I apologize dearly for asking the flame blade question I didn't mean to start a rules war. As it stands the Spirit of the question has been answered. I missed the part of the spell explicitly stating it takes a full action to make a melee spell attack with it. This one line answers my question and also showed me I was conceptually thinking of its usage in the wrong context. which is probably good because making two attacks a round with this thing even at base level was proving to be busted. either way, I appreciate the clarification and apologize for starting a civil war.
There had been an argument in a completely different thread about spell attacks (which is now pages back) that your question about Flame Blade caused to spread to this thread. Totally not your fault.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
main hand and off hand are not stated, it is one hand and the other hand. so if you wield a long sword and a short sword you can attack with the long sword and as a bonus action with the short sword or you can attack with the short sword and as a bonus action with the long sword.
This matters because if, for example, you are a rogue/fighter with dual wield and extra attack you can attack with the short sword twice (action) then the long sword (bonus) and if both short sword attacks missed (meaning no sneak attack because you cant use a longsword for sneak attack) use action surge for 2 further short sword attacks, if either hit (so you used sneak attack) you could use action surge for 2 long sword attacks. Why would you do that? Maybe you have a plain old short sword and a dragon slayer long sword.
main hand and off hand are not stated, it is one hand and the other hand. so if you wield a long sword and a short sword you can attack with the long sword and as a bonus action with the short sword or you can attack with the short sword and as a bonus action with the long sword.
This matters because if, for example, you are a rogue/fighter with dual wield and extra attack you can attack with the short sword twice (action) then the long sword (bonus) and if both short sword attacks missed (meaning no sneak attack because you cant use a longsword for sneak attack) use action surge for 2 further short sword attacks, if either hit (so you used sneak attack) you could use action surge for 2 long sword attacks. Why would you do that? Maybe you have a plain old short sword and a dragon slayer long sword.
Or, if your first short sword attack lands and allows you to sneak attack, you can take the second attack and the bonus action attack with the longsword.
shadow blade is so busted that i wonder if i really need haste after it...
anyway... dual wiedling only requires that 1 of your weapon be light, this allows dual wielding easily. thats what i love about it in 5e. its easier to dual wield.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
A flame blade, is not an object, it’s a spell effect.
Suppose your PC casts flame blade and is standing there holding it, and then six seconds later my PC stands right next to you and spends a minute to cast tiny hut. Six seconds after the hut goes up a black pudding lands on the dome. (Oh no!) My PC draws their scimitar and prepares to chop at the pudding through the dome. “Wait!” Shouts your PC, “You might cut in in twain and then there will be two of them. I’ll use this.” With that, your PC slashes their flame blade at the black pudding and… absolutely nothing happens because spell effects cannot pas through the dome.
If you wanna say that the flame blade would in fact pass through that dome because it’s an “object” and not a “spell effect,” then that is absolutely fine… as a houserule in your home game. But that ain’t RAW no way no how.
If you doubt that then I kindly invite you to ask TFG:
ask yourself... if flame blade is an object, then that means enemy can disarm your flame blade and then pick it up and use it against you ? there are major consequences to making a spell effect an object. imagine me making shadow blade, and then just giving it to one of my compatriot who has more things to do with it then me. now shadow blade specify that it comes back to my hand if it leaves it... but that still is a question to ask... does thatmena flame blade can be given to somebody else since its an object and everyone can interact with objects ? does that mean i can enchant it as well for it to be more owerfull ? i can guarantee you, once you start asking those questions, that DM will start giving you the RAW. meaning its a spell effect !
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
shadow blade is so busted that i wonder if i really need haste after it...
anyway... dual wiedling only requires that 1 of your weapon be light, this allows dual wielding easily. thats what i love about it in 5e. its easier to dual wield.
Dual wielding requires that both weapons be light unless you have the feat for it, which makes it so neither has to be light
I really don't get how this has been a topic for 3 thread pages? It literally says in the fluff for flame blade it's a Melee Spell Attack. That's not a weapon attack, so you can't use two weapon fighting with it
I really don't get how this has been a topic for 3 thread pages? It literally says in the fluff for flame blade it's a Melee Spell Attack. That's not a weapon attack, so you can't use two weapon fighting with it
If you cudgel someone with the stock of a crossbow using improved weapon rules... would you still insist they made a ranged attack?
