Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?

[Ovinomancer]

Most people I've seen use this kind of argument don't bother though. Which again is why it's such a silly argument to make. Let's leave what the dictionaries say aside and focus on what the rules say instead.

How could you see them make the argument if they didn't bother? Oh, do you mean they didn't bother to scroll down to get to the noun definitions? I haven't seen that -- most people seem to grab at least the relevant sections of the definitions. So it appears we're at an anecdotal impasse.

Although, I can see why you might want to leave the dictionaries out of it. Unfortunately, you can't actually dictate how other people make their arguments or what they find compelling. It would be nice if you just stuck to making your point and stopped trying to tell others how they're allowed to make theirs.

 

[Noctem]

[*]Hail of Thorns - summoned thorns sprout from ammunition. Attack does "normal effects" and the thorns do piercing.
[*]Swift Quiver - Specifies the ammunition is non magical and grants attacks

Let's talk specifically about the two bolded.

Hail of Thorns:

(1st-level conjuration)

Casting Time: 1 bonus action

Range: Self

Components: V

Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

The next time you hit a creature with a ranged weapon attack before the spell ends, this spell creates a rain of thorns that sprouts from your ranged weapon or ammunition. In addition to the normal effect of the attack, the target of the attack and each creature within 5 feet of it must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 1d10 piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

At Higher Levels. If you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d10 for each slot level above 1st (to a maximum of 6d10).

For off, this is not an attack within 5e. This is a saving throw vs an effect. It also procs off hitting with an attack which makes it more akin to the paladin's Smite spell. This spell does not grant an attack, it is not subject to the errata or this discussion. It is important to note though that this spell creates a secondary effect on top of whatever "the normal effect of the attack" would be. For example, if you were using a magical weapon to make the attack, it would still be magical and bypass because that would be part of the "normal effect of the attack". Same for if you had some kind of special effects on hitting or dealing damage and so on. So the spell specifies that on top of whatever would happen normally for making the attack you get extra stuff. Bottom line, this spell doesn't help.


Swift Quiver:

5th-level transmutation

Casting Time: 1 bonus action

Range: Touch

Components: V, S, M (a quiver containing at least one piece of ammunition)

Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

You transmute your quiver so it produces an endless supply of non-magical ammunition, which seems to leap into your hand when you reach for it.

On each of your turns until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action to make two attacks with a weapon that uses ammunition from the quiver. Each time you make such a ranged attack, your quiver magically replaces the piece of ammunition you used with a similar piece of non-magical ammunition.

Any pieces of ammunition created by this spell disintegrate when the spell ends. If the quiver leaves your possession, the spell ends.


The two attacks granted by the spell via bonus action would bypass resistance and immunity because the source of the attacks is the spell. Just because the weapon you use or the ammo you fire isn't magical doesn't mean that you can't bypass. The errata doesn't care at all for that stuff. All it cares about is what granted you the attack in the first place. Was it a spell, magical item or magical source? OK! You bypass! I don't know when the spell was written, perhaps before the errata was released (BTW I would like to point out that this can also cause some spells you're listing to be weird in light of the errata, they didn't go back and change all the other game elements that would no longer need to specify these kinds of things) which would explain why they felt the need to specify that the ammunition was non-magical. It could also be that the devs simply didn't want the player to be able to create an endless supply of magical ammunition for reasons unknown to us. Or maybe they just didn't want to have to get into what kind of magical ammunition it is, how much bonus damage it deals and so on.. They just wanted unlimited basic ammo. However that doesn't change anything. Post errata the attacks would bypass because they have a spell source.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Let's talk specifically about the two bolded.

Hail of Thorns:

(1st-level conjuration)

Casting Time: 1 bonus action

Range: Self

Components: V

Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

The next time you hit a creature with a ranged weapon attack before the spell ends, this spell creates a rain of thorns that sprouts from your ranged weapon or ammunition. In addition to the normal effect of the attack, the target of the attack and each creature within 5 feet of it must make a Dexterity saving throw. A creature takes 1d10 piercing damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

At Higher Levels. If you cast this spell using a spell slot of 2nd level or higher, the damage increases by 1d10 for each slot level above 1st (to a maximum of 6d10).

