D&D 5E Why do wizards STILL have to use daggers, etc.?

[Nifft]

I think it's fine - melee range is an acceptable thing for druids, at least for a few rounds (especially moon druids), and it's concentration because it's an attack buff. I don't think it's weak without being able to be OA'd and TWF'd.

(Moon) Druids are fine in melee because of Wild Shape, which is not a Concentration effect.

But there is a big distinction between sloppy writing and the wording of flame blade, which doesn't seem sloppy, just not exhaustively detailed, because overly clinical writing might not be sloppy, but it's still bad writing, made opaque with jargon and minutae.

I think your point is that bad writing is not limited to omission, and that an over-abundance of detail can also be bad.

That's also true -- but not relevant to this situation.

The existence of other kinds of bad writing elsewhere does not excuse the sloppy writing in this specific spell.

Another way to put that: using flame blade to make OA's or bonus attacks isn't an essential part of the spell, so it's not something the rules text is too worried about.

Why not? Using this spell along side bonus attacks is pretty essential for characters who get both. Even without multi-classing, it's relevant for Valor Bards.

The characters who care about a weapon-like spell are the characters who have focused at least somewhat on using weapons.

A spell's description says what it does - what it is intended to do.

That's exactly WHY there's a conflict in interpretation.

The first paragraph says that the spell creates a blade.

The third paragraph talks about one way in which the blade does not behave like an ordinary blade.

 

[Gillywonka]

Give your wizard a long sword and ask your GM if you can start out with it and be proficient in it. I'm running now and we're at 4th level. During character creation, i let the players, regardless of class, choose any weapon they wanted. They received it as a starting item and are proficient in it.

 

[Agamon]

The wizard in my group likes using his dagger. Granted, it's +2 and does an extra 2d6 fire damage on a hit, among other things, but hey, wizard with a dagger.

 

[I'm A Banana]

(Moon) Druids are fine in melee because of Wild Shape, which is not a Concentration effect.

They're also fine with Concentration checks because they've got a robust Constitution saving throw.

Again, just saying that I don't think the spell needs OA's and bonus action attacks to be viable. Though [MENTION=6775925]Jaelommiss[/MENTION] 's comments totally have me re-visiting whether or not I'd let it happen IMC.

I think your point is that bad writing is not limited to omission, and that an over-abundance of detail can also be bad.

That's also true -- but not relevant to this situation.

The existence of other kinds of bad writing elsewhere does not excuse the sloppy writing in this specific spell.

It's relevant only in that the antidote to the lack of clarity here is to refer to more jargon.

Why not? Using this spell along side bonus attacks is pretty essential for characters who get both. Even without multi-classing, it's relevant for Valor Bards.

The characters who care about a weapon-like spell are the characters who have focused at least somewhat on using weapons.

If it was essential for the intended functioning of the spell, it would either (a) already be clarified or (b) indeed be sloppy writing. But a circumstantial 3d6 damage attack roll isn't a tremendous effector of the power of the spell either way.

That's exactly WHY there's a conflict in interpretation.

The first paragraph says that the spell creates a blade.

The third paragraph talks about one way in which the blade does not behave like an ordinary blade.

Things created by spells are generally used only as those spells dictate. Does a chill shield created by fire shield freeze water and make you bouyant? What if you're swallowed by a water elemental? Can Bigby's Hand grant cover? Does Otiluke's Resilient Sphere float, or just make the water breathable?

The rules don't say. It's not considered vital to the usual effects of those spells. It's up to the DM. I'd probably tend to "no" in all instances, but I don't think a DM who does it some other way is wrong to do so.

That's not sloppy writing, it's just a weeding out of needless paragraphs. It doesn't matter very much if Bigby's Hand grants cover - the game is fine either way.

 

[Nifft]

It's relevant only in that the antidote to the lack of clarity here is to refer to more jargon.

"The blade functions as a normal weapon, except as follows."
OH LORD, SAVE ME FROM THE JARGON!

(In case it's not clear, this means: there is no requirement for jargon. Just clearer writing.)

If it was essential for the intended functioning of the spell, it would either (a) already be clarified or (b) indeed be sloppy writing. But a circumstantial 3d6 damage attack roll isn't a tremendous effector of the power of the spell either way.

The spell's intention is not actually written anywhere.

You are assuming one intention, and I'm trying to show how two different intentions could be inferred from the text.

The fact that there is no clear intention is the basic issue here.

Things created by spells are generally used only as those spells dictate. (...) Can Bigby's Hand grant cover?

Interposing Hand. The hand interposes itself between you and a creature you choose until you give the hand a different command. The hand moves to stay between you and the target, providing you with half cover against the target.

So... yeah.

I have no issue with the level of text explanation given for Bigby's Hand.

I want that kind of clarity for all spells.

The rules don't say. It's not considered vital to the usual effects of those spells. It's up to the DM. I'd probably tend to "no" in all instances, but I don't think a DM who does it some other way is wrong to do so.

That's not sloppy writing, it's just a weeding out of needless paragraphs.

"The blade functions as a normal weapon, except as follows."
OH LORD, SAVE ME FROM THE PARAGRAPHS!

But seriously, I'm talking about the melee implications of a spell that only works in melee. It's not an unusual situation or unexpected side-effect. Melee is the central function of the spell. Knowing how the spell interacts with melee is very relevant, and is not very difficult to specify.