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.
While the spell requires the weapon to be within 5ft of a target for the caster to make the melee spell attack, it never says it makes the attack using the weapon. Thematically it makes sense to visualize the weapon attacking. Mechanically, the weapon isn’t used to attack.
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.
Flame Blade specifically doesn't create a weapon. It creates something similar to a weapon, but which isn't used as one.
I don't think grabbing the spiritual weapon would let you just double the bonus action attack as a main attack or cheese force damage. But if its a weapon with the form of an actual weapon, it could be wielded for the generic damage of that weapon. It would normally be subpar anyways, since a cleric with enough wisdom to feel confident in hitting with spiritual weapon probably doesn't have a the highest strength score.
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.
While the spell requires the weapon to be within 5ft of a target for the caster to make the melee spell attack, it never says it makes the attack using the weapon. Thematically it makes sense to visualize the weapon attacking. Mechanically, the weapon isn’t used to attack.
Mechanically, whatever happens, that the DM decides to happen and, unless you are the DM, this isn't your decision.
Spiritual Weapon
CASTING TIME 1 Bonus Action RANGE/AREA 60 ft DAMAGE/EFFECT Force
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.
Spell Tags: DAMAGE
Available For: CLERIC LIFE DOMAIN WAR DOMAIN OATH OF CONQUEST
Basic Rules , pg. 27
Yes, the text is situationally ambiguous. However, the WHOLE point of the text relates to a spiritual weapon, to its creation, to its movement and, I would say, to its use.
It's also ambiguous whether, if you create/move the weapon to a distance 60ft of you, could you use it to hit an opponent 65 ft away from you but that's another issue.
Sure, a DM could agree to a RAW reading of the text to say that (ignoring the spell's range) having the spiritual weapon present within 5 ft of you allows you to make a bonus attack with something else and not with the spiritual weapon. However, the DM might then be compelled to come up with a rationale as to why a non-spiritual weapon could deal force damage. This could be yet another point a DM where might give up on the idea.
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.
Flame Blade specifically doesn't create a weapon. It creates something similar to a weapon, but which isn't used as one.
I don't think grabbing the spiritual weapon would let you just double the bonus action attack as a main attack or cheese force damage. But if its a weapon with the form of an actual weapon, it could be wielded for the generic damage of that weapon. It would normally be subpar anyways, since a cleric with enough wisdom to feel confident in hitting with spiritual weapon probably doesn't have a the highest strength score.
Any player can think what they like but, unless a DM agrees, it ain't gonna happen.
Perhaps it would be possible to think of a spiritual weapon as a mentally guidable, spectral version of a star wars light sabre but without the hilt. It's floating and spectral. That's the description. There's no reason to think that that you could grab it. However, it can also deal 'force' damage. It might not be good if you did.
Flame Blade specifically doesn't create a weapon. It creates something similar to a weapon, but which isn't used as one.
OK, if you say so...
"You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand. The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration. If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action.You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 fire damage."
^ That sounds like something you use to make an attack with that does damage. So not sure where you're going with "similar to a weapon, but isn't used as one"
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 evoke a fiery blade in your free hand. The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration. If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action.You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 fire damage."
^ That sounds like something you use to make an attack with that does damage. So not sure where you're going with "similar to a weapon, but isn't used as one"
It's actually a fairly important distinction. Flame Blade does not create a weapon and thus does not allow for making weapon attacks and thus a whole host of features that keys off weapon attacks can't be used on the attacks you make with the fiery scimitar. Shadow Blade does explicitly produce a weapon that has weapon traits and that you make weapon attacks with.
While the spell requires the weapon to be within 5ft of a target for the caster to make the melee spell attack, it never says it makes the attack using the weapon. Thematically it makes sense to visualize the weapon attacking. Mechanically, the weapon isn’t used to attack.
It never say so but it's implied being an evoked weapon or else how would you make a melee attack against a target 60 feet away from you that deal force damage? It'd be a ranged spell attack instead. For purpose of cover etc...i believe the attack originate from the Spiritual Weapon.
