Green Flame Blade with Flame Blade

[PeteNutButter]

So Flame Blade (the druid spell) is pretty clear in that it doesn't work with things like extra attack, but the wording of BB/GFB is a little unclear.

The cantrip text says "as part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature..." Note that that is distinct from a "melee weapon attack," which is important since Flame Blade is a melee spell attack. So in order to qualify you just need to have a weapon. It's tough to argue that a Flame Blade is not a weapon that you can attack with.

But then you get into the territory of why can't it be used with the attack action and thus qualify for extra attack... Like many things in 5e, the spell is rather vague. It says what you can do with the blade, but doesn't say what you can't do even if those things would make logical sense. It feels to me like the spell was written without taking multiclassing into mind. Paragraph one implies it should be treated as a scimitar. Paragraph 2 says its an action to attack with it.

IMO RAW it's kind of sketch to allow it. RAI it probably works just fine, especially as a 2nd level concentration spell.

What do you folks think?

[DivisibleByZero]

What do you folks think?

RAW: No, because you aren't making a melee attack with a weapon, and you aren't holding a weapon to attack with.
RAC/RAF: Sure, because why not?

[PeteNutButter]

RAW: No, because you aren't making a melee attack with a weapon, and you aren't holding a weapon to attack with.
RAC/RAF: Sure, because why not?

I don't disagree with you, but it just feels like this might be one of those cases where we all taking the RAW too literally.

In order for it not to work RAW, the text on Flame Blade that says "Make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade" needs to mean that a fiery blade is NOT a weapon. I'd say a flaming sword is a weapon.

[DivisibleByZero]

I don't disagree with you, but it just feels like this might be one of those cases where we all taking the RAW too literally.

In order for it not to work RAW, the text on Flame Blade that says "Make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade" needs to mean that a fiery blade is NOT a weapon. I'd say a flaming sword is a weapon.

A flaming sword is a weapon.
A spell which creates a blade of fire that *looks and acts* like a sword is not a weapon. You aren't holding a weapon, you're holding conjured magical fire. That isn't a weapon, so by RAW you can't use Flame Blade with GFB, because you don't have the material component in hand to use it with. Technically you can't even cast GFB.
So once again: RAF/RAC, sure. RAW: Nope.

[RickAllison]

A flaming sword is a weapon.
A spell which creates a blade of fire that *looks and acts* like a sword is not a weapon. You aren't holding a weapon, you're holding conjured magical fire. That isn't a weapon, so by RAW you can't use Flame Blade with GFB, because you don't have the material component in hand to use it with. Technically you can't even cast GFB.
So once again: RAF/RAC, sure. RAW: Nope.

The problem is that the Flame Blade doesn't say that it looks and acts like a blade, or that it is a fire in the shape of a blade. It is only referred to in the text as a blade, and once it doesn't even bother calling it fiery.

This isn't a flame in the shape of a sword. This is an evoked blade that is on fire.

[DivisibleByZero]

The problem is that the Flame Blade doesn't say that it looks and acts like a blade, or that it is a fire in the shape of a blade. It is only referred to in the text as a blade, and once it doesn't even bother calling it fiery.

This isn't a flame in the shape of a sword. This is an evoked blade that is on fire.

You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand.
The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration.

This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameBlade) is the same spell, from 3.5. Nothing has changed, except slight modifications to make it more in line with how 5e works.

It is not a blade that is on fire. It is not a physical blade at all. It is magical fire in the shape of a scimitar.

[Hrugner]

Flame blade is sort of a junk spell, so sure, why not give it some help. You make a melee attack with a weapon, not a melee weapon attack, for green flame blade so I don't really see any rules problems either. There aren't really any clarifications on whether or not you're to treat the flame blade as a weapon or not, it's up to your DM whether they treat the fluff as rules.

[RickAllison]

You evoke a fiery blade in your free hand.
The blade is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it lasts for the duration.

This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/flameBlade) is the same spell, from 3.5. Nothing has changed, except slight modifications to make it more in line with how 5e works.

It is not a blade that is on fire. It is not a physical blade at all. It is magical fire in the shape of a scimitar.

What it was in 3.5 doesn't matter. As I understand, Mirror Image acts nothing like it did back then. Alignment is completely different. Wizards no longer have Vancian casting. Mechanics change. In 5e, all we have is that Flame Blade "evokes a fiery blade... similar in size and shape to a scimitar". A talwar is similar in size and shape to a scimitar, and it is still a weapon.

This isn't to say that Flame Blade must be a weapon and thus be eligible for Green-Flame Blade. What it is saying is that none of the text you have presented has anything in favor of the interpretation of it not being a weapon. By the spell text in 5e, all we know about it is that it is a fiery blade. Not a gout of fire shaped like a blade, but it is actually a blade of some sort. It is no less a blade capable of being a weapon than the Sun Blade magic item is. That doesn't mean that it actually counts as a weapon, but it does mean that dismissing it out of hand in RAW is also incorrect. It is a very odd corner case that a DM must adjudicate.

[Axertz]

My undertanding of 'melee attack with a weapon' is that it is a strict subset of 'melee weapon attack', rather than a different category. Therefore, the flame blade cannot be used as part of green-flame blade if it cannot be used to make a melee weapon attack.

Can the flame blade be used to make a melee weapon attack? By RAI, clearly no. That is, the intent of the designers is clear because they call out the melee spell attack that you can make with the flame blade. As others have said, by RAF it should be allowed: it isn't unbalanced and is a fun interaction.

Is there wiggle room RAW? Well, how much damage would the flame blade do if it were used to make a melee weapon attack? It is not a scimitar. 'Blade' is not a weapon listed in the PHB. The 3d6 fire damage is tied to making a melee spell attack. Would the weapon do any damage at all? Would it deal 1d4 damage as an improvised weapon?

