So, Flame Blade is wielded 'as if it were a scimitar'. It also states that attacks with it are 'melee touch attacks'. Are statements contradictory, or additive?
- 'as if it were a scimitar' make me seem as though Weapon Focus (scimitar) would work with it.
- 'melee touch attacks' can generally benefit from weapon finesse, so would that work with flame blade?
- flame blade is specifically called out in the FAQ on weapon-like spells, but just that it is treated as a weapon for 'effects that affect weapons'.
Something of note: Inner Sea Gods does grant Flame Blade to divine spellcasters of Sarenrae - coincidentally a goddess of fire who ALSO has the scimitar as her favored weapon. Not sure if that backs up the ability to use Weapon Focus (scimitar) or not.
|
So, I recently posted another flame-blade related post, and I'll share what I gleaned from it.
If the flame blade is just a melee touch attack that happens to be shaped like a scimitar, then weapon finesse would work, but weapon focus wouldn't. If it's a scimitar, then weapon focus would work, but weapon finesse wouldn't, unless you have the feat Dervish Dance, which would at last let you add your Dexterity bonus to attack rolls (at the cost of two feats... blech).
Reading the spell, it seems clear that the blade is intended to be wielded, in all ways, as a scimitar, which means anything scimitar-related applies to it, but it happens to make touch attacks instead of regular ones. Basically, treat the effect of the spell as a scimitar for all intents and purposes.
Also, search "Flame Blade Interactions" in the rules forum. My recent post will come up, and people linked some cool interactions I wouldn't have thought of for pimping my Flame Blade.
Davor / toastedamphibian (& anybody on the "not work wagon")
Why does Finesse not work?? I thought all touch spell where finessable (could be remembering just a 3.5 thing but...)? Weapon focus (Touch Spell) is still a thing right?? So Flame Blade w/ Weapon Finesse & Weapon Focus Done.?? Right?
Because the spell says it's wielded like a scimitar (which isn't finessable without the Dervish Dance feat). After clarifying how it is wielded, the spell goes on to say that attacks with it are melee touch attacks.
Think of it like a magus with a permanently active accurate strike arcana.
That's not much of a clarification, as nothing in Accurate Strike says it can't work with finesse either, since it also just says it's resolved as a melee touch attack.
Why does Finesse not work??
Because it tells you use it 'as if it were a scimitar'... It's really as simple as that: all you have to do is look at a scimitar and figure out if you can use weapon finesse with it. For instance, if you have dervish dance then you could.
Secondly, there is nothing that explicitly allows weapon finesse to work with touch attacks. Unarmed strikes are light but touch attacks are 'armed' unarmed attacks. unarmed strikes are unarmed attacks but not all unarmed attacks are unarmed strikes.
Now I think the intent is that you can use weapon finesse with them, it's just that the rules never actually tell you that you can. [RAI vs RAW]
Now I think the intent is that you can use weapon finesse with them, it's just that the rules never actually tell you that you can. [RAI vs RAW]
By that token, it would makes sense that a weightless flame stick to your hand should be as easy to maneuver as your hand, if we're talking RAI here.
Touch Attack spells are usually finesseable because delivering a touch spell is an "Armed Unarmed Attack" (not an unarmed strike) and unarmed attacks (including unarmed strikes) are light weapons.
Do you have a quote for that? I have never been able to find a quote that says unarmed attacks are light weapons, only unarmed strikes.
Now I think the intent is that you can use weapon finesse with them, it's just that the rules never actually tell you that you can. [RAI vs RAW]By that token, it would makes sense that a weightless flame stick to your hand should be as easy to maneuver as your hand, if we're talking RAI here.
Apples and oranges. We HAVE intent in the quote 'as if it were a scimitar'. If the intent was that it act like a "a weightless flame stick to your hand should be as easy to maneuver as your hand", then they wouldn't have it act like a scimitar would they? It can't be both can it? Not IMO.
|
|
Davor / toastedamphibian (& anybody on the "not work wagon")
Why does Finesse not work?? I thought all touch spell where finessable (could be remembering just a 3.5 thing but...)? Weapon focus (Touch Spell) is still a thing right?? So Flame Blade w/ Weapon Finesse & Weapon Focus Done.?? Right?
That may be true, but Flame Blade isn't a touch spell. It's an evocation with a range of 0' that creates a weapon that happens to make touch attacks.
It's the same reason a Magus can't use Spellstrike in conjunction with Elemental Touch. It isn't technically a touch spell. (For the record, I disagree with that rule. At my table, you'd be able to Spellstrike with Elemental Touch, and weapon finesse a flame blade.)
In the case of Flame Blade, given that the blade attacks touch AC, its finesse-ability is kind of a moot point. The only way I could see abusing it is sneak attack (which doesn't even care about weapon finesse anyways) or Swashbuckler damage boosts, though I'm having a hard time finding a way to make that feasible. Heck, the only feat that really hard-boosts flame blade's damage just adds your Charisma bonus to it.
