Flame Blade: Why is this spell so bad?

[Easy_Lee]

So observe the spell flame blade. It's a concentration spell, bonus action, which allows one to spend one's action to make a melee spell attack. Okay, so far so good. 10 minute duration, not bad. Concentration? This thing better be good. 2nd level is 3d6 fire damage for your action, comparable to a rogue's attack + sneak attack at that level. That's fine. And it increases by 1d6 for every two spell levels past second...

That's horrible. Out of a fourth level slot, level 7, one can attack for 14 average damage per turn in melee range. Compare that to firebolt, a cantrip, which doesn't take concentration and deals 11+ damage at the same level. Then if one spends an 8th level slot at level 15+, one can have it deal 6d6, or 21 damage. An eldritch blast two levels later deals 42 damage across multiple targets if one has the agonizing invocation.

Why is this spell so awful? The blade can't even be used for opportunity or bonus action attacks, so it's pretty much worthless.

[Chaosvii7]

So observe the spell flame blade. It's a concentration spell, bonus action, which allows one to spend one's action to make a melee spell attack. Okay, so far so good. 10 minute duration, not bad. Concentration? This thing better be good. 2nd level is 3d6 fire damage for your action, comparable to a rogue's attack + sneak attack at that level. That's fine. And it increases by 1d6 for every two spell levels past second...

That's horrible. Out of a fourth level slot, level 7, one can attack for 14 average damage per turn in melee range. Compare that to firebolt, a cantrip, which doesn't take concentration and deals 11+ damage at the same level. Then if one spends an 8th level slot at level 15+, one can have it deal 6d6, or 21 damage. An eldritch blast two levels later deals 42 damage across multiple targets if one has the agonizing invocation.

Why is this spell so awful? The blade can't even be used for opportunity or bonus action attacks, so it's pretty much worthless.

Likely that it's the way it is because it's really only used by Druids, but even so that's not must of a justification. I'd say that it's possible to make the Attack action with it(Extras and all), use it with reactions and bonus actions, and possibly to give it a functionality with Wild Shape. It might be overboard if this spell wasn't so exclusive. As it is that high spell level needs to pay for itself somehow.

[rhouck]

It doesn't seem terrible for when you get it -- 3d6 at level 3 (when you get the spell) is an average of 10.5 damage. Versus casting shillelagh and attacking for 1d8+Wis (let's say +3) for average of 7.5 damage. And druids never get extra attack, or the other spells you are comparing it to.

It's still a mediocre use of a 2nd level slot and scales terribly.

[Demonic Spoon]

Note that druids don't get firebolt, they get produce flame and poison spray. It matters because poison spray lacks range and has a crap damage type, whereas produce flame only does a d8.


Flame blade does provide something that the druid doesn't otherwise get - a mechanism for dealing competitive, magical melee damage in case something shows up in your face and you can't easily get away (so produce flame is at disadvantage, or you really need the small damage edge it has on cantrips) and don't want to blow an action to disengage. It's something that you can cast once for the entire fight, so you could use it as a way to fight in melee if it should be utterly necessary without either taking unnecessary damage from constant retreats and delaying death of the enemy, but the fight doesn't really warrant blowing your "powerful" spells on it.

I also wouldn't want to buff it - if you make it a competitive option for general purpose use, you take the druid's spellcasting focus away from utility, summoning, and area control, in addition to potentially risking a 3.5-esque balance where druids do everything that martials can do and more. WotC was very careful with summoning spells and polymorph spells which could allow casters to play like martials, and I imagine they were cautious with Flame Blade for this reason.

All that said, flame blade is highly situational, and most cases where you would want to use it, there are equivalent or better uses for your concentration or spell slot.

[Dralnu]

Keep in mind most damaging spells scale like crap. They may also think that druids shouldn't be doing raw damage (FIRE! think of the trees!) like the Wizard/Sorcerer, so this spell should be crappier since it's outside of the Druid's traditional strengths.

They probably liked its base number at 3d6 but felt that +1d6/lvl was too much. If so, they probably went for +1d6/2lvls not because that was their ideal number through calculations, but rather they were lazy and/or under a time crunch and moved on.

I dunno. You could try asking them. Rodney used to answer my tweets but he no longer works there :(

EDIT: Oh, and it was a spell in 3e, and their target audience has a hard-on for AD&D/3e stuff, so it's good business to port as many names from those titles to appease the grognards. It was a crap spell in 3e too if I recall so this keeps with tradition.

[pwykersotz]

I think it was meant to not outscale weapon attacks too much, which is why the damage is limited.

I also believe you can use it to make Opportunity Attacks, as OA's don't specify no spell attacks, they specify that it must be melee, which Flame Blade is. Also, if you off-hand a weapon you can still use two-weapon fighting, or else use your bonus action for other spells.

I agree that the scaling isn't much worth it, but the base spell at the level you obtain it seems useful.

[Easy_Lee]

I think it was meant to not outscale weapon attacks too much, which is why the damage is limited.

I also believe you can use it to make Opportunity Attacks, as OA's don't specify no spell attacks, they specify that it must be melee, which Flame Blade is. Also, if you off-hand a weapon you can still use two-weapon fighting, or else use your bonus action for other spells.

I agree that the scaling isn't much worth it, but the base spell at the level you obtain it seems useful.

Being that other sources of reaction attacks, such as mage slayer and sentinel, specify one melee weapon attack, I believe this is errata material. Still, noted.

The primary issue I have with it, beyond the crap scaling, is concentration. There are so many better things to do with concentration even at the level that druids acquire this spell.

[pwykersotz]

Being that other sources of reaction attacks, such as mage slayer and sentinel, specify one melee weapon attack, I believe this is errata material. Still, noted.

The primary issue I have with it, beyond the crap scaling, is concentration. There are so many better things to do with concentration even at the level that druids acquire this spell.

What would be your top three that surpass this one? I don't think you're wrong on that front, but I'm curious by how much your prefered spells outstrip this one, and if they're circumstantial.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I think that because Flame blade makes a melee weapon (scimitar) it would work like the warlock's pact weapon and can be used to make OA.

[MeeposFire]

I think that because Flame blade makes a melee weapon (scimitar) it would work like the warlock's pact weapon and can be used to make OA.

It does not create a scimitar though. It makes a flame that looks similar to a scimitar not the same thing.

Also if you rule that flame blade is allowed to make opportunity attacks then essentially any melee spell can be used (since opportunity attacks say just "melee attack" but what stops you from using shocking grasp then?) unless you houserule in an additional caveat for the spell so it is special to flame blade and not all melee spell attacks.

[Easy_Lee]

What would be your top three that surpass this one? I don't think you're wrong on that front, but I'm curious by how much your prefered spells outstrip this one, and if they're circumstantial.

Honestly, I think the spell would be fine if it scaled by 1d6 per level. If we look at fireball, a third level spell, we see that it deals 8d6 in an aoe radius, and scales by 1d6 per level. 8d6 would be too high for a continuous attack option, but scaling by 1d6 per spell level would not.

Then there's witch bolt, which in spite of having many of the same problems and generally being lauded as a weak spell, scales better than this. It doesn't last as long, but its duration is not small either. One minute is probably functionally equivalent to ten minutes in most cases, since encounters are generally not much longer than ten rounds and seldom does one have two encounters in the same ten minute period.

[ThermalSlapShot]

It does not create a scimitar though. It makes a flame that looks similar to a scimitar not the same thing.

Also if you rule that flame blade is allowed to make opportunity attacks then essentially any melee spell can be used (since opportunity attacks say just "melee attack" but what stops you from using shocking grasp then?) unless you houserule in an additional caveat for the spell so it is special to flame blade and not all melee spell attacks.

Close enough though. It makes a scimitar of fire and that's good enough for me, otherwise the spell doesn't keep up all that well.

Shocking Grasp doesn't make a weapon. Flame blade makes a blade, it looks like a scimitar but it is still a blade of fire.

[pwykersotz]

It does not create a scimitar though. It makes a flame that looks similar to a scimitar not the same thing.

Also if you rule that flame blade is allowed to make opportunity attacks then essentially any melee spell can be used (since opportunity attacks say just "melee attack" but what stops you from using shocking grasp then?) unless you houserule in an additional caveat for the spell so it is special to flame blade and not all melee spell attacks.

Flame blade exists during the turn where the oa happens and does not require an action or bonus action to use during that turn. That's what sets it apart.

[Submortimer]

What would be your top three that surpass this one? I don't think you're wrong on that front, but I'm curious by how much your prefered spells outstrip this one, and if they're circumstantial.

Barkskin, Moonbeam, Flaming Sphere, Invisibility, Spike Growth...the list goes on.

Flame blade should either be a non-concentration ability, or it should scale up 1d6 per level. Using a level 9 spell slot, you're getting one attack at 10d6 damage per round, which is an avg of 35; that's much more in line with what characters can do at will at that level.