For off, this is not an attack within 5e. This is a saving throw vs an effect. It also procs off hitting with an attack which makes it more akin to the paladin's Smite spell. This spell does not grant an attack, it is not subject to the errata or this discussion. It is important to note though that this spell creates a secondary effect on top of whatever "the normal effect of the attack" would be. For example, if you were using a magical weapon to make the attack, it would still be magical and bypass because that would be part of the "normal effect of the attack". Same for if you had some kind of special effects on hitting or dealing damage and so on. So the spell specifies that on top of whatever would happen normally for making the attack you get extra stuff. Bottom line, this spell doesn't help.


Swift Quiver:

5th-level transmutation

Casting Time: 1 bonus action

Range: Touch

Components: V, S, M (a quiver containing at least one piece of ammunition)

Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute

You transmute your quiver so it produces an endless supply of non-magical ammunition, which seems to leap into your hand when you reach for it.

On each of your turns until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action to make two attacks with a weapon that uses ammunition from the quiver. Each time you make such a ranged attack, your quiver magically replaces the piece of ammunition you used with a similar piece of non-magical ammunition.

Any pieces of ammunition created by this spell disintegrate when the spell ends. If the quiver leaves your possession, the spell ends.


The two attacks granted by the spell via bonus action would bypass resistance and immunity because the source of the attacks is the spell. Just because the weapon you use or the ammo you fire isn't magical doesn't mean that you can't bypass. The errata doesn't care at all for that stuff. All it cares about is what granted you the attack in the first place. Was it a spell, magical item or magical source? OK! You bypass! I don't know when the spell was written, perhaps before the errata was released (BTW I would like to point out that this can also cause some spells you're listing to be weird in light of the errata, they didn't go back and change all the other game elements that would no longer need to specify these kinds of things) which would explain why they felt the need to specify that the ammunition was non-magical. It could also be that the devs simply didn't want the player to be able to create an endless supply of magical ammunition for reasons unknown to us. Or maybe they just didn't want to have to get into what kind of magical ammunition it is, how much bonus damage it deals and so on.. They just wanted unlimited basic ammo. However that doesn't change anything. Post errata the attacks would bypass because they have a spell source.

So if you choose to attack with the action haste grants you, that bypasses resistance because it's an attack granted by the spell. If swift quiver grants a bonus action with restrictions, and that works, it seems that haste, which grants an action with restrictions would as well, no?

 

[ryan92084]

[MENTION=6801315]Noctem[/MENTION] just a brief reply as i don't have a ton of time atm.
For hail of thorns I didn't claim anything contrary to your points so I'll assume your comments were just meant as a general observation.
For swift quiver the errata came out last month so the spell was written first. We continue to disagree about the viability/strength of language required for a spell description to potentially overcome the general rules. Not that I'm saying it definitely does just that there is the potential. Also this is another example of where the intent behind "delivered" in the errata could change things.

 

[Noctem]

So if you choose to attack with the action haste grants you, that bypasses resistance because it's an attack granted by the spell. If swift quiver grants a bonus action with restrictions, and that works, it seems that haste, which grants an action with restrictions would as well, no?

Haste doesn't grant you an attack, it grants you an action with restrictions. Your assumptions that cause and effect can move bypassing beyond spells that give actual attacks aside, maybe you should ask on twitter to see if you're correct or not.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Haste doesn't grant you an attack, it grants you an action with restrictions. Your assumptions that cause and effect can move bypassing beyond spells that give actual attacks aside, maybe you should ask on twitter to see if you're correct or not.

Swift Quiver doesn't grant you an attack, it grants you a bonus action with restrictions - you can only use it to make two attacks.

Unless you're arguing that given more options makes it different and/or that granting a bonus action is different from an action, in which case I'd like to hear why.

 

[Noctem]

[MENTION=6801315]Noctem[/MENTION] just a brief reply as i don't have a ton of time atm.
For hail of thorns I didn't claim anything contrary to your points so I'll assume your comments were just meant as a general observation.
For swift quiver the errata came out last month so the spell was written first. We continue to disagree about the viability/strength of language required for a spell description to potentially overcome the general rules. Not that I'm saying it definitely does just that there is the potential. Also this is another example of where the intent behind "delivered" in the errata could change things.

I think our disagreement stems from my understanding that in order for something to specifically trump the general rules it would have to, well specifically say it does (like a spell specifically stating that an attack it grants does not bypass) vs your understanding that "the normal effects of the attack" = something that's not actually stated in the spell. You're adding meaning to the words to validate the claim you're making. You assume that it means something, but you have no proof to substantiate the claim. I know you asked on twitter already IIRC so we can only wait and see at this point.