Any player can think what they like but, unless a DM agrees, it ain't gonna happen.
Sure, but that is true no matter what we are talking about. The DM can even change core rules. So its not a meaningful point.
It's floating and spectral. That's the description. There's no reason to think that that you could grab it.
Virtually everything else that is called "spectral" throughout the source books interacts physically. Spiritual Weapon itself cannot go through walls, as it is not incorporeal. And it makes an actual weapon. That seems to create reason to believe you could pick it up and wield it, even if doing so would probably be the least useful ways to use your action 99% of the time.
Perhaps it would be possible to think of a spiritual weapon as a mentally guidable, spectral version of a star wars light sabre but without the hilt. It's floating and spectral. That's the description. There's no reason to think that that you could grab it. However, it can also deal 'force' damage. It might not be good if you did.
Virtually everything else that is called "spectral" throughout the source books interacts physically. Spiritual Weapon itself cannot go through walls, as it is not incorporeal. And it makes an actual weapon. That seems to create reason to believe you could pick it up and wield it, even if doing so would probably be the least useful ways to use your action 99% of the time.
Something like a force (or something parallel) empowered light sabre blade can interact with the physical and yet I wouldn't recommend just grabbing it before making an arcana or similar check with the DM.
If you think that you can pick it up and wield it, why not give it a go. Perhaps the worst that can happen is the 1d8 damage + your spellcasting modifier that you empower the thing to deliver - but maybe it won't be so bad. Talking to your DM could avoid potential problems though.
While the spell requires the weapon to be within 5ft of a target for the caster to make the melee spell attack, it never says it makes the attack using the weapon. Thematically it makes sense to visualize the weapon attacking. Mechanically, the weapon isn’t used to attack.
It never say so but it's implied being an evoked weapon or else how would you make a melee attack against a target 60 feet away from you that deal force damage? It'd be a ranged spell attack instead. For purpose of cover etc...i believe the attack originate from the Spiritual Weapon.
I think the reason for spiritual weapon being written the way that it is was is illustrated in post 47 by thezzaruz.
like I said, thematically we all imagine the weapon dealing the damage and probably describe it as such. But mechanically it’s written in a different way to prevent various features from being used with it.
"You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand. The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration. If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action.You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 fire damage."
^ That sounds like something you use to make an attack with that does damage. So not sure where you're going with "similar to a weapon, but isn't used as one"
It's actually a fairly important distinction. Flame Blade does not create a weapon and thus does not allow for making weapon attacks and thus a whole host of features that keys off weapon attacks can't be used on the attacks you make with the fiery scimitar. Shadow Blade does explicitly produce a weapon that has weapon traits and that you make weapon attacks with.
Ah an even better example of when a spell creates something you can wield and says you can do so explicitly in the text where Spiritual Weapon does NOT.
Thanks Thezzaruz!
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?"
It's a meaningful point if you don't have a RAW justification for a demand you are making.
Sure, but the DM still have the final say in all cases. So bringing up that its their discretion isn't relevant: what is relevant is what is RAW and RAI.
Something like a force (or something parallel) empowered light sabre blade can interact with the physical and yet I wouldn't recommend just grabbing it before making an arcana or similar check with the DM.
I don't get why you're hooked on this lightsaber comparison. Nothing in the spell description says the weapon has such an effect on enemies who try to touch it, so imagining such a thing for the caster sounds like vindictiveness rather than a discussion of the spell text.
"You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand. The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration. If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action.You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 fire damage."
^ That sounds like something you use to make an attack with that does damage. So not sure where you're going with "similar to a weapon, but isn't used as one"
It's actually a fairly important distinction. Flame Blade does not create a weapon and thus does not allow for making weapon attacks and thus a whole host of features that keys off weapon attacks can't be used on the attacks you make with the fiery scimitar. Shadow Blade does explicitly produce a weapon that has weapon traits and that you make weapon attacks with.