[RickAllison]

My undertanding of 'melee attack with a weapon' is that it is a strict subset of 'melee weapon attack', rather than a different category. Therefore, the flame blade cannot be used as part of green-flame blade if it cannot be used to make a melee weapon attack.

Nope! Magic Stone similarly is a ranged Spell attack with a weapon if launched from a sling. Conversely (I think that is the right -verse), an unarmed strike is a melee weapon attack but not from a weapon. Weapon attacks and attacks with a weapon occur most commonly together, but don't have to be. You can have ranged weapon attacks with a melee weapon (throwing a sword), a melee weapon attack with a ranged weapon (smacking them with a crossbow).

[DivisibleByZero]

You can rule it however you want to. I made it very clear that there are zero problems with allowing it via RAF and/or RAC.
But RAW? Nope.
You're creating a fiery blade, as in a blade MADE of fire, not a physical blade that is ON fire.
So you aren't using a "weapon" for the attack, and you don't even have a weapon in hand for the material component to cast GFB. So not only do you not meet the requirements to *use* it with GFB, you don't even meet the requirements to *cast* GFB in the first place.
Components: V, M (a weapon)
You are not holding a weapon.
If you think that you are, then show me on the weapon table where Fiery Blade is listed. Or even just Blade for that matter.
Allow it if you want to, but the strict rules do not. No amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

[PeteNutButter]

You can rule it however you want to. I made it very clear that there are zero problems with allowing it via RAF and/or RAC.
But RAW? Nope.
You're creating a fiery blade, as in a blade MADE of fire, not a physical blade that is ON fire.
So you aren't using a "weapon" for the attack, and you don't even have a weapon in hand for the material component to cast GFB. So not only do you not meet the requirements to *use* it with GFB, you don't even meet the requirements to *cast* GFB in the first place.
Components: V, M (a weapon)
You are not holding a weapon.
If you think that you are, then show me on the weapon table where Fiery Blade is listed.
Allow it if you want to, but the strict rules do not. No amount of mental gymnastics will change that.

What if you attempted to use it as an improvised weapon?

[DivisibleByZero]

What if you attempted to use it as an improvised weapon?

An improvised weapon is not, in itself, a weapon. By RAW, you'd still need a weapon in order to cast the spell in the first place.
I can use a toothpick as an improvised weapon. That doesn't mean it meets the requirement of a weapon for me to cast GFB.
RAF/RAC: fine.
RAW: Nope.

[Mhl7]

as in a blade MADE of fire, not a physical blade that is ON fire.


Is this any different than a blade MADE of positive energy? I don't think so. Following your reasoning GFB would not be able to be used RAW in combination with a Sun Blade.

RickAllison is right. You cannot adjudicate this case using RAW.

[DivisibleByZero]

Is this any different than a blade MADE of positive energy? I don't think so. Following your reasoning GFB would not be able to be used RAW in combination with a Sun Blade.

RickAllison is right. You cannot adjudicate this case using RAW.

It is different.
A Sun Blade is a longsword. It has a hilt and a blade (made of energy in this case) and the versatile property and everything else that a longsword has, because it is a longsword. Just like the description says.

SUN BLADE
Weapon (longsword), rare (requires attunement)

Tell me what kind of weapon a Flame Blade is.
Is it martial? Simple? Does it have any properties? Is it on the weapon table?
The answer to all of the above is: No. Because it isn't a weapon.
It is magical fire in the shape of a scimitar. It isn't a weapon. It's conjured magical fire in a specific shape.
"similar in size and shape to a scimitar" is not the same as "Weapon (scimitar)"

A letter opener is similar in size and shape to a dagger. Is a letter opener a weapon, as per RAW?

[PeteNutButter]

It is different.
A Sun Blade is a longsword. It has a hilt and a blade (made of energy in this case) and the versatile property and everything else that a longsword has, because it is a longsword. Just like the description says.

SUN BLADE
Weapon (longsword), rare (requires attunement)

Tell me what kind of weapon a Flame Blade is.
Is it martial? Simple? Does it have any properties? Is it on the weapon table?
The answer to all of the above is: No. Because it isn't a weapon.
It is magical fire in the shape of a scimitar. It isn't a weapon. It's conjured magical fire in a specific shape.
"similar in size and shape to a scimitar" is not the same as "Weapon (scimitar)"

A letter opener is similar in size and shape to a dagger. Is a letter opener a weapon, as per RAW?

RAW improved weapons use the stats of a weapon if they are close enough. I'd say if a sun blade is a longsword, a flame blade in the shape of a scimitar could be a scimitar.

My point is you could GFB with a table leg if your DM rules it as a club, ruling something like a sword as a sword seems like a pretty easy transition.

[DivisibleByZero]

RAW improved weapons use the stats of a weapon if they are close enough. I'd say if a sun blade is a longsword, a flame blade in the shape of a scimitar could be a scimitar.

My point is you could GFB with a table leg if your DM rules it as a club, ruling something like a sword as a sword seems like a pretty easy transition.

You're talking about using a physical object as an improvised weapon.
Flame Blade doesn't create a physical object to use as the material component of the spell. It creates fire, which has a specific shape.

So once again, RAF/RAC: fine.
RAW: Nope, because you can't cast GFB in the first place, because you are holding fire, not a weapon to use as the required material component.

[Jacquerel]

Flame Blade is not a weapon, it has no weapon type or proficiency and does not even exist if you let go of it. Attacks made with it are melee spell attacks, not melee weapon attacks. Because it's a spell, not a weapon. If it created a weapon, surely it would allow you to use your spellcasting modifier in place of the usual modifier for making attacks with it, instead of specifically calling its attacks "melee spell attacks" ?

Spells only do what they say they do. It does not say that it creates a scimitar as described in the PHB, in fact it specifically mentions that it is not a scimitar by describing it as "like" one in size and shape, so it doesn't.
I would allow it, but I have to agree that RAW it is not possible.

[dejarnjc]

Does anyone really care that much what RAW says anyway? Discussions like this (especially with certain parties) almost always devolve into long winded and fruitless semantic arguments. I imagine the vast majority of people who understand how much Flame Blade sucks would absolutely allow this.

