as for me, i would not only accept but strongly encourage the potato masher!
Definitely agree. In one of our games I have a Cleric that worships Lathander and we have flavoured a lot of his spells to be extra light/sun based. His Spiritual Weapon is a miniature sun and its attacks are solar flares lashing out (think that small training droid that Luke uses in Star Wars ep IV except as a sun). But that is flavour, I would never expect him to be able to physically interact with it (throw it or shove it in someone's face or anything) as its mechanical effects aren't changed.
Why assume the same is not true for a weapon created by a spell? That in the absence of specific rules, general rules apply?
General rule for spells though is that they only do what they say, they are their own specific rules. Cloud of Daggers creates daggers that injure creatures in its space but you can't pluck a few of those daggers out of the air and then move away and attack someone with them. Tenser's Floating Disk creates something that is clearly tangible but that doesn't mean you can pick it up and go bash someone's head in.
There are spells that creates something that you can hold to make attacks with (Flame Blade) or wield as a weapon (Shadow Blade). Spiritual Weapon is worded differently and thus works differently.
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.
That's because spells like Find Steed creates an actual creature with a creature type and a stat block and as such they have the usual options for such a creature available to them (unless, of course, the spell imposes specific limitations).
love that little sun. the concept for a light cleric i'm playing now is that her spiritual weapon is a little spinning ring of purple flame, like a flying buzzsaw blade.
General rule for spells though is that they only do what they say, they are their own specific rules. Cloud of Daggers creates daggers that injure creatures in its space but you can't pluck a few of those daggers out of the air and then move away and attack someone with them. Tenser's Floating Disk creates something that is clearly tangible but that doesn't mean you can pick it up and go bash someone's head in.
Cloud of Daggers specifies that the daggers do not cease spinning for the duration of the spell, so that it is impossible to grab them while the spell is active. Although, it isn't stated that the daggers disappear when the spell ends, as with other conjurations. Its a weird one.
But Tenser's has extremely specific rules to keep it from doing anything but be a floating platform. In fact, that really helps my case about a spells effects; every bit of text means something, and if RAI it wasn't meant to do something, the writers would have made that abundantly clear in the text as they did with Tenser's.
There are spells that creates something that you can hold to make attacks with (Flame Blade) or wield as a weapon (Shadow Blade). Spiritual Weapon is worded differently and thus works differently.
Yes, spiritual weapon just makes a generic weapon that has a bonus action attack/movement mechanic. It makes a weapon, and it works differently.
That's because spells like Find Steed creates an actual creature with a creature type and a stat block and as such they have the usual options for such a creature available to them (unless, of course, the spell imposes specific limitations).
That is my point. A creature by default has a stat block and general rules applicable as a creature, and in the same way a weapon has generic statistics just like a conjured horse unless otherwise stated.
"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."
It absolutely creates a blade.
same shape as scimitar
same size too
it is held, in your free hand, so is an object
So even if it isn't an actual scimitar, it is an object in your hand. So...
"An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
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 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."
It absolutely creates a blade.
same shape as scimitar
same size too
it is held, in your free hand, so is an object
So even if it isn't an actual scimitar, it is an object in your hand. So...
"An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
Ok sure, you can use flame blade as a really subpar improvised weapon, since it isn't just called a weapon.
I don’t think flame blade should be the point of too much focus. The spell is a failure and was pretty much retconned by the creation of shadow blade.
so many players and DMs asked questions about how to use flame blade that WOTC eventually figured out that the questions were being asked because players wanted the spell to be like shadowblade.
Flame blade is a better evocation light source than it is a damaging evocation spell.
thank goodness this druid only spell is now optionally available to sorcerers… but really it’s terrible.
as for me, i would not only accept but strongly encourage the potato masher!
Definitely agree. In one of our games I have a Cleric that worships Lathander and we have flavoured a lot of his spells to be extra light/sun based. His Spiritual Weapon is a miniature sun and its attacks are solar flares lashing out (think that small training droid that Luke uses in Star Wars ep IV except as a sun). But that is flavour, I would never expect him to be able to physically interact with it (throw it or shove it in someone's face or anything) as its mechanical effects aren't changed.
