Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?

[Gimul]

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).

RAW: Non-magical melee damage + Fire fire damage

RAI: Non-magical melee damage + Fite damage

The rest is just people trying to justify an errata clearly ment to apply to spells that do things like crush with tentacles or slash with spectral blades, etc... applying to an attack made with a non-magical, physical object.

 

[Noctem]

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).

Evocation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 5 feet
Components: V, M (a weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and green fire leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.

This spell's damage increases when you reach higher levels. At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 fire damage to the target, and the fire damage to the second creature increases to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Both damage rolls increase by 1d8 at 11th level and 17th level.


It's a melee attack with a weapon as part of the casting of the spell. No spell cast means no weapon attack though. You must begin casting the spell first, which then grants the melee weapon attack as part of the casting. It is not the reverse.

 

[Noctem]

RAW: Non-magical melee damage + Fire fire damage

RAI: Non-magical melee damage + Fite damage

The rest is just people trying to justify an errata clearly ment to apply to spells that do things like crush with tentacles or slash with spectral blades, etc... applying to an attack made with a non-magical, physical object.

Agree to disagree. And you certainly don't have any grounds to claim RAI. I'm not convinced about the RAW either post errata.

 

[Al2O3]

Evocation cantrip
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 5 feet
Components: V, M (a weapon)
Duration: Instantaneous

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and green fire leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.

This spell's damage increases when you reach higher levels. At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 fire damage to the target, and the fire damage to the second creature increases to 1d8 + your spellcasting ability modifier. Both damage rolls increase by 1d8 at 11th level and 17th level.


It's a melee attack with a weapon as part of the casting of the spell. No spell cast and no weapon attack though. You must begin casting the spell first, which then grants the melee weapon attack as part of the casting. It is not the reverse.

I take it as "in order to deliver this cantrip to the target, you do a normal weapon attack". So you cast the spell first and it grants the attack, but I claim that the delivery method is by weapon attack, not that the spell delivers the attack.

In short, the spell grants the attack, but does not deliver it. Failure on the attack means failure to deliver the spell.

 

[Noctem]

I take it as "in order to deliver this cantrip to the target, you do a normal weapon attack". So you cast the spell first and it grants the attack, but I claim that the delivery method is by weapon attack, not that the spell delivers the attack.

In short, the spell grants the attack, but does not deliver it. Failure on the attack means failure to deliver the spell.

I would specify that it's not a 'normal weapon attack' and instead 'a weapon attack' which causes 'the attack's normal effects'. It's a small but significant difference.

You need a weapon as a material cost to cast the spell. You cast the spell which grants the attack. If the attack hits you get extra effects. So the source of the attack is the spell and what causes the effects of the spell (fire damage) is the weapon attack on a hit.

 

[Al2O3]

I would specify that it's not a 'normal weapon attack' and instead 'a weapon attack' which causes 'the attack's normal effects'. It's a small but significant difference.

You need a weapon as a material cost to cast the spell. You cast the spell which grants the attack. If the attack hits you get extra effects. So the source of the attack is the spell and what causes the effects of the spell (fire damage) is the weapon attack on a hit.

I still claim that the spell is delivered by the attack, not the other way. That would be the important part when comparing to the monster manual errata.

 

[ryan92084]

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).

It's closer to the latter. Weapon attack with standard weapon modifiers but as part casting of a cantrip it requires the cast a spell action. Therefore no extra attack or other features that require the attack action.

For reference smite does not make the weapon damage magical by default. Whether GFB/BB does is debatable.

 

[ryan92084]

...snip

It's a melee attack with a weapon as part of the casting of the spell. No spell cast and no weapon attack though. You must begin casting the spell first, which then grants the melee weapon attack as part of the casting. It is not the reverse.

You might want to rewrite this part. It's either contradictory or confusing

 

[Noctem]

It's closer to the latter. Weapon attack with standard weapon modifiers but as part casting of a cantrip it requires the cast a spell action. Therefore no extra attack or other features that require the attack action.

For reference smite does not make the weapon damage magical by default. Whether GFB/BB does is debatable.

Right, it's important to note the difference between a spell adding damage to an attack which hit (smite for example), which as noted does NOT make the attack bypass resistance or immunity by default, and a spell source granting you an attack. The errata talks about sources of attacks, not damage.

 

[Noctem]

You might want to rewrite this part. It's either contradictory or confusing

does that help?