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

[ECMO3]

You're assuming two separate categories of action. That's begging the question. The spell doesn't specify whether the action is Attack or Non-attack, just that the caster uses their action. \

There are 9 actions described in the PHB. When the spell is cast it describes another action in addition to these. This is just like Dragon's Breath or Witchbolt. The action is what is described in the spell.

The wording would be different if you attacked with it using the attack action. Green Flame Blade and Shadow Blade are examples that do that.

 

[Hriston]

Which would still be an improvised weapon dealing 1d4 damage because the game doesn't have rules for deciding an object is a specific weapon.

Might be a fun feat or something.

Under Improvised Weapons:

Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.​

Because the fiery blade is similar to a scimitar, it can be treated as a scimitar which does 1d6 damage.

 

[ECMO3]

Because the fiery blade is similar to a scimitar, it can be treated as a scimitar.

And the corelary to this - since it is similar to the fiery blade used with Flameblade it can be treated as a Flameblade.

It is a stretch I admit, but there is a logic train to make that arguement.

 

[cbwjm]

It's just one of those obtuse ways the rules are written. Not long ago I had a discussion with someone playing a Monk for the first time about the difference between a "melee attack" and "an attack with a melee weapon" being two very different things and I could see TILT in their eyes as they looked at me like I was insane.

Yeah, I remember that causing me to think a bit as well when it was first brought up.

 

[Hriston]

There are 9 actions described in the PHB. When the spell is cast it describes another action in addition to these. This is just like Dragon's Breath or Witchbolt. The action is what is described in the spell.

And the action described in flame blade is making a melee attack which is what the Attack action is used for.

The wording would be different if you attacked with it using the attack action. Green Flame Blade and Shadow Blade are examples that do that.

Green-flame blade doesn't use the Attack action. It uses the Cast a Spell action because it's a cantrip and the attack is made as part of the casting.

The only action described in shadow blade is the bonus action to make the magic sword reappear. Other than that, the spell simply describes the sword's qualities and makes no mention of how you attack with it other than that you use the sword. I'm not sure what this is supposed to be showing me. If flame blade saying you can use your action to make a melee attack with it is supposed to mean you can't use the Attack action, that's weird because you can make a melee attack with the Attack action which uses your action.

 

[Hriston]

And the corelary to this - since it is similar to the fiery blade used with Flameblade it can be treated as a Flameblade.

It is a stretch I admit, but there is a logic train to make that arguement.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. It isn't similar to the fiery blade. It is the fiery blade!

 

[Incenjucar]

Under Improvised Weapons:

Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.​

Because the fiery blade is similar to a scimitar, it can be treated as a scimitar which does 1d6 damage.

"At DM's option" takes it rather outside of the capacity of the internet to have a meaningful opinion.

 

[James Gasik]

I did find this tweet, for what that's worth.

 

[ECMO3]

And the action described in flame blade is making a melee attack which is what the Attack action is used for.

No it isn't. Numerous spells describe a melee attack and none of them use the attack action.

Green-flame blade doesn't use the Attack action. It uses the Cast a Spell action because it's a cantrip and the attack is made as part of the casting.

It is an example where you are making a weapon attack.

If flame blade saying you can use your action to make a melee attack with it is supposed to mean you can't use the Attack action, that's weird

I agree it is wierd, but it is true. Like a lot of spells.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You're assuming two separate categories of action. That's begging the question. The spell doesn't specify whether the action is Attack or Non-attack, just that the caster uses their action. To test whether the Attack action is appropriate, we can ask, is the character making a ranged or melee attack with it? If so, then it begins to look a lot like the Attack action.

As I said. Play as you like. It is not broken in any way. It is just not RAW.