Flame Blade Fighter

[numerek]

First post, sorry if I'm overusing the spoilers but they are all quotes from the phb, except for that last one that puts it all together.
I'm not trying to say that this is some powerful build or even the best way to do a fighter druid. I'm just trying to put a nice weapon into the hands of a fighter.
"fiery blade"..."scimitar"..."You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade. On a hit, the target takes 3d6 fire damage"..."damage increases by 1d6 for every two slot levels above 2nd."

..."you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn."..."three when you reach 11th level"...

"When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature"

"The most common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword"..."With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. See the "Making an Attack""...

"Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure."

When I saw the Flame Blade spell I said to myself that belongs in the hands of a Fighter.
Dueling: +2 bonus to damage rolls
Action Surge: one additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action.
Improved Critical: 19 or 20.
Extra Attack: Attack 3 times.
Druid is mainly for putting a 4d6 weapon into the fighters hand. You don't get your stat modifier to damage but on a critical hit you are rolling all 4d6 again.
I'm still looking for ways to get advantage on these attacks. Advantage ups 10% critical hit chance to 19%.
Ideas I've come up with are from Feats, Martial Adept for trip attack if they fall prone on first hitting attack all other attacks have advantage obviously don't get advantage till you hit and then relies on them failing strength save and being able to fall prone.
Other Feat Mounted Combatant, you have to keep your mount alive and it has to be bigger than the opponent.
War Caster would be good also for maintaining concentration after the action surge.
You could also do 5 Fighter/15 Druid to make 4 attacks at 6d6

[Yorrin]

I don't think it works like that? As in, because Flame Blade is a "melee spell attack" it's not eligible for iterative attacks. Which is sad, because I also thought of this. Is there a more experienced rules lawyer in the house that can confirm/deny this?

[hymer]

I don't think it works like that? As in, because Flame Blade is a "melee spell attack" it's not eligible for iterative attacks. Which is sad, because I also thought of this. Is there a more experienced rules lawyer in the house that can confirm/deny this?

You're right. Getting multiple attacks requires using the Attack action. Here's the Flame Blade language: "You can use you action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade." Sorry, OP.

[numerek]

Ahh, the spells wording counterargument, which is why I quoted so many places in the combat section and the wording of Extra Attack.
The best arguments I can find in there for the counter argument are that the spell falls under either "special feature" part of Actions in Combat paragraph that I quoted or the Use an Object Action, and the fact that the spell doesn't specifically say the words Attack Action next to each other.
But my arguments for seem far more compelling and it makes more sense. From a common sense perspective you are saying that the blade's flame has a 6 second recharge on it which the spell doesn't state. Where as I am saying that the blade is in the Fighter's hands, he is going to use it to its fullest.

So perhaps then with your counterargument you can determine what happens if I were to take the Attack Action with the flame blade in my hand and no other weapon. Does the spell remove my ability to take an Attack Action for the duration of the spell. Also do I not threaten an area with this flame blade, if someone provokes an attack of opportunity what do I do "Don't worry about running past that guy he's just got a flame blade in his hands he won't be able to hit you again with it for another 6 seconds". Or some leader type effect causes me to attack outside my turn.

[Falka]

Actually there is no need to reinterpret the rule or make analogy. If you just quoted all the wording on 'melee attack', you'd get your answer.

As stated in page 95 PHB:

'Some spells also involve making a melee attack'.

There you go.

[Human Paragon 3]

Actually there is no need to reinterpret the rule or make analogy. If you just quoted all the wording on 'melee attack', you'd get your answer.

As stated in page 95 PHB:

'Some spells also involve making a melee attack'.

There you go.

Seems like it should work to me! How does it compare with a horned paladin of the same level using smites on his attacks?

[numerek]

Actually there is no need to reinterpret the rule or make analogy. If you just quoted all the wording on 'melee attack', you'd get your answer.

As stated in page 95 PHB:

'Some spells also involve making a melee attack'.

There you go.

For clarification are you saying that you can Extra Attack with the Flame Blade because Attack Action and Opportunity attack both mention melee attack.

[Kornaki]

I would make a different argument: that you can use the attack action with your flame blade because you're allowed to use an attack action with anything. If I'm holding a rock, I can make an attack action with it. I can also make an attack action with my flaming blade. The spell doesn't say I can, but it doesn't have to.