More appropriately, make flame blade a cantrip. Re-write it like this:

Flame Blade
Evocation Cantrip
Casting Time: bonus action
Range: Self
Component: V, S
Duration: 1 min

You evoke a fiery blade in your hand, which sheds bright light in a 10 ft. radius and dim light 10 ft. after that. It 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 it again as a bonus action. You can use the attack action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade. As well, you may use your flame blade to make Opportunity attacks, and it counts as a light melee weapon for the purposes of two-weapon fighting. On a hit, the blade deals 1d8 Fire damage.

You may make additional attacks with your Flame Blade as you increase in level: At 5th, two attacks; at 11th, three attacks; and at 16th, 4 attacks.

[JNAProductions]

Er...

Fighter, Magic Initiate, 4*4d8 damage at level 20.

There's a reason Extra Attack and Cantrips don't stack.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Er...

Fighter, Magic Initiate, 4*4d8 damage at level 20.

There's a reason Extra Attack and Cantrips don't stack.

Flame Blae is a 2nd level spell.

[JNAProductions]

Barkskin, Moonbeam, Flaming Sphere, Invisibility, Spike Growth...the list goes on.

Flame blade should either be a non-concentration ability, or it should scale up 1d6 per level. Using a level 9 spell slot, you're getting one attack at 10d6 damage per round, which is an avg of 35; that's much more in line with what characters can do at will at that level.

More appropriately, make flame blade a cantrip. Re-write it like this:

Flame Blade
Evocation Cantrip
Casting Time: bonus action
Range: Self
Component: V, S
Duration: 1 min

You evoke a fiery blade in your hand, which sheds bright light in a 10 ft. radius and dim light 10 ft. after that. It 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 it again as a bonus action. You can use the attack action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade; if you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make multiple attacks with your flame blade. As well, you may use your flame blade to make Opportunity attacks, and it counts as a light melee weapon for the purposes of two-weapon fighting and Sneak Attack. On a hit, the blade deals 1d8 Fire damage.

The damage of flame blade increases based on your level: at 5th, it deals 2d8; at 11th, 3d8; and at 16th, 4d8.

For a straight druid, assuming 20 wis, this is about on par with Shillelagh up till 11th level (9.5 avg vs 4.5 at 1st, 9.5 vs. 9 avg at 5th) , and becomes situationally better after that (lots of creatures are resistant/immune to fire damage the higher up in level you go). For a multiclass character that get's extra attack, it's about the same (19 avg vs 18 avg at 6th level).

That last line might push it over the top, but I'd need to do some maths to see how unbalancing it could be.

Was responding to the quoted post.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Dralnu]

Yeah, the cantrip would be silly with Magic Initiate and MC'ing, and that's the only reason why you'd need all that bonus text in the first place.

Rogues would also be taking it to do 1d8/2d8/3d8/4d8 damage offhand attacks, instead of 1d6 shortsword (only goes up to 1d8 with a feat).

I think Flame Blade is a dumb spell to begin with. Druids are about nature, hugging trees, and if they do raw damage its when they transform into a moose or whatever. Conjuring a blade of fire and stabbing people seems like an arcane thing.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Was responding to the quoted post.

Sorry for the confusion.

Ah. Gotcha.

But if I was making a cantrip out ifnit I would just make...

Elemental Blade
BA, Conc or 1 minute.

You sheathe your weapon in Acid, Cold, Fire, or Lightning. Your weapon deals that type of damage instead of normal.

You are proficient with this weapon when you attack with it.

[Submortimer]

Er...

Fighter, Magic Initiate, 4*4d8 damage at level 20.

There's a reason Extra Attack and Cantrips don't stack.

Sure..assuming said fighter had a 20 in wisdom, which is certainly gonna cause him to be deficient in other areas. Otherwise, a GWM Greatsword fighter is gonna outclass him all the way, and for much longer.

I could drop the damage to 1d6 -> 2d6 -> 3d6 -> 4d6. At it's highest point, it'd to 1 more point on avg than greatword with 20 strength. (14 vs 13)

[JNAProductions]

There's no Wisdom needed. It scales by level.

Unless Wisdom modifier gets added, in which case the damage gets even higher. 4*4d8, no modifiers, is already pretty dang high.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Couldn't you make the cantrip scale like Eldritch Blast instead of like Firebolt and the others?

Then you.could be comparable to the Fighter great sword/Duelist more so than what it currently would be.

[Submortimer]

There's no Wisdom needed. It scales by level.

Unless Wisdom modifier gets added, in which case the damage gets even higher. 4*4d8, no modifiers, is already pretty dang high.

My bad, I was talking about the attack modifiers. At level 16+, you're going to have a hard time dealing all that damage when you only have a +6 to hit, and a Greatsword fighter would be doing it much better than you.




Couldn't you make the cantrip scale like Eldritch Blast instead of like Firebolt and the others?

Then you.could be comparable to the Fighter great sword/Duelist more so than what it currently would be.

...yes. That makes much more sense.

[Giant2005]

Flame Blade is kind of crappy in the sense that Vampiric Touch shames it to the extent that Flame Blade runs home from school every day crying to its mother that Vampiric Touch was picking on it again.
Having said that, it isn't useless and actually scales pretty well, just not for the Druid. The Attack Action doesn't require one to use a weapon attack - spell attacks are fine as long as you don't need to instead be taking the Cast a Spell Action. The strength of spells like Flame Blade is that you can cast the spell and then have it stick around, so on subsequent turns you don't need to take the Cast a Spell Action. What that means is that if your Druid multiclasses into something that has the Extra Attack Ability, it can use the Attack Action to attack multiple times with its Flame Blade.

[Submortimer]

Flame Blade is kind of crappy in the sense that Vampiric Touch shames it to the extent that Flame Blade runs home from school every day crying to its mother that Vampiric Touch was picking on it again.

This is true.



Having said that, it isn't useless and actually scales pretty well, just not for the Druid. The Attack Action doesn't require one to use a weapon attack - spell attacks are fine as long as you don't need to instead be taking the Cast a Spell Action. The strength of spells like Flame Blade is that you can cast the spell and then have it stick around, so on subsequent turns you don't need to take the Cast a Spell Action. What that means is that if your Druid multiclasses into something that has the Extra Attack Ability, it can use the Attack Action to attack multiple times with its Flame Blade.

You cannot. the spell states that "You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade", similar to what it says with vampiric touch. If it were to work the way you're suggesting, it would be worded as, "When you take the Attack action, you may make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade'. its a subtle, but very distinct, change to the wording.

[Giant2005]

You cannot. the spell states that "You can use your action to make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade", similar to what it says with vampiric touch. If it were to work the way you're suggesting, it would be worded as, "When you take the Attack action, you may make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade'. its a subtle, but very distinct, change to the wording.

Fair enough, the spell description is far more specific than the description of the Attack Action and should take precedence. Although there is still a case for it - regardless of what the spell says, it doesn't actually prohibit the use of the Attack Action with it.

[MeeposFire]

Fair enough, the spell description is far more specific than the description of the Attack Action and should take precedence. Although there is still a case for it - regardless of what the spell says, it doesn't actually prohibit the use of the Attack Action with it.

True and that would make the spell much more useful though it begs the question of why have that statement in the spell at all if you were going to do that. Anybody can make an attack action so if the spell were to work with the attack action then that action in the spell really should not exist. The fact that it does is a strike against though you can choose to accept that you can use either and have the spell description be a redundant option of getting the spell damage.

[KorvinStarmast]

I agree that the concentration feature impairs this spell, given that it's 4th level and you'll likely be using it in melee.

I think Flame Blade is a dumb spell to begin with. Druids are about nature, hugging trees, and if they do raw damage its when they transform into a moose or whatever. Druids and fire in DnD seem to go together. It's a special relationship that goes back to the class origins.
From pages 1 & 2 of Eldritch Wizardry: (OD&D Supp 3).

Mistletoe takes a place of importance with them as a holy symbol or general peculiar to them, although some of their spells are similar to those of magic-users or clerics in general. Fire, natural forces, and living things tend to be their forte in this regard. From the spell lists on page 13 we see the consistent theme with fire spells.
1st Level: Faerie Fire (OK, more magical fire than "fire" fire)
2nd Level: Produce Flame, Heat Metal
3rd Level: Pyrotechnics, Protection from Fire
4th Level: Produce Fire
5th Level: Wall of Fire
6th Level: Conjure Fire Elemental
7th Level: Fire Storm

From page 2: With regard to fighting ability and saving throws treat druids as clerics, except that with regard to fire the saving throw is always +2 in the druids' favor.
-------------
I don't know if there was an explanation of this relationship in old SR or Dragon articles, memory is hazy. What I think was behind it was a little bit of game mechanics and flavor, and ... druids are human or humanoid. While attuned with nature and its servant, one of the big things that separates humans from beasts is the use and control of fire. (See also rituals involving fire in animist religions ... ) The Greenpeace / Vegan / Sierra Club memes so familiar to us now had not yet penetrated society as much when druids characters were conceived. One might ask Dennis Sustare aka (the Great Druid) who seems to have been the creative mind behind the original player character class.

