Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?

[Noctem]

Normally I'd say it was magical as

but as correctly pointed out the description states "the target suffers the attack's normal effects". That heavily implies the weapon attack of GFB is an exception to the general rule. Therefore I'm going with no.

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 matters, not the effects the attack might have.

Having the line that the target suffers the normal effects of the attack could also be to ensure that if you have effects on attacking they actually do still function. This could be from magical weapons, like dealing extra damage when you attack, having conditions affect the target, other spells like Hex triggering and so on.

 

[ryan92084]

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 matters, not the effects the attack might have.

I am aware of the errata but would still say the "normal effect" of the attack includes both the damage die and it being non magical piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage. Thus providing an exception to the general Errata and JC rules.

 

[Noctem]

I am aware of the errata but would still say the "normal effect" of the attack includes both the damage die and it being non magical piercing/slashing/bludgeoning damage. Thus providing an exception to the general Errata and JC rules.

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.

 

[Sage Genesis]

What is the "normal effect" of an attack made thanks to a spell but physically with a nonmagical weapon?

Is it the fact that it's an attack delivered by a spell, whose normal effect is bypassing this kind of resistance?
Or is it the fact that the weapon itself is mundane, whose normal effect is being thwarted by this kind of resistance?

 

[ryan92084]

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.

Yes a spell is granting you an attack so generally it would be magical but the description itself calls out and exception in that attack doing its "normal effect". If a theoretical spell explicitly called out its effect as nonmagical slashing/piercing/bludgeoning damage the errata wouldn't override it.

If they only wanted that section to only mean that the attack does the weapon die and properties in damage to the target I would hope they would write it as such. To me calling it out as "normal effect" means other weapon properties (flametongue, +1, etc), damage die, as well as the type of damage are included. Thereby having the same exception as the theoretical spell when used with a mundane weapon.

But hey that's just like my opinion man.

 

[spectacle]

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 errata doesn't say "granted", it says "delivered". The attack may be granted by a spell but the damage is delivered by a weapon attack and as such will count as nonmagical damage unless the weapon used is magical.

 

[ryan92084]

Good catch, I missed that verbiage slip from the original.

For clarity sake he's the relevant texts directly quoted (both are freely available)

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

...instances of “nonmagical weapons” in Damage Resistances/Immunities entries have been replaced with “nonmagical attacks.”

...Particular creatures are even resistant or immune to damage from nonmagical attacks (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source)...

 

[Sage Genesis]

The errata doesn't say "granted", it says "delivered". The attack may be granted by a spell but the damage is delivered by a weapon attack and as such will count as nonmagical damage unless the weapon used is magical.

That depends on what the word "deliver" is supposed to mean in this context. It can mean produce (e.g. "this game delivers good experiences") but it can also mean convey (e.g. "the mailman delivered the game I ordered"). Since the spell is the cause of the attack, it is accurate to say that the entire attack is delivered by a spell. And as such would count as a magical attack.

Since the MM errata talks about sources (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source) I believe that the word should be read in the sense of producing, not in the sense of physical contact made with the target.

 

[spectacle]

That depends on what the word "deliver" is supposed to mean in this context. It can mean produce (e.g. "this game delivers good experiences") but it can also mean convey (e.g. "the mailman delivered the game I ordered"). Since the spell is the cause of the attack, it is accurate to say that the entire attack is delivered by a spell. And as such would count as a magical attack.

Since the MM errata talks about sources (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source) I believe that the word should be read in the sense of producing, not in the sense of physical contact made with the target.

My impression is that the intention of the MM errata is to make it clear that resistance will also protect against nonmagical attacks that are not from weapons. So I believe we should prefer any reading of the rule of which attacks are magical that does not let an attack pierce resistance if it wouldn't pre-errata.

 

[Noctem]

That depends on what the word "deliver" is supposed to mean in this context. It can mean produce (e.g. "this game delivers good experiences") but it can also mean convey (e.g. "the mailman delivered the game I ordered"). Since the spell is the cause of the attack, it is accurate to say that the entire attack is delivered by a spell. And as such would count as a magical attack.

Since the MM errata talks about sources (a magical attack is an attack delivered by a spell, a magic item, or another magical source) I believe that the word should be read in the sense of producing, not in the sense of physical contact made with the target.

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, the attack is considered magical for purposes of bypassing resistance and/or immunity.