Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?

[Wyckedemus]

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)

If you cast a spell and it lets you make an attack, you bypass. It doesn't matter if the weapon you use to make that attack is magical or not. (like green flame blade making you attack or it fails)

If you have a magical source of some kind and it let's you make an attack, you bypass.

I don't think you understand this which is why your posts don't make any sense. And I also don't think you understand what I'm explaining. Ask questions instead.

OK, I'll ask a question.

So with your logic, are you also saying that if you make an attack using the additional action of the Haste spell, that attack also bypasses nonmagical damage resistance/immunity? It's a spell that granted an attack.

 

[Noctem]

OK, I'll ask a question.

So with your logic, are you also saying that if you make an attack using the additional action of the Haste spell, that attack also bypasses nonmagical damage resistance/immunity? It's a spell that granted an attack.

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 an action to use and an attack to make. The errata talks about attacks granted by sources (presumably directly), nothing else. I think that would be an interesting question to ask Jeremy Crawford though.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Forest for the trees.

I'm DMing a bladesinger, and I'd rule the fact the spell states you must make a melee attack to trigger the spell means the weapon damage is still a nonmagical attack.

This also makes common sense and serves verisimilitude. It's not like GFB conjures a magical weapon... We all understand it allows you to cause fire to sweep off your blade to another foe adjacent to the target of your weapon attack.

I guess I don't see the logic behind saying the attack is magical. Storywise anyway

I think I'd go the opposite direction.

Think of two circumstances: the first is GFB as presented.

The second is a spell that is the same as GFB, only instead of being cast as an action that includes an attack, it is cast as a bonus action and only targets a target hit by one of your attacks.

In the second case, I think we'd be on the same page by saying that the attack made during the turn is non-magical. The spell you cast is magical, but the attack that allows it isn't.

In the first case, contrawise, the attack is allowed by the spell. That attack is one of the spell's effects, not a separate effect. The attack, then, is a spell effect, just as a fireball or a conjured creature is a spell effect. If GFB was counterspelled, you wouldn't make the attack. If GFB was used in an area of antimagic, you wouldn't make the attack. The attack is created by the spell.

This makes the attack magical, in my mind, even if it's not a spell attack. The attack is one of the effects of casting a spell, and casting a spell is magical, so the attack is magical. If the designers wanted the attack to be non-magical, they would've made casting the spell a bonus action or a reaction or somesuch, and not worried about including the attack as one of the effects of the spell.

I don't imagine it's ultimately a HUGE deal, but I believe the intent is for a character using a spell to be considered "magical," even if that spell involves a melee attack with a normal weapon.

 

[ryan92084]

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 because the damage type is from the magic and would be replaced by the weapons base damage type (slashing, piercing or bludgeoning) as you called out.

Second, any effects of the attack beyond the specific non-magical bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage would no longer be applied. Like blindness on hit / save vs an effect and so on because that too is granted by the magic from the magical weapon.

All that being said however, I'm not even convinced that your custom version would stop the attack from bypassing since the source of the attack is STILL a spell. You would need to specifically call out that the attack "does not bypass resistance and/or immunity to non-magical attacks."

But again you don't seem to understand (and I say this based on your custom text) that the errata isn't about the effects the attack might have on a hit, or effects in general or damage dice, damage type etc... All that matters is the SOURCE of the attack. If the attack is from a magical item, it bypasses no matter what the attack's effects, damage dice, damage type, etc.. is unless the wording of the attack specifically states that it does not. GReen Flame Blade does not specify that the general rules for bypassing resistance and/or immunity don't apply. It only talks about the effects of the attack. The source of the attack is not the effect of the attack. That's wrong.

EDIT: The moment you cast a spell which let's you make an attack, regardless of any other factors (unless it's specifically called out like I mentioned above), your attack will bypass resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks. That's a fact post errata.

Your first part is off the mark as it was a theoretical spell based off how I see the interaction of GFB with a non descript mundane weapon. Your second part seems more in line with what I was talking about but I will rephrase in an attempt to make my position more clear and then move on.

