs discretion, and still with a potential application of the associated penalties of RAW.
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
Your cleric's longsword isn't a light melee weapon so, RAW, the two-weapon fighting option is discounted immediately.
And is your spiritual weapon in the form of a light melee weapon? Will the DM allow you to use a spiritual weapon in the form of a warhammer and let you wield it in your off-hand despite the RAW restriction? A light melee weapon could at best do 1d6 damage. A spiritual weapon working in it's normal way would do 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Now your cleric wants it to supply a weapon either to replace a dropped longsword so as to be ready for an attack in the next round or wants to use it in conditions in which they could normally only use a light melee weapon and on the condition that you "don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative".
If what you're saying is that you still want the spiritual weapon to be making a "melee spell attack against a creature", which it might normally do in its own free and normal way, I think it would be a fair call for a DM to say that you were interfering by placing physical limitations on something produced to work in a spiritual way. At best I'd allow it if you weren't wielding a longsword.
What is the logic of this though? What about using the weapon as a weapon in the main action and then letting it go to do the effect allowed by the spell can't work together?
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.
Garbage.
If a cleric wants to describe their Action Longsword attack missing plus bonus action spiritual weapon killing the target as:
"I lunge at the orc with a wild swing of my blade, and as he dodges I leap up, and grab the spinning floating spectral Warhammer of my forefathers and slam it down into him, killing him on the spot."
More power to them. So long as mechanically it all was done right why on earth are you telling them how to narrate a cool scene?
Please be polite.
First comes the question as to whether the DM allows you to hold a spiritual weapon. If so, fine. You strike with the longsword. Was that two-handed or one-handed? If it was two-handed or if you had a shield you need to drop the longsword. If it was one-handed, if your DM allowed you to grab the "floating, spectral weapon", then you could grab it with your off-hand and may use it, at DMs discretion, and still with a potential application of the associated penalties of RAW.
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
Your cleric's longsword isn't a light melee weapon so, RAW, the two-weapon fighting option is discounted immediately.
And is your spiritual weapon in the form of a light melee weapon? Will the DM allow you to use a spiritual weapon in the form of a warhammer and let you wield it in your off-hand despite the RAW restriction? A light melee weapon could at best do 1d6 damage. A spiritual weapon working in it's normal way would do 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Now your cleric wants it to supply a weapon either to replace a dropped longsword so as to be ready for an attack in the next round or wants to use it in conditions in which they could normally only use a light melee weapon and on the condition that you "don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative".
If what you're saying is that you still want the spiritual weapon to be making a "melee spell attack against a creature", which it might normally do in its own free and normal way, I think it would be a fair call for a DM to say that you were interfering by placing physical limitations on something produced to work in a spiritual way.
Wild. You genuinely cannot separate the idea of narrative description of the action from the game mechanics? Wild. Carry on doing whatever it is you do. I'm sure its fun or whatever.
But, don't assume other people have to conform to whatever it that is. People are free to describe their action however they want and is right for them and their group. You're going to have a hard time finding an argument otherwise, no matter how hard you try.
I don't assume anything. I'm just saying what's in RAW.
First comes the question as to whether the DM allows you to hold a spiritual weapon. If so, fine. ...
I haven't said anything about what I'd personally rule. This is a rules discussions forum where we discuss what the rules say and how they might optionally be applied.
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.
Garbage.
If a cleric wants to describe their Action Longsword attack missing plus bonus action spiritual weapon killing the target as:
"I lunge at the orc with a wild swing of my blade, and as he dodges I leap up, and grab the spinning floating spectral Warhammer of my forefathers and slam it down into him, killing him on the spot."
More power to them. So long as mechanically it all was done right why on earth are you telling them how to narrate a cool scene?
Please be polite.
First comes the question as to whether the DM allows you to hold a spiritual weapon. If so, fine. You strike with the longsword. Was that two-handed or one-handed? If it was two-handed or if you had a shield you need to drop the longsword. If it was one-handed, if your DM allowed you to grab the "floating, spectral weapon", then you could grab it with your off-hand and may use it, at DMs discretion, and still with a potential application of the associated penalties of RAW.
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
Your cleric's longsword isn't a light melee weapon so, RAW, the two-weapon fighting option is discounted immediately.
