Flame Blade Question

[Hario]

Say an archivist or a cleric uses a scroll of Flame Blade the spells says:

A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from your hand. You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar. Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks. The blade deals 1d8 points of fire damage +1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10). Since the blade is immaterial, your Strength modifier does not apply to the damage. A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth.

The spell does not function underwater.

I assume when it says if it were a scimitar means that if I cast those w/o martial proficiency in a scimitar, I'd take a -4 to my attack? I assume its still prolly worth it to cast it since they are touch attacks.

[Quietus]

Say an archivist or a cleric uses a scroll of Flame Blade the spells says:


I assume when it says if it were a scimitar means that if I cast those w/o martial proficiency in a scimitar, I'd take a -4 to my attack? I assume its still prolly worth it to cast it since they are touch attacks.

I don't know about Archivists, but a Cleric couldn't use that scroll, it isn't on the Cleric list. That said, if an Archivist can indeed use it, and isn't proficient with scimitars, then by RAW, yes, they'd take the -4. As a DM I'd say "You're proficient with it because it's not an actual scimitar, it's the result of a spell you cast", because it's just more fun that way - after all, a Druid isn't technically proficient with balls of flame, as they don't fall under a particular weapon category, but can use Produce Flame no problem.

[Runolfr]

In my reading of spell descriptions, I've note that when a spell creates a weapon, it usually specifies clearly that the caster is proficient with the weapon created. Since this particular spell makes no such specification, I'm inclined to say that it does not grant automatic proficiency to the caster.

Of course, it's not on the list for either a Cleric or Archivist, as far as I know, so they must be using UMD to cast it from the scroll.

[Hario]

a divine caster can easily make a CL check to use the scroll, Clerics can definatly use the scroll they just need a CL check to do so. I think you were thinking that a cleric can't use arcane scrolls which is partially true (unless they have the magic domain).

[Douglas]

A scroll has to be on your class list for you to use it without UMD, so clerics cannot use scrolls of Flame Blade. The archivist "class list" is every single divine spell for every single divine caster class, domains included, in every sourcebook available, so an archivist can use the scroll easily.

[Rogue 7]

Just because the blade's made of fire, doesn't mean that you wield it different than a normal scimitar. Therefore, I'd say you take the penalty.

[Dode]

Clearly you're wielding it differently if you're trying to make melee touch attacks with it.

[MrNexx]

Clearly you're wielding it differently if you're trying to make melee touch attacks with it.

No, you're still striking as if it were a scimitar... the spell still mimics the weight and feel of a scimitar. You just don't have to worry about armor.

[Kaelik]

No, you're still striking as if it were a scimitar... the spell still mimics the weight and feel of a scimitar. You just don't have to worry about armor.

Except that non-proficiency penalty shows that they cannot wield it "well."

It is well within common sense to say that wielding a scimitar to hit someone does not require proficiency, but to hit them with the blade in the right way to cut them well does require it. But with the Flame Blade spell just slapping the flat of the blade on their armor does the same damage as slicing at a crack in their armor. As such, proficiency doesn't matter.

I'm not saying that that's the only interpretation, just that as far as common sense goes, it is equally valid as any other.

I personally would just hand out the -4 penalty if they weren't proficient because other spells that create weapons specifically say that they grant proficiency and I make my decisions based on the rules instead of common sense. (I will verbally abuse the first person who says the word drowning.)

[martyboy74]

Why does the spell mimic the feel of a scimitar? It's made of pure flame! The spell even specifically says that the blade is immaterial!

PS: Drowning!

[tainsouvra]

Why does the spell mimic the feel of a scimitar? It's made of pure flame! The spell even specifically says that the blade is immaterial!

It also says...

You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar.

...which is pretty telling.

[Tor the Fallen]

My archivist is too smart to wield it like a scimitar; he swings it like a goddamn baseball bat.

[goat]

I'd say you're wielding it like a sword you don't have proficiency with (so -4), and to wield it in that way is part of the spell. An enemy can see you coming in the same way they can any other enemy using a scimitar, but your magical blade of flame ignores their armour, so it's a touch attack.

THUS, it's good against anyone with more than +4 from their armour bonus.

[UserClone]

The fact is, it's a Druid spell. If you really want to wield it well so badly, be a Druid. Or UMD a better spell's scroll.

[GoC]

My archivist is too smart to wield it like a scimitar; he swings it like a goddamn baseball bat.

QFT.

I'd say that if you're proficient with a club then you're proficient with a flaming scimitar.

[martyboy74]

The problem with the spell description is that it tells you how you act, regardless of your personal abilities. All of the damage dealt by the flame blade is fire damage anyways, so it's not like your swinging abilities actually mean anything anyways.

