Sword Coast Adventure's Guide: Greenflame Blade Cantrip

[Paeleus]

Perfect for an Eldritch Knight level, awesome for Favored Souls, amazing for rouges and advantageous for any single weapon attack caster class, Greenflame Blade is something I think was sorely missed in 5e and is a great addition to the game. That said...

Say I have a BM fighter with the magic initiate feat and they chose GB as a cantrip. Could a maneuver be added to that melee weapon attack? Can a Sneak Attack die be added in the case of an arcane trickster?The cantrip requires a you make a melee weapon. A maneuver or SA requires at least a melee weapon attack. Seems balanced in that it cost an action (or possible bonus action) but I'd rather get a pool of opinions and perspective .

Here's a link to the cantrip description on tribality:
http://tribality.com/2015/10/03/sword-coast-adventurers-guide-previews-3/

Thanks for any comments!

[JoeJ]

It says the melee attack has its normal effects, which sounds like it includes maneuvers, sneak attack, smites, critical hits, etc. If that's the case, however, then it's significantly better than a straight melee attack for any character that doesn't have Extra Attack, which strikes me as a bit of a problem.

[MeeposFire]

It would be bad for a fighter outside of the EK which actually would not be bad considering it means they make two attacks with a weapon while hitting an additional target with fire. Not quite as good as using an attack action in the long run but much closer. Otherwise you are giving up way too much damage and ability to apply your bonus dice in a round.

It would be fantastic for a cleric as they only get one attack anyway so you could get a pretty good smack on somebody.

Still it would be a boost for any class that wants to make an attack with a weapon but does not get multiple attacks with the only cost being the feat required to pick it up (assuming you are not using a class that gets it already). Makes a great way to improve rogue damage without relying on haste to double your damage (haste for attack action and use your original action to hold back and smack the enemy not on your turn).

[rollingForInit]

It says the melee attack has its normal effects, which sounds like it includes maneuvers, sneak attack, smites, critical hits, etc. If that's the case, however, then it's significantly better than a straight melee attack for any character that doesn't have Extra Attack, which strikes me as a bit of a problem.

You'd still have to actually get the cantrip. Which means taking Magic Initiate or multiclassing, which means giving up other stuff for it. Might be worth it, of course. A bit like a Sorcerer/Bard taking two levels of Warlock, or just grabbing Eldritch Blast via a feat.

[Strill]

I don't like it. It's just a straight-up unconditional damage buff for Arcane Tricksters, and I don't think they needed anything else to make them good.

[rollingForInit]

By the way, do we know that this cantrip will actually be in the spell list? Or could it potentially be given only as a class feature? Which would make it more of a sacrifice for a paladin or rogue to get it.

[Strill]

By the way, do we know that this cantrip will actually be in the spell list? Or could it potentially be given only as a class feature? Which would make it more of a sacrifice for a paladin or rogue to get it.

In 4e it was an arcane spell, which suggests that it would be on the Wizard and Sorcerer list.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

If they can get it locally, this is really good for Arcane Tricksters and melee Clerics.

[DracoKnight]

In 4e it was an arcane spell, which suggests that it would be on the Wizard and Sorcerer list.

I think WotC said that it will be on the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard spell lists.

[steppedonad4]

This could easily break the game.

[Longcat]

High Elf Assassin!

[pibby]

The part that bothers me is not the extra damage but the fact that the secondary effect automatically hits the second target. So if you're hitting the low AC mooks next to the high AC BBEG that has casted blur on itself the green flame will hit the BBEG despite its defenses essentially for free.

[rollingForInit]

A bit sad if it'll be so easy to get. It's as if they're continuing to say "mundane characters are boring, let's make one of the only non-magical classes that can do damage inferior if it doesn't use a cantrip". Also, as mentioned ... fels like High Elf will be the single most powerful race for rogues.

But I guess we'll have to see? I hope there'll be some restrictions, like only being able to get it as a class feature, but ...

[McNinja]

Well shoot. Arcane Tricksters, sorcerers, and wizards just got a huuuuge damage boost.

Anything could take the magic initiate feat and grab this cantrip. The spell does 3d8 plus normal damage/effects to a single target, so anything with two attacks could greatly benefit from this. Paladins maybe less so because of improved divine smite, and that could be a huge boon to non-raging barbarians.

[DivisibleByZero]

Well shoot. Arcane Tricksters, sorcerers, and wizards just got a huuuuge damage boost.

Anything could take the magic initiate feat and grab this cantrip. The spell does 3d8 plus normal damage/effects to a single target, so anything with two attacks could greatly benefit from this. Paladins maybe less so because of improved divine smite, and that could be a huge boon to non-raging barbarians.

Nope.
It uses your action to cast, which means you aren't using your action to Attack, which means Extra Attack doesn't kick in.
It's only really useful for single attack characters.
It has a mildly useful side effect for Bladelocks in that they now don't need to spend an Invocation on their Extra Attack feature any longer if they don't want to, and they can still keep their melee damage competitive (although less so against a single target) without that Invocation.

Arcane Tricksters got a moderate damage boost. Wizards and Sorcerers got a tiny damage boost which only applies to a secondary target (because casting this cantrip or another cantrip are essentially equivalent with regards to the first target).

[McNinja]

Nope.
It uses your action to cast, which means you aren't using your action to Attack, which means Extra Attack doesn't kick in.
It's only really useful for single attack characters.
It has a mildly useful side effect for Bladelocks in that they now don't need to spend an Invocation on their Extra Attack feature any longer if they don't want to, and they can still keep their melee damage competitive without that Invocation.

Arcane Tricksters got a moderate damage boost. Wizards and Sorcerers got a tiny damage boost which only applies to a secondary target.
Sorry, I should have explained better - I mean that with the extra damage from this cantrip, it could possibly do more damage than your two attacks combined, rendering Extra Attack meaningless.

This is great for EKs though, since they would still get two attacks - War Magic all day.

[CNagy]

For multiclass Sorcerers with Quicken, they've now got what amounts to a "pay 2 points to make a bonus action attack + fire + whatever else." This is definitely a boon to the Fighter-Mage type characters.

