Indeed it does. Thank you
Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?
Indeed it does. Thank you
Stated right in the spell description that the target suffers the normal effects of the melee portion of the attack. Stated right in the core rules that specific rules take precedence over general rules.
You are free to disagree; however the generally accepted rules of logic and syntax (of the English language; in the U.S.) do not support your interpretation.
I have the same grounds to make an interpretation as everyone else in this thread; note at no point did I claim to be a WotC official.
Noctem
Explorer
The normal effects of the melee weapon attack could mean more or less than what you're deciding to limit it to. If the target has hex and you make the attack, you would get bonus damage from hex for example. That would then be part of "the normal effects of the attack".
Stating specific beats general doesn't mean anything, we're not discussing specific beats general. The text from the spell does not specifically circumvent a general rule. Which one do you think it does?
I'm not getting into a grammatical debate, it's a fruitless venture and most people who resort to this form of debate aren't worth the time.
Yes, you do have the right to make an interpretation like everyone else. But you didn't just make an interpretation, you claimed that RAW and RAI agreed with it. RAW does not, you can't provide rules text that directly agrees with your claim. RAI does not, because we haven't gotten an official response from the devs.
Simply bringing up buzz words like this doesn't make you right...
Just to touch on this briefly. As long as the attack action isn't required everything that would normally key off a melee weapon attack, attack with a melee weapon, weapon attack, attack, or hit works on the main target regardless of your interpretation. Including Hex, Sneak Attack, Divine Smite, Stunning Strike, Mobile Feat, Lifedrinker, Hunter's Mark, etc. The secondary target would only be subject to abilities/effects that key off hit and potentially attack (depending on wording).
Noctem
Explorer
Some things could be considered to no longer proc because the attack isn't done via the normal ways. It's not via the Attack Action or any other of the melee attack sources. This is a spell granting you a melee weapon attack as part of its casting. Something which is unique I believe. Specifically calling it out to allow for all the "normal effects of making the attack" is a very good idea.
We'll see once we get the response from twitter
Some things could be considered to no longer proc because the attack isn't done via the normal ways. It's not via the Attack Action or any other of the melee attack sources. This is a spell granting you a melee weapon attack as part of its casting. Something which is unique I believe. Specifically calling it out to allow for all the "normal effects of making the attack" is a very good idea.
We'll see once we get the response from twitter
Sneak attack is already confirmed to work and is arguably the most restrictive of the abilities/effects that could key off GFB.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/06/greenflame-blade-and-sneak-attack/@JeremyECrawford said:
Noctem
Explorer
All sneak attack requires is an attack with a finesse / ranged weapon, advantage or an adjacent ally. That's not restrictive at all compared to previous editions. It allows for interesting combinations such as being able to sneak attack with the Magic Stone spell since it allows you to make a ranged spell attack with a sling (a ranged weapon).
Last edited:
I was not comparing the Sneak Attack restrictions of other editions but the restrictions of other abilities/effects that could key off the weapon attack portion of GFB to Sneak Attack. To the best of my knowledge it has the most, in number and scope, and is therefore the most restrictive.
If Sneak Attack, with its many restrictions, is allowed a person would be hard pressed to come up with a reason for the others not to.
Similar Threads
