Search results

@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...

You're in the US I'm guessing?

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

That would depend on if you consider the spell granting you an action with restrictions to be the same as granting you an attack directly. I don't believe that to be the intent, but honestly I don't know for sure. I'm leaning towards no though. There's a difference between a spell giving you...

This is correct, although the feature itself doesn't specify, the intent as per JC is that the rerolling is only for the weapons damage dice specifically. Not smite or anything else. See here...

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.

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)...

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...

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...

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..

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...

But again, damage die and effects of an attack aren't what the errata is talking about. It's talking about the SOURCE of the attack. What is granting you the attack? A spell effect. So per the errata the attack bypasses.

the attack's normal effects aren't what's important here though, as per the errata. Any attack which is granted from a spell, magical item or magical source falls within the errata change. Green Flame Blade is a spell. Casting this spell grants you an attack. The source of the attack is what...

Correct on all counts.

AFAIK ignoring the fire damage bit since that doesn't matter, this is the correct answer. EDIT: Also add in the recent errata as pointed out in the post above and you have your answer. You're casting a spell which grants you an attack. Per the errata that means the attack will bypass...

Simply saying someone is wrong over and over doesn't actually make them wrong...