Flame Blade, such a unique spell. Only appears on one Spell List, the Druid, a class not otherwise known for firey evocation. Creates a magical weapon that does great damage, which not many spells do other than Shadow Blade! And.... totally sucks, in all the ways that Shadow Blade doesn't!?!?
Flame Blade
LEVEL
2nd
CASTING TIME
1 Bonus Action
RANGE/AREA
Self
COMPONENTS
V, S, M *
DURATION
Concentration 10 Minutes
SCHOOL
Evocation
ATTACK/SAVE
Melee
DAMAGE/EFFECT
Fire
You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand. The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration. If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action.
You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 fire damage.
The flaming blade sheds bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for every two slot levels above 2nd.
* - (leaf of sumac)
Good:
Only a Bonus Action to cast (to create the Blade), meaning you can make an Attack with it round 1! (same with Shadow Blade)
Better damage than a Greatsword, which can get even better if you pump it up with a higher spell slot (similar with Shadow Blade)
Able to be recreated with another Bonus Action if you have to drop it (same with Shadow Blade)
10 minute duration! Enough to potentially get through more than one combat, or at the very least, pre-cast it before going into a fight. (better than Shadow Blade's 1 minute)
As a melee spell attack, it uses your spellcasting ability modifier (Wisdom), not Strength, which is likely a dump stat for a Druid. (better? than Shadow Blade, which will require Strength or Dexterity)
The bad:
Doesn't actually count as a Scimitar, or in fact as a weapon at all. No "attack with a weapon" interactions to be found here (such as Dueling fighting style, or Green Flame Blade cantrip), unlike Shadow Blade
Doesn't actually create a weapon that you can use with an Attack Action, just a special melee spell attack action that you can take with your whole Action. No Extra Attack interactions to be found here, unlike Shadow Blade.
While it starts off doing slightly more damage at 2nd level than Shadow Blade, (3d6 avg 10 vs 2d8 avg 9) SB has much better upcasting progression, picking up more d8's at 3rd (avg 13), 5th (avg 18), and 7th (avg 22) instead of d6's at 4th (avg. 14), 6th (avg 17), and 8th (avg 21).
Doesn't add an ability modifier to damage rolls, unlike Shadow Blade.
Does Fire Damage (very commonly resisted), unlike Shadow Blade's Psychic
Requires a material component, thus requiring you to use a Spell Focus in one hand and precluding you from casting it with a Shield already equipped in the other hand, unlike Shadow Blade
Appears only on the Druid Spell List, meaning there's no way to build into it apart from taking 3 levels of Druid and boosting Wisdom, unlike Shadow Blade which appears on three spell lists (Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock) and thus provides multiclass flexibility and doesn't require a particularly high Intelligence or Charisma.
Its "extra" ability is.... sheds light in 10-foot radius, like a torch. Unlike Shadow Blade, which can give you advantage on all attacks against targets in dim light and darkness!
Basically, these two spells seem like they should be very similar, but when you look closer Flame Blade is just measurably worse in every single respect other than Duration and letting the caster use their spellcasting ability modifier (which is great for single class Druids and garbage for multiclass ones). I've always wanted to build a character centered around casting it, but again and again I come back to realize... you just can't, there's nothing there. Single class Druids are either built to Wildshape (in which case, you won't be making melee spell attacks as a humanoid), or built to be support caster/controllers (in which case you won't be making melee spell attacks as a humanoid). Like, maybe there's something there with a Spore Druid, but... even there as a pure Spore Druid with no martial multiclass, are you really going to want to be burning a second-level slot each fight to be doing an average of 10 per hit, when you could be casting Shillelagh as a cantrip and be doing 7-9? I just can't picture the character that wants to use Flame Bladeever, much less one that might actually think around building to optimize it.
Flame blade has been a Druid spell for a very long time, it has in all likelihood come into 5e as a legacy, just like the Wizard's magic missile spell - and that has also been heavily changed. It used to start at a single missile doing 1d4+1 at first level.
It was often the goto weapon in other editions, and I know builds that would actively go out of their way to get it. Especially back when you could have one in each hand and dual wield them.
