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

[Deset Gled]

I have to say that discussions like this are where I really miss the crunchiness of 3.Xe. In 3.5e, Flame Blade is an Evocation spell, so based on explicit definitions the blade is clearly an effect and not an object, and thus cannot be used as an improvised weapon. If it were a Conjuration, it would absolutely be an object.

Of course, this wouldn't stop people from arguing about it on the internet.

 

[James Gasik]

I have to say that discussions like this are where I really miss the crunchiness of 3.Xe. In 3.5e, Flame Blade is an Evocation spell, so based on explicit definitions the blade is clearly an effect and not an object, and thus cannot be used as an improvised weapon. If it were a Conjuration, it would absolutely be an object.

Of course, this wouldn't stop people from arguing about it on the internet.

On the other hand, in 3e, you wouldn't need to use it as an improvised weapon, since you could use it the same way you wield a scimitar, including making multiple attacks, because it's a "weaponlike spell" (Complete Arcane, page 85).

 

[James Gasik]

Well, an arcane trickster could use a damaging single target spell with sneak attack, right?

You know, I wanted to say yes, but after looking at Arcane Trickster, unless I'm blind...it doesn't look like they can!

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It's not "very clearly" anything if multiple people view it differently.

I would say the wording is clear, but also counter-intuitive. A clash with expectation causes people to read what is not there. If people see the word "blade" and "scimitar" they expect those things to be part of the mechanics, which they are not. Also, the average level of reading comprehension is just, really bad, universally. Speaking as someone who sometimes teaches it.

There is also a general issue with 5e of people being unable to separate fluff text from mechanics. Typically, in 5e the first line of a spell description is fluff.

 

[Mistwell]

I would say the wording is clear, but also counter-intuitive. A clash with expectation causes people to read what is not there. If people see the word "blade" and "scimitar" they expect those things to be part of the mechanics, which they are not. Also, the average level of reading comprehension is just, really bad, universally. Speaking as someone who sometimes teaches it.

There is also a general issue with 5e of people being unable to separate fluff text from mechanics. Typically, in 5e the first line of a spell description is fluff.

Because many of us, and I'd argue rightly, believe the fluff is as crucial as the mechanics and there to give you the intent of the mechanics and the guideline for how to adjudicate the mechanics. For example if the fluff says something glows blue and the mechanics don't mention a radius of light, I as the DM am being told to make a judgement call on how much it glows because it does in fact glow despite them leaving out a radius of light. The game is full of those judgement calls and that doesn't disappear just because it's a spell text.

Here a DM is asked to adjudicate how the Improvised Weapon rules interact with an "evoked fiery blade" that is "similar" in size and shape, but not necessarily similar in weight or speed, to a scimitar. And you must hold this thing (unclear what it is you're holding really) in a free hand and if you let go of it with that hand it disappears.

Now to you think that's enough data to be "clear" on how the Improvised Weapon rules would work with it. I don't. Improvised Weapon rules ask three questions: 1) is it an object, and 2) is similar enough to an actual weapon and can be treated as such for proficiency issues, and 3) what damage and damage type does such an improvised weapon deal (default 1d4 if there is no further indication.)

My answers to #1 is yes, since you're holding something. And the something you're holding doesn't seem to be fire since you don't take damage yourself so I assume it's an object like a pommel or similar-enough to an object to qualify as one. But I can see a DM arguing no, since it's an "evoked fiery blade" and already some in this thread have argued it's energy and not an object. So already to me that's "not clear."

My answer to #2 is lacking guidance on weight and speed, and the blade being described as "fiery" which disappears easily, and the rule of cool being what it is, I am going with the "lightsaber" sort of description and therefore I don't think it's "similar enough" to an actual scimitar to get proficiency bonus unless you have a feat that gives you proficiency with improvised objects. Others disagree in this thread and thing it is, so again I'd say that's "not super clear" and reasonable minds can differ on that question.

Finally my answer on #3 is the spell tells you the damage done by being hit with such a thing, and you're being hit with such a thing, so that's the damage I'd use. It might not be "similar enough" to a scimitar for proficiency, but it's sure "similar enough" to a fiery blade to determine that's its damage. But again, others in this thread disagree and would go with either the default of 1d4 (fire damage), or with the scimitar damage. Which again I think is all reasonable, and the rule isn't clear requiring these judgement calls.

