Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?

[Noctem]

My impression is that the intention of the MM errata is to make it clear that resistance will also protect against nonmagical attacks that are not from weapons. So I believe we should prefer any reading of the rule of which attacks are magical that does not let an attack pierce resistance if it wouldn't pre-errata.

Well it's simple then. Since as you yourself stated that the errata never changed how Magical Attacks work, then nothing has changed for Green Flame Blade. It was an attack from a spell source before the errata and remains so afterwards..

 

[ryan92084]

Exactly. The errata talks about sources. The source is a spell, hence it bypasses. The damage type, effects of the attack and so on are not relevant to the errata and if it bypasses or not. All that matters is the source: Spell, Magical Item or Magical Source. In this case, spell. Ergo, the attack is considered magical for purposes of bypassing resistance and/or immunity.

I don't understand that logic. If a spell description was written "As part of casting this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's non magical bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage effects" would that not matter to you? That to me is the normal effect of a mundane weapon attack.

 

[TheLastRogue]

Forest for the trees.

I'm DMing a bladesinger, and I'd rule the fact the spell states you must make a melee attack to trigger the spell means the weapon damage is still a nonmagical attack.

This also makes common sense and serves verisimilitude. It's not like GFB conjures a magical weapon... We all understand it allows you to cause fire to sweep off your blade to another foe adjacent to the target of your weapon attack.

I guess I don't see the logic behind saying the attack is magical. Storywise anyway

 

[Noctem]

I don't understand that logic. If a spell description was written "As part of casting this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's non magical bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage effects" would that not matter to you? That to me is the normal effect of a mundane weapon attack.

Well your modified version would do a few things:

First, you could argue that if you were using a magical weapon which had a damage type, say fire, the spell would specifically stop the magical damage type and cause you to only deal a normal damage die + modifiers worth of damage. This is because the damage type is from the magic and would be replaced by the weapons base damage type (slashing, piercing or bludgeoning) as you called out.

Second, any effects of the attack beyond the specific non-magical bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage would no longer be applied. Like blindness on hit / save vs an effect and so on because that too is granted by the magic from the magical weapon.

All that being said however, I'm not even convinced that your custom version would stop the attack from bypassing since the source of the attack is STILL a spell. You would need to specifically call out that the attack "does not bypass resistance and/or immunity to non-magical attacks."

But again you don't seem to understand (and I say this based on your custom text) that the errata isn't about the effects the attack might have on a hit, or effects in general or damage dice, damage type etc... All that matters is the SOURCE of the attack. If the attack is from a magical item, it bypasses no matter what the attack's effects, damage dice, damage type, etc.. is unless the wording of the attack specifically states that it does not. GReen Flame Blade does not specify that the general rules for bypassing resistance and/or immunity don't apply. It only talks about the effects of the attack. The source of the attack is not the effect of the attack. That's wrong.

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.

 

[spectacle]

Well it's simple then. Since as you yourself stated that the errata never changed how Magical Attacks work, then nothing has changed for Green Flame Blade. It was an attack from a spell source before the errata and remains so afterwards..

And the resistance rules didn't mention source before, only if a weapon was magical or not. To keep greenflame blade working the same, we must continue to assume that the "normal effect" of being hit with a nonmagical weapon is nonmagical damage.

I will again mention that the rules still do not mention the source of an attack, only the source of the damage. Exactly what that means is open to interpretation, but my reading means the errata is the smallest possible rules change.

If you consider the melee attack granted by greenflame blade to be inherently magical, then you also need to consider if the otherwise completely normal attacks granted by spells such as Haste and Swift Quiver are magical, I don't see that as being the intention behind those spells.

 

[Noctem]

And the resistance rules didn't mention source before, only if a weapon was magical or not. To keep greenflame blade working the same, we must continue to assume that the "normal effect" of being hit with a nonmagical weapon is nonmagical damage.

You're mixing up attacks from a nonmagical weapon with the errata which uses SOURCES IE: Spell, Magical Item and Magical Source. The fact that your weapon is nonmagical has no bearing on this discussion since the attack is from a spell source (green flame blade). IF attack source = spell, magical item or magical source then bypass resistance / immunity.

Basically you seem to be refusing to adopt the changes the errata brings and are saying that we should continue to follow the rules pre-errata. That's not how this works. Or perhaps only adopting half of it.

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.

 

[spectacle]

You're mixing up attacks from a nonmagical weapon with the errata which uses SOURCES IE: Spell, Magical Item and Magical Source. The fact that your weapon is nonmagical has no bearing on this discussion since the attack is from a spell source (green flame blade). IF attack source = spell, magical item or magical source then bypass resistance / immunity.

Basically you seem to be refusing to adopt the changes the errata brings and are saying that we should continue to follow the rules pre-errata. That's not how this works. Or perhaps only adopting half of it.

I'm saying that the errata isn't saying what you think it is saying. A weapon is not a magical souce, and damage delivered from it is not magical damage. A spell that grants a weapon attack is not a magical attack.

You are free to interpret the errata otherwise if you like, I will stick to my interpretation, which I believe is correct and makes for the best gameplay. Rules debates based on dictionary definitons of words rarely go anywhere, so I guess someone needs to tweet to Crawford to get the intention behind the errata and the greenflame spell.

 

[Noctem]

I'm saying that the errata isn't saying what you think it is saying. A weapon is not a magical souce, and damage delivered from it is not magical damage. A spell that grants a weapon attack is not a magical attack.

You are free to interpret the errata otherwise if you like, I will stick to my interpretation, which I believe is correct and makes for the best gameplay. Rules debates based on dictionary definitons of words rarely go anywhere, so I guess someone needs to tweet to Crawford to get the intention behind the errata and the greenflame spell.

What you just said makes no sense at all. You're mixing up a bunch of stuff. Here's the bottom line:

If you're using a magical item, and you attack with it, you bypass. It doesn't matter if what let you make the attack is magical or not (like Battlemaster fighter giving an ally an attack)

If you cast a spell and it lets you make an attack, you bypass. It doesn't matter if the weapon you use to make that attack is magical or not. (like green flame blade making you attack or it fails)

If you have a magical source of some kind and it let's you make an attack, you bypass.

I don't think you understand this which is why your posts don't make any sense. And I also don't think you understand what I'm explaining. Ask questions instead.

 

[spectacle]

I don't think you understand this which is why your posts don't make any sense.

I understand your reasoning perfectly, I just disagree based on the points about delivery method from the errata I have described above.

 

[Noctem]

I understand your reasoning perfectly, I just disagree based on the points about delivery method from the errata I have described above.

I really don't think you do. What you're responding doesn't make sense in the light of what I'm explaining. But that's ok, gl to you.