Melee spell attack of opportunity?

[Warlush]

So everyone can make a melee weapon attack as an AoO. And the Warcaster feat allows you to cast a 1 action 1 target spell when you gain an AoO.

But lets say you're a druid wielding your Flame Blade, or a wizard/warlock/whatever and you're already concentrating on Vampiric Touch. Is there any way (RAW) to make the melee spell attack granted from those spells as an AoO?

[NaughtyTiger]

"To make the opportunity Attack, you use your Reaction to make one melee Attack against the provoking creature."

I interpret this as, yes, you can make a melee attack with an existing spell, even it if results in a melee spell attack.

[firelistener]

No. An Attack of Opportunity is classified as a Reaction. The way GFB works, you have to spend a Bonus Action. While you can fulfil the requirement to make a melee attack for GFB, you wouldn't have the Bonus Action to spend during the Attack of Opportunity.

However, you can always ready an action on your turn to cast a spell when a condition is fulfilled, like "someone walks out of my attack range". This costs you an Action, which is by design since spells can be super powerful and effective based on when they are cast during the battle.

Also with War Caster, there's been sage advice before specifically for GFB that it isn't really a "single-target" spell and thus wouldn't qualify anyway. But that one is more up to the DM.

[NaughtyTiger]

No. An Attack of Opportunity is classified as a Reaction. The way GFB works, you have to spend a Bonus Action.

OP mentions, Druid's 2nd level spell Flame Blade, not the cantrip, Green Flame Blade.

[NNescio]

So everyone can make a melee weapon attack as an AoO. And the Warcaster feat allows you to cast a 1 action 1 target spell when you gain an AoO.

But lets say you're a druid wielding your Flame Blade, or a wizard/warlock/whatever and you're already concentrating on Vampiric Touch. Is there any way (RAW) to make the melee spell attack granted from those spells as an AoO?

No.

Those spells specify that you need to use a separate Action to use the attack they grant. An OA is not an action. It is a reaction.

Edit: (Not that it works even if it's a reaction, because it would be a separate reaction then, not one taken as part of the OA.)

[NaughtyTiger]

No.

These spells specify that you need to use an Action to use the attack they grant. An OA is not an action. It is a reaction.

ah, that is a good catch.
although, reaction is a "special action" granted by spell, ability, or situation. that could be enough for interpretation

[E’Tallitnics]

"The intent is no."

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/01/if-youve-already-cast-flame-blade-can-it-be-used-for-opportunity-attacks/

[NNescio]

"To make the opportunity Attack, you use your Reaction to make one melee Attack against the provoking creature."

I interpret this as, yes, you can make a melee attack with an existing spell, even it if results in a melee spell attack.

Can you OA with Inflict Wounds? Bestow Curse? Spiritual Weapon? Riposte? Grapples and Shoves? Those are also melee attacks. But you can't because they stipulate when you are allowed to take them.

You can't just make any melee attack nilly-willy as part of an OA. OA doesn't let you ignore the normal requirements for making the attack.

Same goes for the Attack action too, for that matter. You can't just Attack action-Extra Attack to hit somebody multiple times with Flame Blade, since it specifies a separate action.


ah, that is a good catch.
although, reaction is a "special action" granted by spell, ability, or situation. that could be enough for interpretation

OA doesn't let you take any other Action/Bonus Action/Reaction as part of the OA. You can only make one melee attack. The melee attacks granted by Flame Blade/Vampiric Touch/GFB/BB/Spiritual Weapon/Grapples/Shoves/etc. specify when you are allowed to take them (usually as part of taking some other specific action [lower-case]).

Only way to make an OA melee spell attack is if you have a melee spell attack listed as part of your stat block, like if you are a Wraith or a Banshee or a Lich (or are polymorphed into one).

(War Caster sorta lets you do it with single-target spells, but strictly speaking it's no longer an OA. You cast the spell instead of taking the OA. This is important when considering things that specify they only work with OAs, like Sentinel.)

Edit:


"The intent is no."

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/12/01/if-youve-already-cast-flame-blade-can-it-be-used-for-opportunity-attacks/

Also clarified in the SAC (https://media.wizards.com/2019/dnd/downloads/SA-Compendium.pdf). (Page 12)

[NaughtyTiger]

skipping the unrelated stuff.