[Tor the Fallen]

The problem with the spell description is that it tells you how you act, regardless of your personal abilities. All of the damage dealt by the flame blade is fire damage anyways, so it's not like your swinging abilities actually mean anything anyways.

Except that you have to succeed with a melee touch attack, which is dependent on your swinging abilities. Or I suppose your touching abilities. But for some reason the fire only works if you pretend you're using a scimitar like a pro.

Silly.

[Quietus]

The problem with the spell description is that it tells you how you act, regardless of your personal abilities. All of the damage dealt by the flame blade is fire damage anyways, so it's not like your swinging abilities actually mean anything anyways.

Particularly since it doesn't add your strength mod... Heh.

I'd say, if it's that big a deal, let the player change the fluff. "Flame Blade" becomes "Flame Club", "Flame Staff", "Flame Dagger", or whatever. I even got a DM to allow me to research "Flame Bow", but that's a little beyond what I'd say the spell is capable of right off the bat.

[Fizban]

There's a Sor/Wiz spell for Flame Dagger. It starts with 1d4 and is otherwise exactly the same, but that doesn't help here.

Why not get the moon domain spell Moonblade? It can be wielded as any sword, including dagger IIRC.

Also, Flame Blade does not apply strength bonus, true, but it does apply Power Attack bonus. Yes it has a strength prerequisite. No, the damage is not a strength bonus. It is a feat bonus. Since Flame Blade is specifically wielded as a scimitar, you can even use it two-handed for double the PA bonus.

[MrNexx]

Except that you have to succeed with a melee touch attack, which is dependent on your swinging abilities. Or I suppose your touching abilities. But for some reason the fire only works if you pretend you're using a scimitar like a pro.

Silly.

Druids wanted to reduce the chance that others would UMD their scrolls and use it against them (those who are good with UMD are generally not proficient with a scimitar).

[Josh the Aspie]

I'd say, if it's that big a deal, let the player change the fluff. "Flame Blade" becomes "Flame Club", "Flame Staff", "Flame Dagger", or whatever. I even got a DM to allow me to research "Flame Bow", but that's a little beyond what I'd say the spell is capable of right off the bat.

People are recommended to change the fluff for their spells to match their personalities. But really, would changing the weapon just be changing the fluff, or would it be changing mechanics?

[MrNexx]

People are recommended to change the fluff for their spells to match their personalities. But really, would changing the weapon just be changing the fluff, or would it be changing mechanics?

It's changing the mechanics. If you change what weapon proficiency is required (say, making it a staff or a dagger), you open up the spell to use by other classes. Making it a simple weapon opens it widely.

[Person_Man]

It was intended for Druids, who have scimitar proficiency. The spell does not grant proficiency in the weapon. Therefore, the Archivist would take the -4 penalty for non-proficiency.

Also, Flame Blade is just like a Fire Lash, and can in fact be used with Power Attack or any other feat. It's in the FAQ somewhere. It's also pretty common in my games to see a melee Rogue/Whatever build with a Wand of Flame Blade.

[Vasdenjas]

Once again, this all comes down to interpretation, but I read it differently. The spell is called Flame Blade, not Flame Scimitar. It creates a 3 foot sword-like ray of fire. The entry states "You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar", not "This weapon requires proficientcy with the Scimitar". I feel this is fluff added, simply because it is a Druid spell, and scimitars ARE the only blade-like weapons they are proficient with. Someone else who learned to cast the spell somehow may well wield it as a rapier, short sword, etc. Daggers are out, as they are not 3 feet long. So if someone cast it who had no proficiency with any 3-foot bladed weapon, they would take the -4.

Additionally, the reason STR does not apply to the attacks is because the blade is immaterial. No substance whatsoever. Power Attack is based on putting more of your Strength behind the attack, thus the STR requirement. You cannot Power Attack with this spell.

[Person_Man]

Once again, this all comes down to interpretation, but I read it differently. The spell is called Flame Blade, not Flame Scimitar. It creates a 3 foot sword-like ray of fire. The entry states "You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar", not "This weapon requires proficientcy with the Scimitar". I feel this is fluff added, simply because it is a Druid spell, and scimitars ARE the only blade-like weapons they are proficient with. Someone else who learned to cast the spell somehow may well wield it as a rapier, short sword, etc. Daggers are out, as they are not 3 feet long. So if someone cast it who had no proficiency with any 3-foot bladed weapon, they would take the -4.

Really? To me it sounds like you're just making up house rules. The text of the spell clearly says that "You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar." Not "any simple blade weapon."

