D&D 5E If you use a +1 magic weapon with steel wind strike do you get a +1 bonus to the attack and damage roll?

[ECMO3]

If I use a magic +1 weapon as the material component when I cast Steel Wind Strike, do I get a +1 to the spell attack rolls I make?

The description of the weapon says:
You have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon.

 

[Ancalagon]

If I use a magic +1 weapon as the material component when I cast Steel Wind Strike, do I get a +1 to the spell attack rolls I make?

The description of the weapon says:
You have a +1 bonus to attack and damage rolls made with this magic weapon.

It's a spell attack, not a melee attack. You could use a stout stick or a greatsword and it would make no difference to the damage, so clearly the "quality" of the weapon has no impact.

 

[Kurotowa]

No. The weapon is only a spell focus. Weapon enchantments apply to attacks made with the weapon, and Steel Wind Strike clearly says it's a spell attack, not a weapon attack.

Cases where the weapon enchantments would apply are spells like Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade. Those are melee weapon attacks and specifically say that normal weapon attack effects apply.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's a spell attack, not a melee attack. You could use a stout stick or a greatsword and it would make no difference to the damage, so clearly the "quality" of the weapon has no impact.

I think the more important distinction is that Steel Wind Strike doesn’t say you make an attack with the weapon. If it did, it wouldn’t matter whether the attack was melee or ranged.

 

[Ancalagon]

I think the more important distinction is that Steel Wind Strike doesn’t say you make an attack with the weapon. If it did, it wouldn’t matter whether the attack was melee or ranged.

it's typical 5e verbiage where the first sentence is a "flavor" sentence that doesn't actually match the mechanics.

You flourish the weapon used in the casting and then vanish to strike like the wind.

So you flourish a weapon, and you strike. That really leads the reader to think that you you are going to strike with a weapon. But nope...

What do you even need the weapon for if you aren't striking with it?

 

[Ancalagon]

It's also a "flavor fail" because while this spell is very clearly intended to give someone that "gish feeling" of melding sword and blade...

... your swordsmanship makes no difference at all. A bladedancer or a college of sword bard will do no better than some old wizard with a stick he payed some kid 1 sp to make for him. (the part about ending near an enemy is not great for the old wizard, but that's after the spell...)

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It's also a "flavor fail" because while this spell is very clearly intended to give someone that "gish feeling" of melding sword and blade...

... your swordsmanship makes no difference at all. A bladedancer or a college of sword bard will do no better than some old wizard with a stick he payed some kid 1 sp to make for him. (the part about ending near an enemy is not great for the old wizard, but that's after the spell...)

I agree. I'd rather have just a standard melee attack with say 4d10 extra force damage or so.

 

[Charlaquin]

it's typical 5e verbiage where the first sentence is a "flavor" sentence that doesn't actually match the mechanics.



So you flourish a weapon, and you strike. That really leads the reader to think that you you are going to strike with a weapon. But nope...

What do you even need the weapon for if you aren't striking with it?

Flourishing

 

[Paul Farquhar]

This is a spell our geriatric halfling divination wizard uses quite a lot!

 

[ECMO3]

it's typical 5e verbiage where the first sentence is a "flavor" sentence that doesn't actually match the mechanics.



So you flourish a weapon, and you strike. That really leads the reader to think that you you are going to strike with a weapon. But nope...

What do you even need the weapon for if you aren't striking with it?

Exactly, and because it has a cost you can't use a focus.