How does the flame blade actually work? Does it take a spell slot? After I summon it do I still get to use Shillelagh? Action economy wise how would it work?
Would it be attack: Quaterstaff/Bonus Action Summon Blade
next turn attack: flame blade/bonus action Shillelagh?
Flame Blade is a second level spell and accordingly takes a second level (or higher) spell slot to cast.
Flame Blade has a casting time of a Bonus Action. So you cannot cast Shillelagh in the same turn because they both have a casting time of a Bonus Action. Also Flame Blade is just the better option between the two unless you have multi-classed into something with Extra Attack.
If you use Flame Blade the turn would likely go like this: Bonus Action - Cast Flame Blade, Action - Use the melee spell attack granted by Flame Blade.
Flame Blade is a second level spell and accordingly takes a second level (or higher) spell slot to cast.
Flame Blade has a casting time of a Bonus Action. So you cannot cast Shillelagh in the same turn because they both have a casting time of a Bonus Action. Also Flame Blade is just the better option between the two unless you have multi-classed into something with Extra Attack.
If you use Flame Blade the turn would likely go like this: Bonus Action - Cast Flame Blade, Action - Use the melee spell attack granted by Flame Blade.
Thank you, I will be sure to let the druid in my party know that.
Oh, just also as an FYI Flame Blade is a bad spell. By 5th level Primal Savagery is strictly better and doesn't take up spell slots or concentration.
Huh. You're right. 3d6 averages 10.5, 1d10 averages 11. And acid is even a better damage type than fire (unless you have elemental adept fire maybe, but even still...).
Oh, just also as an FYI Flame Blade is a bad spell. By 5th level Primal Savagery is strictly better and doesn't take up spell slots or concentration.
Huh. You're right. 3d6 averages 10.5, 1d10 averages 11. And acid is even a better damage type than fire (unless you have elemental adept fire maybe, but even still...).
Yeah, personally I wish it worked like Shadow Blade where it conjured a literal Scimitar that did fire damage and used your Spellcasting ability modifier.
Then you could use it to make opportunity attacks and combine it with Sneak Attack. It is unfortunate that such a risky Druid exclusive spell ends up being worse than a cantrip.
Flame Blade is a second level spell and accordingly takes a second level (or higher) spell slot to cast.
Flame Blade has a casting time of a Bonus Action. So you cannot cast Shillelagh in the same turn because they both have a casting time of a Bonus Action. Also Flame Blade is just the better option between the two unless you have multi-classed into something with Extra Attack.
If you use Flame Blade the turn would likely go like this: Bonus Action - Cast Flame Blade, Action - Use the melee spell attack granted by Flame Blade.
Thank you, I will be sure to let the druid in my party know that.
Good thing Flame Blade is just a prepared spell and not a cantrip, so the druid can swap it out without issue.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Oh, just also as an FYI Flame Blade is a bad spell. By 5th level Primal Savagery is strictly better and doesn't take up spell slots or concentration.
Huh. You're right. 3d6 averages 10.5, 1d10 averages 11. And acid is even a better damage type than fire (unless you have elemental adept fire maybe, but even still...).
Never noticed that either. It would be better if it worked off a bonus action on the attack, so you could cast a cantrip as an action, similar to Spiritual weapon.
Of course, if you don't really want to touch or bite that ooze...
Oh, just also as an FYI Flame Blade is a bad spell. By 5th level Primal Savagery is strictly better and doesn't take up spell slots or concentration.
Huh. You're right. 3d6 averages 10.5, 1d10 averages 11. And acid is even a better damage type than fire (unless you have elemental adept fire maybe, but even still...).
Never noticed that either. It would be better if it worked off a bonus action on the attack, so you could cast a cantrip as an action, similar to Spiritual weapon.
Of course, if you don't really want to touch or bite that ooze...
Yeah, I'm going to homebrew it so it uses bonus action to attack. That makes it comparable to flaming sphere (better damage, but melee and no area denial).
A lot of lower level (1st and 2nd) attack spells are good only for a few levels.
