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

[Clint_L]

Yes, the spell is very specific.

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

"You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade."

Contrast with the wording on Shadow Blade:
"This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient."

 

[billd91]

I also think that using improvised weapon doesn’t really make sense with the spell, particularly not with any ability to add strength bonus damage since that’s not part of the original spell.
As far as using an attack action and qualifying for additional attacks… it’s ambiguous enough for DM interpretation. I don’t think getting multiple attacks with it is terribly unbalanced, nor would it be if limited to one attack as a special action.

 

[Kobold Stew]

"You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade."

Yup, exactly. Now say what kind of action is a "melee spell attack"?
I'll give you a hint! The choices are in the PHB pp. 192-93.

(Another hint: PHB 195, under melee attacks: "A few spell also involve making a melee attack.")

Contrast with the wording on Shadow Blade:
"This magic sword lasts until the spell ends. It counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient."

Yup, as discussed by @ECMO3 in post 8, these are not the same thing. They are both melee attacks, but Shadow Blade uses your DEX or STR, and Flame Blade uses your casting stat, which in the case of the Sorcer in the OP is CHA.

 

[ECMO3]

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

The spell creates a new action in addition to the 9 in the PHB. Just like the Dragon's breath spell or the Witchbolt spell or several others.

When you use your action to breath fire on someone with Dragon's Breath it is not the attack action, it is not the cast a spell action it is a different action. Same with Witch Bolt after the fist round, same with this spell.

 

[ECMO3]

I also think that using improvised weapon doesn’t really make sense with the spell, particularly not with any ability to add strength bonus damage since that’s not part of the original spell.

An improvised weapon attack is an "attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands"

According to the Flame Blade spell you are holding it "in your free hand" So I think by the rules you can use it as an improvised weapon.

When you wield an improvised weapon, you normally add your strength bonus to the attack and damage.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The spell creates a new action in addition to the 9 in the PHB. Just like the Dragon's breath spell or the Witchbolt spell or several others.

Both of these spells are different from what we are discussing.

Dragon's Breath does create a new kind of action, as the spell description says. It is not an "attack" action, because it doesn't involve a roll to hit. That's why the spell description does not use the word attack.

Witch Bolt is different again. In the first round, the player takes the "Cast a Spell" action and as part of that gets to make a spell attack. Extra Attack does not come into play because they haven't made an Attack action. Subsequent rounds are not an attack, because there is no attack roll, and damage is done automatically.

Neither of these matches the case of Flame Blade. Casting it is a bonus action (not an action, involving "Cast a Spell"). When it comes time for the character to take an action, though, they make a "melee spell attack".

You are right that different spells operate differently, and these outline some of the permutations. Your examples have strengthened my sense of what is being said and intended in the case of Flame Blade.

 

[mamba]

An improvised weapon attack is an "attack with whatever is at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands"

an actual weapon is not an improvised weapon

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

an actual weapon is not an improvised weapon

Also, a spell effect is not an object. Neither is a non-magical flame, for that matter.
RAW, I see no support for treating a Flame Blade as an improvised weapon, and plenty of reasons to disallow it. If the spell was meant to create an actual flaming weapon, it would have said so.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The spell is garbage. That is the main problem here. The upcast scaling is terrible. Even if you are a level 20 fighter who somehow gets access to this spell at 9th level, we are speaking of only 6d6 damage per hit (without any stat modifier) if cast with a level 8 spell. It still needs to hit (without being a magic weapon) It is single target and takes your concentration slot.

So we are speaking of 24d6 damage per round (48d6 damage with action surge) in the best case. For an 8th level spell. For a lvl20 fighter. Ok. I admit. That is not that bad. But that is nigh impossible with normal rules. The best you can achieve is level 11 fighter eldritch knight with 9 levels of druid and someone else casting haste on you. You have great con saves and 3 attacks (4 with haste), action surge and level 6 slots.

So it is 15d6 damage (30d6 with action surge), 20d6 with haste (35 with haste and action surge).
That averages only 122.5 * hit chance damage in the first round of combat. Costing two concentration slots, a bonus action to cast from you. An action from the other spellcaster. A level 8 and a level 3 spell slot and you run the risk of losing concentration or worse the other spellcaster losing concentration. After that it averages to just 70 * hut chance damage per round.

Meanwhile a great weapon battle master level 20 with a great sword, precision attack has 4 attacks of 2d6+15 damage and precision attack to negate the -5 to hit. And a simple level 1 spell like bless will get you another bonus to hit, and cast with a level 3 spell, probably the whole party will benefit too (including the spellcastter boosting thwir own concentration saves). Not to mention magic weapons that are probably available at that level.

So in the worst case we are speaking of 8d6+60 damage. For the first 2 rounds 16d6+120 damage (two action surges), even leaving the bonus action free for a probable 9th attack from great weapon mastery. That averages 162 * hit chance damage for the first 2 rounds and 88*hit chance therafter (maybe a little bit reduced hit chance due to having no superiority dice left.. but since you started well ahead the flame blade user, no issues here).

I am really wondering how anyone in their right mind considers this spell broken in any way, even when used woth a high level spell from someone with extra attacks.

I think the best fix would indeed be just improving the scaling to 1d6 extra damage per upcast spell slot and maybe just removing concentration. The spell is not worth using otherwise.

10d6 fire damage with a melee spell attack at level 9 does not sound broken, does it?

Edit: the new true strike or shilelagh (old or new) easily surpass flame blade. I'd take a cantrip for 1d8+spell casting modifier without concentration over it 3d6 for a level 2 spell slot and concentration every day.

I'd use the spell slot and concentration for fairy fire and happily whack my opponents. Or I just cast flaming sphere to add 2d6 fire damage to possibly more than one opponent as a bonus action and also having some area controll.

 

[Clint_L]

Yup, exactly. Now say what kind of action is a "melee spell attack"?
I'll give you a hint! The choices are in the PHB pp. 192-93.

(Another hint: PHB 195, under melee attacks: "A few spell also involve making a melee attack."

I’m trying to have a productive conversation but not a mind reader. If you have a point, make the point instead of being passive aggressive.