Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ryan92084" data-source="post: 6794026" data-attributes="member: 6802559">I am no more "adding meaning to the words to validate the claim" to the phrase 'attack's normal effects' than you are to 'delivered' from the errata.Can the use of 'normal effects' be intended that non magical/magical property of the weapon is meant to be considered for weapon damage? sure its possibleCan the use of 'normal effects' be intended to not include those properties and just stick to the general? also yesCan the use of 'delivered' in the errata be very restrictive in intent and not be meant to include things like weapon attacks granted? certainly viableCan the use of 'delivered' in the errata be intended broadly and mean pretty much any attack involving a spell? again not impossibleWe are both just interpreting the text to the best of our abilities.  Frankly, we could both be wrong on both points. Maybe the weapon attack just bypasses resistances even if the errata isn't meant to be applied that broadly but just because it's possible 'normal effects' isn't meant to include that much information.  I consider any of the interpretations plausible I just have a preference ones I think are probable.Now back to (slightly) more relevant topics.  Crawford continues to use the term "directly" in his teach a man to fish style of response for determining if attacks are magical.<a href="https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/684986581464170496" target="_blank">https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/684986581464170496</a></blockquote>

Verification