Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?

[SkidAce]

EDIT: The moment you cast a spell which let's you make an attack, regardless of any other factors (unless it's specifically called out like I mentioned above), your attack will bypass resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks. That's a fact post errata.

So a Haste spell will let my weapon bypasss magical resistance?

I don't agree.

Edit: Nevermind, sorry, read the rest of the thread, already addressed.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So a Haste spell will let my weapon bypasss magical resistance?

I don't agree.

Edit: Nevermind, sorry, read the rest of the thread, already addressed.

No, I think you're right, the parts addressed saying it doesn't are inconsistent with the idea that GFB does. It's an action granted by a spell. If you use the attack action with that granted action, then it is an attack granted by the spell. Under that concept that all things granted by a spell bypass resistance to normal attacks, then haste clearly would have to bypass.

 

[Noctem]

So a Haste spell will let my weapon bypasss magical resistance?

I don't agree.

Edit: Nevermind, sorry, read the rest of the thread, already addressed.

As you probably saw up-thread, the spell Haste does not give you an attack. It gives an action with restrictions. These are two very different things!

 

[Ovinomancer]

As you probably saw up-thread, the spell Haste does not give you an attack. It gives an action with restrictions. These are two very different things!

Yes, it does, if you exercise that option. If you don't, then you're correct, haste does not give you an attack. But if you use the attack option with the haste provided attack, it's pretty clear that it's haste giving you that attack. It doesn't happen without haste, so, if haste does provide the attack, what doesn't provide the attack?

 

[Noctem]

Yes, it does, if you exercise that option. If you don't, then you're correct, haste does not give you an attack. But if you use the attack option with the haste provided attack, it's pretty clear that it's haste giving you that attack. It doesn't happen without haste, so, if haste does provide the attack, what doesn't provide the attack?

The spell gave you an action with specific restrictions. It did not give you an attack. You chose to use the action to make an attack. That's not the same thing. So agree to disagree that you can claim the source of an attack is something not actually giving you an attack.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The spell gave you an action with specific restrictions. It did not give you an attack. You chose to use the action to make an attack. That's not the same thing. So agree to disagree that you can claim the source of an attack is something not actually giving you an attack.

So, if you choose the option provided by haste to make an attack, what gives you that attack? Surely, it's haste, because you can't do it without haste being cast on you at all.

So, let's review:
1) haste gives you some options, and you have to choose one
2) one of those options is an attack
3) ergo, if you choose the attack option, haste is providing the attack

You're asserting that because haste provides a list of things to choose from, this means that whatever you choose isn't provided by haste. That's clearly incorrect. And, since you state that any attack provided by a spell bypasses resistance to normal attacks, and it's clear that the attack option is provided by haste, then the attack provided by haste MUST also bypass resistance to normal attacks. Otherwise, you're creating an arbitrary distinction that doesn't exist in the rules anywhere to claim that if a spell provides an action that's used to attack, that attack isn't also provided by the spell.

 

[Noctem]

No, haste is providing you an action. It does not provide you an attack. This kind of claim leads to nonsense like I cast a spell which grants me an attack, which triggers an OA from an enemy, who triggers an attack from my ally. So because of the chain, the attack from my ally has a source of "my spell" because if I hadn't cast the spell, he wouldn't be getting an attack. My spell granted my ally an attack so it bypasses. Or the OA of the enemy on me bypasses because it was caused by my spell. Or make up your own example of a chain and the logic is the same. How do you justify stopping the chain at any point? How do you justify a 2 part chain (haste giving an action which you then use to attack) and not a 3+ chain? I say, if the source in question doesn't grant you an attack like the errata says, then it's not compatible and doesn't apply. Haste doesn't count because it doesn't specifically grant you an attack.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, haste is providing you an action. It does not provide you an attack. This kind of claim leads to nonsense like I cast a spell which grants me an attack, which triggers an OA from an enemy, who triggers an attack from my ally. So because of the chain, the attack from my ally has a source of "my spell" because if I hadn't cast the spell, he wouldn't be getting an attack. My spell granted my ally an attack so it bypasses. Or the OA of the enemy on me bypasses because it was caused by my spell. Or make up your own example of a chain and the logic is the same. How do you justify stopping the chain at any point? How do you justify a 2 part chain (haste giving an action which you then use to attack) and not a 3+ chain? I say, if the source in question doesn't grant you an attack like the errata says, then it's not compatible and doesn't apply. Haste doesn't count because it doesn't specifically grant you an attack.

Agree to disagree.

You don't get an OA because someone makes an attack, so that's silly and stops right there. You can't just invent new rules when you want to like making an OA when someone attacks you.

But, even if you could, the OA isn't granted by the spell, so even if the spell triggers it, it's clearly not granted by the spell like an attack using the action granted by haste is provided by haste. Your argument boils down to saying 'the spell gives you a great big bundle of choices, but if you pick one of those choices, they're not granted by the spell, because the spell only grants the bundle.' If I give you a bag with either a snickers or a butterfinger inside, but tell you I'm not sure which is in there (I've given out a lot of bags, maybe), when you reach in and pull out a butterfinger, I still gave it to you, the bag didn't step in as a magical middleman and make the butterfinger come from someone else. The same with haste. Just because it involves a choice in what you take out of the bag haste gives you doesn't change the fact that it came from the haste. You can't say 'haste gives you a choice, but when you choose then haste has nothing to do with that.' You've arbitrarily inventing a cut-out that doesn't exist anywhere.

 

[Noctem]

You don't get an OA because someone makes an attack, so that's silly and stops right there. You can't just invent new rules when you want to like making an OA when someone attacks you.

But, even if you could, the OA isn't granted by the spell, so even if the spell triggers it, it's clearly not granted by the spell like an attack using the action granted by haste is provided by haste. Your argument boils down to saying 'the spell gives you a great big bundle of choices, but if you pick one of those choices, they're not granted by the spell, because the spell only grants the bundle.' If I give you a bag with either a snickers or a butterfinger inside, but tell you I'm not sure which is in there (I've given out a lot of bags, maybe), when you reach in and pull out a butterfinger, I still gave it to you, the bag didn't step in as a magical middleman and make the butterfinger come from someone else. The same with haste. Just because it involves a choice in what you take out of the bag haste gives you doesn't change the fact that it came from the haste. You can't say 'haste gives you a choice, but when you choose then haste has nothing to do with that.' You've arbitrarily inventing a cut-out that doesn't exist anywhere.

I was talking about the sentinel feat for example which let's you do basically the equivalent of an OA when someone attacks another creature than you. But really, that's not the point. You're using cause and effect to justify a chain leading from the Haste spell to the attack you make, I'm stating that you have no rules to justify where a chain stops. So you can make bigger chains which leads back to a spell source and say that the final link has a spell source and so bypasses because it's all cause and effect.

You give me a bag of snickers and butterfingers, you didn't give me 'a' butterfinger or 'a' snickers. You gave me a whole bag. The errata is the equivalent of saying 'when you get a snickers, do x'. Not 'when you get a bag and there just so happens to be a snickers inside after you look and sort out the chocolate'.

I think it's best if I stop replying to you now. GL HF.

 

[Al2O3]

I haven't read the whole thread, but would like to know if anyone has addressed whether GFB includes a weapon attack delivered by a spell or if it is a spell delivered by a weapon attack (not entirely different from the Paladin smite spells or maybe some ranger spells).