D&D 5E Can you cast flame blade and then make an improvised weapon attack with the flame blade?

[ECMO3]

The real issue in my book is the player getting really angry about it.

Angry is probably not the right word. Annoyed is probably better. And to his credit he chose the spell with an understanding of how it worked that is not correct.

TBH he chose Flame Blade over Shadow Blade because of how he thought it would work and the thematics surrounding it. He probably would have chose Shadowblade if he knew this distinction.

 

[cbwjm]

Angry is probably not the right word. Annoyed is probably better. And to his credit he chose the spell with an understanding of how it worked that is not correct.

TBH he chose Flame Blade over Shadow Blade because of how he thought it would work and the thematics surrounding it. He probably would have chose Shadowblade if he knew this distinction.

I've had to change up, or let players change up, spells that I thought worked one way but actually worked another. Can be annoying.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I've had to change up, or let players change up, spells that I thought worked one way but actually worked another. Can be annoying.

Especially with illusion spells I had to do it some times.
Another time I played rolemaster and had cast sleep on someone. Fell asleep. And woke up due to the impact of falling to the ground. The DM noticed that in my particular spell list I only could make them "sleep". If I wanted what I wanted to do I had to have a different spell list where people fell into a "magical sleep".

 

[James Gasik]

Especially with illusion spells I had to do it some times.
Another time I played rolemaster and had cast sleep on someone. Fell asleep. And woke up due to the impact of falling to the ground. The DM noticed that in my particular spell list I only could make them "sleep". If I wanted what I wanted to do I had to have a different spell list where people fell into a "magical sleep".

....what? That sounds ridiculous. So it's a spell that can only be used if the target is already sitting or laying down?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

....what? That sounds ridiculous. So it's a spell that can only be used if the target is already sitting or laying down?

That's what I thought... I actually was quite annoyed back then.

 

[Hriston]

This came up on a multiclassed PC today who has extra attack and the Sorcerer Flame Blade spell. He wanted to cast Flame Blade and then use it with extra attack.

This seems straightforward to me. The spell says:

You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade.​

Extra Attack says:

you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.​

The Attack action says:

With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.​

So it seems logical to me that when the PC attacks with the fiery blade, he is making a melee attack, which is something one can do when taking the Attack action. Therefore, the PC can attack twice with the fiery blade.

The spell synergizes with Extra Attack. Let the player have his cool thing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This seems straightforward to me. The spell says:

You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade.​

Extra Attack says:

you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn.​

The Attack action says:

With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.​

So it seems logical to me that when the PC attacks with the fiery blade, he is making a melee attack, which is something one can do when taking the Attack action. Therefore, the PC can attack twice with the fiery blade.

The spell synergizes with Extra Attack. Let the player have his cool thing.

As much as I wanted to agree with you, your logic is faulty.

You mix up an inclusion with an equivalence (I hope those are the right terms in English).

Edit: to be clear. Rules as fun, you are totally right. Noone disagrees I guess.
Rules as written, you are wrong. As it has been pointed out by several people.

Edit2: I did the math that even with the rules as fun reading, in the best case, it is still far from being broken.

 

[Hriston]

Rules as written, you are wrong. As it has been pointed out by several people.

Which people do you mean?

If the player uses the Attack action to make a melee attack with the fiery blade in his free hand, is he not using his "action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade" as the spell says?

 

[ECMO3]

Which people do you mean?

If the player uses the Attack action to make a melee attack with the fiery blade in his free hand, is he not using his "action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade"?

It is not the attack action he is using though, he is using the action defined in the spell. That is the issue.

 

[Hriston]

It is not the attack action he is using though, he is using the action defined in the spell. That is the issue.

Why can't he?