Granted, DnD Druids have changed quite a bit over time, as have all of the classes. With 5e going somewhat retro, and Tim Kask's note considered, fire isn't a bad fit for Druids.


D & D was meant to be a free-wheeling game, only loosely bound by the parameters of the rules.

Timothy J. Kask
TSR Publications Editor
Lake Geneva, Wisconsin
23 April 1976 The Sacred Flame spell could use a few rulings to better align it with its position in the game.

[MrStabby]

As a concept I don't thing that flameblade is bad. I think it is a) poorly executed and b) probably should not be a Druid spell.

I think there are some other options though that do make it better - but probably at the expense of having a better character. Druid 3, Draconic Sorc 6 lets you add Cha to damage. A big boost but kind of a crap character given that you are a) still better using other spells b) losing high level spells for a really poor trick.

Secondly - and I think more open to interpretation would be a Druid 3 ranger 11 that uses a whirlwind attack to pull off a melee spell attack against all enemies (I believe that Whirlwind doesn't specify it has to be a weapon attack - away from book at the moment). This is fun, and a bit better but still you are at level 14 before you can make it work. It also has the upside of not being MAD and having a pretty reasonable character concept.

I could see the case being made that the scaling could be much better. Make one attack at level 2, 2 attacks out of a level 4 slot, 3 attacks out of a level 6 slot, 4 attacks out of a level 8 slot. It would be a pretty good spell then but somewhat balanced by needing concentration whilst putting you in the heart of melee (and in a class that doesn't automatically get heavy armour proficiency), dealing the most commonly resisted elemental damage, and using the player's action each turn.

[Gwendol]

It's a legacy spell, a bit strange in execution. First off, it used to be a weapon attack (vs Touch AC), which means it interacted with a host of other rules in sometimes unexpected ways. In 5e, that's no longer true, however, some things it really should allow such as OA's.

[Giant2005]

True and that would make the spell much more useful though it begs the question of why have that statement in the spell at all if you were going to do that. Anybody can make an attack action so if the spell were to work with the attack action then that action in the spell really should not exist. The fact that it does is a strike against though you can choose to accept that you can use either and have the spell description be a redundant option of getting the spell damage.

Good point on the redundancy.


I think there are some other options though that do make it better - but probably at the expense of having a better character. Druid 3, Draconic Sorc 6 lets you add Cha to damage. A big boost but kind of a crap character given that you are a) still better using other spells b) losing high level spells for a really poor trick.
It doesn't work any more. The Sorc nerf in the Errata prevents the cha being applied to any more than the first hit.


Secondly - and I think more open to interpretation would be a Druid 3 ranger 11 that uses a whirlwind attack to pull off a melee spell attack against all enemies (I believe that Whirlwind doesn't specify it has to be a weapon attack - away from book at the moment). This is fun, and a bit better but still you are at level 14 before you can make it work. It also has the upside of not being MAD and having a pretty reasonable character concept.
That one works and sounds pretty effective! Well not so much with Flame Blade but with Vampiric Touch. A Ranger/Anything with Vampiric Touch would be able to keep himself extremely healthy with all of those HP Absorbing attacks. Kudos for the idea.

[Person_Man]

Many spells are useful at the level you gain them, but cease to be useful as you gain levels because they scale poorly. I think its a holdover of 4E Power design combined with the desire to have as many "traditional" spells as possible.

In other words, the game doesn't need 10 different "As an Action you may make a melee attack and deal X damage" spells. It needs 1 that scales properly. But that would make it difficult to include 10 different traditional spells players want to see. So they have to create minor variations between them, and they have to scale poorly so that they're worth taking and using at specific levels.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Many spells are useful at the level you gain them, but cease to be useful as you gain levels because they scale poorly. I think its a holdover of 4E Power design combined with the desire to have as many "traditional" spells as possible.

In other words, the game doesn't need 10 different "As an Action you may make a melee attack and deal X damage" spells. It needs 1 that scales properly. But that would make it difficult to include 10 different traditional spells players want to see. So they have to create minor variations between them, and they have to scale poorly so that they're worth taking and using at specific levels.

This wasn't really true in 4e for the most part. You got to upgrade your abilities, usually into something similar but not always, as you leveled up. So you may take "mountain lion step" at level two but you wasn't under the assumption that you will keep it.

Eventually you will upgrade the utility/enc/daily. It because it becomes useless (nothing really is useless within its own tier of play... Mostly... 4e does have its own bad rules/ideas as seen in 3e) but because something better will come along.

In 5e (and 3e) once you picked up a spell or ability the assumption is that you will keep it and use it for your entire career.

Flame Blade looks to be made with the assumption that you will use it all career but in practical use it is something that needs replaced upon leveling.

[KorvinStarmast]

Flame Blade looks to be made with the assumption that you will use it all career but in practical use it is something that needs replaced upon leveling. AFB for the moment, but don't Druids prepare spells after a long rest like Clerics do? If not, my mistake.

[ThermalSlapShot]

AFB for the moment, but don't Druids prepare spells after a long rest like Clerics do? If not, my mistake.

Yes, however the spell does scale (horribly).

Druids preparing spells like clerics had no bearing on wither the spell was meant to be used the entire career or not.

The fact that it scales shows that someone thought that Druids would be using this spell at higher levels.

[Person_Man]

This wasn't really true in 4e for the most part. You got to upgrade your abilities, usually into something similar but not always, as you leveled up. So you may take "mountain lion step" at level two but you wasn't under the assumption that you will keep it.

Eventually you will upgrade the utility/enc/daily. It because it becomes useless (nothing really is useless within its own tier of play... Mostly... 4e does have its own bad rules/ideas as seen in 3e) but because something better will come along.

I think I disagree, though I am by no means an expert on 4E. My experience (mostly as a casual player at conventions and a few test games with friends) was that most Powers could be summarized as: #[W] + ability score Keyword damage + (maybe a) status effect, and higher level Powers basically just increased the # or whatnot.

For me, this was one of the worst parts about 4E. There were dozens and dozens of extremely similar Powers and highly granular/boring Feats. I generally prefer a smaller number of bigger, flexible, more interesting, non-duplicative stuff. (Which is one of the reasons I dislike spells like 5E Flame Blade).

Can you elaborate on your point a bit more? Perhaps my lack of 4E rules mastery has prejudiced view on that edition.

[KorvinStarmast]

Druids preparing spells like clerics had no bearing on wither the spell was meant to be used the entire career or not.
Sure it does. You aren't stuck with it past a certain level. You can use it while it's good and then let it go as your powers grow and you have better choices/combinations.

As to your other point, I agree: the scaling as shown certainly makes it less desirable at later levels.

Just a thought: with magical weapons rarer in general, it might be that this magical flame can sub in for a magical weapon in a pinch ... but then, is that what a 4th level spell slot is for? :smallconfused:

[Ziegander]

Just change it so that you can use the Attack action with it, and it's golden. Maybe add a line clarifying that it can be used to make Opportunity Attacks as well (though, personally, I take that as a given).

[rhouck]

I agree that the concentration feature impairs this spell, given that it's 4th level and you'll likely be using it in melee.


Just a thought: with magical weapons rarer in general, it might be that this magical flame can sub in for a magical weapon in a pinch ... but then, is that what a 4th level spell slot is for? :smallconfused:

To clarify, it's a 2nd level spell normally. You can cast it as a 4th level spell, and then it does 4d6 (which is rather lame and poor scaling).

[Easy_Lee]

To clarify, it's a 2nd level spell normally. You can cast it as a 4th level spell, and then it does 4d6 (which is rather lame and poor scaling).

Right. 3d6 at 3 is reasonable, though it should add casting mod to make it almost exactly what a rogue does at the same level. Scaling by 1d6 per spell level would be perfectly balanced: give up your concentration for rogue DPR. And I agree that it should be valid for opportunity attacks, since that would give the spell character and justify the need to be in melee range.

But alas, I did not design 5e. Ability to deal damage seems to be the only thing the designers planned for mundanes to have over casters, a questionable design choice. As a result, few non-aoe damage spells are worth casting when compared with control or buff spells.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I think I disagree, though I am by no means an expert on 4E. My experience (mostly as a casual player at conventions and a few test games with friends) was that most Powers could be summarized as: #[W] + ability score Keyword damage + (maybe a) status effect, and higher level Powers basically just increased the # or whatnot.

For me, this was one of the worst parts about 4E. There were dozens and dozens of extremely similar Powers and highly granular/boring Feats. I generally prefer a smaller number of bigger, flexible, more interesting, non-duplicative stuff. (Which is one of the reasons I dislike spells like 5E Flame Blade).

