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

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I would allow that, as it at least follows some kind of logic.
But it uses dex to attack then and does 1d6+dex damage instead of 3d6. Then you can use extra attack and also use an off hand attack with another light weapon.
I still would prefer the 2024 rules just remove such dumb wordings, where you "use an action to make an attack".

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Flame Blade is a horribly worded spell, but as written the flame blade is not actually a weapon and you cannot use it to make a weapon attack, improvised or otherwise. It is more akin an ability that lets you cast (pseudo) Shocking Grasp every round for the duration.

To see just how bad that is, the Primal Savagery druid cantrip in Xanathar's does as much damage at level 5 without using any spell slots. It's kind of similar - it causes "your teeth or fingernails to sharpen" but you can't use your teeth or fingernails to make a weapon attack or unarmed strike.

If that feels wrong (which it does) I suggest you rewrite the spell, rather than trying to somehow reinterpret the existing text to work how you think is should.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The confusing part of Flame Blade is how it describes the effect as a flaming scimitar, which makes it sound like something you'd use to make weapon attacks. If it had been called Flaming Touch or something, it would be far more obvious that the intent of the spell is to let the caster do a repeatable magic fire attack in melee range.

It would still be a horrible spell, a potential 3d6 single targe fire damage per round just isn't worth spending both your action and concentration on, when you could be casting Spike Growth or Flaming Sphere , etc. with that same slot.

Changing Flame Blade to conjure an actual weapon that can be used for weapon attacks would make it worse for almost all druids, who don't have many ways of boosting weapon attacks and will have a spell attack bonus higher than their melee weapon bonus. However it would open up Flame Blade being useful for some multiclass characters, or characters who can learn the spell some other way. Since nobody uses the spell in it's current form, it can't possibly get worse by changing it.

 

[Hriston]

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

The DM's option only applies to proficiency. Your claim was the game has no rules for treating an object as a specific weapon. I was showing you the rules you claimed didn't exist. Indeed, they do exist, or were you talking about some other game?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The confusing part of Flame Blade is how it describes the effect as a flaming scimitar, which makes it sound like something you'd use to make weapon attacks. If it had been called Flaming Touch or something, it would be far more obvious that the intent of the spell is to let the caster do a repeatable magic fire attack in melee range.

Because it worked differently in earlier editions.

 

[Hriston]

No it isn't.

Under Attack:

With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.​

Numerous spells describe a melee attack and none of them use the attack action.

It isn't my point that they do. If you'd like to discuss various spells and why they may or may not use the Attack action, let me know which spells you have in mind, and, if I have access to them, I'd be happy to give you my opinion.

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

You said green-flame blade was an example of wording that uses the Attack action, which is false. Also, the attack in flame blade is a spell attack, not a weapon attack, which makes this even less relevant as an example.

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

Which ones did you have in mind?

 

[Hriston]

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

I'm unconvinced that RAW is as unambiguous in this case as you seem to be claiming. Just declaring that it is does nothing to further your position.

 

[Hriston]

I would allow that, as it at least follows some kind of logic.

Since you would allow improvised use of the fiery blade, I'm curious how you imagine it being used in the fiction that's different from its intended use as described in the spell to justify the different mechanical implementation. Flame blade itself gives no description of how (in the fiction) the blade is being used, just that it resembles a scimitar, so I imagine it being used like a scimitar when used as intended, but I suppose other options are available?

But it uses dex to attack then and does 1d6+dex damage instead of 3d6.

Just a quibble, but, due to the finesse property, it could also use Strength.

Then you can use extra attack and also use an off hand attack with another light weapon.
I still would prefer the 2024 rules just remove such dumb wordings, where you "use an action to make an attack".

Sorry, but that is the RAW.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Sorry, but that is the RAW.

Whatever. Leads to nothing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm unconvinced that RAW is as unambiguous in this case as you seem to be claiming. Just declaring that it is does nothing to further your position.

Sorry. That leads to nothing. I just pointed out your flawed logic. If you are still unconvinced, it is not my job to change that.