While I think it remains paramount that we remember the DM's agency to say no, this is a fantastic example of something a DM might be more likely to say yes to. It fits ahem brilliantly.
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?
I'd imagine that the animals might fit better with aspects of nature worship or nature deities. Statues, I guess, might fit with religions venerating the past or some such. Images of people might arguably work with trickery domain though, mechanically, the images might not fool people into thinking that the images were anything but spectral.
As for Friar Nuthar, If he were solely associated with Moradin I'd have stuck with a hammer or anvil. As it was I split Nuthar's loyalties between Moradin and his wife Berronar Truesilver, goddess of hearth and home so, in this case, I was enabled to feel better in approaching the DM about the potato masher and Eggscalibur.
as for me, i would not only accept but strongly encourage the potato masher!
Definitely agree. In one of our games I have a Cleric that worships Lathander and we have flavoured a lot of his spells to be extra light/sun based. His Spiritual Weapon is a miniature sun and its attacks are solar flares lashing out (think that small training droid that Luke uses in Star Wars ep IV except as a sun). But that is flavour, I would never expect him to be able to physically interact with it (throw it or shove it in someone's face or anything) as its mechanical effects aren't changed.
While I think it remains paramount that we remember the DM's agency to say no, this is a fantastic example of something a DM might be more likely to say yes to. It fits ahem brilliantly.
Obviously a DM can say no to anything. A DM can tell you No to you wanting it to be a longsword and say it must be a warhammer in his campaign. Thems the breaks, DM say goes no matter what it is.
There are better angles from which to discuss what the rules say. DMs can do anything.
Generally, here, we must accept the premise "If the DM is following the rules, what ruling are they likely to make" since this is the rules forum. We discuss what is rules text saying, we discuss what do the rules allow and not allow. But "something a DM might be more likely to say yes to" isn't generally a strong argument on what rules actually say.
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?
I'd imagine that the animals might fit better with aspects of nature worship or nature deities. Statues, I guess, might fit with religions venerating the past or some such. Images of people might arguably work with trickery domain though, mechanically, the images might not fool people into thinking that the images were anything but spectral.
As for Friar Nuthar, If he were solely associated with Moradin I'd have stuck with a hammer or anvil. As it was I split Nuthar's loyalties between Moradin and his wife Berronar Truesilver, goddess of hearth and home so, in this case, I was enabled to feel better in approaching the DM about the potato masher and Eggscalibur.
The spell says "The weapon can take whatever form you choose."
Whatever additional restriction you've decided to place on it is homebrew.
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.
Cloud of Daggers specifies that the daggers do not cease spinning for the duration of the spell, so that it is impossible to grab them while the spell is active. Although, it isn't stated that the daggers disappear when the spell ends, as with other conjurations. Its a weird one.
So the daggers being described as "spinning" stops you from grabbing/holding on to them but a Spiritual Weapon being described as "floating" doesn't hinder you from grabbing/holding/using it? Nah I don't see anything in the language that is materially different in a way that allows you to treat them differently.
Yes, spiritual weapon just makes a generic weapon that has a bonus action attack/movement mechanic. It makes a weapon, and it works differently.
That is my point. A creature by default has a stat block and general rules applicable as a creature, and in the same way a weapon has generic statistics just like a conjured horse unless otherwise stated.
I think this is mainly a failure of the natural language idea. They called it a "weapon" not to allow you to hold/wield it but rather because calling it a "random thingy" would have looked stupid.
So the daggers being described as "spinning" stops you from grabbing/holding on to them but a Spiritual Weapon being described as "floating" doesn't hinder you from grabbing/holding/using it? Nah I don't see anything in the language that is materially different in a way that allows you to treat them differently.
I guess you can try to grab a magically spinning blade that even a Tarrasque's hide wouldn't stop. It'd end poorly.