Then you get into the awkward question of how much damage it deals. The spell only specifies how much damage you deal when you use an action to make a melee spell attack. So the DM could rule that it is an improvised weapon and deals 1d4 damage and by RAW he would be fine. He could also rule it is a similar weapon to a scimitar and deals 1d8 damage or whatever and by RAW would be fine. As flaming blade is not in the list of weapons, by the improvised weapons rules he would not be following RAW to let you deal 3d6 damage using it as an improvised weapon, but it does seem likely you could talk someone into doing that.

You also by RAW would not be using your spellcasting stat, but instead STR, when making your attack roll when using the attack action.

[Falka]

For clarification are you saying that you can Extra Attack with the Flame Blade because Attack Action and Opportunity attack both mention melee attack.

Exactly.

What I mean is that by reading Flame Blade's description, strictu sensu, you are creating a weapon in your hand (using the bonus action) and making attacks with your action. The fact that you use the spell attack modifier does not alter the nature of the attack (which is smacking with a flaming blade). I think the wording is clear, only that you don't use STR or Dex, but rather your Spell attack bonus for what's simply a melee attack made through the effects of a Concentration spell.

[Falka]

Seems like it should work to me! How does it compare with a horned paladin of the same level using smites on his attacks?

Good question. Well, if you read Divine's Smite description, it merely states 'when you hit an enemy creature with a melee attack'.

It doesn't refer to any limit whatsoever. So you could smite several times per turn, as long as you hit multiple attacks.

As stated in the PHB, you can only use a spell per turn, or one through a bonus action and a cantrip as your normal action. But unless you're using a "Smite Spell" (like Thunderous Smite), you don't have limits when it comes to use the Divine Smite class feature.

You could, for example, cast Thunderous Smite as a bonus action (spending the spell's slot), then declare that you activate Divine Smite when you hit (so both stack); and if you have another attack in the same action, you could declare another Divine Smite if you hit (but not Thundering, as you've already used a spell in that turn, even if you had an aditional bonus action).

Which now makes me think... Paladin's can nova-smack really hard.

[Z3ro]

The OP, in his quotes, missed the most relevant section of making an attack:

pg194: If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

And since extra attack simple says you attack twice when you use the attack action, I think this is pretty cut and dry. The spell makes an attack roll, therefore it's an attack. If you have extra attack, you can attack twice. I don't think that was the designer's intent, but by my reading of the rules that seems to be how it works.

The only reason a spell like inflict wounds wouldn't apply is because the casting and attack are part of the same action, whereas flame blade distinguishes between the casting and the attacking action.

[pwykersotz]

The OP, in his quotes, missed the most relevant section of making an attack:

pg194: If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

And since extra attack simple says you attack twice when you use the attack action, I think this is pretty cut and dry. The spell makes an attack roll, therefore it's an attack. If you have extra attack, you can attack twice. I don't think that was the designer's intent, but by my reading of the rules that seems to be how it works.

The only reason a spell like inflict wounds wouldn't apply is because the casting and attack are part of the same action, whereas flame blade distinguishes between the casting and the attacking action.

I agree with this. My general rule of thumb is if you are swinging a spell like a weapon, it counts as a weapon for iteratives and the like. Naturally discretion needs to be applied, if Flame Blade Druid/Fighters turn out to be able to nova 5x harder than any other class...perhaps nerf it. But until then, it seems logical.

[Surrealistik]

I'd rule flame blade multiattacking with the Attack action doesn't function as the OP described because you specifically and explicitly need to use your action to make the one spell attack listed as an effect of the spell in order to get the full stated damage; the Attack action doesn't allow you to circumvent that requirement. Using the flame blade as detailed in the spell may be an attack, but the only way you get to use it to its full effect (i.e. with the damage described in the spell as opposed to as an improvised weapon or thing of DM fiat) is by expending an action in the way the spell describes.

Kornaki's interpretation I agree with the most.

[Warskull]

I agree with Falka's interpretation, the rules-as written seem to support this. I highly doubt it was intended, but it looks like a valid combo. I don't think it would be overpowered either.