[Firechanter]

We did the math. It's actually rather so-so for Eldritch Knights. Its usefulness changes every few levels:

3-4: Good. Free extra damage if there's a secondary target.
5-6: Nah. Extra Attack is worth more.
7-10: Great! Due to the Bonus Attack, you're strictly better off than with regular attacks.
11-16: Meh. You should have a good magic weapon by now. Three attacks with that will be noticeably better.
17-19: Useful if a secondary target is available, due to +2d8 extra damage.
20: Four Attacks, hands down.

It's much better for characters that want to melee but don't get Extra Attacks. Such as, Arcane Trickster.
No sweat concerning Wizards or Sorcs -- these guys typically aren't keen on getting into melee anyway.

[Belac93]

I think this was probably meant for the bladesinger arcane tradition. I haven't seen the tradition of course, but it seems likely. And this was an at will for swordmages in 4e. Doesn't mean it doesn't work well for other classes

[Human Paragon 3]

How about on an Open Hand monk with Magic Initiate feat? Attack with your main weapon and cast Greenflame Blade, and then use your bonus action to make two unarmed strikes with flurry of blows.

[Shaofoo]

How about on an Open Hand monk with Magic Initiate feat? Attack with your main weapon and cast Greenflame Blade, and then use your bonus action to make two unarmed strikes with flurry of blows.

It doesn't work like that, the cantrip is not an Attack action and Flurry of Blows requires you to use an Attack action to activate it, you can't even use Martial Arts since that also keys off the Attack action.

[Nifft]

I liked 4e's Cleave effect.

I'm not sure if Arcane spellcasters should get the equivalent in 5e, though.

I'd kinda prefer if Martial characters got to use the 4e Cleave effect first.

[Starsinger]

I don't understand why people keep saying it's good against a single target. It clearly says the fire hits a "second creature", which (to me anyways) indicates that it's more of an AoE ability. You hit one guy, and burn a second guy. Nothing about it even hints that you can smack one guy and burn the same guy, so it's not really "Extra attack for Sorcerers and Wizards".

[numerek]

We did the math. It's actually rather so-so for Eldritch Knights. Its usefulness changes every few levels:

3-4: Good. Free extra damage if there's a secondary target.
5-6: Nah. Extra Attack is worth more.
7-10: Great! Due to the Bonus Attack, you're strictly better off than with regular attacks.
11-16: Meh. You should have a good magic weapon by now. Three attacks with that will be noticeably better.
17-19: Useful if a secondary target is available, due to +2d8 extra damage.
20: Four Attacks, hands down.

It's much better for characters that want to melee but don't get Extra Attacks. Such as, Arcane Trickster.
No sweat concerning Wizards or Sorcs -- these guys typically aren't keen on getting into melee anyway.

improving damage for 9 out of 20 levels is pretty sweet, and variant human could have it at 1st and 2nd level. There is also the situational improvements of the fire damage vs weapon damage, though it works the other way also when fire damage is less desirable than weapon damage. Though it seems that most people are glossing over the fact that except for shillelagh you are going to have a secondary ability to worry about and even shillelagh would require both cantrips to have the same spell casting ability.

[Santra]

I still say Paladin 2/Sorcerer 18 will make the most of this spell. Quicken GFB and attack twice with it every turn. Smite with your highest level spell slots. Keep haste on yourself so you get an extra hit to smite with.

[JoeJ]

You'd still have to actually get the cantrip. Which means taking Magic Initiate or multiclassing, which means giving up other stuff for it. Might be worth it, of course. A bit like a Sorcerer/Bard taking two levels of Warlock, or just grabbing Eldritch Blast via a feat.

If they're a high elf they get a free cantrip from the wizard's list.

[CNagy]

I don't understand why people keep saying it's good against a single target. It clearly says the fire hits a "second creature", which (to me anyways) indicates that it's more of an AoE ability. You hit one guy, and burn a second guy. Nothing about it even hints that you can smack one guy and burn the same guy, so it's not really "Extra attack for Sorcerers and Wizards".

You burn both guys from 5th level on.

Lvl1: Attack on one guy, fire damage equal to Int/Cha modifier on second guy.
Lvl5: Attack + 1d8 fire damage, 1d8+mod against second target.
Lvl11: Attack +2d8 fire damage, 2d8+mod against second target.
Lvl17: Attack +3d8 fire damage, 3d8+mod against second target.

[MrStabby]

I can see it being a nice touch for some builds that don't care so much about number of attacks - Battlemaster 3/4, Evocation wizard (can you add int a second time?) could do some decent damage with it and superiority dice (also being pretty sure to hit). Add paladin for topping up damage with smites or sorcerer for using bonus action to attack again is solid.

Certainly should be fun to play with.

[Arc-Royal]

*obligatory Acquisitions Incorporated "GREEN FLAME!"*

I must say, I really like this cantrip. I feel like if it's for arcane casters as DracoKnight said, it'll open up more ways for people to play 'em, rather than just being a ranged blaster (not that they can't play other roles, but having more close-ranged cantrip options can't hurt when trying to flesh out a close-quarters mage concept).

[McNinja]

I think the only issue with this is the fact that fire damage is the most common resistance or immunity.

[Dralnu]

I don't see why people think this is a horrible thing. I think it's cool.

1) It's melee weapon only, and only if there's a 2nd adjacent enemy. It's not too appealing for people that have Extra Attack, which happen to be the ones that do crazy damage anyway (Barb / Pally / Fighter).
2) Melee EKs get a boost. I don't see how that's a problem? Very good up until you get your third Extra Attack at 11th, then it's a real tradeoff depending on stats / weapon / buffs.
3) Melee Arcane Tricksters DEFINITELY need a little boost in the damage department. Ranged Rogues is pretty much the way to go thanks to having no real equivalent to that bonus action Crossbow feat + Sharpshooter. Even then, they won't come close to the damage of other classes. This is a much needed buff and again, it's only when the opportunity arises.

