Do the rules assume everything is a creature or object? I am genuinely interested. Where can you find that idea?
The chapter 10 rules on spellcasting list the only three things a spell can ever target: a creature, an object, or a point of origin. To my knowledge, that's as close as the RAW ever comes to defining the word "object" - if we don't allow that rule to set precedent for everything being one of those three things, we can no longer guess what is and is not an object, and the rabbit hole extends to infinite depth, because there are a potentially infinite number of answers to "what is this wossname?". Basically, if you don't assume everything in the game is one of those three things, you have a serious problem. If you do assume it, everything stabilizes to a remarkable degree. In other words, I am assuming that anything in the game, anything at all, is theoretically targetable by a spell, and therefore must be one of those three things. Anything that's intrinsically untargetable by a spell - anything for which no spell, under any circumstances, could ever be written to target - doesn't have to be one of those three things, so for example, a player is not one of those three things. But that's really the only exception.
I said what I said in response to TexasDevin, and they've indicated a strong desire to stay on topic about TWF. I'm going to stop supporting this topic in this thread, as a result. I'm happy to keep discussing it if you like, but we should start a new thread to do so. I apologize if this comes off as rude.
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.
RAW the spell Flame Blade doesn't say it's effect is an object that can be used as an improvised weapon. If you are not using the spell as intended, then you must fall back on DM fiat like anything else.
Yeah, I'd have trouble arguing that spells can only target a handful of things means that everything can be categorized as one of those things. Maybe you just can't target some things with spells? That's certainly an easier way to deal with the rules than trying to cram everything into categories that don't span the space.
Is seawater an object? How much?
Is a barrel of seawater an object? Or two? Or more?
How about a leaking waterskin? If you mend a leaking waterskin, does it refill it as well as fix the tear? Can you target a liquid with mending?
Is a barrel of marbles 1 or many objects? Or many?
Is loose earth an object? That one is a target for several spells.
It is impossible to describe most mass nouns as individual objects, and even some count nouns are problematic. But I guess a fiery blade could be considered an object and a spell effect.
Is a “blade” an object? Common sense would say yes. Does the spell refer to “the blade”? Yes. This is hardly calling an illusion or a light spell an object, there’s a spell construct formed that can be grasped and physically manipulated, very much like what you’d expect of an object.
just keep in mind… the DM could rule its a mere d4 improvised weapon, though treating it as a scimitar (that deals magical fire rather than slash) is less of a jerk ruling and better follows the spirit of the IW section
On the one hand, using it as a straight-up improvised weapon, even if possible, would not work with two-weapon fighting since improvised weapons don't have the light property. As far using the DM fiat wording about considering it an actual scimitar (with the properties of an actual scimitar) a DM is going to do what a DM is going to do, but I would say that a wooden toy sword in the size and shape of a scimitar is a closer approximation to the real thing than a magical collection of fire in the shape of a scimitar that doesn't even do any B/P/S damage. And I don't think any of us would say a wooden toy sword is the real thing just because it looked similar.
Is a “blade” an object? Common sense would say yes. Does the spell refer to “the blade”? Yes. This is hardly calling an illusion or a light spell an object, there’s a spell construct formed that can be grasped and physically manipulated, very much like what you’d expect of an object.
just keep in mind… the DM could rule its a mere d4 improvised weapon, though treating it as a scimitar (that deals magical fire rather than slash) is less of a jerk ruling and better follows the spirit of the IW section
It's a blade in shape, not state or fabric. In reality, you're evoking a long flame in your hand is what it is.
I'd even argue that without contrary indication, a Flame Blade is immaterial being composed primarly of fire as shown by it's fiery flaming state and single damage type. Can hardly consider this an object if you ask me.
Another indication that it's a fire effect rather than a summoned or created object is that it's an evocation spell, rather than a conjuration one.
Conjuration spells involve the transportation of objects and creatures from one location to another. Some spells summon creatures or objects to the caster’s side, whereas others allow the caster to teleport to another location. Some conjurations create objects or effects out of nothing.
Evocation spells manipulate magical energy to produce a desired effect. Some call up blasts of fire or lightning. Others channel positive energy to heal wounds.