My rulings are influenced by the overall DMing rules of "is it balanced" and "is it cool and fun for the players." It's balanced to allow extra attack with this otherwise very sucky spell. And it's cool to find a way for people to want to use this lightsaber-like spell where otherwise they simply wouldn't choose it.

What part of this did you think was clear or did you think I was not comprehending well, and why do you feel separating fluff from mechanics is more helpful than reading them together in this instance?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Because many of us, and I'd argue rightly, believe the fluff is as crucial as the mechanics and there to give you the intent of the mechanics and the guideline for how to adjudicate the mechanics.

That would be fine, if WotC wrote the spells that way, but they don't. They clearly treat fluff as separate from mechanics. For evidence, see the section on refluffing in Tasha's. They have no issues with players changing magic missiles into chickens, or flame blades into flaming fists. Because mechanics and cosmetic effects are treated as separate.

If you don't accept that, you are taking the text out of context from the start, and so it's unsurprising that you experience a comprehension failure.

 

[Mistwell]

That would be fine, if WotC wrote the spells that way, but they don't. They clearly treat fluff as separate from mechanics. For evidence, see the section on refluffing in Tasha's. They have no issues with players changing magic missiles into chickens, or flame blades into flaming fists. Because mechanics and cosmetic effects are treated as separate.

If you don't accept that, you are taking the text out of context from the start, and so it's unsurprising that you experience a comprehension failure.

If I don't accept your perspective then I don't comprehend the rules like you do? Is...that what you just claimed?

Altering fluff does work fine because that doesn't alter the guideline the DM had from the original fluff which is still right there in the book for them. Allowing a player to make magic missile into chickens doesn't change the tool the DM has from the original fluff to understand how the mechanics are supposed to work. And that's true even if you don't accept that.

Magic Missiles described as written can fit through an arrow-hole. A chicken cannot. You've changed the mechanical parameters of the spell by changing the fluff in that instance.

The ability to change the fluff in that is not meaningfully different from the ability to change the mechanics. Both fluff and mechanics are there so you understand how the spell is supposed to work and then WOTC of course is fine with you house ruling any part of it. That doesn't make them "separate."

 

[Maxperson]

I have to say that discussions like this are where I really miss the crunchiness of 3.Xe. In 3.5e, Flame Blade is an Evocation spell, so based on explicit definitions the blade is clearly an effect and not an object, and thus cannot be used as an improvised weapon. If it were a Conjuration, it would absolutely be an object.

And it would also deal physical damage in addition to the fire damage like the other spells that have both physical and energy components.

Of course, this wouldn't stop people from arguing about it on the internet.

Yep.

 

[Maxperson]

I would say the wording is clear, but also counter-intuitive. A clash with expectation causes people to read what is not there. If people see the word "blade" and "scimitar" they expect those things to be part of the mechanics, which they are not. Also, the average level of reading comprehension is just, really bad, universally. Speaking as someone who sometimes teaches it.

There is also a general issue with 5e of people being unable to separate fluff text from mechanics. Typically, in 5e the first line of a spell description is fluff.

That last line doesn't seem to hold true with spells. I went to a random page to look at the first line of spells and I get...

Levitate: "One creature or loose object of your choice that you can see within range rises vertically, up to 20 feet, and remains suspended there for the duration." - Not fluff.

Lightning: "A stroke of lightning forming a line 100 feet long and 5 feet wide blasts out from you in a direction you choose." - Not fluff

Leomund's Hut: "A 10-foot-radius immobile dome of force springs into existence around and above you and remains stationary for the duration." - Not fluff.

Light: "You touch one object that is no larger than 10 feet in any dimension." - Not fluff.

Lightning Arrow: "The next time you make a ranged weapon attack during the spell's duration, the weapon's ammunition, or the weapon itself if it's a thrown weapon, transforms into a bolt of lightning." - Not fluff.

Lesser Restoration: "You touch a creature and can end either one disease or one condition afflicting it." - Not fluff.

That's literally every spell on the page that goes against your statement. It would seem that typically the first line of a spell description is not fluff.