D&D 5E How do you interpret the green-flame blade and booming blade somatic component?

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Yep. You're still making a melee weapon attack, not a melee spell attack. I simply don't see anything in the spell that indicates that the spell is granting the attack.
Then the spell doesn't work, because nothing except the spell effect grants the attack. The Cast a Spell action does not. The one and only thing that grants an attack is the first line of the spell. Which you quoted to me, so claiming that you don't see anything in the spell is an example of hopefully notoriously poor memory and not an example of arguing in bad faith.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
Then the spell doesn't work, because nothing except the spell effect grants the attack. The Cast a Spell action does not. The one and only thing that grants an attack is the first line of the spell. Which you quoted to me, so claiming that you don't see anything in the spell is an example of hopefully notoriously poor memory and not an example of arguing in bad faith.
The spell effect doesn't grant the attack. You make a melee attack with the weapon. You literally just quoted it ""You brandish the weapon used in the spell's casting and make a melee attack with it " ... nothing in the description says that the melee attack is dependent upon the spell, just that the weapon is used as the material component. Perhaps brandishing the weapon invokes the spell, perhaps it doesn't but nothing indicates the melee attack is contingent on the spell working.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Both Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade say:
"You brandish the weapon used in the spell's casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you."
(Tasha's, pgs 106 & 107).

If you are going to make a claim about what the rules say, please do the most trivial check to make sure you aren't incorrect. In both cases it was the very first line of each spell effect.
And that's absolutely not conceivably part of the somatic component how? It's not "then make a melee attack with it". Comparing it with a fireball or summoning faeries is pretty much comparing apples and oranges since the whole effect of those spells is in the functioning of the magic. For mage armor, it's entirely conceivable that touching someone is part of the somatic component of the spell, so again, totally conceivable that someone is still touching the spell recipient even as the counter spell is dissipating the magic being cast.

There is no bright red line drawn between the casting of the spell with somatic components and descriptions of how the magic is delivered except the one you interpret. Other DMs may have other interpretations.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
And that's absolutely not conceivably part of the somatic component how? It's not "then make a melee attack with it". Comparing it with a fireball or summoning faeries is pretty much comparing apples and oranges since the whole effect of those spells is in the functioning of the magic. For mage armor, it's entirely conceivable that touching someone is part of the somatic component of the spell, so again, totally conceivable that someone is still touching the spell recipient even as the counter spell is dissipating the magic being cast.

There is no bright red line drawn between the casting of the spell with somatic components and descriptions of how the magic is delivered except the one you interpret. Other DMs may have other interpretations.
Saying "other DMs may have other interpretations" is like "well, you believe in evolution but other people have other interpretations". It's true but holds no weight. Sure, DMs can interpret rules incorrectly.

When there is something special with the components such as a cost or a special thing needed, they list it without exception under the component. This does not list it there.

When the spell triggers on some other action, it lists it under the Casting Time. This lists nothing there.

Between the two of them, there is no support the melee attack to be outside the effects of the spell.

This is clearly written and has one official meaning. Show me any support besides "I can read the first line differently if I read it free of any context", because the fact that there is no notes in the Components or Casting Time lines show us for a fact that isn't a proper interpretation of that line when put in the actual context.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
The spell effect doesn't grant the attack. You make a melee attack with the weapon. You literally just quoted it ""You brandish the weapon used in the spell's casting and make a melee attack with it " ... nothing in the description says that the melee attack is dependent upon the spell, just that the weapon is used as the material component. Perhaps brandishing the weapon invokes the spell, perhaps it doesn't but nothing indicates the melee attack is contingent on the spell working.
That IS the spell. That's like saying that "A bright streak flashes from your pointing linger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with
a low roar into an explosion of flame. " isn't an effect of the Fireball spell.

They are. The effects of the spell are what are written under the spell keywords like Duration. This is so unbelievable fundamental it's like you are claiming that counting goes 1, 2, 5, 3, 7, 4, and so on.
 

Oofta

Legend
That IS the spell. That's like saying that "A bright streak flashes from your pointing linger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with
a low roar into an explosion of flame. " isn't an effect of the Fireball spell.