[MeeposFire]

improving damage for 9 out of 20 levels is pretty sweet, and variant human could have it at 1st and 2nd level. There is also the situational improvements of the fire damage vs weapon damage, though it works the other way also when fire damage is less desirable than weapon damage. Though it seems that most people are glossing over the fact that except for shillelagh you are going to have a secondary ability to worry about and even shillelagh would require both cantrips to have the same spell casting ability.

Long term the casting stat is nice to have but is not required. Remember the casting stat has nothing to do with hitting with this ability. Generally speaking you are talking of a difference of up to 5 points of damage. At level one that cna be a lot but at level 20 it is not that big of a deal if you need points in other abilities more (especially since the casting stat damage only applies to the secondary target).


This does give me an alternative to using warlock levels in my fighter(EK)8/warlock2/rogue10

Now I can just go EK8/rogue12. My single target damage will be slightly less but I like not having the warlock levels in there and I get two chances to apply SA rather than just one with my previous build.

I forgot to add that it also gives me slightly more SA, I think one more ASI, and I also do not need to spend a feat on xbow expert in order to use my attacks in melee range (EB needs that feat to be used in melee).

[Naanomi]

Another moderately substantial boost for Red Dragon Sorcerers, it's a shame Rangers don't have clean access to this since it would be a boon to melee rangers. A tome warlock can take it with Shillelagh and have a substantial melee attack option with minimal stat investment

[Human Paragon 3]

As someone mentioned above, High Elf gets a free cantrip and they also get longsword proficiency. It seems like you could slap the longsword / GFB onto any class for a nice boost. Would work great with any variety of rogue, with wizard, with sorcerer, with warlock. Heck, toss it on a War cleric.

[Strill]

Melee Arcane Tricksters DEFINITELY need a little boost in the damage department. Ranged Rogues is pretty much the way to go thanks to having no real equivalent to that bonus action Crossbow feat + Sharpshooter. Even then, they won't come close to the damage of other classes. This is a much needed buff and again, it's only when the opportunity arises.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Sharpshooter is a damage LOSS for rogues. The damage you gain doesn't make up for the hit chance you give up.

[Starsinger]

You burn both guys from 5th level on.

Lvl1: Attack on one guy, fire damage equal to Int/Cha modifier on second guy.
Lvl5: Attack + 1d8 fire damage, 1d8+mod against second target.
Lvl11: Attack +2d8 fire damage, 2d8+mod against second target.
Lvl17: Attack +3d8 fire damage, 3d8+mod against second target.

Oh neat, I dunno how I missed that reading the spell so many times...

[Rhaegar14]

We did the math. It's actually rather so-so for Eldritch Knights. Its usefulness changes every few levels:

3-4: Good. Free extra damage if there's a secondary target.
5-6: Nah. Extra Attack is worth more.
7-10: Great! Due to the Bonus Attack, you're strictly better off than with regular attacks.
11-16: Meh. You should have a good magic weapon by now. Three attacks with that will be noticeably better.
17-19: Useful if a secondary target is available, due to +2d8 extra damage.
20: Four Attacks, hands down.

It's much better for characters that want to melee but don't get Extra Attacks. Such as, Arcane Trickster.
No sweat concerning Wizards or Sorcs -- these guys typically aren't keen on getting into melee anyway.

On the subject of Eldritch Knights, I'd like to add that they're likely to take Warcaster at some point, which means they can cast a cantrip instead of making an Opportunity Attack. So while it depends on level compared to their normal attack routine, Greenflame Blade is an improvement on their OAs at all levels. Between that and the levels where it's strictly better I'd say it's probably very worth taking on an EK.

I like it a lot, but I'm a sucker for gish characters, so I'm more concerned about the great fluff that comes with this cantrip and less with its effects on game balance. I agree with Dralnu that it's nice for melee rogues to have an option to not be strictly inferior to ranged (even if Sharpshooter decreases DPR Crossbow Expert most definitely does not, and in this particular instance Sharpshooter is more important for ignoring disadvantage at long range on the Hand Crossbow).

[Dralnu]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Sharpshooter is a damage LOSS for rogues. The damage you gain doesn't make up for the hit chance you give up.

I didn't even say anything about the damage. There's a lot more going on with that feat, like the doubled range and ignoring the cover bonuses iirc. You take the crossbow feat, you take that feat, you're golden. And the melee rogue? What's the melee rogue doing that is worth getting into melee for?

EDIT: Also I have a hard time believing that there would never be a time (coughAdvantagecough) that taking the -5 penalty for +10 damage is a damage gain.

[bid]

EDIT: Also I have a hard time believing that there would never be a time (coughAdvantagecough) that taking the -5 penalty for +10 damage is a damage gain.
If you look at Bladeyeoman heatmap in the other thread, you'll see that even with advantage you need to hit on 10+ to get some gain from basic damage. If you have any rider (SA or smite) you could easily expect 25 damage before SS and that'd require hitting on 7+ to use -5/+10 successfully.

[Tenmujiin]

I feel like this cantrip may be a little too powerful on rogues but it also can be extremely flavourful especially if you homebrew it to different damage types.

May want to drop it to d6 or even have the size of the die scale on number of extra attacks/max spell level (there is no precedent but it would make it weaker for rogues, about the same for paladins/barbarians/rangers and make it a bit better for fighters) say d6 base, d8 with extra attack, d10 with two extra attacks. It would nerf the spell for full casters so maybe have it be 1d8 so long as you have no levels of non-full casters.


If you look at Bladeyeoman heatmap in the other thread, you'll see that even with advantage you need to hit on 10+ to get some gain from basic damage. If you have any rider (SA or smite) you could easily expect 25 damage before SS and that'd require hitting on 7+ to use -5/+10 successfully.

Hitting on a 7+ can happen so there are going to be SOME situations you can use it since any ranged character wants the feat regardless (ignoring cover is huge)

[Coidzor]

The part that bothers me is not the extra damage but the fact that the secondary effect automatically hits the second target. So if you're hitting the low AC mooks next to the high AC BBEG that has casted blur on itself the green flame will hit the BBEG despite its defenses essentially for free.

