Okay, something has been bugging me about the flame blade spell.
The spell description states you wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar
Does that mean an attack with a flame blade crits on a 18-20?
|
My opinion would be no, since it deals fire damage via a touch attack and lists the amount of damage dealt rather than referring you to the scimitar entry for all of that. If the spell said it dealt damage as a scimitar or something, than I would say yes, but all of that is spelled out, so I would go with a default 20 (x2). I can see where somebody could argue for the larger threat range, though.
I can see where somebody could argue for the larger threat range, though.
I ask because I've been trying to find something that would make the spell an attractive option over produce flame.
Produce flame does more damage on average than flame blade until you reach 8th lvl (in which case thay tie). In addition produce flame has the versatility to be thrown and is a spell level lower.
Maybe I'm just reaching here but I keep looking at the spell to find out what I might be overlooking and the oddity of the scimitar comment stuck out.
|
My opinion would be no...
I disagree -- mostly for the simple reason of why say that in the first place then? Why a scimitar instead of a longsword? I would rule that it does, but I could be wrong -- I don't know of anything official.
As far as which one is better -- flame blade over produce flame...
Damage
Flame blade -- 1d8 + 1/two levels (max +10)
Produce flame -- 1d6 +1/level (max +5)
I would have to actually do the math, but it feels fairly even due to the different die.
Duration
Flame blade -- 1 min/level
Produce flame -- 1 min/level -- HOWEVER the duration is reduced by 1 minute with each attack you make. So if you are 5th level, you get 5 attacks with it.
Really seems like flame blade wins out here.
Range
No contest here -- produce flame has range (or melee). Flame blade is only melee.
Hope that helps.
My opinion would be no...I disagree -- mostly for the simple reason of why say that in the first place then? Why a scimitar instead of a longsword? I would rule that it does, but I could be wrong -- I don't know of anything official.
It might be because Druids are proficient with scimitars and not longswords.
I would say Produce Flame is a slightly "better" spell because of the lower spell level, but a Halfling wielding a flade made of flame that is as long as he is tall would look cool.
Okay, something has been bugging me about the flame blade spell.
The spell description states you wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar
Does that mean an attack with a flame blade crits on a 18-20?
I'd say no as well. Nothing stating this is in the spell description, furthermore the text is clear that he blades are immaterial and that things like strength do not apply, damage is dependent on caster level, attacks are touch attacks etc. Its not a flaming scimitar it just kind of looks like one but it certainly does not act like one.
I'd say no as well. Nothing stating this is in the spell description, furthermore the text is clear that he blades are immaterial and that things like strength do not apply, damage is dependent on caster level, attacks are touch attacks etc. Its not a flaming scimitar it just kind of looks like one but it certainly does not act like one.Okay, something has been bugging me about the flame blade spell.
The spell description states you wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar
Does that mean an attack with a flame blade crits on a 18-20?
I agree with Jeremy.
However you can take the line of feats from Complete Arcane, for Weapon Focus (touch spell) and Touch Spell Specialization (which mimics Weapon Specialization) to get you +1 attack and +2 damage with it. Just a thought.
-c
DurationProduce flame -- 1 min/level -- HOWEVER the duration is reduced by 1 minute with each attack you make. So if you are 5th level, you get 5 attacks with it.
Hope that helps.
Actually the race to find something superior about flameblade began under the idea that Produce flame only gets its' time drastically reduced when you hurl it. I reread the spell description yesterday and it's the first time I ever noticed my mistake. Until that I was really curious as to what made Flame blade worth the extra spell level.
Actually the race to find something superior about flameblade began under the idea that Produce flame only gets its' time drastically reduced when you hurl it. I reread the spell description yesterday and it's the first time I ever noticed my mistake. Until that I was really curious as to what made Flame blade worth the extra spell level.
I had never noticed that either - thank you!
Also, it's quite possible you can only make one attack per round with Produce Flame, as a touch spell. Alternatively, Flame Blade is used like a scimitar, and thus would get iterative attacks.
Also, it's quite possible you can only make one attack per round with Produce Flame, as a touch spell. Alternatively, Flame Blade is used like a scimitar, and thus would get iterative attacks.
This interpretation is correct.
What about Weapon Focus (scimitar)? I'd be inclined to say that it would grant its bonus to the spell. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason for the spell to mention that it is wielded as a scimitar (other than the iteritive attacks, mentioned above, which I would never have thought of). I'm also inclined to say that it can crit on rolls of 18-20. Again, why state that it operates like a scimitar if that's not the case? As the DM in the situation, those inclinations are somewhat relevant. Unless someone feels I would be making a massive balance mistake (which I have to admit, I'm a bit skpetical about in this case).
In the combat section under the Attack action in the PHB it lists casters attacking with a touch spell as an armed unarmed strike alongside natural attacks and a monks unarmed strike. It lists such attacks as having both offensive and defensive benifits to being armed. Insomuch that they do not provoke attacks of opportunity, and can be used to deliver attacks of opportunity.
