Can 1 Action be used to cast this spell as a ranged attack. What I mean is in 1 action I cast and then hurl the flame at a target. Below is a copy of the part I think is relevant. I have made the parts I think allows this in bold.
You can also attack with the flame, although doing so ends the spell. When you cast this spell, or as an action on a later turn, you can hurl the flame at a creature within 30 feet of you. Make a ranged spell attack. On a hit, the target takes 1d8 fire damage.
Also is there an official ruling somewhere on this. I have spent a bit of time googling and while most agree that you can use 1 action to cast and hurl it as a ranged attack, there are a few that disagree. The wording seems to be debatable. An official ruling to decide this once and for all would be nice so I can convince others...lol
To me its not ambiguous. However there are many that disagree and tell me it needs an action to cast, then I need a later turn to hurl the flame.
My hopes in creating this thread was to try and convince those that disagree with me. To them the description is not clear (even though to most of us it is). There are also lots of debates about this when googling. Its just some people say it can, and some say it can't. How do you convince those that think you can't? The wording "or as an action on a later turn" is what throws them. Even when I point out it says OR they still don't agree.
Yea I think I will just accept that they changed the spell like a home brew thing and just drop it. Kinda sux as I picked the spell as my cantrip specifically for attacking with it. Oh well. Thanks for the replies. I don't want to piss off the DM so I will just accept his judgement. I am also very new to 5E so my opinion on how things work, means nothing...lol
If your DM is saying that you can't attack with it the same turn you cast it, they are wrong. That is literally the plain language of the spell. The "or" implies a choice the character has to either 1) throw the flame the moment they cast it (as part of the same action) or 2) hold it and throw it later on another turn. That is the plain english meaning of "or" in that spell. If english is not your DM's first language, I would explain that to him.
It's also basic grammar. The two commas around the phrase 'or as an action on a later turn' indicate an aside, or parenthetical. You can remove the part of the sentence between the two commas and the rest of the sentence is still correct (and, coincidentally, says exactly what you want).
1. Cast the spells as 1 action and hurl it as part of that casting. Or
2. if you cast the spell in an early turn and were using it as a torch to see (or just holding it for whatever reason) then on any other turn, other than the one you cast it, you can hurl it as an action.
In case of #2, it ends up costing you two actions because they (casting and hurling) are on different turns/rounds
Thanks for the responses. I might point him to this post, maybe it will change his mind. Also if I knew I would not be able to cast and hurl this in 1 action, i would surely have taken the Create Bonfire spell instead. I kind of thought it would be cool to produce flames in my hand, as a flavour thing which is why I chose that one.
Honestly? The DM has a right to rule the way they want, and you can try to change their mind, but if they're going to be obstinate about something so clearly simple to understand that they're obviously wrong about, I would start looking for a different group to play with.
Honestly? The DM has a right to rule the way they want, and you can try to change their mind, but if they're going to be obstinate about something so clearly simple to understand that they're obviously wrong about, I would start looking for a different group to play with.
Agreed. If they're changing the spell because they want it to work differently that's one thing. If they're changing it because that's how they think it's supposed to work as written, then odds are they're going to misinterpret other rules as written, and things are going to get problematic.
Might help to point out that taking 2 turns to do 1d8 damage at quite a limited range is ridiculously weak, and that doing it in one turn puts it much more in the ballpark of the other attack cantrips. Even then it's still a bit weaker due to the extra utility of also being Light lite.
I thought the same thing with this spell, about being able to cast and hurl the fire in the same action, but my DM said it is cast to produce the flame to light the area and then be able to hurl it on another turn/action. See the below link to an article I found. I also included a section of the article where it shows you can't do both in one action.
While Produce Flame’s versatility is impressive, you cannot cast and attack with the flame you produce from this spell in the same turn. Casting Produce Flame and attacking with the flame is considered two separate actions. While it would be efficient to have one spell that can serve two functions, it is not very efficient to use two turns to make one attack while everyone else is using one turn to make the same attack.
I thought the same thing with this spell, about being able to cast and hurl the fire in the same action, but my DM said it is cast to produce the flame to light the area and then be able to hurl it on another turn/action. See the below link to an article I found. I also included a section of the article where it shows you can't do both in one action.
While Produce Flame’s versatility is impressive, you cannot cast and attack with the flame you produce from this spell in the same turn. Casting Produce Flame and attacking with the flame is considered two separate actions. While it would be efficient to have one spell that can serve two functions, it is not very efficient to use two turns to make one attack while everyone else is using one turn to make the same attack.
When you cast this spell, OR as an action on a later turn, you can hurl the flame at a creature within 30 feet of you.
So you can either cast it and throw it - or cast it and later throw it during the 10 minutes it lasts. The moment you throw it the spell ends - and would need to be recast.
I thought the same thing with this spell, about being able to cast and hurl the fire in the same action, but my DM said it is cast to produce the flame to light the area and then be able to hurl it on another turn/action. See the below link to an article I found. I also included a section of the article where it shows you can't do both in one action. “When you cast this spell, OR as an action on a later turn, you can hurl the flame at a creature within 30 feet of you.
While Produce Flame’s versatility is impressive, you cannot cast and attack with the flame you produce from this spell in the same turn. Casting Produce Flame and attacking with the flame is considered two separate actions. While it would be efficient to have one spell that can serve two functions, it is not very efficient to use two turns to make one attack while everyone else is using one turn to make the same attack.