[Jacquerel]

Does anyone really care that much what RAW says anyway?

If you read the thread, almost nobody.
Pretty much everyone who responded to say "RAW says no" has qualified it with "but RAC/RAF, yes" or "but I would allow it anyway".
That it turned into a debate of whether it is valid RAW despite the fact that nobody cares whether it is RAW just speaks volumes about this forum's userbase :P

[DivisibleByZero]

Does anyone really care that much what RAW says anyway?


If you read the thread, almost nobody.
Pretty much everyone who responded to say "RAW says no" has qualified it with "but RAC/RAF, yes" or "but I would allow it anyway".
That it turned into a debate of whether it is valid RAW despite the fact that nobody cares whether it is RAW just speaks volumes about this forum's userbase :P

The OP specifically asked about both RAW and RAI, so that's why we're discussing it.

[Scots Dragon]

You can rule it however you want to. I made it very clear that there are zero problems with allowing it via RAF and/or RAC.

I know this is off topic, but what do RAC and RAF stand for in contrast to RAW being Rules as Written? I swear, we need a sticky thread specifically for acronyms.

[DivisibleByZero]

I know this is off topic, but what do RAC and RAF stand for in contrast to RAW being Rules as Written? I swear, we need a sticky thread specifically for acronyms.

RAI: rules as intended
RAW: rules as written
RAF/FAC: rules as fun/cool

[Jacquerel]

Or if you live in the UK, they stand for Royal Airforce (Army)/Royal Automobile Club (Car Insurance) :)

[Scots Dragon]

Or if you live in the UK, they stand for Royal Airforce (Army)/Royal Automobile Club (Car Insurance) :)

I was actually specifically going to joke about that, but my recent opinions on the UK itself are somewhat more separatist than they used to be.

[dejarnjc]

The OP specifically asked about both RAW and RAI, so that's why we're discussing it.

Yeah but after the first back and forth it quickly becomes clear that this question, like so many others, will have no clear answer in regards to RAW. Barring a response from Crawford, the correct answer is "it's not explicitly clear but here's my opinion". That's not what happens in these discussions though.

[Jacquerel]

A lot of people are quite happy to disagree with Crawford so I don't think even that is a cure-all solution.
Arguably though I would say that a pointless argument about whether this is RAW or not is probably still more on topic than talking about whether we should be talking about it.

Without that discussion, what else would this topic be for? There is no discussion other than that one to be had.
As far as I can tell everyone already agrees that it would be cool to let a player use Green Flame Blade with Flame Blade, and that they would probably allow it if they were DM. The only thing that remains to even talk about is whether or not you believe it is RAW.
You could argue "well, you should stop posting in here at all then" and maybe you would be right, but not posting is probably not why we are here on this message board :P

[DivisibleByZero]

Yeah but after the first back and forth it quickly becomes clear that this question, like so many others, will have no clear answer in regards to RAW. Barring a response from Crawford, the correct answer is "it's not explicitly clear but here's my opinion". That's not what happens in these discussions though.

That's not what's happening because it is indeed explicitly clear. Some people just don't want to accept it and do mental gymnastics to try to justify their dissent.

Fact: GFB requires a weapon as a material component.
Fact: GFB uses that weapon to make the attack granted from the spell.
Fact: That attack must be made with a weapon.
Fact: Flame Blade does not create a weapon.
Fact: Flame Blade does not allow you to make a weapon attack with it.
Fact: As per RAW, you are not holding a weapon, so you can't cast GFB, nor can you make a weapon attack while using Flame Blade, so you cannot use GFB with Flame Blade.

Rule however you want to for fun, but this is not allowed within RAW.

[dejarnjc]

That's not what's happening because it is indeed explicitly clear. Some people just don't want to accept it and do mental gymnastics to try to justify their dissent.



Couldn't agree more with this sentiment. Can't say that about the rest.

[lperkins2]

The argument that GFB can't be cast because it requires a weapon for a material component just means the druid needs a spellcasting focus to ignore the material component. Of course, this does not get around needing to be able to make a melee weapon attack, so we're back to DM decision about using it as an improvised weapon.

[DivisibleByZero]

The argument that GFB can't be cast because it requires a weapon for a material component just means the druid needs a spellcasting focus to ignore the material component. Of course, this does not get around needing to be able to make a melee weapon attack, so we're back to DM decision about using it as an improvised weapon.

I knew someone was going to bring this up.
All weapons have a specific cost. It's just that in this case, that cost is variable depending on the weapon you have.
Find me one on the weapon table that doesn't have a cost, and then you can use a spellcasting focus to cast GFB when you have *THAT* weapon on you.
Oh, wait.... then you have a weapon and don't need a focus at all.

Since you need a weapon, and all weapons have a specific cost, you can't substitute a focus. You need to actually have a weapon.
By RAW, Flame Blade does not suffice, because you don't have the material component with the specific weapon's cost. You need a real weapon.

[Maxilian]

That's not what's happening because it is indeed explicitly clear. Some people just don't want to accept it and do mental gymnastics to try to justify their dissent.

Fact: GFB requires a weapon as a material component.
Fact: GFB uses that weapon to make the attack granted from the spell.
Fact: That attack must be made with a weapon.
Fact: Flame Blade does not create a weapon.
Fact: Flame Blade does not allow you to make a weapon attack with it.
Fact: As per RAW, you are not holding a weapon, so you can't cast GFB, nor can you make a weapon attack while using Flame Blade, so you cannot use GFB with Flame Blade.

Rule however you want to for fun, but this is not allowed within RAW.