They are. The effects of the spell are what are written under the spell keywords like Duration. This is so unbelievable fundamental it's like you are claiming that counting goes 1, 2, 5, 3, 7, 4, and so on.

I disagree. The effect of the spell is that the green flame bounces to another creature within 5 feet, the target if the melee attack hits. If the spell was responsible for the attack and damage to the primary target it would be a melee spell attack and it's not.

I don't know what else to say, you can insist that you are right all you want it doesn't change anything.
 

The PC is attacking with a melee weapon. The weapon attack still happens no matter what, if the spell is not countered, green flame also does extra damage to a different creature.​
This is actually wrong. If you cast a spll and it is countered, you waste your action.
 


briggart

Adventurer
The spell effect doesn't grant the attack. You make a melee attack with the weapon. You literally just quoted it ""You brandish the weapon used in the spell's casting and make a melee attack with it " ... nothing in the description says that the melee attack is dependent upon the spell, just that the weapon is used as the material component. Perhaps brandishing the weapon invokes the spell, perhaps it doesn't but nothing indicates the melee attack is contingent on the spell working.
According to Sage Advice, the attack is part of the spell's casting (first paragraph):

Sage Advice said:
Can you use green-flame blade and booming blade with Extra Attack, opportunity attacks, Sneak Attack, and other weapon attack options?

Introduced in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide, the green-flame blade and booming blade spells pose a number of questions, because they each do something unusual: require you to make a melee attack with a weapon as part of the spell’s casting.

First, each of these spells involves a normal melee weapon attack, not a spell attack, so you use whatever ability modifier you normally use with the weapon. (A spell tells you if it includes a spell attack, and neither of these spells do.) For example, if you use a longsword with green-flame blade, you use your Strength modifier for the weapon’s attack and damage rolls.

Second, neither green-flame blade nor booming blade works with Extra Attack or any other feature that requires the Attack action. Like other spells, these cantrips require the Cast a Spell action, not the Attack action, and they can’t be used to make an opportunity attack, unless a special feature allows you to do so.

Third, these weapon attacks work with Sneak Attack if they fulfill the normal requirements for that feature. For example, if you have the Sneak Attack feature and cast green-flame blade with a finesse weapon, you can deal Sneak Attack damage to the target of the weapon attack if you have advantage on the attack roll and hit.
 

According to Sage Advice, the attack is part of the spell's casting (first paragraph):
"Introduced in the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide, the green-flame blade and booming blade spells pose a number of questions, because they each do something unusual: require you to make a melee attack with a weapon as part of the spell’s casting."

Was this Sage Advice written under the old version or the new version of the spell? Because I've been convinced by blue's arguments that that is no longer how the spell works with the new wording.

My original nit-picking arose because I wasn't looking at the entirety of the changes in the spell's wording, but was carrying over some of the intent of the original wording that is totally absent in the new version.

The original version says that you make the melee attack as part of casting the spell. Which sounds like it might be a Somatic component...except that version of the spell had no Somatic components, only Verbal and Material.

The new version switches the Verbal component for a Somatic component. But now it no longer says that the melee attack is part of casting the spell. Instead, it lists brandishing the weapon and making an attack as the first line of the spell's effect. The overall context persuades me that the Somatic component (which like in most spells, is not specifically described) is being separated from the weapon attack, which takes place afterwards as part of the effect of the spell.

I've found it extremely difficult to explain the particular nuance I've been attempting to address, but this does solve it. Essentially, the idea is that the PHB rules say that the free hand for your Somatic and the free hand for your Material can be the same free hand, but I have a hard time seeing a hand that is currently making a weapon attack being "free". I mean, that's kind of the poster child for a hand not being free! So even if a spell granted you the ability to make a weapon attack with its Material component, if the hand was not considered free while making that attack, the PHB would not provide permission for it to be the free hand needed for a Somatic component, and therefore you would need your other hand for the Somatic component. Since the new wording completely changes the spell though, at the time you are casting the spell the hand with the weapon is free, so it can handle both the Material and Somatic components, and then once the spell is cast, it no longer matters that the hand is occupied chopping up a monster, because the Somatic component has already taken place.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top