If you're using improvised weapon rules to attack with an improvised weapon, even a blade made out of fire, you follow the rules for improvised weapons.
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 really don't get how this has been a topic for 3 thread pages? It literally says in the fluff for flame blade it's a Melee Spell Attack. That's not a weapon attack, so you can't use two weapon fighting with it
because people confuses the scimitar part. which is not the weapon it summons... it just says, it looks like a scimitar. but its not a scimitar.
so yeah, dual wielding it, is impossible. but shadow blade can be dual wielded but thats also a point of confusion... people tend to think flame blade and shadow blade are identical... i thought they were until this discussion hapenned.
so yeah flame blade has confusion in it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
I really don't get how this has been a topic for 3 thread pages? It literally says in the fluff for flame blade it's a Melee Spell Attack. That's not a weapon attack, so you can't use two weapon fighting with it
If you cudgel someone with the stock of a crossbow using improved weapon rules... would you still insist they made a ranged attack?
If you're using improvised weapon rules to attack with an improvised weapon, even a blade made out of fire, you follow the rules for improvised weapons.
But it's not an improvised weapon in the case of the Flame blade, it literally says when using it to make a Melee Spell Attack. Meaning it's a SPELL ATTACK. The logic being used here makes no sense when RAW calls out what type of attack the Flame Blade is
I really don't get how this has been a topic for 3 thread pages? It literally says in the fluff for flame blade it's a Melee Spell Attack. That's not a weapon attack, so you can't use two weapon fighting with it
because people confuses the scimitar part. which is not the weapon it summons... it just says, it looks like a scimitar. but its not a scimitar.
so yeah, dual wielding it, is impossible. but shadow blade can be dual wielded but thats also a point of confusion... people tend to think flame blade and shadow blade are identical... i thought they were until this discussion hapenned.
so yeah flame blade has confusion in it.
Honestly all the time i've been playing games like DnD and other table tops, 90% of the time the confusion comes from people not taking the time to reread the rules/description of the spell/weapon/talent/trait/feat/etc they're looking to use
I really don't get how this has been a topic for 3 thread pages? It literally says in the fluff for flame blade it's a Melee Spell Attack. That's not a weapon attack, so you can't use two weapon fighting with it
If you cudgel someone with the stock of a crossbow using improved weapon rules... would you still insist they made a ranged attack?
If you're using improvised weapon rules to attack with an improvised weapon, even a blade made out of fire, you follow the rules for improvised weapons.
But it's not an improvised weapon in the case of the Flame blade, it literally says when using it to make a Melee Spell Attack. Meaning it's a SPELL ATTACK. The logic being used here makes no sense when RAW calls out what type of attack the Flame Blade is
Anything can be used to make improvised attacks. Anything.
An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Anything.
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 really don't get how this has been a topic for 3 thread pages? It literally says in the fluff for flame blade it's a Melee Spell Attack. That's not a weapon attack, so you can't use two weapon fighting with it
If you cudgel someone with the stock of a crossbow using improved weapon rules... would you still insist they made a ranged attack?
If you're using improvised weapon rules to attack with an improvised weapon, even a blade made out of fire, you follow the rules for improvised weapons.
But it's not an improvised weapon in the case of the Flame blade, it literally says when using it to make a Melee Spell Attack. Meaning it's a SPELL ATTACK. The logic being used here makes no sense when RAW calls out what type of attack the Flame Blade is
Anything can be used to make improvised attacks. Anything.
An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Anything.
Except it's not an Object, The spell has an appearance yes, but it does not create a physical object. It is a SPELL ATTACK,
Except it's not an Object, The spell has an appearance yes, but it does not create a physical object. It is a SPELL ATTACK,
There's no question it's an object - almost everything is an object. For example, an Echo Knight's Echo is an object. There's also no question Ravnodaus is incorrect; many objects can't be used to make improvised attacks. For example, a cloud. In order to be used as an improvised weapon, the RAW states that the object must be one you can "wield in one or two hands", and it's important to note that wield is not a defined game term (which leads to separate rules debates about shields, two-weapon fighting, and some other rules). As a result, it's up to your DM what can be used as an improvised weapon, as anything they declare to be unwieldable can't be (e.g. many DMs definitely declare fists to be unwieldable, unless you're wielding one belonging to someone else). There's absolutely no reason a DM couldn't say that "wield" implies the object has to be solid, and therefore only solid objects can be improvised weapons - there's no question flame blades aren't solid objects. Or some other justification.