And is your spiritual weapon in the form of a light melee weapon? Will the DM allow you to use a spiritual weapon in the form of a warhammer and let you wield it in your off-hand despite the RAW restriction? A light melee weapon could at best do 1d6 damage. A spiritual weapon working in it's normal way would do 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Now your cleric wants it to supply a weapon either to replace a dropped longsword so as to be ready for an attack in the next round or wants to use it in conditions in which they could normally only use a light melee weapon and on the condition that you "don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative".
If what you're saying is that you still want the spiritual weapon to be making a "melee spell attack against a creature", which it might normally do in its own free and normal way, I think it would be a fair call for a DM to say that you were interfering by placing physical limitations on something produced to work in a spiritual way.
Wild. You genuinely cannot separate the idea of narrative description of the action from the game mechanics? Wild. Carry on doing whatever it is you do. I'm sure its fun or whatever.
But, don't assume other people have to conform to whatever it that is. People are free to describe their action however they want and is right for them and their group. You're going to have a hard time finding an argument otherwise, no matter how hard you try.
I don't assume anything. I'm just saying what's in RAW.
RAW? Quote the rule that says you can't narratively describe your character's combat results. Honest. If you're arguing genuinely just go ahead an quote the Dungeons and Dragon 5e rules text that tells us not to describe what is happening in combat with creative narrative flourishes.
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.
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.
Garbage.
If a cleric wants to describe their Action Longsword attack missing plus bonus action spiritual weapon killing the target as:
"I lunge at the orc with a wild swing of my blade, and as he dodges I leap up, and grab the spinning floating spectral Warhammer of my forefathers and slam it down into him, killing him on the spot."
More power to them. So long as mechanically it all was done right why on earth are you telling them how to narrate a cool scene?
Please be polite.
First comes the question as to whether the DM allows you to hold a spiritual weapon. If so, fine. You strike with the longsword. Was that two-handed or one-handed? If it was two-handed or if you had a shield you need to drop the longsword. If it was one-handed, if your DM allowed you to grab the "floating, spectral weapon", then you could grab it with your off-hand and may use it, at DMs discretion, and still with a potential application of the associated penalties of RAW.
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
Your cleric's longsword isn't a light melee weapon so, RAW, the two-weapon fighting option is discounted immediately.
And is your spiritual weapon in the form of a light melee weapon? Will the DM allow you to use a spiritual weapon in the form of a warhammer and let you wield it in your off-hand despite the RAW restriction? A light melee weapon could at best do 1d6 damage. A spiritual weapon working in it's normal way would do 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Now your cleric wants it to supply a weapon either to replace a dropped longsword so as to be ready for an attack in the next round or wants to use it in conditions in which they could normally only use a light melee weapon and on the condition that you "don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative".
If what you're saying is that you still want the spiritual weapon to be making a "melee spell attack against a creature", which it might normally do in its own free and normal way, I think it would be a fair call for a DM to say that you were interfering by placing physical limitations on something produced to work in a spiritual way.
Wild. You genuinely cannot separate the idea of narrative description of the action from the game mechanics? Wild. Carry on doing whatever it is you do. I'm sure its fun or whatever.
But, don't assume other people have to conform to whatever it that is. People are free to describe their action however they want and is right for them and their group. You're going to have a hard time finding an argument otherwise, no matter how hard you try.
I don't assume anything. I'm just saying what's in RAW.
First comes the question as to whether the DM allows you to hold a spiritual weapon. If so, fine. ...
I haven't said anything about what I'd personally rule. This is a rules discussions forum where we discuss what the rules say and how they might optionally be applied.
RAW? Quote the rule that says you can't narratively describe your character's combat results. Honest. If you're arguing genuinely just go ahead an quote the Dungeons and Dragon 5e rules text that tells us not to describe what is happening in combat with creative narrative flourishes.
You can narrate anything that your character is able to do within the rules working at your table as agreed by your DM.
The Dungeon Master is the Dungeon Master and the player is the player.
If your Dungeon Master agrees that you can hold a "floating, spectral weapon" then you can hold a "floating, spectral weapon" - but it's conditional on DM agreement.
Spiritual weapon conjures a weapon that can manifest anywhere within the 60ft range. It’s described as floating, and isn’t described as occupying a space.
interestingly, though the spell grants the caster the ability to make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5ft of the weapon, the weapon itself is never actually used to make the attack. I’m not sure why, but I believe this was done to prevent a multiclassed rogue from making a finesse weapon and making use of sneak attack. That’s the only reason I can think of to limit the spell description in this way.