Can you elaborate on your point a bit more? Perhaps my lack of 4E rules mastery has prejudiced view on that edition.

Page 29 of the Players Handbook talks about upgrades. This replaces a lower level encounter or daily power with a higher one that you've just gained access to (13th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 23rd, 25th, 27th and 29th level). The DMG assumes that you always replace your current lowest level power of that type.

I'm away from book or I would snap a picture and send it to you for direct proof. But the above is what I googled and found out quickly.

So a level 1 encounter power will eventually become a level 13 encounter power (or whatever, I forget which type gets replaced first... I think encounter). Unless you ignore the rules of course.



Sure it does. You aren't stuck with it past a certain level. You can use it while it's good and then let it go as your powers grow and you have better choices/combinations.

As to your other point, I agree: the scaling as shown certainly makes it less desirable at later levels.

Just a thought: with magical weapons rarer in general, it might be that this magical flame can sub in for a magical weapon in a pinch ... but then, is that what a 4th level spell slot is for? :smallconfused:

So because you aren't stuck with a spell means that it isn't designed to be used throughout your career?

That's backwsrds and upside down logic right there.


Just change it so that you can use the Attack action with it, and it's golden. Maybe add a line clarifying that it can be used to make Opportunity Attacks as well (though, personally, I take that as a given).

*nods*

[Vogonjeltz]

So observe the spell flame blade. It's a concentration spell, bonus action, which allows one to spend one's action to make a melee spell attack. Okay, so far so good. 10 minute duration, not bad. Concentration? This thing better be good. 2nd level is 3d6 fire damage for your action, comparable to a rogue's attack + sneak attack at that level. That's fine. And it increases by 1d6 for every two spell levels past second...

That's horrible. Out of a fourth level slot, level 7, one can attack for 14 average damage per turn in melee range. Compare that to firebolt, a cantrip, which doesn't take concentration and deals 11+ damage at the same level. Then if one spends an 8th level slot at level 15+, one can have it deal 6d6, or 21 damage. An eldritch blast two levels later deals 42 damage across multiple targets if one has the agonizing invocation.

Why is this spell so awful? The blade can't even be used for opportunity or bonus action attacks, so it's pretty much worthless.

It doesn't scale extremely well, this is true, however it's also able to (theoretically) do 10 minutes of melee attacks once a round for that amount of damage, off a single spell slot (efficiency).

So advantages of Flame Blade:
1) Does fire damage (this skips most of the typical resistances to non-magical slashing, bludgeoning, piercing).
2) Sheds light (essentially a torch and by virtue of being magical light allows you to see in the darkness spell).
3) Higher potential damage then alternative spells in that same slot (this is because it lasts 10 minutes, so in theory using just the one spell slot you can do 630 damage average off one slot).
4) Can be pre-cast (because it can be resummoned using a bonus action anytime during the duration). This means the Druid can have a weapon on hand without having a weapon on hand.
5) Ranged spell attacks get disadvantage(!) in melee, Melee spell attacks don't.

Non-Druid spells are not valid points of comparison (I'm looking at you Eldritch Blast, Firebolt, and Witch Bolt) because the Druid won't have them, and non-Druids won't have Flame Blade.


Barkskin, Moonbeam, Flaming Sphere, Invisibility, Spike Growth...the list goes on.

Looking purely at their combat utility, Barkskin is pretty poor, the same effect can be achieved by a shield, studded leather and a +2 dex mod (or hide, shield and +2 dex mod). Moonbeam looks like a wash, it has a slightly lower damage floor and slightly higher damage ceiling, but if it's saved against it's straight up inferior, Invisibility ends on attack so it's pretty well useless for combat, Flaming Sphere only does 2d6 so the damage is straight up inferior and it lasts 1/10th of the time, and Spike Growth doesn't move so it can be avoided, it's much more useful for setting a trap or dissuading pursuit during a chase than it is a combat spell.


Flame Blade is kind of crappy in the sense that Vampiric Touch shames it to the extent that Flame Blade runs home from school every day crying to its mother that Vampiric Touch was picking on it again.

Vampiric Touch isn't a Druid spell. This is also comparing a 3rd level spell to a 2nd level spell which seems silly because you can't cast Vampiric Touch from that 2nd level spell slot or at 3rd level. At the level you can first cast it it's also identical damage (3d6 v 3d6) and it only lasts up to 6 rounds vs the 60 rounds of flame blade.


In 5e (and 3e) once you picked up a spell or ability the assumption is that you will keep it and use it for your entire career.

Flame Blade looks to be made with the assumption that you will use it all career but in practical use it is something that needs replaced upon leveling.

Low level damage dealing spells typically get outstripped by cantrips (no spell slot cost), so the lower level spell slots are generally better reserved for utility spells at higher levels.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Low level damage dealing spells typically get outstripped by cantrips (no spell slot cost), so the lower level spell slots are generally better reserved for utility spells at higher levels.

I'm not saying your points are wrong but there is a few things that go against this thinking.

Cantrips won't generally hit as many targets, you can face hordes of creatures at level 1 and level 20 of the same type, and almost every damage spell scales with level.

These things all point toward every spell meaning to be used through out the PCs life. However the implementation didn't go over so well.

Yeah cantrips will be better than low level damage Spells. But that can be seen as the flaw that causes problems.

I think the answer is found in the warlock. Auto scaling spells AND cantrips.

When a Warlock casts burning hands at level 9 or whatever they will cast it as a 5th level spell which is something like 8d6 fire damage in a cone. Their eldritch blast is an outlier but their other cantrips that fall in line will be doing 3d8 damage to one target. The cantrip is still good but so is the spell.

[Chronos]

It's the same level as Heat Metal, which does its damage without you having to spend all your actions on it. Yes, it only works on creatures holding or wearing metal, but realistically, that's pretty common.

[ThermalSlapShot]

It's the same level as Heat Metal, which does its damage without you having to spend all your actions on it. Yes, it only works on creatures holding or wearing metal, but realistically, that's pretty common.

I'm not saying you are wrong but... Way to go bringing a rocket launcher to a rock-paper-scissors battle. :smallbiggrin:

[CNagy]

I don't know if this is crazy or awesome, but why can't you use it to make an attack action as an improvised weapon? It is the size and shape of a scimitar, and anything that can be wielded in one or two hands can be used as an improvised weapon--so if for some reason you can actually hold a blade made entirely of fire, that satisfies the prerequisite.

And it matches the size and shape of an existing weapon, so a friendly DM is entirely within RAW to let you treat it as a scimitar--1d6 (fire) damage, finesse, light. Then you'd be adding your Strength or Dex to attack and damage, as well as proficiency to attack (if proficient). On your turn, you could use your action to make a melee spell attack as the spell describes for the higher damage, or you could use an attack action if you have more attacks that way and for whatever reason (trolls! molds!) need to spread the fire damage around. You could even wield it off-hand.

Edit: It still doesn't scale well, of course, but there isn't any reason I can see in the RAW why the blade can't be a little more versatile than it appears at first glance.

[MrStabby]

I don't know if this is crazy or awesome, but why can't you use it to make an attack action as an improvised weapon? It is the size and shape of a scimitar, and anything that can be wielded in one or two hands can be used as an improvised weapon--so if for some reason you can actually hold a blade made entirely of fire, that satisfies the prerequisite.

And it matches the size and shape of an existing weapon, so a friendly DM is entirely within RAW to let you treat it as a scimitar--1d6 (fire) damage, finesse, light. Then you'd be adding your Strength or Dex to attack and damage, as well as proficiency to attack (if proficient). On your turn, you could use your action to make a melee spell attack as the spell describes for the higher damage, or you could use an attack action if you have more attacks that way and for whatever reason (trolls! molds!) need to spread the fire damage around. You could even wield it off-hand.

Edit: It still doesn't scale well, of course, but there isn't any reason I can see in the RAW why the blade can't be a little more versatile than it appears at first glance.

Actually a very good point... I had not thought of this.

[PoeticDwarf]

So observe the spell flame blade. It's a concentration spell, bonus action, which allows one to spend one's action to make a melee spell attack. Okay, so far so good. 10 minute duration, not bad. Concentration? This thing better be good. 2nd level is 3d6 fire damage for your action, comparable to a rogue's attack + sneak attack at that level. That's fine. And it increases by 1d6 for every two spell levels past second...

That's horrible. Out of a fourth level slot, level 7, one can attack for 14 average damage per turn in melee range. Compare that to firebolt, a cantrip, which doesn't take concentration and deals 11+ damage at the same level. Then if one spends an 8th level slot at level 15+, one can have it deal 6d6, or 21 damage. An eldritch blast two levels later deals 42 damage across multiple targets if one has the agonizing invocation.

Why is this spell so awful? The blade can't even be used for opportunity or bonus action attacks, so it's pretty much worthless.

