Probably the easiest way to draw the distinction is to compare the wording with shadow blade, which creates a weapon. Since flame blade doesn't create a weapon, the spell description also creates the action you use to make an attack with it. This is also why FB doesn't work with things like extra attack.
Probably the easiest way to draw the distinction is to compare the wording with shadow blade, which creates a weapon. Since flame blade doesn't create a weapon, the spell description also creates the action you use to make an attack with it. This is also why FB doesn't work with things like extra attack.
It's like Alchemist Fire, you use your action to attack with it, therefore can't use the Attack action.
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.
A scimitar is an object. A flame blade is a spell effect. If you cast spiritual weapon and create one that is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, you cannot pluck it out of the air and take the attack action with it either.
A scimitar is an object. A flame blade is a spell effect. If you cast spiritual weapon and create one that is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, you cannot pluck it out of the air and take the attack action with it either.
A flame blade is held in a free hand. It is an object. Is your argument that spells cannot create objects? I assure you they can.
A scimitar is an object. A flame blade is a spell effect. If you cast spiritual weapon and create one that is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, you cannot pluck it out of the air and take the attack action with it either.
A flame blade is held in a free hand. It is an object. Is your argument that spells cannot create objects? I assure you they can.
The argument is that this spell does not create an object, now whether that's true or not is a different question, but don't set up stupid strawmen to knock down.
If you WERE going to let someone use the Attack action with a conjured spell effect, I think that what Rav is describing (not assuming it makes the same sort of attack that the spell effect describes, but rather thinking about what an improvised weapon of its type might reasonably do) is perfectly reasonable, if a bit arbitrary. Letting a player wield their Flame Blade not in the way the spell intended (using one action to make one 3d6 melee spell attack), but rather in a superior manner to make Extra-Attack-eligible 3d6 weapon attacks, would not be a wise ruling by a DM. But saying "yeah, you can make the 3d6 spell attack described by the spell, or you can use it like an Improvised Scimitar that deals magical fire damage with the Attack action" would be.... probably totally fine, honestly.
I'm not sure that RAI, the Improvised Weapon Rules intended to apply to spell constructs as well as physical objects... but I don't see a particular balance concern with letting it, as long as you exercise restraint and don't allow a player to get all the spell effect benefits of wielding a Vampiric Touch with none of its action economy/spell attack tag drawbacks. Figuring out what mundane weapon it's like, and then damage type swapping to magical ____ instead of mundane bludgeoning/piercing/slashing, that's about as much effect as I'd let these improvised weapon spell attacks retain.
Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is at hand. 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.
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.
An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage (the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object). If a character uses a ranged weapon to make a melee attack, or throws a melee weapon that does not have the thrown property, it also deals 1d4 damage. An improvised thrown weapon has a normal range of 20 feet and a long range of 60 feet.
If the spell created a scimitar, it would say it created a scimitar. In fact, it very specifically says it creates something which is not a scimitar. And as such, you can't use the improvised weapon rules to shunt it back into being an actual scimitar. Even if the flame blade did count as an improvised weapon (and I want to be clear, I do not concede this point) it would not be compatible with two weapon fighting, which is the crux of this entire discussion. So we should be able to dispatch that argument as being beside the point.
A scimitar is an object. A flame blade is a spell effect. If you cast spiritual weapon and create one that is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, you cannot pluck it out of the air and take the attack action with it either.
A flame blade is held in a free hand. It is an object. Is your argument that spells cannot create objects? I assure you they can.
The argument is that this spell does not create an object, now whether that's true or not is a different question, but don't set up stupid strawmen to knock down.
It isn't a strawman, when they start just listing off other spells, to head them off at the pass. Spells can create objects. Flame Blade does so. Linking spells which do not create objects does in no way refute the fact that some spells do create objects.
For Flame Blade: You hold it in your hand. It is the size and shape of a scimitar. You can let go of it. The game refers to it as a blade. That, is an object. An object created by a spell effect.
If the spell created a scimitar, it would say it created a scimitar. In fact, it very specifically says it creates something which is not a scimitar. And as such, you can't use the improvised weapon rules to shunt it back into being an actual scimitar. Even if the flame blade did count as an improvised weapon (and I want to be clear, I do not concede this point) it would not be compatible with two weapon fighting, which is the crux of this entire discussion. So we should be able to dispatch that argument as being beside the point.