Having no stat bonus is a massive downside. A 2d6+5 (avg 12) is realistic for a high level fighter using a greatsword, that's not that far behind the 4d6 (avg 14) your flame blade would achieve. Plus the pure 20 fighter would have a 4th attack. Another downside you aren't considering is concentration. You have to make a 10+1/2 damage taken concentration save every time you take damage to maintain your flame blade. You can cast a new one with a bonus action, but it will gobble up your spell slots slowly turning you into an inferior fighter. This is a huge deal, because once you run out of your highest level spell slot you lose 1d6. War caster will be mandatory. Also now you have a demand for high Wisdom (for attack rolls) and a demand for high Con (for concentration saves), so your str/dex will suffer. You won't be falling back on your physical attacks.

I would almost certainly take druid up to 9 for this build. At level 7 if you fail one concentration check you are down to 3d6 per hit which is strictly inferior to a great weapon fighter. I think you should also abuse the duelist option in this case for the extra +2 damage.

Another major weakness is the level curve of this build. Until level 4 you will simply be a druid or a fighter with poor stat alignment. Once you hit level 4 (1Fig/3Dru) you are finally a flame blade fighter and you will probably be better than an equivalent level 4 fighter. However, the second level 5 hits the fighter pulls ahead again with his second attack. From this point on you are chasing the GWF's dps because he will be an attack ahead of you.

This may seem a bit crazy, but perhaps you should do it is a Bard/Paladin instead. If you go College of Lore you can use additional magic secrets to pick up flame blade at level 6. Paladin's Vow of Enmity (oath of vengeance, level 3) will give you advantage against a single target for a full minute. It is usable every short rest. Both Paladin and Bard will benefit from your pumped charisma. Since you are settling for two attacks, you can push higher into Bard, in addition Paladin's half caster status will help you reach a higher max spell slot. 14 bard/6 paladin could make two attacks at 6d6 damage, plus burn one of his level one spell slots to smite on each hit taking it to 6d6+2d8 twice a round. At higher levels you can probably toss around your level 2 spell slots without worry. If you DM allows it go human and take the extra feat variant. This build would be a bit feat heavy wanting savage attacks, war caster, and elemental adept.

[numerek]

I did put dueling fighting style in the op in the last spoiler. Elemental Adept is definitely a good catch.

I haven't completely thought out the level progression but you could use Shillelagh instead of going straight for Flame Blade.

I don't know if this was intention but you can actually get the first effect of Great Weapon Master with any melee weapon.

The bard paladin idea doesn't get Flame Blade till at least level 6 and if it get that there wouldn't get extra attack till level 11. If you went college of valor you could get extra attack at 6 and Flame Blade at level 10, also you could cast a spell and get an attack with Flame Blade.

One of the main reasons I wanted fighter was because Flame Blade really shines in critical hits. That is where the no ability to damage vs weapon damage dice becomes of most benefit. In the op I also mentioned two other feats that could help get advantage on attacks.

I did not forget about concentration. I mentioned taking taking War Caster in the op. And if you start as Fighter you are proficient in constitution saving throws.

And yes level 9 druid can cast Flame Blade as a level 4 spell many more times than a level 7 druid.

So yes considering there is no race that gives +2 to wis, human variant would probably be the best since this build will probably need atleast 3 feats and two 20 stats.

[Dark Tira]

I agree with this. My general rule of thumb is if you are swinging a spell like a weapon, it counts as a weapon for iteratives and the like. Naturally discretion needs to be applied, if Flame Blade Druid/Fighters turn out to be able to nova 5x harder than any other class...perhaps nerf it. But until then, it seems logical.

I agree with this, except I think you need to clarify that although it seems to work with iterative attacks it's never considered a weapon attack because it specifically says it's a melee spell attack. This puts a pretty large restriction on it when trying to optimize.

[pwykersotz]

I agree with this, except I think you need to clarify that although it seems to work with iterative attacks it's never considered a weapon attack because it specifically says it's a melee spell attack. This puts a pretty large restriction on it when trying to optimize.

Yep, I agree.

[Kornaki]

The OP, in his quotes, missed the most relevant section of making an attack:

pg194: If there’s ever any question whether something you’re doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you’re making an attack roll, you’re making an attack.

You're still conflating "attack" with "Attack action", which isn't clear that they are the same thing (in general they are not I believe).

As far as consistency of wording goes, who here would let their players use iteratives with the Shocking Grasp spell?

[Dark Tira]

You're still conflating "attack" with "Attack action", which isn't clear that they are the same thing (in general they are not I believe).