It is a terrible spell. But not the only one, and you just want it if you're lv. 3, later it's one of the worst spells in the PH. If you're lv. 3 fire bolt deals an average of 5,5 damage. Flame blade 10,5. It isn't the best spell but not so worse as you're trying to say.

[KorvinStarmast]

So because you aren't stuck with a spell means that it isn't designed to be used throughout your career? Your words, not mine, so the logic problem is built into your "so statement."

That's backwsrds and upside down logic right there. Then don't use that kind of non logic.

It of course can be used throughout your career, but it may not be as powerful relative to your opponents as early on. This isn't the only spell in that situation.

For example: As higher level monsters get resistances and immunities to fire, many fire spells lose their effectiveness at the top ends ...

You may not find uses for it as often. True with a variety of spells.

All that said, I think we agree that the scaling could use another look.

[Easy_Lee]

It is a terrible spell. But not the only one, and you just want it if you're lv. 3, later it's one of the worst spells in the PH. If you're lv. 3 fire bolt deals an average of 5,5 damage. Flame blade 10,5. It isn't the best spell but not so worse as you're trying to say.

Never said it was the worst, but it did bother me. I had an idea for a shield master druid using this spell to make a SAD caster with melee ability. But the spell scales too poorly for that, so no dice. It's a shame.

[tieren]

I think the answer is found in the warlock. Auto scaling spells AND cantrips.

When a Warlock casts burning hands at level 9 or whatever they will cast it as a 5th level spell which is something like 8d6 fire damage in a cone. Their eldritch blast is an outlier but their other cantrips that fall in line will be doing 3d8 damage to one target. The cantrip is still good but so is the spell.

Here is my problem with this logic: That 9th level warlock knows 10 spells up through 5th level, but only has 2 spell slots. Do you really think hes going to use one on burning hands? (I don't even see burning hands on their spell list)

[Easy_Lee]

Here is my problem with this logic: That 9th level warlock knows 10 spells up through 5th level, but only has 2 spell slots. Do you really think hes going to use one on burning hands? (I don't even see burning hands on their spell list)

Fiend Patron. AoE spells are a reasonable option.

[MrStabby]

Never said it was the worst, but it did bother me. I had an idea for a shield master druid using this spell to make a SAD caster with melee ability. But the spell scales too poorly for that, so no dice. It's a shame.

Yeah, this is the type of character I like to play. Unfortunately this edition is not very versatile - or at least not enough to pull this off.

[Easy_Lee]

Hmm...well, what might work is to change it to the following:
You may make one attack with this weapon in place of a reaction attack. If you cast this spell out of a higher slot, you may make one additional attack with it on your turn as your Flame Blade Attack action for every two spell levels.

So an 8th level slot, gained at level 17, would make four attacks with an average of 10.5 damage per. That's exactly the same as agonizing eldritch blast.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Fiend Patron. AoE spells are a reasonable option.

Yup, plus sometimes fireball isn't friendly whereas another aoe is.

[charlesk]

I play a low-level druid and the comparisons in this thread are underscoring for me what I've noticed already: first and second level druid spells are just unimpressive on the whole. :/

[Dimolyth]

Also if you rule that flame blade is allowed to make opportunity attacks then essentially any melee spell can be used (since opportunity attacks say just "melee attack" but what stops you from using shocking grasp then?) unless you houserule in an additional caveat for the spell so it is special to flame blade and not all melee spell attacks.

With your reaction, you can`t cast shocking grasp (or any other spell with casting time, that is not "reaction"). In the case of flame blade - you don`t need to cast: you are already holding that flaming scimitar-shape thing. For casting one-action one-target spells as opportunity attack you still need a feat.

As for me - you can make attacks of opportunity with flaming blade, though you cannot benefit from "weapon style" feats. As for me, you can use your reaction for such things, as spiritual weapon in such manner.

[GiantOctopodes]

I play a low-level druid and the comparisons in this thread are underscoring for me what I've noticed already: first and second level druid spells are just unimpressive on the whole. :/

Seriously?

Thunderwave, a Huge 1st level AOE spell that also includes forced movement, is unimpressive?

Moonbeam, an impressive damage AOE spell with a Con save (vs Reflex), great scaling, good duration, and auto disadvantage for certain creatures vs the save, and it's unimpressive?

Heat Metal, a Save or Suck spell where the damage effect kicks in when they save? With great utility and RP possibilities, and against someone in heavy armor, free, non-physical, unsaveable damage AND disadvantage on ALL Attack Rolls and Ability Checks, and it's unimpressive?

Pass without Trace, a Party Wide near unbeatable +10 to stealth, with complete immunity to tracking through non-magical means (which the only magical tracking comes in locate creature, which has some pretty steep requirements), is unimpressive?

Enhance Ability, auto advantage on checks (incredibly useful and hard to come by) with bonus effects in addition to that effect, is unimpressive?

Man, you must be *very* hard to impress.

[Submortimer]

Moonbeam looks like a wash, it has a slightly lower damage floor and slightly higher damage ceiling, but if it's saved against it's straight up inferior, Invisibility ends on attack so it's pretty well useless for combat, Flaming Sphere only does 2d6 so the damage is straight up inferior and it lasts 1/10th of the time


Both spells are superior to Flame Blade in almost every way.

1)Automatic damage. Though they are both save for half, they are guaranteed damage on your round. Not only that, but moonbeam will force two sets of save for half damage on any enemy it lands on (first time it enters on a turn, and then the creature starts it's turn in the beam.
2)Better scaling. As a 2nd level spell, the damages are about equal (for moonbeam) or worse (for flaming sphere). As a 4th level spell, the damages are equal or superior.
3)Action economy. This only applies to flaming sphere: You can move it (and thus attack with it) using your bonus action.
4)Multiple Targets. You can sweep moonbeam across the field, hitting a line of targets, and Flaming Sphere doesn't just hit it's main target, but anything within 5 feet of it.

Flame blade, as it stands, is worthless by comparison. Remove the concentration effect, and it becomes worthwhile (flame blade and flaming sphere in the same round would be awesome).

[bloodshed343]

I think I disagree, though I am by no means an expert on 4E. My experience (mostly as a casual player at conventions and a few test games with friends) was that most Powers could be summarized as: #[W] + ability score Keyword damage + (maybe a) status effect, and higher level Powers basically just increased the # or whatnot.

For me, this was one of the worst parts about 4E. There were dozens and dozens of extremely similar Powers and highly granular/boring Feats. I generally prefer a smaller number of bigger, flexible, more interesting, non-duplicative stuff. (Which is one of the reasons I dislike spells like 5E Flame Blade).

Can you elaborate on your point a bit more? Perhaps my lack of 4E rules mastery has prejudiced view on that edition.

This is really not true.

For example, Flame Spiral is a level 3 encounter for sorcerer that is the lynchpin of many level 30 builds.

Swordmages will likely never replace dimensional vortex.

Psions pretty much use Dishearten their whole career.

The point of having abilities that are similar (like Off-hand strike and ruffling sting for rangers) is so that you can specialize your character. Your powers are analogous to class features. Picking all minor action attacks, for instance, is like picking a bunch of class features that give you an extra attack.

It's possible to build a sword mage for instance that only uses immediate reactions. Wanna piss off a dm? Make him ask permission for every monster attack.

[charlesk]

Man, you must be *very* hard to impress.

I mostly play casters and yeah, I guess I am.

I do use some of those spells, but really, none of them knock my socks off compared to just meleeing in beast form or using my greataxe. Might just be the encounters we've had so far.

Heat Metal I keep memorizing but never comes up.

Moonbeam does only a bit more damage than a cantrip at 5th level and costs me my action each turn, and my concentration.

Enhance Ability is pretty situational IME.

I'm not saying these are bad spells. They just IMO are not particularly good spells compared to what other full casters get at the level. I don't think any of the ones you listed compares to Spiritual Weapon or Mirror Image or Invisibility or Scorching Ray or Suggestion. My 2c of course.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm not saying your points are wrong but there is a few things that go against this thinking.

Cantrips won't generally hit as many targets, you can face hordes of creatures at level 1 and level 20 of the same type, and almost every damage spell scales with level.

These things all point toward every spell meaning to be used through out the PCs life. However the implementation didn't go over so well.

Yeah cantrips will be better than low level damage Spells. But that can be seen as the flaw that causes problems.

I think the answer is found in the warlock. Auto scaling spells AND cantrips.

When a Warlock casts burning hands at level 9 or whatever they will cast it as a 5th level spell which is something like 8d6 fire damage in a cone. Their eldritch blast is an outlier but their other cantrips that fall in line will be doing 3d8 damage to one target. The cantrip is still good but so is the spell.

For the first part, do you mean with an increase in spell level? If so, yes, that's true, but it also costs a higher value resource to do so. For non-Warlocks increasing the power of the lower level spell slots to equal/exceed the value of the higher level spell slots would throw off the balance and design of the classes.