For piddly damage up until level 5, and then an increasingly decent hit until it becomes quite a good hit, while the lion's share would be going towards making sure that there's no more mooks there to supplement the main melee threat and give them free hits on the main enemy.

Alternatively, if they're confident in their ability to hit the main melee threat, they can attack it and do some damage towards clearing out the mooks. That seems like a good thing to me, on the whole.


Oh neat, I dunno how I missed that reading the spell so many times...

The wording is a little bit unusual, a fair number of people didn't parse it correctly from what I saw on the reddit thread about this over on /r/dndnext.


On the subject of Eldritch Knights, I'd like to add that they're likely to take Warcaster at some point, which means they can cast a cantrip instead of making an Opportunity Attack. So while it depends on level compared to their normal attack routine, Greenflame Blade is an improvement on their OAs at all levels. Between that and the levels where it's strictly better I'd say it's probably very worth taking on an EK.

Ooo, good catch! :smallbiggrin:

[Xetheral]

On the subject of Eldritch Knights, I'd like to add that they're likely to take Warcaster at some point, which means they can cast a cantrip instead of making an Opportunity Attack. So while it depends on level compared to their normal attack routine, Greenflame Blade is an improvement on their OAs at all levels. Between that and the levels where it's strictly better I'd say it's probably very worth taking on an EK.

Do you think the OA from Polearm Master could be made with Greenflame Blade if the character also had War Caster?

[Rhaegar14]

Do you think the OA from Polearm Master could be made with Greenflame Blade if the character also had War Caster?

Strictly by RAW, no. The cantrip has a range of five feet. But I'm sure some DMs would be willing to call that RAI.

[DivisibleByZero]

Do you think the OA from Polearm Master could be made with Greenflame Blade if the character also had War Caster?

Can the OA from PM be made with any other cantrip?
No, it can't. It has to be made with the Polearm, not with a cantrip. That includes this cantrip as well.
Your DM may rule otherwise, but RAI the answer is most certainly No.

[MeeposFire]

Can the OA from PM be made with any other cantrip?
No, it can't. It has to be made with the Polearm, not with a cantrip. That includes this cantrip as well.
Your DM may rule otherwise, but RAI the answer is most certainly No.

This cantrip would use the polearm so I am not sure I agree with your point. It does not use the attack action but if the contention is based around using the weapon in question this cantrip most certainly does. You make a weapon attack (with the polearm) as part of the spell.


Of course I believe the cantrip could not be used because I believe it has multiple targets and that is against the rules of war caster.

[Longcat]

3) Melee Arcane Tricksters DEFINITELY need a little boost in the damage department. Ranged Rogues is pretty much the way to go thanks to having no real equivalent to that bonus action Crossbow feat + Sharpshooter. Even then, they won't come close to the damage of other classes. This is a much needed buff and again, it's only when the opportunity arises.

Melee Rogues do need a leg up, but for different reasons. The damage potential of melee and ranged is the same at the moment: 1d8 Piercing + Dex modifier + Sneak Attack, assuming Light Crossbow or Rapier. Ranged Rogues can more reliably move around to break LoS (or stand behind someone as a Halfling) in order to use Hide as a Cunning Action, thereby getting Sneak Attack and Advantage on the roll. Melee, meanwhile, is more exposed, can't hide as easily and often needs the Cunning Action to position themselves.

[Xetheral]

Can the OA from PM be made with any other cantrip?
No, it can't. It has to be made with the Polearm, not with a cantrip. That includes this cantrip as well.
Your DM may rule otherwise, but RAI the answer is most certainly No.

As I understand it, the RAI is that the attack has to be made with the polearm, and Greenflame Blade would be an attack with the polearm. On the other hand, the multitarget limitation would indeed seem to rule it out.

[DivisibleByZero]

This cantrip would use the polearm so I am not sure I agree with your point. It does not use the attack action but if the contention is based around using the weapon in question this cantrip most certainly does. You make a weapon attack (with the polearm) as part of the spell.

Of course I believe the cantrip could not be used because I believe it has multiple targets and that is against the rules of war caster.

As I understand it, the RAI is that the attack has to be made with the polearm, and Greenflame Blade would be an attack with the polearm. On the other hand, the multitarget limitation would indeed seem to rule it out.

The RAI is clear.
The unusual OA granted by PM must be an attack with said Polearm. Not a cantrip. This has been made perfectly clear by the Sage.
This cantrip is not an attack with the polearm. This cantrip uses the weapon as a material component of the spell, sort of like a focus. It *contains* an attack with the polearm to release the spell, but it is not an attack with the polearm in its essence.
You are not making an attack with a polearm. You are casting a spell, which has previously been deemed as not applicable to the OA granted by PM. This spell just happens to have an attack with a weapon be its delivery method. But in its simplest form, you are not using the Polearm, you are casting a spell, and that has already been stated to be against RAI.
Your DM may hand wave it, but strict RAW having the spell with a range of 5' and clarification on RAI of the OA being an attack with the polearm (and not a cantrip) do not allow it.

[Joe the Rat]

Melee Splash Damage: The Cantrip.

Assuming a d8 weapon, this does stay fairly competitive with a straight extra attack, provided your target has an adjacent buddy. It's also a way to discourage pack tactics, and use those easy-to-hit weak minions as a way to bypass the AC of a particularly crunchy target. You can also use it as a damage resistance bypass on the second target (provided it isn't fire), or on the primary at higher levels (at which point you probably have or can create a magic weapon).

Now here's a question: Would dropping/critting the first target trigger GWM's cleave? This could turn into a 3-for-1.


On the subject of Eldritch Knights, I'd like to add that they're likely to take Warcaster at some point, which means they can cast a cantrip instead of making an Opportunity Attack. So while it depends on level compared to their normal attack routine, Greenflame Blade is an improvement on their OAs at all levels. Between that and the levels where it's strictly better I'd say it's probably very worth taking on an EK.

Hadn't thought about warcaster - that's definitely got potential. Hit the retreating guy, with extra damage, and get his buddy who may or may not be retreating.