On the other hand... why would "floating" make something difficult to grab and hold? My dude, a 2 year old can grab hold of a floating balloon if its within reach. Kind of a totally different thing from grabbing an unstoppable blade.
I think this is mainly a failure of the natural language idea. They called it a "weapon" not to allow you to hold/wield it but rather because calling it a "random thingy" would have looked stupid.
Yeah, same way several spells create creatures and tell you to look up the statistics in the PHB or DMG.
Its not just based on them naming the spell "spiritual weapon" but that the text literally says that you "create a weapon." Weapons are actual things in the game.
Its not just based on them naming the spell "spiritual weapon" but that the text literally says that you "create a weapon."
Which does not have any actual statistics, so if it's wieldable in the first place, it would either count as an improvised weapon, or have the same stats as a mundane weapon of the same type, because the ability to make a melee spell attack doing 1d8+casting ability modifier force damage is a property of the spell, not a property of the weapon.
Its not just based on them naming the spell "spiritual weapon" but that the text literally says that you "create a weapon."
Which does not have any actual statistics, so if it's wieldable in the first place, it would either count as an improvised weapon, or have the same stats as a mundane weapon of the same type, because the ability to make a melee spell attack doing 1d8+casting ability modifier force damage is a property of the spell, not a property of the weapon.
If you create a longsword, longsword has stats. True for all the different types of weapons in the PHB.
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.
Its not just based on them naming the spell "spiritual weapon" but that the text literally says that you "create a weapon."
Which does not have any actual statistics, so if it's wieldable in the first place, it would either count as an improvised weapon, or have the same stats as a mundane weapon of the same type, because the ability to make a melee spell attack doing 1d8+casting ability modifier force damage is a property of the spell, not a property of the weapon.
Doing the damage of a mundane weapon is the most Im arguing for.
I guess you can try to grab a magically spinning blade that even a Tarrasque's hide wouldn't stop. It'd end poorly.
On the other hand... why would "floating" make something difficult to grab and hold? My dude, a 2 year old can grab hold of a floating balloon if its within reach. Kind of a totally different thing from grabbing an unstoppable blade.
Why would "spinning" be more unstoppable than "floating"? Sure an argument could be made for the possibility of damage when trying to catch it but for the point of argument here, that you can grab, hold and move as you see fit, there is no difference between the language in the spells.
Yeah, same way several spells create creatures and tell you to look up the statistics in the PHB or DMG.
Its not just based on them naming the spell "spiritual weapon" but that the text literally says that you "create a weapon." Weapons are actual things in the game.
Yea and they tell you what kind of creature is summoned/created just as Shadow Blade tells you the traits/classification of the weapon while Spiritual Weapon doesn't give you such information.
I think you are letting what you want to be able to do overshadow what the spell says it does. When you are the DM you can do what you want but I wouldn't expect widespread acceptance for how you read the spell.
Why would "spinning" be more unstoppable than "floating"? Sure an argument could be made for the possibility of damage when trying to catch it but for the point of argument here, that you can grab, hold and move as you see fit, there is no difference between the language in the spells.
Its a pretty big difference actually. The blades, as per the text, do not stop spinning until the spell ends and do not move from the place they are cast. Spiritual weapon does specifically move at the caster's direction, and "floating" in no way implies "totally fixed in space."
Yea and they tell you what kind of creature is summoned/created just as [Tooltip Not Found] tells you the traits/classification of the weapon while Spiritual Weapon doesn't give you such information.
"You create a floating, spectral weapon within range that lasts for the duration or until you cast this spell again... The weapon can take whatever form you choose..."
The spell says to create a weapon, it can take any form you choose, and we know where to find stats for mundane weapons.
I think you are letting what you want to be able to do overshadow what the spell says it does. When you are the DM you can do what you want but I wouldn't expect widespread acceptance for how you read the spell.
Yeah, I might play around with this a bit as DM. And I wouldn't expect it to fly at most tables Im at as a player. But that seems more because it is popular to assume all the text of a spell not mentioning damage or action economy is meaningless fluff.
