# Flame Blade abuse/legality?



## Gwarthkam (Jul 12, 2003)

In our game the cleric (14) was granted acces to the 2.nd level Druid spell _Flame Blade_. It was a perfect match for his character concept and in my view not balance altering.

It has proven extremely effective though and I have a few questions:

1:can you wield two flame blades?

2: does the damage bonus from divine favor factor in?

3: Is it ok that he empowers it?

4: is it unbalanced that he can use flame blade?


From my experience I can tell you that the following combination has proven very deadly:

Divine Power
Divine Favor
Weapon focus [scimitar]
improved critical [scimitar]
two double empowered flame blades
all the two weapon fighting feats needed

he uses quicken spell to cast divine favor and flame blades while fighting if he doesn'e have time to do so in advance. I know it is vulnerable to dispelling but 95% of our fights seem to be against non-casters, so not in this campaign.

Most of the time he does 2d8+13 damage per hit with a +23 attack bonus and a 15-20/x2 crit range. And it only requires a touch attack.

That means that he makes the touch attack for almost all his attacks, which is quite a few using TWF, and gets alot of criticals in.

It is not a problem in our game, actually we all enjoy seeing him finally doing some damage (this character has survived OD&D, 1e and 2e, and didn't so much damage then). But I could imagine that it could be unbalanced in many situations.

I'm sorry if I got any numbers wrong, I'm not the player of this character.

Thank you in advance


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 12, 2003)

I guess like all caster/spell intensive situations it is abusive if there is only one (or two) encounters during the day, so he can unload all his power in one go, but if he is facing 10 or more encounters in a day (e.g. in a dungeon) he will have to be much more careful about when he casts these spells.

Personally I would have made the spell 3rd level for him (since it is 2nd level for Druids), and if you go to 3.5e part of the problem will go away because he won't be able to double empower any more (although he could learn additional TWF feats to counterbalance this).

I don't see anything in the rules that would prevent him casting a second flame blade and dual weilding them, and I'd not really noticed before the benefit of touch attacks with a scimitar meaning potentially easier crits.

Consider this - for each of those double-empowered flame blades he could be casting a blade barrier, an ant-life shell and using archery, harm, planar ally to summon up a *planetar*... that makes it sound less bad, eh?

Cheers


----------



## Gwarthkam (Jul 12, 2003)

Yes, good points Plane Sailing. I like the cleric buffing himself and playing Luke Skywalker with his lightswords (flame blades), because it makes him different from me (a sorcerer) magic-wise. 

Actually it's not really the double or even single empowers that seem to do the trick, it's just the touch attack 15-20/2x TWF that seems awfully effective.

But I can hear subtle moans from the ranger and the two fighters each time the Cleric gets powered up and starts his rampage, so I wanted to be sure that we're not doing anything wrong. It's just a matter of time before the whining from the fighters will be a real issue.

It would be fine to raise it to 3.rd level, that would make the quickened flame blades more restrictive for him. But since the 3.rd level spell Moon Blade (from FR) does the same damage + scrambles magic, 3.rd level might seem a bit harsh for Flame blade?

Anyway, the fighter type players don't care if it's 2.nd or 3.rd level, they can just feel that very fast in every fight the Cleric deals out more damage in melee than they do....and they don't like it 

Thanks for the reply


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jul 12, 2003)

I would guess that the fighters have a lot of extra options they can be using at the same time though? If they are about the same level they should have feats coming out of their ears (figuratively). If the party end up fighting giants then spring attacking with a single 2H weapon is *much* better than attempting to going toe-to-toe, and the cleric will get battered if he attempts to swap full attacks with a giant or dragon of appropriate CR. He'll also be looking pretty silly if the party come up against anything with a fire subtype (not that it should happen on a regular basis, but it's fine to happen every so often), just like he'll be an obvious dispel magic target when you come across a party who can use it.

Cheers


----------



## Gwarthkam (Jul 12, 2003)

Yes, the Fighter Characters are fine compared to the Cleric.

The Players of the Fighters is a different story, the one with the superbly most powerfull character has chosen Skill Focus [Whining], but it's all just in a friendly atmosphere.

Thanks and take care


----------



## clark411 (Jul 13, 2003)

I'm pretty sure that Double Empowered = "No" in 3.5.  Metamagic feats don't stack with themselves.

As for having two of them going, well.. the range is touch, so I suppose he touches his hand to make one appear, and can then touch his other hand to make a second one appear.

Divine Favor is an interesting one... the damage is coming from a spell, so I'd say it doesn't apply.  I'd bolster that with the argument that the spell is an Evocation spell.. if it were transmutation and actually forming a scimitar rather than a remarkably similar looking "swordlike beam", then perhaps it'd work, but I'm interpretting it as spell damage, so no stacking.