Even if you had Shadow Blade as a single class Druid, it wouldn't be that great, right? You already made the argument that using a melee attack is pretty lackluster as a single class Druid so, all the comparisons kinda don't matter?
If you had a second class that made melee fighting valid, it would probably give you something better than either Flame Blade or Shadow Blade.
Shadow Blade is the best possible weapon a Rogue can wield. Flame Blade is useless for a Rogue.
Shadow Blade is a great weapon for an Eldritch Knight to wield, and use to make their cantrip attacks. Flame Blade is useless for an EK.
Shadow Blade is an interesting option for a melee Wizard, Sorcerer, or (non Hexblade) Warlock. Flame BLade is an inferior option for a melee Druid, who already has access to Shillelagh.
Shadow Blade can provide value for a melee-focused martial character with high Strength or Dex that multiclasses into Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock with a low cast stat. Flame Blade is useless for anyone that isn't maxing Wisdom as their attack stat, and Druids and Clerics are the only class that does that, so it's largely useless to multi into Druid to pick up the spell.
Shadow Blade on a Druid would provide a new way to build them, as a Wisdom-dump self buffer/utility caster (think Chonky Abjuration Wizard builds). Flame Blade doesn't open up any new builds for Druids, and is useless on those that already exist.
Both Trickster Rogue and Eldritch Knight could have Shadow Blade at 7th level, probably not so good by then. I really don't see multiclassing to get the spell that high of a priority for either of them, or any other melee style class for that matter. For caster who can fight in melee, it's very nice I bet.
In the last session, my Cleric cast Holy Weapon on my Fighter's weapon. Was it great? Yep. Will I be multiclassing Cleric for the spell? Nah.
Does Flame Blade suck? Yeah, unfortunately. There are many spells that either suck or see very limited use, on every classes spell list. Is Shadow Blade good? All things considered, I would think so.
Fortunately, the fixes for Flame Blade are super easy, provided one is willing/able to homebrew. After all, we already have a template for them in Shadow Blade.
"You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand. The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration. If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action.
The fiery blade counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient. It deals 3d6 fire damage on a hit and has the Light property, and when you attack with it you can use your Wisdom modifier instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls.
The flaming blade sheds bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a 3rd- or 4th-level slot, the damage increases to 4d6. When you cast it with a 5th- or 6th-level slot, the damage increases to 5d6. When you cast it with a slot of 7th or higher, the damage increases to 6d6"
Flame Blade is traditionally a druidic spell, deriving from old folklore of druids before they were perverted by years of being TTRPG not-so-closet furries. Druids of old were known less for turning into bears and more for calling down flames to scourge those who disrespected their wardenship.
The casting ability modifier is a good catch just to be consistent with other such spells, but I see no reason for Flame Blade to be more universally applicable. Especially when Shadow Blade is near universally applicable and is still overall a better spell. Flame Blade just stops being a disappointing noob trap if you make it work like a flaming scimitar version of Shadow Blade.
RE: topic, Flame Blade used to be on the Cleric spell list, if I remember my AD&D Gold Box games correctly. It has since been replaced by the more all-around useful Spiritual Weapon, which doesn't require concentration and is wielded with a bonus action, unlike Flame Blade.
Yurei's suggestion about spellcasting modifier makes sense. As a potential alternative, I would also suggest merely getting rid of the concentration requirement, thus allowing a melee-build Druid to multi-task damage.
Since we're on the subject of comparing melee spell weapons, I would like to say that I find Mordenkainen's Sword also pretty disappointing. Force damage is nice, but as a 7th level spell, 3d10 damage that requires concentration to maintain is almost laughably bad.
Mordenkainen's Sword is a disgrace of a High Arcana spell. It's basically Spiritual Weapon for wizards, except it uses a slot about three or four levels too high. I understand wanting Spiritual Weapon to be a defining feature of the cleric class and make Mordenkainen's Sword prohibitively difficult for arcane casters to get to, but come on. At least make it worth the seventh level freaking slot.
Mordenkainen's Sword is a disgrace of a High Arcana spell. It's basically Spiritual Weapon for wizards, except it uses a slot about three or four levels too high. I understand wanting Spiritual Weapon to be a defining feature of the cleric class and make Mordenkainen's Sword prohibitively difficult for arcane casters to get to, but come on. At least make it worth the seventh level freaking slot.
