Flame Blade Question

[Ziegander]

The spell says, "You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar." Does that mean that the Flame Blade is a scimitar for all other purposes? Can I apply Weapon Focus (Scimitar) to attacks with the Flame Blade? If I roll an 18-20 on my attack roll with the Flame Blade do I threaten a critical hit for double damage?

[Rhatahema]

My interpretation is that the flame blade is treated as a scimitar only in regards to how you wield it, but in all other ways is a spell. So yes, you need scimitar proficiency to wield it without penalty and could apply weapon focus (scimitar) and improved critical (scimitar). But it's still a spell, not an actual scimitar, so its base critical threat and multiplier would be 20/x2.

[lunar2]

without the full spell description, i can't be sure, but that looks like descriptive fluff, not rules text. so no, you don't get the benefit of all your scimitar stuff.

[Ziegander]

My interpretation is that the flame blade is treated as a scimitar only in regards to how you wield it, but in all other ways is a spell. So yes, you need scimitar proficiency to wield it without penalty and could apply weapon focus (scimitar) and improved critical (scimitar). But it's still a spell, not an actual scimitar, so its base critical threat and multiplier would be 20/x2.

Okay, that does make sense.


without the full spell description, i can't be sure, but that looks like descriptive fluff, not rules text. so no, you don't get the benefit of all your scimitar stuff.

That line is part of the spell description. It reads:

"A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from your hand. You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar. Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks. The blade deals 1d8 points of fire damage +1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10). Since the blade is immaterial, your Strength modifier does not apply to the damage. A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth.

The spell does not function underwater."

[lunar2]

yeah, that's part of the descriptive text. it has nothing to do with how the spell interacts with the rules.

[Fax Celestis]

For all intents and purposes, a flame blade is a scimitar. It is wielded like a scimitar, has proficiencies like a scimitar (note the absence of proficiency acquisition text like other spells do, such as ice axe), inflicts criticals like a scimitar, works with feats like a scimitar, and is basically in all ways, except striking touch AC instead of full AC and dealing fire damage instead of slashing damage, a scimitar.

[Fax Celestis]

yeah, that's part of the descriptive text. it has nothing to do with how the spell interacts with the rules.

If we ignore descriptive text when determining what a spell can do, you will end up with many spells that do nothing. Take rouse, from PHB-II for example.

[NeoPhoenix0]

Fax is right. The rules make no distinction between flavor text and rules text in spells.

This is all the rules say about the text after the stat block of a spell:

Descriptive Text

This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description included "see text," this is where the explanation is found.

All of the text in a spell description is relevent.

[Ziegander]

For all intents and purposes, a flame blade is a scimitar. It is wielded like a scimitar, has proficiencies like a scimitar (note the absence of proficiency acquisition text like other spells do, such as ice axe), inflicts criticals like a scimitar, works with feats like a scimitar, and is basically in all ways, except striking touch AC instead of full AC and dealing fire damage instead of slashing damage, a scimitar.

Okay, well, if this is true, since Flame Blade deals damage like a large scimitar, would you feel that an ice version of a large longsword would be okay as a 2nd level Cleric/Paladin spell?

[Captnq]

Okay, well, if this is true, since Flame Blade deals damage like a large scimitar, would you feel that an ice version of a large longsword would be okay as a 2nd level Cleric/Paladin spell?

No. It is wielded like a scimitar. Not a large scimitar. Not a double scimitar. Not a great scimitar. Just a Scimitar.
That means:
Martial One-Handed Melee Weapon
Critical: 18-20/x2
Weight: 4 lb
Type: S

From The Spell Handbook:
Editor (Blaster): Nice spell which lets you to make melee touch attacks. You can persist it if you want and it doesn't care for your caster level really or your strength modifier. Nice for skill monkey - gishes with low BAB. You can use metamagic feats to change the elemental damage.
Editor (Tome of Battle): Yes, since you treat the flame blade as a scimitar, you can use this spell with any manuvers that are found in the tome of battle, or with any feat or other ability that requires you to be wielding a scimitar. Those manuvers and uses are against your target’s touch attack AC. However, secondary calculations (Such as your Jump DC when using Soaring Raptor Strike) would be calculated using the target’s normal AC.

[Ziegander]

No. It is wielded like a scimitar. Not a large scimitar. Not a double scimitar. Not a great scimitar. Just a Scimitar.
That means:
Martial One-Handed Melee Weapon
Critical: 18-20/x2
Weight: 4 lb
Type: S

I never said it was wielded like a large scimitar. It deals 1d8 damage though. Like a large scimitar would deal. A medium one deals 1d6 damage.

[Feilith]

It creates a Scimitar of size appropriate for you. If you're tiny it deals 1d8+1/CL if you're gargantuan it still does 1d8+1/CL. Regardless of size.

[Fax Celestis]

That is a function of the spell. Your icesword example is probably fine. I would keep the longsword's damage and threat range, as cold is a less commonly resisted element than fire. I will however point you at the ice knife and ice axe spells in Spell Compendium.

[Ziegander]

It creates a Scimitar of size appropriate for you. If you're tiny it deals 1d8+1/CL if you're gargantuan it still does 1d8+1/CL. Regardless of size.


That is a function of the spell.

I get that. What I was asking was would a 2d6 + 1/two caster levels cold damage weapon-like spell that is "wielded like a longsword" be appropriate for a 2nd level spell?


Your icesword example is probably fine. I would keep the longsword's damage and threat range, as cold is a less commonly resisted element than fire.

That was rather my thought also, as well as being available both to Clerics and Paladins instead of just Druids. I specifically need a spell that creates a weapon-like longsword for mechanical reasons, though, yes, Ice Axe is beastly.

Anyway, thanks guys!

[Ziegander]

Actually, one last question: Is there any reason a character couldn't cast Flame Blade twice and dual-wield Flame Blades (suffering the extra penalties, of course, for wielding two one-handed weapons)?

[NeoPhoenix0]

You can indeed dual wield flame blades.

[lunar2]

yeah, you can dual wield them. the attack penalties wouldn't even matter, since it's against touch AC.

[Ziegander]

That's what I thought. Thanks guys!