Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?

[CapnZapp]

I think it is very likely one hand didn't know what the other was doing.

 

[TheLastRogue]

If that was the intent, I don't think the melee attack would be part of the spell, but rather, the spell would be something entirely different. Like, a bonus action spell that states something like "the target of this spell must be a creature you have hit with a melee weapon attack using the Attack action." Or a class feature that bladedancers could apply on a hit with a melee weapon attack. Or something similar.

Making the attack part of the effect of the spell implies to me that the attack, like other spell effects, is magical.

I just don't see that intent in how its worded. I think they willfully rolled the cantrip & attack into one to free up action economy.

More importantly, the other spells that perform attacks speak of conjuring this or striking with that...'make a melee attack' is not the same language as other damaging spells. Thus as I read it, I can't envision anything besides the bladesinger twirling and chanting...if he hits, his magic ignites his blade...

Regardless, eventually WotC will make it clear soon enough. One side of this argument will win, the other will begrudgingly acquiesce while muttering "That's not how it works in my campaign."

 

[Noctem]

For all practical purposes, the attack made as a part of the casting of Greenflame Blade and other such cantrips is a somatic component and not an attack granted by the spell. The intent is clear to me that the damage is based on the qualities of the weapon used.

Trying to apply hard logic to 5th edition is only going to result in a lot of wasted time and contradictory results.

Incorrect. The spell does not have the somatic keyword, so has no somatic requirement. Your entire premise is flawed:

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.

The spell requires a melee attack from the caster "as part of the same action used to cast the spell". The spell is granting you an otherwise impossible attack (making an attack as part of the cast a spell action). The spell is specifically breaking the general rules of the game by doing so. To say that the spell is not letting you make the attack is illogical. The damage dice, item properties, etc.. ARE based on the weapon you're using, that's why the MATERIAL requirement is a weapon. However those simply DON'T MATTER for determining if you bypass nonmagical resistance and immunity. ALL that matters is that you're making an attack with a source listed in the magical attack errata: A SPELL.

 

[TheLastRogue]

Meh.

 

[Noctem]

I think it is very likely one hand didn't know what the other was doing.

This is possible. Many people worked on this edition beyond JC and Mearls. However, for now post errata, any attack made via a spell is a magical attack and bypasses resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks. It doesn't matter if the weapon you use to make the attack is not magical, the spell granting you the attack makes it so.

 

[ryan92084]

but it doesn't say that does it? This is you changing the words in the spell to justify your position. And even if it did say what you modified, it doesn't matter:

What is the source of the attack?

A spell.

What counts as a magical attack for the purposes of bypassing resistance and or immunity to nonmagical attacks?

An attack with the following sources:

a spell, magical item and/or magical source.

You're adding words into a spell, ignoring that the errata specifically talks about sources (apparently also ignoring that SPELLS count as a source!) and NOT damage type, etc.. to justify your position that you can dismiss dev intent, errata and the general rules of the game. Tell me again how my interpretation is inherently flawed?

It was a simple yes or no question independent of anything else to help me understand your position. And I'm still unsure. Do you think the current errata would allow a spell with a description of doing nonmagical slashing damage to do nonmagical slashing damage? If that answer is no I would say either your interpretation of or the errata itself is flawed.

 

[Noctem]

It was a simple yes or no question independent of anything else to help me understand your position. And I'm still unsure. Do you think the current errata would allow a spell with a description of doing nonmagical slashing damage to do nonmagical slashing damage? If that answer is no I would say either your interpretation of or the errata itself is flawed.

You're asking me if a theoretical spell that doesn't exist, which is designed to specifically to conflict with the current errata, would function or not? What does me answering yes or no to this question represent or even mean? First off I don't think that they would create a spell to specifically conflict with errata without also including rules to create an exception. Second they would have to create the spell so that it specifically explains that it circumvents how the general rules interact with attacks which have the sources being discussed: Spells, Magical Items and Magical Sources. 3rd This is an exception based system, the entire point is to create general rules and then specific rules which can modify, bypass or break them. But these exceptions have to be specifically called out.

So if they do all of this, you could end up with a spell that looks like this:

As part of casting this spell make a melee attack, this attack cannot bypass nonmagical resistance or immunity. The attack functions as a normal weapon attack for the purposes of effects. If the attack hits, a burst of flame leaps out from the blade and deals x amount of damage to another target.

Just a rough draft but this is how a specific beats general system works. Green Flame Blade is a spell, it let's you make an attack, that attacks source is a spell so it bypasses by default resistance and immunity.

Have you even thought about why "this spell deals nonmagical damage" makes no sense at all? And possibly why that sentence isn't found in any spell in the game AFAIK (prove me wrong here if you can)?

 

[ryan92084]

You're asking me if a theoretical spell that doesn't exist, which is designed to specifically to conflict with the current errata, would function or not? What does me answering yes or no to this question represent or even mean? First off I don't think that they would create a spell to specifically conflict with errata without also including rules to create an exception. Second they would have to create the spell so that it specifically explains that it circumvents how the general rules interact with attacks which have the sources being discussed: Spells, Magical Items and Magical Sources. 3rd This is an exception based system, the entire point is to create general rules and then specific rules which can modify, bypass or break them. But these exceptions have to be specifically called out.