Especially, if you think about the fact, that Spiritual Weapon upcast to level 6 does 3d8+Spellcasting Mod force damage without concentration...
Mordenkainen's Sword is a disgrace of a High Arcana spell. It's basically Spiritual Weapon for wizards, except it uses a slot about three or four levels too high. I understand wanting Spiritual Weapon to be a defining feature of the cleric class and make Mordenkainen's Sword prohibitively difficult for arcane casters to get to, but come on. At least make it worth the seventh level freaking slot.
Especially, if you think about the fact, that Spiritual Weapon upcast to level 6 does 3d8+Spellcasting Mod force damage without concentration...
Mind you, Mord Sword can hit doors and objects and Spiritual Weapon can’t. Not sure if that’s worth it but...
I've never played in or seen any game where somebody is truly disallowed to attack objects with a spell that targets a 'creature' if that spell should be obviously capable of targeting more generally. Acid Splash gets yelled at a lot - "the spell says 'target creature', so it's physically incapable of being used on doors or locks or stuff! DX" - but that's both overly restrictive and completely nonsensical. If you can throw a Bolt of Fire at a door, you can throw a bubble of acid at the same damn door. Spiritual Weapon can bonk skulls or it can bonk chests.
The only time a spell should disallow targeting objects is if the spell does something that doesn't make sense for an object, i.e. Hold Person. Elsewise who cares, it's artificial and unfun in ways that really don't matter for game balance or design.
Yeah, that targeting rule in particular has always confused me. JC has consistently stuck to his guns about it being an important distinction whether a spell targets “creatures” or “creatures or objects”, but... why? What’s the test case of a spell that would perform in unintended or unbalanced ways were that not the case? If you can throw acid at a Mimic, why can’t you at a treasure chest? Sure, sure, some spells wouldn’t effect an object if cast on them, detect thoughts or something... but it’s an odd granularity to insist on for targeting, when it doesn’t really feel like it’s worth any power level points one way or the other for spell design.
Part of the problem is that Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks get access to Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade, and most Clerics get access to Divine Strike. But Druids get nothing to boost the damage of their melee attacks. Some colleges of Bards get extra attack, so that helps them in melee combat.
I think it's absolutely necessary to add your spellcasting modifier to the damage roll for Flame Blade. Increasing the floor on the damage would make such a big difference at making the spell much more worthy of at least being considered for use.
It's also essential to bring up the cantrip Primal Savagery when looking at Flame Blade. Once you reach level 5, Primal Savagery will deal 2D10 Acid Damage, which is extremely similar to 3D6 Fire damage, but is slightly more average damage and is less likely to be resisted. Both spells are melee spell attacks, but one is a cantrip that doesn't require concentration, and the other is a 2nd level spell that requires concentration. It's horrible for a 2nd level spell that requires concentration to be inferior to a cantrip as early as 5th level.
Shadow blade is probably the best offensive spell an Eldritch Knight has access to. It benefits from the dueling fighting style, synergizes with what the base fighter class is build around. Reliably making high numbers of attacks, and occasional doubling the amount of those attacks with action surge when advantageous. Shadowblade also situationally gives the caster advantage on that same bonus action. This spell by itself makes the Eldritch Knight competitive with greatweapon/sharpshooter feat builds, without costing a feat. If elven accuracy is in play, it surpasses those feats with advantage even if those builds are using +2 to +3 weapons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Flame Blade, such a unique spell. Only appears on one Spell List, the Druid, a class not otherwise known for firey evocation. Creates a magical weapon that does great damage, which not many spells do other than Shadow Blade! And.... totally sucks, in all the ways that Shadow Blade doesn't!?!?