On the one hand, using it as a straight-up improvised weapon, even if possible, would not work with two-weapon fighting since improvised weapons don't have the light property. As far using the DM fiat wording about considering it an actual scimitar (with the properties of an actual scimitar) a DM is going to do what a DM is going to do, but I would say that a wooden toy sword in the size and shape of a scimitar is a closer approximation to the real thing than a magical collection of fire in the shape of a scimitar that doesn't even do any B/P/S damage. And I don't think any of us would say a wooden toy sword is the real thing just because it looked similar.
There is no line drawn down the middle of the Improvised Weapon feature, where only the d4 IW's are RAW, and the rest mere "DM fiat" or houseruling. There's a real RAI question about whether weapon-like objects just borrow their model's proficiency bonus and damage dice and damage type... or whether a DM is also meant to treat the weapon-like IW as having the same weapon properties as its model. Reasonable DMs might disagree, but treating an Improvised Scimitar as having Finesse and Light is not NOT RAW, it's just... debatable.
Another indication that it's a fire effect rather than a summoned or created object is that it's an evocation spell, rather than a conjuration one.
Conjuration spells involve the transportation of objects and creatures from one location to another. Some spells summon creatures or objects to the caster’s side, whereas others allow the caster to teleport to another location. Some conjurations create objects or effects out of nothing.
Evocation spells manipulate magical energy to produce a desired effect. Some call up blasts of fire or lightning. Others channel positive energy to heal wounds.
Evocation spells that deal Acid damage like Tasha's Caustic Brew create a physical acid substance, which lingers in the world for a duration, not just acid-damage-type energy. The acid is real or physical enough for Caustic Brew that a victim can make efforts to scrape or wash it off of themselves.
Are substances objects? Like I said, there might be more categories for "things" than just "creature," "object," "area," "spell effect," including maybe "substance"... but the point is, "Evocation doesn't create things, just manipulate energy" is more of a guideline than a rule. See also Spiritual Weapon, Melf's Minute Meteors, Tiny Hut, Wall of Sand (bonus, it even says you "conjure up" the sand!), Wall of Water...
You create a Large hand of shimmering, translucent force in an unoccupied space that you can see within range... The hand is an object that has AC 20 and hit points equal to your hit point maximum...
You create a Large hand of shimmering, translucent force in an unoccupied space that you can see within range... The hand is an object that has AC 20 and hit points equal to your hit point maximum...
I'm not going to go so far as to say I believe it, but you could argue from arcane hand that if a spell makes an object, it tells you.
IMHO Arcane Hand should have been a conjuration spell rather than an evocation one as it specifically create an object in the shape of a large hand made of force.
IMHO Arcane Hand should have been a conjuration spell rather than an evocation one as it specifically create an object in the shape of a large hand made of force.
IMHO Arcane Hand should have been a conjuration spell rather than an evocation one as it specifically create an object in the shape of a large hand made of force.
Spell schools come with no special rules.
True, but schools help describe spells and somes rules may refer to them directly. In this case Arcane Hand fits better the description of conjuration spells don't you agree?
Sort of getting back on topic with the dual wielding team I have a question concerning which weapons you are allowed to attack with as your bonus action….
Disclaimer: One or more users posting in this thread are on my ignore list, therefore I cannot read what they have posted. Due to that fact it is possible that I may be repeating points that have already been made. If I have, please don’t hold it against me. Thank you.
A couple of points:
The ability to wield two weapons and therefore use Two-Weapon fighting is not restricted to martial characters, even a Wizard can do it if they have two daggers. (BTW, “Martial” means something that is related to the military and/or armed combat. “Marshal” means a variety of things that have nothing to do with armed combat, like gathering resources, or a title for specific types of law enforcement. [I would like to take this opportunity to once again voice my displeasure with whoever is to blame for deciding that homonyms were a good idea.])
If a character has the Extra Attack feature, then they can attack twice whenever they take the Attack action. Suppose said character is armed with, a shortsword and a scimitar. If they take the Attack action and use the Scimitar twice, the bonus action T-W F attack must be made with the Shortsword, and vice versa. If however, they take the Attack action and make one attack with the scimitar and the other with the shortsword, then they can use either weapon for their bonus action attack.
Is a “blade” an object? Common sense would say yes. Does the spell refer to “the blade”? Yes. This is hardly calling an illusion or a light spell an object, there’s a spell construct formed that can be grasped and physically manipulated, very much like what you’d expect of an object.