"You create a floating, spectral weapon within range that lasts for the duration or until you cast this spell again... The weapon can take whatever form you choose..."
The spell says to create a weapon, it can take any form you choose, and we know where to find stats for mundane weapons.
The spell doesn't create a weapon, it create a spectral weapon, here's the difference. Up to DM if a spectral weapon has the same statistics as a corporal one since the spell doesn't say so as written.
Antonyms for spectral according to synonyms.com are bodily, substantial, corporal, fleshly, palpable. Plain english to me indicate that wielding it is contrary to intent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Definitely agree. In one of our games I have a Cleric that worships Lathander and we have flavoured a lot of his spells to be extra light/sun based. His Spiritual Weapon is a miniature sun and its attacks are solar flares lashing out (think that small training droid that Luke uses in Star Wars ep IV except as a sun). But that is flavour, I would never expect him to be able to physically interact with it (throw it or shove it in someone's face or anything) as its mechanical effects aren't changed.
General rule for spells though is that they only do what they say, they are their own specific rules.
Cloud of Daggers creates daggers that injure creatures in its space but you can't pluck a few of those daggers out of the air and then move away and attack someone with them.
Tenser's Floating Disk creates something that is clearly tangible but that doesn't mean you can pick it up and go bash someone's head in.
There are spells that creates something that you can hold to make attacks with (Flame Blade) or wield as a weapon (Shadow Blade). Spiritual Weapon is worded differently and thus works differently.
That's because spells like Find Steed creates an actual creature with a creature type and a stat block and as such they have the usual options for such a creature available to them (unless, of course, the spell imposes specific limitations).
love that little sun. the concept for a light cleric i'm playing now is that her spiritual weapon is a little spinning ring of purple flame, like a flying buzzsaw blade.
Cloud of Daggers specifies that the daggers do not cease spinning for the duration of the spell, so that it is impossible to grab them while the spell is active. Although, it isn't stated that the daggers disappear when the spell ends, as with other conjurations. Its a weird one.
But Tenser's has extremely specific rules to keep it from doing anything but be a floating platform. In fact, that really helps my case about a spells effects; every bit of text means something, and if RAI it wasn't meant to do something, the writers would have made that abundantly clear in the text as they did with Tenser's.
Yes, spiritual weapon just makes a generic weapon that has a bonus action attack/movement mechanic. It makes a weapon, and it works differently.
That is my point. A creature by default has a stat block and general rules applicable as a creature, and in the same way a weapon has generic statistics just like a conjured horse unless otherwise stated.
It doesn't? Weird that it'd say it does then.
flame blade
"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."
So even if it isn't an actual scimitar, it is an object in your hand. So...
"An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."
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.
Ok sure, you can use flame blade as a really subpar improvised weapon, since it isn't just called a weapon.
I don’t think flame blade should be the point of too much focus. The spell is a failure and was pretty much retconned by the creation of shadow blade.
so many players and DMs asked questions about how to use flame blade that WOTC eventually figured out that the questions were being asked because players wanted the spell to be like shadowblade.
Flame blade is a better evocation light source than it is a damaging evocation spell.
thank goodness this druid only spell is now optionally available to sorcerers… but really it’s terrible.
at least the scaling is also bad.
It’s a great opportunity for your player to decide the form.
it doesn’t have to be a weapon per se. I had mine be a giant broom.
DM - And In The Darkness, Rot: The Sunless Citadel
DM - Our Little Lives Kept In Equipoise: Curse of Strahd
DM - Misprize Thou Not These Shadows That Belong: The Lost Mines of Phandelver
PC - Azzure - Tyranny of Dragons
While I think it remains paramount that we remember the DM's agency to say no, this is a fantastic example of something a DM might be more likely to say yes to. It fits ahem brilliantly.
Going back to the OP:
I'd imagine that the animals might fit better with aspects of nature worship or nature deities. Statues, I guess, might fit with religions venerating the past or some such. Images of people might arguably work with trickery domain though, mechanically, the images might not fool people into thinking that the images were anything but spectral.