Good:
The bad:
Basically, these two spells seem like they should be very similar, but when you look closer Flame Blade is just measurably worse in every single respect other than Duration and letting the caster use their spellcasting ability modifier (which is great for single class Druids and garbage for multiclass ones). I've always wanted to build a character centered around casting it, but again and again I come back to realize... you just can't, there's nothing there. Single class Druids are either built to Wildshape (in which case, you won't be making melee spell attacks as a humanoid), or built to be support caster/controllers (in which case you won't be making melee spell attacks as a humanoid). Like, maybe there's something there with a Spore Druid, but... even there as a pure Spore Druid with no martial multiclass, are you really going to want to be burning a second-level slot each fight to be doing an average of 10 per hit, when you could be casting Shillelagh as a cantrip and be doing 7-9? I just can't picture the character that wants to use Flame Blade ever, much less one that might actually think around building to optimize it.
Lame.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I would also argue that it doesn't belong on the Druid spell list. There's nothing nature-y about it beyond it's Material Component.
Flame blade has been a Druid spell for a very long time, it has in all likelihood come into 5e as a legacy, just like the Wizard's magic missile spell - and that has also been heavily changed. It used to start at a single missile doing 1d4+1 at first level.
It was often the goto weapon in other editions, and I know builds that would actively go out of their way to get it. Especially back when you could have one in each hand and dual wield them.
Even if you had Shadow Blade as a single class Druid, it wouldn't be that great, right? You already made the argument that using a melee attack is pretty lackluster as a single class Druid so, all the comparisons kinda don't matter?
If you had a second class that made melee fighting valid, it would probably give you something better than either Flame Blade or Shadow Blade.
Shadow Blade is the best possible weapon a Rogue can wield. Flame Blade is useless for a Rogue.
Shadow Blade is a great weapon for an Eldritch Knight to wield, and use to make their cantrip attacks. Flame Blade is useless for an EK.
Shadow Blade is an interesting option for a melee Wizard, Sorcerer, or (non Hexblade) Warlock. Flame BLade is an inferior option for a melee Druid, who already has access to Shillelagh.
Shadow Blade can provide value for a melee-focused martial character with high Strength or Dex that multiclasses into Wizard/Sorcerer/Warlock with a low cast stat. Flame Blade is useless for anyone that isn't maxing Wisdom as their attack stat, and Druids and Clerics are the only class that does that, so it's largely useless to multi into Druid to pick up the spell.
Shadow Blade on a Druid would provide a new way to build them, as a Wisdom-dump self buffer/utility caster (think Chonky Abjuration Wizard builds). Flame Blade doesn't open up any new builds for Druids, and is useless on those that already exist.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Both Trickster Rogue and Eldritch Knight could have Shadow Blade at 7th level, probably not so good by then. I really don't see multiclassing to get the spell that high of a priority for either of them, or any other melee style class for that matter. For caster who can fight in melee, it's very nice I bet.
In the last session, my Cleric cast Holy Weapon on my Fighter's weapon. Was it great? Yep. Will I be multiclassing Cleric for the spell? Nah.
Does Flame Blade suck? Yeah, unfortunately. There are many spells that either suck or see very limited use, on every classes spell list. Is Shadow Blade good? All things considered, I would think so.
Fortunately, the fixes for Flame Blade are super easy, provided one is willing/able to homebrew. After all, we already have a template for them in Shadow Blade.
"You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand. The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration. If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action.
The fiery blade counts as a simple melee weapon with which you are proficient. It deals 3d6 fire damage on a hit and has the Light property, and when you attack with it you can use your Wisdom modifier instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls.
The flaming blade sheds bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a 3rd- or 4th-level slot, the damage increases to 4d6. When you cast it with a 5th- or 6th-level slot, the damage increases to 5d6. When you cast it with a slot of 7th or higher, the damage increases to 6d6"
Please do not contact or message me.
Replace Wisdom with Spellcasting modifier. Just to make sure, it is universally usable.
I suppose so, might as well Homebrew it onto a few more class lists, LOL.
I suppose so, might as well Homebrew it onto a few more class lists, LOL.
Why?
Flame Blade is traditionally a druidic spell, deriving from old folklore of druids before they were perverted by years of being TTRPG not-so-closet furries. Druids of old were known less for turning into bears and more for calling down flames to scourge those who disrespected their wardenship.
The casting ability modifier is a good catch just to be consistent with other such spells, but I see no reason for Flame Blade to be more universally applicable. Especially when Shadow Blade is near universally applicable and is still overall a better spell. Flame Blade just stops being a disappointing noob trap if you make it work like a flaming scimitar version of Shadow Blade.