Sleep for example is an incredible spell at 1st level. No concentration, takes out 5d8 HP worth of creatures and at 1st level each creature has 6-12 hp, so you take out about 4 with one action. But 2nd level cuts that in half to two, and once you hit 3rd you might not even take out 1 creature. Upcasting doesn't make sense either.
Flame blade is a similar spell. As a 2nd level spell, when you get it at 3rd level it is impressive - long enough duration to cast before battle, provides light as well as an attack, works well. When you hit 4th level it is still OK, but when you hit 5th it begins to suck as others mentioned.
A lot of lower level (1st and 2nd) attack spells are good only for a few levels.
Sleep for example is an incredible spell at 1st level. No concentration, takes out 5d8 HP worth of creatures and at 1st level each creature has 6-12 hp, so you take out about 4 with one action. But 2nd level cuts that in half to two, and once you hit 3rd you might not even take out 1 creature. Upcasting doesn't make sense either.
Flame blade is a similar spell. As a 2nd level spell, when you get it at 3rd level it is impressive - long enough duration to cast before battle, provides light as well as an attack, works well. When you hit 4th level it is still OK, but when you hit 5th it begins to suck as others mentioned.
Yeah, but sleep isn't a concentration spell that is completely replaceable by a cantrip. Most spells that are "only good at low level" are either replaced by a higher level spell or still offer some niche option that more damaging spells don't.
In theory Flame Blade could still be used while Wild Shaped (where a cantrip can't be). However, it has the requirement that you must hold the blade. So it only works with forms that have hands that can hold something, which isn't many.
In theory Flame Blade could still be used while Wild Shaped (where a cantrip can't be). However, it has the requirement that you must hold the blade. So it only works with forms that have hands that can hold something, which isn't many.
I imagine the go to for that would be ape, which does more damage with its multiattack than flame blade any way...
I know most people don't much like this interpretation, so i won't respond to anyone who tries to start a back and forth about it in this thread, I'm just going to point it out and move on:
You are free to attack with non-weapon objects, even blades made of fire, by using the improvised weapon rules. How exactly that'd turn out for you would be heavily DM dependent, since they make all the decisions for what improvised weapons do/work within the guidance the PHB provides. But, they'd be well within the rules to allow you to use the thing as a scimitar that does does fire damage if they determine the scimitar-like blade is "similar" to a scimitar. Ymmv.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I know most people don't much like this interpretation, so i won't respond to anyone who tries to start a back and forth about it in this thread, I'm just going to point it out and move on:
You are free to attack with non-weapon objects, even blades made of fire, by using the improvised weapon rules. How exactly that'd turn out for you would be heavily DM dependent, since they make all the decisions for what improvised weapons do/work within the guidance the PHB provides. But, they'd be well within the rules to allow you to use the thing as a scimitar that does does fire damage if they determine the scimitar-like blade is "similar" to a scimitar. Ymmv.
I'm not sure "fire" counts as an object, but that aside... Even if the DM decides it deals 1d4, if you have extra attack and a +3 modifier it is still better than the spell.
Definitely worthy of discussing with DM if you are a martial multiclass.
Flame blade is trash. I do t think a druid should be in melee anyways, but a druid is proficient with scimitars. A druid using two weapon fighting, with no fighting style, does ever so slightly less damage than a druid using flame blade. Flame blade is a 2nd level spell, so that seems unacceptable to me. If you use continual flame on one of your weapons, it actually produces more light than the flame blade too.
mad others have pointed out primal savagery out damages it at level 5. There are also a few spells on the druid list that can really add up in damage while utilizing interesting control features, which puts flame blade to shame.
On a side note and way late to the party, would Flame Blade allow for a Druid/Monk multiclass to make Flurry of Blows attacks? Would I be able to make an extra attack with flame blade?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
How does the flame blade actually work? Does it take a spell slot? After I summon it do I still get to use Shillelagh? Action economy wise how would it work?
Would it be attack: Quaterstaff/Bonus Action Summon Blade
next turn attack: flame blade/bonus action Shillelagh?