As far as consistency of wording goes, who here would let their players use iteratives with the Shocking Grasp spell?

Doesn't work with shocking grasp since the attack is part of the "cast spell" action and it doesn't stay around.

[Surrealistik]

You're still conflating "attack" with "Attack action", which isn't clear that they are the same thing (in general they are not I believe).

As far as consistency of wording goes, who here would let their players use iteratives with the Shocking Grasp spell?

They're not the same thing.

Even though the spell creates a persisting blade of flame, You have to explicitly spend your action per the spell description to gain the stated effect of the 3d6 damage. If you're using the 'flame blade' in your hand in an Attack action iterative attack, it by default counts as an improvised weapon; as a weapon its parameters aren't actually and technically defined.

[hymer]

You're still conflating "attack" with "Attack action", which isn't clear that they are the same thing (in general they are not I believe).

As far as consistency of wording goes, who here would let their players use iteratives with the Shocking Grasp spell?

I agree entirely. Specific beats general (PHB p. 7), and the specific wording is very precise: You get to attack once with the flame blade by expending your action. There's really no getting around it, that's simply how the spell works.

But: This thread wants to play it differently, so I don't think you and I need to rain on their parade any more than we've already done. :smallsmile:

[numerek]

Hill Dwarf could be a second option if rolling stats and it avoided putting a +1 stat feat in constitution.

[numerek]

They're not the same thing.

Even though the spell creates a persisting blade of flame, You have to explicitly spend your action per the spell description to gain the stated effect of the 3d6 damage. If you're using the 'flame blade' in your hand in an Attack action iterative attack, it by default counts as an improvised weapon; as a weapon its parameters aren't actually and technically defined.


I agree entirely. Specific beats general (PHB p. 7), and the specific wording is very precise: You get to attack once with the flame blade by expending your action. There's really no getting around it, that's simply how the spell works.

But: This thread wants to play it differently, so I don't think you and I need to rain on their parade any more than we've already done. :smallsmile:

As I've put in a previous post then how does this work if I decide to take an attack action with the blade in my hand or with reaction attacks, or someone else giving me an attack outside my turn. One person mentioned improvised weapon or have it be a scimitar damage.
Under improvised weapons it says "Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is close at hand" I have a weapon unless you want to argue a blade doesn't count as a weapon. So clearly that doesn't work. And the spell doesn't say it that it counts as a scimitar it says "The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar" and there is a big difference between a steel scimitar and fire the size and shape of a scimitar.

[Warskull]

The bard paladin idea doesn't get Flame Blade till at least level 6 and if it get that there wouldn't get extra attack till level 11. If you went college of valor you could get extra attack at 6 and Flame Blade at level 10, also you could cast a spell and get an attack with Flame Blade.

One of the main reasons I wanted fighter was because Flame Blade really shines in critical hits. That is where the no ability to damage vs weapon damage dice becomes of most benefit. In the op I also mentioned two other feats that could help get advantage on attacks.

I did not forget about concentration. I mentioned taking taking War Caster in the op. And if you start as Fighter you are proficient in constitution saving throws.

And yes level 9 druid can cast Flame Blade as a level 4 spell many more times than a level 7 druid.

So yes considering there is no race that gives +2 to wis, human variant would probably be the best since this build will probably need atleast 3 feats and two 20 stats.

The big problem with taking fighter up for the improved crit is that you have a very limited supply of 4d6 flame blades. At 11Fig/9 druid you have 4 casts before you are back down to 3d6. A build that doesn't worry about that extra 5% crit chane will also crit much harder when it does crit. Even with advantage I wouldn't be surprised if flame blade got disrupted at least once every other fight. Being in melee range means you will get hit frequently.

You are right the college of valor gives you a two attack flame blade faster than college of lore. The problem is college of valor also cannot flame blade attack at all until 10. If you are going the college of valor, you could also go 20 levels of bard. I also like that as a bard/paladin you also have your inspirations and auras, so you aren't directly competing with a fighter's role. You are more like a slightly less effective fighter with a bunch of bonus support abilities.

If you are dead set on the increased crit you could always Fighter 3/Bard 10. Picking up the extra attack via bard would let you end at Fighter 3/Bard 17.