Keeping up with 1d8+7 / 1d8+7 dealt as touch attacks each round is pretty rough for the fighters to try to do, but it's more feasible than them trying to keep up with 2d8+13 / 2d8 +13 touch attacks.  With them being touch attacks it's almost useless to mention, but is he taking into account wielding a non-light weapon in his off hand?  Is he even proficient with scimitars (they're martial, and I don't see mention of a war domain)?

As for it being unbalancing that he has them as they're a druid spell.. meh.  he's better equipped to use them with the heavy armor capabilities of a cleric, but it's also only one spell and not a very high level one at that (with limited duration).  As long as there are no druids in the party, there's not much to be concerned about.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 13, 2003)

I wouldn't let someone wield two flame blades. Two copies of the same spell on the same target generally don't stack, and I don't see why _flame blade_ would be any different. Also, I would only give it a 20/x2 crit, not the 18-20 of a scimitar - it is wielded with scimitar proficiency, but that doesn't mean it gets the scimitar's sharpness. It's an energy attack, after all. Though Improved Crit (Scimitar) would enhance it to 19-20.

Divine Favor wouldn't help either, since it's a spell that does damage. Divine Power would give a rather small bonus for a 4th level spell - Strength bonus doesn't help with the flame blade damage, after all.


----------



## Gwarthkam (Jul 13, 2003)

Clark411:

Thanks for replying. I think I can buy your argument that it's an evocation spell, otherwise divine favor would add to the damage of a flame strike etc. as well.

Oops just found a description of "weaponlike spells in T&B p. 79" it says that spells that gives a bonus to weapon damage does not give a bonus to weponlike spells.

Btw, it's not keeping up with only 1d8+7 / 1d8+7, 

it's keeping up with 1d8+7 / 1d8+7 / 1d8+7 / 1d8+7 / 1d8+7

when he casts Divine power (BAB of fighter + improved TWF) he has 5 attacks with the two flame blades.

And yes, he has the War domain with scimitar as favored weapon.

And yes, he is taking into account that it is non-light. But it seems effecient anyways.

Staffan:

Thanks for replying. If the purpose of:

"you wield this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar"

didn't apply to weapon focus [scimitar], improved critical [scimitar] etc. and the only point of comparing it with a scimitar was a proficiency issue then why not just treat it as a simple touch attack, given that it's a Druid spell and Druids are proficient with Scimitars per default?

I can understand why you wouldn't allow two flame blades, but I can't see it as cut in stone by the rules. If it should be so, he could make a Moon Blade [FR] in his off hand, which would be an excelent choice since he could choose to wield it as a short sword for the light-weapon bonus or as a scimitar for the extra crits. Granted, he doesn't have acces to Moon Blade either, but I'm sure it wouldn't be an unreasonable spell for him to research, he could drop the magic scrambling from it.

I think you may underestimate how good Divine Power is in this context. The Cleric in question has 10 str. With Divine Power he gets a +4 boost to attack roll from enhanced str. and an additional +4 from increased BAB. In addition to that Divine Power raises his BAB to allow 3 attacks (5 with TWF) per round.

I think +8 to hit, an extra attack, and some HP is rather effective for a 4.th level spell. Divine Favor + Divine Power + Weapon Focus [Scimitar] = + 23 attack roll for this cleric, very handy for those touch attacks. I know that it'll be less with 3.5, but still ok.

Hmm I can see that I have to break the sad news to him that his Divine Favor damage bonus has passed away.


----------



## James McMurray (Jul 13, 2003)

Divine Power in 3.5 is +6 enhancement bonus now, meaning he'll at least drop by 2 points to his strength.


----------



## Gwarthkam (Jul 13, 2003)

Yes, so thats only +7 instead of +8 from Divine Power.

But how about Divine Favor? I could suspect that it is +1/4 levels instead of +1/3 levels now, to be in line with the change for Greater Magic Weapon. Does anyone have information on this?

Sorry if it has been answered before, I don't remember seeing it.


----------



## James McMurray (Jul 13, 2003)

For this particular situation it doesn't matter, since its been found that Divine Favor doesn't add to the Scimitar's damage.


----------



## Gwarthkam (Jul 13, 2003)

I was thinking of the attack roll, not the damage


----------



## Garmorn (Jul 13, 2003)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *I would guess that the fighters have a lot of extra options they can be using at the same time though? If they are about the same level they should have feats coming out of their ears (figuratively). If the party end up fighting giants then spring attacking with a single 2H weapon is *much* better than attempting to going toe-to-toe, and the cleric will get battered if he attempts to swap full attacks with a giant or dragon of appropriate CR. He'll also be looking pretty silly if the party come up against anything with a fire subtype (not that it should happen on a regular basis, but it's fine to happen every so often), just like he'll be an obvious dispel magic target when you come across a party who can use it.
> 
> Cheers *




If all else fails the fighter could get a Brillant Energy weapon.  They use touch attacks also


----------



## James McMurray (Jul 13, 2003)

Duh. Of course you were. I'm such an idiot.  

