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

[Hriston]

Whatever. Leads to nothing.

Apologies for the snark. I should have added a smiley face. I'm curious why you think the wording is dumb and was also hoping you or others might respond to my first point about what difference in the fiction would account for improvised versus intended use of the fiery blade.

 

[Hriston]

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.

Certainly, it's not your job, but you'll forgive me if I'm not convinced by claims supported by "nothing" that I'm using faulty logic. 1) playing D&D shouldn't be an exercise in formal logic, and 2) I don't believe you responded when I pointed out that you were begging the question by assuming the caster could not use their action according to the spell by taking the Attack action. You would need to demonstrate somehow that is the case.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1) playing D&D shouldn't be an exercise in formal logic.

I don't think formal logic should be excluded from interpreting rules.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Apologies for the snark. I should have added a smiley face. I'm curious why you think the wording is dumb and was also hoping you or others might respond to my first point about what difference in the fiction would account for improvised versus intended use of the fiery blade.

The wording is dumb, because formally it is totally clear, while a casual read leaves it totally unclear. On top of that the spell is totally underpowered when using it rules as written.
So as you say, D&D should bot be an execise in formal logic, so spells should be worded, that the intend is clearer (and should be balanced better, so that balance and formal logic are not contradicting each other).

The impprovised weapon crutch is also bad, because as you rightfully say: in fiction there should be no difference between both uses. So I really just want the spell to read similar to shadow blade (and my hopes are up that shadow blade is how spells of that kind will be worded in the future).

My proposal:
flame blade conjures a flaming scimitar that you can use as weapon that deals 3d6 damage and uses your spell attack modifier to hit. Upcast: 1d6 damage per 2 levels.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Rewrite:

LEVEL 2nd
CASTING TIME 1 Bonus Action
RANGE/AREA Self
COMPONENTS V, S, M *
DURATION Concentration 10 Minutes
SCHOOL Evocation
ATTACK/SAVE Melee
DAMAGE/EFFECT Fire

You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand. The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration. If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action. The blade counts as a simple light melee weapon with which you are proficient. You must use your spellcasting ability instead of Strength for melee attack rolls made with this weapon, and it receives no bonuses to damage. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 fire damage.

The flaming blade sheds bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet.

At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for every two slot levels above 2nd.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

So you would be okay with the DM telling your greatsword wielding fighter to roll a d8 for improvised damage? I wouldn't. Weapons are by RAW not improvised weapons. They are weapons. The improvised weapon section says the following.

"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."

The "any object" portion is not in isolation. It is in the context of the bolded. In proper context it means "Any object that is not a weapon."

The next paragraph just reinforces the first.

"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."

It can't be similar to an actual weapon if it is an actual weapon. Similar = close to, not equal to. Then it gives examples of a table leg being SIMILAR to a club. It's not a club, but just similar to one.

The last paragraph reinforces the first two.

"An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals ld4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals ld4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet."

It talks about the improvised weapon resembling or not an actual weapon.

At no point is the improvised weapon section applying to an actual weapon. The entire section is about when the characters don't have access to a real weapon and have to improvise one from something that is not normally a weapon.

So even if you rule that the flame blade is an object, which is viably ruled in either direction from the text, it still couldn't be an improvised weapon because it's a weapon.

Edit: As was mentioned in another post, if you use a weapon in a manner it is not intended to be used for, such as swing a sword by the blade and not the pommel or trying to hit with the pommel, that would be improvised. The flame blade used in that manner(if it's even ruled to be a solid object and not a shaped field of energy) wouldn't do full damage. It would do far less.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

This. The spell is explicitly saying it takes an action to attack, which is not the same as it takes an attack action. The spell does not use the attack action to attack. It creates a new action which fits into the combat section just fine as the listed action in the combat section are not the only actions you can take in combat.

"When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise."

Spell that grant actions fall into the bolded category. It's a special feature of flame blade.

 

[Maxperson]

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.)

Yeah. I'd overrule RAW and let it work with extra attack or as an off hand attack.

 

[Incenjucar]

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?

"At the DM's option" isn't a rule, it's just "shut up and ask your DM".

 

[Hriston]

"At the DM's option" isn't a rule, it's just "shut up and ask your DM".

And only applies to the proficiency bonus. You're ignoring the part that relates to your claim:

Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such.​