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

[Mistwell]

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.

Naw the third sentence makes it clear to me it's not like shocking grasp because you have to literally hold the flameblade and if you don't hold it, it disappears and needs to be re-summoned. So there is something that you must hold in your hand. That uses the object rules. If someone wants to make you drop the flameblade, the rules a DM would look to would be things involving making you drop an object.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Naw the third sentence makes it clear to me it's not like shocking grasp because you have to literally hold the flameblade and if you don't hold it, it disappears and needs to be re-summoned. So there is something that you must hold in your hand.

VFX. You need a free hand to use Shocking Grasp too.

That uses the object rules.

The flame blade is literally made of flame. It has no substance. It has no blade, it has no hilt. If you let go of it it vanishes into thin air (until you resummon it). It is not an object. It is a visual effect. Like a magic missile: "You create three glowing darts of magical force". The darts are not objects, even though the spell says you create them. You are confusing fluff text with rules.

If someone wants to make you drop the flameblade, the rules a DM would look to would be things involving making you drop an object.

You cannot be made to drop the flame blade because it is not a physical object. The caster may choose to dismiss it temporarily if they need to use the hand for something else.

 

[Baron Opal II]

The flame blade is literally made of flame. It has no substance. It has no blade, it has no hilt. If you let go of it it vanishes into thin air (until you resummon it). It is not an object. It is a visual effect. Like a magic missile: "You create three glowing darts of magical force". The darts are not objects, even though the spell says you create them. You are confusing fluff text with rules.

You cannot be made to drop the flame blade because it is not a physical object. The caster may choose to dismiss it temporarily if they need to use the hand for something else.

Or it is an object that has a temporary reality. If someone had Capo Ferro 2 (+1 AC if armed with an appropriate weapon in the off hand) would the flame blade count? Would shadow blade? Could you disarm someone wielding a flame blade however temporarily?

This seems to be an overall question that is sufficiently ambiguous where differing tables could come to reasonable differences in rulings. Spells that create sufficiently weapon-like manifestations might need an overarching rule about how they interact with martial techniques. Spiritual weapon could be a template of a specific contra-example as the force specifically manifests over there and is seemingly obviously meant to not be wielded by the caster.

 

[Maxperson]

3) You can (but not must) instead use your action to take the attack action. You can make a melee attack with the fiery blade shaped like a scimitar. Since it is not an actual scimitar, just an object evoked to be shaped like one, it is an improvised weapon.

A khopesh or saber is also shaped like a scimitar. Are those swords also improvised weapons and not actual weapons?

If the flame blade is an object, then it is a sword of some sort given its shape. That would make it a sword weapon, even if it isn't on the non-exhaustive table of PHB weapons.

If it is not an object like the text implies by not doing any physical damage at all and only doing fire damage, then it can't be an improvised weapon.

Either way it can't be an improvised weapon unless used to pommel strike(if you rule it an object) or some other atypical use of a sword.

 

[Maxperson]

Naw the third sentence makes it clear to me it's not like shocking grasp because you have to literally hold the flameblade and if you don't hold it, it disappears and needs to be re-summoned. So there is something that you must hold in your hand. That uses the object rules. If someone wants to make you drop the flameblade, the rules a DM would look to would be things involving making you drop an object.

The hilt might be physical, but the blade is not or it would deal physical damage and fire damage like meteor swarms do. Basically, it would be like a light saber. If you want to use a light saber as an improvised weapon, you are hitting someone with the small metal portion and doing next to no damage. If you don't, you are using it as a weapon and dealing pure energy damage like flame blade.

 

[Maxperson]

You cannot be made to drop the flame blade because it is not a physical object. The caster may choose to dismiss it temporarily if they need to use the hand for something else.

That's interesting, because if people are ruling it an object and improvised weapon, the caster can be disarmed or otherwise forced to drop the flame blade.

 

[Incenjucar]

A khopesh or saber is also shaped like a scimitar. Are those swords also improvised weapons and not actual weapons?

I do find the implications for all the new weapon abilities amusing.

 

[Mistwell]

VFX. You need a free hand to use Shocking Grasp too.

The flame blade is literally made of flame. It has no substance. It has no blade, it has no hilt. If you let go of it it vanishes into thin air (until you resummon it). It is not an object. It is a visual effect. Like a magic missile: "You create three glowing darts of magical force". The darts are not objects, even though the spell says you create them. You are confusing fluff text with rules.

You cannot be made to drop the flame blade because it is not a physical object. The caster may choose to dismiss it temporarily if they need to use the hand for something else.

The blade is a fiery blade, it doesn't say it's literally only made of fire. But we know SOMETHING is in your hand. It's not VFX - you hold the blade, and if you open your hand the blade goes away. Something is physically there to hold. For my game, that's an object.

 

[Mistwell]

A khopesh or saber is also shaped like a scimitar. Are those swords also improvised weapons and not actual weapons?

If the flame blade is an object, then it is a sword of some sort given its shape. That would make it a sword weapon, even if it isn't on the non-exhaustive table of PHB weapons.

If it is not an object like the text implies by not doing any physical damage at all and only doing fire damage, then it can't be an improvised weapon.

Either way it can't be an improvised weapon unless used to pommel strike(if you rule it an object) or some other atypical use of a sword.

Something is in your hand. Beyond that, the rest is pretty nebulous. To me that's an improvised weapon.

 

[Maxperson]

Something is in your hand. Beyond that, the rest is pretty nebulous. To me that's an improvised weapon.

It's very clearly a sword, which is not an improvised weapon. If the wording was vague and it made just a fire in your hand that did damage, then I could see what you're saying. Nothing is vague, though. It's a sword.