In other words, be a Barbarian "Druid", make a Wooden sword, put in on fire, yell: ¨I cast Flame Blade!¨

That's the closest to RAW you're going to get.... (or just get Elemental weapon)

[lperkins2]

I knew someone was going to bring this up.
All weapons have a specific cost. It's just that in this case, that cost is variable depending on the weapon you have.
Find me one on the weapon table that doesn't have a cost, and then you can use a spellcasting focus to cast GFB when you have *THAT* weapon on you.
Oh, wait.... then you have a weapon and don't need a focus at all.

Since you need a weapon, and all weapons have a specific cost, you can't substitute a focus. You need to actually have a weapon.
By RAW, Flame Blade does not suffice, because you don't have the material component with the specific weapon's cost. You need a real weapon.

Hm, the only flaw with this is it affects lots of spells, and defeats the whole purpose of spellcasting foci (to avoid the tedium of tracking how many of what cheap stuff you have). For example, Comprehend Languages takes a pinch of salt. A pinch of salt is about half a gram of salt, or about 0.001 pounds of salt. A pound of salt is listed on the trade good table as 5 CP, so the pinch of salt has a value of 0.005 CP. Unlike 3.5's eschew materials which eliminated all material costs under 1 GP, spellcasting foci have no effect when the cost is not 0.

While RAW, this would eliminate using spellcasting foci for the following.

Comprehend Languages (Salt)
Hold Person, Antimagic Field, Enlarge/Reduce, Flaming Sphere, Reverse Gravity (Iron)
Aid, Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum (Cloth)
Nystul's Magic Aura (Silk)


These are just the spells eliminated by the trade good table; with some work, prices for lots of other material components could be found. Again the issue is not the expense, since you're talking less than 1 GP to get pretty much all of it. The issue is hunting down the prices, figuring out what to do with the rest of the pound/yard/spool, and tracking when you have to go back to town for more salt, iron powder, et cetera.

The exact phrase about spellcasting foci is "But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell". The question is 'indicated where'? By context, I would argue 'indicated in the parentheses in the component entry', which would allow a focus to work without a weapon for GFB, but that is going to be up to DM interpretation.

Note that shillelagh lists the weapon as a target, as well as a material component, so a spellcasting focus can't possibly help with that.

For completeness, the full entry on material components follows.



Casting some spells requires particular objects, specified in parentheses in the component entry. A character can use a component pouch or a spellcasting focus (found in “Equipment”) in place of the components specified for a spell. But if a cost is indicated for a component, a character must have that specific component before he or she can cast the spell.

If a spell states that a material component is consumed by the spell, the caster must provide this component for each casting of the spell.

A spellcaster must have a hand free to access a spell’s material components—or to hold a spellcasting focus—but it can be the same hand that he or she uses to perform somatic components.

[Hrugner]

Since you need a weapon, and all weapons have a specific cost, you can't substitute a focus. You need to actually have a weapon.
By RAW, Flame Blade does not suffice, because you don't have the material component with the specific weapon's cost. You need a real weapon.

All we need is to find a weapon without an indicated cost. Flamberge, sai, bohemian earspoon, voulge, and so on. That's enough to show that either weapon cost isn't indicated in many cases or that the weapon chart isn't the place to look for indicated prices.

[DivisibleByZero]

All we need is to find a weapon without an indicated cost. Flamberge, sai, bohemian earspoon, voulge, and so on. That's enough to show that either weapon cost isn't indicated in many cases or that the weapon chart isn't the place to look for indicated prices.

Those are some of the mental gymnastics I was referring to.
That's fine. Go for it. Knock yourself out.
And then realize that Flame Blade grants you a spell attack with a blade made of fire, and so you don't have a weapon with which to make a weapon attack in the first place, so you couldn't use it with GFB anyway.

And in this case, if you happen to find a weapon that doesn't have a cost listed.... You now have a weapon, so what do you need the focus or a Flame Blade for anyway?

[Hrugner]

Those are some of the mental gymnastics I was referring to.
That's fine. Go for it. Knock yourself out.
And then realize that Flame Blade grants you a spell attack with a blade made of fire, and so you don't have a weapon with which to make a weapon attack in the first place, so you couldn't use it with GFB anyway.

And in this case, if you happen to find a weapon that doesn't have a cost listed.... You now have a weapon, so what do you need the focus or a Flame Blade for anyway?

Flame blade provides a melee spell attack with a conjured weapon, a scimitar shaped blade of fire. We don't even need to tap the weapon focus rules for this, but if we do we need to find out what indicated means. All I've shown is that you can't use the weapon table to show that a weapon has an indicated price since not all weapons have a price on that table. As soon as you a weapon exists without an indicated price, any non-specific weapon can be removed from the material requirements with a spell focus.

It's hardly mental gymnastics, you just have really disorganized pointers in your logic.

1. If any weapon has a non-indicated cost then non-specific weapon requirements can be nullified by spell focus. The weapon needs only exist for this, not to be present.
2. Since green flameblade gives you a melee attack with a weapon and not a melee weapon attack, it doesn't preclude melee spell attacks with a weapon. Where this different you could use green flame blade with a monks unarmed attack since they are melee weapon attacks while not being melee attacks with a weapon. Blame the game for this one. I suppose a monk with a spell focus could make a green flame blade attack though.

[DivisibleByZero]

2. Since green flameblade gives you a melee attack with a weapon and not a melee weapon attack, it doesn't preclude melee spell attacks with a weapon. Where this different you could use green flame blade with a monks unarmed attack since they are melee weapon attacks while not being melee attacks with a weapon. Blame the game for this one. I suppose a monk with a spell focus could make a green flame blade attack though.

It does preclude melee spell attacks with a weapon.
A monk could absolutely NOT use GFB with an unarmed strike if he had a focus.

A melee attack with a weapon = a melee weapon attack that is not unarmed. It is worded that way because it *REQUIRES* a weapon.
You don't have one.

[Maxilian]

Either way, the answer is most likely still no, but i think if you have the Warcaster feat, you can use Flame Blade with your OA, now get Tunnel Fighter and TADA!, the spell is useful

[lperkins2]

It does preclude melee spell attacks with a weapon.
A monk could absolutely NOT use GFB with an unarmed strike if he had a focus.