*obligatory Acquisitions Incorporated "GREEN FLAME!"*
GREEN FLAME?!
And here I was getting worried.

[broodax]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Sharpshooter is a damage LOSS for rogues. The damage you gain doesn't make up for the hit chance you give up.

This is stated rather definitively, considering that it's at best half true.

1) Sharpshooter certainly isn't a damage loss, as the non-[-5/+10] benefit is a damage gain even if you never use the other half of the feat.
2) For average enemies, the -5/+10 is a damage loss at some levels, but a damage gain at others.
3) In those situations when you do have Advantage, it is very very likely that it's a damage gain.
4) And all of that is for a rogue with just Crossbow Expert. If he's got extra attack from multi-classing, etc., it's even better.

This is based on Kryx sheet (thanks again), and on mine. I don't know what this heat map is, but it sounds like it's basing things on a single attack?

Found the heat map. Ok, so I'm a level, I dunno, 5 rogue/fighter (because I actually am in the game I'm playing). I do 1d6+4= 7.5 damage. My bonus to hit is +9 (3 proficiency, 4 stat, 2 archery style). So I should SS against any mob with an AC of 20 or less. The average AC of a CR 5 monster is 15.

But you point out I have sneak attack. Now, even if I got sneak attack on both of my attacks, which I don't, it would still be worth it to SS at 14.5 damage per attack. Since I only have to hit once with two attacks, it's even better.

So maybe for straight classed rogue with no archery style and more sneak attack and only one chance a round to apply sneak attack? But SS is not, in general, a damage loss.

[bid]

Found the heat map. Ok, so I'm a level, I dunno, 5 rogue/fighter (because I actually am in the game I'm playing). I do 1d6+4= 7.5 damage. My bonus to hit is +9 (3 proficiency, 4 stat, 2 archery style). So I should SS against any mob with an AC of 20 or less. The average AC of a CR 5 monster is 15.

But you point out I have sneak attack. Now, even if I got sneak attack on both of my attacks, which I don't, it would still be worth it to SS at 14.5 damage per attack. Since I only have to hit once with two attacks, it's even better.
Hitting on 10/20 would mean your 10.5 SA hits 75% of the time with 2 attacks. That's +7.5 damage average.

Using -5/+10, you hit 5/20 and get SA 44% of the time, losing 3.3 damage from SA.

Looking at the detailed heat map, 7 damage on 10/20 is 1.25 or 3.088 with advantage. That gain is less than your loss.


So no, even with a lowly 3d6 SA you'd better make sure you hit before using SS.

[Naanomi]

It varies of course on tactical circumstances as well... On weak targets who are going to die anyways the +10 should never be used, but there are times when you need to drop a villain *now* and the gamble (and statistical loss of 'dpr' is worth it; say a fleeing villain or one about to activate the doomsday weapon

[broodax]

Hitting on 10/20 would mean your 10.5 SA hits 75% of the time with 2 attacks. That's +7.5 damage average.

Using -5/+10, you hit 5/20 and get SA 44% of the time, losing 3.3 damage from SA.

Looking at the detailed heat map, 7 damage on 10/20 is 1.25 or 3.088 with advantage. That gain is less than your loss.


So no, even with a lowly 3d6 SA you'd better make sure you hit before using SS.

But I don't only hit on a 10... I hit on a 6 against an average CR5 monster. And that's without Advantage, which I'll have almost all the time.

Also: That's a 69% chance to still get SA with Advantage, down from 94% with Advantage if no SS, so a loss of 2.625 damage. So even in your unrealistic enemy AC scenario, for a rogue with 3d6, it's still worth it to SS if he has advantage (barely).

[MeeposFire]

The RAI is clear.
The unusual OA granted by PM must be an attack with said Polearm. Not a cantrip. This has been made perfectly clear by the Sage.
This cantrip is not an attack with the polearm. This cantrip uses the weapon as a material component of the spell, sort of like a focus. It *contains* an attack with the polearm to release the spell, but it is not an attack with the polearm in its essence.
You are not making an attack with a polearm. You are casting a spell, which has previously been deemed as not applicable to the OA granted by PM. This spell just happens to have an attack with a weapon be its delivery method. But in its simplest form, you are not using the Polearm, you are casting a spell, and that has already been stated to be against RAI.
Your DM may hand wave it, but strict RAW having the spell with a range of 5' and clarification on RAI of the OA being an attack with the polearm (and not a cantrip) do not allow it.

You really should quote the source because if you did you would realize that you are incorrect on your assessment. Here is the quote.

"No - polearm master applies only if you use the weapons it lists to make the attack" The Sage (in this case Mike Mearls).

He does not actually say you could not use a spell the thing he said you had to do was use the weapon in the attack. This cantrip most certainly uses the weapon in the attack so by this ruling it is fine. This even fits the RAI as stated in the quote as the feat is supposed to have your weapon be used to make the attack and this spell does just that.

Also notice that this quote is trying to show the RAI with not just some spells but also things like holding a quarterstaff and a longsword and using the sword to make the attack rather than the staff. This quote would prohibit that and that has nothing to do with any spell.

Of course you cannot use the cantrip due to having multiple targets (and unlike EB you cannot claim to choose to only attack one target).

[DivisibleByZero]

You really should quote the source because if you did you would realize that you are incorrect on your assessment. Here is the quote.

"No - polearm master applies only if you use the weapons it lists to make the attack" The Sage (in this case Mike Mearls).

Yes, that's what was said (on that one particular tweet).
So exactly which part of this is not an attack with a weapon, this is a spell are you having trouble comprehending?

[MeeposFire]

Yes, that's what was said (on that one particular tweet).
So exactly which part of this is not an attack with a weapon, this is a spell are you having trouble comprehending?