Touch Attack spells are usually finesseable because delivering a touch spell is an "Armed Unarmed Attack" (not an unarmed strike) and unarmed attacks (including unarmed strikes) are light weapons.Do you have a quote for that? I have never been able to find a quote that says unarmed attacks are light weapons, only unarmed strikes.
I'm not sure there is a distinction to be drawn between strikes and attacks in this specific instance. The rule about unarmed strikes being light attacks is in the unarmed attacks section of the rules and seems to use the terms interchangeably.
Specifically, if there is a distinction then unarmed attacks deal no damage as it only lists damage for unarmed strikes.
The Green Scourge druid archetype does some interesting things with Flame Blade as well.
Since our particular use case is built on a goblin druid (with good dex (+3), and poor strength(-1)), the finessability of the flame blade does make for a significant difference, which is why I brought up the question to begin with.
Touch Attack spells are usually finesseable because delivering a touch spell is an "Armed Unarmed Attack" (not an unarmed strike) and unarmed attacks (including unarmed strikes) are light weapons.Do you have a quote for that? I have never been able to find a quote that says unarmed attacks are light weapons, only unarmed strikes.
I'm not sure there is a distinction to be drawn between strikes and attacks in this specific instance. The rule about unarmed strikes being light attacks is in the unarmed attacks section of the rules and seems to use the terms interchangeably.
Specifically, if there is a distinction then unarmed attacks deal no damage as it only lists damage for unarmed strikes.
There are a multitude of unarmed attacks that deal damage that ISN'T unarmed strike damage. Each attack lists different damages, unarmed strike included.
Unarmed strikes deal 1d3 damage.
Touch of fatigue doesn't deal 1d3 damage even though it's an 'armed' unarmed attack.
Vampiric Touch deals 1d6 points of damage per two caster levels, not 1d3 damage.
If we MUST count every unarmed attack as a strike, then flameblade attacks normal AC and deals 1d3 damage bludgeoning nonlethal damage since that's what the entry says strikes do...
Do you have an instance of an unarmed attack that doesn't have a listed damage and therefore MUST rely on unarmed strike? From my perspective, unarmed strike is a specific weapon that has its own stats listed in the equipment section and NOT a generic catchall category of attacks that unarmed attack is. Dagger damage doesn't inform me of the damage of other light blades for instance.
That's drifting quite a bit off topic. In the case of flame blade, it's not unarmed in any way. It's an armed (per the FAQ on weapon-like spells), melee touch attack, that is wielded as a scimitar. To me, what that all means:
a. it is wielded as a scimitar, so abilities that affect your ability to use a scimitar affect it.
b. it is a melee touch attack, which describes the actual act of using it.
c. does 1d8+CL/2 fire damage
What isn't described is what 'type' of weapon it is. Is it a spell attack, or is it a scimitar?
Essentially, the issue is what properties of the overall attack come from what statement.
. . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . b . . . . . . c . . . . . . result.
1) Wpn Type: . 1-hand . . light . . . . --- . . . . . . ?????
2) Damage: . .1d6(1d4) . . --- . . 1d8+CL/2 . 1d8+CL/2
3) Threat: . . . . x2 . . . . . x2. . . . . --- . . . . . . . x2
4) Multiplier: . 18-20 . . . . 20 . . . . --- . . . . . . . 20
5) Targets: . . . AC . . . TouchAC . . .--- . . . . . TouchAC
Threat range is 'sort of' settled based on the mythic version of the spell, which specifies that "The blade threatens a critical hit on a natural 18–20 as if it were an actual scimitar." Which I guess we can use to state that the normal flame blade DOESN'T threaten as 'an actual scimitar.' So I ask, what part of the spell is actually like a scimitar? damage isn't, crit isn't, target isn't, damage isn't.
What makes more sense here:
1. that the spell is 'wielded like a scimitar' strictly for it's 1-handed weapon quality (and as such, can't be used with weapon finesse), and ignores every other property of that weapon, or
2. that that phrase was included as a description to visualize how someone is using this flame in battle, and has no mechanical meaning, and the flame blade is just a scimitar flavored melee touch spell (in which case it would work with weapon finesse).
I'm leaning more and more towards 2 on this, that the scimitar wording is descriptive, especially considering that wording has essentially been in the flame blade spell since at least 2nd edition.
OR, we rule on the side of boosting a weaker spell, and simply allow the best of both worlds - let scimitar based feats work, and finesse vs. touch ac. It still would be a rarely use spell.
That's drifting quite a bit off topic. In the case of flame blade, it's not unarmed in any way. It's an armed (per the FAQ on weapon-like spells), melee touch attack, that is wielded as a scimitar. To me, what that all means:
There is such a thing as an 'armed' unarmed attack. As such, being armed doesn't mean much in figuring out if something is or isn't an unarmed attack.
a. it is wielded as a scimitar, so abilities that affect your ability to use a scimitar affect it.
b. it is a melee touch attack, which describes the actual act of using it.
c. does 1d8+CL/2 fire damage
I agree with a, b and c.