Ah an even better example of when a spell creates something you can wield and says you can do so explicitly in the text where Spiritual Weapon does NOT.
Thanks Thezzaruz!
Many conjuration spells do not list generic actions available to creatures, or the possibility of using them as mounts. But as creatures, such rules apply to them generally.
Why assume the same is not true for a weapon created by a spell? That in the absence of specific rules, general rules apply?
Something like a force (or something parallel) empowered light sabre blade can interact with the physical and yet I wouldn't recommend just grabbing it before making an arcana or similar check with the DM.
If you think that you can pick it up and wield it, why not give it a go. Perhaps the worst that can happen is the 1d8 damage + your spellcasting modifier that you empower the thing to deliver - but maybe it won't be so bad. Talking to your DM could avoid potential problems though.
I don't get why you're hooked on this lightsaber comparison. Nothing in the spell description says the weapon has such an effect on enemies who try to touch it, so imagining such a thing for the caster sounds like vindictiveness rather than a discussion of the spell text.
Nothing in the spell's description says anything about what happens when you attempt to touch the spell's "floating spectral weapon" which does force damage on things it manages to hit. It will be up to your DM to determine what happens when you try to do that.
I'd recommend talking to your DM about your hopes for the spell before or when you cast it so that this might possibly be done in the most favourable possible way.
mechanically, it's a bonus-action force-damage attack that can be done at range. literally everything else is flavor.
rules as written, "The weapon can take whatever form you choose."
if someone wanted to describe it as a dancing frying pan or a magic knife on a string held by the caster or a little wyvern they summon who bites opponents that's all totally fine, as long as mechanically it behaves the way the spell description says.
At the end of Critical Role's Season One a successful adaptation of spiritual weapon was cast. Vex, getting married, did not have her bow with her when the ceremony was, of course, attacked. Pike cast spiritual weapon with her player asking the DM if it could be adapted for Vex to use. In this case, after some consideration, the DM said yes and that was how it was cast. If the spell was just cast and a player had later just decided to grab it, things might not have gone so well.
mechanically, it's a bonus-action force-damage attack that can be done at range. literally everything else is flavor.
rules as written, "The weapon can take whatever form you choose."
if someone wanted to describe it as a dancing frying pan or a magic knife on a string held by the caster or a little wyvern they summon who bites opponents that's all totally fine, as long as mechanically it behaves the way the spell description says.
Anything can be fine if the DM agrees. Friar Nuthar, my dwarven forge cleric with cook's utensils tool proficiency, had a potato masher as his spiritual weapon - but this was after getting DM agreement.
rules as written, "You create a floating, spectral weapon ... The weapon can take whatever form you choose." Does it have to take the form of a weapon, or can it be a potato masher?" That's a question for the DM.
edit: His later weapon was a frying pan called Eggscalibur. :D
I'm sure this must have been mentioned but I only read over the last page.
Spiritual Weapon produces a spectral weapon.
Spectral means ghostly, insubstantial, incorporeal, semi-transparent etc.
The spell certainly does not create a normal weapon.
In the end, everything in D&D is a DM call, but the intention when describing the weapon as "spectral" in the spell text would seem to be to indicate that it could not be grabbed and wielded. Can you grapple a ghost or spectre? Why would one expect to be able to grab a spectral weapon?
As far as RAW is concerned, the spiritual weapon just defines the location from which the caster can make a melee spell attack within 5'. The spell doesn't actually say that the weapon makes an attack or any other similar implication.
At the end of Critical Role's Season One a successful adaptation of spiritual weapon was cast. Vex, getting married, did not have her bow with her when the ceremony was, of course, attacked. Pike cast spiritual weapon with her player asking the DM if it could be adapted for Vex to use. In this case, after some consideration, the DM said yes and that was how it was cast. If the spell was just cast and a player had later just decided to grab it, things might not have gone so well.
