Is a “blade” an object? Common sense would say yes. Does the spell refer to “the blade”? Yes. This is hardly calling an illusion or a light spell an object, there’s a spell construct formed that can be grasped and physically manipulated, very much like what you’d expect of an object.
There's clearly more to it than just manual manipulation since you can't make attacks with it at will and it disappears if you release it.
It requires a free hand. ie is held (like an object) and you can even let go of it, per the spell description (also like an object).
Evocation spells that deal Acid damage like Tasha's Caustic Brew create a physical acid substance, which lingers in the world for a duration, not just acid-damage-type energy. The acid is real or physical enough for Caustic Brew that a victim can make efforts to scrape or wash it off of themselves.
Are substances objects? Like I said, there might be more categories for "things" than just "creature," "object," "area," "spell effect," including maybe "substance"... but the point is, "Evocation doesn't create things, just manipulate energy" is more of a guideline than a rule. See also Spiritual Weapon, Melf's Minute Meteors, Tiny Hut, Wall of Sand (bonus, it even says you "conjure up" the sand!), Wall of Water...
The issue isn't the composition of the spell's effect. An evocation spell will actively manipulate what it produces, often in very specific and physics-defying ways, while a conjuration spell either doesn't, or exerts far less control. Every single example here is doing something extraordinary with what it produces. Spiritual Weapon, Tiny Hut and Arcane Hand create something solid (or selectively solid) out of pure energy. Minute Meteors causes tiny rocks to produce fiery explosions. Wall of Sand and Water create upright barriers out of fluids. Flame Blade fits the bill since fire wouldn't normally form itself into a blade shape.
Contrast those with the likes of Create Food and Water, Create Bonfire, Web, Grease, and Fog Cloud, which just summon something and whatever happens afterwards is just a natural effect of interacting with the substance.
IDK if Fog Cloud is a great example to have chosen. Summoning a 20ft radius cloud of fog in a hot arid environment, with zero additional magical manipulation? It'd vanish within seconds, not an hour. Even with zero wind speed. Water vapor pressure would cause the surrounding high temperature/low relative humidity air to pull all that moisture right up and disperse it rapidly. Only continuous active manipulation, as you ascribe to only evocation spells for some reason, would be capable of maintaining the full 20ft radius effect in a way that the spell describes.
In short: Fog doesn't just 'sit there' that isn't its normal behavior. Only active manipulation could keep is formed into a giant 20ft sphere like that. exactly like only active manipulation could keep flames formed into a sword that the wielder could hold onto.
An object being actively manipulated is still an object.
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.
There's clearly more to it than just manual manipulation since you can't make attacks with it at will
This is really what the discussion comes down to as far as two weapon fighting is concerned. You attack with it by using the action the spell provides.
The spell schools have no special rules, other than insofar as some classes have features that reference them as tags. No point trying to find reasonable unwritten rules about their magical forces, it’s a pointless endeavor. An illusion version of cure wounds could be released tomorrow, or a divination fireball, and we’d all just have to shrug and accept it.
It requires a free hand. ie is held (like an object) and you can even let go of it, per the spell description (also like an object).
I never said you couldn't let go of it. I said it doesn't behave like an object, and it doesn't. A normal object can be swung at will and falls when you let go of it.
IDK if Fog Cloud is a great example to have chosen. Summoning a 20ft radius cloud of fog in a hot arid environment, with zero additional magical manipulation?
I never claimed "zero additional magical manipulation." Obviously there's ongoing magic involved in a spell with a non-instantaneous duration. My point is that evocation spells manipulate the things they produce in an obviously much more extreme degree, and nothing you brought up really disproves that.
An object being actively manipulated is still an object.
A non-object being actively manipulated is also still a non-object.
It requires a free hand. ie is held (like an object) and you can even let go of it, per the spell description (also like an object).
I never said you couldn't let go of it. I said it doesn't behave like an object, and it doesn't. A normal object can be swung at will and falls when you let go of it.
Saying it can't be swung at will is begging the question. You see that yeah? In my view it can be swung at will. Just like any other object could.
IDK if Fog Cloud is a great example to have chosen. Summoning a 20ft radius cloud of fog in a hot arid environment, with zero additional magical manipulation?
I never claimed "zero additional magical manipulation." Obviously there's ongoing magic involved in a spell with a non-instantaneous duration. My point is that evocation spells manipulate the things they produce in an obviously much more extreme degree, and nothing you brought up really disproves that.
