Punching Produce Flame and reacting with Absorb Elements

[justduelist]

so had an interesting idea come.

1 of my fellow players decided he wanted to use the Produce Flame spell to puch an enemy.

since you can cast and immediately throw a Produce Flame spell, the DM decided that having the character close his fist just before striking the enemy with the fireball up close wasn't too much of a stretch and allowed it but said you would also take the damage in this case.

In response the player decided to use his reaction to cast Absorb Elements against his own Produce Flame to gain fire resistance and an extra 1D6 fire damage on his next attack.

so what do you think about all of this? would you have done the same? different?
personally, i like the idea of someone using Produce Flame to make themselves a fire punching martial artist.

note: he was a druid/monk. im also aware the spell says it doesnt harm the user but we'll let that go for the sake of discussion.

[Foxhound438]

Personally wouldn't be too upset. He has the monk side so it would make sense to -want- to fire punch things, but then why didn't he go 4e for fangs of the fire snake...

Obviously the spell is intended to be a ranged attack (it says so in the spell's text), so there has to be some downside to use it in melee. Normally it would be disad on the attack for ranged attacking in melee, but taking damage back is probably fine, since otherwise this would probably become a regular thing to use the spell how it says it doesn't work.

If it were me in the DM seat, I probably would have just said no and avoid all of the tomfoolery this is guaranteed to lead into (next thing will be can my bear form make a ranged bite attack by breaking its teeth out and spitting them or something), but the ruling is generally fine to me. Even the part about using absorb elements on top, since that's now costing a spell slot to do something that he probably would have done better just swinging his normal, non-fire-engulfed fist in the first place.


im also aware the spell says it doesnt harm the user but we'll let that go for the sake of discussion.

it also says it isn't a melee attack, so I can agree to let that go too.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I would not have done the same. Perhaps if it was a narrative sort of one off situation that's never going to come up again I'd have gone with it and allowed it.

I wouldn't want the player to think this was something they could do regularly as it's clearly not supposed to work that way.

[Sjappo]

This is why they invented Green Flame Blade.

Still, it doesn't break to much. A handy cantrip that does ranged fire damage and augments one melee attack. It doesn't mesh with 2 weapon fighting nor with extra attacks.

[Mjolnirbear]

so had an interesting idea come.

1 of my fellow players decided he wanted to use the Produce Flame spell to puch an enemy.

since you can cast and immediately throw a Produce Flame spell, the DM decided that having the character close his fist just before striking the enemy with the fireball up close wasn't too much of a stretch and allowed it but said you would also take the damage in this case.

In response the player decided to use his reaction to cast Absorb Elements against his own Produce Flame to gain fire resistance and an extra 1D6 fire damage on his next attack.

so what do you think about all of this? would you have done the same? different?
personally, i like the idea of someone using Produce Flame to make themselves a fire punching martial artist.

note: he was a druid/monk. im also aware the spell says it doesnt harm the user but we'll let that go for the sake of discussion.

AFB: doesn't Absorb Elements have some sort of verbiage about being targeted by a spell or ability?

I would have said no, assuming I've understood what's going on here.

For rule of cool I'd let him 'punch' the spell instead of throw it, but it would not do any additional damage. It would do exactly what it says in the spell except be a melee attack.

If he wants to throw it, and then punch, they'd be separate attacks and follow the standard rules for the actions required. I wouldn't let him use the spellcasting action and then follow up same round with Flurry of Blows or Extra Attack. Again, AFB, but I think Produce Flame lets you attack with the flame on a subsequent turn? I'd let him cast it in turn A, and then in turn B use it as one of his attacks for the Attack Action.



Assuming I'd done what OP's DM had done, then I'd have followed up with a strong elemental attack that the monk won't be able to Absorb because he already used his reaction.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Eh. It's a pretty weak spell; allowing it to be used as a ranged or melee spell attack isn't going to be a big deal. Making it a GFB style "weapon attack with bonus damage" might be a bit much, though.

[Joe the Rat]

I think your approach was a reasonable ruling.



For rule of cool I'd let him 'punch' the spell instead of throw it, but it would not do any additional damage. It would do exactly what it says in the spell except be a melee attack.
I'm with Mjolnirbear on how I'd have done it. It does expand the options (current version is basically self-range-light with a short range damage option). So "light, melee, SHORT ranged" seems more or less in line with the "melee, advantage on metal, reaction stun" of shocking grasp. Same damage die too.

Flaming punch is greenflame blade. If they wanted to get a "Fire Fist" cantrip (or add a druidic Searing Smite variant), they'd get their cool fire attack add-on.

[thoroughlyS]

I would have done it by the book (i.e. ranged attack made within 5 feet means disadvantage on the attack roll), but changed the reason for disadvantage to the maneuver being difficult to pull off.

[Citan]

so had an interesting idea come.

1 of my fellow players decided he wanted to use the Produce Flame spell to puch an enemy.

since you can cast and immediately throw a Produce Flame spell, the DM decided that having the character close his fist just before striking the enemy with the fireball up close wasn't too much of a stretch and allowed it but said you would also take the damage in this case.

In response the player decided to use his reaction to cast Absorb Elements against his own Produce Flame to gain fire resistance and an extra 1D6 fire damage on his next attack.

so what do you think about all of this? would you have done the same? different?
personally, i like the idea of someone using Produce Flame to make themselves a fire punching martial artist.

note: he was a druid/monk. im also aware the spell says it doesnt harm the user but we'll let that go for the sake of discussion.


This is why they invented Green Flame Blade 4e Monk.

Still, it doesn't break to much. A handy cantrip that does ranged fire damage and augments one melee attack. It doesn't mesh with 2 weapon fighting nor with extra attacks.
Fixed that for you. :smallyuk:

To OP: sure, why not? I mean, it's probably not even "better" power-wise because that Monk character is using his reaction to gain a small boost on next attack, when he could keep it for defense (against arrows) or trying to hit an OA (better damage) on which he could even stack a Stunning Strike attempt.
Technically, it's just as if the player was making a ranged attack with the flame (PHB RAW) with just the DM waiving the "disadvantage because 'in melee'" bit (houserule).

And using Absorb Elements as a reaction is 100% RAW too. Nothing in writing forbids it to apply to self-harm.

[Lombra]

I wouldn't make the caster take damage.