Sorry I can't enlighten you as to whether they changed it or not. I almost have to assume they did though, since they reined in almost every other easily abused spell.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 13, 2003)

Gwarthkam said:
			
		

> *Staffan:
> 
> Thanks for replying. If the purpose of:
> 
> ...



What I mean is that it's treated as a scimitar for the purpose of feats/proficiency (including Weapon Focus, Specialization, and Improved Critical), but it still has the generic spell crit of 20/x2. If you also have Improved Crit (scimitar), you'd get 19-20/x2 instead.

As for the proficiency issue - sure, it's irrelevant for druids, but who says it won't end up on some other class's spell list (I don't have OA here to check, but it might very well be on the Shugenja's spell list and I don't think they get proficiency)? And even within the core rules, there's the issue of rogues/bards using scrolls or wands of flame blade.


> _Originally posted by Garmorn_
> *If all else fails the fighter could get a Brillant Energy weapon. They use touch attacks also*



No, they don't. They ignore regular armor, but not natural armor - and for most high-level monsters, natural armor is the big portion of their AC.


----------



## melkoriii (Jul 13, 2003)

Personaly I would not allow this as a DM. 

It maybe only a 2nd lvl spell that you added to his list but it is VARY over powered in a clerics hands.


Since he does have it though.  
It would be in his best interest to cast the spell on the Ranger and Fighter in the party Since the spell is range Touch he can let the real fighters have some of that action.


----------



## Destil (Jul 14, 2003)

The only thing I can think of is if he has the 13 Str he should be power-attacking (unless you use the revised power attack). It's like an unlimited deep-impact/unavoidable strike [psionic] which people often power attack the nine hells out of.

But given the levels involved (quickened divine favor? Multi-empowered flame blades?) this all sounds not only reasonable, but fun!


----------



## Gwarthkam (Jul 14, 2003)

Destil:

We havn't played Flame Blade as ellegible for Power Attack, given that it's a spell, touch attack and no str. bonus etc. would you allow it to be influenced by PA?

Yes, it is fun using it  (or so it seems)


----------



## Staffan (Jul 14, 2003)

Gwarthkam said:
			
		

> *Destil:
> 
> We havn't played Flame Blade as ellegible for Power Attack, given that it's a spell, touch attack and no str. bonus etc. would you allow it to be influenced by PA?
> 
> Yes, it is fun using it  (or so it seems) *



I'm not Destil, but I don't think I would allow it. If your Strength bonus won't help with it, you shouldn't be able to Power Attack either.


----------



## green slime (Jul 14, 2003)

Looking at the information at hand, we have

14th level Cleric
BAB +10/+5 (Fighter BAB +14/+9/+4)

Divine Power (18 Str, fighter BAB) (4th) (14 rounds)
Divine Favor (+4 luck bonus to attack in this bonus) (1st) (1 minute)
two empowered empowered flame blades (6th) (14 minutes)

Feats
1st level? Ambidexterity (Dex 15)
Human: Two-Weapon Fighting (No prereqs)
3rd level: Weapon focus [scimitar] (BAB +1)
6th level: Empower Spell (No prereqs)
9th level: ?? (BAB is at +6...)
12th level: Improved Two-weapon Fighting (BAB +9)

Left Hanging around like a sad wet dog we have ...
improved critical [scimitar] (BAB +8)

Assuming a 26 Wisdom (18 start +3 levels, +4 item, +1 inherent)
Casts
6 0-level
7+d 1st-level
7+d 2nd-level
6+d 3rd-level
6+d 4th-level
4+d 5th-level
4+d 6th-level
3+d 7th-level
Spells.

Conclusions:
(Completely ignoring 3.5 changes, which I have yet to see.)

He can only do the _empowered empowered flameblade_ trick twice per day, if he wants to use his two-weapon fighting. This leaves no other slots for spells like _heal_.

He cannot have both Improved Critical and Improved Two Weapon Fighting as a 14th level cleric. This character was created at 13th or 14th level. Or this would have been seen during character advancement.

He is reduced to casting _divine power_ and _divine favour_, as well as the _flame blades_. Every combat, as he lacks persitent spell. This reduces the number of rounds he is available for combat. Every round he spends boosting is one where the fighters up front get beat up on. This requires at least 2 rounds, and so is not trivial.

So yeah, I'd allow _empowered empowered flameblades _

It burns up a lot of spell slots to get this effective. Spell slots and rounds.

