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

[FitzTheRuke]

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.

I disagree with his reasoning, but not his results. I think the spell would be much better interpreted that way, so I like it. But I'm on the side that thinks the spell means to only let you use your action to attack ONCE with it, no matter what other abilities you have. But who cares? It's awesome with extra attack! (OTOH, I think it's lame to use it as an improvised weapon. Not necessarily WRONG, but just not cool.)

 

[ECMO3]

Yup; neither of these is an attack action.

That is not true they are explicitly an attack action. Grapple is an attack action, so is shove so is a Dragonborn breathing. Here is the verbiage:

Grapple:
"When you want to grab a creature or wrestle with it, you can use the Attack action to make a special melee attack, a grapple."

Dragonborn Breath Weapon:
"When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can replace one of your attacks with an exhalation of magical energy in a 30-foot line that is 5 feet wide."

Both of these ARE the attack action and do NOT involve an attack roll.

You are conflating the need for an attack roll with using 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.]

It is not unique I gave numerous examples of other spells above that create attacks not part of the casting action. Your argument rests on this and if Spiritual Weapon creates a new kind of action then it would stand to reason this spell does as well.

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

I don't see anywhere in them where they are the attack action or any different from other spells that make an attack roll, which is not part of casting.

 

[ECMO3]

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

It does not actually say it is made of flame. It says it is a "fiery blade" which does imply it is solid.

 

[cbwjm]

I disagree with his reasoning, but not his results. I think the spell would be much better interpreted that way, so I like it. But I'm on the side that thinks the spell means to only let you use your action to attack ONCE with it, no matter what other abilities you have. But who cares? It's awesome with extra attack! (OTOH, I think it's lame to use it as an improvised weapon. Not necessarily WRONG, but just not cool.)

I've only just come to the realisation that people were arguing that you could already use extra attack with the spell (I sometimes quickly skim responses, so miss some if the argument). I think the spell is clear in that you use your action to make a single attack, as in your whole action is spent on making that attack, otherwise it would bring up the Attack Action. But like you, I also see nothing wrong with it being compatible with extra attacks and still think it needs an update to bring it in line with shadow blade.

 

[mamba]

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).

agreed, which settles the discussion about Flame Blade, which is what this was about

 

[mamba]

It does not actually say it is made of flame. It says it is a "fiery blade" which does imply it is solid.

not to me, to me it is a flame in the general shape of a blade, like a larger blowtorch

 

[James Gasik]

So the thing with Flame Blade is- it isn't a weapon. The spell description says it has the shape of a scimitar, but it never states that it is a scimitar. Why does this matter?

Because you can use Flame Blade without needing any particular weapon proficiency. You might say that this is an oversight because the spell isn't found on the list of a caster who can't use a scimitar, but imagine you have a Wizard with a Ring of Spell Storing and the party Druid put a Flame Blade in there.

They could "cast" Flame Blade from the Ring and use it just fine without needing any proficiency- thus Flame Blade isn't a weapon.

Because it's not a weapon, it can't benefit from Fighting Styles or Sneak Attack, or any other special ability of class that primarily uses weapons. I'm fairly confident it was never intended to be used with Extra Attack either (since this is something Druids, the class that is intended to primarily use this spell, lacks).

Now because it's not a weapon, you could allow it to be used as an improvised weapon...except it's a spell effect, not an actual object. Probably. The spell doesn't say it's an object, so it comes down to how you feel about "fiery blade".

If you do think it's an object, then you could allow it to be used as an Improvised Weapon, but this leads to some things you need to consider, the first of which is what damage does an improvised Flame Blade do anyways?

Is it now the equivalent of a torch? You might say this doesn't make sense for it to be less effective, but that's pretty much how Improvised Weapons function- they are shoddy replacements for the real thing, mostly used in desperation.

If you do decide that the "improvised" Flame Blade deals the full damage when used in this way, since, after all, you lose your proficiency bonus, then you have to ask yourself, what about Tavern Brawler?

Do you feel that a character can take a spell intended to be used by one class in one way, and build around it to make it vastly more effective when not being used by a single-classed Druid? Or even by a Druid at all?

This is the primary point of contention with character optimization- is it right to try to derive more benefit out of something than it was meant to provide? This path leads to Life Clerics using Goodberry.

Personally, if someone wants to bend over backwards to get more benefit out of something, I'm generally ok with it, but in this case, I don't particularly think the juice is worth the squeeze. Sure, a Fighter built to use Flame Blade could get a lot of damage out of it, but is it really the best thing they could be doing? Especially when you start to encounter enemies resistant/immune to fire damage regularly as the game progresses?

One fire elemental and the player of the tricked-out Fighter has hamstrung himself and will be glaring at you, lol.

 

[ECMO3]

They could "cast" Flame Blade from the Ring and use it just fine without needing any proficiency- thus Flame Blade isn't a weapon.

You do not need proficiency in a weapon to use a weapon. Any Wizard can pick up a greatsword off the ground and swing it at an enemy doing normal 2d6+ strength damage. She just does not get to add her proficiency bonus to her weapon attack roll because she is not proficient in it.

In the case of flame blade the spell says it is a spell attack. You always add your proficiency bonus to a spell attack, not having weapon proficiency in what you are using is irrelevant if it is a spell attack.

 

[darjr]

naw, the spell is pretty clear.

It's not a weapon, it's a spell effect, and it has a way you can use it.

The real issue in my book is the player getting really angry about it.

I think it's reasonable to adjudicate it either way and getting angry about it is the real problem imho.

 

[James Gasik]

You do not need proficiency in a weapon to use a weapon. Any Wizard can pick up a greatsword off the ground and swing it at an enemy doing normal 2d6+ strength damage. She just does not get to add her proficiency bonus to her weapon attack roll because she is not proficient in it.

In the case of flame blade the spell says it is a spell attack. You always add your proficiency bonus to a spell attack, not having weapon proficiency in what you are using is irrelevant if it is a spell attack.

Which is why it's not a weapon...