OA doesn't let you take any other Action/Bonus Action/Reaction as part of the OA. You can only make one melee attack. The melee attacks granted by Flame Blade/Vampiric Touch... specify when you are allowed to take them (usually as part of taking some other specific action [lower-case]).


"To make the opportunity Attack, you use your Reaction to make one melee Attack against the provoking creature."
"Certain Special Abilities, Spells, and situations allow you to take a Special action [lower-case] called a Reaction."
"You can use your action [lower-case] to make a melee spell Attack with the fiery blade" for an already cast Flame Blade, per the OP.

enough to muddy the interpretation.

[ThePolarBear]

skipping the unrelated stuff.



"To make the opportunity Attack, you use your Reaction to make one melee Attack against the provoking creature."
"Certain Special Abilities, Spells, and situations allow you to take a Special action [lower-case] called a Reaction."
"You can use your action [lower-case] to make a melee spell Attack with the fiery blade" for an already cast Flame Blade, per the OP.

enough to muddy the interpretation.

No, it isn't.

Reason 1)
"Certain Special Abilities, Spells, and situations allow you to take a Special action [lower-case] called a Reaction."
Flame Blade doesn't. Furthermore, there's no "uppercase" action anyway. It is just a distinction made in between us users to avoid confusion between different uses of the same word.

Reason 2)
Don't stop reading at a convenient point:
"A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's."
The action that Flame Blade gives you is not an instant response to a trigger of some kind. So, can't be a reaction.

Reason 3)
AoO lets you take a reaction and if you do, you make one melee attack. To make the melee attack, you need to spend your reaction.
To make an attack with Flame Blade, you need to spend your action.
Even if all action were to be reactions (which is not possible, since not all actions are instant responses to triggers of some kind, making them clearly distinct and a sub-group of the "all actions" group - hence the "special action" denominator) you would run out of actions.
If you want to make the AoO you need to spend your "action" to be allowed to. You would no longer have an "action" availlable to spend to make the attack with Flame Blade - which can only be done by spending an action specifically on it.

[NaughtyTiger]

No, it isn't.

Reason 1)
"Certain Special Abilities, Spells, and situations allow you to take a Special action [lower-case] called a Reaction."
Flame Blade doesn't. Furthermore, there's no "uppercase" action anyway. It is just a distinction made in between us users to avoid confusion between different uses of the same word.

Reason 2)
Don't stop reading at a convenient point:
"A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's."
The action that Flame Blade gives you is not an instant response to a trigger of some kind. So, can't be a reaction.

Reason 3)
AoO lets you take a reaction and if you do, you make one melee attack. To make the melee attack, you need to spend your reaction.
To make an attack with Flame Blade, you need to spend your action.
Even if all action were to be reactions (which is not possible, since not all actions are instant responses to triggers of some kind, making them clearly distinct and a sub-group of the "all actions" group - hence the "special action" denominator) you would run out of actions.
If you want to make the AoO you need to spend your "action" to be allowed to. You would no longer have an "action" availlable to spend to make the attack with Flame Blade - which can only be done by spending an action specifically on it.

Reason 1) I agree Flame Blade doesn't provide a Reaction. It is the AoO situation that provides the Reaction.
Reason 2) I disagree that the melee attack of Flame Blade cannot be an instant response to a trigger of some kind. The text you quoted does not prohibit it.
Reason 3) I read your argument as: AoO lets you use the action on your turn, not a reaction. This is basically a restatement of Reason 2.

There is a strong case that the action for Flame Blade must be the action on your turn, not a Reaction or bonus action (if there were a generic bonus action for "melee attack"). So I am not saying your interpretation is wrong.

However, i think it is a reasonable interpretation that the action can be the action on your turn, a bonus action melee attack (not sure there is an applicable ability currently), or reaction melee attack. I am basing this on the 3 lines i previously quoted.

[MikeRoxTheBoat]

Compare it to the way Shadow Blade works and is worded if you want a somewhat close juxtaposition. Shadow Blade creates a melee weapon. Flame Blade is a spell vaguely in the shape of a scimitar, it doesn't actually create a melee weapon.