First off you need to take ti down a notch please and you make it worse by still not adhering to what the ruling actually says. I shall state it for the record again what he said

"No - polearm master applies only if you use the weapons it lists to make the attack"

He does not actually say in the answer that you could not use a spell but what he did say is that you could not use anything with the polearm master OA unless it uses one of the listed weapons. When he made the tweet there were no cantrips that made an attack with a weapon so there were no caveats but thankfully in his answer to the question we see what the reasoning is. The problem before was that the feat gave you an ability while using a weapon but people wanted to not use the weapon in the corresponding strike. This spell does not have this issue it does not conflict what was actually written in the book nor does it conflict with his answer in the sage tweet.

For your argument to be valid his answer would have to be some variation of "polearm master cannot be used with a spell" as in he would have to specify that. He was very specific on that you need to use the weapon and which weapon but was noticeably silent on the matter of using a spell at all.

There is nothing in the feat or the tweet that actually says that you cannot use a spell in this situation assuming that you use a polearm with the OA. It is undeniable that you make a weapon attack as the OA and you can make it with the correct weapon. The fact that you use a spell to activate this weapon attack is inconsequential in this case since you have warcaster (which allows this in the first place) and the tweet specifies that you must use the weapon NOT that you cannot use a spell.


The onus is on you to prove that the spell is the issue rather than the weapon requirement. That is the only way your interpretation can be true. Right now the tweet I have seen specifies that the weapon is the issue not the spell specifically (even if at the time no spell could have fulfilled that requirement).

EDIT: Also the spell clearly states that you "make an attack with a weapon" so the spell actually is a weapon attack. It is initiated with a cantrip but it is an attack made by a weapon which if it it is one of the chosen weapons means it fulfills all the given requirements in the feat.

[Paeleus]

Also of note, the Fire Elemental Adept feat allows this cantrip to really shine. Get a slight boost to average damage by turning those 1's into 2's and, wait for it, ignore the fact that quite a few creatures have resistance to fire.

The cantrip gets crazy in the hands of a red/gold/brass bloodline sorcer at level 6. What's insane is that you can add your charisma mod to the damage on both targets due to the Elemental Affinity class feature, particularly your melee attack. This happens at level 6. Bladelocks have to wait until level 12 and spend an invocation. wut.

[Coyote81]

Also of note, the Fire Elemental Adept feat allows this cantrip to really shine. Get a slight boost to average damage by turning those 1's into 2's and, wait for it, ignore the fact that quite a few creatures have immunity to fire.

The cantrip gets crazy in the hands of a red/gold/brass bloodline sorcer at level 6. What's insane is that you can add your charisma mod to the damage on both targets due to the Elemental Affinity class feature, particularly your melee attack. This happens at level 6. Bladelocks have to wait until level 12 and spend an invocation. wut.

I was looking into doing this, and I was trying to find a way to get proficients with armor and weapons without multi-classing. Because I want to get to level 6 asap. I was thinking Mountain Dwarf gets me weapons and medium armor, but it's a total waste of ability bonuses.

[DivisibleByZero]

First off you need to take ti down a notch please and <snip>

The onus is on you to prove that the spell is the issue rather than the weapon requirement. That is the only way your interpretation can be true. Right now the tweet I have seen specifies that the weapon is the issue not the spell specifically (even if at the time no spell could have fulfilled that requirement).

You're the one that started in with being rude, telling me what I "needed to do" here. So I'll respond one last time and then I'll direct you to my sig.

The entire purpose and concept of the OA from Polearm Master is that you're setting it for a charge. That's the RAI.
You're rules lawyering the exact wording of what was said in a brief tweet and ignoring the intent of the ability.
It's pretty simple. The intent is that the OA must be made with the weapon, because the intent is that you are setting the weapon for a charge. That's why you get the OA when they enter your reach. That's why it has to be a simple melee attack, and not a spell. If you're casting a spell, then you aren't setting your weapon for a charge.

[CNagy]

He does not actually say in the answer that you could not use a spell but what he did say is that you could not use anything with the polearm master OA unless it uses one of the listed weapons.

That right there is the problem. "You didn't tell me that I couldn't" is not how the rules work. There is one enormous hurdle when it comes to using Greenflame Blade in conjunction with the Polearm Master OA; Opportunity Attacks are a single melee attack, not a spell. Even if the spell ends up giving you a single melee attack, it is first and foremost a spell. Adherence to the rules means not skipping over troublesome spots because the result seems the same; the fact that GFB is a cantrip makes it ineligible for the Polearm Master OA.


Can you use a melee spell attack to make an opportunity attack?

You can’t if the spell attack is created by casting a spell. When a creature triggers an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against it. The opportunity attack doesn’t suddenly give you the ability to cast a spell, such as shocking grasp.

http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-spellcasting

[DivisibleByZero]

That right there is the problem. "You didn't tell me that I couldn't" is not how the rules work. There is one enormous hurdle when it comes to using Greenflame Blade in conjunction with the Polearm Master OA; Opportunity Attacks are a single melee attack, not a spell. Even if the spell ends up giving you a single melee attack, it is first and foremost a spell. Adherence to the rules means not skipping over troublesome spots because the result seems the same; the fact that GFB is a cantrip makes it ineligible for the Polearm Master OA.

Exactly.
And it would also have help had MoF actually posed the QUESTION (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/16/polearm-caster/) for that tweet rather than just the response.

"Do Polearm Master and War Caster combine to allow a magic user to make a spell opportunity attack when they enter reach?"
Now read the answer. The answer given was NO, and then it was expanded upon.
Can I do this?
No, and here's why.


He does not actually say you could not use a spell

That is EXACTLY what he says.
Question: "Can I use a spell if I have both of these?"
Answer: No.

But what if I use a spell which grants a melee weapon attack?
No, because it's still a spell.
Furthermore, Warcaster allows you to cast a spell in place of making an OA, and Polearm Master's OA must be made with the polearm. So if you even consider GFB's spallcasting to be a melee attack with a weapon, which it is certainly not, then you're still left with the fact that Warcaster's ability means the OA is no longer an OA because it has replaced the OA.
You are granted an OA which is allowed to be taken with that one weapon you are wielding. You cannot trade that OA with a singular weapon for an ability which replaces an OA. By doing so, you are no longer making an OA with that weapon, which is required for PM's OA.

