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

[ECMO3]

Why can't he?

I think that is what my post was asking. It is not a "weapon" as defined on the weapon table and he is not proficient in it, but what if he swings it at someone like a weapon? That would be an improvised weapon using the attack action. The consensus seems to be he can't do that.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

That would be an improvised weapon using the attack action. The consensus seems to be he can't do that.

As an improvised weapon, if it's unlike an existing weapon, it does d4 damage. If it's like a scimitar, then it does d6 damage, because that is scimitar's damage.

I'm not sure what using it like this accomplishes.

 

[Hriston]

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

Also, I wanted to add, why do you assume the action described in the spell isn't the Attack action? It's unnamed and says you do with it exactly what you can with the Attack action, i.e. make a melee attack.

 

[ichabod]

Also, I wanted to add, why do you assume the action described in the spell isn't the Attack action. It's unnamed and says you do with it exactly what you can with the Attack action, i.e. make a melee attack.

First of all, it doesn't say it's the Attack action, so why should I assume it is? Second, that's the exact same language used in every spell. The project image spell say you can "use your action" to move the illusion, which is not an attack. Finally, it's not exactly what you can do with the Attack action. You are making a melee spell attack, and those are pretty much always done with the Cast a Spell action. I'm not sure I've ever seen a spell attack done with the Attack action.

 

[ECMO3]

Also, I wanted to add, why do you assume the action described in the spell isn't the Attack action. It's unnamed and says you do with it exactly what you can with the Attack action, i.e. make a melee attack.

The wording is like other spells that offer an attack (and other spells that don't) both of which clearly do not use the attack action.

 

[Baron Opal II]

So, according to the wording of the spell you can't use flame blade as an extra attack weapon. But, you can use shadow blade thusly? How much damage or other effects does shadow blade do? Are they equivalent? If they are, and one is explicitly permissive in this tactic and the other is ambiguous, I would tend towards allowing it. What's the difference besides grammar?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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?

It does not work with extra attack. Sorry, your logic is faulty. If A =>B and C =>B, you can´t conclude that A <=> C. B is the melee attack in question. A is attack action. C is the action granted by fire blade.

 

[ichabod]

So, according to the wording of the spell you can't use flame blade as an extra attack weapon. But, you can use shadow blade thusly? How much damage or other effects does shadow blade do? Are they equivalent? If they are, and one is explicitly permissive in this tactic and the other is ambiguous, I would tend towards allowing it. What's the difference besides grammar?

Flame blade is 3d6 (avg 10.5) and shadow blade is 2d8 (avg 9). Flame blade is a druid spell, while shadow blade is sorcerer/warlock/wizard. Shadow blade has better upcasting (d8 vs d6).

 

[cbwjm]

So, according to the wording of the spell you can't use flame blade as an extra attack weapon. But, you can use shadow blade thusly? How much damage or other effects does shadow blade do? Are they equivalent? If they are, and one is explicitly permissive in this tactic and the other is ambiguous, I would tend towards allowing it. What's the difference besides grammar?

I think it's less about grammar and more about people trying really hard to make the spell say something that it doesn't. The spell clearly states that it uses your Action to make an attack. If it meant that you could use it with extra attack, it would state Attack Action somewhere in the spell.

I'm not even against it being used with extra attack, but people are really reaching to say that's how it works anyway when they can instead just say that they've changed it to work with the attack action.

 

[Hriston]

I think that is what my post was asking. It is not a "weapon" as defined on the weapon table and he is not proficient in it, but what if he swings it at someone like a weapon? That would be an improvised weapon using the attack action. The consensus seems to be he can't do that.

I imagine he is swinging it like a weapon which seems to be its intended use, unless you're imagining the caster just points it at people or something? But anyway, I think it's possible to use the fiery blade as an improvised weapon if that's desired. The spell describes it as "similar in size and shape to a scimitar", so, according to the rules for improvised weapons, it can be treated as a scimitar, and, at the DM's discretion, a character proficient with scimitars (which a fighter or a druid would be) could use their proficiency bonus. It seems odd to me, though, to use different rules for what amounts to the same action, i.e. swinging the fiery blade.