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

[Kobold Stew]

I’m trying to have a productive conversation but not a mind reader. If you have a point, make the point instead of being passive aggressive.

The point is in the post you are disputing, post 2 in this thread. It is an Attack action. Rules as written.

 

[ECMO3]

Both of these spells are different from what we are discussing.

Dragon's Breath does create a new kind of action, as the spell description says. It is not an "attack" action, because it doesn't involve a roll to hit. That's why the spell description does not use the word attack.

Witch Bolt is different again. In the first round, the player takes the "Cast a Spell" action and as part of that gets to make a spell attack. Extra Attack does not come into play because they haven't made an Attack action. Subsequent rounds are not an attack, because there is no attack roll, and damage is done automatically.

Neither of these matches the case of Flame Blade. Casting it is a bonus action (not an action, involving "Cast a Spell"). When it comes time for the character to take an action, though, they make a "melee spell attack".

Witchbolt does require an action to do the extra damage every round after the first, so that is a new action as well. Like you point out it is not an action discussed in the PHB.

Also an attack roll is not necessarily required for the attack action. Grappling and Shoving both use the attack action and neither use an attack roll. A Dragon Born PC (from FTOD) breathing fire on someone is also the attack action and is more or less the exact same thing the Dragon's Breath spell does.

My interpretation of the Flame Blade attack is exactly like these two spells in terms of action. You use your action to implement the spell effect which is specific to the spell. Other spells are similar.

Important to this is "making an attack" does not mean the same thing as "using the attack action" you can make attack rolls without using an attack action.

A melee spell attack is not an attack action and I will point out that Spiritual Weapon, Mordenkainan's sword, Vampiric Touch and Black Blade of Disaster all use this "spell attack" word but do not use the attack action.

Moreover, if I am taking this wording then a 20th level fighter could cast Vampiric Touch upcast to 4th level and then action surge for 8 attacks doing a total 32-192 damage and also healing herself the same amount.

 

[ECMO3]

an actual weapon is not an improvised weapon

I would disagree. An Improvised weapon is any object you can hold in your hand. The description of improvised weapon also gives specific examples of melee and ranged weapons being used as improvised weapons.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

While I agree that the spell creates its own action and is incompatible with Extra Attack... absolutely nothing will break if it can be used with Extra Attack (you just cannot extend that to other spells, Ecmo's example of Vampiric Touch is a perfect example of why).

It does 3d6 damage. That is 10.5 avg. And this takes a spell slot and concentration, and the caster needs to be in melee, and have Extra Attack from some source to be relevant to this conversation, and they could just be casting Flaming Sphere + an attack spell for much more effect anyway.

 

[ECMO3]

If the spell was meant to create an actual flaming weapon, it would have said so.

I think it does say this.

It says in the description that it creates a "fiery blade" in your hand and "The blade is similar in size and shape to a Scimitar"

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

An Improvised weapon is any object you can hold in your hand.

Yep. You are holding a sword, but your enemy is immune to slashing damage. So surely you can improvise a weapon to bash it with the pommel, to do bashing damage.

That said, improvised weapon attacks do d4 damage unless they resemble a weapon, and this is where it gets murky. Sword does resemble a weapon, but I doubt it's intended that the hilt would do d8 damage... and a flaming blade being in the shape of a sword, might or might not resemble a weapon, but when improvised it would at best do the weapon's amount of damage, not 3d6.

 

[Clint_L]

The point is in the post you are disputing, post 2 in this thread. It is an Attack action. Rules as written.

That’s not RAW the way most of us in this thread read them. That’s you interpreting the spell to make it fit RAW, when the designers seem to have been at pains to differentiate it, unlike other spells that are clearly framed to work with the attack action.

 

[Kobold Stew]

That’s not RAW the way most of us in this thread read them. That’s you interpreting the spell to make it fit RAW, when the designers seem to have been at pains to differentiate it, unlike other spells that are clearly framed to work with the attack action.

We disagree on a single point (the one asked in the OP), and i have cited the PHB for my interpretation. From my perspective, you are providing the tortured and unsupported reading. I'll happily read what evidence and argumentation you provide.

I'll be done, with following one more message in this thread.

 

[Kobold Stew]

My last post in this thread.

Witchbolt does require an action to do the extra damage every round after the first, so that is a new action as well. Like you point out it is not an action discussed in the PHB.

Yup, as indicated.

Also an attack roll is not necessarily required for the attack action. Grappling and Shoving both use the attack action and neither use an attack roll. A Dragon Born PC (from FTOD) breathing fire on someone is also the attack action and is more or less the exact same thing the Dragon's Breath spell does.

Yup; neither of these is an attack action.

My interpretation of the Flame Blade attack is exactly like these two spells in terms of action. You use your action to implement the spell effect which is specific to the spell.

I do understand your position; this is where we disagree: Flame Blade is not "exactly like" either of these.

Other spells are similar.

Important to this is "making an attack" does not mean the same thing as "using the attack action" you can make attack rolls without using an attack action.

And, sometimes, making an attack does use the attack action. ; )

A melee spell attack is not an attack action and I will point out that Spiritual Weapon, Mordenkainan's sword, Vampiric Touch and Black Blade of Disaster all use this "spell attack" word but do not use the attack action.

So, as you have noted, some spell do create specific actions. Flame Blade is like none of these, an appears unique. (Whether it is well-written or well-designed is not what I am arguing). But
(a) it is a spell attack
(b) the spell attack is not part of the casting (using the Cast a Spell action)
(c) the spell attack is not something a special kind of action not accounted for in the choices in the PHB. I know this is where we disagree, but I think the impetus has to be to look at the available actions first, and then see if there are exceptions. [EDIT: I know "Specific beats General": the question is whether a specific situation is created (c) when a general one (a) applies.]

So, of the examples you list here:

• Spiritual Weapon: round 1 it's part of the casting (b), and subsequent rounds are bonus actions.
• Mordenkainan's Sword: round 1 it's part of the casting (b), and subsequent rounds are bonus actions.
• Blade of Disaster (assuming you mean the spell in Tasha's?): all part of bonus actions, not an action.

• Vampiric Touch: Here is your best example. In turn 1, it's part of the cast a spell action (b), but on subsequent turns you are making a spell attack with an attack action. By my reading, Extra attack would work in subsequent rounds while concentration is maintained, but not round 1.

Moreover, if I am taking this wording then a 20th level fighter could cast Vampiric Touch upcast to 4th level and then action surge for 8 attacks doing a total 32-192 damage and also healing herself the same amount.

The spell can be learned by a level 14 Eldritch Knight, and you are right that at level 20 with action surge and extra attack, in round 2 and upcasting, it would be eight separate attacks using your Intelligence, each doing 4d6. (In round 1, you'd only get one such attack, of course).

Again, I'm not arguing whether or not Flame Blade or Vampiric Touch is well-written. But I do think they are clear.

Thanks!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Again, I'm not arguing whether or not Flame Blade or Vampiric Touch is well-written. But I do think they are clear.

Thanks!

Sadly yes. It is not taking an attack action. It is taking an action to attack.

Same goes for the level 11 ranger hunter subclass actions. You take an action to attack, but not an attack action.

I am really not arguing that that is a good distinction for the game to make. I actually do think, those kind of actions to take an attack without being an attack action need to go.

The flame blade needs to state:

When taking the attack action you can replace any (or one, depending on how you want it to interact with extra attack) attack you make with a melee spells attack using the flame blade. If you hit, you deal 3d6 fire damage.