As for Friar Nuthar, If he were solely associated with Moradin I'd have stuck with a hammer or anvil.
As it was I split Nuthar's loyalties between Moradin and his wife Berronar Truesilver, goddess of hearth and home so, in this case, I was enabled to feel better in approaching the DM about the potato masher and Eggscalibur.
Obviously a DM can say no to anything. A DM can tell you No to you wanting it to be a longsword and say it must be a warhammer in his campaign. Thems the breaks, DM say goes no matter what it is.
There are better angles from which to discuss what the rules say. DMs can do anything.
Generally, here, we must accept the premise "If the DM is following the rules, what ruling are they likely to make" since this is the rules forum. We discuss what is rules text saying, we discuss what do the rules allow and not allow. But "something a DM might be more likely to say yes to" isn't generally a strong argument on what rules actually say.
The spell says "The weapon can take whatever form you choose."
Whatever additional restriction you've decided to place on it is homebrew.
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.
So the daggers being described as "spinning" stops you from grabbing/holding on to them but a Spiritual Weapon being described as "floating" doesn't hinder you from grabbing/holding/using it? Nah I don't see anything in the language that is materially different in a way that allows you to treat them differently.
Shadow Blade gives you a weapon with traits/statistics, Spiritual Weapon doesn't.
I think this is mainly a failure of the natural language idea. They called it a "weapon" not to allow you to hold/wield it but rather because calling it a "random thingy" would have looked stupid.
I guess you can try to grab a magically spinning blade that even a Tarrasque's hide wouldn't stop. It'd end poorly.
On the other hand... why would "floating" make something difficult to grab and hold? My dude, a 2 year old can grab hold of a floating balloon if its within reach. Kind of a totally different thing from grabbing an unstoppable blade.
Yeah, same way several spells create creatures and tell you to look up the statistics in the PHB or DMG.
Its not just based on them naming the spell "spiritual weapon" but that the text literally says that you "create a weapon." Weapons are actual things in the game.
Which does not have any actual statistics, so if it's wieldable in the first place, it would either count as an improvised weapon, or have the same stats as a mundane weapon of the same type, because the ability to make a melee spell attack doing 1d8+casting ability modifier force damage is a property of the spell, not a property of the weapon.
If you create a longsword, longsword has stats. True for all the different types of weapons in the PHB.
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.
Doing the damage of a mundane weapon is the most Im arguing for.
Why would "spinning" be more unstoppable than "floating"? Sure an argument could be made for the possibility of damage when trying to catch it but for the point of argument here, that you can grab, hold and move as you see fit, there is no difference between the language in the spells.
Yea and they tell you what kind of creature is summoned/created just as Shadow Blade tells you the traits/classification of the weapon while Spiritual Weapon doesn't give you such information.
I think you are letting what you want to be able to do overshadow what the spell says it does. When you are the DM you can do what you want but I wouldn't expect widespread acceptance for how you read the spell.
Its a pretty big difference actually. The blades, as per the text, do not stop spinning until the spell ends and do not move from the place they are cast. Spiritual weapon does specifically move at the caster's direction, and "floating" in no way implies "totally fixed in space."
"You create a floating, spectral weapon within range that lasts for the duration or until you cast this spell again... The weapon can take whatever form you choose..."
The spell says to create a weapon, it can take any form you choose, and we know where to find stats for mundane weapons.
Yeah, I might play around with this a bit as DM. And I wouldn't expect it to fly at most tables Im at as a player. But that seems more because it is popular to assume all the text of a spell not mentioning damage or action economy is meaningless fluff.
The spell doesn't create a weapon, it create a spectral weapon, here's the difference. Up to DM if a spectral weapon has the same statistics as a corporal one since the spell doesn't say so as written.
Antonyms for spectral according to synonyms.com are bodily, substantial, corporal, fleshly, palpable. Plain english to me indicate that wielding it is contrary to intent.