I see this as a simple direct substitution situation. You take the phrase [normal effects] out and replace it with the properties of the weapon being used. So for your standard scimitar it would be [1d6 nonmagical slashing damage] and for a +2 flametongue scimitar of blinding it would be [1d6+2 magical slashing +1d6 fire damage +blind]. This direct substitution is important for my argument against your point about the errata. It could be argued (not that you personally are) that the damage type shouldn't be included in [normal effects] of an attack but I would disagree. I would no sooner remove the non magical slashing damage type from the effect as I would the fire from the flametongue portion.

Now, about the errata. Firstly as is already being discussed "delivered" may not be meant to be taken as you are doing. However, even it does we come back to my point about the direct substitution. If my method is correct then using a standard scimitar the spell description would then read:

"...On a hit, the target suffers the attack's [1d6 nonmagical slashing damage], and green fire leaps..."

while the +2blinding flametongue would obviously be:

"...On a hit, the target suffers the attack's [1d6+2 magical slashing +1d6 fire damage +blind ]and green fire leaps..."

Then it becomes a case of specific, the spell description, versus the general, errata/JC tweet, and therein lies the crux of my argument.

 

[Noctem]

Your first part is off the mark as it was a theoretical spell based off how I see the interaction of GFB with a non descript mundane weapon. Your second part seems more in line with what I was talking about but I will rephrase in an attempt to make my position more clear and then move on.

I see this as a simple direct substitution situation. You take the phrase [normal effects] out and replace it with the properties of the weapon being used. So for your standard scimitar it would be [1d6 nonmagical slashing damage] and for a +2 flametongue scimitar of blinding it would be [1d6+2 magical slashing +1d6 fire damage]. This direct substitution is important for my argument against your point about the errata. It could be argued (not that you personally are) that the damage type shouldn't be included in [normal effects] of an attack but I would disagree. I would no sooner remove the non magical slashing damage type from the effect as I would the fire from the flametongue portion.

Now, about the errata. Firstly as is already being discussed "delivered" may not be meant to be taken as you are doing. However, even it does we come back to my point about the direct substitution. If my method is correct then using a standard scimitar the spell description would then read:
"...On a hit, the target suffers the attack's [1d6 nonmagical slashing damage], and green fire leaps..."
and then it becomes a case of specific, the spell description, versus the general, errata and JC tweet.

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.

 

[TheLastRogue]

I think I'd go the opposite direction.

Think of two circumstances: the first is GFB as presented.

The second is a spell that is the same as GFB, only instead of being cast as an action that includes an attack, it is cast as a bonus action and only targets a target hit by one of your attacks.

In the second case, I think we'd be on the same page by saying that the attack made during the turn is non-magical. The spell you cast is magical, but the attack that allows it isn't.

In the first case, contrawise, the attack is allowed by the spell. That attack is one of the spell's effects, not a separate effect. The attack, then, is a spell effect, just as a fireball or a conjured creature is a spell effect. If GFB was counterspelled, you wouldn't make the attack. If GFB was used in an area of antimagic, you wouldn't make the attack. The attack is created by the spell.

This makes the attack magical, in my mind, even if it's not a spell attack. The attack is one of the effects of casting a spell, and casting a spell is magical, so the attack is magical. If the designers wanted the attack to be non-magical, they would've made casting the spell a bonus action or a reaction or somesuch, and not worried about including the attack as one of the effects of the spell.

I don't imagine it's ultimately a HUGE deal, but I believe the intent is for a character using a spell to be considered "magical," even if that spell involves a melee attack with a normal weapon.

But, the attack isn't allowed by the spell. It's a prerequisite. If you don't make a 'melee attack' the spell fails. I read that as make a melee attack from which springs magical green flame. GREEN FLAME!

 

[ryan92084]

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.

You don't think a spell description calling out the damage as being non magical would be enough to make that damage non magical per the errata? If that is the case I would say your interpretation of the errata is inherently flawed.

 

[CM]

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.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But, the attack isn't allowed by the spell. It's a prerequisite. If you don't make a 'melee attack' the spell fails. I read that as make a melee attack from which springs magical green flame. GREEN FLAME!

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.

 

[Noctem]

You don't think a spell description calling out the damage as being non magical would be enough to make that damage non magical per the errata? If that is the case I would say your interpretation of the errata is inherently flawed.

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?