2d8 + 7 (the bonus damage isn't part of the variable, ), attacking with a melee touch attack, crit range 20/x2 (he doesn't have Imp Crit yet...), 5 attacks; +20 (+14 Ftr BAB, +4 Str, +4 luck, -2 2-wpn)/+20 / +15 / +15 / +10

Obvious counters:
Fire creatures
Incorporeal creatures (50% miss chance)
Protection from Fire
Dispel Magic
Blink
Sneak Attack
Ranged Attacks (readied?)

Varying encounters so it is less predictable as to what will be efficient. Can cramp the style of the party if they can't go ethereal, can't heal, can't Air Walk.

It does look fun when it occurs, but is it really so often the other players feel sidelined?


----------



## Argent Silvermage (Jul 14, 2003)

Gwarthkam said:
			
		

> *Clark411:
> 
> Btw, it's not keeping up with only 1d8+7 / 1d8+7,
> 
> ...




Please check that Damage. I was under the impression that Flame blade was 1D4 + level in points.


----------



## green slime (Jul 14, 2003)

Argent said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Please check that Damage. I was under the impression that Flame blade was 1D4 + level in points. *




Incorrect.



> _From the SRD:_
> * The blade deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10). *


----------



## Darklone (Jul 14, 2003)

I'm in the "Flame blades have a 18-20/*2 crit range" camp. And the DM might have been allowed to take Imp Crit or Imp TWF without fulfilling the BAB requirement (thus not being able to use it for two levels without using Divine Power).


----------



## Argent Silvermage (Jul 14, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Incorrect.
> 
> *



Cool! Thanks.


----------



## green slime (Jul 14, 2003)

Argent said:
			
		

> *
> Cool! Thanks. *




You are most welcome!


----------



## green slime (Jul 14, 2003)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *I'm in the "Flame blades have a 18-20/*2 crit range" camp. And the DM might have been allowed to take Imp Crit or Imp TWF without fulfilling the BAB requirement (thus not being able to use it for two levels without using Divine Power). *




The DM can house rule that the sky is pink for all I care, but that is hardly an appropriate debate in a discussion about the legality per the d&d rules of a certain character/combination of abilities? In a D&D Rules forum?

I myself am wavering on the issue of the Critical Threat Range of the spell in question. It says 



> _from the SRD_
> *The character wields this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar. *




Sounds like a grey area to me. You can interpret it both ways. This is a spell that was obviously never meant to fall into clerical hands... A high level druid isn't going to go to these lengths to try and squeeze this amount of abuse out of this spell.

Moonblade, is a spell limited to Hathran (a weak prestige class from FRCS), or those priests/priestesses with access to the Moon Domain. (and thus a very limited number of these spells per day.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 14, 2003)

> *Moonblade, is a spell limited to Hathran (a weak prestige class from FRCS), or those priests/priestesses with access to the Moon Domain. (and thus a very limited number* of these spells per day. *




*unless they make a wand...

-Hyp.


----------



## Macbrea (Jul 14, 2003)

You still cannot activate a wand unless its in your spell list. Unless your a bard or rogue using use magic device. 

Now, Since, you cannot be under the effects of the same spell at the same time. This limits the ability to use two of these spells entirely. 

As to being able to empower it. Probably, perfectly fine. Look at the list of spells that cleric is giving up in order to actually cast the empowered flameblade in the first place.


----------



## Gwarthkam (Jul 14, 2003)

green slime:

Thanks for catching the mistakes, this cleric was indeed converted to 3e at level 13.  Btw he has Weapon focus [scimitar] and proficiency with it from the War domain. He will choose to drop improved TWF.

Most of the time he don't have time to empower the flame blades.

You're right about the time it takes to prepare it is very seldom that it happens, only before very important battles that he knows is comming. But the fights that our DM lets us prepare for is in my experience also the toughest and most exciting battles, thats why the fighters are worried.

I know it's alot of high level spells for him to burn for a relative little effect, but he is really trying to find a new role for himself as more than an ambulance of "cure whatever" spells. He hates that role. And he can somehow better find motivation for his character by smiting his god's enemies with swords of light (he sees them as lightswords, not flame swords) than running around mending our wounds.

I'm not really interested in making this an issue of house rule balance so for me the two questions I would most like answered at this point is:

1: is it 18-20/x2 or 20/x2 for flame blade?

2: Can you wield two flame blades?

These questions only refer to the spell itself, it shouldn't matter who is wielding the flame blade etc.

Most of the answers I've seen to question 1 have been "I wouldn't allow it", which is reasonable, but I'm looking for a rules based answer.

Thanks for the replies


----------



## Gwarthkam (Jul 14, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> *unless they make a wand...
> 
> -Hyp. *




heh, a wand of flame blade or moon blade. That would resemble a Star Wars Lightsabre very much


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 14, 2003)

> *You still cannot activate a wand unless its in your spell list. Unless your a bard or rogue using use magic device. *




What's your point?  Moon Blade _is_ on the spell list of clerics with the Moon Domain, and the wand removes the "limited domain slots" problem.



