5e Excellent Edge Case for Monk

[BerzerkerUnit]

Be a Monk 2 with access to the Produce Flame cantrip (Fire Genasi, MC Druid, Magic Initiate Druid)
Take the dedicated weapon alternate feature.

Normally, you produce flame and can hold it in your hand for up to a minute and throw it for D8+ damage.

If you can hold it in your hand you can presumably swing it as an improvised weapon. However, you technically have proficiency with it. Also, it's up to the DM to determine its damage other than d4, but there's no listed mandate to not let it deal its normal damage. Worst case you need the Tavernbrawler feat.

Declare your produced flames a dedicated weapon. At level 2 this isn't a big deal, you up damage to D8+dex fire. Fun and flavorful.

But once we hit level 5, no we're cooking with gas. 2d8+dex per hit. If you spend a ki on flurry or improved accuracy, you can make a 3rd attack as a bonus action.

At level 11 it's even more bonkers, with 3d8 per hit, 17th we're throwing up to 12d8 fire per round. It isn't considered damage with a spell because it's a monk weapon.

I think this is a completely reasonable ruling chain, but respect differing opinions. Considering the normal investments necessary to get monks to only be slightly worse on damage out than every other martial, I think it's fun.

[Amechra]

I mean, besides the issue with the middle step (AKA "you can obviously use this spell for something that the spell doesn't explicitly say that you can do, because that lets the rest of my idea work")... Produce Flame only lasts for 1 minute.

[Mellack]

Besides what Amechra already pointed out, it also doesn't work with dedicated weapon as it is not a weapon, it is a spell effect.

Also, how do you intend to get past this portion of the spell text to ever get multiple attacks from a casting, even if you were somehow allowed to use it in melee rather than throwing it? "You can also attack with the flame, although doing so ends the spell."

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, this wouldn’t fly at my table, for sure.

[MrStabby]

Besides what Amechra already pointed out, it also doesn't work with dedicated weapon as it is not a weapon, it is a spell effect.

Yeah, declaring it to be a dedicated weapon is all well and good; the hard part is getting the DM to sign up to something that isn't a weapon being a weapon.

I mean the idea is cool, but it could open up a lot of other "interesting" interpretations - flame blade, vampiric touch, blade of disaster, spiriual weapon...

[animorte]

Casting it is an action, thus you get no attack. The action can be used to throw the little fireball immediately or wait to throw it until some time after casting it as a different action entirely.

So the way I think of this is you can throw it as your action, allowing no additional attack.
or
You can cast it as an action and then make an attack on your next turn, expending it as a part of that action attack for extra damage.

Either way, it evens out pretty well since there's no way to cast it and use a separate action to attack in the same turn (unless you have Action Surge). I would allow it with this in mind. Somewhat creative and by no means overpowered. But as noted, it's not a weapon so none of that, etc... Otherwise go for it, but I guess that doesn't suit your entire purpose for posting.

[Spo]

Can’t you do this with all range spell attacks then? Tell your GM it’s not a disintegration ray but a disintegration punch (just ignore the spell effect vs weapon damage vs unarmed combat rules).

[Greywander]

This would actually be pretty cool as a subclass feature. But yeah, it doesn't work RAW. Produce Flame is a spell, not a weapon.

Hmm, "Way of the Mystic Fist", a subclass where you punch spells into people. BRB, writing up a new homebrew subclass.

[Amechra]

This would actually be pretty cool as a subclass feature.

"You get Produce Flame, except it deals Radiant damage and you get to add Wisdom to your damage. When you take the Attack action, you can spend 1 ki to cast Produce Flame as a bonus action" is totally what the Sun Soul Monk should've gotten instead of Radiant Sun Bolt.

[BerzerkerUnit]

Thanks all for your feed back.

I will note, I'm discounting every iteration of "it's not a weapon so it can't be used to make a weapon attack" since I felt I went into the notion it was being employed as an improvised weapon, that's why I referenced the tavern brawler feat, however I don't think you'd need it because you are proficient with this object/phenomena, the ball of fire.

A chair is not a weapon, but you can hold it in your hand and attack with it. A monk proficient in improvised weapons could make the chair their dedicated weapon (see ~half of Jackie Chan's filmography). So a monk proficient in the use of this ball of fire (and we can immediately skip to the n-dimensional argument RE: do you summon a different ball of fire, or the same ball of fire each time you cast the spell. Is it a fire spirit, or a burning coin from your genie lord, etc, etc.) I know this is a house on sand, I'm just giving it stilts.

I contend, a ball of fire you can hold in your hand is something you could attack with as an improvised weapon. I think that's pretty close to RAI for improvised weapons, it isn't a matter of the spell being a weapon or an object or whatnot. From there it's a matter of the DM ruling on its damage, d4 as an improvised weapon (which will scale with martial arts) or a scaling d8 for its cantrip damage.

I'm unconvinced by "why not every ranged spell" as a slippery slop argument because, to my knowledge, there are only 3 that create the an object/phenomena that hangs around (Produce Flame, melfs minute meteors, and Crown of Stars). The others are pretty specific about the projectiles floating around you or hovering and nothing indicates that touching them in that state would be harmless. Produce Flame is explicitly something you can safely hold in your hand, like a rock or stick, other things you can just smack people with.