It’s kind of infuriating how wrong some people, including this article’s author, can be about this spell. Get rid of the part in between commas and it’s clear.
When you cast this spell, or as an action on a later turn, you can hurl the flame at a creature within 30 feet of you.
The reason why the spell is written is because of Produce Flame has versatility (and therefore both lower range and damage than some other spells). That being said it's weird that anyone would try to say that it can't be done in the same turn because it's not even a spell that is worded with vague terminology or any sign of vagueness.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
5E - Produce Flame Spell:
Can 1 Action be used to cast this spell as a ranged attack. What I mean is in 1 action I cast and then hurl the flame at a target. Below is a copy of the part I think is relevant. I have made the parts I think allows this in bold.
Ref: https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/produce-flame
Also is there an official ruling somewhere on this. I have spent a bit of time googling and while most agree that you can use 1 action to cast and hurl it as a ranged attack, there are a few that disagree. The wording seems to be debatable. An official ruling to decide this once and for all would be nice so I can convince others...lol
There is no ambiguity. You can cast and throw it in the same turn.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
To me its not ambiguous. However there are many that disagree and tell me it needs an action to cast, then I need a later turn to hurl the flame.
My hopes in creating this thread was to try and convince those that disagree with me. To them the description is not clear (even though to most of us it is). There are also lots of debates about this when googling. Its just some people say it can, and some say it can't. How do you convince those that think you can't? The wording "or as an action on a later turn" is what throws them. Even when I point out it says OR they still don't agree.
If they don't agree with "when you cast this spell OR as an action on a later turn", you're going to have a hard time.
I am one with the Force. The Force is with me.
Yea I think I will just accept that they changed the spell like a home brew thing and just drop it. Kinda sux as I picked the spell as my cantrip specifically for attacking with it. Oh well. Thanks for the replies. I don't want to piss off the DM so I will just accept his judgement. I am also very new to 5E so my opinion on how things work, means nothing...lol
If your DM is saying that you can't attack with it the same turn you cast it, they are wrong. That is literally the plain language of the spell. The "or" implies a choice the character has to either 1) throw the flame the moment they cast it (as part of the same action) or 2) hold it and throw it later on another turn. That is the plain english meaning of "or" in that spell. If english is not your DM's first language, I would explain that to him.
It's also basic grammar. The two commas around the phrase 'or as an action on a later turn' indicate an aside, or parenthetical. You can remove the part of the sentence between the two commas and the rest of the sentence is still correct (and, coincidentally, says exactly what you want).
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
If your GM is going to be unruly about it, take Create Bonfire instead. It has greater range and flexibility.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
You can:
1. Cast the spells as 1 action and hurl it as part of that casting. Or
2. if you cast the spell in an early turn and were using it as a torch to see (or just holding it for whatever reason) then on any other turn, other than the one you cast it, you can hurl it as an action.
In case of #2, it ends up costing you two actions because they (casting and hurling) are on different turns/rounds
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Thanks for the responses. I might point him to this post, maybe it will change his mind. Also if I knew I would not be able to cast and hurl this in 1 action, i would surely have taken the Create Bonfire spell instead. I kind of thought it would be cool to produce flames in my hand, as a flavour thing which is why I chose that one.
Honestly? The DM has a right to rule the way they want, and you can try to change their mind, but if they're going to be obstinate about something so clearly simple to understand that they're obviously wrong about, I would start looking for a different group to play with.
Agreed. If they're changing the spell because they want it to work differently that's one thing. If they're changing it because that's how they think it's supposed to work as written, then odds are they're going to misinterpret other rules as written, and things are going to get problematic.
Might help to point out that taking 2 turns to do 1d8 damage at quite a limited range is ridiculously weak, and that doing it in one turn puts it much more in the ballpark of the other attack cantrips. Even then it's still a bit weaker due to the extra utility of also being Light lite.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The GMs interpretation would make it one of the weakest attack cantrips, being only able to attack every other round.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Most attack cantrips are designed to replicate a melee person's weapon attack. So they generally cause damage instantly on casting.
It would actually make it worse than True Strike because at least that gives you advantage on other stuff every other turn.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
I thought the same thing with this spell, about being able to cast and hurl the fire in the same action, but my DM said it is cast to produce the flame to light the area and then be able to hurl it on another turn/action. See the below link to an article I found. I also included a section of the article where it shows you can't do both in one action.
https://www.nerdsandscoundrels.com/produce-flame-5e/
Cons
While Produce Flame’s versatility is impressive, you cannot cast and attack with the flame you produce from this spell in the same turn. Casting Produce Flame and attacking with the flame is considered two separate actions. While it would be efficient to have one spell that can serve two functions, it is not very efficient to use two turns to make one attack while everyone else is using one turn to make the same attack.
That's just incorrect. The spell literally says:
So you can either cast it and throw it - or cast it and later throw it during the 10 minutes it lasts. The moment you throw it the spell ends - and would need to be recast.
The or is important.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
It’s kind of infuriating how wrong some people, including this article’s author, can be about this spell. Get rid of the part in between commas and it’s clear.
When you cast this spell,
or as an action on a later turn, you can hurl the flame at a creature within 30 feet of you.EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The reason why the spell is written is because of Produce Flame has versatility (and therefore both lower range and damage than some other spells). That being said it's weird that anyone would try to say that it can't be done in the same turn because it's not even a spell that is worded with vague terminology or any sign of vagueness.