Shadow Blade with War Wizard's Power Surge?

[TheUnwise]

Can I activate the War Wizard's Power Surge using Shadow Blade?

The text says:
Once per turn when you deal damage to a creature or object with a wizard spell, you can spend one power surge to deal extra force damage to that target.

SB is a wizard spell, but I'd be using my attack that turn not the spell.

I think it should be usable but I'd like t hear some opinions. What do you guys think?

[Vaz]

Have you dealt damage with a Wizard spell? Have you used Power Surge already that turn? If yes and no are the respective answers, then triggering conditions are met.

[History_buff]

I’d say that the war wizard ability wouldn’t apply to a conjured weapon like shadow blade. When you attack with that weapon you’re not casting a wizard spell, you’re making a melee weapon attack. (Or ranged if you throw it)

[Vaz]

I’d say that the war wizard ability wouldn’t apply to a conjured weapon like shadow blade. When you attack with that weapon you’re not casting a wizard spell, you’re making a melee weapon attack. (Or ranged if you throw it)

You are free to houserule. You are, however, incorrect.

The spell doesn't require that you make a spell attack, simply that you deal damage with a wizard spell.

[Finlam]

Can I activate the War Wizard's Power Surge using Shadow Blade?

The text says:
Once per turn when you deal damage to a creature or object with a wizard spell, you can spend one power surge to deal extra force damage to that target.

SB is a wizard spell, but I'd be using my attack that turn not the spell.

I think it should be usable but I'd like t hear some opinions. What do you guys think?

It depends on if you're Jeremy Crawford or not. If you are, then yes, you are dealing damage with a wizard spell and you should tweet about it.

If not, then either you're a stickler for RAW and you're actually dealing damage with a weapon created from a spell and not technically the spell.

Or you're a fun GM and you say "Yes" because it makes everyone's lives better and keeps the game moving and you know in your heart that adding a minor boost to a weak spell has 0 impact on the fun at the table, but saying "no" to such a minor request will disappoint your players and diminish the fun at the table. So you choose to say "Yes, you can add it" because you're a good GM.

[History_buff]

You are free to houserule. You are, however, incorrect.

The spell doesn't require that you make a spell attack, simply that you deal damage with a wizard spell.

Quite frankly neither of us are “incorrect” depending on how it’s read.

But the most basic textual interpretation hinges on what counts as dealing damage with a wizard spell is.

One reading is that you’re not dealing damage with a wizard spell, you’re dealing damage with a conjured object from a wizard spell. Different from Melf’s minute meteors or flaming sphere after initial cast too because with those you’re directly damaging an enemy with a wizard spell.

Another is that because the wizard spell conjured the object you’re doing damage with a wizard spell which is a fair reading.

Either way not worth getting bogged down in “statutory construction”. It’s not that big a deal, and I’d probably allow it.

[strangebloke]

You are free to houserule. You are, however, incorrect.

The spell doesn't require that you make a spell attack, simply that you deal damage with a wizard spell.
I think this is a gray area, and I don't think there's an answer by RAW, but I definitely agree that yours is the most sensible interpretation.

Shadow blade is a spell that grants a weapon. You use the weapon to make a weapon attack. Power surge does not specific 'spell attack,' it specifies 'spell.' So it doesn't matter that you aren't casting a spell on the round, at least. Nobody would argue that you couldn't use Power Surge on the action granted by Storm Sphere, for instance.

That said, we don't have clear guidance on what constitutes 'damage caused by a spell.' Personally, I would argue that if the damage is due to a spell being cast and is magical enough to bypass non-magical resistance, I would consider it spell damage. So dropping someone a hundred feat with reverse gravity or telekinesis is not spell damage, and hitting someone with improved divine smite is not spell damage, but shadow blade and heat metal do count as spell damage.

That's my take, anyway.

[Mikal]

Like many vaguely defined rulings, I think this is going to be up to a DM by DM basis, with Crawford ruling based on however he's feeling that day, if he bother's to answer at all.

With that being said, I'd allow it.
You only get 1 power surge per short rest unless you successfully counterspell or dispel an existing spell, and you only get half wizard level in damage on the attack, up to a maximum of your intelligence modifier. Plus you automatically reset to 1 power surge after finishing a long rest.

Letting someone use it on Shadow Blade vs. say... a Fireball or Steel Wind Strike? Sure. Feel free to waste it on the single weapon attack you have. It's not going to unbalance things and honestly one of the weaker spells to apply it to.

[GlenSmash!]

I'd rule that it does.

Now, if I was a War Wizard and if I was using a Shadow blade, I'd probably also be using that Shadow Blade as part of a Booming Blade or Greenflame Blade spell anyway. Probably.

[Mikal]

I'd rule that it does.

Now, if I was a War Wizard and if I was using a Shadow blade, I'd probably also be using that Shadow Blade as part of a Booming Blade or Greenflame Blade spell anyway. Probably.

That is a good point. If you're attacking with Shadow Blade as a War Wizard you likely don't have Extra Attack, so BB and GFB would help with that damage, and can be used to apply Power Surge.

[History_buff]

I'd rule that it does.

Now, if I was a War Wizard and if I was using a Shadow blade, I'd probably also be using that Shadow Blade as part of a Booming Blade or Greenflame Blade spell anyway. Probably.

And in that situation, no problem, it’s definitely kosher no matter which way you look at it.

Course as others have said not exactly super efficient.

[GlenSmash!]

And in that situation, no problem, it’s definitely kosher no matter which way you look at it.

Course as others have said not exactly super efficient.

Not AL Legal either.

Still I could see it working on an EK/War Wizard with War Magic fairly well.

[rbstr]

I don't see how shadow blade is any different from spells like Dragon Breath, Flaming Sphere ect. I don't think anyone will argue that Power Surges apply to those types of spells.

Power Surge's wording does not limit the damage to spells being cast like the Celestial Warlock's Radiant Soul feature.

Now, if you were to go around swinging a sword made with Fabricate, Power Surges would not apply. The spell is no longer active, it's a mundane object.

[Kane0]

Sure, why not. It's a novel use for sure.

[danpit2991]

why not its not like a few points of damage are going to break the game

[XIX]

Some of you say there is no right answer, it’s gray, it’s up to the GM, etc. but the correct answer is freely available below.


It depends on if you're Jeremy Crawford or not. If you are, then yes, you are dealing damage with a wizard spell and you should tweet about it.

If not, then either you're a stickler for RAW and you're actually dealing damage with a weapon created from a spell and not technically the spell.

Or you're a fun GM and you say "Yes" because it makes everyone's lives better and keeps the game moving and you know in your heart that adding a minor boost to a weak spell has 0 impact on the fun at the table, but saying "no" to such a minor request will disappoint your players and diminish the fun at the table. So you choose to say "Yes, you can add it" because you're a good GM.

Plusalsoand we are talking about 3 points of extra damage to ONE FRIGGIN ATTACK (at level 6) 3...not 3d6, not even 1d6...3. Friggin. Points. If you are a DM that disallows this, I don’t want to be in your game, not because you’re wrong, but because any DM who thinks litigating such a puny insignificant thing is worth their time will also be litigating larger things and rather than fun the entire game will be an adversarial game of gotcha.

[Greywander]

The major argument put forth so far seems to be that the spell itself isn't dealing the damage, it merely conjures a weapon, and it is the weapon that deals the damage. On the other hand, the weapon was created by the spell, so the spell indirectly deals the damage. So it seems like it could go either way.

However, let me draw your attention to the fact that Shadow Blade is not instantaneous, it is Concentration, up to 1 minute. The spell doesn't just conjure the weapon, the spell is the weapon. If you were to step into an anti-magic field, the Shadow Blade would disappear. If you lost concentration, it would disappear.

Consider the spell Call Lightning. The spell starts with one bolt of lightning on the turn you first cast it, but as long as you maintain concentration you can use your action to summon additional lightning strikes on subsequent turns. Technically you're not casting the spell, only maintaining it, so you could use your bonus action to cast, say, Healing Word. Would Call Lightning be eligible for Power Surge, if it were a wizard spell? I'd say yes. Logically, this would mean Shadow Blade would also count as dealing damage "with a spell", and therefore be eligible.

However, that also has a couple downsides. For example, there are a few powerful enemies that are resistant to damage from spells. Rakshasas are immune to spells under 7th level. And so on. So there are a couple of downsides to treating it this way, even if they are rare to come up.

[bid]

However, let me draw your attention to the fact that Shadow Blade is not instantaneous, it is Concentration, up to 1 minute. The spell doesn't just conjure the weapon, the spell is the weapon. If you were to step into an anti-magic field, the Shadow Blade would disappear. If you lost concentration, it would disappear.
I think the same argument would hold for divine favor and shillelagh.
Assuming you could somehow make them wizard spells.

[OvisCaedo]

To me, shadow blade seems like a pretty clear-cut magical energy sword that is 100% a spell. It's not like it's just enchanting an existing weapon, you're swinging raw spellbound magic around.

...What WOULD make for more of an edge case would be something like Magic Weapon. Curious how anyone feels about that one.

[Vogie]

Oh lord, I'm flashing back to the Ice Axe war (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?509630-Maximize-Spell-Ice-Axe).

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it would count as a spell, but I'm more than happy to throw my hands up and walk away from this again.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

I would argue that it does work. Its a illusion that you form from magic and you use it to attack. It is a spell and it does not add to a weapon it is independent.

[Arkhios]

I would like to point out that before the first post today, the last one was submitted 57 days ago. Just sayin' :smallbiggrin:

[MrStabby]

It is a problem i have come across before with the necromancer ability to recover hit points.

There seems to be a bit of a hierarchy in my mind about which things are more likely to be allowed than others:

Top of the list are spells that directly do damage. Fireball for example.

Next are spells that directly conjure something that then does damage. Conjure animals, shadow blade and others.

At the bottom are spells that transform something non-lethal into something lethal(or more lethal). Animate dead, animate objects, magic weapon and so on through to spells like dominate that are also not directly dealing damage but are doing so indirectly (changing the nature of an inanimate object to animate it and make it attack someone seems pretty similar to changing the nature of an NPC friendly to the subject of the damage from friendly to hostile). Odd cases like warding bond doing damage to yourself is another case.

Unhelpfully, I can't really advise where to draw the line. My ruling was to be pretty restrictive, and i would suggest that any other DM begin the same way. Not because the proffered case would be broken but I think it helps to be consistent and can avoid some of the unexpected uses later on without having to backtrack or make inconsistent rulings.