Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?

[Noctem]

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 don't think getting into a grammatical debate about why they used the word over another is actually worth having. The word used means simply what it does. If you make an attack via a spell, magical item or another magical source then you bypass. Furthermore your 1 and 2 aren't even logical because you're attaching the requirement of harm into it. The errata does not such thing. Harm is not required. Only that an attack be made via a source listed. So your 2 although still wrong is closer to the correct answer.

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.

I'm not convinced because you don't seem to understand to begin with but ok. EDIT: Btw I don't understand how your cases are comparing or what you're attempting to accomplish. It's either not explained properly or it just doesn't make any sense. In case 1 you're comparing a spell which creates magical ammunition, which can then be used to make an attack to a magic item? What?

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

check sources:

Spell? No the spell creates stones which are magical. It does not give an attack.
Magical Item? Yes, the item when used to make an attack allows the attack to bypass because it's a magical item.
Magical Source? Technically also yes.

As for the magic item, attacks using it will bypass of course.


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.

Now it's obvious to me that you don't even understand the errata or how this all works. The damage doesn't have to be magical! The ATTACK has to be from MAGIC: A spell, Magical Item or Magical Source. The damage of the attack has NOTHING to do with the question of if the ATTACK can bypass or not. This explains most of the nonsense in your post.


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.

it's abundantly clear you don't understand the subject you're attempting to discuss.

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.

responses in bold.

 

[ryan92084]

Once again I did not design anything in with any intent to conflict with the errata. First, direct substitution has been the reasoning behind my interpretation from the beginning I was attempting to explain by example. Second, when I wrote my first post here I hadn't even considered the errata as that hadn't been brought up yet when I started my reply. Third if your interpretation of the errata is correct I don't think my reasoning conflicts with it anymore than any other specific versus general rule interaction. Fourth I am not alone in not necessarily subscribing to your interpretation of the errata and presenting it as unimpeachable fact isn't helping.

Finally the spell's description very much matters in determining GFB can bypass nonmagical bludgeoning/slashing/piercing resistances therefore I find the below quote to be wholly untrue. The default position for spells is yes the exceptions would be in the descriptions

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.

Edit: Forgot a point. Fifth, my question stemmed from a statement you made nothing more nothing less.

off topic: Your posts on this matter are becoming increasingly hostile. Therefore it is unlikely I reply further unless/until new information comes to light. Unfortunately JC is on vacation so that may be a bit

 

[Uchawi]

From a common sense standpoint the weapon is imbued with some sort of magic because how would the effect trigger? That includes a weapon wielder that is blind or when hitting an invisible creature.

 

[Noctem]

off topic: Your posts on this matter are becoming increasingly hostile. Therefore it is unlikely I reply further unless/until new information comes to light. Unfortunately JC is on vacation so that may be a bit

My posts are becoming blunt and direct because you seem to purposefully ignore the facts that contradict your position. You can choose to take offense if you wish, but playing the victim doesn't change anything.

And apparently, from your latest post you once again prove that you don't understand that all which matters is the source of the attack. 5th time I've pointed this out to you.

 

[ryan92084]

From a common sense standpoint the weapon is imbued with some sort of magic because how would the effect trigger? That includes a weapon wielder that is blind or when hitting an invisible creature.

I don't see it as the Flame being imbued with the flames before the attack. Only after the strike do they spring out and hit a nearby target. This would explain why the target of the melee attack takes between no and significantly less (grazing) damage from the flames.

 

[Lidgar]

The weapon is the spell component for casting and delivering the effects of the spell.

I would rule that the spell's effects when triggered (through hitting a creature with the material component) are limited to delivering the the fire damage only, and the weapon attack is simply the mode to deliver the spell effect.

Furthermore, other cantrips (such as Shillelagh) are pretty explicit about when a weapon should be considered magical as part of the casting of the spell.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Wasn't this question already answered on Twitter weeks ago, or am I remembering something different?

 

[Noctem]

Wasn't this question already answered on Twitter weeks ago, or am I remembering something different?

Well if you can link to the answer I would really appreciate it even if I end up being incorrect

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I can't seem to find it. But I'm not very good at finding such things anymore, either.

 

[Noctem]

I tried googling it and found some sage advice responses and other websites but nothing related to the discussion here.