> *Now, Since, you cannot be under the effects of the same spell at the same time. This limits the ability to use two of these spells entirely. *




I'm afraid you're wrong in this case, since Flame Blade is not "Target: You" but "Effect: Swordlike Beam".

You're not under the effects of any spells.  It's like saying "You can't use Summon Monster III a second time if the first one hasn't expired!"

Nothing in the rules prevents you casting Flame Blade twice and producing two Swordlike Beams.

-Hyp.


----------



## green slime (Jul 14, 2003)

Gwarthkam said:
			
		

> *
> 1: is it 18-20/x2 or 20/x2 for flame blade?
> 
> 2: Can you wield two flame blades?
> *




Gwarthkam, glad I could help out 

my answers to these questions:

1. Ruleswise, I think I would have ruled this as 18-20 x2. Scimitar-like energy-weapon to increase the power of druids for a short battle. I think this was the intention of the spell. Ruleswise, I don't think there is an explicit rule. I could be mistaken. 

2. Yes, by the rules you certainly can.

I agree on the avoiding the walking bandaid issue, it gets real old real fast. Of course he wants to feel like he is actually directly contributing to the outcome. But if it is only for the very tough fights, it is easy to partly hinder this cheese. Half-elemental templates, half--dragon templates, red dragons, fiends, ... the list of fire resistant creatures is long. And keeping a few opponents that aren't invulnerable to his attacks means that he still gets to feel that he is contributing.

Good luck with the game, sounds fun!


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 14, 2003)

"wielded like a scimitar" is not the same as damaging like a scimitar.  So I will have to vote for 20 x2 crit because the spell does not state another crit range.  "The character *wields* this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar."


----------



## Ahrimon (Jul 14, 2003)

LokiDR - 
I agree that the spell isn't terribly specific.  But I have to disagree about the crit of the flame blade.

I know it all comes down to DM interpretation.  I looked at the closest spell I could think of.  Spiritual Weapon.  Both create a weapon made of energy(one force, one fire) but the spiritual states(From the SRD): 



> The weapon takes the shape of a weapon favored by the character's deity or a weapon with some spiritual significance or symbolism to the character and has the same threat range and critical multipliers as a real weapon of its form




Using a very similar spell as a reference I would rule that it has the scimitars crit range.

Ahrimon


----------



## Destil (Jul 14, 2003)

Gwarthkam said:
			
		

> *Destil:
> 
> We havn't played Flame Blade as ellegible for Power Attack, given that it's a spell, touch attack and no str. bonus etc. would you allow it to be influenced by PA?
> 
> Yes, it is fun using it  (or so it seems) *



With the original power attack I would. 3E power attack is a very abstract feat that simply increased damage at the cost of precision. There are many ways to think about it within the game world (going for a 'called shot', waiting for a potential opening in their defense, a big wild swing et cetera). Thus in my mind any melee weapon or weapon-like spell is elagable.

The revised power attack is written with a mind to a more specific and less abstrac concept (well, the same concept as was originally intended, just expressed far better within the rules). it has a big wild swing with a heavy weapon in mind. If I were using that I wouldn't allow it.

Just my interpertations of the rules and the layer of abstraction they provide, though. Not offical by any means.


----------



## Artoomis (Jul 14, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> What's your point?  Moon Blade is on the spell list of clerics with the Moon Domain, and the wand removes the "limited domain slots" problem.
> 
> ...




Flame Blade has Range: 0, which means it is indeed cast on the character, so I'd go with only one allowed at a time.


----------



## melkoriii (Jul 14, 2003)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Flame Blade has Range: 0, which means it is indeed cast on the character, so I'd go with only one allowed at a time. *





No it has Range: Touch
You can "Touch" the ground and the Flame Blade will appear.

Nothing in the spell sas you cant hand it off to some one else or even throw it with a Throw anything feat.


----------



## Artoomis (Jul 14, 2003)

melkoriii said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> No it has Range: Touch
> ...




The SRD has Range:0.  Errata?  In any case the language seems to indicate that the spell only works for the caster.

Even with Range:Touch the spell is targeted on someone.   You certainly could argue either way, but I'd say that the effect of energy coming out from your hand is one that falls under the "no stacking of identical effects" rule.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Jul 14, 2003)

I'd let him get away with it.  I'd be happy to see a cleric do something besides play medic, so unless it becomes terribly unbalancing I'd say it's fine.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Jul 14, 2003)

Gwarthkam said:
			
		

> *
> 
> heh, a wand of flame blade or moon blade. That would resemble a Star Wars Lightsabre very much  *




That settles it.  I'm totally going to play a jedi druid


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 14, 2003)

> *In any case the language seems to indicate that the spell only works for the caster.*




That has nothing to do with whether you can have two running or not.



> *Even with Range:Touch the spell is targeted on someone.*




No, it's not.  It's an Effect.