Keeping fog in a tight packed sphere is pretty extreme. But that's cool. There isn't a point here. So what if evocation has a more dramatic ongoing effect? That has nothing to do with if something is an object.
An object being actively manipulated is still an object.
A non-object being actively manipulated is also still a non-object.
I'm reasonably certain the game never once uses the phrase "non-object" but I'm also not going to comb through it or word search it to be sure. We're pretty far off the rails here.
An illusion version of cure wounds could be released tomorrow, or a divination fireball, and we’d all just have to shrug and accept it.
Could, but won't. If either of those spells get introduced at any point before 6th edition, I'll PayPal you $20.
Well and truly off the rails.... bringing us back into the realm of the topic:
You, as a DM, would be well in your rights to call it not an object. Just as another DM who read it and sees all the ways it acts like an object would be well in their rights treating it like an object. Neither is strictly against RAW in this case. And, if you did treat it like an object, you could allow a player to attack with it as an improvised weapon. And, you could, at your option decide this scimitar-like blade was sufficiently scimitar-like to treat as a scimitar when they did so. Again, well in your RAW rights as a DM to do so and the rules texts backing this up so far already posted throughout this thread.
Could you say otherwise, as a DM? Absolutely. That'd be well within your RAW rights too. When the RAW is "DM option" then their ruling is RAW.
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.
When the RAW is "DM option" then their ruling is RAW.
50 posts later, we have arrived at, "At the DM's option, this spell which normally inflicts 3d6 fire damage can instead be treated as a normal 1d6 scimitar so that you can use another 1d6 scimitar in your other hand with the two weapon fighting rules after having spent a 2nd level spell slot to create it in the first place." Even if you could take the attack action with the flame blade (which I contend you cannot) and convince your DM to treat it as a regular metal scimitar (which I contend is quite a stretch) you are left with a solution that is less useful than using the spell the way it is intended to be used and less useful than simply using two scimitars to begin with?
The point (obviously) is to understand if a spell describes creating a spell effect that seems like it should logically be manipulable with other tools at the player’s disposal (like swinging a spell object like an IW), may the player do so instead of using the spell effect’s ordinary actions it provides?
If you can swing a club made of frozen water using Shape Water as an IW, despite the spell not saying so (because why would it need to?), then I think the RAI is there to extend that ruling to ANY object created by a spell that can be wielded in one or two hands. The only controversial part of applying that to flame blade is, “what’s an object?”
Theres nothing to get up in arms about here. It’s certainly less a usable than the claim that the 3d6 spell effect attack can just be made as part of the Attack.
The point (obviously) is to understand if a spell describes creating a spell effect that seems like it should logically be manipulable with other tools at the player’s disposal (like swinging a spell object like an IW), may the player do so instead of using the spell effect’s ordinary actions it provides?
If you can swing a club made of frozen water using Shape Water as an IW, despite the spell not saying so (because why would it need to?), then I think the RAI is there to extend that ruling to ANY object created by a spell that can be wielded in one or two hands. The only controversial part of applying that to flame blade is, “what’s an object?”
Theres nothing to get up in arms about here. It’s certainly less a usable than the claim that the 3d6 spell effect attack can just be made as part of the Attack.
Mage Hand creates an object because the spell says it does. Do all spell effects that create objects say that they do?
It doesn'T create anything. so no it doesn't ! you cannot create weapons with shape water.
heres why... first you need an action to create a "simple" shape. the keyword being simple, that means a square a circle or any basic shapes you can think of. a weapon is not a basic shape, its a complex thing to do. if your DM allows you to create entire weapon, then go for it. but he's being generous. if a player want a club, i could accept it, but as a DM... it doens't take much for any simple shapes to become a complex one. once its complex, the shape cannot hold its form.
the second action used is to freeze it. now your shape water cannot do anything else. because it is already maxed out by the two 1 hour effect limit. that said, again the keyword is... "simple".
so the only question you should ask yourself is... what does your DM consider simple ? at that point its entirely the domain of the DM to decide. if it was me, one wouldn't be able to make a sword. they could make a small club, a small dagger like icicle. but thats pretty much it, and even there it would all be improvised weapons.
that's my take on it.
PS: if you compare it to prestidigitation who can literally create anything as long as it fit into your hand. prestidigitation is a much better spell.
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Mage Hand creates an object because the spell says it does. Do all spell effects that create objects say that they do?
No. For example, faithful hound and flaming sphere are both generally interpreted to create objects despite not saying so (it's much more significant for faithful hound, because the general reason it matters is that spell-created objects deal magical damage but spell-created creatures do not).
