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

[I'm A Banana]

Hmm. That possibly says two things, though.
- You may only use this special action to make any kind of melee attack;
~or~
- You may use this special action to make a spell melee attack.

So IMHO a valid interpretation might be that you could make non-spell melee attacks normally with the blade, or use the special action to make a spell melee attack.

Opportunity attacks would be non-spell melee attacks, under that interpretation.

I can see that interpretation, though I'd probably say a 3d6+ OA or bonus action attack does not seem to be in line with the power of these attacks, and so likely isn't intended.

But I can't exactly blame a DM for ruling some other way - it's a judgement call at the end of the day.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Does that end up being a problem, for those who've used those spells? I've always wondered.

While its a non-standard use, I allow the druid in my campaign to cast Shillelagh on his Staff of the Adder. The main benefit being that he can then use his Wisdom modifier instead of Strength on the attack roll. It requires two rounds (since casting Shillelagh and activating the staff use bonus actions) but it's effective for those times when he doesn't want to waste a spell.

 

[Jaelommiss]

I was just considering making an opportunity attack with magic a couple nights back. The PHB says that "you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature." I was surprised when it didn't specify that it had to be a melee weapon attack. I checked and this has not been changed with errata.

I then decided to look through the spells to see what spells gave you the ability to make melee attacks without having to cast the spell at the same time. For example, Shocking Grasp has the caster make a melee spell attack, but has a casting time of one action and thus cannot be cast as a reaction. I found that flame blade, Mordenkainen's sword, spiritual weapon, and vampiric touch all give the caster the ability to make melee attacks without having the cast the spell at that moment. Three of them create magical weapons and the last gives your touch the ability to drain life from people. It seems reasonable that any of these could be used for an opportunity attack.

But I can't exactly blame a DM for ruling some other way - it's a judgement call at the end of the day.

Really this is the best way to put it. It can be argued both ways, but it is something that the DM will have to choose for the table when/if it comes up.

 

[Nifft]

(...) and so likely isn't intended.

It's difficult to say, because the spell Flame Blade is quite underwhelming without OA or bonus action attacks.

But I can't exactly blame a DM for ruling some other way - it's a judgement call at the end of the day.

Really this is the best way to put it. It can be argued both ways, but it is something that the DM will have to choose for the table when/if it comes up.

Nah, be honest: it's a cop-out.

The rules say: Hey DM, we could have thought about this, but instead, we're going to make you spend some time thinking about it -- and we'll make you do that thinking while you're busy, in the middle of trying to run a game.

This is not an issue with a lot of campaign-specific flavor. It's pure mechanics.

It is an issue which will have a predictable mechanical impact on several spells, and on some PC archetypes (melee-magic types).

 

[Rune]

I'd rule "no" at my tables. "You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade" = "You cannot make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade, except as an action."

Note that it still benefits from Action Surge - a druid with flame blade and Action Surge could do two melee spell attacks with it in a round.

I'd let a druid make a OA or TWF attack with Shillelagh, though.

Somewhere in there is a melee spell druid/fighter build, I bet.

Well, Shillelagh can benefit from Polearm Master, so there's that.

I was just considering making an opportunity attack with magic a couple nights back. The PHB says that "you use your reaction to make one melee attack against the provoking creature." I was surprised when it didn't specify that it had to be a melee weapon attack. I checked and this has not been changed with errata.

I then decided to look through the spells to see what spells gave you the ability to make melee attacks without having to cast the spell at the same time. For example, Shocking Grasp has the caster make a melee spell attack, but has a casting time of one action and thus cannot be cast as a reaction. I found that flame blade, Mordenkainen's sword, spiritual weapon, and vampiric touch all give the caster the ability to make melee attacks without having the cast the spell at that moment.

That almost makes Mordenkainen's Sword worth cas...wait, no. It does not.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's difficult to say, because the spell Flame Blade is quite underwhelming without OA or bonus action attacks.

I dunno that I'd agree with that - its main competitors at its level are flaming sphere, moonbeam, and heat metal. The last isn't bad, but it's pretty situational. The first is OK, but it's not party friendly. The middle is perhaps the closest direct competitor, and has the edge on damage, but the two spells serve two pretty distinct purposes - moonbeam for a cluster of weak enemies, flame blade for the single powerful enemy.