It's the same level as Heat Metal, which does its damage without you having to spend all your actions on it. Yes, it only works on creatures holding or wearing metal, but realistically, that's pretty common.

True, but Heat Metal also has a shorter duration and, as you say, is reliant on the target wearing metal armor or wielding a weapon that they can just drop. Which is not to say Heat Metal is bad, just that Flame Blade is more efficient and less situational. Heat Metal is basically useless on Monks or Druids, or anyone using a quarterstaff, for example.

[GiantOctopodes]

I mostly play casters and yeah, I guess I am.

I do use some of those spells, but really, none of them knock my socks off compared to just meleeing in beast form or using my greataxe. Might just be the encounters we've had so far.

Heat Metal I keep memorizing but never comes up.

Moonbeam does only a bit more damage than a cantrip at 5th level and costs me my action each turn, and my concentration.

Enhance Ability is pretty situational IME.

I'm not saying these are bad spells. They just IMO are not particularly good spells compared to what other full casters get at the level. I don't think any of the ones you listed compares to Spiritual Weapon or Mirror Image or Invisibility or Scorching Ray or Suggestion. My 2c of course.

Spiritual Weapon is ok, but not spectacular by any means, I'd take moonbeam over it any day. Our DM allows TWF to work with Flame Blade, so the druid attacks with flame blade and gets his offhand attack with his scimitar anyway, so under that house rule spiritual weapon loses a lot of its oomph. Now, Spirit Guardians is crazy, and I'll give you that over anything on the druid spell list any day. Mirror image and invisibility are great, can't complain about those at all for utility, but mirror image's damage soak is definitely not superior to the HP gain of the Druid's wild shape, and invisibility is a one person only buff, whereas pass without trace gets the whole party somewhere.

Moonbeam I think you're underestimating, it can hit many targets per turn, and does not require an action at all unless you want to move it (in which case, due to the targetable, sweeping AOE nature of it, its potential damage far exceeds Scorching Ray, much less any cantrips). Now, for Single Target damage, Scorching ray has it far beaten, granted. However, the concentration is an advantage. You don't need to move it all over every turn trying to maximize its damage- cut off staircases or doorways, or bridges, or other choke points, and force them to go long and dangerous ways around or go through it. Have it on top of an enemy engaged in combat and force them to choose between drawing AoOs from their combatants to flee or staying in it and continuing to burn. Have grapplers, warlocks, yourself with thunderwave, or anyone else with forced movement capabilities keep shoving them through to the other side, forcing them to keep walking through it to get back to their intended target. All of this can be in addition to having a full complement of actions, it requires neither an action nor a bonus action to maintain or deal damage, and unlike summons, cannot be killed, only dispelled. Granted, on an open field bereft of tactical options it's underwhelming, but I see no reason anyone should ever need to fight in such terrain.

[Fwiffo86]

Spiritual Weapon is ok, but not spectacular by any means, I'd take moonbeam over it any day. Our DM allows TWF to work with Flame Blade, so the druid attacks with flame blade and gets his offhand attack with his scimitar anyway, so under that house rule spiritual weapon loses a lot of its oomph. Now, Spirit Guardians is crazy, and I'll give you that over anything on the druid spell list any day. Mirror image and invisibility are great, can't complain about those at all for utility, but mirror image's damage soak is definitely not superior to the HP gain of the Druid's wild shape, and invisibility is a one person only buff, whereas pass without trace gets the whole party somewhere.

Moonbeam I think you're underestimating, it can hit many targets per turn, and does not require an action at all unless you want to move it (in which case, due to the targetable, sweeping AOE nature of it, its potential damage far exceeds Scorching Ray, much less any cantrips). Now, for Single Target damage, Scorching ray has it far beaten, granted. However, the concentration is an advantage. You don't need to move it all over every turn trying to maximize its damage- cut off staircases or doorways, or bridges, or other choke points, and force them to go long and dangerous ways around or go through it. Have it on top of an enemy engaged in combat and force them to choose between drawing AoOs from their combatants to flee or staying in it and continuing to burn. Have grapplers, warlocks, yourself with thunderwave, or anyone else with forced movement capabilities keep shoving them through to the other side, forcing them to keep walking through it to get back to their intended target. All of this can be in addition to having a full complement of actions, it requires neither an action nor a bonus action to maintain or deal damage, and unlike summons, cannot be killed, only dispelled. Granted, on an open field bereft of tactical options it's underwhelming, but I see no reason anyone should ever need to fight in such terrain.

All of this points out that most people seem to ignore the fact that the game is designed around a group, and not a single player. Analyze your spell selections with the rest of the group's contributions in mind when you compare one spell to the other. You will see far greater potential in nearly all spells this way.

[MrStabby]

All of this points out that most people seem to ignore the fact that the game is designed around a group, and not a single player. Analyze your spell selections with the rest of the group's contributions in mind when you compare one spell to the other. You will see far greater potential in nearly all spells this way.

Partially true. Often people chose what they will play independently of what other people play though so don't design their characters as part of a group. Even within play when people could play differently and pick different spells they focus on their character concept.

[DemonSlayer6]

So observe the spell flame blade. It's a concentration spell, bonus action, which allows one to spend one's action to make a melee spell attack. Okay, so far so good. 10 minute duration, not bad. Concentration? This thing better be good. 2nd level is 3d6 fire damage for your action, comparable to a rogue's attack + sneak attack at that level. That's fine. And it increases by 1d6 for every two spell levels past second...

That's horrible. Out of a fourth level slot, level 7, one can attack for 14 average damage per turn in melee range. Compare that to firebolt, a cantrip, which doesn't take concentration and deals 11+ damage at the same level. Then if one spends an 8th level slot at level 15+, one can have it deal 6d6, or 21 damage. An eldritch blast two levels later deals 42 damage across multiple targets if one has the agonizing invocation.

Why is this spell so awful? The blade can't even be used for opportunity or bonus action attacks, so it's pretty much worthless.

First, note that the base spell is good by your own admission. 3d6 fire damage from a melee spell attack means that you are doing a magical sneak attack in every hit for up to 100 rounds. Plus you can drop the sword (movement), cast a spell (action), and then evoke the sword (bonus) without using another spell slot.

Admittedly, this spell does lose power quickly. But at higher levels, you would be saving your low-level spells for quick fights: kobolds, hobgoblins, dragons, and such. It's useful when you take it, and diminishes in usefulness gradually.

Plus, note that the only class to have Flame Blade on its spell list are Druids. Since Druids have access to the full Druid spell list, a druid could easily select Flame Blade as a prepared spell only so long as it is useful and then stop preparing it.

Alongside this, Druids do not have access to either Firebolt or Eldritch Blast. This isn't to say that Flame Blade is an awesome spell...but it's a spell with no obligation that will be useful for at least a little while.

[Fwiffo86]

Partially true. Often people chose what they will play independently of what other people play though so don't design their characters as part of a group. Even within play when people could play differently and pick different spells they focus on their character concept.

Agreed. I was hoping to bring this to the attention of the OP. Nothing more.

[Ziegander]

Plus you can drop the sword (movement), cast a spell (action), and then evoke the sword (bonus) without using another spell slot.

Actually, you can't do that. As a Concentration spell, if you choose to cast another spell, you forfeit Concentration on Flame Blade, thus ending Flame Blade.

Though, yeah... I think I would advocate allowing the spell to scale by 1d6 per slot level, dropping Concentration entirely, and changing the wording to, "You may make melee spell attacks with this fiery blade as though it were a melee weapon, though you do not add your Strength, Dexterity, or spellcasting ability modifiers to the attack's damage roll." Or something similar.

Would it be too strong then, or just right? Perhaps the duration could be reduced, then, to 1 minute rather than 10.

[Easy_Lee]

Actually, you can't do that. As a Concentration spell, if you choose to cast another spell, you forfeit Concentration on Flame Blade, thus ending Flame Blade.

Minor correction: cannot cast other spells which require concentration, or hold a spell, while concentrating on another spell.

[Ziegander]

Minor correction: cannot cast other spells which require concentration, or hold a spell, while concentrating on another spell.

Oh. *poot*

I've been under the wrong impression of Concentration spells all this time. I thought you couldn't cast any other spells and had to resort to cantrips if you were holding Concentration... huh. Well, keep the Concentration on Flame Blade, then. No harm, no foul.

[GiantOctopodes]

Actually, you can't do that. As a Concentration spell, if you choose to cast another spell, you forfeit Concentration on Flame Blade, thus ending Flame Blade.

Though, yeah... I think I would advocate allowing the spell to scale by 1d6 per slot level, dropping Concentration entirely, and changing the wording to, "You may make melee spell attacks with this fiery blade as though it were a melee weapon, though you do not add your Strength, Dexterity, or spellcasting ability modifiers to the attack's damage roll." Or something similar.