I have never seen a problem with letting a fighter wield the cleric's spiritual weapon if the cleric agrees, etc. That kind of party synergy is something I want players to look for, but that's definitely ymmv.

I do put real stock in the argument "if you attack with it, the spell ends." I think ruling it out on those grounds is fair though I would say you could ignore the disadvantage for ranged while in melee since you'd be smacking someone with it and not throwing it. I would also argue its the act of throwing it as an attack as the spell is intended that ends the spell (it has left your hand and can't be sustained) and using it in this novel manner would not meet the intended criteria. But again I think it's fair either way.

I do put some stock in the argument regarding the total damage of the spell if used in this way, if allowed I think it would be fair to limit it to martial arts die damage and "free fire damage in place of BSP" isn't a bad minor buff for the synergy.

With all that said, I prefer games fueled by electric guitars and keh-keh-keh-kohkayn, so were I the DM it would start as a d8 fire monk weapon and scale to 4d8 fire monk weapon for the same reason I'd allow someone wielding a great sword sized shard of crystal to deal 2d6 damage instead of a d4, or someone picking up the remnants of a trap to deal the trap's damage instead of a d4. d4 is for when you beat someone with wine bottle or bar stool, heroes doing hero stuff can do better.

If you prefer more gritty or grounded games, enjoy!

[JNAProductions]

"Rule of cool" might work for the Monk player. How's everyone else gonna feel when the Monk outdamages their nova with the usual attack routine?

[Psyren]

A chair is not a weapon, but you can hold it in your hand and attack with it. A monk proficient in improvised weapons could make the chair their dedicated weapon (see ~half of Jackie Chan's filmography).

Dedicated Weapon doesn't just require proficiency; it also requires that the weapon in question be Simple or Martial. A chair is neither (Tavern Brawler lets you apply your proficiency bonus to uncategorized weapons but does not bestow a category on them), and neither is a handheld flame.

As for "attacking with the flame ends the spell," no distinction is made between melee or ranged attacks - any kind of attack with the flame will trigger that clause as written, forcing you to recast it.

In short, there are one too many holes in this one for my tastes.

[Greywander]

I think we need to be clear on what exactly we're discussing. Is it a neat idea? Sure. If you allow it as a DM, or if your DM is allowing it for you, that's cool. But is it RAW? That, I think, is the question actually being discussed, and that's the question I'm trying to answer. If you're in a situation where your DM has already okay'd this and you're trying to figure out how to build a character around it, that's an entirely different question.

So is it RAW? No. No way, no how. Would I allow it at my table? Probably not, but I'd be willing to listen to the player make their case for it. I think the idea is actually really cool, and in a different system I could see it being a neat and creative way to use such an ability. But this reeks of munchkinism, a cheap way to get a high damage "weapon" while paying a minimal price for it. Yeah, I'd give up a cantrip to get a weapon that scaled from 1d8 to 4d8 damage. I'm not saying that's what you're trying to do; honestly, it kind of reminds me of the time I discovered that a shield +X only requires you to hold it, not wield it, to get the +X bonus. It was just a neat thing I found and I wondered if it actually worked. So I assume that's more where you're coming from, more of a "wait, would that actually work?" perspective.


I will note, I'm discounting every iteration of "it's not a weapon so it can't be used to make a weapon attack" since I felt I went into the notion it was being employed as an improvised weapon, that's why I referenced the tavern brawler feat, however I don't think you'd need it because you are proficient with this object/phenomena, the ball of fire.
If it's an improvised weapon, then it does 1d4 bludgeoning damage. Or, if your DM is feeling generous, 1d4 fire damage. That's the rules for improvised weapons. If you want it to deal more than that, you'll need to convince me it isn't an improvised weapon, which undermines your argument. And honestly, it does kind of make sense that punching someone with the flame in your hand might not hurt as much as throwing that flame at them. This I probably would allow, since it's not more powerful than any other improvised weapon, and the fire damage could be useful, e.g. against a troll. In fact, I'd probably allow it to still count as an unarmed strike for a monk. Using a cantrip to make your fists deal fire damage is a sidegrade at best.


A chair is not a weapon,
But it is an object. I could see a tenuous argument that the flame created by Produce Flame is an object, but I'm skeptical.


I contend, a ball of fire you can hold in your hand is something you could attack with as an improvised weapon. I think that's pretty close to RAI for improvised weapons, it isn't a matter of the spell being a weapon or an object or whatnot.
Any normal flame can't be wielded in your hand. But this is no normal flame. I'm not convinced, but I can see your logic.

There's also the general rule that a spell does what it says it does, nothing more, nothing less. Nothing in the spell text for Produce Flame even implies you can wield it as a weapon, so there's no reason to think that you could. Spells like Shadow Blade say this pretty explicitly, and if Produce Flame was able to be used in a similar way, then it should say so. It doesn't.