 

[Noctem]

Swift Quiver doesn't grant you an attack, it grants you a bonus action with restrictions - you can only use it to make two attacks.

Unless you're arguing that given more options makes it different and/or that granting a bonus action is different from an action, in which case I'd like to hear why.

I quoted the text from the spell, it literally says it grants you two attacks as a bonus action basically word for word. Maybe you missed the quoted text?

"you can use a bonus action to make two attacks with a weapon that uses ammunition from the quiver"

The spell is giving you a way to make attacks directly. The source of the attacks is the spell. Haste does not. Haste gives you an action with restrictions. The source of the action is the spell. The source of the attacks is you using the action. You're using cause and effect to justify your reasoning. I'm pointing out that cause and effect has no limitation if you follow that train of logic because the game doesn't provide a limitation. If Haste granting you an action which you can then use to attack = bypass then any attack which can be traced to a spell source bypasses. I'm not sure that's what is intended. Again, you should ask the devs on twitter

 

[Ovinomancer]

I quoted the text from the spell, it literally says it grants you two attacks as a bonus action basically word for word. Maybe you missed the quoted text?

"you can use a bonus action to make two attacks with a weapon that uses ammunition from the quiver"

The spell is giving you a way to make attacks directly. The source of the attacks is the spell. Haste does not. Haste gives you an action with restrictions. The source of the action is the spell. The source of the attacks is you using the action. You're using cause and effect to justify your reasoning. I'm pointing out that cause and effect has no limitation if you follow that train of logic because the game doesn't provide a limitation. If Haste granting you an action which you can then use to attack = bypass then any attack which can be traced to a spell source bypasses. I'm not sure that's what is intended. Again, you should ask the devs on twitter

Yes, it says that you get a bonus action, that you can only use to make two attacks, if you choose to take it. Haste says that you get an action, and you have many choices for it, one of which is an attack. It seems that both spells grant actions (one a bonus one) and both granted actions can be used to attack. Yet, in one, you say that the granted attacks are directly due to the spell, when casting the spell doesn't give you attacks, it gives you a bonus action option, which you can use to make attacks. In the other, you say that the spell doesn't grant you an attack, when casting the spell gives you an action, which you can use to make attacks. Both spells do not directly provide attacks, they provide action options that can be used to make attacks. But you treat them differently. Why?

Also, I'll thank you to not substitute you theory of OAs caused by spell granted attacks being granted by the spell as well because -- not really sure why you said that. I've already debunked that by pointing out that the OA wouldn't be granted by the spell so the chain immediately breaks. Please don't roll that back out as if it has anything to do with my argument. I'm not making that argument, and I'm not making an argument that even implies that. I'm just asking you to explain what the difference is between granting a bonus action used to make attacks and granting an action that is then used to make an attack.

 

[ryan92084]

I think our disagreement stems from my understanding that in order for something to specifically trump the general rules it would have to, well specifically say it does (like a spell specifically stating that an attack it grants does not bypass) vs your understanding that "the normal effects of the attack" = something that's not actually stated in the spell. You're adding meaning to the words to validate the claim you're making. You assume that it means something, but you have no proof to substantiate the claim. I know you asked on twitter already IIRC so we can only wait and see at this point.

I am no more "adding meaning to the words to validate the claim" to the phrase 'attack's normal effects' than you are to 'delivered' from the errata.
Can the use of 'normal effects' be intended that non magical/magical property of the weapon is meant to be considered for weapon damage? sure its possible
Can the use of 'normal effects' be intended to not include those properties and just stick to the general? also yes
Can the use of 'delivered' in the errata be very restrictive in intent and not be meant to include things like weapon attacks granted? certainly viable
Can the use of 'delivered' in the errata be intended broadly and mean pretty much any attack involving a spell? again not impossible

We are both just interpreting the text to the best of our abilities. Frankly, we could both be wrong on both points. Maybe the weapon attack just bypasses resistances even if the errata isn't meant to be applied that broadly but just because it's possible 'normal effects' isn't meant to include that much information. I consider any of the interpretations plausible I just have a preference ones I think are probable.

Now back to (slightly) more relevant topics. Crawford continues to use the term "directly" in his teach a man to fish style of response for determining if attacks are magical.

would spells like hail of thorns & flaming arrows or hex & hunter's mark (for extra damage and base damage) be magical?

Damage dealt directly by a spell is magical. #DnD

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/684986581464170496