What is the logic of this though? What about using the weapon as a weapon in the main action and then letting it go to do the effect allowed by the spell can't work together?
Spiritual Weapon cannot be used with an action as written, only with a bonus action.
If you have a real weapon, you can already attack with it as an action, and attack with the Spiritual Weapon as a bonus action.
But the spell doesn't let you do both using the Spiritual Weapon alone.
Spiritual weapon conjures a weapon that can manifest anywhere within the 60ft range. It’s described as floating, and isn’t described as occupying a space.
interestingly, though the spell grants the caster the ability to make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5ft of the weapon, the weapon itself is never actually used to make the attack.
The Spiritual Weapon is used to make the melee spell attack. A melee attack normally allows you to attack a foe within your reach, The spell more specifically allow you tu attack a foe within 5 feet reach of the weapon.
Even if your Spiritual Weapon has the form of an halberd, the spell limit attacks to targets within 5 feet of it even if halberd has reach property.
What is the logic of this though? What about using the weapon as a weapon in the main action and then letting it go to do the effect allowed by the spell can't work together?
Spiritual Weapon cannot be used with an action as written, only with a bonus action.
If you have a real weapon, you can already attack with it as an action, and attack with the Spiritual Weapon as a bonus action.
But the spell doesn't let you do both using the Spiritual Weapon alone.
Spiritual Weapon has no spell attack as an action, but it creates a weapon, and weapons can be used for melee weapon attacks. That is the nature of a weapon RAW.
Earlier your argument for Spiritual Weapon's form being specifically limited to that of a weapon came from the first line of the text saying that you literally create "a weapon." Not the illusion of a weapon, but the real mcoy.
It seems like special to limit the spell to only doing the bonus action attack, when the spell's text includes other aspects as written.
What is the logic of this though? What about using the weapon as a weapon in the main action and then letting it go to do the effect allowed by the spell can't work together?
Spiritual Weapon cannot be used with an action as written, only with a bonus action.
If you have a real weapon, you can already attack with it as an action, and attack with the Spiritual Weapon as a bonus action.
But the spell doesn't let you do both using the Spiritual Weapon alone.
Spiritual Weapon has no spell attack as an action, but it creates a weapon, and weapons can be used for melee weapon attacks. That is the nature of a weapon RAW.
Earlier your argument for Spiritual Weapon's form being specifically limited to that of a weapon came from the first line of the text saying that you literally create "a weapon." Not the illusion of a weapon, but the real mcoy.
It seems like special to limit the spell to only doing the bonus action attack, when the spell's text includes other aspects as written.
So two questions raised. Can a physical character wield a floating spectral weapon? and, is so, how would this affect the actions used?
It's up to the DM. 5e is full of things that you physical creature cant naturally touch (or at least hurt). Anything that demands a magic weapon to hit becomes hard to deal with. The spiritual weapon is described as a spectral thing. It should have been obvious to WotC that this question would come up but they haven't provided an answer. I will say no until your DM says yes,
If the DM says you can wield the weapon then you would be wielding it as a weapon. I'd say that you can't then also use it as its intended, freely operating way and that you could not use it to make any bonus action attack other than attacks you might have been able to make with a normal weapon.
In general it's not possible to interact with a spiritual weapon -- enemies can't grab it and throw it in a box, you can't wield it. A variant that did create a physical weapon would probably be balanced enough.
Spiritual Weapon has no spell attack as an action, but it creates a weapon, and weapons can be used for melee weapon attacks. That is the nature of a weapon RAW.
Earlier your argument for Spiritual Weapon's form being specifically limited to that of a weapon came from the first line of the text saying that you literally create "a weapon." Not the illusion of a weapon, but the real mcoy.
It seems like special to limit the spell to only doing the bonus action attack, when the spell's text includes other aspects as written.
The DM can rule anything about Spiritual Weapon.
The question is, does the spell as written let you wield the spectral floating weapon to make melee weapon attack with it? No. It's not special to limit the spell to what it says it can do, it is the nature of spells in general.
If you're trying to use a spell in unintended ways you're gonna need the DM to adjucate this.
How do we decide what is intended and what is not?