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 really don't get how this has been a topic for 3 thread pages? It literally says in the fluff for flame blade it's a Melee Spell Attack. That's not a weapon attack, so you can't use two weapon fighting with it
If you cudgel someone with the stock of a crossbow using improved weapon rules... would you still insist they made a ranged attack?
If you're using improvised weapon rules to attack with an improvised weapon, even a blade made out of fire, you follow the rules for improvised weapons.
But it's not an improvised weapon in the case of the Flame blade, it literally says when using it to make a Melee Spell Attack. Meaning it's a SPELL ATTACK. The logic being used here makes no sense when RAW calls out what type of attack the Flame Blade is
Anything can be used to make improvised attacks. Anything.
An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands, such as broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin.
Anything.
So.. I can use the flames of your firebolts and use that as an improvised weapon ?!! Sweet !!!
Flameblade is just pure flames there is no substance to it.you can hold it in you hand because its your spell. Its much more akin to control flames then to a weapon.
Also by your reasoning then anybody can interact with it and just remove it from your hand which makes the spell fail... So yeah... Congratulation you just made the spell worse !
Ps: does that means holding a spell back makes it an improvised weapon as it states the energy is in your hand. Thus i can actually deals 1d4 improvised weapon with a spell im holding. Dont you see it makes no sense ?
DM of two gaming groups. Likes to create stuff. Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games --> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
So barring additional information to the contrary, that sounds like the Attack action to me.
Flame Blade specifically use your action to attack, so you can't take Attack action as well.
Can't take the attack action? Uh...
You can absolutely take the attack action to attack with it. You can attack with anything. You think you can't make an attack with a blade that is similar in size and shape to a scimitar? Why? Says who?
Is there a default Action option built into the spell? Yes. Is that action the Attack Action? No. Can you instead attack with the flame blade with an Attack Action anyway? Sure, of course.
Will it do exactly the damage the spell says? NOPE. You're instead following improvised weapon rules. So your DM will need to adjudicate the result.
For a Scimitar-like blade, made of flame? I'd treat it exactly like a scimitar except it deals fire instead of slashing damage, obviously. That's how I'd rule it as a DM. But DMs could have varying opinions on that. I'd lean into this rule:
Often, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such. For example, a table leg is akin to a club. At the DM's option, a character proficient with a weapon can use a similar object as if it were that weapon and use his or her proficiency bonus.
So you'd treat it exactly like you would any other improvised weapon if they opt to use the attack action to attack with it. You wouldn't use the spell's damage in this case because you're not using it as prescribed by the spell, and instead opting to use it as an improvised weapon, so it would deal damage as prescribed for improvised weapons.
So, by that logic, the Tavern Brawler feat makes you proficient with every weapon and lets you grapple as a bonus action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Because Hiding (like IW) often comes down to “RAW says ask the DM” :)
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I apologize dearly for asking the flame blade question I didn't mean to start a rules war. As it stands the Spirit of the question has been answered. I missed the part of the spell explicitly stating it takes a full action to make a melee spell attack with it. This one line answers my question and also showed me I was conceptually thinking of its usage in the wrong context. which is probably good because making two attacks a round with this thing even at base level was proving to be busted.
either way, I appreciate the clarification and apologize for starting a civil war.
We live for the war, only in battle do we discover our true selves.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
There had been an argument in a completely different thread about spell attacks (which is now pages back) that your question about Flame Blade caused to spread to this thread. Totally not your fault.
Helpful rewriter of Japanese->English translation and delver into software codebases (she/e/they)
main hand and off hand are not stated, it is one hand and the other hand. so if you wield a long sword and a short sword you can attack with the long sword and as a bonus action with the short sword or you can attack with the short sword and as a bonus action with the long sword.
This matters because if, for example, you are a rogue/fighter with dual wield and extra attack you can attack with the short sword twice (action) then the long sword (bonus) and if both short sword attacks missed (meaning no sneak attack because you cant use a longsword for sneak attack) use action surge for 2 further short sword attacks, if either hit (so you used sneak attack) you could use action surge for 2 long sword attacks. Why would you do that? Maybe you have a plain old short sword and a dragon slayer long sword.