There's clearly more to it than just manual manipulation since you can't make attacks with it at will and it disappears if you release it.
Evocation spells that deal Acid damage like Tasha's Caustic Brew create a physical acid substance, which lingers in the world for a duration, not just acid-damage-type energy. The acid is real or physical enough for Caustic Brew that a victim can make efforts to scrape or wash it off of themselves.
Are substances objects? Like I said, there might be more categories for "things" than just "creature," "object," "area," "spell effect," including maybe "substance"... but the point is, "Evocation doesn't create things, just manipulate energy" is more of a guideline than a rule. See also Spiritual Weapon, Melf's Minute Meteors, Tiny Hut, Wall of Sand (bonus, it even says you "conjure up" the sand!), Wall of Water...
The issue isn't the composition of the spell's effect. An evocation spell will actively manipulate what it produces, often in very specific and physics-defying ways, while a conjuration spell either doesn't, or exerts far less control. Every single example here is doing something extraordinary with what it produces. Spiritual Weapon, Tiny Hut and Arcane Hand create something solid (or selectively solid) out of pure energy. Minute Meteors causes tiny rocks to produce fiery explosions. Wall of Sand and Water create upright barriers out of fluids. Flame Blade fits the bill since fire wouldn't normally form itself into a blade shape.
Contrast those with the likes of Create Food and Water, Create Bonfire, Web, Grease, and Fog Cloud, which just summon something and whatever happens afterwards is just a natural effect of interacting with the substance.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Many spell effects are neither creatures nor objects. Silence, light, and darkness are examples.
But this conversation is about TWF.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yeah, I wouldn’t necessarily agree. Spell Effects can certainly be a third class of “things”, and there may be more like “substances” too.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The chapter 10 rules on spellcasting list the only three things a spell can ever target: a creature, an object, or a point of origin. To my knowledge, that's as close as the RAW ever comes to defining the word "object" - if we don't allow that rule to set precedent for everything being one of those three things, we can no longer guess what is and is not an object, and the rabbit hole extends to infinite depth, because there are a potentially infinite number of answers to "what is this wossname?". Basically, if you don't assume everything in the game is one of those three things, you have a serious problem. If you do assume it, everything stabilizes to a remarkable degree. In other words, I am assuming that anything in the game, anything at all, is theoretically targetable by a spell, and therefore must be one of those three things. Anything that's intrinsically untargetable by a spell - anything for which no spell, under any circumstances, could ever be written to target - doesn't have to be one of those three things, so for example, a player is not one of those three things. But that's really the only exception.
I said what I said in response to TexasDevin, and they've indicated a strong desire to stay on topic about TWF. I'm going to stop supporting this topic in this thread, as a result. I'm happy to keep discussing it if you like, but we should start a new thread to do so. I apologize if this comes off as rude.
That list of targets is not complete, because Dispel Magic may target Spell Effects as well, and lists them distinct from objects.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
RAW the spell Flame Blade doesn't say it's effect is an object that can be used as an improvised weapon. If you are not using the spell as intended, then you must fall back on DM fiat like anything else.
Yeah, I'd have trouble arguing that spells can only target a handful of things means that everything can be categorized as one of those things. Maybe you just can't target some things with spells? That's certainly an easier way to deal with the rules than trying to cram everything into categories that don't span the space.
It is impossible to describe most mass nouns as individual objects, and even some count nouns are problematic. But I guess a fiery blade could be considered an object and a spell effect.
Is a “blade” an object? Common sense would say yes. Does the spell refer to “the blade”? Yes. This is hardly calling an illusion or a light spell an object, there’s a spell construct formed that can be grasped and physically manipulated, very much like what you’d expect of an object.
just keep in mind… the DM could rule its a mere d4 improvised weapon, though treating it as a scimitar (that deals magical fire rather than slash) is less of a jerk ruling and better follows the spirit of the IW section
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
On the one hand, using it as a straight-up improvised weapon, even if possible, would not work with two-weapon fighting since improvised weapons don't have the light property. As far using the DM fiat wording about considering it an actual scimitar (with the properties of an actual scimitar) a DM is going to do what a DM is going to do, but I would say that a wooden toy sword in the size and shape of a scimitar is a closer approximation to the real thing than a magical collection of fire in the shape of a scimitar that doesn't even do any B/P/S damage. And I don't think any of us would say a wooden toy sword is the real thing just because it looked similar.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It's a blade in shape, not state or fabric. In reality, you're evoking a long flame in your hand is what it is.