You're still conflating "attack" with "Attack action", which isn't clear that they are the same thing (in general they are not I believe).

As far as consistency of wording goes, who here would let their players use iteratives with the Shocking Grasp spell?

Reread the spells. Fiery blade explicitly states "You can use your action to make a melee spell
attack with the fiery blade." while shocking grasp says "Make a melee spell attack
against the target." This is the key difference. With shocking grasp you spend your normal action to cast the spell, then get a free attack as part of the spell. You never take an action that is an attack. With fiery blade it only consumes a bonus action to cast, you then use your attack to make a melee spell attack. That is pretty much the definition of an attack action.


As I've put in a previous post then how does this work if I decide to take an attack action with the blade in my hand or with reaction attacks, or someone else giving me an attack outside my turn. One person mentioned improvised weapon or have it be a scimitar damage.

Under improvised weapons it says "Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is close at hand" I have a weapon unless you want to argue a blade doesn't count as a weapon. So clearly that doesn't work. And the spell doesn't say it that it counts as a scimitar it says "The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar" and there is a big difference between a steel scimitar and fire the size and shape of a scimitar.

With RAW I don't think you can use the flame blade in bonus actions or reactions. The spell is pretty explicit about using an action to make the melee attack with the fire. It don't think it counts as a weapon or improvised weapon. You don't have a blade, you have magically controlled fire that is shaped like a blade. At best if you used it as an improvised weapon it would count as a regular scimitar. The Xd6 fire damage clearly comes from the regular action used during your turn.

[Surrealistik]

As I've put in a previous post then how does this work if I decide to take an attack action with the blade in my hand or with reaction attacks, or someone else giving me an attack outside my turn. One person mentioned improvised weapon or have it be a scimitar damage.
Under improvised weapons it says "Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is close at hand" I have a weapon unless you want to argue a blade doesn't count as a weapon. So clearly that doesn't work. And the spell doesn't say it that it counts as a scimitar it says "The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar" and there is a big difference between a steel scimitar and fire the size and shape of a scimitar.

The problem is that if you want to use the 'flame scimitar' as a weapon, its attack stats aren't actually defined so it defaults to being an improvised weapon if you would use it as a weapon. Getting it to deal 3d6 fire damage as part of an iterative attack pretty much requires DM fiat and allowance.

Also, the rationale for using it as a regular scimitar:

"In many cases, 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."

I can see both sides of the argument here, but I would agree that it's too different from a regular scimitar to use it as one, which leaves you with an improvised weapon that has no proficiency bonus to its attack roll.

[Human Paragon 3]

Do any versions of Warlock get Flame Blade? That would solve the slots problem.

[Yorrin]

I have a weapon unless you want to argue a blade doesn't count as a weapon.

Actually in this case I'd exactly say that a flame blade doesn't count as a weapon. It's a spell, and cannot be used as a weapon regardless of it's appearance. This wouldn't even be an issue of an improvised weapon- if you wanted to use your iterative attack it would be an unarmed strike as far as I'm concerned. But even more fundamentally the blade doesn't exist except during the single attack action which is called out as having a specific effect. So you couldn't make iterative attacks at the same time the blade existed- they both take up one's action and thus cannot be coexistent.

[numerek]

I'm not talking about "broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel, or a dead goblin", "An object that bears no resemblance to a weapon deals 1d4 damage." I'm talking about a blade with a handle that when cast with a 4th level slot does half the damage of a 3rd level fireball on a melee spell attack hit.

[numerek]

Actually in this case I'd exactly say that a flame blade doesn't count as a weapon. It's a spell, and cannot be used as a weapon regardless of it's appearance. This wouldn't even be an issue of an improvised weapon- if you wanted to use your iterative attack it would be an unarmed strike as far as I'm concerned. But even more fundamentally the blade doesn't exist except during the single attack action which is called out as having a specific effect. So you couldn't make iterative attacks at the same time the blade existed- they both take up one's action and thus cannot be coexistent.

Flame Blade works different it is a concentration spell. The blade can be in your hand for up to 10 minutes it specifically talks about the fact that you can drop it.

[Warskull]

Actually in this case I'd exactly say that a flame blade doesn't count as a weapon. It's a spell, and cannot be used as a weapon regardless of it's appearance. This wouldn't even be an issue of an improvised weapon- if you wanted to use your iterative attack it would be an unarmed strike as far as I'm concerned. But even more fundamentally the blade doesn't exist except during the single attack action which is called out as having a specific effect. So you couldn't make iterative attacks at the same time the blade existed- they both take up one's action and thus cannot be coexistent.