A melee attack with a weapon = a melee weapon attack that is not unarmed. It is worded that way because it *REQUIRES* a weapon.
You don't have one.

You are absolutely correct about GFB not working for a monk, since it specify a melee attack with a weapon. Assuming you treat the material component requirement the non-micromanagy way, you can cast the spell without a weapon. But then what happens? Simple, once you cast the spell, you must immediately make a melee attack using a weapon against a creature within the spell's range. If you cannot, the spell fails. Since you don't have a weapon, the spell fails, and you just wasted your action, good thing it's only a cantrip. The only edge case I could possibly see where this might be useful would be a creature with a spellcasting focus but no free hands (as in the weapon + something else in their main hand). Even then, specific beats general, so the fact that the spell specifies the somatic component as swinging the weapon should let their non-free hand still fulfill the somatic component.

Hm, reading the spell descriptions, I actually think this works RAW, but is going to be pretty DM dependent. The question boils down to if a 'fiery blade' is a weapon. Since it does not specify you treat it as light, or finesse, or similar, like many conjured weapons do, an okay case can be made that it is not a weapon. On the other hand, it is specified as similar in size and weight to a scimitar, so it is physical, at least to you. The issue is 'weapon' is not a term specifically defined anyplace, at least anyplace that I can find. The closest we get is a mention that weapons are divided into 'melee' and 'ranged'. A 'melee' weapon is a weapon used to attack targets within 5' of the caster. Note that the definition does not specify using a 'melee weapon attack'.

Version 2 of the Mystic had a power called Ethereal Weapon which made one melee attack with the weapon use a dexterity save instead of a melee weapon attack. Obviously, that's gone in V3, but the point is that the designers don't consider it forbidden to make attacks other than melee-weapon-attacks with a melee weapon. Bottom line is a good case can be made that the conjured flame scimitar is a magical weapon that uses a melee-spell-attack and deals only fire damage.

If it is a weapon, it can be used to make a melee-spell-attack, which is a type of melee attack. Since GFB requires you to make a melee attack with a weapon, this works. In fact, the phrasing is a pretty good parallel.

"make a melee spell Attack with the fiery blade" and "make a melee attack with a weapon"

[DivisibleByZero]

The question boils down to if a 'fiery blade' is a weapon.

It is not, so it doesn't work.
Page 149 of the PHB has a list of weapons. Fiery Blade isn't on it, nor does Flame Blade state that it creates one of them.
It's magical fire in the shape of a scimitar, it is not a weapon. It's a spell effect.

[Hrugner]

It does preclude melee spell attacks with a weapon.
A monk could absolutely NOT use GFB with an unarmed strike if he had a focus.

A melee attack with a weapon = a melee weapon attack that is not unarmed. It is worded that way because it *REQUIRES* a weapon.
You don't have one.

You're right about the monk thing, my mistake there. But green flame blade allows for a melee attack with a weapon, it doesn't require a melee weapon attack so it can be a melee spell attack with a weapon. I personally don't like those finicky distinctions and would like to do away with the differentiation between most of the attack types, but the game as is has this sort of issue.


It is not, so it doesn't work.
Page 149 of the PHB has a list of weapons. Fiery Blade isn't on it, nor does Flame Blade state that it creates one of them.
It's magical fire in the shape of a scimitar, it is not a weapon. It's a spell effect.

Tons of weapons aren't on that list, it obviously isn't exhaustive. Flame blade says it makes a blade with no real indicator of how that is to be interpreted. It gives a shape for it, so we know it isn't just a gout of flame, but that's really it. I think it's arguable either way, and since flame blade is a crap spell, I'd rule in it's favor.

[DivisibleByZero]

But green flame blade allows for a melee attack with a weapon, it doesn't require a melee weapon attack so it can be a melee spell attack with a weapon.

As I have already started, a melee attack with a weapon means a melee weapon attack that is not unarmed.
You cannot have a melee spell attack with a weapon. It's either a weapon attack or a spell attack. Not both.


Flame blade says it makes a blade with no real indicator of how that is to be interpreted. It gives a shape for it, so we know it isn't just a gout of flame, but that's really it.

We can interpret it to do exactly what it says it does, and no more.
To paraphrase JC, on pretty much everything regarding spells: If it created a weapon, the spell description would say so.
And in actuality, yes, it is indeed just a gout of flame. One that looks like a scimitar.

[Hrugner]

As I have already started, a melee attack with a weapon means a melee weapon attack that is not unarmed.
You cannot have a melee spell attack with a weapon. It's either a weapon attack or a spell attack. Not both.



We can interpret it to do exactly what it says it does, and no more.
To paraphrase JC, on pretty much everything regarding spells: If it created a weapon, the spell description would say so.
And in actuality, yes, it is indeed just a gout of flame. One that looks like a scimitar.

You are saying that two similar sounding things are the same thing. That's not really the case regardless of how often you state it. It isn't a weapon attack it's an attack with a weapon. As stupid as it is, these aren't the same thing in 5e. And of course it doesn't create a gout of flame or it wouldn't hold any sort of form let alone a specific form. And as the argument revolves around whether or not a blade is created, and the spell's wording is insufficiently clear on that point, invoking some non-sited paraphrased comment doesn't really help resolve the question.

Regardless we aren't getting anywhere, so we may as well drop the argument.

[RickAllison]

As I have already started, a melee attack with a weapon means a melee weapon attack that is not unarmed.
You cannot have a melee spell attack with a weapon. It's either a weapon attack or a spell attack. Not both.
.

Flat wrong. Magic Stone is a ranged Spell attack with a weapon when flung from a sling. Nothing prohibits having a Spell attack with a weapon any more than making a weapon attack without one. While most commonly they align that way, the division between weapon and Spell attacks is independent of the division between attacks with a weapon and those without. They are apples and oranges, separate concepts that have common attributes.

