Greenflame Blade Cantrip from SCAG, Courtesy of EXTRA LIFE

Cool. How did you get the link? It's not showing up as live on either the Extra Life page or the D&D website page.


The wording of the cantrip feels a little awkward to me but I think I like the overall effect. If I'm reading it correctly, it essentially works like this:

1st level
1st target: normal attack effects
2nd target: ability mod fire dmg

5th level
1st target: normal attack effects + 1d8 fire dmg
2nd target: 1d8+mod fire dmg

11th level
1st target: normal attack effects + 2d8 fire dmg
2nd target: 2d8+mod fire dmg

17th level
1st target: normal attack effects + 3d8 fire dmg
2nd target: 3d8+mod fire dmg


Is that right?

 

[Z. H. Darkstar]

That would be OP, since you could then use GFB on the same turn as Extra Attack. Every melee character who isn't already using their bonus action each turn would want to pick up GFB to make one attack per turn hit a lot harder. I think the designers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the spell the way it is.

I agree. I think the only part that could use clarification is the wording about the melee attack roll. Logic dictates that it's a melee weapon attack, as Sage Advice has said that a "melee weapon attack is a melee attack with a weapon." Application of the reflexive property would make our cantrip use a melee weapon attack roll.

I just realized another case of this cantrip having some synergy. Fire Draconic Sorcerers would get to add Cha to the fire damage caused by the spell. Fire Draconic 6/Fiend Bladelock 12 nets you +Cha to damage twice in a legal manner, as they're separate sources of damage. Fire Draconic also works well with a Tomelock Shillelagh build, as it doesn't break the rules about bonus action spells. The idea of attacking with a flaming piece of wood makes me want to make a Mick Foley-esque character.

 

[MindxKiller]

The spell probably should have been designed like the various Smite spells; castable as a bonus action and applying on the next hit with a melee weapon rather than as a spellcasting action that incorporates a melee attack, but I suspect the spell's designers weren't considering the possibility of non-wizards getting the cantrip on their spell list.

I think the main reason it wasn't designed this way is to prevent the opportunity to full attack in addition to this spells effects as previously stated by someone further up, as well as to provide synergy with the War Magic feature of Eldritch Knights.

 

[Pauln6]

Ok so I have the book now but this is a long thread... My warlock is also a level 3 arcane trickster - can I sneak attack with the spell or not? I would seem to be overpowered if a full rogue were to take arcane trickster or buy the spell with a feat so I would not want to open that can of worms. Eldritch Blast is bad enough for a dip but this seems worse?

And thinking about it, you keep your sneak attack available for opportunity attacks. It makes so much sense to rule a combo out. Presumably two weapon fighting is out because you are using your attack action to cast a spell and not to attack.

 

[Prism]

Ok so I have the book now but this is a long thread... My warlock is also a level 3 arcane trickster - can I sneak attack with the spell or not? I would seem to be overpowered if a full rogue were to take arcane trickster or buy the spell with a feat so I would not want to open that can of worms. Eldritch Blast is bad enough for a dip but this seems worse?

And thinking about it, you keep your sneak attack available for opportunity attacks. It makes so much sense to rule a combo out. Presumably two weapon fighting is out because you are using your attack action to cast a spell and not to attack.

Yes you can sneak attack with it. You do not have to keep sneak attacks available for opportunity attacks as you can already sneak using one even if you have used sneak during your own turn. Two weapon fighting is out though, which is the real risk as you have nothing as cover for a miss.

 

[hejtmane]

Has anyone clarified the language in the spell


As part of casting this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within range, ...


What I wanted to clarify depending on how you read the wording. Do you cast the spell and as part of the spell you get a melee attack as part of the spell or is it you cast the spell wait until next turn use weapon attacks and add the extra damage to the attacks. (I took it as the second)

 

[Exen Trik]

Has anyone clarified the language in the spell


As part of casting this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within range, ...


What I wanted to clarify depending on how you read the wording. Do you cast the spell and as part of the spell you get a melee attack as part of the spell or is it you cast the spell wait until next turn use weapon attacks and add the extra damage to the attacks. (I took it as the second)

It's the first

 

[Pauln6]

Yes you can sneak attack with it. You do not have to keep sneak attacks available for opportunity attacks as you can already sneak using one even if you have used sneak during your own turn. Two weapon fighting is out though, which is the real risk as you have nothing as cover for a miss.

I think the wording does allow it but should it?

5d8+stat +10d6 primary + 4d8 + stat secondary bit powerful as an at-will ? I can see that Eldritch Knights could end up with 1d10+4d8+stat + 4d8+stat + 1d10+stat +1d10+stat.

Assuming +5 primary stat and +3 secondary does that average as 83 for 20th level rogue (across two targets) compared to 60 for fighter (using up bonus action and spread across 2-4 targets).

The synergy with eldritch knight seems intentional but I wasn't sure that was true for the rogue. Is this dealing the kind of damage that's expected at will or does it cross the line for stacking class features?

Edit: Oh hang on I should have read Eldritch knight first - the spell isn't the bonus action, a single additional attack is - much more balanced and a slam dunk that sneak attack should not really be stacking with the spell. Looks like an oversight.

 

[Z. H. Darkstar]

Allowing GFB (and by extension, Boom Blade) to work with Sneak Attack only adds a maximum of 3d8 to the damage total. It really isn't that much of a increase, as it requires 17th level to get that high. To get that extra damage on OAs, you need to take a feat. Doesn't really seem that unbalanced.

 

[Pauln6]

Allowing GFB (and by extension, Boom Blade) to work with Sneak Attack only adds a maximum of 3d8 to the damage total. It really isn't that much of a increase, as it requires 17th level to get that high. To get that extra damage on OAs, you need to take a feat. Doesn't really seem that unbalanced.

'Only 3d8' sounds like quite a lot at will. But it's not only 3d8, it's also the damage on the extra target and the high damage of sneak attack is mitigated by its situational nature whereas the spell applies even when sneak attack would not. Doesn't that lead to a significant damage boost for rogues who take this spell?

I can see how swashbuckler's improved sneak attack is slightly balanced by the fact that you are placing yourself up front without support (albeit you might be able to withdraw). I'm not sure that I see a similar downside to taking one of these cantrips.

 

[CapnZapp]

My guesses?

Wizard, Warlock - very likely
Sorcerer - likely
Bard - somewhat likely
Others - unlikely

Decent