Your DM is free to rule otherwise, and he or she might even arguably feel justified on doing so for the reasons that all of you above are disagreeing, but by the RAI the answer is absolutely 100% No.

[HidesHisEyes]

Somehow managed to post in the wrong thread.

[Ruslan]

I don't like it. It's just a straight-up unconditional damage buff for Arcane Tricksters, and I don't think they needed anything else to make them good.Doesn't seem to be unconditional. I may be reading this wrong, but it seems like choosing "a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5' of it" is mandatory. And if you can't target an enemy with this extra damage, you have no choice but to target yourself or an ally. Or avoid using this cantrip, of course.

[jkat718]

I was looking into doing this, and I was trying to find a way to get proficients with armor and weapons without multi-classing. Because I want to get to level 6 asap. I was thinking Mountain Dwarf gets me weapons and medium armor, but it's a total waste of ability bonuses.

Alternatively, go with VHuman and take the Lightly Armored feat. It's not the best use of a feat, but it does give you +1 STR or DEX which, when combined with the +1s from VHuman, can easily give you at least +1 attack or AC. I'd be inclined to go with a DEX-based build in order to reduce MAD-ness. I'm going to go stat this up... Done!


I'm starting with the standard array for stats:
STR: 12 (+1)
DEX: 14 (+2)
CON: 13 (+1)
INT: 8 (-1)
WIS: 10 (+0)
CHA: 15 (+2)

Let's use Ability Score Increase from VHuman to boost DEX and CHA and take Draconic as our bonus language. I hate not having either a high WIS or Perception proficiency, so let's take Perception as our bonus skill:
STR: 12 (+1)
DEX: 15 (+2)
CON: 13 (+1)
INT: 8 (-1)
WIS: 10 (+0)
CHA: 16 (+3)

Languages and Proficiencies:
Common, Draconic

Skills:
Perception

Despite what I said above, I'd be more inclined to take Weapon Master instead of Lightly Armored. The issue is that the Draconic Resilience feature is better than any light armor you can buy. You still get the stat increase, though, so let's put that in DEX:
STR: 12 (+1)
DEX: 16 (+3)
CON: 13 (+1)
INT: 8 (-1)
WIS: 10 (+0)
CHA: 16 (+3)

Languages and Proficiencies:
Common, Draconic
Handaxes, Longbows, Rapiers, and Scimitars

Skills:
Perception

At level one, Sorcerers get four Cantrips and two 1st-level spells. Obviously, we're taking Greenflame Blade, but let's also take Blade Ward and True Strike, so we can take an action to boost either our defense or our offense, and Fire Bolt, because it's an offensive fire damage spell. For our leveled spells, let's take Burning Hands as our fire spell, and Shield for its defensive bonuses. We're taking the Draconic Bloodline as our Sorcerous Origin, so we need to choose between Brass, Gold, and Red for our Draconic Ancestry. AFAIK, the difference between these three is purely thematic, so I'm going to go for Red, because it's cooler. Go ahead and judge me.

At level two, Sorcerers get 2 Sorcery Points, the Font of Magic class feature, and another 1st-level spell. We don't have Metamagic yet, so the points are just a free 1st-level spell slot. The other damage-dealing 1st-level Sorcerer spells don't deal fire damage, so let's take Magic Missile for that sweet, sweet autohit.

At level three, Sorcerers get another Sorcery Point, Metamagic, and one more spell known, which can now possibly be a 2nd level spell. If the Elemental Evil material is available, I'd take Aganazzar's Scorcher, but if not, we can still take Scorching Ray. For our Metamagic, I'd take Distant Spell, to allow for 10' attacks Quickened Spell, to allow Greenflame Blade as a BA attack option, and Twinned Spell for the option to take two attacks at once from Greenflame Blade.

At level four, Sorcerers get another Sorcerery Point, an ASI/Feat, another Cantrip, and another spell. Let's put that Feat to use, and take Elemental Adept (the damage type is fire, of course). We've taken all of the decent Sorcerer cantrips, so we can go for Acid Splash, which pairs nicely with our attacking-creatures-withing-five-feet-of-each-other theme, or we can take Shocking Grasp to prevent enemies from taking OAs. I'd go for Shocking Grasp, personally, but that's just me.

Thanks to Coyote81 for reviewing (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?447746-Sword-Coast-Adventure-s-Guide-Greenflame-Blade-Cantrip&p=19919246#post19919246) my Metamagic options.

[Coyote81]

Alternatively, go with VHuman and take the Lightly Armored feat. It's not the best use of a feat, but it does give you +1 STR or DEX which, when combined with the +1s from VHuman, can easily give you at least +1 attack or AC. I'd be inclined to go with a DEX-based build in order to reduce MAD-ness. I'm going to go stat this up... Done!


I'm starting with the standard array for stats:
STR: 12 (+1)
DEX: 14 (+2)
CON: 13 (+1)
INT: 8 (-1)
WIS: 10 (+0)
CHA: 15 (+2)

Let's use Ability Score Increase from VHuman to boost DEX and CHA and take Draconic as our bonus language. I hate not having either a high WIS or Perception proficiency, so let's take Perception as our bonus skill:
STR: 12 (+1)
DEX: 15 (+2)
CON: 13 (+1)
INT: 8 (-1)
WIS: 10 (+0)
CHA: 16 (+3)

Languages and Proficiencies:
Common, Draconic

Skills:
Perception

Despite what I said above, I'd be more inclined to take Weapon Master instead of Lightly Armored. The issue is that the Draconic Resilience feature is better than any light armor you can buy. You still get the stat increase, though, so let's put that in DEX:
STR: 12 (+1)
DEX: 16 (+3)
CON: 13 (+1)
INT: 8 (-1)
WIS: 10 (+0)
CHA: 16 (+3)

Languages and Proficiencies:
Common, Draconic
Handaxes, Longbows, Rapiers, and Scimitars

Skills:
Perception

At level one, Sorcerers get four Cantrips and two 1st-level spells. Obviously, we're taking Greenflame Blade, but let's also take Blade Ward and True Strike, so we can take an action to boost either our defense or our offense, and Fire Bolt, because it's an offensive fire damage spell. For our leveled spells, let's take Burning Hands as our fire spell, and Shield for its defensive bonuses. We're taking the Draconic Bloodline as our Sorcerous Origin, so we need to choose between Brass, Gold, and Red for our Draconic Ancestry. AFAIK, the difference between these three is purely thematic, so I'm going to go for Red, because it's cooler. Go ahead and judge me.