Saying it can't be swung at will is begging the question. You see that yeah? In my view it can be swung at will. Just like any other object could.
Based on what, exactly? The spell is quite clear that it requires an ad-hoc action to attack with it, which is not at all how weapon attacks or improvised weapons work. There isn't a single thing about the spell's effect that behaves like an object.
Keeping fog in a tight packed sphere is pretty extreme. But that's cool. There isn't a point here. So what if evocation has a more dramatic ongoing effect? That has nothing to do with if something is an object.
As Plaguescarred pointed out, if you wanted to make the case that the spell implies it produces an object (rather than explicitly saying it, like every spell that actually does) you'd expect it to be a conjuration spell. Schools of magic aren't assigned to spells by throwing darts at a board, and summoning things isn't part of evocation's deal. But you're right, it's circumstantial evidence at best.
The fact is that neither fire nor spell effects fit the DMG's description of an object. You'd have a much better case with Spiritual Weapon because at least it produces something solid and that's explicitly referred to as a "spectral weapon", and that's still not considered an object by the rules.
So long story short, you agree that you can make an ice club (like I said), or at the very least, a chunk of ice object. Sheesh…
I haven't been following this tangent all that closely, but in the shape water example, the water is there to begin with. The spell takes something that already exists and transmutes it. I will say that the water, whether in liquid or in ice form, could reasonably be used as an improvised weapon under the right circumstances, but it would lack the light property, so it would not be eligible to be used with two weapon fighting. That being said, I think you could make a reasonable case for an ice club to be considered an actual club, in which case, you could use it with TWF, for a while at least. Let's face it, qualifying as a club is a pretty low bar (and the low bar would also work as a club most likely)
Schools of magic aren't assigned to spells by throwing darts at a board
They 100% are. No-one can read the set of 5E spells and seriously, genuinely conclude that spell schools are handled with any sort of consistent internal logic. It's intrinsically bogus to assume that a spell's school implies any set of rules not directly interacting with spell schools.
Schools of magic aren't assigned to spells by throwing darts at a board
They 100% are. No-one can read the set of 5E spells and seriously, genuinely conclude that spell schools are handled with any sort of consistent internal logic. It's intrinsically bogus to assume that a spell's school implies any set of rules not directly interacting with spell schools.
Actually it make sense... enhance ability actually change you physically to get that bonus. its transmutation at its core. skill empowerement i should be rereading. to see. but i'm sure it also changes your physical form.
Bless on the other hand, is an enchantment, cause it doesn't fit any of the other categories. it could be divination, but it fits more as an enchantment considering its literally justa buff that do not make you see the future or the past or anything of the sort. if anything, enchantment fits more into it.
i'm thinking you don't know what each spells does really. but from rules lawyers who just want the RAW description, i'm not surprised... but if you want the truth about those spells you mentionned... they are transmutation as they are literally changing you physically in order for you to gain what you need. i don't think bless ever did any of that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
So long story short, you agree that you can make an ice club (like I said), or at the very least, a chunk of ice object. Sheesh…
I haven't been following this tangent all that closely, but in the shape water example, the water is there to begin with. The spell takes something that already exists and transmutes it. I will say that the water, whether in liquid or in ice form, could reasonably be used as an improvised weapon under the right circumstances, but it would lack the light property, so it would not be eligible to be used with two weapon fighting. That being said, I think you could make a reasonable case for an ice club to be considered an actual club, in which case, you could use it with TWF, for a while at least. Let's face it, qualifying as a club is a pretty low bar (and the low bar would also work as a club most likely)
thing is, it would be a pretty fragile club as well. it would literally explode on the first hit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
So long story short, you agree that you can make an ice club (like I said), or at the very least, a chunk of ice object. Sheesh…
I haven't been following this tangent all that closely, but in the shape water example, the water is there to begin with. The spell takes something that already exists and transmutes it. I will say that the water, whether in liquid or in ice form, could reasonably be used as an improvised weapon under the right circumstances, but it would lack the light property, so it would not be eligible to be used with two weapon fighting. That being said, I think you could make a reasonable case for an ice club to be considered an actual club, in which case, you could use it with TWF, for a while at least. Let's face it, qualifying as a club is a pretty low bar (and the low bar would also work as a club most likely)
thing is, it would be a pretty fragile club as well. it would literally explode on the first hit.