I'd even argue that without contrary indication, a Flame Blade is immaterial being composed primarly of fire as shown by it's fiery flaming state and single damage type. Can hardly consider this an object if you ask me.
Another indication that it's a fire effect rather than a summoned or created object is that it's an evocation spell, rather than a conjuration one.
Conjuration spells involve the transportation of objects and creatures from one location to another. Some spells summon creatures or objects to the caster’s side, whereas others allow the caster to teleport to another location. Some conjurations create objects or effects out of nothing.
Evocation spells manipulate magical energy to produce a desired effect. Some call up blasts of fire or lightning. Others channel positive energy to heal wounds.
There is no line drawn down the middle of the Improvised Weapon feature, where only the d4 IW's are RAW, and the rest mere "DM fiat" or houseruling. There's a real RAI question about whether weapon-like objects just borrow their model's proficiency bonus and damage dice and damage type... or whether a DM is also meant to treat the weapon-like IW as having the same weapon properties as its model. Reasonable DMs might disagree, but treating an Improvised Scimitar as having Finesse and Light is not NOT RAW, it's just... debatable.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Evocation spells that deal Acid damage like Tasha's Caustic Brew create a physical acid substance, which lingers in the world for a duration, not just acid-damage-type energy. The acid is real or physical enough for Caustic Brew that a victim can make efforts to scrape or wash it off of themselves.
Are substances objects? Like I said, there might be more categories for "things" than just "creature," "object," "area," "spell effect," including maybe "substance"... but the point is, "Evocation doesn't create things, just manipulate energy" is more of a guideline than a rule. See also Spiritual Weapon, Melf's Minute Meteors, Tiny Hut, Wall of Sand (bonus, it even says you "conjure up" the sand!), Wall of Water...
But most telling Arcane Hand
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
For the record, none of those examples would work with two weapon fighting either :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'm not going to go so far as to say I believe it, but you could argue from arcane hand that if a spell makes an object, it tells you.
IMHO Arcane Hand should have been a conjuration spell rather than an evocation one as it specifically create an object in the shape of a large hand made of force.
Spell schools come with no special rules.
True, but schools help describe spells and somes rules may refer to them directly. In this case Arcane Hand fits better the description of conjuration spells don't you agree?
Disclaimer: One or more users posting in this thread are on my ignore list, therefore I cannot read what they have posted. Due to that fact it is possible that I may be repeating points that have already been made. If I have, please don’t hold it against me. Thank you.
A couple of points:
The ability to wield two weapons and therefore use Two-Weapon fighting is not restricted to martial characters, even a Wizard can do it if they have two daggers.
(BTW, “Martial” means something that is related to the military and/or armed combat. “Marshal” means a variety of things that have nothing to do with armed combat, like gathering resources, or a title for specific types of law enforcement. [I would like to take this opportunity to once again voice my displeasure with whoever is to blame for deciding that homonyms were a good idea.])
If a character has the Extra Attack feature, then they can attack twice whenever they take the Attack action. Suppose said character is armed with, a shortsword and a scimitar. If they take the Attack action and use the Scimitar twice, the bonus action T-W F attack must be made with the Shortsword, and vice versa. If however, they take the Attack action and make one attack with the scimitar and the other with the shortsword, then they can use either weapon for their bonus action attack.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
There's clearly more to it than just manual manipulation since you can't make attacks with it at will and it disappears if you release it.
The issue isn't the composition of the spell's effect. An evocation spell will actively manipulate what it produces, often in very specific and physics-defying ways, while a conjuration spell either doesn't, or exerts far less control. Every single example here is doing something extraordinary with what it produces. Spiritual Weapon, Tiny Hut and Arcane Hand create something solid (or selectively solid) out of pure energy. Minute Meteors causes tiny rocks to produce fiery explosions. Wall of Sand and Water create upright barriers out of fluids. Flame Blade fits the bill since fire wouldn't normally form itself into a blade shape.
Contrast those with the likes of Create Food and Water, Create Bonfire, Web, Grease, and Fog Cloud, which just summon something and whatever happens afterwards is just a natural effect of interacting with the substance.
The Forum Infestation (TM)