Or, if your first short sword attack lands and allows you to sneak attack, you can take the second attack and the bonus action attack with the longsword.
shadow blade is so busted that i wonder if i really need haste after it...
anyway...
dual wiedling only requires that 1 of your weapon be light, this allows dual wielding easily.
thats what i love about it in 5e. its easier to dual wield.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
to add to this...
ask yourself... if flame blade is an object, then that means enemy can disarm your flame blade and then pick it up and use it against you ?
there are major consequences to making a spell effect an object. imagine me making shadow blade, and then just giving it to one of my compatriot who has more things to do with it then me. now shadow blade specify that it comes back to my hand if it leaves it... but that still is a question to ask... does thatmena flame blade can be given to somebody else since its an object and everyone can interact with objects ? does that mean i can enchant it as well for it to be more owerfull ? i can guarantee you, once you start asking those questions, that DM will start giving you the RAW. meaning its a spell effect !
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
Dual wielding requires that both weapons be light unless you have the feat for it, which makes it so neither has to be light
I really don't get how this has been a topic for 3 thread pages? It literally says in the fluff for flame blade it's a Melee Spell Attack. That's not a weapon attack, so you can't use two weapon fighting with it
If you cudgel someone with the stock of a crossbow using improved weapon rules... would you still insist they made a ranged attack?
If you're using improvised weapon rules to attack with an improvised weapon, even a blade made out of fire, you follow the rules for improvised weapons.
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.
because people confuses the scimitar part. which is not the weapon it summons... it just says, it looks like a scimitar. but its not a scimitar.
so yeah, dual wielding it, is impossible. but shadow blade can be dual wielded
but thats also a point of confusion... people tend to think flame blade and shadow blade are identical... i thought they were until this discussion hapenned.
so yeah flame blade has confusion in it.
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
But it's not an improvised weapon in the case of the Flame blade, it literally says when using it to make a Melee Spell Attack. Meaning it's a SPELL ATTACK. The logic being used here makes no sense when RAW calls out what type of attack the Flame Blade is
Honestly all the time i've been playing games like DnD and other table tops, 90% of the time the confusion comes from people not taking the time to reread the rules/description of the spell/weapon/talent/trait/feat/etc they're looking to use
Anything can be used to make improvised attacks. Anything.
Anything.
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.
Except it's not an Object, The spell has an appearance yes, but it does not create a physical object. It is a SPELL ATTACK,
There's no question it's an object - almost everything is an object. For example, an Echo Knight's Echo is an object. There's also no question Ravnodaus is incorrect; many objects can't be used to make improvised attacks. For example, a cloud. In order to be used as an improvised weapon, the RAW states that the object must be one you can "wield in one or two hands", and it's important to note that wield is not a defined game term (which leads to separate rules debates about shields, two-weapon fighting, and some other rules). As a result, it's up to your DM what can be used as an improvised weapon, as anything they declare to be unwieldable can't be (e.g. many DMs definitely declare fists to be unwieldable, unless you're wielding one belonging to someone else). There's absolutely no reason a DM couldn't say that "wield" implies the object has to be solid, and therefore only solid objects can be improvised weapons - there's no question flame blades aren't solid objects. Or some other justification.
flame blade creates a blade. Blades are objects.
flame blade is held in your hand, in fact the spell even describes what happens if you let go of it. So it is certainly solid enough to hold.
Requirements for improvised weapons met. Check, and, check.
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.
So.. I can use the flames of your firebolts and use that as an improvised weapon ?!! Sweet !!!
Flameblade is just pure flames there is no substance to it.you can hold it in you hand because its your spell. Its much more akin to control flames then to a weapon.
Also by your reasoning then anybody can interact with it and just remove it from your hand which makes the spell fail... So yeah... Congratulation you just made the spell worse !
Ps: does that means holding a spell back makes it an improvised weapon as it states the energy is in your hand. Thus i can actually deals 1d4 improvised weapon with a spell im holding. Dont you see it makes no sense ?
DM of two gaming groups.
Likes to create stuff.
Check out my homebrew --> Monsters --> Magical Items --> Races --> Subclasses
If you like --> Upvote, If you wanna comment --> Comment
Play by Post Games
--> One Shot Adventure - House of Artwood (DM) (Completed)
So, by that logic, the Tavern Brawler feat makes you proficient with every weapon and lets you grapple as a bonus action.