Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Agreed. An argument that something might not work with it is pretty useless without an example. Maybes are not good arguments.
Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?
Agreed. An argument that something might not work with it is pretty useless without an example. Maybes are not good arguments.
Noctem
Explorer
Just because one option, which you consider to be the most restrictive, is allowed doesn't mean that others are as well because they are considered less restrictive by you as well. That has nothing to do with the question at hand.
Regardless, that's not the point. The spell specifies that the normal effects of the attack apply. That doesn't necessarily mean that effects which aren't the normal effects don't apply or that even though the source of the attack is a spell, that the attack doesn't bypass resistance or immunity to nonmagical damage post errata. In fact the "normal effects of the attack" for an attack with a spell source IS that it bypasses. That is the norm.
Sneak attack requires all of the triggers I listed + has its own restrictions. Anything that requires the same or any number of the individual triggers of sneak attack would logically work as well. To none of the features I listed does it matter that the source of the trigger is part of a cantrip. 'Normal effects' has nothing to do with them the melee weapon attack does.
Noctem
Explorer
Just because it says the attack's normal effects doesn't mean that the attack is somehow no longer magical. The errata made it so that any attack made via a spell (which Green Flame Blade IS), falls under magical attack. This means it bypasses resistance and immunity. Post errata, the normal effects of the attack for an attack done via a spell is that it is magical. So you're obviously wrong.
I don't know why you went back and quoted that off the first page as it has nothing to do with what we were just discussing (the keying of abilities/effects like hex off GFB) as we've already discussed my position ad nauseum.
Once again I do not subscribe to that logic. The "attack's normal effects" refers to the "melee attack with a weapon" from the previous sentence. There is no other attack in the spell description for it to refer to. The "normal effects" of a "melee attack with a weapon" that isn't magical is that it doesn't bypass such resistances. Therefore, by my interpretation, the spell description over rules the general.
It's been made abundantly clear that neither of us are going to budge on this without new information. I do not see the point in the two of us revisiting these points until such a time.
Last edited:
Noctem
Explorer
Normal effects might allow for combinations of game elements which would normally be blocked because the source of the attack is a spell or whatever else.
Anyway I'm looking forward to the response from JC. What was the question you asked?
Jefe Bergenstein
Legend
11 pages, and no love for this great Big Trouble in Little China reference? For shame!
If something like that was obvious, this thread wouldn't be 11 pages long. The only thing that's obvious is that the rules around this matter are clear as mud and open to many interpretations
Noctem
Explorer
If something like that was obvious, this thread wouldn't be 11 pages long. The only thing that's obvious is that the rules around this matter are clear as mud and open to many interpretations
Maybe to some
I should be sleeping and not reading here, but would like to have something clarified: is there disagreement over things like if smite, Hunter's mark etc work with GFB or not? Because the only issue I can see is if the damage from a nonmagical weapon overcomes resistance to such when using GFB.
Edit: Was the monster manual errata published before SCAG? Timing there could be relevant for guessing RAI.
Edit: Was the monster manual errata published before SCAG? Timing there could be relevant for guessing RAI.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
