The hex/smite/hunters mark discussion was a secondary point brought up recently. I find it pretty clear but I think Noctem is unsure there won't be conflict with 'things' maybe?
SCAG was published first.
Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?
SCAG was published first.
Thanks! The secondary point seems quite clear to me as well, and if the errata came after the cantrip I would expect the cantrip to work in the same way as pre-errata.
Specific vs general is in the context of the Errata; which you raised, and is a general rule.
Yes, if the target would be subject to hex, Hunter’s Mark, sneak attack, smite, etc... they would still be subject to them. This is completely irrelevant to the topic of the weapon damage being non-magical.
The specific text of the GFB cantrip, core rules and Errata supports my interpretation (assuming standard logic and syntax). You are free to disregard any and all of these; this is, after all, a forum dedicated to a fantasy roleplaying game. However, you should understand that when engaging in a discussion on a public forum; social convention dictates that you proclaim your intention to deviate from the standard rules of logic and/or syntax.
Noctem
Explorer
The errata is not a specific vs general though. It's errata meant to clarify or change how the rules work. In this case, changing what is considered magical to bypass resistance and immunity. So in other words, it's changing how the general rule works. I don't understand why you're bringing up specific beats general in this context. There is no specific to trump the general rules when talking about the errata and GFB. The spell worked the same way before and after the errata. You made an attack granted by a spell, it has a spell source: It bypasses resistance and immunity regardless of other factors UNLESS something specifically states that it would not follow the general rules for bypassing. For example, if the general rule was that blue = 2 and you have a spell that says blue = 1 for the purposes of the spell. That's specific vs general and specific would win. If errata later clarified that the general rule is actually blue = 2 and/or 3, that's not specific vs general. That's errata meant to change how the game works as a whole.
You're also confusing 2 different topics of discussion. The weapon damage or type (blunt, slashing, piercing, fire, lightning, etc..) is also irrelevant to figuring out if the attack can bypass resistance and immunity. All that matters is the source of that attack (spell, item, magical sources). The errata does not look at damage, it looks at the source of the attack which allows the said attack to bypass. You're adding things into the discussion which aren't relevant.
Well agree to disagree I guess? I mean you're basically saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you isn't following what you call "standard logic and syntax". Kind of hard to have a discussion if you're going to insult your audience. However, I still assert that you're incorrect for the reasons in my previous post and this one. I would also strongly recommend you not fall into the "language syntax and grammar says x" routine because it's a discussion non-starter.
Last edited:
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
In an edition that's intentionally written in natural language instead of game code language, it's perfectly legitimate to discuss what words naturally mean. What's a non-starter is declaring an entire line of discussion dead because you don't like it. I recall a recent rules discussion (the specific escape me) where the meaning of the words used was in question, and it turned out that they did have their natural meaning despite claims they might mean something else. So that kind of discussion definitely has merit.
Noctem
Explorer
The edition uses hundreds of keywords, definitions, syntax and so on that are indeed what you might be calling "game code language". By this I mean that they appear and are explained/defined and then recalled at other points as keywords. IE:
Weapon
Weapon Attack
Melee Attack
Melee Weapon Attack
Ranged Weapon Attack
Ranged Attack
Spell Attack
Ranged Spell Attack
Melee Spell Attack
Instantaneous
Round
Turn
Hidden
Dexterity
Intelligence
etc..
All of these fall in those categories and most of the time have meaning beyond what the "natural meaning" (whatever that even means) as you call it might be. Trying to dissect a single word or even a small string of words based off the definitions, syntax and so on of what someone perceives to be their version of the english language is simply not useful within a discussion about the rules of 5e because 5e does not limit itself to the syntax and definitions of the english language in the first place. It has it's own established system. If you can't explain why your argument is correct while remaining within the confines of that established system then your argument is (in most cases) inaccurate and/or outright incorrect. It doesn't matter what the website for an english dictionary, coded and updated god knows when, says about any of the words above. What matters is what they represent within 5e as defined and detailed within the edition.
And for the record if I go into a discussion about a spell and I say that everyone is doing it wrong because the definition in the english language for "spell" is what google gives when you type in "spell definition", the discussion is simply not going to advance:
spell1
spel/
verb
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
Weapon
Weapon Attack
Melee Attack
Melee Weapon Attack
Ranged Weapon Attack
Ranged Attack
Spell Attack
Ranged Spell Attack
Melee Spell Attack
Instantaneous
Round
Turn
Hidden
Dexterity
Intelligence
etc..
All of these fall in those categories and most of the time have meaning beyond what the "natural meaning" (whatever that even means) as you call it might be. Trying to dissect a single word or even a small string of words based off the definitions, syntax and so on of what someone perceives to be their version of the english language is simply not useful within a discussion about the rules of 5e because 5e does not limit itself to the syntax and definitions of the english language in the first place. It has it's own established system. If you can't explain why your argument is correct while remaining within the confines of that established system then your argument is (in most cases) inaccurate and/or outright incorrect. It doesn't matter what the website for an english dictionary, coded and updated god knows when, says about any of the words above. What matters is what they represent within 5e as defined and detailed within the edition.
