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

[ECMO3]

This came up on a multiclassed PC today who has extra attack and the Sorcerer Flame Blade spell. He wanted to cast Flame Blade and then use it with extra attack.

When we told him he couldn't because the Flame Blade attack is a special action, not an attack action and it is a spell attack, not a weapon attack. He was pretty pissed about this and then he argued that he was holding the Flame Blade and therefore could use it as an improvised weapon to get extra attack.

I figure this could work, using strength and no proficiency bonus. I think he would get 3d6+strength on a hit as it does "resemble a weapon" that does 3d6.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I believe the player is right (rules as written, etc.). You can't cast a spell twice with Extra attack, but that's not the case here: the bonus action casts the spell (in this or a previous round) and then your action is the attack action. With Extra Attack, you could attack twice with the flame blade. "Melee spell attack" is not casting a spell, but the attack will use your Charisma.

The improvised weapon rules don't come into play.

 

[Stormonu]

I wouldn’t have caught that. However, it’s on par with the character having a flame tongue weapon. It really should be a spell that supports being used with extra attack or off-hand attack, but with it hanging around for 10 minutes and being able to be cranked up with a higher level slot, that’s probably too good. Especially if you consider possible multiclassing uses - Druid/rogue (sneak attack), Druid/Paladin (smite), hex blade/Druid or eldritch knight/Druid.

Beyond all that, I wouldn’t let anyone use a weapon of any sort as an improvised weapon. Use it as intended or don’t use it at all.

 

[Clint_L]

I believe the player is right (rules as written, etc.). You can't cast a spell twice with Extra attack, but that's not the case here: the bonus action casts the spell (in this or a previous round) and then your action is the attack action. With Extra Attack, you could attack twice with the flame blade. "Melee spell attack" is not casting a spell, but the attack will use your Charisma.

The improvised weapon rules don't come into play.

I disagree; the spell description is very specific:
"You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 fire damage."

In this case, the character did not use their action to take the attack action, they used it to make a melee spell attack. That is not the same thing, and although I don't give a fig about RAW, I think in this case following the exact wording and restricting it from allowing extra attacks makes sense because flame blade is potentially broken if upcast and treated as simply a super powerful weapon.

I also think this is an intentional limitation, or else WotC would have worded the spell more like shillelagh. For example, they could have worded it as "you can use your action to attack using the fiery blade..." They instead chose add the specific wording of "make a melee spell attack"; this does not seem accidental.

TLDR: You only get extra attack if you take the attack action. This player did not take the attack action.

 

[Tonguez]

I wouldn’t have caught that. However, it’s on par with the character having a flame tongue weapon. It really should be a spell that supports being used with extra attack or off-hand attack, but with it hanging around for 10 minutes and being able to be cranked up with a higher level slot, that’s probably too good. Especially if you consider possible multiclassing uses - Druid/rogue (sneak attack), Druid/Paladin (smite), hex blade/Druid or eldritch knight/Druid.

Beyond all that, I wouldn’t let anyone use a weapon of any sort as an improvised weapon. Use it as intended or don’t use it at all.

its not a weapon though, its a spell being used as an improvised weapon

 

[cbwjm]

Just an aside, I think flame blade should be updated to act like shadow blade.

 

[ECMO3]

I disagree; the spell description is very specific:
"You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 fire damage."

In this case, the character did not use their action to take the attack action, they used it to make a melee spell attack. That is not the same thing, and although I don't give a fig about RAW, I think in this case following the exact wording and restricting it from allowing extra attacks makes sense because flame blade is potentially broken if upcast and treated as simply a super powerful weapon.

I also think this is an intentional limitation, or else WotC would have worded the spell more like shillelagh. For example, they could have worded it as "you can use your action to attack using the fiery blade..." They instead chose add the specific wording of "make a melee spell attack"; this does not seem accidental.

TLDR: You only get extra attack if you take the attack action. This player did not take the attack action.

This is my understanding as well. But it does not address the improvised weapon question, which would allow extra attack.

 

[ECMO3]

Just an aside, I think flame blade should be updated to act like shadow blade.

That would be a nerf in general because as it is now it uses your spellcasting modifier for attacking, which is better for most casters.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I disagree; the spell description is very specific:
"You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 fire damage."

TLDR: You only get extra attack if you take the attack action. This player did not take the attack action.

Yes, the spell is very specific.

If it is not an attack action, what action does the player take to use the flame blade?

 

[cbwjm]

That would be a nerf in general because as it is now it uses your spellcasting modifier for attacking.

Then add something stating you can use your caster mod in place of strength or dexterity.