Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ryan92084" data-source="post: 6789654" data-attributes="member: 6802559"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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:</p><p></p><p>"...On a hit, the target suffers the attack's [1d6 nonmagical slashing damage], and green fire leaps..."</p><p></p><p>while the +2blinding flametongue would obviously be:</p><p></p><p>"...On a hit, the target suffers the attack's [1d6+2 magical slashing +1d6 fire damage +blind ]and green fire leaps..."</p><p></p><p>Then it becomes a case of specific, the spell description, versus the general, errata/JC tweet, and therein lies the crux of my argument.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ryan92084, post: 6789654, member: 6802559"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Green-Flame Blade = magic weapon?
Top