An improvised weapon can absolutely qualify for two weapon fighting. At the DM's option.
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.
A blade that is similar in size and shape to a scimitar... at the DM's option, could be treated AS a scimitar. Scimitars qualify for two weapon fighting.
If the spell created a scimitar, it would say it created a scimitar. In fact, it very specifically says it creates something which is not a scimitar. And as such, you can't use the improvised weapon rules to shunt it back into being an actual scimitar. Even if the flame blade did count as an improvised weapon (and I want to be clear, I do not concede this point) it would not be compatible with two weapon fighting, which is the crux of this entire discussion. So we should be able to dispatch that argument as being beside the point.
An improvised weapon can absolutely qualify for two weapon fighting. At the DM's option.
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.
A blade that is similar in size and shape to a scimitar... at the DM's option, could be treated AS a scimitar. Scimitars qualify for two weapon fighting.
A DM choosing to do this does not make it RAW so I would believe it to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
There's no definition of "object" to be found in 5E, so to the extent that its arguable whether a spell effect like a Spiritual Weapon, Shadow Blade, Flame Blade, etc. are mere "spell effects" or might be "objects" created by a spell effect or a spell effect that takes the form of an object... yeah, there's textual thread to this, it isn't all just pie in the sky homebrewing.
If a Flame Blade is an object, then it's reasonable to think that player might be able to wield it as an improvised weapon to do something different with it than they normally could using the spell's specific spell effect. This is less far out on a limb than my first knee-jerk response, I don't think Rav is totally out of line here.
Can we agree to set aside the issue of DM fiat, since that is a conversational dead end?
I'll explain why I don't think the improvised weapon similarity rule should apply in this situation (aside from the fact that you don't take the attack action with it and the fact that it is not a weapon at all) It's one thing to say a table leg is similar to a club, so let's call it a club. I contend that magical flame in the size and shape of a scimitar is not similar to an actual metal scimitar in any aspect other than visually. I say this for two reasons:
The spell does not say there is any similarity other than appearance... once you get past the whole being made out of magical flame aspect.
The flame blade inflicts only fire damage. Why should it suddenly gain the ability to inflict slashing damage and stop doing fire damage just because you use it as an improvised weapon?
And therefore, the flame blade is not a suitable stand-in for a scimitar, which means it is not eligible for two weapon fighting.
The flame blade is not an object, so it cannot be used as an improvised weapon.
It can only be two things, and I'm pretty sure it's not a creature, so it must be an object, just like how minor illusion creates an object. In the general case, that's how you know spells deal magical damage even when things get weird (admittedly, nothing is weird about flame blade in terms of that) - spell creatures don't deal magical damage and spell objects do. I don't even know what rules you'd apply to some third category of wossname - the game assumes everything is a creature or an object. The air in your lungs is either a gaseous object or many gaseous objects (the rules are unclear on determining where one object ends and another begins), not some third wossname. If it were some third wossname, you'd be in a lot of trouble, because you only have rules for moving creatures and objects, and you need to move the air in your lungs to live.
Flame Blade specifically use your action to attack, so you can't take Attack action as well.
Probably the easiest way to draw the distinction is to compare the wording with shadow blade, which creates a weapon. Since flame blade doesn't create a weapon, the spell description also creates the action you use to make an attack with it. This is also why FB doesn't work with things like extra attack.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yep, I missed that.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's like Alchemist Fire, you use your action to attack with it, therefore can't use the Attack action.
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:
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.
I'm probably laughing.
The flame blade is not an object, so it cannot be used as an improvised weapon.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Clearly an object.
I'm probably laughing.
A scimitar is an object. A flame blade is a spell effect. If you cast spiritual weapon and create one that is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, you cannot pluck it out of the air and take the attack action with it either.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
A flame blade is held in a free hand. It is an object. Is your argument that spells cannot create objects? I assure you they can.
I'm probably laughing.
The argument is that this spell does not create an object, now whether that's true or not is a different question, but don't set up stupid strawmen to knock down.