Would it be too strong then, or just right? Perhaps the duration could be reduced, then, to 1 minute rather than 10.

Other than dropping concentration, that's exactly the changes I would make with it. Scaling by 1d6 per slot level, and allowing it to be used in all ways as a weapon (though without adding ability modifiers to the damage roll, of course) is already a great boon and makes it tremendously useful. Removing Concentration allows for certain exploits with College of Valor Bards that I believe you're not considering. That + Haste for 3 attacks with the Flame Blade, each of which is dealing 3-10d6 damage? Every round? Throw in Riposte off a feat, and suddenly you're dealing 40d6 damage a round, which thanks to your Elemental Adept ability is a minimum of 80 damage and on average 146 damage per round. No, I don't think it needs concentration eliminated if you're making the other changes.

edit: haha I see you've come to the same conclusion so nevermind :smallsmile:

[Demonic Spoon]

Letting druids do martial-level damage at the cost of a single spell slot is out of line. Druids are already powerful and versatile casters.

I don't think that Flame Blade should be competitive with the raw damage options available to sorcerers, wizards, and the like. It should possibly scale better than it does currently such that it is useful (or made into a cantrip as suggested on the first page) - but inflicting raw single target damage isn't the druid's job. Druids are specifically lacking in great single-target damage options for the same reason that druids get better summon spells - different caster classes should specialize in different things, and no one caster class should be able to do everything well.

[Ziegander]

Letting druids do martial-level damage at the cost of a single spell slot is out of line. Druids are already powerful and versatile casters.

10d6 fire damage with a melee attack for 10 minutes per day =/= 11d6 + Dexterity modifier weapon damage in every round of every fight per day. The best a Druid could do with the Flame Blade we're suggesting should exist is, expecting four medium/hard encounters per day, is deal 8d6 fire damage in the first two encounters of the day, 9d6 in the next, and 10d6 in the last, coming close but still not matching the Rogue for damage per round. And then the Druid has used up all of his 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell slots for the day, missing out on casting spells such as Plane Shift, Reverse Gravity, Control Weather, and True Resurrection. I think it's going to be okay.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Letting druids do martial-level damage at the cost of a single spell slot is out of line. Druids are already powerful and versatile casters.

I don't think that Flame Blade should be competitive with the raw damage options available to sorcerers, wizards, and the like. It should possibly scale better than it does currently such that it is useful (or made into a cantrip as suggested on the first page) - but inflicting raw single target damage isn't the druid's job. Druids are specifically lacking in great single-target damage options for the same reason that druids get better summon spells - different caster classes should specialize in different things, and no one caster class should be able to do everything well.

I would be ok with boosting damage but making it a Dex save half effect.

Third level spells give the Druid *Call Lightning* so it isn't like the druid can't deal damage with concentration spells.

[Steampunkette]

Make it a Cantrip. Remove concentration. Retain duration.

Give it 1d8 Fire Damage. No stat mod.

Have it increase to 2d8 at level 5.

At level 10 allow 2 attacks at 2d8.

At 15 allow Spellcasting Stat.


As for it "Not Making Sense" for a nature character.... Pffffft! Volcanos and Forest Fires and Elementals. Being a druid doesn't mean you have to hug trees all day. You can be a desert druid or a volcano priest or whatever the heck you like. I recently played a Druid who was a Gladiator Elementalist Fire Genasi. I used Druid for the Armor proficiencies, the Fire Spells, and the Wild Shape that I described as a "Lava Genasi" when she used Wild Shape to turn into a Bear.

So long as the crunch holds up, fluff it like you like it!

[Demonic Spoon]

10d6 fire damage with a melee attack for 10 minutes per day =/= 11d6 + Dexterity modifier weapon damage in every round of every fight per day. The best a Druid could do with the Flame Blade we're suggesting should exist is, expecting four medium/hard encounters per day, is deal 8d6 fire damage in the first two encounters of the day, 9d6 in the next, and 10d6 in the last, coming close but still not matching the Rogue for damage per round. And then the Druid has used up all of his 7th, 8th, and 9th level spell slots for the day, missing out on casting spells such as Plane Shift, Reverse Gravity, Control Weather, and True Resurrection. I think it's going to be okay.


A druid should not just be able to choose that he wants to be almost as good as a "martial" class one day, and then the day after choose to go back to casting spells like reverse gravity and control weather. Lack of strong at-will damage is a weakness of casters and especially a weakness of druids to compensate for their other major benefits.


I would be ok with boosting damage but making it a Dex save half effect.

Third level spells give the Druid *Call Lightning* so it isn't like the druid can't deal damage with concentration spells.


Would you still require a spell attack to hit in the first place if it was dex save half?

[ThermalSlapShot]

Would you still require a spell attack to hit in the first place if it was dex save half?

Nope, just make it a 5' range Dex save for half damage. Can be used as a weapon for the purposes of OA.

Kinda like if you had a single target burning hands effect. You aren't trying to specifically target a point on the enemy, you are just trying to burn them.

Single target burning hands? Have the scimitar flare as you slice with it.

[Ziegander]

A druid should not just be able to choose that he wants to be almost as good as a "martial" class one day, and then the day after choose to go back to casting spells like reverse gravity and control weather. Lack of strong at-will damage is a weakness of casters and especially a weakness of druids to compensate for their other major benefits.

You're missing the point. The Druid is almost as good at dealing melee attack damage as the weakest martial class doing nothing to make their weapon attack better, meanwhile the Druid has no class features to reinforce their melee competence and can't combo feats or other class abilities with their Flame Blade to make it any better.

A Sharpshooter Rogue will destroy the Flame Blade Druid for damage, while a Thief with two shortswords will still deal more melee damage. A Barbarian or Fighter will make them cry. At the cost of several useful class features two 7th level spell slots, one 8th, and one 9th, I think that's a fair trade, and it seems insane that you don't.

[GiantOctopodes]

You're missing the point. The Druid is almost as good at dealing melee attack damage as the weakest martial class doing nothing to make their weapon attack better, meanwhile the Druid has no class features to reinforce their melee competence and can't combo feats or other class abilities with their Flame Blade to make it any better.

A Sharpshooter Rogue will still destroy the Flame Blade Druid for damage. A Barbarian or Fighter will make them cry. At the cost of several useful class features two 7th level spell slots, one 8th, and one 9th, I think that's a fair trade, and it seems insane that you don't.

First, it's not "insane" for someone to have a differing opinion. Second, keep in mind that it's not just the druid that gets Flame Blade, Bards can too. Third, a Rogue dealing sneak attack damage is not the weakest martial class. Fourth, the Rogue has to have advantage, or have an ally, in order to deal 10d6 damage, so a Druid getting that without any limitation is quite powerful, and can lead to a situation where martials feel they have no place to shine, since even in weapon based combat they are being equaled or outclassed by their full spellcasting, turning into animals druid companion, so it's not unreasonable for someone to see that as an issue.

[Demonic Spoon]

You're missing the point. The Druid is almost as good at dealing melee attack damage as the weakest martial class doing nothing to make their weapon attack better, meanwhile the Druid has no class features to reinforce their melee competence and can't combo feats or other class abilities with their Flame Blade to make it any better.

A Sharpshooter Rogue will destroy the Flame Blade Druid for damage, while a Thief with two shortswords will still deal more melee damage. A Barbarian or Fighter will make them cry. At the cost of several useful class features two 7th level spell slots, one 8th, and one 9th, I think that's a fair trade, and it seems insane that you don't.


Druids are a full caster class with access to a huge variety of spells, which they can change day to day, ritual casting, and powerful utility abilities like wildshape. They don't need to come anywhere close to being as good at melee combat as any martial class, even an unoptimized one.

A realistic scenario is not a druid using all of his high level spell slots on flame blade. A realistic scenario is the druid using flame blade when more direct damage is needed, and then using one of his other powerful spells in other scenarios - it has no weaknesses, only cases where it's not quite as good as other options, and then a ton of strengths in areas that no other class can match.

[Submortimer]

Can I just say that part of the reason I want to turn Flame Blade into a Cantrip is so i can give it to my Fiend-pact warlock?

Better yet, put it on the bard list; that way I can take it with magic initiate, Summon a flame blade, then summon my pact weapon as a whip, and i'll be a mini balor. :smallbiggrin:

[Ziegander]

They don't need to come anywhere close to being as good at melee combat as any martial class, even an unoptimized one.

Obviously you're free to disagree, but I think the above is a nearly ludicrous overcompensation for caster power. Casters are really powerful in non-melee attack areas of the game, so they shouldn't be able to deal melee spell damage that's even close to the least damaging of melee damage characters? Whu-why? Why even give them a melee damage spell at all then if it's so bad that it's not even close to the next closest of the true melee classes, on the lowest end of the true melee class scale? Doesn't that seem like a waste of design space to you? Why not simply decree that full casters don't have and can't learn spells that deal damage in melee? Because... that seems to be effectively how you feel the game should be designed... Druids and other full casters have to be much weaker at melee combat, even while casting spells to, theoretically, improve their melee combat, than an unoptimized representative of the class that deals the least melee damage.