What isn't described is what 'type' of weapon it is. Is it a spell attack, or is it a scimitar?
For attacking, it's pretty clear it's a scimitar: 'WIELD as if it were a scimitar' and it points out the exception, that you target touch AC.
1) Wpn Type: As scimitar
2) Damage: as spell [not affected by wielding]
3) Threat: as spell [not affected by wielding]
4) Multiplier: as spell [not affected by wielding]
5) Targets: TouchAC [as specified in spell]
Wield simply has to do with hitting with it [proficiency]. It has nothing to do with damage, crit or anything else.
|
|
I would recommend that the player, whoever he is, just ask the DM for his ruling. I think you'll find that you can finagle Flame Blade a lot of different ways, and at some point the spell itself could probably use a FAQ review. Until then, just ask your DM what he thinks, make your case, and go with whatever he decides. I did the same thing recently, and the DM ruled against pretty much every favorable version of Flame Blade I wanted. No biggie, though. That's why you don't make a one-trick pony. :P
That's drifting quite a bit off topic. In the case of flame blade, it's not unarmed in any way. It's an armed (per the FAQ on weapon-like spells), melee touch attack, that is wielded as a scimitar. To me, what that all means:There is such a thing as an 'armed' unarmed attack. As such, being armed doesn't mean much in figuring out if something is or isn't an unarmed attack.
a. it is wielded as a scimitar, so abilities that affect your ability to use a scimitar affect it.
b. it is a melee touch attack, which describes the actual act of using it.
c. does 1d8+CL/2 fire damageI agree with a, b and c.
What isn't described is what 'type' of weapon it is. Is it a spell attack, or is it a scimitar?For attacking, it's pretty clear it's a scimitar: 'WIELD as if it were a scimitar' and it points out the exception, that you target touch AC.
1) Wpn Type: As scimitar
2) Damage: as spell [not affected by wielding]
3) Threat: as spell [not affected by wielding]
4) Multiplier: as spell [not affected by wielding]
5) Targets: TouchAC [as specified in spell]Wield simply has to do with hitting with it [proficiency]. It has nothing to do with damage, crit or anything else.
I think judging by the thread here, that it's not THAT clear - if anything, the wording for the melee touch attack (which carries the crit range, and the target, is far more firm than the lighter 'as a scimitar'. That, combined with the history of that wording predating things like crit range or weapon finesse, to me, pushes it much more in that direction.
In the end, it's one of those things that has just passed through from edition to edition, without the spell changing, while the game around it has - which causes problems quite often.
I would recommend that the player, whoever he is, just ask the DM for his ruling. I think you'll find that you can finagle Flame Blade a lot of different ways, and at some point the spell itself could probably use a FAQ review. Until then, just ask your DM what he thinks, make your case, and go with whatever he decides. I did the same thing recently, and the DM ruled against pretty much every favorable version of Flame Blade I wanted. No biggie, though. That's why you don't make a one-trick pony. :P
Admittedly, this character was written as a one-trick pony in the AP, and we are trying to adapt it to everyday use - so getting to know at least how that one-trick is expected to work would be a good start..
CraziFuzzy: If you could finesse it, then you aren't wielding it like a scimitar... It's pretty clear IMO. Combine that with no rule that melee touch attack work with weapon finesse and I don't see a RAW way to combine them. It doesn't seem ambiguous. The only RAW thing that melee touch attack does is inform which AC you make the attack against.
"which carries the crit range": How you wield has nothing to do with your crit [for instance 1 or 2 handing a longsword doesn't change it's crit]. Add to that the rule is that if no crit is noted, it's 20 x2.
"the target": "When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn't include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus." Nothing about weapon finesse.
You seem to put some stock into 'melee touch attack', but the 'rules don't seem to match what you think.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qb9g?Weapon-Finessing-melee-touch-attacks#1
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m6z2?Melee-Touch-Attacks-and-Weapon-Finesse#1
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mi0o?Melee-touch-attacks-and-weapon-Finesse#1
Sorry not sure how to get links to work..but. Not much back & forth and a touch old but seem to be for melee touch attacks working w/finesse. Only think close to a rule chain I can find (my search fu sucks:) )
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qb9g?Weapon-Finessing-melee-touch-attacks#1
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2m6z2?Melee-Touch-Attacks-and-Weapon-Finesse#1
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mi0o?Melee-touch-attacks-and-weapon-Finesse#1Sorry not sure how to get links to work..but. Not much back & forth and a touch old but seem to be for melee touch attacks working w/finesse. Only think close to a rule chain I can find (my search fu sucks:) )
Yep, I've seen those and even read through them: they boil down to 'we think it should work' as opposed to 'this is how it works and here is the rules quote to back it up'.
Personally I think they generally should [though there would/should be exceptions like flame blade] but this is a rules question thread and that's not the current rules.
Flame Blade: "wielding it like a scimitar" precludes weapon finesse without dervish dance: for instance, you can't finesse a brilliant energy greatsword even though it ignored most physical defenses.