If the Shield spell was "Effect: One disk of force", you could cast two and cover front and back at the same time.  The reason you can't is that it's "Target: You".

Flame Blade has no target.  It's an Evocation that produces an Effect, like Wall of Force.  You can cast two Walls of Force at the same time; you can cast two Flame Blades at the same time.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Jul 14, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That has nothing to do with whether you can have two running or not.
> 
> ...




Yes, it's an effect.  _Where_ is it cast?  On yourself.

This could be ruled either way, certainly.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 14, 2003)

> *Where is it cast?  On yourself.*




There is no "where" to the casting.  The beam springs from your hand, but it's not cast "on" you.  And you have two hands.

The spell produces a Flame Blade.  It does not turn _you_ into "a person with a Flame Blade".  _You_ are not affected in any way by the spell, and so there is no problem with two of them running simultaneously.

Again, I point to the Shield spell as an example of the opposite.  It is not an effect, it is a targetted spell.  It does not produce a disk of force - it turns _you_ into "a person protected by a disk of force" for the duration of the spell.

Two very different scenarios, one of which has no stacking issues, and one of which does.

-Hyp.


----------



## crater (Jul 15, 2003)

> Nothing in the spell says you cant hand it off to some one else or even throw it with a Throw anything feat.



Flameblade is immaterial, I wouldnt allow it to be handed to someone else, and with range:0 I would say that it couldnt leave the casters hand.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 15, 2003)

> *I wouldnt allow it to be handed to someone else, and with range:0 I would say that it couldnt leave the casters hand. *




I agree there.  But it's still an Effect, and thus multiplicable.

-Hyp.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 15, 2003)

Actually, looking at it, I'm not entirely sure it can be empowered... Primarily because empower changes variable effects, and the damage of the spell is an effect of the effect (just like you don't apply empowerment to the hit dice, to hit rolls and damage of summoned creatures).

Anyone got an alternate take on that?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 15, 2003)

I let people Empower _Shillelagh_, so I'm probably not the best one to ask...

-Hyp.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 15, 2003)

Do you let people empower summon monster (when summoning only a single monster?)

Or rather - IF you were playing by the rules, would you empower shillelagh or flame blade? Or would you consider your ruling to be purely house-rule territory?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 15, 2003)

> *Do you let people empower summon monster (when summoning only a single monster?)*




No.



> *Or rather - IF you were playing by the rules, would you empower shillelagh or flame blade? Or would you consider your ruling to be purely house-rule territory? *




"purely house-rule" is, I think, too strong.

I think I'd consider it a potentially-dubious interpretation.

I'm trying to figure out how Summon Monster differs from Flame Blade, or Shillelagh, or Mordenkainen's Sword, as to why I'd allow those to be Empowered but not the Summon.

And to be honest, I think the main reason is that the damage of the Shillelagh etc is a variable numeric effect that appears within the spell description, while the damage dealt by a summoned monster is not.

It's mostly just a "feels right to me" answer, though 

-Hyp.


----------



## Ahrimon (Jul 15, 2003)

What's wrong with empowering a summon spell?  It has no effect on the creature summoned, but with the higher level spells you can get a variable number of creatures from a lower list.  If you empowered a summon creature and went for the single creature then it would be a waste.   But if you went for a bunch of smaller creatures then empowering the spell would get your more creatures.  I don't see anything wrong with that.

Of course if anyone in my campign tried to say it made the monsters tougher I would have to flog them.  

Ahrimon


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 15, 2003)

> *What's wrong with empowering a summon spell?  It has no effect on the creature summoned, but with the higher level spells you can get a variable number of creatures from a lower list.*




You'll notice my "No" was in reply to the question "when summoning only a single monster".

Yes, an Empowered SM III can summon half again as many creatures from the SM I list.

-Hyp.


----------



## Darklone (Jul 15, 2003)

crater said:
			
		

> *
> Flameblade is immaterial, I wouldnt allow it to be handed to someone else, and with range:0 I would say that it couldnt leave the casters hand. *




If it's immaterial, then I wouldn't want to fight with it... not being able to parry or deflect weapons would be a major drawback


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 15, 2003)

Ahrimon said:
			
		

> *LokiDR -
> I agree that the spell isn't terribly specific.  But I have to disagree about the crit of the flame blade.
> 
> I know it all comes down to DM interpretation.  I looked at the closest spell I could think of.  Spiritual Weapon.  Both create a weapon made of energy(one force, one fire) but the spiritual states(From the SRD):
> ...




Spiritual weapon states that it includes the crit range.  Flame blade says it is wielded like a specific weapon.  Those seem distinc and separate to me.  The lack of crit information implies default critical.  It sounds like spiritual weapon proves the non-enhanced crit of flame blade.  They are different in description.