Reading this, I think you have figured out the correct interpretation. Using your action allows you do deal Xd6 with the flame blade as a melee spell attack. It is an attack action so it triggers your extra attacks. You may use these extra attacks, but triggering the flame blade damage requires an action. Extra attacks are not an action, they just happen.

So using a fighter/druid you could cast flame blade in you off-hand, use an action to attack with it dealing Xd6, then attack with whatever is in your main hand for your remaining attacks. Since the flame blade isn't a weapon it wouldn't be treading into dual wielding, it wouldn't get reactions, and it can't take bonus actions.

I think you've figured out the interpretation that makes sense and works in all circumstances.

[numerek]

I don't plan on having any other weapon in my hand, it would look silly. And most people that think you can't attack with it multiple times a round think that it would be your whole "take one action"
from page 189 under "Your Turn" to use the action described in the spells text. At best I was planning on sword and board, to bad Fire Shield isn't a Druid spell.

To the guy that asked about Warlock, I believe Flame Blade is a Druid only(/Bard) spell. It also isn't in any of the Warlock Expanded Spell Lists.

[Surrealistik]

Reading this, I think you have figured out the correct interpretation.

...but that's pretty much the exact thing me and Kornaki have been saying all this time, lol.

[Yorrin]

Reading this, I think you have figured out the correct interpretation.
This is the opposite of what I was saying...



And most people that think you can't attack with it multiple times a round think that it would be your whole "take one action"

THIS is my stance.

[Surrealistik]

So using a fighter/druid you could cast flame blade in you off-hand, use an action to attack with it dealing Xd6, then attack with whatever is in your main hand for your remaining attacks. Since the flame blade isn't a weapon it wouldn't be treading into dual wielding, it wouldn't get reactions, and it can't take bonus actions.

Yeah, reading on and having seen this, this isn't quite my view or Yorrin's.

I think the summary of the positions opposed to the OP's position is this:

A: You must spend an action as described in the spell to deal 3d6 damage via the Flame Blade spell.
B: You _can_ use the flame blade created by the spell in iterative attacks but only as an improvised weapon since the flame blade isn't actually stated as a weapon and the 3d6 damage is not actually defined as a parameter of the flame blade but is something applied by the spell itself.

[Yorrin]

Yeah, reading on and having seen this, this isn't quite my view or Yorrin's.

I think the summary of the positions opposed to the OP's position is this:

A: You must spend an action as described in the spell to deal 3d6 damage via the Flame Blade spell.
B: You _can_ use the flame blade created by the spell in iterative attacks but only as an improvised weapon since the flame blade isn't actually stated as a weapon and the 3d6 damage is not actually defined as a parameter of the flame blade but is something applied by the spell itself.

And to contrast this with the view I purport I agree with point A but not point B, since the Flame Blade is a spell effect rather than an actual item, and thus cannot be used for ANYTHING other than the 3d6 fire damage action.

[numerek]

And to contrast this with the view I purport I agree with point A but not point B, since the Flame Blade is a spell effect rather than an actual item, and thus cannot be used for ANYTHING other than the 3d6 fire damage action.


But you do understand that Flame Blade is not a instantaneous or a when you hit with some other weapons attack spell. It is a Concentration, up to 10 minutes, "If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action". Assuming you don't lose concentration and don't drop it you will have the scimitar like blade in your hand for up to 100 combat rounds it "sheds bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet." Its not only there when when you use the action.

[Yorrin]

But you do understand that Flame Blade is not a instantaneous or a when you hit with some other weapons attack spell. It is a Concentration, up to 10 minutes, "If you let go of the blade, it disappears, but you can evoke the blade again as a bonus action". Assuming you don't lose concentration and don't drop it you will have the scimitar like blade in your hand for up to 100 combat rounds it "sheds bright light in a 10-foot radius and dim light for an additional 10 feet." Its not only there when when you use the action.

Oh absolutely, it's a gout of flame that you hold in your hands and swing at your foes. But because it's a spell it has a very narrowly defined set of actions it can do. Saying you can do something other than what's specified is like saying you can use the Light cantrip to perform opportunity attacks or saying that Fire Bolt allows you to make iterative ranged attacks because it's an attack action to cast it. None of those are allowed, because magic is strictly regulated.