That is just an example of rule of cool over RAW. It doesn't really make any sense since where do the arrows come from? However, a DM is free to homebrew anything that they want to and if a DM wants to allow the spectral weapon manifested by Spiritual Weapon to be used as a weapon by another character then they can, even if that is well outside the abilities of the spell as written.
good point about asking the DM - if your DM wants to run a serious campaign very tied to the lore of a specific campaign setting it's probably off-message to have your spiritual weapon manifest as a flying sacred cream pie rather than, say, Moradin's hammer.
as for me, i would not only accept but strongly encourage the potato masher!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While the spell requires the weapon to be within 5ft of a target for the caster to make the melee spell attack, it never says it makes the attack using the weapon. Thematically it makes sense to visualize the weapon attacking. Mechanically, the weapon isn’t used to attack.
Flame Blade specifically doesn't create a weapon. It creates something similar to a weapon, but which isn't used as one.
I don't think grabbing the spiritual weapon would let you just double the bonus action attack as a main attack or cheese force damage. But if its a weapon with the form of an actual weapon, it could be wielded for the generic damage of that weapon. It would normally be subpar anyways, since a cleric with enough wisdom to feel confident in hitting with spiritual weapon probably doesn't have a the highest strength score.
Mechanically, whatever happens, that the DM decides to happen and, unless you are the DM, this isn't your decision.
Spiritual Weapon
CASTING TIME
1 Bonus Action
RANGE/AREA
60 ft
DAMAGE/EFFECT
Force
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.
Spell Tags: DAMAGE
Available For: CLERIC LIFE DOMAIN WAR DOMAIN OATH OF CONQUEST
Basic Rules , pg. 27
Yes, the text is situationally ambiguous. However, the WHOLE point of the text relates to a spiritual weapon, to its creation, to its movement and, I would say, to its use.
It's also ambiguous whether, if you create/move the weapon to a distance 60ft of you, could you use it to hit an opponent 65 ft away from you but that's another issue.
Sure, a DM could agree to a RAW reading of the text to say that (ignoring the spell's range) having the spiritual weapon present within 5 ft of you allows you to make a bonus attack with something else and not with the spiritual weapon. However, the DM might then be compelled to come up with a rationale as to why a non-spiritual weapon could deal force damage. This could be yet another point a DM where might give up on the idea.
Any player can think what they like but, unless a DM agrees, it ain't gonna happen.
Perhaps it would be possible to think of a spiritual weapon as a mentally guidable, spectral version of a star wars light sabre but without the hilt. It's floating and spectral. That's the description. There's no reason to think that that you could grab it. However, it can also deal 'force' damage. It might not be good if you did.
OK, if you say so...
"You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand. The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration. If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action.You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 fire damage."
^ That sounds like something you use to make an attack with that does damage. So not sure where you're going with "similar to a weapon, but isn't used as one"
"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
It's actually a fairly important distinction. Flame Blade does not create a weapon and thus does not allow for making weapon attacks and thus a whole host of features that keys off weapon attacks can't be used on the attacks you make with the fiery scimitar. Shadow Blade does explicitly produce a weapon that has weapon traits and that you make weapon attacks with.
It never say so but it's implied being an evoked weapon or else how would you make a melee attack against a target 60 feet away from you that deal force damage? It'd be a ranged spell attack instead. For purpose of cover etc...i believe the attack originate from the Spiritual Weapon.
Sure, but that is true no matter what we are talking about. The DM can even change core rules. So its not a meaningful point.
Virtually everything else that is called "spectral" throughout the source books interacts physically. Spiritual Weapon itself cannot go through walls, as it is not incorporeal. And it makes an actual weapon. That seems to create reason to believe you could pick it up and wield it, even if doing so would probably be the least useful ways to use your action 99% of the time.
It's a meaningful point if you don't have a RAW justification for a demand you are making.
Something like a force (or something parallel) empowered light sabre blade can interact with the physical and yet I wouldn't recommend just grabbing it before making an arcana or similar check with the DM.
