Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?

[Noctem]

Well of course it's magical. It's a spell dealing damage. Unless specifically stated otherwise, a spell's damage will always be magical.

 

[ryan92084]

If you have a quote unequivocally stating anything like "Unless specifically stated otherwise, a spell's damage will always be magical." please do present it so I and others can stop opening this thread to no where. Preferably implying just how specific that language needs to be.

Right now we have 1 ruling and 1 rule both with caveats.
JC with directly - Some spells do/cause decidedly indirect damage others could be debated
Errata with attack - as pointed out earlier several would be affected spells aren't attacks
Errata with delivered - as just pointed out the meaning/scope of delivered is contentious

 

[ryan92084]

The person who asked before me has received a response and the RaI made clear. The weapon portion of GFB et al is not inherently magical for resistance purposes.

So Green-flame blade does not count as a magic attack as far as hitting subjects with mundane attack resistance/immunity?

The extra damage from Green-Flame Blade is magical. The weapon damage depends on the weapon, not the cantrip.

This rules answer is so on-target that I'm retweeting it! #DnD

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/687819318038409216

 

[Ovinomancer]

The person who asked before me has received a response and the RaI made clear. The weapon portion of GFB et al is not inherently magical for resistance purposes.



https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/687819318038409216

And the dictionary wins yet another rules argument. 'Normal' does, in fact, mean 'normal.'