[numerek]

Oh absolutely, it's a gout of flame that you hold in your hands and swing at your foes. But because it's a spell it has a very narrowly defined set of actions it can do. Saying you can do something other than what's specified is like saying you can use the Light cantrip to perform opportunity attacks or saying that Fire Bolt allows you to make iterative ranged attacks because it's an attack action to cast it. None of those are allowed, because magic is strictly regulated.

Although I don't agree that that the fiery blade is a improvised weapon because I believe that it is a deliberate weapon. It is something that you can hold in your hand and improvised weapon says "An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands."

As other people have mentioned spells like Fire Bolt is an instantaneous spell so you can't attack with it multiple times because it is gone.

As for the Light spell it says you touch an object no larger than 10 feet in any direction and that object sheds bright light. So yes you could attack with the object that is imbued with magical light. That might be a good use for the spell cast it on an arrow and shoot that arrow at something hidden by darkness, now they would need to spend an action taking the arrow out or they will have a light source sticking to them.

[numerek]

Page 201 phb
"What Is a Spell?"..."Spells can be versatile tools, weapons, or protective wards"

I don't know of any other spell that fits that definition using the word "weapons" better than Flame Blade.

[Kornaki]

Page 201 phb
"What Is a Spell?"..."Spells can be versatile tools, weapons, or protective wards"

I don't know of any other spell that fits that definition using the word "weapons" better than Flame Blade.

Yeah, I don't think the word "weapons" there is meant to be that literal :smalltongue:

[Giant2005]

Actually in this case I'd exactly say that a flame blade doesn't count as a weapon. It's a spell, and cannot be used as a weapon regardless of it's appearance. This wouldn't even be an issue of an improvised weapon- if you wanted to use your iterative attack it would be an unarmed strike as far as I'm concerned. But even more fundamentally the blade doesn't exist except during the single attack action which is called out as having a specific effect. So you couldn't make iterative attacks at the same time the blade existed- they both take up one's action and thus cannot be coexistent.

I agree 100% with this. Although having said that, I personally don't care how the OP wants to play and I'll advise him on how to improve the concept as best I can.
Firstly if you are planning on doing crits, you want to be a Half-Orc for its Savage Attacks.
Secondly, you don't need to invest so heavily into Druid if Flame Blade is all you care about - you only need 3 levels to get Flame Blade and any other caster class can increase the spell slots.
Fighter 11/Druid 3/ Sorc 6 would work pretty well for both the Metamagic and the ability to add your Charisma Mod to damage.

[numerek]

I agree 100% with this. Although having said that, I personally don't care how the OP wants to play and I'll advise him on how to improve the concept as best I can.
Firstly if you are planning on doing crits, you want to be a Half-Orc for its Savage Attacks.
Secondly, you don't need to invest so heavily into Druid if Flame Blade is all you care about - you only need 3 levels to get Flame Blade and any other caster class can increase the spell slots.
Fighter 11/Druid 3/ Sorc 6 would work pretty well for both the Metamagic and the ability to add your Charisma Mod to damage.

Thank you for your ideas, Sorc is a good idea I could trade my lower level slots for more 4th level spots it does require starting in the class or having a 13 in charisma though. but I would miss out on an ability score increase and has been mentioned I will need all of those I can get. I would probably give up elemental affinity for a druid level to get an ability score increase. I would probably go human for the feat. unless I was rolling abilities and the +2 con for dwarf would save me from having to get a +1 stat feat as the half-orc would only add d6 on crits. Actually with the extra slots from sorcerer I might be able to go 8 caster level 12 fighter and get another ability score increase.
And I would probably go wild mage then for the free advantage probably won't be casting many sorcerer spell so don't really have to worry about the wild mage surge.
So going with 10 10 15 8 15 14 as human variant 10 10 16 8 16 13. I get 6 ability score increases + 1 feat, 4 for stats 10 10 20 8 20 13. One for War Caster, Elemental Adept(Fire), then maybe Mounted Combatant For the advantage against people smaller than the mount, or I guess I could go back to 11 fighter 4 druid 5 sorcerer and have more spell slots/sorcerer points.