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

[fluffybunbunkittens]

Yeah...
Weapon attack is different from attack with a weapon.
Taking an action to attack is different from taking the attack action.

This is just 5e natural language in action.

 

[billd91]

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

Yeah, that’s a pretty good parallel to draw for the flame blade being a different action that doesn’t allow extra attacks.

 

[mamba]

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.

Really?

"Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."

makes it pretty clear that a weapon is not an improvised weapon to me...

 

[billd91]

Really?

"Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin."

makes it pretty clear that a weapon is not an improvised weapon to me...

Honestly, I think you could use a weapon as an improvised weapon, but you have to use it in a very different way from how it’s designed. Like using a sword pommel as a small club or a pole arm haft as a staff. But then you aren’t getting the normal weapon damage, certainly not the flame blade’s normal 3d6 fire damage even if it counted as an object (which is controversial).

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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"

But it's not actually a scimitar. A scimitar is solid, a flame isn't. Major difference.

 

[MarkB]

Yup, exactly. Now say what kind of action is a "melee spell attack"?
I'll give you a hint! The choices are in the PHB pp. 192-93.

And, as stated in the "Improvising an Action" sidebar, those choices include "none of the above".

 

[Quickleaf]

My ruling would be "yes, but" in that I'd let them use it like wielding a torch, so making an improvised weapon attack with the Flame Blade would not deal the spell’s usual damage but instead would deal 1 fire damage. Maybe throw in some ability score damage, can’t recall how improvised weapon damage is “supposed” to work precisely, but that seems reasonable.

Narratively would differentiate it as when you’re making the “spell attack” with Flame Blade it requires extreme focus and the flames glow hotter and larger, whereas just swinging your hand around as part of a series of other melee attacks it just burns more like a torch.

Honestly I didn’t realize RAW had torches only do 1 fire damage, I’ve pretty much always had players roll 1d6.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

In 9 years of playing D&D 5e on average once per fortnight, I've never seen any character cast or even prepare Flame Blade.

So it does seem like an underpowered spell. Having it conjure an actual "weapon" that can be used for weapon attacks probably isn't game breaking. If you think it should, that would make for a great house rule.

 

[el-remmen]

I've seen Flame Blade cast a bunch, but then again I never even considered that it worked in any way different than what @Kobold Stew is describing and my games ain't broken yet.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

had torches only do 1 fire damage, I’ve pretty much always had players roll 1d6.

I use 1d4. It's what they did in the D&DNext Playtest, and I much preferred it.