Actually, a better analogy would be helical v spur gears and rack-and-pinion b another lateral movement gear systems. The two are certainly related, but using a rack-and-pinion system doesn't mean you have to use spur gears, just that the two generally go together.

[DivisibleByZero]

Flat wrong. Magic Stone is a ranged Spell attack with a weapon when flung from a sling. Nothing prohibits having a Spell attack with a weapon any more than making a weapon attack without one.

Magic stone is a ranged spell attack. Full stop.
You can choose to increase the range of the pebble that has been imbued with magic if you throw it with something specifically designed for throwing stones, and you take disadvantage on the attack if you do so.

You cannot have a melee spell attack with a weapon.
They are mutually exclusive.
Either it's a melee spell attack, or it's a melee weapon attack. It can't be both.
A melee attack with a weapon = a melee weapon attack that is not unarmed.

[RickAllison]

Magic stone is a ranged spell attack. Full stop.
You can choose to increase the range of the pebble that has been imbued with magic if you throw it with something specifically designed for throwing stones, and you take disadvantage on the attack if you do so.

You cannot have a melee spell attack with a weapon.
They are mutually exclusive.
Either it's a melee spell attack, or it's a melee weapon attack. It can't be both.
A melee attack with a weapon = a melee weapon attack that is not unarmed.

You don't have a spell attack that is also a weapon attack. You have a spell attack made with a weapon. Weird and non-intuitive, but it is a part of 5e rules and ignoring it does not make it disappear. The presence of a weapon for an attack is a different matter than whether it is a spell or melee attack.

[DivisibleByZero]

You don't have a spell attack that is also a weapon attack. You have a spell attack made with a weapon. Weird and non-intuitive, but it is a part of 5e rules and ignoring it does not make it disappear. The presence of a weapon for an attack is a different matter than whether it is a spell or melee attack.

You don't understand what I'm saying.
The fact that your pebble can be thrown with a sling to technically make it a ranged spell attack with a weapon is irrelevant.
The same cannot be done with a melee weapon.
It's either a melee spell attack, or it's a melee weapon attack.
It cannot be both.
Either your are using a melee weapon or you aren't.
If you are, it isn't a melee spell attack.
If you aren't, it isn't a weapon attack at all.
It cannot be both.

[RickAllison]

You don't understand what I'm saying.
The fact that your pebble can be thrown with a sling to technically make it a ranged spell attack with a weapon is irrelevant.
The same cannot be done with a melee weapon.
It's either a melee spell attack, or it's a melee weapon attack.
It cannot be both.
Either your are using a melee weapon or you aren't.
If you are, it isn't a melee spell attack.
If you aren't, it isn't a weapon attack at all.
It cannot be both.

I precede my response with the statement that I will cease commenting on this because it is evident you do not intend to change your mind and I see no need to further argue pointless minutia.

A lack of a current option to make a melee spell attack with a weapon does NOT indicate that such a combination is impossible. Before Magic Stone, a ranged spell attack with a weapon was under the same condition, and we now see how such assumptions have fared. Regardless of the state of Flame Blade on this matter (as that is a tangential issue), the statement that a melee spell attack cannot be made with a weapon is, strictly speaking, false. A melee spell attack can absolutely be made with a weapon, but the method of doing so does not exist as of yet. There is no rule preventing such a spell from occurring, just as no such rule precluded Magic Stone.

[DivisibleByZero]

There is a difference.
Magic stone creates magical ammunition that can be thrown with a spell attack, or used in a sling. It is two different things.
One is ammunition, one is a weapon to hurl that ammunition.
You are enchanting the ammunition, and you can choose to throw it or use it as ammunition.
A melee weapon cannot be broken down into these two separate parts.
It is either a melee attack with a weapon or a melee attack with a spell. It cannot be both.

There is a particular druid spell that we all know and love called Shillelagh which uses your spellcasting modifier instead of your physical stat to attack. It is the cantrip melee version of magic stone. It still uses a melee weapon attack to do so, because it cannot be both a melee spell attack and also use a weapon. If it uses a weapon, it is a melee weapon attack.

Since you seem to not be willing to change your mind, I'll repeat myself one last time.
Spells only do what they say that they do, and no more.
If the Flame Blade spell created a physical weapon from the weapon table, the spell description would say so and it would tell you which weapon that was. It doesn't do that, and instead tells you that is similar in size and shape to a scimitar.
Not that it *is* a scimitar.
It isn't an attack with a weapon, it is an attack with a spell. That's why it uses a melee spell attack.

I have repeatedly stated that RAF/RAC this is perfectly fine. But if you want to discuss the RAW, then you have to leave the mental gymnastics and the theoretical deductions about what may potentially be possible in the future at the door and just read what it says. And what it says is that these two are incompatible.
Save your theoretical musings for a time when we aren't specifically discussing what the RAW states.

[Citan]

Hi all!
I wanted to react in this thread for a long time but never seemed to find the time to until right now. ;)


You can rule it however you want to. I made it very clear that there are zero problems with allowing it via RAF and/or RAC.
But RAW? Nope.
You're creating a fiery blade, as in a blade MADE of fire, not a physical blade that is ON fire.
So you aren't using a "weapon" for the attack, and you don't even have a weapon in hand for the material component to cast GFB. So not only do you not meet the requirements to *use* it with GFB, you don't even meet the requirements to *cast* GFB in the first place.
Components: V, M (a weapon)
You are not holding a weapon.
If you think that you are, then show me on the weapon table where Fiery Blade is listed. Or even just Blade for that matter.
Allow it if you want to, but the strict rules do not. No amount of mental gymnastics will change that.
Nothing permits you to make such a strong assessment about what actually is conjured, as others already said, just on the basis of the use of the "fiery" word.
"Fiery" can be understood in several ways, among which are equally common:
a) "made of fire" as you stand;
b) "burning" (as in "flames emanating from);
c) "intensely hot".
And many 5e spells are actually creating things (creating "matter" or even creatures in which spirits incarnates), even if it is only for the duration of the spell, such as Grease, Fog Cloud, Walls spells or Conjure spells.

