Flame Blade Shillelagh

[Aaedimus]

If you're holding a club in your offhand and use Shillelagh technically it looks to me (since clubs are light) that you can use it on a bonus action as you would a dagger. I'm not sure that this would work after the spell attack with Flame Blade as well...

is there a requirement to make a melee weapon attack before using your bonus action to attack with an offhand weapon?

Additionally, booming blade requires a weapon. Would you count the Flame Blade as a weapon? I personally don't see why not.

[Aett_Thorn]

Doesn’t Booming Blade require that you make a weapon attack? Flame Blade’s language specifically says that you use it to make a melee Spell attack, not weapon. I don’t think that combo would work RAW, but i’m AFB right now so might be wrong.

Edit - that being said, i’d probably allow it as Flame Blade is pretty weak for a spell with all of the restrictions. So rule-of-cool might apply.

[nickl_2000]

If you're holding a club in your offhand and use Shillelagh technically it looks to me (since clubs are light) that you can use it on a bonus action as you would a dagger. I'm not sure that this would work after the spell attack with Flame Blade as well...

is there a requirement to make a melee weapon attack before using your bonus action to attack with an offhand weapon?
Yes there is. To make an offhand weapon attack you need to use an attack action. The flame blade says "you can use your action to make a melee spell attack dealing 3d6 fire damage to the target."

So, since you are not using an attack action you don't get an offhand attack.


Additionally, booming blade requires a weapon. Would you count the Flame Blade as a weapon? I personally don't see why not.

No you can't because it doesn't actually define it as a damaging weapon. Compare this to shadow blade, which says what kind of weapon it is and how much damage it does. Would it be a reach to houserule that it's a magical scimitar that does 1d6+dex/str fire damage instead of slashing, not at all. However, it isn't really RAW.

[Galithar]

I'm not sure I understand the first part of your question, but you need to make an attack with your main action before making an attack with your bonus action if the source of the bonus action attack requires it.

From my understanding,
In two weapon fighting you can use your bonus action to make an offhand attack at any time.
In the case of something like polearm Master that indicates "When you take the Attack action and attack with only a glaive, halberd, or quarterstaff, you can use a bonus action to make a melee attack with the opposite end of the weapon." Then you do have to take the regular attack action first.

As for flame blade and booming blade I would rule that they don't stack RAW.

Flame Blade indicates that you create a magical flame that you can use to make a melee spell attack, and booming blade indicates that you must make a melee weapon attack as part of the action to cast it. Since you cannot make a melee weapon attack with a flame blade, I would think that would disqualify it from working with Booming Blade.

[nickl_2000]

In two weapon fighting you can use your bonus action to make an offhand attack at any time.


Nope, sorry :)


Two-Weapon Fighting
When you take the Attack action and attack with a light
melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can
use a bonus action to attack with a different light melee
weapon that you’re holding in the other hand

So it's not any time, it on'y when you take an attack action.

[Aaedimus]

That what I was thinking would shut it down lol

Thanks all

[Millface]

5e is, for good and bad, really tightly worded.

I hate seeing creative attempts at combos like this get shot down, but having played both 2nd and 3rd edition I can totally understand why they reigned that in a bit for 5th.

My first reaction was to just override everything like that as the DM, but the game isn't built for that, and my players quickly outpaced the monster manual. Have to be really careful what to homebrew here, because any change, even minor, can potentially break the game. That's how it is, it's rules jenga. Pull one piece out and the whole thing could collapse.

[Mellack]

Nope, sorry :)



So it's not any time, it on'y when you take an attack action.

Didn't shield master, with the same wording, get ruled that you could do the shove first? Something like you declared the attack action, used the shield push, then did your actual attack. I seem to recall that, but cannot be sure.

[Galithar]

Nope, sorry :)



So it's not any time, it on'y when you take an attack action.

Ah thanks for the correction. Must be a house rule in my one game that allows that then. I personally have never made a TWF character.

[nickl_2000]

Didn't shield master, with the same wording, get ruled that you could do the shove first? Something like you declared the attack action, used the shield push, then did your actual attack. I seem to recall that, but cannot be sure.

Actually shield master got ruled that you needed to attack first and then you have the ability to do a bonus action. Either way though, it doesn't work since damaging with flame blade doesn't actually use an attack action. Instead you "use your action to make a melee spell attack..." Sadly that's not the same thing.

[Mellack]

Actually shield master got ruled that you needed to attack first and then you have the ability to do a bonus action. Either way though, it doesn't work since damaging with flame blade doesn't actually use an attack action. Instead you "use your action to make a melee spell attack..." Sadly that's not the same thing.

I found it. He originally ruled "As with most bonus actions, you choose the timing, so the Shield Master shove can come before or after the Attack action." but later changed his ruling. So we are both right :)

The flame blade definitely doesn't work because it is the wrong action type.

[NaughtyTiger]

RAW flame blade doesn't work for TWF, but I have yet to find a DM that blocks it. Most even cite Shadow Blade as why it should work.