[Contrast]

Oh hey, I remember this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?590558-Flame-Blade-and-Extra-Attack) :smallbiggrin:

[Kane0]

Compare it to the way Shadow Blade works and is worded if you want a somewhat close juxtaposition. Shadow Blade creates a melee weapon. Flame Blade is a spell vaguely in the shape of a scimitar, it doesn't actually create a melee weapon.

Shadow Blade is Flame Blade done right. They're conceptually the same but Shadow Blade was made after the PHB which contains Flame Blade and learned some lessons on which spells work well and which don't (eg Witch Bolt, Find Traps).

[NaughtyTiger]

Oh hey, I remember this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?590558-Flame-Blade-and-Extra-Attack) :smallbiggrin:

yeah, basically. i was trying not to bring that up cuz it got nasty for a while. but most of us who started in the Not RAW category, ended up in the sort of RAW category, at least in that it was 1d6+dex fire damage...

[ThePolarBear]

Reason 2) I disagree that the melee attack of Flame Blade cannot be an instant response to a trigger of some kind.

If you had the ability to use Flame Blade as a reaction, you could. If something gave you the ability to take an action as a reaction, you would be able to. The AoO rule doesn't. Flame Blade doesn't. Flame Blade doesn't specify a trigger at all.

You CAN make the melee spell attack that is part of Flame Blade as an instant response to a trigger of some kind; For example you could use the Ready action to make such an attack.

However, the action itself IS NOT an instant response to a trigger of some kind. There is a difference there.


The text you quoted does not prohibit it.

And there's no need to. Does Fireball heal everyone just because it isn't written that it doesn't?


Reason 3) I read your argument as: AoO lets you use the action on your turn, not a reaction. This is basically a restatement of Reason 2.

Not really? I mean, i don't think you meant that the AoO let's you use your action on your turn anyway...

It is more like:

You would not have 2 reaction: one to be able to make the attack, the other to be able to make the attack you want to make. Either you could do the melee spell attack directly (and at that point, why bother with the opportunity attack rules at all? you are not limited by triggers anyway...) or you need to spend the reaction to make the opportunity attack, and only then spend it to make the melee spell attack. But you do not have 2 reactions.


There is a strong case that the action for Flame Blade must be the action on your turn, not a Reaction or bonus action (if there were a generic bonus action for "melee attack"). So I am not saying your interpretation is wrong.

However, i think it is a reasonable interpretation that the action can be the action on your turn, a bonus action melee attack (not sure there is an applicable ability currently), or reaction melee attack. I am basing this on the 3 lines i previously quoted.

The three lines you are quoting are not the entirety of the rules on the matter, however. The "special" action called reaction is strictly distinct from a "normal" action in specific ways. And the peculiar special action that has a name also has its own rules on how many and how many times and when you can take it in a turn/round.
In my book, it is not reasonable to base an interpretation on just a partial body of text. Agree to disagree, i guess.

[NaughtyTiger]

You would not have 2 reaction: one to be able to make the attack, the other to be able to make the attack you want to make. Either you could do the melee spell attack directly (and at that point, why bother with the opportunity attack rules at all? you are not limited by triggers anyway...) or you need to spend the reaction to make the opportunity attack, and only then spend it to make the melee spell attack. But you do not have 2 reactions.
I am not following that at all.


The "special" action called reaction is strictly distinct from a "normal" action in specific ways.
I think we disagree on the specific ways, so yeah, agree do disagree.

[Zhorn]

Oh hey, I remember this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?590558-Flame-Blade-and-Extra-Attack) :smallbiggrin:

*gets PTSD flashbacks* :smalleek:


yeah, basically. i was trying not to bring that up cuz it got nasty for a while. but most of us who started in the Not RAW category, ended up in the sort of RAW category, at least in that it was 1d6+dex fire damage...

As much fun as I intended with that thread and the thought exercise, it really did highlight how badly worded and designed Flame Blade is, and became a nightmare to try and continue the discussion on.

On the topic of this thread, I'd say 'no, Flame Blade is not compatible with War Caster allowing opportunity attacks with the fiery blade', not unless you have 20min to hammer out with your DM the legalese of RAW and flick back and forth over the PHB, DMG and dictionary to pick apart the language to make a case for it. And even then you may still come to different conclusions.

You wouldn't get away with it in AL, which is the quickest way to get to what the most universal ruling would be.

Shadow Blade would be fine though.