So fiery blade could be understood either way: "fire shaped as a blade" or "burning blade"

So, the only words "fiery blade" contain absolutely no indication as to which meaning should be preferred. You could not even take the fact that you need to hold it as implying it is necessarily immaterial, because nothing really explains how the magic "actually works" so you could really put up any reason behind this requirement.
Exactly the same reason why you couldn't either suggest that it is necessarily an actual piece of metal "because otherwise caster would burn himself": nothing prevents anyone to say "hey it's you conjuring this fire so obviously it doesn't hurt you".

HOWEVER, what does tip the balance towards the "blade of fire" side is these two strong hints...
1) That WoTC is using the verb "evoke" which is always strongly related to pure energy instead of the word "conjure".
2) That WoTC has to precise, just after, that "shape and size is similar to a scimitar".
If their intent had been to conjure an actual weapon that just deals burning damage, writing "you conjure a scimitar which emits flame" (or even a fiery scimitar) would have been enough. And we know that there is no random word in a roleplaying game.

TL;DR: So, by RAW, it's indeed a "blade made of fire", but not just because of the word "fiery". Because of the combination of many hints: usage of "evoke" verb, necessity to specify a shape notably, other parts of the description could fuel that interpretation also.


An improvised weapon is not, in itself, a weapon. By RAW, you'd still need a weapon in order to cast the spell in the first place.
I can use a toothpick as an improvised weapon. That doesn't mean it meets the requirement of a weapon for me to cast GFB.
RAF/RAC: fine.
RAW: Nope.
That is a very wrong line here, and I'm surprised nobody raised eyebrows on this.
Quoting PHB: "Sometimes characters don't have their weapons and have to attack with whatever is close at hand. An improvised weapon includes any object you can wield in one or two hands such as a broken glass, a table leg, a frying pan, a wagon wheel or a dead goblin.
In many cases, an improvised weapon is similar to an actual weapon and can be treated as such".
So, what you said is utterly wrong because...
a) you put all improvised weapons in the same bag, whereas it is in fact up to the DM to define the "kind" of the weapon.
b) the fact that it resembles a "PHB named weapon" is important only to know whether you can apply your proficiency bonus or not, nothing else. As long as the DM admits the object you hold allows you to make a weapon attack with it, it is an improvised weapon. So it is a weapon, which just happens to have an "improvised" property, which matters just to define some basic attributes (range, damage), the same way a "heavy" weapon defines that it cannot normally be wielded accurately by small creatures.

Nothing prevents you to use a weapon cantrip such as GreenFlame Blade with a table leg for example, because nobody prevents you to make a weapon attack with a table leg (example given because expressly quoted in PHB, but any reasonable DM would allow a chair or a bottle for example). Exactly the same way as nobody would could prevent a Wizard to cast Booming Blade with a Handaxe (unlike armor, wielding a non-proficient weapon does not impair casting per se): it's just extremely unefficient because he add a high chance to miss. :=)

There is absolutely no reason not to follow the same logic with improvised weapons, because they are weapons before any other consideration.
It's just up to the DM to decide whether to accept whichever object as a weapon in the first place.
On that note, you are giving the example of a toothpick to try and make your point that it would be absurd, but most DM would not allow its use as an improvised weapon imo because it's just too thin to be really usable. Or, at most, as a poorman's fill-in for darts (which are ranged weapons anyways) to make a diversion but not actually making weapon attacks. XD

But any good, sturdy wood branch would easily qualify as an "improvised weapon". And then you could use Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade with it. Absolutely nothing anywhere in PHB or SCAG prevents it, because again absolutely nothing in rules prevents the casting with an improvised weapon per se, and nothing in either spell gives any indication as to "how magic works" that would imply the necessity of a specific weapon (like however strange that may be, you can cast Green Flame Blade with a wood quarterstaff without making it burn, which is proof it does not need fire-resistant material).

TL;DR: "improvised weapons" ARE weapons, so you can use them however you want per normal rules of making weapon attacks, the main problem being you are usually not proficient in them. XD

With all that said, you are still right on the OP question, GFB with Flame Blade does not work as RAW. Because I share your view that one could not pretend that considering a mass of fire "an improvised weapon" is RAW. I see how people could argue to the contrary, but imo the fact that it is immaterial is a blocker.
With that said, I would totally houserule it. :)

[Beelzebubba]

I don't disagree with you, but it just feels like this might be one of those cases where we all taking the RAW too literally.

In order for it not to work RAW, the text on Flame Blade that says "Make a melee spell attack with the fiery blade" needs to mean that a fiery blade is NOT a weapon. I'd say a flaming sword is a weapon.

Flame Blade isn't a weapon. It's a spell.

The Green Flame Blade cantrip is used with weapons. Not spells.

The rules are specific, clear, and unambiguous. There is no issue here. You are wrong.

Step back from this line of thinking before you find yourself in a political career.

[DivisibleByZero]

Flame Blade isn't a weapon. It's a spell.

The Green Flame Blade cantrip is used with weapons. Not spells.

The rules are specific, clear, and unambiguous. There is no issue here. You are wrong.

Step back from this line of thinking before you find yourself in a political career.

Right?
And that whole thing above you about an improvised weapon being a weapon because it's a weapon attack? Unarmed strikes prove that line of reasoning incorrect.
I mean, I can use a button from my jacket as an improvised weapon.
A button is not a weapon.

[Erys]

DivideByZero is right on this, technically by RAW the two (flame blade and green flame blade) do not mix.

If you don't like it, just house rule it and move on.

[Citan]

DivideByZero is right on this, technically by RAW the two (flame blade and green flame blade) do not mix.