So if they do all of this, you could end up with a spell that looks like this:

As part of casting this spell make a melee attack, this attack cannot bypass nonmagical resistance or immunity. The attack functions as a normal weapon attack for the purposes of effects. If the attack hits, a burst of flame leaps out from the blade and deals x amount of damage to another target.

Just a rough draft but this is how a specific beats general system works. Green Flame Blade is a spell, it let's you make an attack, that attacks source is a spell so it bypasses by default resistance and immunity.

Claiming I'm rewriting the spell with an attempt to design it in such a way to conflict with the errata is both untrue and unhelpful. I am only discussing what the designers intent may be behind using the words [normal effects]. Attempting to interpret how much/little [normal effects] means is the very point of this thread. If all the information is included, my position, then that is exactly why my question to you matters.

Your rough draft ignores the possibility of the weapon being magical to bypass restrictions. I believe in an attempt to allow for both non magical, magical, +1/2/3, and weapons with various effect riders while keeping things brief they used the phrase "attack's [normal effects]". Furthermore "this attack cannot bypass nonmagical resistance or immunity" is very much what I consider to fall under "normal effects" of a standard scimitar.

 

[Jaelommiss]

Both my my first and second points were in regards to your custom (theoretical if you prefer) version. I was explaining what your changes would mean if it was really worded that way to cover all the bases.

And again, you still don't understand that the properties of the weapon you're using or any factor beyond the fact that the SPELL is letting make the ATTACK doesn't matter for determining if the attack bypasses or not. It's like you're glossing over the fact that the errata is talking about SOURCES of attacks. Spells, Magical Items, Magical Sources. Not weapon properties, attack effects, damage dice, damage type.

You're completely stuck on item properties and attack effects, damage type and so on. If you can't see beyond this point nothing I say will get through to you. You're even now changing the words in the spell text to justify your point of view. The 1d6 nonmagical slashing damage that you just posted IS IRRELEVANT. IT doesn't matter. All that matters is the ATTACK is granted by the SPELL which is the SOURCE. You can substitute whatever the hell you want into the spell text, it doesn't matter. It's a spell letting you make an attack ERGO it bypasses. lol

This is a specific beats general rules system. Something has to specifically call out that it allows a game element to bypass the general rules. Simply saying that an attack does 1d6 nonmagical slashing damage doesn't change any of the facts I've just explained to you.

I'm going to quote the errata's exact wording because the debate appears to be drifting from it.

"A magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source"

Delivered, as mentioned a couple pages back, can mean one of two things. It can mean (1) that the spell, magic item, or magical source conveys harm to a creature, or (2) that it produces the attack that then harms a creature. If delivered refers to the first case then GFB using a nonmagical weapon does not bypass resistance to nonmagical attacks. If it means the second case, then it does. What really matters here more than all the posturing that both sides are engaging in is which meaning of delivered is being used.

I propose a simple test to determine which one is correct: evaluate whether a given meaning of delivered makes sense in the context of the two provided examples (assuming "another magical source" is supposed to function as a catch-all and not a specific example). The correct definition of the word will unerringly work with both given examples.

Case 1 - attack conveyed by:
Spell: The magic stone cantrip delivers magical bludgeoning damage through an enchanted rock striking the target
Magic Item: A +1 shortsword delivers magical piercing damage by striking the target

Case 2 - attack produced by:
Spell: GFB delivers magical weapon damage by granting attack
Magic Item: This is an interesting one. A Dancing Sword (DMG 161) grants its user an attack and would qualify as magical in this case. However, almost all other magic weapons (including the +1 shortsword used in case 1) do not produce attacks, and would therefore not qualify as magical if that is what delivered was intended to mean. When an interpretation means that magic weapons, on the whole, are not considered to deliver magical attacks I have no choice but to question the validity of that interpretation, especially when the alternative has no such issue.


I will let you draw your own conclusions, but for myself it is abundantly clear that the second meaning of 'delivered' is not the correct one, and as such GFB would not qualify as a source of magical bludgeoning/slashing/piercing damage. This follows the pre-errata phrasing, though that is not evidence for or against it. It is also possible that BOTH cases are correct, however I expect that "delivered by" would have been expanded to something along the lines of "produced or delivered by" if that was the intent.

Although my conclusion is in disagreement with many other posters in this thread, I hope that at the least it helps you all understand the reasoning behind my opinion.

 

[Noctem]

@Ryan92084

The question you asked is about a theoretical spell that is specifically designed to conflict with the errata. You came up with it which is why I pointed this out and gave a very of the spell that would allow you to do what you want to do. Not be able to bypass spell resistance and immunity with an attack that has a spell as a source.

If you're making an attack because of a spell and you have a magical weapon you're bypassing from 2 different sources. Because you're using a magical item and because the source of the attack is a spell. I didn't write that in because it should be self evident since both are listed as sources in the errata. Pointing this out doesn't change anything. The weapon you use is irrelevant because the attack is from a spell source.

The weapon used doesn't determine if it can or can't bypass for the 3rd time, it's the source: SPELL, MAGICAL ITEM, MAGICAL SOURCE. Again you're completely stuck on the weapon's properties and stuff. lol This is actually getting funny.

The point of this current discussion is to ask if the attack from green flame blade can bypass resistance and immunity or not. The words "normal effects" from the spell don't even enter into that discussion because what really matters is THE SOURCE WHERE THE ATTACK COMES FROM. A spell. Which is the source, which means it does.