Is it just me, or is Spiritual Weapon a far superior spell to Mordenkainen's Sword?
- SW is cast as a bonus action. MS takes 1 action.
- SW doesn't require concentration. MS does. This is huge. Every other spell that grants bonus action attacks requires Concentration.
- SW is not only available at a much lower level (2nd level vs. 7th), it can scale in higher level slots. MS can't.
- SW deals comparable or more damage than MS at a spell level one lower. At 6th spell level, it deals 3d8 + wis mod (avg. 16.5 -18.5, depening on the cleric's wis). MS deals 3d10 (avg. 16.5).
- SW doesn't require a 250gp component.
Silly Mordenkainen. He should have just been a cleric. 
Yeah, I wonder if spiritual weapon should have required concentration...
Lawolf wrote:
You are making the mistake of comparing powers in a vacum. Clerics and wizards are 2 different classes with different roles and different play styles. A cleric isn't just a wizard with all the damage types changed to holy power. You need to also consider what other options are available and what the various classes will be doing at that point in their careers. Game design is not simply a mathematical equasion, there needs to be a feel for what is fun for all players to play. Is the fighter a better class because he weilds a two handed sword better than a wizard ever will, or does the wizard have other options that make them fun to play?
Lawolf wrote:
The only benefit to Mordenkainen's Sword that I see is that, because you cast it as a standard action, you get 2 attacks on the first round. As a 7th level spell, it really is not very good. Magic missile does an automatic average of 31.5 force damage when cast using a 7th level slot. The need to do force damage is very circumstantial. Right now fire resistant, un-armored ghosts are the only thing I can think of that make the spell, perhaps, worthwhile.
If Mordenkainen's Sword didn't require concentration, it would be worth it in some circumstances because it would give you something to do with your bonus action each round that would do damage. As it is now, I would never prepare it. And it makes me more confident than ever that I could defeat Mordenkainen in a magical duel.
Mordenkainen's Sword is a pathetic spell. It would almost be funny if it wasn't a 7th level concentration spell. As it stands, it just seems insulting.
It was weak in the playtest and still is. A shame for such a cool spell.
I am just going to change it to be exactly like Spiritual Weapon. 2nd level and all.
Its always been an underwhelming spell when I have compared it to other 7th level spells in previous editions.
Veleria wrote:
Completely agree. M's Sword is one weaksauce spell. He probably created it and gave it to an apprentice he despised and bluffed him on how KOOL it was.
Know what would be a sweet fix? Get rid of concentration and make the duration 8 hours.
jaelis wrote:
mellored wrote:
jaelis wrote:
I haven't thoroughly looked through the spell lists, but one effective difference does seem to exist. Clerics might want to use a bonus action to cast Healing Word (or the area version), while I don't see a lot of demand for a Wizard's bonus action. So the actual opportunity cost of using Spiritual Weapon as a cleric is higher than that of using Mordenkainen's Sword as a wizard.
Karnos wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Spiritual weapon used to be a pretty underwhelming spell in previous editions, but was one of the few options for combat, so it is nice to get some mileage there. Mordenkainens Sword was always a 7th level spell (so still is), and during my years as a DM none of the wizards ever used it. It had certain advantages, being a force effect, being 7th level (ignoring globes), having a better "to hit" than the wizard and being available for one round per level, but it is basically a DoT effect, and these are pretty unpopular among arcane casters.
One possible explanation is that SW just doesn't offer a lot relative to what the Cleric can already do without it. The cleric is durrable (hp & AC) relative to the wizard, and can already use pretty decent weapons, and can make a weapon attack while also casting a spell via bonus-action spells. The wizard is meant to be fatally melee-alergic, lacks decent weapon options and doesn't have much to do with his bonus action. If MS were a cleric spell, it'd indeed be worthless, and if SW were a wizard spell it'd be /very/ attractive.
That points to a very messy/arbitrary way of 'blanancing' spells (and classes), but it's not like other things don't also point that way. Think of it as an example of why you shouldn't, say, casually give a caster of one class spells from anothers' list....
I still think the comparison between MS and SW isn't nearly as apt as between MS and flaming sphere, and that flaming sphere leaves MS in the dust. On that basis I'd say MS sux for the wizard, regardless of what clerics think.
Seperately, I'd say flaming sphere is better that SW, but the lack of concentration is a point for SW.
I've removed content from this thread. off topic posts are in violation of the Code of Conduct
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
In 1st edition, Mord's Sword was sometimes useful because it could affect astral, ethereal, 4th dimensional/extra-dimensional creatures. There were no force effects (things with the force keyword) back then, so technically, a modenkainain effect (sword or hound) was one of the few things you could do to attack, say, a phase spider while it was out of phase.