Please do not contact or message me.
I think, because the spell can still be taken by some subclass features but without using WIS as spellcasting attribute.
Chicken, what do you have against amputees? :P
RE: topic, Flame Blade used to be on the Cleric spell list, if I remember my AD&D Gold Box games correctly. It has since been replaced by the more all-around useful Spiritual Weapon, which doesn't require concentration and is wielded with a bonus action, unlike Flame Blade.
Yurei's suggestion about spellcasting modifier makes sense. As a potential alternative, I would also suggest merely getting rid of the concentration requirement, thus allowing a melee-build Druid to multi-task damage.
Since we're on the subject of comparing melee spell weapons, I would like to say that I find Mordenkainen's Sword also pretty disappointing. Force damage is nice, but as a 7th level spell, 3d10 damage that requires concentration to maintain is almost laughably bad.
Mordenkainen's Sword is a disgrace of a High Arcana spell. It's basically Spiritual Weapon for wizards, except it uses a slot about three or four levels too high. I understand wanting Spiritual Weapon to be a defining feature of the cleric class and make Mordenkainen's Sword prohibitively difficult for arcane casters to get to, but come on. At least make it worth the seventh level freaking slot.
Please do not contact or message me.
Especially, if you think about the fact, that Spiritual Weapon upcast to level 6 does 3d8+Spellcasting Mod force damage without concentration...
Mind you, Mord Sword can hit doors and objects and Spiritual Weapon can’t. Not sure if that’s worth it but...
I've never played in or seen any game where somebody is truly disallowed to attack objects with a spell that targets a 'creature' if that spell should be obviously capable of targeting more generally. Acid Splash gets yelled at a lot - "the spell says 'target creature', so it's physically incapable of being used on doors or locks or stuff! DX" - but that's both overly restrictive and completely nonsensical. If you can throw a Bolt of Fire at a door, you can throw a bubble of acid at the same damn door. Spiritual Weapon can bonk skulls or it can bonk chests.
The only time a spell should disallow targeting objects is if the spell does something that doesn't make sense for an object, i.e. Hold Person. Elsewise who cares, it's artificial and unfun in ways that really don't matter for game balance or design.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yeah, that targeting rule in particular has always confused me. JC has consistently stuck to his guns about it being an important distinction whether a spell targets “creatures” or “creatures or objects”, but... why? What’s the test case of a spell that would perform in unintended or unbalanced ways were that not the case? If you can throw acid at a Mimic, why can’t you at a treasure chest? Sure, sure, some spells wouldn’t effect an object if cast on them, detect thoughts or something... but it’s an odd granularity to insist on for targeting, when it doesn’t really feel like it’s worth any power level points one way or the other for spell design.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Part of the problem is that Wizards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks get access to Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade, and most Clerics get access to Divine Strike. But Druids get nothing to boost the damage of their melee attacks. Some colleges of Bards get extra attack, so that helps them in melee combat.
I think it's absolutely necessary to add your spellcasting modifier to the damage roll for Flame Blade. Increasing the floor on the damage would make such a big difference at making the spell much more worthy of at least being considered for use.
It's also essential to bring up the cantrip Primal Savagery when looking at Flame Blade. Once you reach level 5, Primal Savagery will deal 2D10 Acid Damage, which is extremely similar to 3D6 Fire damage, but is slightly more average damage and is less likely to be resisted. Both spells are melee spell attacks, but one is a cantrip that doesn't require concentration, and the other is a 2nd level spell that requires concentration. It's horrible for a 2nd level spell that requires concentration to be inferior to a cantrip as early as 5th level.
Shadow blade is probably the best offensive spell an Eldritch Knight has access to. It benefits from the dueling fighting style, synergizes with what the base fighter class is build around. Reliably making high numbers of attacks, and occasional doubling the amount of those attacks with action surge when advantageous.
Shadowblade also situationally gives the caster advantage on that same bonus action. This spell by itself makes the Eldritch Knight competitive with greatweapon/sharpshooter feat builds, without costing a feat. If elven accuracy is in play, it surpasses those feats with advantage even if those builds are using +2 to +3 weapons.