Why would it explode? Have you any idea how strong the crystalline structure of ice is? Sure, impurities can make ice brittle, but with magic, that shouldn’t be a problem. Yeah, I do not dispute that chunks would start flying off with every blow, but a person could very conceivably beat another person to death with a large chunk of ice before it was too small to wield effectively. Not a particularly armored victim, and not a lot of victims… but one person without a helmet? Yeah. I mean, if you can smash a watermelon, you can crack a skull.
It requires a free hand. ie is held (like an object) and you can even let go of it, per the spell description (also like an object).
IDK if Fog Cloud is a great example to have chosen. Summoning a 20ft radius cloud of fog in a hot arid environment, with zero additional magical manipulation? It'd vanish within seconds, not an hour. Even with zero wind speed. Water vapor pressure would cause the surrounding high temperature/low relative humidity air to pull all that moisture right up and disperse it rapidly. Only continuous active manipulation, as you ascribe to only evocation spells for some reason, would be capable of maintaining the full 20ft radius effect in a way that the spell describes.
In short: Fog doesn't just 'sit there' that isn't its normal behavior. Only active manipulation could keep is formed into a giant 20ft sphere like that. exactly like only active manipulation could keep flames formed into a sword that the wielder could hold onto.
An object being actively manipulated is still an object.
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.
This is really what the discussion comes down to as far as two weapon fighting is concerned. You attack with it by using the action the spell provides.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The spell schools have no special rules, other than insofar as some classes have features that reference them as tags. No point trying to find reasonable unwritten rules about their magical forces, it’s a pointless endeavor. An illusion version of cure wounds could be released tomorrow, or a divination fireball, and we’d all just have to shrug and accept it.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I never said you couldn't let go of it. I said it doesn't behave like an object, and it doesn't. A normal object can be swung at will and falls when you let go of it.
I never claimed "zero additional magical manipulation." Obviously there's ongoing magic involved in a spell with a non-instantaneous duration. My point is that evocation spells manipulate the things they produce in an obviously much more extreme degree, and nothing you brought up really disproves that.
A non-object being actively manipulated is also still a non-object.
Could, but won't. If either of those spells get introduced at any point before 6th edition, I'll PayPal you $20.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Saying it can't be swung at will is begging the question. You see that yeah? In my view it can be swung at will. Just like any other object could.
Keeping fog in a tight packed sphere is pretty extreme. But that's cool. There isn't a point here. So what if evocation has a more dramatic ongoing effect? That has nothing to do with if something is an object.
I'm reasonably certain the game never once uses the phrase "non-object" but I'm also not going to comb through it or word search it to be sure. We're pretty far off the rails here.
Well and truly off the rails.... bringing us back into the realm of the topic:
You, as a DM, would be well in your rights to call it not an object. Just as another DM who read it and sees all the ways it acts like an object would be well in their rights treating it like an object. Neither is strictly against RAW in this case. And, if you did treat it like an object, you could allow a player to attack with it as an improvised weapon. And, you could, at your option decide this scimitar-like blade was sufficiently scimitar-like to treat as a scimitar when they did so. Again, well in your RAW rights as a DM to do so and the rules texts backing this up so far already posted throughout this thread.
Could you say otherwise, as a DM? Absolutely. That'd be well within your RAW rights too. When the RAW is "DM option" then their ruling is RAW.
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.
If this were true then RAW would no longer have any meaning
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Not all rule areas invite DMs to make judgments to the extent IW do. Doesn’t mean that IW aren’t RAW.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
50 posts later, we have arrived at, "At the DM's option, this spell which normally inflicts 3d6 fire damage can instead be treated as a normal 1d6 scimitar so that you can use another 1d6 scimitar in your other hand with the two weapon fighting rules after having spent a 2nd level spell slot to create it in the first place." Even if you could take the attack action with the flame blade (which I contend you cannot) and convince your DM to treat it as a regular metal scimitar (which I contend is quite a stretch) you are left with a solution that is less useful than using the spell the way it is intended to be used and less useful than simply using two scimitars to begin with?
What is the point?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The point (obviously) is to understand if a spell describes creating a spell effect that seems like it should logically be manipulable with other tools at the player’s disposal (like swinging a spell object like an IW), may the player do so instead of using the spell effect’s ordinary actions it provides?
If you can swing a club made of frozen water using Shape Water as an IW, despite the spell not saying so (because why would it need to?), then I think the RAI is there to extend that ruling to ANY object created by a spell that can be wielded in one or two hands. The only controversial part of applying that to flame blade is, “what’s an object?”