Just seeking clarification
Flame Blade is a second level spell and accordingly takes a second level (or higher) spell slot to cast.
Flame Blade has a casting time of a Bonus Action. So you cannot cast Shillelagh in the same turn because they both have a casting time of a Bonus Action. Also Flame Blade is just the better option between the two unless you have multi-classed into something with Extra Attack.
If you use Flame Blade the turn would likely go like this: Bonus Action - Cast Flame Blade, Action - Use the melee spell attack granted by Flame Blade.
Oh, just also as an FYI Flame Blade is a bad spell. By 5th level Primal Savagery is strictly better and doesn't take up spell slots or concentration.
Thank you, I will be sure to let the druid in my party know that.
Huh. You're right. 3d6 averages 10.5, 1d10 averages 11. And acid is even a better damage type than fire (unless you have elemental adept fire maybe, but even still...).
Yeah, personally I wish it worked like Shadow Blade where it conjured a literal Scimitar that did fire damage and used your Spellcasting ability modifier.
Then you could use it to make opportunity attacks and combine it with Sneak Attack. It is unfortunate that such a risky Druid exclusive spell ends up being worse than a cantrip.
Good thing Flame Blade is just a prepared spell and not a cantrip, so the druid can swap it out without issue.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Never noticed that either. It would be better if it worked off a bonus action on the attack, so you could cast a cantrip as an action, similar to Spiritual weapon.
Of course, if you don't really want to touch or bite that ooze...
Yeah, I'm going to homebrew it so it uses bonus action to attack. That makes it comparable to flaming sphere (better damage, but melee and no area denial).
A lot of lower level (1st and 2nd) attack spells are good only for a few levels.
Sleep for example is an incredible spell at 1st level. No concentration, takes out 5d8 HP worth of creatures and at 1st level each creature has 6-12 hp, so you take out about 4 with one action. But 2nd level cuts that in half to two, and once you hit 3rd you might not even take out 1 creature. Upcasting doesn't make sense either.
Flame blade is a similar spell. As a 2nd level spell, when you get it at 3rd level it is impressive - long enough duration to cast before battle, provides light as well as an attack, works well. When you hit 4th level it is still OK, but when you hit 5th it begins to suck as others mentioned.
Yeah, but sleep isn't a concentration spell that is completely replaceable by a cantrip. Most spells that are "only good at low level" are either replaced by a higher level spell or still offer some niche option that more damaging spells don't.
In theory Flame Blade could still be used while Wild Shaped (where a cantrip can't be). However, it has the requirement that you must hold the blade. So it only works with forms that have hands that can hold something, which isn't many.
I imagine the go to for that would be ape, which does more damage with its multiattack than flame blade any way...
I know most people don't much like this interpretation, so i won't respond to anyone who tries to start a back and forth about it in this thread, I'm just going to point it out and move on:
You are free to attack with non-weapon objects, even blades made of fire, by using the improvised weapon rules. How exactly that'd turn out for you would be heavily DM dependent, since they make all the decisions for what improvised weapons do/work within the guidance the PHB provides. But, they'd be well within the rules to allow you to use the thing as a scimitar that does does fire damage if they determine the scimitar-like blade is "similar" to a scimitar. Ymmv.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I'm not sure "fire" counts as an object, but that aside... Even if the DM decides it deals 1d4, if you have extra attack and a +3 modifier it is still better than the spell.
Definitely worthy of discussing with DM if you are a martial multiclass.
Flame blade is trash. I do t think a druid should be in melee anyways, but a druid is proficient with scimitars. A druid using two weapon fighting, with no fighting style, does ever so slightly less damage than a druid using flame blade. Flame blade is a 2nd level spell, so that seems unacceptable to me. If you use continual flame on one of your weapons, it actually produces more light than the flame blade too.
mad others have pointed out primal savagery out damages it at level 5. There are also a few spells on the druid list that can really add up in damage while utilizing interesting control features, which puts flame blade to shame.
On a side note and way late to the party, would Flame Blade allow for a Druid/Monk multiclass to make Flurry of Blows attacks? Would I be able to make an extra attack with flame blade?