If you WERE going to let someone use the Attack action with a conjured spell effect, I think that what Rav is describing (not assuming it makes the same sort of attack that the spell effect describes, but rather thinking about what an improvised weapon of its type might reasonably do) is perfectly reasonable, if a bit arbitrary. Letting a player wield their Flame Blade not in the way the spell intended (using one action to make one 3d6 melee spell attack), but rather in a superior manner to make Extra-Attack-eligible 3d6 weapon attacks, would not be a wise ruling by a DM. But saying "yeah, you can make the 3d6 spell attack described by the spell, or you can use it like an Improvised Scimitar that deals magical fire damage with the Attack action" would be.... probably totally fine, honestly.
I'm not sure that RAI, the Improvised Weapon Rules intended to apply to spell constructs as well as physical objects... but I don't see a particular balance concern with letting it, as long as you exercise restraint and don't allow a player to get all the spell effect benefits of wielding a Vampiric Touch with none of its action economy/spell attack tag drawbacks. Figuring out what mundane weapon it's like, and then damage type swapping to magical ____ instead of mundane bludgeoning/piercing/slashing, that's about as much effect as I'd let these improvised weapon spell attacks retain.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If the spell created a scimitar, it would say it created a scimitar. In fact, it very specifically says it creates something which is not a scimitar. And as such, you can't use the improvised weapon rules to shunt it back into being an actual scimitar. Even if the flame blade did count as an improvised weapon (and I want to be clear, I do not concede this point) it would not be compatible with two weapon fighting, which is the crux of this entire discussion. So we should be able to dispatch that argument as being beside the point.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It isn't a strawman, when they start just listing off other spells, to head them off at the pass. Spells can create objects. Flame Blade does so. Linking spells which do not create objects does in no way refute the fact that some spells do create objects.
For Flame Blade: You hold it in your hand. It is the size and shape of a scimitar. You can let go of it. The game refers to it as a blade. That, is an object. An object created by a spell effect.
I'm probably laughing.
An improvised weapon can absolutely qualify for two weapon fighting. At the DM's option.
A blade that is similar in size and shape to a scimitar... at the DM's option, could be treated AS a scimitar. Scimitars qualify for two weapon fighting.
I'm probably laughing.
There is no point arguing against what a DM can do at their option in any context.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
A DM choosing to do this does not make it RAW so I would believe it to be irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
There's no definition of "object" to be found in 5E, so to the extent that its arguable whether a spell effect like a Spiritual Weapon, Shadow Blade, Flame Blade, etc. are mere "spell effects" or might be "objects" created by a spell effect or a spell effect that takes the form of an object... yeah, there's textual thread to this, it isn't all just pie in the sky homebrewing.
If a Flame Blade is an object, then it's reasonable to think that player might be able to wield it as an improvised weapon to do something different with it than they normally could using the spell's specific spell effect. This is less far out on a limb than my first knee-jerk response, I don't think Rav is totally out of line here.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Can we agree to set aside the issue of DM fiat, since that is a conversational dead end?
I'll explain why I don't think the improvised weapon similarity rule should apply in this situation (aside from the fact that you don't take the attack action with it and the fact that it is not a weapon at all) It's one thing to say a table leg is similar to a club, so let's call it a club. I contend that magical flame in the size and shape of a scimitar is not similar to an actual metal scimitar in any aspect other than visually. I say this for two reasons:
And therefore, the flame blade is not a suitable stand-in for a scimitar, which means it is not eligible for two weapon fighting.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It can only be two things, and I'm pretty sure it's not a creature, so it must be an object, just like how minor illusion creates an object. In the general case, that's how you know spells deal magical damage even when things get weird (admittedly, nothing is weird about flame blade in terms of that) - spell creatures don't deal magical damage and spell objects do. I don't even know what rules you'd apply to some third category of wossname - the game assumes everything is a creature or an object. The air in your lungs is either a gaseous object or many gaseous objects (the rules are unclear on determining where one object ends and another begins), not some third wossname. If it were some third wossname, you'd be in a lot of trouble, because you only have rules for moving creatures and objects, and you need to move the air in your lungs to live.
Do the rules assume everything is a creature or object? I am genuinely interested. Where can you find that idea?