[Demonic Spoon]

Obviously you're free to disagree, but I think the above is a nearly ludicrous overcompensation for caster power. Casters are really powerful in non-melee attack areas of the game, so they shouldn't be able to deal melee spell damage that's even close to the least damaging of melee damage characters? Whu-why? Why even give them a melee damage spell at all then if it's so bad that it's not even close to the next closest of the true melee classes, on the lowest end of the true melee class scale? Doesn't that seem like a waste of design space to you? Why not simply decree that full casters don't have and can't learn spells that deal damage in melee? Because... that seems to be effectively how you feel the game should be designed... Druids and other full casters have to be much weaker at melee combat, even while casting spells to, theoretically, improve their melee combat, than an unoptimized representative of the class that deals the least melee damage.


Because classes should be good at different things. For the same reason that the summon spells available to non-druid casters are either nonexistant or much worse than what a druid gets. One class should not be able to be good at everything.

As for why should flame blade exist: I am not the one who put it in the game. I don't necessarily think it should be a spell, but if it must, it should be an ancillary one at best.

[CNagy]

Obviously you're free to disagree, but I think the above is a nearly ludicrous overcompensation for caster power. Casters are really powerful in non-melee attack areas of the game, so they shouldn't be able to deal melee spell damage that's even close to the least damaging of melee damage characters? Whu-why? Why even give them a melee damage spell at all then if it's so bad that it's not even close to the next closest of the true melee classes, on the lowest end of the true melee class scale? Doesn't that seem like a waste of design space to you? Why not simply decree that full casters don't have and can't learn spells that deal damage in melee? Because... that seems to be effectively how you feel the game should be designed... Druids and other full casters have to be much weaker at melee combat, even while casting spells to, theoretically, improve their melee combat, than an unoptimized representative of the class that deals the least melee damage.

Thing is, how many pure damage melee spell attacks are there? It's seems generous to say there is a handful at most: the ones off of the top of my head are Flame Blade, Inflict Wounds, and Mordenkainen's Sword (though in a way it is also ranged). Those are spread across multiple classes. It's clearly not something any caster class is actually good at--and why should they be? When they want to deal pure damage, they can do it at a distance. There are maybe another handful of spells that require a caster get up close, but that is to inflict some secondary effect in addition to damage.

Turning Flame Blade into anything approaching Druid-as-Martial-Class does represent a massive departure from the entire rest of spellcasting.

[Chaosvii7]

I actually don't mind Druids-as-Spellswords for divine characters. It takes pressure off of the cleric and opens up the potential to re-tool Wild Shape to better fit the fantasy of a spellcaster who can change shape and go into battle; A magical counterpart to the Barbarian, almost.

It doesn't have to be like a Paladin, but I wouldn't mind seeing a Druid that enters combat with a decent ability to combine martial combat with spellcasting.

That said, my recommendation to solve the Flame Blade problem is to allow it's initial casting to target every creature in melee range with spell attacks - to give it Whirlwind Attack upon cast gives it a considerable utility in combat that doesn't step too much on the Ranger's toes while upping the utility of the spell. After the initial cast, the Druid can still use it to make a melee attack each round as normal, and can even OA with it because I don't see that being particularly powerful. It just makes that initial cast the real burst that gives the spell its power.

Perhaps, instead of spell slots scaling the damage flat, a 5th level spell slot makes the spell deal 6d6 fire damage and target everything within 10 feet; An 8th level slot does 9d6 damage within 15 feet. All still requiring individual spell attacks, but getting more grandiose as you cast it at greater levels.

[ThermalSlapShot]

I actually don't mind Druids-as-Spellswords for divine characters. It takes pressure off of the cleric and opens up the potential to re-tool Wild Shape to better fit the fantasy of a spellcaster who can change shape and go into battle; A magical counterpart to the Barbarian, almost.

It doesn't have to be like a Paladin, but I wouldn't mind seeing a Druid that enters combat with a decent ability to combine martial combat with spellcasting.

That said, my recommendation to solve the Flame Blade problem is to allow it's initial casting to target every creature in melee range with spell attacks - to give it Whirlwind Attack upon cast gives it a considerable utility in combat that doesn't step too much on the Ranger's toes while upping the utility of the spell. After the initial cast, the Druid can still use it to make a melee attack each round as normal, and can even OA with it because I don't see that being particularly powerful. It just makes that initial cast the real burst that gives the spell its power.

Perhaps, instead of spell slots scaling the damage flat, a 5th level spell slot makes the spell deal 6d6 fire damage and target everything within 10 feet; An 8th level slot does 9d6 damage within 15 feet. All still requiring individual spell attacks, but getting more grandiose as you cast it at greater levels.


Flame Cyclone from 4e did this, it was a Swordmage ability but it is easily fluffed as a Druid ability.

Tons of fun.

[Chaosvii7]

Flame Cyclone from 4e did this, it was a Swordmage ability but it is easily fluffed as a Druid ability.

Tons of fun.

Not gonna lie, the original inspiration for that change was actually Fire Scythe, also from 4e.

I think spell slot expenditure for a limited, slightly more finnicky version of Whirlwind Attack is balanced against the fact that should a Ranger ever actually feel compelled to Whirlwind Attack, they can do it at-will and with reliable damage on what will presumably be a high to-hit.

[Demonic Spoon]

I actually don't mind Druids-as-Spellswords for divine characters. It takes pressure off of the cleric and opens up the potential to re-tool Wild Shape to better fit the fantasy of a spellcaster who can change shape and go into battle; A magical counterpart to the Barbarian, almost.

It doesn't have to be like a Paladin, but I wouldn't mind seeing a Druid that enters combat with a decent ability to combine martial combat with spellcasting.

That said, my recommendation to solve the Flame Blade problem is to allow it's initial casting to target every creature in melee range with spell attacks - to give it Whirlwind Attack upon cast gives it a considerable utility in combat that doesn't step too much on the Ranger's toes while upping the utility of the spell. After the initial cast, the Druid can still use it to make a melee attack each round as normal, and can even OA with it because I don't see that being particularly powerful. It just makes that initial cast the real burst that gives the spell its power.

Perhaps, instead of spell slots scaling the damage flat, a 5th level spell slot makes the spell deal 6d6 fire damage and target everything within 10 feet; An 8th level slot does 9d6 damage within 15 feet. All still requiring individual spell attacks, but getting more grandiose as you cast it at greater levels.

I don't object to this concept, but I don't think it will ever work under the guise of the Druid class, because druids are full casters and that's very powerful.

It would be better to just homebrew a more nature-flavored martial class - maybe a paladin or ranger variant. Maybe instead of getting features like extra attack and spells that benefit martial combat, it gets features like shapeshifting and more melee-oriented spells.

[ThermalSlapShot]

Not gonna lie, the original inspiration for that change was actually Fire Scythe, also from 4e.

I think spell slot expenditure for a limited, slightly more finnicky version of Whirlwind Attack is balanced against the fact that should a Ranger ever actually feel compelled to Whirlwind Attack, they can do it at-will and with reliable damage on what will presumably be a high to-hit.

Nice. Though Whirlwind is very nerfed on a ranger since the devs can't get their own stuff right. They say the attack is one attack in which you make multiple attacks and you can't move... Yet since it is multiple attacks... They just need to stop with all their Schrodinger Rules. Now we have Schrodinger's Unarmed Strike and Schrodinger's Whirlwind.

Anyways, I think all together you could copy a few existing cantrips and make a cool fire based themed Druid list of cantrips.

Greenflame Blade
Evocation Cantrip
1 Bonus Action
Duration 1 minute
V, S, M
Target 1 bladed druid weapon

The blade of a druid's weapon you are holding is imbued with nature's power and wrapped in green fire. For the duration, you can use your spell casting ability instead of Strength (or Dexterity) for the attack and damage rolls of the weapon. and the damage becomes a d8. The weapon damage type changes to Fire and is considered magic. This spell ends if you cast it again or if you let go of the weapon.

Special: You may only have Greenflame Blade or Shillelagh active at one time, not both.

Flame Cyclone
Evocation Cantrip
1 Action
Instantaneous
Target all creatures within 5'
S , V

When you cast this spell you lash out with a fire based weapon, Greenflame Blade, torch, or with a scimitar shaped blade of fire that you create with this cantrip.

You spin and strike at creatures around you. Each creature (other than yourself) within 5' of you must make a Dexterity Saving Throw. On a failed save, the creature takes 1d6 fire damage. The spell's damage increases by 1d6 at level 5 (2d6), 11 (3d6), and 17 (4d6).

I'm not sure how flame scythe works in 4e but I like to think a mix of burning hands and thunderwave could be cool.