If you think that you can pick it up and wield it, why not give it a go. Perhaps the worst that can happen is the 1d8 damage + your spellcasting modifier that you empower the thing to deliver - but maybe it won't be so bad. Talking to your DM could avoid potential problems though.
I think the reason for spiritual weapon being written the way that it is was is illustrated in post 47 by thezzaruz.
like I said, thematically we all imagine the weapon dealing the damage and probably describe it as such. But mechanically it’s written in a different way to prevent various features from being used with it.
Ah an even better example of when a spell creates something you can wield and says you can do so explicitly in the text where Spiritual Weapon does NOT.
Thanks Thezzaruz!
"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
Sure, but the DM still have the final say in all cases. So bringing up that its their discretion isn't relevant: what is relevant is what is RAW and RAI.
I don't get why you're hooked on this lightsaber comparison. Nothing in the spell description says the weapon has such an effect on enemies who try to touch it, so imagining such a thing for the caster sounds like vindictiveness rather than a discussion of the spell text.
Many conjuration spells do not list generic actions available to creatures, or the possibility of using them as mounts. But as creatures, such rules apply to them generally.
Why assume the same is not true for a weapon created by a spell? That in the absence of specific rules, general rules apply?
Nothing in the spell's description says anything about what happens when you attempt to touch the spell's "floating spectral weapon" which does force damage on things it manages to hit. It will be up to your DM to determine what happens when you try to do that.
I'd recommend talking to your DM about your hopes for the spell before or when you cast it so that this might possibly be done in the most favourable possible way.
mechanically, it's a bonus-action force-damage attack that can be done at range. literally everything else is flavor.
rules as written, "The weapon can take whatever form you choose."
if someone wanted to describe it as a dancing frying pan or a magic knife on a string held by the caster or a little wyvern they summon who bites opponents that's all totally fine, as long as mechanically it behaves the way the spell description says.
At the end of Critical Role's Season One a successful adaptation of spiritual weapon was cast. Vex, getting married, did not have her bow with her when the ceremony was, of course, attacked. Pike cast spiritual weapon with her player asking the DM if it could be adapted for Vex to use. In this case, after some consideration, the DM said yes and that was how it was cast. If the spell was just cast and a player had later just decided to grab it, things might not have gone so well.
Anything can be fine if the DM agrees. Friar Nuthar, my dwarven forge cleric with cook's utensils tool proficiency, had a potato masher as his spiritual weapon - but this was after getting DM agreement.
rules as written, "You create a floating, spectral weapon ... The weapon can take whatever form you choose." Does it have to take the form of a weapon, or can it be a potato masher?" That's a question for the DM.
edit: His later weapon was a frying pan called Eggscalibur. :D
I'm sure this must have been mentioned but I only read over the last page.
Spiritual Weapon produces a spectral weapon.
Spectral means ghostly, insubstantial, incorporeal, semi-transparent etc.
The spell certainly does not create a normal weapon.
In the end, everything in D&D is a DM call, but the intention when describing the weapon as "spectral" in the spell text would seem to be to indicate that it could not be grabbed and wielded. Can you grapple a ghost or spectre? Why would one expect to be able to grab a spectral weapon?
As far as RAW is concerned, the spiritual weapon just defines the location from which the caster can make a melee spell attack within 5'. The spell doesn't actually say that the weapon makes an attack or any other similar implication.
That is just an example of rule of cool over RAW. It doesn't really make any sense since where do the arrows come from? However, a DM is free to homebrew anything that they want to and if a DM wants to allow the spectral weapon manifested by Spiritual Weapon to be used as a weapon by another character then they can, even if that is well outside the abilities of the spell as written.
good point about asking the DM - if your DM wants to run a serious campaign very tied to the lore of a specific campaign setting it's probably off-message to have your spiritual weapon manifest as a flying sacred cream pie rather than, say, Moradin's hammer.
as for me, i would not only accept but strongly encourage the potato masher!