If you don't like it, just house rule it and move on.
You should read better, nobody argued on that since several posts. XD

Right?
And that whole thing above you about an improvised weapon being a weapon because it's a weapon attack? Unarmed strikes prove that line of reasoning incorrect.
I mean, I can use a button from my jacket as an improvised weapon.
A button is not a weapon.
Again, you are wrong, totally, utterly wrong.
1) Improvised weapons are weapons because they are objects which you can use to make melee weapon attacks. The fact that you are usually not proficient with it is irrelevant.
2) It's up to each DM to decide whether an object can be considered as an improvised weapon. But as long as he goes with it, it is a weapon. That's exactly why the PHB goes as far as specifying a) what happens when this object is close enough to an actual weapon (= use all properties of that weapon) and b) what happens otherwise (= no special properties, fixed damage, fixed range).

That's why for example...

a) If you break a table and wield a leg in each hand, and your DM defines it as a club because he considers it's close enough in material, shape and size, you will be able to make attacks with it normally, and if you have the related Fighting Style or Dual Wielder feat it will also apply normally.

b) If you take instead, in one of your hands, a small part of the remains of aforementioned table, which has a pointy end and is comparable in size to a dagger, but your DM refuses to view it as such because of shape or weight...
Then you are stuck with it as an improvised weapon, so...
- Dual Wielder's bonus AC still applys (it just requires you to wield any two one-handed melee weapons, and allows you to wield non-light weapons).
- TWF style will still apply also, because it (strangely imo but anyways) doesn't require you to be proficient with the weapons you are making attacks with.
- However, even if you had the Defensive Duelist feat, because your pointy stick as been denied a resemblance with any weapon with finesse property, you won't be able to use the defensive reaction it provides.
- If you have the Divine Smite ability, you can use it because it does not require you to be proficient with the weapon you are making an attack with.
- Whatever weapon attack you make with this weapon, you will do without adding your proficiency to the attack roll (unless you ALSO took the Tavern Brawler feat).

Basically, "Improvised weapon" is just a special "open" category to give guidelines and tools to DM to help include any object as a weapon on the fly, without any need for homebrew, into D&d world.

Unarmed Strikes ruling is irrelevant to the question, because precisely not using any object to make the weapon attacks.
As you said yourself, "making a weapon attack" and "making an attack with a melee weapon" are technically different things. That is why for example you can Smite on Unarmed Strikes (which require melee weapon attack) but not use GFB (which require you to actually wield an object that can be used as a weapon).

And your example just proves once again you try to deform the core concept of an improvised weapon just to try and back your point. Because I really don't think any sensible DM would agree to consider "a button from your jacket" as an improvised weapon.
Remember, it's not YOU who decides what is an improvised weapon, IT'S THE DM.

[DivisibleByZero]

Unarmed strikes don't use objects to make weapon attacks?
Your fists? Your feet? Your knees? Your head? They're all objects. Your body is an object.

Improvised weapons are not an "open category" of anything. They aren't weapons. They're objects that are SPECIFICALLY NOT weapons (in game terms) which are currently being used AS weapons. There's a difference.

[Citan]

Unarmed strikes don't use objects to make weapon attacks?
Your fists? Your feet? Your knees? Your head? They're all objects. Your body is an object.

Improvised weapons are not an "open category" of anything. They aren't weapons. They're objects that are SPECIFICALLY NOT weapons (in game terms) which are currently being used AS weapons. There's a difference.
Seriously? You are going that far to defend your view?
Then we can never agree on this indeed.

FYI, I think this is an extremely bad tentative to give any ground to your claim (which, by the way, hamper many class features for absolutely no reason but that's another problem). In my view an object is necessarily something "external" to your body, that isn't attached to it (that's why there is the "body part" vocabulary).

I would love to read other people's opinions on this though. Until then, I feel unecessary to reply everything has been said already.

[Lombra]

I knew someone was going to bring this up.
All weapons have a specific cost. It's just that in this case, that cost is variable depending on the weapon you have.
Find me one on the weapon table that doesn't have a cost, and then you can use a spellcasting focus to cast GFB when you have *THAT* weapon on you.
Oh, wait.... then you have a weapon and don't need a focus at all.

Since you need a weapon, and all weapons have a specific cost, you can't substitute a focus. You need to actually have a weapon.
By RAW, Flame Blade does not suffice, because you don't have the material component with the specific weapon's cost. You need a real weapon.

I think that the cost must be specified in the spell's material components, otherwise all other materials would fall under your statement, making the component pouch the only way for a caster to reliably cast spells.

But you can't GFB if you can't make a melee weapon attack, thing that you can't do with flame sword because you are not wielding a weapon, but a spell.

[DivisibleByZero]

I would love to read other people's opinions on this though. Until then, I feel unecessary to reply everything has been said already.

You know what I feel is unnecessary?
Agreeing with me, and then arguing about the details of said agreement.
Can GFB and FB be used together? No?
That's the end of it.

[Corran]

You know what I feel is unnecessary?
Agreeing with me, and then arguing about the details of said agreement.
Can GFB and FB be used together? No?
That's the end of it.
I think he (Citan) implies that you reached the right conclusion via the wrong way (accidentally might be a better way to put it).

Personally, it's the ''evoke'' vs ''conjure'' argument in the language at the description of the spell, that tends to win me over to that it is not RAW to use flame blade with GFB. But I would argue that this is still more RAI than RAW at this point, as I dont find it a definitive statement that prohibits combining these two.

[DivisibleByZero]

I think he (Citan) implies that you reached the right conclusion via the wrong way (accidentally might be a better way to put it).

Personally, it's the ''evoke'' vs ''conjure'' argument in the language at the description of the spell, that tends to win me over to that it is not RAW to use flame blade with GFB. But I would argue that this is still more RAI than RAW at this point, as I dont find it a definitive statement that prohibits combining these two.

I posited multiple reasons why it doesn't work. Different people, who mostly seem to agree with the verdict, all just decided to choose one particular of those multiple reasons to argue about.
It's petty nitpicking, especially considering they agree with the verdict and ignored the multitude of other reasons given.