Theres nothing to get up in arms about here. It’s certainly less a usable than the claim that the 3d6 spell effect attack can just be made as part of the Attack.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Mage Hand creates an object because the spell says it does. Do all spell effects that create objects say that they do?
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Shape Water doesn’t say, but does, so no.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It doesn'T create anything. so no it doesn't !
you cannot create weapons with shape water.
heres why...
first you need an action to create a "simple" shape. the keyword being simple, that means a square a circle or any basic shapes you can think of. a weapon is not a basic shape, its a complex thing to do. if your DM allows you to create entire weapon, then go for it. but he's being generous. if a player want a club, i could accept it, but as a DM... it doens't take much for any simple shapes to become a complex one. once its complex, the shape cannot hold its form.
the second action used is to freeze it.
now your shape water cannot do anything else. because it is already maxed out by the two 1 hour effect limit.
that said, again the keyword is... "simple".
so the only question you should ask yourself is...
what does your DM consider simple ?
at that point its entirely the domain of the DM to decide.
if it was me, one wouldn't be able to make a sword.
they could make a small club, a small dagger like icicle. but thats pretty much it, and even there it would all be improvised weapons.
that's my take on it.
PS: if you compare it to prestidigitation who can literally create anything as long as it fit into your hand.
prestidigitation is a much better spell.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
So long story short, you agree that you can make an ice club (like I said), or at the very least, a chunk of ice object. Sheesh…
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
No. For example, faithful hound and flaming sphere are both generally interpreted to create objects despite not saying so (it's much more significant for faithful hound, because the general reason it matters is that spell-created objects deal magical damage but spell-created creatures do not).
Based on what, exactly? The spell is quite clear that it requires an ad-hoc action to attack with it, which is not at all how weapon attacks or improvised weapons work. There isn't a single thing about the spell's effect that behaves like an object.
As Plaguescarred pointed out, if you wanted to make the case that the spell implies it produces an object (rather than explicitly saying it, like every spell that actually does) you'd expect it to be a conjuration spell. Schools of magic aren't assigned to spells by throwing darts at a board, and summoning things isn't part of evocation's deal. But you're right, it's circumstantial evidence at best.
The fact is that neither fire nor spell effects fit the DMG's description of an object. You'd have a much better case with Spiritual Weapon because at least it produces something solid and that's explicitly referred to as a "spectral weapon", and that's still not considered an object by the rules.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I haven't been following this tangent all that closely, but in the shape water example, the water is there to begin with. The spell takes something that already exists and transmutes it. I will say that the water, whether in liquid or in ice form, could reasonably be used as an improvised weapon under the right circumstances, but it would lack the light property, so it would not be eligible to be used with two weapon fighting. That being said, I think you could make a reasonable case for an ice club to be considered an actual club, in which case, you could use it with TWF, for a while at least. Let's face it, qualifying as a club is a pretty low bar (and the low bar would also work as a club most likely)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
They 100% are. No-one can read the set of 5E spells and seriously, genuinely conclude that spell schools are handled with any sort of consistent internal logic. It's intrinsically bogus to assume that a spell's school implies any set of rules not directly interacting with spell schools.
Here's an example, of many: bless is enchantment, not transmutation (like enhance ability or skill empowerment) or divination (like guidance or true strike) or abjuration (like resistance).
Actually it make sense...
enhance ability actually change you physically to get that bonus. its transmutation at its core. skill empowerement i should be rereading. to see. but i'm sure it also changes your physical form.
Bless on the other hand, is an enchantment, cause it doesn't fit any of the other categories.
it could be divination, but it fits more as an enchantment considering its literally justa buff that do not make you see the future or the past or anything of the sort.
if anything, enchantment fits more into it.
i'm thinking you don't know what each spells does really.
but from rules lawyers who just want the RAW description, i'm not surprised...
but if you want the truth about those spells you mentionned...
they are transmutation as they are literally changing you physically in order for you to gain what you need.
i don't think bless ever did any of that.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
thing is, it would be a pretty fragile club as well.
it would literally explode on the first hit.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Why would it explode? Have you any idea how strong the crystalline structure of ice is? Sure, impurities can make ice brittle, but with magic, that shouldn’t be a problem. Yeah, I do not dispute that chunks would start flying off with every blow, but a person could very conceivably beat another person to death with a large chunk of ice before it was too small to wield effectively. Not a particularly armored victim, and not a lot of victims… but one person without a helmet? Yeah. I mean, if you can smash a watermelon, you can crack a skull.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting