How much better would Spiritual Weapon be if it didn't have to move?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Spiritual Weapon has a 60 ft initial range and then a 20 ft/turn move.

What if instead it was basically a melee attack roll with a range of (say) 60 ft? How much would that change the power, utility, etc. of the spell?

Alternatively, what if it was an actual physical thing that occupied a space (and thus had a move speed), more like flaming sphere?

[GooeyChewie]

I suppose in theory it would be stronger. But in practice it depends greatly on the size of the map and the nature of the fight. I find in most fights it isn’t practical for the enemy to run far enough away from the weapon that it cannot catch up.

[Theodoxus]

BG3 has it as an actual physical object that can be targeted and destroyed... I no longer use it in game - it was kinda fiddly even if it didn't have that aspect, but just no.

In a few games I've played in, the DM allowed SW to threaten, thus allowing Rogues to deal sneak damage when paired with them. Definitely a houserule though.

Making it an in-situ static effect with a 60' range wouldn't be deal breaking. It certainly would make it more useful in more instances - critters can easily kite its 20' move while still being effective combatants (both ranged and melee, provided they have some form of disengage (BA like goblins) or something like the Mobile feat).

I think if you were going to go that route, allow either option, chosen at casting and call it a day.

[PhoenixPhyre]

BG3 has it as an actual physical object that can be targeted and destroyed... I no longer use it in game - it was kinda fiddly even if it didn't have that aspect, but just no.

In a few games I've played in, the DM allowed SW to threaten, thus allowing Rogues to deal sneak damage when paired with them. Definitely a houserule though.

Making it an in-situ static effect with a 60' range wouldn't be deal breaking. It certainly would make it more useful in more instances - critters can easily kite its 20' move while still being effective combatants (both ranged and melee, provided they have some form of disengage (BA like goblins) or something like the Mobile feat).

I think if you were going to go that route, allow either option, chosen at casting and call it a day.

Meh, I'm actually thinking of something more like a weapon that hovers next to you and as a bonus action darts out and strikes someone. Gilgamesh from Fate/Stay Night style.

And the (considered) change is more for simplicity than anything else--I've noticed that either the moving part gets handwaved or it becomes cumbersome. So easier to just make it a long-range melee attack as if it was Super Thorn Whip without the dragging if it doesn't change the power much.

[Darth Credence]

When someone in my group uses spiritual weapon, we have a little sword that we move around as a marker for it. With only 20 feet of movement, we are perfectly aware that it will almost certainly not get a second attack in on a designated target. But that's not what we end up using it for, so I'm not sure how it would affect your game.

It is either used as a defense for the back line, a wandering opportunity attack, or a method to herd enemies to other spots on the board. The back line is close enough together that a spiritual weapon can be there, ready to move and attack anyone who gets in close. Doesn't defend, but an extra bit of damage can scare off weak enemies or help to eliminate stronger ones a bit quicker. If the fight is big, then the spiritual weapon just hits whatever enemy happens to be close enough for it to attack. For more strategic battle types, it is another source of an attack that can close off avenues of escape. It can't be stopped or damaged, so if you end within 20 feet of it, you can end up under attack, which means a lot of enemies will try to avoid it. If they aren't paying close attention, this can funnel them into a kill zone.

Now, with that in mind, would the spell make things better or worse? It would help quite a bit with defending the back line, as long as the caster was part of that line or remained close to it. It will be better and worse at just attacking the random enemy - 60' range from the caster is good, and opens up a lot more people to attack, but being able to move beyond that range is also good, as a lot of enemies will attempt to be farther away from any caster than that. So maybe call that a wash. It would become useless for funneling people, as it is simply a medium range attack from one enemy rather than something that could be avoided by going a different way. And it would open up to attacking the same enemy for concentrated damage that I don't think the spell is good at.

So I'd say it probably doesn't change much in the overall scheme, better for some tables than others. I would like to compare it to Storm Sphere, which is 4th level. It does 4d6 damage at that level, while SW would do 2d8 + spellcasting modifier. That's pretty close (14 vs 9+modifier, which could very well be a +5 by that point). The natural 4th level spell has some extras, with the danger of the cloud itself, but otherwise, they both would be using a bonus action to attack someone within 60'. SW does better since the start of the 60' is mobile (the cleric). So we have similar damage when cast at the same level, a cooler core on the one at a higher level, with a small benefit for this to make up for it. Seems balanced to me.

[Amnestic]

It improves the damage marginally but makes it much more boring as a result. SW having 20ft move speed and no OAs means that enemies are directly incentivised to keep moving to stay away from it, making the battlefield a little more dynamic as a result.

As such, while it might improve the spell's performance, I would say it would be a worse spell for the game.

[sithlordnergal]

Spiritual Weapon has a 60 ft initial range and then a 20 ft/turn move.

What if instead it was basically a melee attack roll with a range of (say) 60 ft? How much would that change the power, utility, etc. of the spell?

Alternatively, what if it was an actual physical thing that occupied a space (and thus had a move speed), more like flaming sphere?

You know, we actually have a spell that does something similar to what you propose, and its generally rated 3 our of 4 stars. And its Thorn Whip. You're basically making a Thorn Whip that exchanges the Magical Piercing and 10ft pull for Force Damage, higher damage, a 1 minute Duration, double the range, and the ability to use it as a Bonus Action.

I feel like that would increase the power and utility of the spell. Not dramatically mind you, but it would increase it none the less. Currently, Spiritual Weapon is hindered by its 20ft movement limitation. Sure, if you're in close quarters its fine, but if you're in an open space it can become a bit irritating to try and get it into position.

Also, I'd be wary of how you word it. Going back to Thorn Whip, you just target a creature in range and it works. You don't need to see the creature at all. So you can just move into an area and say "I'm targeting X invisible guy", and it'll target them. If your new Spiritual Weapon works the same way, then that's a really easy way to bypass Invisibility for an entire minute, without Concentration.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It improves the damage marginally but makes it much more boring as a result. SW having 20ft move speed and no OAs means that enemies are directly incentivised to keep moving to stay away from it, making the battlefield a little more dynamic as a result.

As such, while it might improve the spell's performance, I would say it would be a worse spell for the game.


You know, we actually have a spell that does something similar to what you propose, and its generally rated 3 our of 4 stars. And its Thorn Whip. You're basically making a Thorn Whip that exchanges the Magical Piercing and 10ft pull for Force Damage, higher damage, a 1 minute Duration, double the range, and the ability to use it as a Bonus Action.

I feel like that would increase the power and utility of the spell. Not dramatically mind you, but it would increase it none the less. Currently, Spiritual Weapon is hindered by its 20ft movement limitation. Sure, if you're in close quarters its fine, but if you're in an open space it can become a bit irritating to try and get it into position.

Also, I'd be wary of how you word it. Going back to Thorn Whip, you just target a creature in range and it works. You don't need to see the creature at all. So you can just move into an area and say "I'm targeting X invisible guy", and it'll target them. If your new Spiritual Weapon works the same way, then that's a really easy way to bypass Invisibility for an entire minute, without Concentration.

Another option is to remove it entirely and rebalance the cleric around having better "at will-ish" damage baseline. As it stands, even assuming you have Potent Spellcasting and Spiritual Weapon up 100% of the time, you're still struggling to beat an evocation wizard using nothing but cantrips. Slightly better in T1 and early T2, but then the gap closes once Empowered Evocation comes online and you end up in the same spot. While consistently using a spell slot and having it in range all the time.

I don't like bonus action attacks in general and I especially don't like perceived "action taxes". I'd rather just fix the baseline.

As a note @sithlordnergal--very few attack spells (and no weapon attacks) require sight. Yes, you can always attack an invisible person if you know where they are. You do so at disadvantage, whether thorn whip or not. If you don't know where they are, you can attack randomly, but you have to pick a square and automatically miss if they're not there. Just like if you were firing through (not into, through) a fog cloud and couldn't actually see the target on the other side but they could see you for some reason. Invisibility isn't untargetability, and it's not undetectability, at least not automatically. Most DMs require (and this is my best reading of the written rules as well) that you have to successfully Hide in order to go unnoticed. Being invisible just means you don't need cover to hide and you get advantage to hit and disadvantage to be hit by attacks (unless they can see you).

[Theodoxus]

Another option is to remove it entirely and rebalance the cleric around having better "at will-ish" damage baseline. As it stands, even assuming you have Potent Spellcasting and Spiritual Weapon up 100% of the time, you're still struggling to beat an evocation wizard using nothing but cantrips. Slightly better in T1 and early T2, but then the gap closes once Empowered Evocation comes online and you end up in the same spot. While consistently using a spell slot and having it in range all the time.

I don't like bonus action attacks in general and I especially don't like perceived "action taxes". I'd rather just fix the baseline.

Wait, you want base Cleric to be on par for damage with the Evoker Wizard? Who'd play Wizard then?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Wait, you want base Cleric to be on par for damage with the Evoker Wizard? Who'd play Wizard then?

I'd want them to be slightly below, not hopelessly below when using cantrips only. The evoker can burst way higher, and that's fine. The cleric doesn't have very good blasting on their list. But currently, a cleric's at-will (weapons or cantrips) is almost literally negligible. And even 100% uptime on spiritual weapon only takes it to meh at the cost of significant resources and your bonus action every single turn.

[Amnestic]

Another option is to remove it entirely and rebalance the cleric around having better "at will-ish" damage baseline. As it stands, even assuming you have Potent Spellcasting and Spiritual Weapon up 100% of the time, you're still struggling to beat an evocation wizard using nothing but cantrips. Slightly better in T1 and early T2, but then the gap closes once Empowered Evocation comes online and you end up in the same spot. While consistently using a spell slot and having it in range all the time.


It's entirely fine for them to not beat the damage-wizard at doing at-will damage. Are they beating Illusionists? Enchanters? Necromancers? Even without SW...probably, yeah. xd8+WisMod (Sacred Flame, Potent Spellcasting)>xd10 (Firebolt).

Just how much "at-will" damage do you want the Cleric to be dealing per turn?

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's entirely fine for them to not beat the damage-wizard at doing at-will damage. Are they beating Illusionists? Enchanters? Necromancers? Even without SW...probably, yeah. xd8+WisMod (Sacred Flame, Potent Spellcasting)>xd10 (Firebolt).

Just how much "at-will" damage do you want the Cleric to be dealing per turn?

Even with Potent Spellcasting, the base cleric using sacred flame is worse than or at best equal to a non-evocation wizard using firebolt at all levels, taking into consideration dex saves vs attacks (attacks hit more often and can crit).

My baseline is that a "cantrip only, non-specialized" spell-caster should be doing ~0.5 RED on average, +- a bit. Non-evo wizards with firebolt end up at 0.53 RED (averaged across all levels). Cleric with sacred flame and PS ends up at 0.42 RED (using equivalent assumptions). Evo wizards end up at 0.59 RED, on the strength of their back half.

Edit: fixed numbers because I misread my own graphs.

[Theodoxus]

Sacred Flame is nice for the cover negation, but Toll the Dead is typically the go-to for Cleric. Especially with SW coordination, so BA to hit with SW and then Toll on the now (hopefully) damaged fool for xd12.

Since you can do that round 1, and round 2 is BA SW and casting SG, your 5th level+ Cleric is chugging along just fine. Especially if it's something like Life or Forge where you're not really using melee attacks (due to lack of martial weapon prof) but do have heavy armor and shield for turtle power.

I've never had an issue doing competitive* caster damage with a Cleric. Now, trying to run level with single target Fighter or Barbarian? That's tough.

*I still wouldn't try to outpace an Evoker though... Dropping AOE attacks in the middle of party with no consequences so my Cleric doesn't have to clean up their mess? Nice.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sacred Flame is nice for the cover negation, but Toll the Dead is typically the go-to for Cleric. Especially with SW coordination, so BA to hit with SW and then Toll on the now (hopefully) damaged fool for xd12.

Since you can do that round 1, and round 2 is BA SW and casting SG, your 5th level+ Cleric is chugging along just fine. Especially if it's something like Life or Forge where you're not really using melee attacks (due to lack of martial weapon prof) but do have heavy armor and shield for turtle power.

I've never had an issue doing competitive* caster damage with a Cleric. Now, trying to run level with single target Fighter or Barbarian? That's tough.

*I still wouldn't try to outpace an Evoker though... Dropping AOE attacks in the middle of party with no consequences so my Cleric doesn't have to clean up their mess? Nice.

At the cost of spell slots and never being able to use healing word because your bonus action is tied up 100% of the time even just getting the weapon in place? Just to do similar damage to an evocation wizard spamming firebolt, and still way worse than a 2 level dip in warlock (eb + ab, even without hex, ends up at 0.89 RED)?

Yeah. That's not what I'd consider "competitive".

[Theodoxus]

YMMV, but I'm hoping my fellow teammates aren't WoW-mooks who stand in the fire, waiting to be knocked out so I have to burn HW to pop them back up.

"Stayin' Alive" is everyone's responsibility, not just me with my HWs and CDs to pop them up. Don't get me wrong, I don't play the jerk Cleric that takes everyone's action into account and just let's them die if they didn't play absolutely optimally. But it is a 'team sport'. I'm counting on them to keep me up by not wasting my resources as much as they're counting on me if something goes fubar.

If a combat typically runs 3 or 4 rounds (which never seems to be my reality when I'm DMing...) then maybe popping 10 round spells like SW isn't optimal? But my combats more often last 10-15 rounds... so even if you're not using SW every round, you'll definitely at least have the full duration to make as many attacks as you can - might average out the same in the end, might be a little better.... (This also explains why I only have 1 combat encounter every few sessions - everyone gets burned out on them. I should probably find a more efficient way to let my NPCs die quicker.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

YMMV, but I'm hoping my fellow teammates aren't WoW-mooks who stand in the fire, waiting to be knocked out so I have to burn HW to pop them back up.

"Stayin' Alive" is everyone's responsibility, not just me with my HWs and CDs to pop them up. Don't get me wrong, I don't play the jerk Cleric that takes everyone's action into account and just let's them die if they didn't play absolutely optimally. But it is a 'team sport'. I'm counting on them to keep me up by not wasting my resources as much as they're counting on me if something goes fubar.

If a combat typically runs 3 or 4 rounds (which never seems to be my reality when I'm DMing...) then maybe popping 10 round spells like SW isn't optimal? But my combats more often last 10-15 rounds... so even if you're not using SW every round, you'll definitely at least have the full duration to make as many attacks as you can - might average out the same in the end, might be a little better.... (This also explains why I only have 1 combat encounter every few sessions - everyone gets burned out on them. I should probably find a more efficient way to let my NPCs die quicker.)

Yeah, if you're routinely running 10+ round fights...wow. Yeah. That's not the "norm". And only having one fight every few sessions definitely changes the optimization model a lot, unless you're also only doing one long rest every bunch of sessions.

Personally, I prefer nasty, brutal, and most of all short combats. 10 rounds has happened like...twice in my career, with both of those being drawn-out wave-style fights with a round or so of breather between waves.

[stoutstien]

I ended up turning it into a semi autonomous physical object because without fail clerics ask if they can grab and wield it at least once.

[RogueJK]

I ended up turning it into a semi autonomous physical object because without fail clerics ask if they can grab and wield it at least once.

Why...?

Grabbing and physically wielding the Spiritual Weapon would take away its two major advantages: It uses your WIS for attack/damage, and it uses a Bonus Action.

[stoutstien]

Why...?

Grabbing and physically wielding the Spiritual Weapon would take away its two major advantages: It uses your WIS for attack/damage, and it uses a Bonus Action.

Because it's cool and most players don't care past that point as long as it's also functional.

*They keep the wis to attack rolls and instead of just a new way to convert a bonus action to more damage, it grants an ally within range THP equal wis mod + spell level.*

[Chronos]

In my group, the cleric has usually set the hammer to whaling away on the biggest target, and we generally do what we can to try to pin down that target as much as possible, so there's very little chasing or target-switching required. Which makes the 20' movement usually not very relevant anyway.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is a lot of effort to manipulate an outlier.

It's a bonus action attack, it uses force damage, eats a level 2 spell slot, and is cleric unique. It can be upcast.
It doesn't need "fixing" with your bonus action attack disdain noted.

It is handy to try and reach a 'back line" enemy caster and try to either interrupt their concentration or get them to move.

Yes, the slow movement does make the player Think about how to use it. That's a good thing.

[TaiLiu]

I'd want them to be slightly below, not hopelessly below when using cantrips only. The evoker can burst way higher, and that's fine. The cleric doesn't have very good blasting on their list. But currently, a cleric's at-will (weapons or cantrips) is almost literally negligible. And even 100% uptime on spiritual weapon only takes it to meh at the cost of significant resources and your bonus action every single turn.
Yeah—they're below Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards when it comes to cantrip damage. But that never felt like a problem to me. In Tier 1, weapon damage can exceed cantrip damage. In Tier 2, they have other options.

Clerics are a super solid class and I've never felt the need to win the cantrip race.

[sithlordnergal]

As a note @sithlordnergal--very few attack spells (and no weapon attacks) require sight. Yes, you can always attack an invisible person if you know where they are. You do so at disadvantage, whether thorn whip or not. If you don't know where they are, you can attack randomly, but you have to pick a square and automatically miss if they're not there. Just like if you were firing through (not into, through) a fog cloud and couldn't actually see the target on the other side but they could see you for some reason. Invisibility isn't untargetability, and it's not undetectability, at least not automatically. Most DMs require (and this is my best reading of the written rules as well) that you have to successfully Hide in order to go unnoticed. Being invisible just means you don't need cover to hide and you get advantage to hit and disadvantage to be hit by attacks (unless they can see you).

Hmmm, maybe I was misinterpreting Thorn Whip then. Cause it doesn't seem like you'd need to guess where the target is with the wording, it just "lashes out at your command toward a creature in range.". So even if you were successfully hidden and invisible, it'd still automatically target you, and the caster doesn't need to guess the location of a creature like they would with a regular ranged or melee attack.

Though looking at other spells, it seems ranged attack spells have a similar wording to Thorn Whip. So they either don't require a guess either, or they all do. Personally, I'd say they don't require a guess because melee attack spells require the target to specifically be in your reach, so you do have to guess with those. But that may be up to interpretation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hmmm, maybe I was misinterpreting Thorn Whip then. Cause it doesn't seem like you'd need to guess where the target is with the wording, it just "lashes out at your command toward a creature in range.". So even if you were successfully hidden and invisible, it'd still automatically target you, and the caster doesn't need to guess the location of a creature like they would with a regular ranged or melee attack.

Though looking at other spells, it seems ranged attack spells have a similar wording to Thorn Whip. So they either don't require a guess either, or they all do. Personally, I'd say they don't require a guess because melee attack spells require the target to specifically be in your reach, so you do have to guess with those. But that may be up to interpretation.

The relevant rules here are for attacking creatures you can't see. Whether or not you have to explicitly pick a location is up to the DM, but applies equally to all attacks, whether melee, ranged, weapon, or spell. Spell attacks aren't any different from weapon attacks with respect to targeting unless they specifically say they are.

[sithlordnergal]

The relevant rules here are for attacking creatures you can't see. Whether or not you have to explicitly pick a location is up to the DM, but applies equally to all attacks, whether melee, ranged, weapon, or spell. Spell attacks aren't any different from weapon attacks with respect to targeting unless they specifically say they are.

I feel like they are different in that you can't pick a location to target with a spell. It can only target what the spell says it can target. So a spell like Chill Touch, which targets a space, would require you to guess. Where as Scorching Ray can only target a creature, and wouldn't require you to guess. Though I feel like that's still up to the DM in the end.

[Amechra]

Would anyone mind giving some hard numbers to back up PhoenixPhyre's claim that a Cleric with Potent cantrips + "free" Spiritual Weapon struggles to keep up with an Evoker's cantrip-only output? Because I can't get the numbers to work out that way unless I'm either assuming that the Wizard is using the SCAGtrips (which introduces questions vis-a-vis range) or skewing the numbers very heavily into the Wizards favor (like, say, having a monster with high AC and saves that line up well with the Cleric but poorly with the Wizard).

I mostly find the Evoker claim to be odd because, while it does have two damage-boosts for cantrips, they don't actually line up all that well — the handful of cantrips that can benefit from both Potent Cantrip and Empowered Evocations are all notably worse than either Sacred Flame (which has a Potent Cantrip-esque boost built into it in the form of ignoring cover) or Toll the Dead (which is going to be a d12 cantrip most of the time).

Like, what benchmark monster stats are we using where Spiritual Weapon + Sacred Flame/Toll The Dead struggles to keep up with an Empowered Firebolt? What level ranges are we talking about? Are we pretending that monsters have roughly equivalent save bonuses across the board, or are we accounting for weak/strong saves?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Would anyone mind giving some hard numbers to back up PhoenixPhyre's claim that a Cleric with Potent cantrips + "free" Spiritual Weapon struggles to keep up with an Evoker's cantrip-only output? Because I can't get the numbers to work out that way unless I'm either assuming that the Wizard is using the SCAGtrips (which introduces questions vis-a-vis range) or skewing the numbers very heavily into the Wizards favor (like, say, having a monster with high AC and saves that line up well with the Cleric but poorly with the Wizard).

I mostly find the Evoker claim to be odd because, while it does have two damage-boosts for cantrips, they don't actually line up all that well — the handful of cantrips that can benefit from both Potent Cantrip and Empowered Evocations are all notably worse than either Sacred Flame (which has a Potent Cantrip-esque boost built into it in the form of ignoring cover) or Toll the Dead (which is going to be a d12 cantrip most of the time).

Like, what benchmark monster stats are we using where Spiritual Weapon + Sacred Flame/Toll The Dead struggles to keep up with an Empowered Firebolt? What level ranges are we talking about? Are we pretending that monsters have roughly equivalent save bonuses across the board, or are we accounting for weak/strong saves?

I'm using the set of actual monsters with CR = LEVEL for Dex/wis save bonuses and the DMG ACs for the same level/CR. The latter track the actual values fairly well, but Dex saves tend to be worse than AC for success rates using equivalent modifiers. And Wis saves are much much worse (5-10% on average, and while there are many low Dex saves out there, there are many fewer bad Wis saves). And save spells can't crit.

And none of that involves cover, so SF's bonus is moot.


I feel like they are different in that you can't pick a location to target with a spell. It can only target what the spell says it can target. So a spell like Chill Touch, which targets a space, would require you to guess. Where as Scorching Ray can only target a creature, and wouldn't require you to guess. Though I feel like that's still up to the DM in the end.

As I said, DMs can differ. I am always wary about reading too much into minute details of the wording of things in 5e, because no attempt was made to be utterly consistent with such things due to the whole "natural language" thing.

[Amechra]

Cool, but how are you manipulating that data to get it into a usable state? Because I'm assuming that you aren't iterating over the raw list of all monsters and recalculating expected damage for Clerics vs. Wizards for each one and then going "haha, the Wizard is better in 60.73% of cases!" or the like, because that sounds like a lot of work.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Cool, but how are you manipulating that data to get it into a usable state? Because I'm assuming that you aren't iterating over the raw list of all monsters and recalculating expected damage for Clerics vs. Wizards for each one and then going "haha, the Wizard is better in 60.73% of cases!" or the like, because that sounds like a lot of work.

I built a tool a while ago.

https://admiralbenbo.org/red-calculator/ , built on the data from the monster spreadsheet linked in my sig and DMG values.

It uses the median values for defensive parameters, with some assumptions about ability scores. It produces pretty line graphs as well and supports some custom parameters.

For the simplest case (evoker vs SF/PS cleric), the output looks like this:


https://i.ibb.co/KbK4bbf/Screenshot-2023-12-14-at-3-57-08-PM.png (https://ibb.co/Jm36mmG)


And if I claimed that having "free" spiritual weapon meant they struggled to keep up, I misspoke. What I meant was that with spiritual weapon up 100%, they're not that much better than an evoker with cantrips only. Still very sub-par for at-will damage. If I were to rewrite the thing, I'd give most casters something similar to Empowered Evocation and balance around at-will damage pretty much in that ballpark. It's roughly half of what a brain-dead rogue is doing and 40% or so of any realistic rogue. Which isn't at the top end by far.

For reference, here are four "at-will-ish" options:


https://i.ibb.co/BwgLd9s/Screenshot-2023-12-14-at-4-00-34-PM.png (https://ibb.co/4JjW9HN)

The fighter is a champion who never action surges, but has the GW fighting style. The wizard is an evoker. Note how the orange line (100% SW uptime + SF + PS) is only slightly above the red line (evoker wizard) and way far below the top pink line[1] (the fighter).

[1] yes, the tool picks colors randomly and sometimes does a crappy job.

[RSP]

I ended up turning it into a semi autonomous physical object because without fail clerics ask if they can grab and wield it at least once.

And technically within the rules as the spell states it creates a weapon:

“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.”

So, regardless of its other properties, it’s a weapon of whatever form is chosen.

This essentially can make it act like a Pact Weapon or Shadow Blade: summoning out of nowhere and always available (*assuming spell slots), with that last quoted line meaning it could be a halberd, rapier, greatsword, etc.

So for PCs that want to be able to wield a weapon in any environment, plus then “telekinetically” get the no-hands BA attack because it’s a cool I’m-game look; it works.

Weapon damage is a question, as the spell effect damage is limited to its BA use, but I’d say the easy answer is it does the damage of whatever form it takes (2d6 slashing for greatsword, for instance).

[tKUUNK]

In some encounters this change would not even affect which creature(s) you end up targeting with the spell. Tight spaces. Combats without much reason to move tactically. IME a combatant rarely chooses to move just to escape SW....though yeah, sometimes they move for other reasons and the SW needs to chase.

So thinking back to actual use cases, I've rarely seen SW miss out on a round of damage because there's no enemy in range. I doubt your proposed change to 60' would improve overall damage much but yes, this depends on game & encounter style. It would become more flexible tactically. There would be times when you know the minotaur 45' away is nearly killed and one tap from SW might finish the job. Having that effective 120' diameter zone of coverage would open up tactics (instead of being forced to whittle away at the same target just because it's close enough).

If you play in a group which house-rules flanking with SW, a 60' range would make this thing your rogue's best buddy.

btw I love the thought of a cleric wielding this then loosing it (or hurling it toward a creature) for the BA attack. That's bacon-level flavor.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's an interesting idea. Instead of an autonomous weapon, make it cleric flame blade, but not bad. Uses wis to attack/damage, deals non physical with some scaling amount (to make it actually worth casting), auto proficiency. Maybe has some kind of "ultimate attack" that makes it go away. Very different role, but very thematic.

I'll have to ponder it.

[Witty Username]

I haven't noticed my cleric dealing less damage than wizards as a baseline,
Sure I have been using divine strike not cantrips, is the value that much different?

Also, sure with Spiritual weapon up you can't use healing word, but you can use cure wounds, for most levels spiritual weapon beats cantrip damage generally from my vantage point, but I haven't gotten that deep into the numbers.

[Amechra]

I haven't noticed my cleric dealing less damage than wizards as a baseline,

So... I had a big post in the works about why PhoenixPhyre's calculator is pretty flawed, but my browser had a hiccup and wiped it.

Long story short: using median values for defenses runs into similar issues to, say, trying to build an airplane cockpit to fit an "average man" (https://archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0010203) — as the dimensionality of your data increases, how representative taking an average value is drops. To salvage one of my charts, I built this using the monster data in their spreadsheet (which is honestly a really awesome resource and I'm kicking myself for not checking it out sooner) — the yellow and green lines are the expected damage a Wizard and Cleric "should" be dealing according to their calculator (assuming 10th level, max Int/Wis, and PS for the Cleric) vs. a CR 10 target, while the blue and red lines are what their expected damage should be vs. the CR 10 monsters that are actually listed:

https://i.imgur.com/cidodYT.png

The reason that the lines fluctuate so much is because the accuracies of the two offensive options are loosely correlated at best:

https://i.imgur.com/3gMiBad.png

And, on top of that, the base calculator doesn't factor in resistance or immunity (because that relies on information that's discarded in the averaging process), while the "real" expected damage does take those situations into account.

EDIT: Ugh, I accidentally flipped the labels in that second chart and didn't notice it until I hit post. Whatever, it's almost 2am and I'm too sleepy to fix it.

[RSP]

That's an interesting idea. Instead of an autonomous weapon, make it cleric flame blade, but not bad. Uses wis to attack/damage, deals non physical with some scaling amount (to make it actually worth casting), auto proficiency. Maybe has some kind of "ultimate attack" that makes it go away. Very different role, but very thematic.

I'll have to ponder it.

Whether it’s modified or not, it helps make War Domain at least have an interesting in game ability.

Can help any domain, RP-wise, with how it can appear like their diety’s weapon. Trickery can use it similar to War Domain as more of it’s rogue-like feel.

[stoutstien]

And technically within the rules as the spell states it creates a weapon:

“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.”

So, regardless of its other properties, it’s a weapon of whatever form is chosen.

This essentially can make it act like a Pact Weapon or Shadow Blade: summoning out of nowhere and always available (*assuming spell slots), with that last quoted line meaning it could be a halberd, rapier, greatsword, etc.

So for PCs that want to be able to wield a weapon in any environment, plus then “telekinetically” get the no-hands BA attack because it’s a cool I’m-game look; it works.

Weapon damage is a question, as the spell effect damage is limited to its BA use, but I’d say the easy answer is it does the damage of whatever form it takes (2d6 slashing for greatsword, for instance).

Basically this besides instead of a bonus action attack you can toss it in the air and it can provide protection to you or an ally until you recall it as a bonus action(1/2 cover + a small THP bubble)

Upcasting adds some damage to the attack and more THP when the protection effect triggers.

[Witty Username]

So with flame blade,
First, I would make flameblade a weapon attack so you get a damage bonus by stat (possibly casting stat, but that's less nessasary)

But the problem with spells like this, that makes them universally bad, is they are often comparable to cantrip damage.

For flameblade, it should probably deal 5d6+mod, damage. If we were wanting it to see use. But by damage appearances that is a full spell level higher than the dmg recommendations.

5d6+4
vs 4d6+4 RED
21.5 vs 18
So ~ 1.1 RED before accuracy considerations, but their isn't much to affect one or the other so that should at least be a reasonable estimate.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So... I had a big post in the works about why PhoenixPhyre's calculator is pretty flawed, but my browser had a hiccup and wiped it. <snip>


I could respond to this in more detail, but I'll leave it to say that it's not actually going for the actual, individual case damage, but rather looking at trends and monster creation (which do start with the "averaged" numbers). And then I'll drop any point about wizards vs clerics. It was never intended to be more than a throwaway point anyway--the main reason I'm looking at this spell is that I'm going through all the spells (that I'm keeping at least) and trying to clean them up and make them more interesting. And this one was one of many that had what seemed to be rough edges.


So with flame blade,
First, I would make flameblade a weapon attack so you get a damage bonus by stat (possibly casting stat, but that's less nessasary)

But the problem with spells like this, that makes them universally bad, is they are often comparable to cantrip damage.

For flameblade, it should probably deal 5d6+mod, damage. If we were wanting it to see use. But by damage appearances that is a full spell level higher than the dmg recommendations.

5d6+4
vs 4d6+4 RED
21.5 vs 18
So ~ 1.1 RED before accuracy considerations, but their isn't much to affect one or the other so that should at least be a reasonable estimate.

My thinking for flame blade (which I'm also reworking) is that at base, it should be like shadow blade and be an actual weapon. Or at least have the choice of being a regular weapon. Basically choose between two profiles:

1. Something like what you say for the druids (etc) who don't get extra attack. One big attack per turn worthy of a leveled spell at the cost of concentration.
2. Something for the half-caster gish types, mainly giving them versatility of damage types. Deals a bit more damage than a regular scimitar (or whatever), but is compatible with extra attack and has the built-in nifty throwing profile.

I don't have the details nailed down yet though.

[Witty Username]

From a thematic point I do like the idea of spiritual weapon working like flameblade, I am pretty sure that is how Ad&d did it, and flameblade is one of my favorite spells despite how bad it is.

I do think concentration free should stay though. A core function of spiritual weapon is it can layer on other things. And the gameplay loop of spirit guardians + spiritual weapon is pretty satisfying (this would collapse it into attack and move which would weaken it a little, but it would give an opportunity to make the damage more apparent.

[Theodoxus]

From a thematic point I do like the idea of spiritual weapon working like flameblade, I am pretty sure that is how Ad&d did it, and flameblade is one of my favorite spells despite how bad it is.

I do think concentration free should stay though. A core function of spiritual weapon is it can layer on other things. And the gameplay loop of spirit guardians + spiritual weapon is pretty satisfying (this would collapse it into attack and move which would weaken it a little, but it would give an opportunity to make the damage more apparent.

Sadly, WotC isn't agreeing with the non-Conc SW... at least as of the last Cleric UA.

Would it be better/easier/whatever to essentially combine Flameblade and Shadowblade, taking the best aspects of both, and calling it Energyblade? Let the caster decide the qualities from a drop-down list and call it good. If you really wanted to complicate it, you could state in the statblock of the spell that Clerics can only choose Force, Radiant, or Necrotic. Druids can only choose Fire, Lightning, or Cold. Sorcerers and Wizards can only choose elemental energy types. Warlocks choose whatever their patron is (Fiend = Fire, Fey = Radiant?, GOO = Necrotic, Genie = Acid/Fire/Cold/Lightning, etc.).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sadly, WotC isn't agreeing with the non-Conc SW... at least as of the last Cleric UA.

Would it be better/easier/whatever to essentially combine Flameblade and Shadowblade, taking the best aspects of both, and calling it Energyblade? Let the caster decide the qualities from a drop-down list and call it good. If you really wanted to complicate it, you could state in the statblock of the spell that Clerics can only choose Force, Radiant, or Necrotic. Druids can only choose Fire, Lightning, or Cold. Sorcerers and Wizards can only choose elemental energy types. Warlocks choose whatever their patron is (Fiend = Fire, Fey = Radiant?, GOO = Necrotic, Genie = Acid/Fire/Cold/Lightning, etc.).

Yeah, I'm ignoring WotC.

As to collapsing it... Not sure. If I did, I'd limit it to 2 or three damage types and let everyone pick at will.

I'd like to have so that (potentially) you could have an option for a ranged or melee--clerics creating a spirit bow is just super thematic. But not settled on that yet.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, I'm ignoring WotC.

As to collapsing it... Not sure. If I did, I'd limit it to 2 or three damage types and let everyone pick at will.

I'd like to have so that (potentially) you could have an option for a ranged or melee--clerics creating a spirit bow is just super thematic. But not settled on that yet.
If you need ideas, take a look at what Stars druid does with its magical weapon thing. It's a bit on the strong side, but the theme seems to fit what you are after.