Additionally, the reason STR does not apply to the attacks is because the blade is immaterial. No substance whatsoever. Power Attack is based on putting more of your Strength behind the attack, thus the STR requirement. You cannot Power Attack with this spell.

Why not?

Power Attack [General]
Prerequisite

Str 13.
Benefit: On your action, before making attack rolls for a round, you may choose to subtract a number from all melee attack rolls and add the same number to all melee damage rolls. This number may not exceed your base attack bonus. The penalty on attacks and bonus on damage apply until your next turn.

It doesn't mention Strength anywhere in the feat. Nor does it mention that it can't be used with weapons created by spells. And the FAQ specifically says that you can use Power Attack with a Fire Lash, which is also a touch attack. I don't see what the problem is, except that it doesn't "feel" right to some people.

[Quietus]

Additionally, the reason STR does not apply to the attacks is because the blade is immaterial. No substance whatsoever. Power Attack is based on putting more of your Strength behind the attack, thus the STR requirement. You cannot Power Attack with this spell.

I'd say that's the intent, however, that's applying the fluff of Power Attack to the mechanics of Flame Blade. By RAW, yes, you could power attack with it - in my games, no. But then, I've yet to have anyone try.

As for people saying that changing the weapon would be unbalancing mechanically, I'm going to stomp all over my above mention of applying fluff to mechanics - if someone gets a Wand of Flame Blade, odds are, it's from a druid who makes his a scimitar. Thus, that Wand produces a scimitar. They'd have to find a druid who creates a Flame Weapon of a type that they're proficient with.

[Vasdenjas]

Really? To me it sounds like you're just making up house rules. The text of the spell clearly says that "You wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar." Not "any simple blade weapon."

And it sounds to me like you make up house rules to fit your definition of it as well. Why is that? Because the written rules are ambiguous, and subject to interpretation. The spell also clearly states "It creates a 3 foot sword-like ray of fire." If this was to be construed only as a scimitar, why oh why would it not specifically state "It creates a 3 foot scimitar-like ray of fire."

It doesn't mention Strength anywhere in the feat. Nor does it mention that it can't be used with weapons created by spells. And the FAQ specifically says that you can use Power Attack with a Fire Lash, which is also a touch attack. I don't see what the problem is, except that it doesn't "feel" right to some people.

Well, it does say STR, right in the requirements. But let's go by your tack. By RAW, it only states that you can use it on Melee attacks, not melee touch attacks. Why have you house-ruled it to include melee-touch attacks?

My line of thought is based on intentions. There is absolutely no magical substance to the Power Attack feat. It is completely mundane, and simply allows a person to add more power to their attack. This means there has to be a physical factor to the attack. Immateriality is defined as having no physical factor at all.

Anyways, the FAQ has been proven wrong time and again, espceially once errata was released, and has been specifically noted as not being a valid source for rules decisions. They make guesses and judgement calls, just as anyone on this board would. Their statement holds no more weight in this than does anyone else's.

[Kaelik]

Additionally, the reason STR does not apply to the attacks is because the blade is immaterial. No substance whatsoever. Power Attack is based on putting more of your Strength behind the attack, thus the STR requirement. You cannot Power Attack with this spell.

Actually if you think about it, you are turning your Base Attack Bonus into damage. Base Attack Bonus isn't strength, it's general ability to hit things well. So you do less "guiding of the attack to an appropriate place" and more "swinging the blade deeper into their flesh" resulting in lots more burning.

[Vasdenjas]

Actually if you think about it, you are turning your Base Attack Bonus into damage. Base Attack Bonus isn't strength, it's general ability to hit things well. So you do less "guiding of the attack to an appropriate place" and more "swinging the blade deeper into their flesh" resulting in lots more burning.

That's not a bad interpretation, and makes some justification for that version of it, sure.

However, I still see it as:
POWER Attack = Strength
Requirements: STR 13 = Strength
Trading in BAB = Reckless attacks for damage = Strength

What you stated sounds more like precision damage to me.

[Kaelik]

That's not a bad interpretation, and makes some justification for that version of it, sure.

However, I still see it as:
POWER Attack = Strength
Requirements: STR 13 = Strength
Trading in BAB = Reckless attacks for damage = Strength

What you stated sounds more like precision damage to me.

I see it more as giving up accuracy in return for going deeper into their flesh, and that would work for both flame blades and regular blades. I see the Str 13 pre-req as someone being strong enough to force the blade through without getting stuck (I would also rule that if someone wanted the Power Attack feat only to use with immaterial weapons that they wouldn't need the Str, but would need access when taking the feat to an immaterial weapon. IE: not at level one.)