And for the record if I go into a discussion about a spell and I say that everyone is doing it wrong because the definition in the english language for "spell" is what google gives when you type in "spell definition", the discussion is simply not going to advance:
spell1
spel/
verb
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]
- write or name the letters that form (a word) in correct sequence.
[COLOR=#878787 !important]"Dolly spelled her name"[/COLOR]
- (of letters) make up or form (a word).
[COLOR=#878787 !important]"the letters spell the word “how.”"[/COLOR]
- be recognizable as a sign or characteristic of.
[COLOR=#878787 !important]"she had the chic, efficient look that spells Milan"[/COLOR]
- (of letters) make up or form (a word).
Last edited:
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
No, it works very much on natural language. That it's identified things to use as terms doesn't change the fact that how those terms interact are described using natural language. The 5e ruleset isn't a proscribed set of hard rules, they're a general description of how things, in general, work, and the DM is supposed to use them as guides for the places they don't. One of those guiding principles is that the language used is as accessible and understandable as possible, meaning that phrases should be read as if the words mean what they generally mean, and not as intricate, interlocking rules. 5e is fantastic for the decoupling of systems they've managed -- you can change one rule and it doesn't filter across like it did in 3/4e, because the rules are largely decoupled and written in natural language, not game code.
For instance, you can rule either way with GFB and it has zero other impacts outside of that spell.
So, yeah, when 'natural effects' isn't listed as a game term, you're supposed to use the normal meaning of that to decipher it, not imagine that there's some hidden meaning or interaction with other things that isn't explicit. Natural effects means it does what it would do any other time it's used, not that there's some unspoken special thing it does because it's used in this situation. If they meant something other than the natural meaning of the words there, they'd have said so, because that's how they've written this ruleset. Trying to impute that because this rule over here says this it must mean that this rule here must abide by it slavishly isn't how this ruleset is meant to be read.
Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
Reply to added edit:
Well, yeah. You'd have to scroll down to the noun definitions to get what we're talking about.
Going through the book to try and find some clues in other spells that do slashing/bludgeoning/piercing I've come across the following.
What did I learn? Not a ton. Three are clear they become magical. Some like wind wall/meteor swarm (not an attack but are direct) are covered by the RaI tweet but not by the errata. Others like cordon of arrows (not an attack or particularly direct) are in left in limbo. While a few such as Earthquake/Enlarge really have nothing to do with the magic itself. Most aren't actually attacks and therefore not subject to the errata.
There are the two bolded spells that I find to be the most relevant. Hail of thorns is obvious as there is a third spell to use the "normal effects" language. Swift quiver grants attack, uses summoned items, and specifies them as non magical but makes no mention of effecting the attack either way.
I'm not really sure how helpful this all is but I thought someone else might find it interesting.
- Alter self- grow natural weapons. Mentions they become magical
- Animate objects - specifies the objects must be non magical doesn't mention a change to magical. They are their own creature so conjure rules?
- Bigby's Hand- Clenched Fist specifies force damage but Grasping Hand just says bludgeoning.
- Blade Barrier- doesn't say the damage is magical but does mention the blades are "made of magical energy".
- Cloud of Daggers- no mention of magical/non magical. Tweet RaI says magical damage (mentions direct damage of a spell).
- Conjures (various creatures)/similar- they use the creature stat block and are magical/not depending on that.
- Conjure Volley- duplicates a piece of non magical ammunition/weapon says damage type is same as original.
- Cordon of Arrows - sets a trap by animating non magical ammunition doesn't specify a change.
- Earthquake- there can be bludgeoning damage from crumbling structures.
- Elemental Weapon - specifies the non magic weapon becomes magical.
- Enlarge/Reduce- Alters weapon die size.
- Evard's Black Tentacles - bludgeoning damage from the tentacles.
- Hail of Thorns - summoned thorns sprout from ammunition. Attack does "normal effects" and the thorns do piercing.
- Insect plague - Insects do piercing but aren't their own creature.
- Magic weapon - makes non magic weapon magic.
- Meteor Storm - falling burning rocks do a mix of fire and bludgeoning.
- Swift Quiver - Specifies the ammunition is non magical and grants attacks
- Tsunami - Summoned wave does a bunch of bludgeoning.
- Wall of Thorns - summoned wall does piercing.
- Wind wall- Summoned wind does bludgeoning.
What did I learn? Not a ton. Three are clear they become magical. Some like wind wall/meteor swarm (not an attack but are direct) are covered by the RaI tweet but not by the errata. Others like cordon of arrows (not an attack or particularly direct) are in left in limbo. While a few such as Earthquake/Enlarge really have nothing to do with the magic itself. Most aren't actually attacks and therefore not subject to the errata.
There are the two bolded spells that I find to be the most relevant. Hail of thorns is obvious as there is a third spell to use the "normal effects" language. Swift quiver grants attack, uses summoned items, and specifies them as non magical but makes no mention of effecting the attack either way.
I'm not really sure how helpful this all is but I thought someone else might find it interesting.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