By reading what the text says, obviously? The text tells you what the spell does. Anything you want the spell to do beyond that is not an intended use of the spell.
How do we decide what is intended and what is not?
By reading what the text says, obviously? The text tells you what the spell does. Anything you want the spell to do beyond that is not an intended use of the spell.
The spell says it creates a weapon and that the weapon can take any form the spellcaster chooses.
But Im being told neither of those things are intended to mean you make a weapon or can make the weapon take any form.
So it feels like the only things that count are the parts that say things about action economy, attacks, and damage dice.
How do we decide what is intended and what is not?
By reading what the text says, obviously? The text tells you what the spell does. Anything you want the spell to do beyond that is not an intended use of the spell.
The spell says it creates a weapon and that the weapon can take any form the spellcaster chooses.
But Im being told neither of those things are intended to mean you make a weapon or can make the weapon take any form.
So it feels like the only things that count are the parts that say things about action economy, attacks, and damage dice.
Literally no one is telling you that the spell doesn't make a weapon, or that it can't take any form the caster chooses. Both of those things are obviously true. The spell goes on to tell you exactly how you can you use the weapon that the spell makes. "To make a weapon attack with your action" is not one of the ways you can use the weapon the spell creates.
Where in any rulebook does it say "anything that is described as a 'weapon' can be used to make a melee weapon attack with the Attack action"?
How do we decide what is intended and what is not?
By reading what the text says, obviously? The text tells you what the spell does. Anything you want the spell to do beyond that is not an intended use of the spell.
The spell says it creates a weapon and that the weapon can take any form the spellcaster chooses.
But Im being told neither of those things are intended to mean you make a weapon or can make the weapon take any form.
Yes, it creates a weapon but according to RAW, the weapon can only be moved with a bonus action. The spell description does not say anything about being able to wield it. Flame Blade says it appears in your hand and you wield it, Spiritual Weapon does not.
Unless in the end, you're just trying to cheese out two attacks in a turn with force damage.
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?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Weapons are wielded when making melee weapon attack (meaning a melee attack with a weapon)
If what you are trying is to wield the Spiritual Weapon and make melee weapon attack with it that deal 1d8 force damage or the corresponding weapon damage & type, that is not how the spell is intended to work. RAW it only makes melee spell attack for 1d8 force damage.
In campaign 1, season 2 Pike made a spectral lasso once.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Garbage.
If a cleric wants to describe their Action Longsword attack missing plus bonus action spiritual weapon killing the target as:
"I lunge at the orc with a wild swing of my blade, and as he dodges I leap up, and grab the spinning floating spectral Warhammer of my forefathers and slam it down into him, killing him on the spot."
More power to them. So long as mechanically it all was done right why on earth are you telling them how to narrate a cool scene?
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.
Please be polite.
First comes the question as to whether the DM allows you to hold a spiritual weapon. If so, fine. You strike with the longsword. Was that two-handed or one-handed? If it was two-handed or if you had a shield you need to drop the longsword. If it was one-handed, if your DM allowed you to grab the "floating, spectral weapon", then you could grab it with your off-hand and may use it, at DMs discretion, and still with a potential application of the associated penalties of RAW.
Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light melee weapon that you're holding in one hand, you can use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee weapon that you're holding in the other hand. You don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative.
Your cleric's longsword isn't a light melee weapon so, RAW, the two-weapon fighting option is discounted immediately.
And is your spiritual weapon in the form of a light melee weapon? Will the DM allow you to use a spiritual weapon in the form of a warhammer and let you wield it in your off-hand despite the RAW restriction? A light melee weapon could at best do 1d6 damage. A spiritual weapon working in it's normal way would do 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Now your cleric wants it to supply a weapon either to replace a dropped longsword so as to be ready for an attack in the next round or wants to use it in conditions in which they could normally only use a light melee weapon and on the condition that you "don't add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus attack, unless that modifier is negative".
If what you're saying is that you still want the spiritual weapon to be making a "melee spell attack against a creature", which it might normally do in its own free and normal way, I think it would be a fair call for a DM to say that you were interfering by placing physical limitations on something produced to work in a spiritual way. At best I'd allow it if you weren't wielding a longsword.
What is the logic of this though? What about using the weapon as a weapon in the main action and then letting it go to do the effect allowed by the spell can't work together?
I don't assume anything. I'm just saying what's in RAW.