(Also worth noting that 3d6 is pretty amazing on a crit, but Moonbeam can't crit, though this doesn't affect most castings of the spell).

Nah, be honest: it's a cop-out.

The rules say: Hey DM, we could have thought about this, but instead, we're going to make you spend some time thinking about it -- and we'll make you do that thinking while you're busy, in the middle of trying to run a game.

This is not an issue with a lot of campaign-specific flavor. It's pure mechanics.

It is an issue which will have a predictable mechanical impact on several spells, and on some PC archetypes (melee-magic types).

While I think some instances of "DM judgement call" are pretty cop-out (like the stealth rules), I don't agree with that take for this particular spell. The reading of most spells is that they tell you explicitly what can be done with the spell, and anything they don't specifically allow is in the realm of DM judgement. Flame blade doesn't specifically light things on fire, but I'd probably let it do that, and another DM wouldn't, and we'd both be OK. Flame blade doesn't explicitly let you make an OA with it, but some DMs will allow it, and others won't, and it's broadly fine either way. The game's not so fragile that this would break it.

This falls within the purview of the DM to shape their own game. If your character build is reliant on making OA's with flame blade to contribute, I'd say that's a good thing to actually ask your DM about, given that D&D is made to be played by a group of human beings who can talk to each other and not text parsers running on auto-pilot. Discussing what you want to have happen with your character, and DMs making rulings, is part and parcel of playing D&D, to me. I don't need a super-clinical Attack line that is only able to be interpreted one way - that's not adding value to the game for me.

 

[the Jester]

Cantrips are fine for low levels, but some don't scale or don't keep up with the damage possible by other classes.

Yes they do. Read the book, yo.

 

[Remathilis]

My group's wizard is a mountain dwarf; he uses a battle axe two-handed and wears scale mail when foes come close.

 

[Nifft]

the two spells serve two pretty distinct purposes - moonbeam for a cluster of weak enemies, flame blade for the single powerful enemy.

Flame Blade is a Concentration spell which requires the caster to remain in melee range.

You cannot expect to use Flame Blade for any particular duration.

It's not a strong spell.

This falls within the purview of the DM to shape their own game. If your character build is reliant on making OA's with flame blade to contribute, I'd say that's a good thing to actually ask your DM about, given that D&D is made to be played by a group of human beings who can talk to each other and not text parsers running on auto-pilot. Discussing what you want to have happen with your character, and DMs making rulings, is part and parcel of playing D&D, to me. I don't need a super-clinical Attack line that is only able to be interpreted one way - that's not adding value to the game for me.

Everything falls within the purview of the DM to shape. Everything. That's not a special bonus which sloppy writing enables. Sloppy writing is just sloppy.

Clear rules help players and DMs communicate. They're not for parsers on auto-pilot, and it's unexpected to find such a venomous anti-intellectual attitude on this forum, but whatever.

The whole point of rules existing is to help the conversation between the players and the DM, to help the DM focus on the parts of the game that he or she wants to focus on (i.e. not writing a whole book of rules). This sloppy writing does not help that conversation.

Good writing helps to set the player's expectations. Bad writing like this causes a conflict in expectations, and forces the DM into the role of taking away the nice thing the player thought he or she had discovered.

wears scale mail when foes come close.

"Cover me, lads! I'm in melee, an' I need to put on me armor!"

 

[I'm A Banana]

Flame Blade is a Concentration spell which requires the caster to remain in melee range.

You cannot expect to use Flame Blade for any particular duration.

It's not a strong spell.

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.

Everything falls within the purview of the DM to shape. Everything. That's not a special bonus which sloppy writing enables. Sloppy writing is just sloppy.

Clear rules help players and DMs communicate. They're not for parsers on auto-pilot, and it's unexpected to find such a venomous anti-intellectual attitude on this forum, but whatever.

The whole point of rules existing is to help the conversation between the players and the DM, to help the DM focus on the parts of the game that he or she wants to focus on (i.e. not writing a whole book of rules). This sloppy writing does not help that conversation.

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.

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.

A spell's description says what it does - what it is intended to do. If it does anything above and beyond that description, that's up to the DM. That's just letting DMs rule based on their view of the world. Maybe a flame blade something that is difficult to wield as a weapon due to being a scimitar of scalding fire (one attack per action might indicate that)? Or not? Not up to the RAW.