There is also the logical argument.  The scimitar is *sharp* which is why it has an enhanced crit range.  Flame blade is just a beam of energy.  It is insubstanstial, so any edge doesn't matter.  Hence, no enhanced crit range.


----------



## Darklone (Jul 15, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *There is also the logical argument.  The scimitar is sharp which is why it has an enhanced crit range.  Flame blade is just a beam of energy.  It is insubstanstial, so any edge doesn't matter.  Hence, no enhanced crit range. *




Axes and swords are sharp too.

I'd rather say the crit range stands for a certain fighting style (that depends naturally on your weapon). In this case, the scim crit range for the flameblade makes perfect sense.

And about being instubstantial... This should be a weapon???


----------



## clark411 (Jul 15, 2003)

The only explicit differences between a Flame Blade and a Scimitar are:

1) it's a force-like beam
2) it's damage is fire damage
3) it gains no benefit of strength
4) it is 1d8 + X damage.

Beyond this, it functions as a scimitar- that means crit range and multiplier.  The spell, as I read it, is laid out to present the effect's base relationship to an existing 'real' weapon and then differenciate between the two, rather than listing out every aspect of the spell in the flavor text.  Anything not listed as "different" should, to me, be assumed "not different" and that means threat ranges and, perhaps, applicability with feats etc.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 15, 2003)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *Axes and swords are sharp too.*



Both have greater than general crits, either range or multiplier.



			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *I'd rather say the crit range stands for a certain fighting style (that depends naturally on your weapon). In this case, the scim crit range for the flameblade makes perfect sense.*



Are you saying a scimitar with it's edge entirely grinded off would have the same crit range?  I think that is just silly.  Style might have something to do with it, but it the cutting action of the sharp blade that really hurts.



			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> *And about being instubstantial... This should be a weapon??? *



Huh?


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 15, 2003)

clark411 said:
			
		

> *The only explicit differences between a Flame Blade and a Scimitar are:
> 
> 1) it's a force-like beam
> 2) it's damage is fire damage
> ...




You have a few points wrong.  Here are the SRD entries on scimitar and flame blade for reference.  Emphasis mine.



> Scimitar	15 gp, 1d6 damage,	 18-20/X2 crit, no range, 4 lb. (S)
> 
> Scimitar: The curve on this *blade* makes the weapon's *edge effectively sharper*.



vs.



> Flame Blade
> Range: 0 ft.
> Effect: Swordlike beam
> Spell Resistance: Yes
> A 3-foot-long beam of fire springs forth from the character's hand. The character *wields* this bladelike beam as if it were a scimitar. Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks. The blade deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10). Since the blade is *immaterial*, the character's Strength modifier does not apply to the damage, which is all fire damage.



So, it is not force like at all and does not function as a scimitar were stated.  It is a spell.  Feats that have to do with the wielding of a scimitar do apply as the flame blade is wielded that way.  But the flame blade is not sharp at all, being immaterial so it can not be effectively sharper.  You also forgot that the flame blade is a touch attack in your list of differences.

Flame blade does NOT say that it creates a scimitar of fire, only that this is how you swing it around.  Weapon focus is in, scimitar crit range is out.


----------



## clark411 (Jul 16, 2003)

Ahh I getcha.  The "like a scimitar" thing is mostly so druids can do it without being all "ew it's a sword, get it off me!" when they cast it.

As for my inaccuracies, sorry- was going from memory =)


----------



## LGodamus (Jul 16, 2003)

I am with Loki...it only says wielded as a scimitar..not functions as a scimitar...that is put in there so druids dont violate their weapon oaths

so.....crit = 20/x2


----------



## Gwarthkam (Jul 16, 2003)

Thanks for all the replies so far.

It surprises me that no one has said that they play it this way or that way, it would seem as if very few use this spell.

As for the critical range, would you treat Moon Blade (FR) similarly?

And since weapon focus [scimitar] or any bladed weapon focus for Moon Blade works would that mean that Weapon Focus [Touch attack] and other touch attack feats does not?


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 16, 2003)

Gwarthkam said:
			
		

> *It surprises me that no one has said that they play it this way or that way, it would seem as if very few use this spell.*



On the contrary, I have seen it uses many times.  I have not seen it used as the primary mode of attack however.  A nifty idea, but limited by the speed of casting 2 spells every combat and having enough spells to use each day.



			
				Gwarthkam said:
			
		

> *As for the critical range, would you treat Moon Blade (FR) similarly?*



If moon blade does give a crit range, it is 20/x2.  What does the spell say about how it is wielded and damages?  



			
				Gwarthkam said:
			
		

> *And since weapon focus [scimitar] or any bladed weapon focus for Moon Blade works would that mean that Weapon Focus [Touch attack] and other touch attack feats does not? *



Weapon focus[longsword] doesn't work for the moon blade unless the spell says it can be wielded as a longsword.  The sunblade can be used as either a bastard sword or short sword, so either weapon focus will work (but not both).  If moon blade says it can be used like any other bladed weapon, any weapon focus in a blade will work.  I suspect that moon blade doesn't say that, however, so this doesn't work.