I haven't said anything about what I'd personally rule. This is a rules discussions forum where we discuss what the rules say and how they might optionally be applied.
RAW? Quote the rule that says you can't narratively describe your character's combat results. Honest. If you're arguing genuinely just go ahead an quote the Dungeons and Dragon 5e rules text that tells us not to describe what is happening in combat with creative narrative flourishes.
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.
You can narrate anything that your character is able to do within the rules working at your table as agreed by your DM.
The Dungeon Master is the Dungeon Master and the player is the player.
If your Dungeon Master agrees that you can hold a "floating, spectral weapon" then you can hold a "floating, spectral weapon" - but it's conditional on DM agreement.
Spiritual weapon conjures a weapon that can manifest anywhere within the 60ft range. It’s described as floating, and isn’t described as occupying a space.
interestingly, though the spell grants the caster the ability to make a melee spell attack against a creature within 5ft of the weapon, the weapon itself is never actually used to make the attack. I’m not sure why, but I believe this was done to prevent a multiclassed rogue from making a finesse weapon and making use of sneak attack. That’s the only reason I can think of to limit the spell description in this way.
Spiritual Weapon cannot be used with an action as written, only with a bonus action.
If you have a real weapon, you can already attack with it as an action, and attack with the Spiritual Weapon as a bonus action.
But the spell doesn't let you do both using the Spiritual Weapon alone.
The Spiritual Weapon is used to make the melee spell attack. A melee attack normally allows you to attack a foe within your reach, The spell more specifically allow you tu attack a foe within 5 feet reach of the weapon.
Even if your Spiritual Weapon has the form of an halberd, the spell limit attacks to targets within 5 feet of it even if halberd has reach property.
Spiritual Weapon has no spell attack as an action, but it creates a weapon, and weapons can be used for melee weapon attacks. That is the nature of a weapon RAW.
Earlier your argument for Spiritual Weapon's form being specifically limited to that of a weapon came from the first line of the text saying that you literally create "a weapon." Not the illusion of a weapon, but the real mcoy.
It seems like special to limit the spell to only doing the bonus action attack, when the spell's text includes other aspects as written.
So two questions raised.
Can a physical character wield a floating spectral weapon?
and,
is so, how would this affect the actions used?
It's up to the DM. 5e is full of things that you physical creature cant naturally touch (or at least hurt). Anything that demands a magic weapon to hit becomes hard to deal with. The spiritual weapon is described as a spectral thing. It should have been obvious to WotC that this question would come up but they haven't provided an answer. I will say no until your DM says yes,
If the DM says you can wield the weapon then you would be wielding it as a weapon. I'd say that you can't then also use it as its intended, freely operating way and that you could not use it to make any bonus action attack other than attacks you might have been able to make with a normal weapon.
In general it's not possible to interact with a spiritual weapon -- enemies can't grab it and throw it in a box, you can't wield it. A variant that did create a physical weapon would probably be balanced enough.
The DM can rule anything about Spiritual Weapon.
The question is, does the spell as written let you wield the spectral floating weapon to make melee weapon attack with it? No. It's not special to limit the spell to what it says it can do, it is the nature of spells in general.
If you're trying to use a spell in unintended ways you're gonna need the DM to adjucate this.
How do we decide what is intended and what is not?
By reading what the text says, obviously? The text tells you what the spell does. Anything you want the spell to do beyond that is not an intended use of the spell.
The spell says it creates a weapon and that the weapon can take any form the spellcaster chooses.
But Im being told neither of those things are intended to mean you make a weapon or can make the weapon take any form.
So it feels like the only things that count are the parts that say things about action economy, attacks, and damage dice.
Literally no one is telling you that the spell doesn't make a weapon, or that it can't take any form the caster chooses. Both of those things are obviously true. The spell goes on to tell you exactly how you can you use the weapon that the spell makes. "To make a weapon attack with your action" is not one of the ways you can use the weapon the spell creates.
Where in any rulebook does it say "anything that is described as a 'weapon' can be used to make a melee weapon attack with the Attack action"?
Yes, it creates a weapon but according to RAW, the weapon can only be moved with a bonus action. The spell description does not say anything about being able to wield it. Flame Blade says it appears in your hand and you wield it, Spiritual Weapon does not.
Unless in the end, you're just trying to cheese out two attacks in a turn with force damage.
"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