See also Flame Blade, which pretty explicitly gives you a big, flaming sword, but also explicitly says you use an entire action (not the Attack action) to attack with it, and it uses a spell attack, not a weapon attack. You can't wield a Flame Blade like a normal weapon, you can't take the Attack action and attack with the Flame Blade multiple times. It clearly tells you that attacking takes a whole action. The same arguments you're making for Produce Flame would also apply to Flame Blade, except we already know Flame Blade doesn't work. Thus, it doesn't seem like Produce Flame would either.

Flame Blade is kind of a terrible spell, though, and I'd be fine with pretending it didn't exist. It has no synergy with classes that have Extra Attack, it can't trigger Sneak Attack, and what kind of caster would want to spend their concentration so that they can deal cantrip damage in melee? Now that I look, it doesn't give a range on the attack, and the spell's range is Self, so I assume Flame Blade has infinite range, just like stabilizing a dying creature.


I do put real stock in the argument "if you attack with it, the spell ends." I think ruling it out on those grounds is fair though I would say you could ignore the disadvantage for ranged while in melee since you'd be smacking someone with it and not throwing it. I would also argue its the act of throwing it as an attack as the spell is intended that ends the spell (it has left your hand and can't be sustained) and using it in this novel manner would not meet the intended criteria. But again I think it's fair either way.
Keep in mind that (a) the spell uses a ranged attack, so it's meant to be at disadvantage in melee, and (b) attacking with the spell uses your whole action, not just one attack. Allowing the spell to deal full damage at the cost of a single attack makes it stronger than it is intended to be. I might be willing to allow it if it remained locked at 1d8 damage and didn't scale. That would make it on par with a one-handed martial weapon.

On the other hand, it might not be unbalanced if you're spending an action to create the flame, and a different action to take the Attack action, with one attack being an attack with the flame, and the flame disappears after a single attack. You're basically burning an entire action to make a single attack a bit stronger. Not bad if you're setting up an ambush, but it has the same issues as Truestrike; it's better to just take the Attack action twice.

So if you really wanted to make it work, I think there's a path forward. I see two main option:

Produce Flame gives you an unarmed strike that deals 1d8 fire damage, plus modifier. This lasts until the spell ends. It's basically a one-handed martial weapon that requires a full action to draw. The damage does not scale as you level; instead, it scales with Extra Attacks like most weapons. Compare and contrast Shillelagh.
Produce Flame augments an unarmed strike e.g. as part of your Attack action or Flurry of Blows. This gives you a single strike with the flame, dealing full damage on a hit, after which the spell ends.

I'd probably be fine with either of these.

[TaiLiu]

have never seen a problem with letting a fighter wield the cleric's spiritual weapon if the cleric agrees, etc. That kind of party synergy is something I want players to look for, but that's definitely ymmv.
Oh, interesting! Maybe yr playstyle is broadly different than the forum's. I guess my first inclination is to say no to that kind of synergy, partly on the basis that the weapon is "spectral" and not material. As a DM, I think I would allow it if they figured out how to hold such a ghostly thing, but that would have to happen first.

[Psyren]

This trick definitely works with Shadow Blade, because the blade created by that spell is a simple melee weapon with which you're proficient, and it lacks the heavy and special properties, so it meets all three criteria. This does however run you into the other problem of the blade only lasting for 1 minute, forcing you to "rededicate it" each time - but if your DM is okay with letting you treat each casting of the spell as summoning the same weapon then you can get away with only dedicating it once. This gets you a (2d8 - 5d8)+Dex psychic damage weapon depending on the slot used, which you can make multiple attacks with and even throw.

With Shadow Blade however, there's no need to jump through these kinds of hoops because the sword already has the finesse and light properties, so you can already get Dex to damage with it without monk, so you can just be a rogue or a fighter etc.

[Reach Weapon]

I mean, besides the issue with the middle step (AKA "you can obviously use this spell for something that the spell doesn't explicitly say that you can do, because that lets the rest of my idea work")... Produce Flame only lasts for 1 minute.

I'm also not feeling the middle step but more in a "it does not follow" and "it is not necessary" kind of way.


A flickering flame appears in your hand. The flame remains there for the duration and harms neither you nor your equipment.

This sentence is enough to get the ball rolling, as you now have a magical flame in your hand, which we know can do harm but specifically is not doing it to you or your stuff. One could assume that while in your hand the flame does no harm to anything, but that is not the text.

One could attempt a free action with their flame containing hand, perhaps causing it to touch someone else or items that are not one's own equipment, and that would need to be resolved.


You can also attack with the flame, although doing so ends the spell. When you cast this spell, or as an action on a later turn, you can hurl the flame at a creature within 30 feet of you. Make a ranged spell attack. On a hit, the target takes 1d8 fire damage.

Strictly, that first sentence ends the spell once any attack is made that involves the flame, although I could see an argument that the paragraph is specifying that attack.

So, how much damage does this flickering flame do when the hand it's in comes in contact with that which is not the caster nor their equipment?

As I conceded above, there's a solid logic for "none", but I can also see "1 fire" (like a torch), "1d4 fire" (a small fire), or "the spell attack amount" (which I'd argue is most correct if the spell then ends).