To my knowlege there are no actions which can take advantage of attacks of opportunity that are not also attack actions (I.E. they can be used as a part of a full round attack to gain extra attacks).
This is the only evidence I could find to support the idea that a melee touch attack granted by a spell could grant secondary attacks or be utilized by two weapon fighting. But I could not find any evidence to the contrary.
Also, it's quite possible you can only make one attack per round with Produce Flame, as a touch spell. Alternatively, Flame Blade is used like a scimitar, and thus would get iterative attacks.
Produce flame is not a touch spell. It is a spell with a range of personal that grants the ability to make melee and ranged touch attacks after it has been cast.
Get Sebastian over here. You need a lawyer at this point.
What about Weapon Focus (scimitar)? I'd be inclined to say that it would grant its bonus to the spell. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason for the spell to mention that it is wielded as a scimitar (other than the iteritive attacks, mentioned above, which I would never have thought of). I'm also inclined to say that it can crit on rolls of 18-20. Again, why state that it operates like a scimitar if that's not the case? As the DM in the situation, those inclinations are somewhat relevant. Unless someone feels I would be making a massive balance mistake (which I have to admit, I'm a bit skpetical about in this case).
Almost all spells and most generally just about everything else such as feats or monsters exceptional attack etc. start off with some kind of a description of what is happening and what one might see, hear and smell when a spell is cast (or a feat is used, or a monster uses its exceptional ability).
Generally after these couple of lines the spell goes into the mechanic of how it actually works in terms of the rules of the game. The descriptive text is not meant to be the rules mechanics, its there to help one describe the action.
The mechanics are meant to be all encompassing, they tell you everything you need to know to run the spell by the rules. There is no attempt here to make things obtuse for the dungeon master or to hide rules. Where the descriptive text clashes with the mechanics the mechanics take precedent.
Technically one could run spells with no descriptive text at all and just the bare mechanics but in reality that would be pretty hard and we'd end up using the name of the spell itself in an attempt to derive inspiration for what just happened beyond the dry material presented in the mechanical rules.
So in this case it says that flame blade looks like a flaming scimitar to tell us what everyone sees (and hears and smells) when the druid casts the spell. But below this it describes exactly what the spell does and how it works within the rules. Its a melee touch spell and behaves according to the rules regarding melee touch spells. It does not get some of the things associated with a scimitar because there is nothing in the mechanics that says that it does. It does not grant one a benefit for being specialized in scimitar because, again nothing in the mechanics says that it would.
It is, however possible to get bonus to hit with this spell - anything that would help you to hit by giving a bonus to Melee touch attacks would qualify here because the mechanic clearly describes this as a melee touch attack. If you had something that increased the critical range of spells then that would apply here (not sure if any such thing exists but it would not shock me if it did). As a general rule if it helps you hit with produce flame (the non-ranged component) or chill touch it will help with this spell as well.
In the combat section under the Attack action in the PHB it lists casters attacking with a touch spell as an armed unarmed strike alongside natural attacks and a monks unarmed strike. It lists such attacks as having both offensive and defensive benifits to being armed. Insomuch that they do not provoke attacks of opportunity, and can be used to deliver attacks of opportunity.
To my knowlege there are no actions which can take advantage of attacks of opportunity that are not also attack actions (I.E. they can be used as a part of a full round attack to gain extra attacks).
This is the only evidence I could find to support the idea that a melee touch attack granted by a spell could grant secondary attacks or be utilized by two weapon fighting. But I could not find any evidence to the contrary.
There is a whole (small) section on touch spells in combat but the gist is your analysis is correct. Its an attack - follow the rules for attacks. Its slightly odd in that its one that makes you count as armed and there is the ability to 'hold the charge' for those touch spells that can only be used a limited number of times but otherwise its an attack. I'm sure you could do it with your off hand presuming your willing to take the appropriate penalties.
Probably it would not come up with off hand attacks because you have to cast the damn thing and usually one casts the spell and attacks with it in the same round, but with something like flame blade that lasts many rounds there is no reason to think you could not use full round actions to attack with it in one hand and with something else in another or to use iterative attacks with it.
In fact I think that this is partly why its not a bad little spell. It does a fair bit of damage, its a melee touch attack and melee touch is great, hits lots of things pretty easily. I can easily see a 3rd level druid being called upon to help the fighter chop away at a pretty high AC monster and having the druid be better at it then the fighter in this circumstance. This is especially true if we presume something like 25 point buy where the spells damage is pretty good even compared to the fighter and the chance to hit might well be very good compared to the fighter. Once one starts getting into super powered characters with 32 or 36 point buy the spells utility drops as the fighter regains the edge due to the ability to hit more and deal significantly more damage.