----------



## green slime (Jul 16, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> Weapon focus[longsword] doesn't work for the moon blade unless the spell says it can be wielded as a longsword.  The sunblade can be used as either a bastard sword or short sword, so either weapon focus will work (but not both).  If moon blade says it can be used like any other bladed weapon, any weapon focus in a blade will work.  I suspect that moon blade doesn't say that, however, so this doesn't work. *




Then your suspicions are dead wrong, because that is exactly what the _Moon Blade_ spell does say:



> _From FRCS:_
> *Anyone who can cast moon blade can wield the beam with proficiency. However, if you are proficient with any type of sword, you can wield the beam as if it were any type of sword and thus gain the benefits of any special sword skill you might have, such as Weapon Focus.*




immaterial force blade that causes 1d8 + 1 / 2 levels (max +15), no Strength.

However, it is ONLY available to Hathran, or Clerics with the Moon Domain.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 16, 2003)

green slime said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Then your suspicions are dead wrong, because that is exactly what the Moon Blade spell does say:
> 
> ...




I should never try to remember FR spells, it will just make my head hurt.    The spell looks like it falls in the same class as flame blade then, yes to weapon focus and no to crit of simulated weapon.

As for the cleric in question, it doesn't sound like he qualifies for the spell anyway.  Isn't there a flame dagger spell out there some where, perhaps relics and rituals, that does 1d4 + 1/2 level?  That would make for one cool dual wielder, with less penalties than 2 scimitars.


----------



## Gwarthkam (Jul 16, 2003)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> As for the cleric in question, it doesn't sound like he qualifies for the spell anyway.  Isn't there a flame dagger spell out there some where, perhaps relics and rituals, that does 1d4 + 1/2 level?  That would make for one cool dual wielder, with less penalties than 2 scimitars. *




Wouldn't he be able to just use Moon Blade as a light off-hand weapon? He could just decide that he wielded it as a Short sword? I know it's a bit lame but the description of Moon Blade seems to allow it :/


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 17, 2003)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> *
> And to be honest, I think the main reason is that the damage of the Shillelagh etc is a variable numeric effect that appears within the spell description, while the damage dealt by a summoned monster is not.
> *




Actually, looking at the various wordings, I'd have to agree with that.

Although that bodes ill for any spell which lists the stats of the item or creature it creates...

LokiDR - if what you say is true, why didn't they simply leave out all references to scimitars, and make the spell a touch attack which deals X damage.


----------



## crater (Jul 17, 2003)

> If it's immaterial, then I wouldn't want to fight with it... not being able to parry or deflect weapons would be a major drawback




  You know what I mean! Its just flames, its not solid (more accurately). Besides, I dont think you can really parry with it. Can you parry with a Shocking Grasp spell? I'd say no, but opponents dont get AoOs because its a big dangerous glowing bundle of energy, like Flameblade, and they try to avoid it, not because you use a solid blob of energy on the end of your arm to deflect blows. You dont get your str mod to damage, because its not solid presumably.

Besides, 3.5 is out now and everyones going to use shurikens.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 17, 2003)

Gwarthkam said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Wouldn't he be able to just use Moon Blade as a light off-hand weapon? He could just decide that he wielded it as a Short sword? I know it's a bit lame but the description of Moon Blade seems to allow it :/ *




Only if the cleric has the moon domain or is a hathran.  Otherwise, he had better start boning up on his UMD.

If the cleric could cast the spell, it could be wielded like a shortsword, sure.  But the cleric has to cast the spell first.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 17, 2003)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> *
> LokiDR - if what you say is true, why didn't they simply leave out all references to scimitars, and make the spell a touch attack which deals X damage. *




Because characters might want to dual wield them and specialize?  They opened up feats to apply that otherwise wouldn't.  Hence *wielded*, not damage or crit.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jul 17, 2003)

MeepoTheMighty said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That settles it.  I'm totally going to play a jedi druid  *




I'm getting ready to play a gnome druid (str:10) and flame blade and spikes will be playing heavily in his non-wildshaped melee combat plans.  Flame blade is the only way a gnome or halfling can inflict d8 damage one-handed and the touch attack & damage bonus means he should be able to be keep up with the big people.  I briefly toyed with a ranger/druid who used a flame blade in one hand and a small Spiked baton in the other.  

Spikes is one of the most irritating spells at mid-high level because of the duration and the fact it can be given to someone else.  "Hey paladin, here's a club that's +2 to hit and +9 damage that will last 9 hours!  Smite something with _that!_"  Combine with Divine Sacrifice and the pain factor is quite high.


----------