At level two, Sorcerers get 2 Sorcery Points, the Font of Magic class feature, and another 1st-level spell. We don't have Metamagic yet, so the points are just a free 1st-level spell slot. The other damage-dealing 1st-level Sorcerer spells don't deal fire damage, so let's take Magic Missile for that sweet, sweet autohit.

At level three, Sorcerers get another Sorcery Point, Metamagic, and one more spell known, which can now possibly be a 2nd level spell. If the Elemental Evil material is available, I'd take Aganazzar's Scorcher, but if not, we can still take Scorching Ray. For our Metamagic, I'd take Distant Spell, to allow for 10' attacks, and Twinned Spell for the option to take two attacks at once from Greenflame Blade.

At level four, Sorcerers get another Sorcerery Point, an ASI/Feat, another Cantrip, and another spell. Let's put that Feat to use, and take Elemental Adept (the damage type is fire, of course). We've taken all of the decent Sorcerer cantrips, so we can go for Acid Splash, which pairs nicely with our attacking-creatures-withing-five-feet-of-each-other theme, or we can take Shocking Grasp to prevent enemies from taking OAs. I'd go for Shocking Grasp, personally, but that's just me.


I really like the direction you took this. Just curious if people will count flameblade as having 2 targets for the purpose of twinned spell. And I think I'd prefer quickened for the other metamagic. 1 SP for +5' doesn't seem worth it.

[jkat718]

I really like the direction you took this. Just curious if people will count flameblade as having 2 targets for the purpose of twinned spell. And I think I'd prefer quickened for the other metamagic. 1 SP for +5' doesn't seem worth it.

The idea is you would have the option to use Greenflame Blade on a reach weapon, if you so chose.

EDIT: As for Twinned Spell's viability, the text of Greenflame Blade calls to the target of the melee attack as a target, only ever referring to the other creature as "the second creature." Theoretically, you could Twin this spell, attack two creatures within 5' of each other and deal <weapon damage> + 6d8+INT/WIS/CHA fire damage to both of them. Don't forget that you can also Hasten a casting of Greenflame Blade, meaning you can make three weapon attacks, each with rider damage, all in one turn...with just 3 levels of Sorcerer.

[Paeleus]

The idea is you would have the option to use Greenflame Blade on a reach weapon, if you so chose.

EDIT: As for Twinned Spell's viability, the text of Greenflame Blade calls to the target of the melee attack as a target, only ever referring to the other creature as "the second creature." Theoretically, you could Twin this spell, attack two creatures within 5' of each other and deal <weapon damage> + 6d8+INT/WIS/CHA fire damage to both of them. Don't forget that you can also Hasten a casting of Greenflame Blade, meaning you can make three weapon attacks, each with rider damage, all in one turn...with just 3 levels of Sorcerer.

I'm inclined to disagree with your assesment that Greenflame Blade can be twinned. The cantrip clearly targets more than one creature rendering the spell non-viable for twinned spell.

[MeeposFire]

That right there is the problem. "You didn't tell me that I couldn't" is not how the rules work. There is one enormous hurdle when it comes to using Greenflame Blade in conjunction with the Polearm Master OA; Opportunity Attacks are a single melee attack, not a spell. Even if the spell ends up giving you a single melee attack, it is first and foremost a spell. Adherence to the rules means not skipping over troublesome spots because the result seems the same; the fact that GFB is a cantrip makes it ineligible for the Polearm Master OA.

You would be correct if this was just PM but I think you possibly have missed that we are including warcaster in this discussion (easy to do since I think I may have been assuming people knew that but I may have neglected to mention it if so my apologies).

That feat by definition allows you to use a spell with an OA initiated by movement. The polearm feat in this case gives you a new option for an OA when an enemy moves into your reach. This clearly to me shows that it is an OA initiated by movement (rather than anything else).

Now in the feat description there was language that seemed to allow these two to combine and use a spell on the OA granted by PM. However this did not sit well with some that felt that the PM feat should only work with the polearm weapons and so they asked for the Sage to clarify.

The Sage clarified that the feat should only allow an attack that was made with a polearm. At the time this eliminated all spells and holding a polearm but attacking with a different weapon as well.

Now we have a spell that says you make a weapon attack. That weapon could be a polearm.



1. The feat says I can make an OA when they move into my reach.

2. Warcaster says if I make an OA based on enemy movement I can replace that attack with a spell.

3. IMO the OA granted by PM would be considered an OA granted by enemy movement. If you disagree with this part of the assessment (not the spell part just whether or not the OA was granted by enemy movement) let me know.

4. The Sage further clarified that the feat is intended to only work with attacks using the specified weapons. This is an additional restriction. This restriction explicitly would disallow most every spell except this cantrip which in its description explicitly says you make a weapon attack.

5. Enemy moves towards me and provokes an OA because I am wielding a polearm. This OA is granted due to enemy movement so warcaster says that it can be a cantrip. The Sage says that the OA granted by PM must be made with the polearm. If I choose to use the cantrip in question using warcaster I do make a weapon attack using my polearm. In this case all aspects (except one see below why this actually does not work) of the feats and abilities are fulfilled so the attack should work. In the example you see me smacking the orc in the face with my glaive though this time with fire on it.


Remember the only reason why you could not use EB or other spells with the warcaster/PM was that the Sage said you need to use those specific weapons. It was not spell use though at the time all spell use was eliminated since no spells made a weapon attack with those specific weapons. Now that we do it either has to work OR the Sage is going to have to change his answer to account for this because right now his answer does not disqualify this combo and the wording of the abilities currently say it should be possible.

Granted this whole thing is moot because as I see it this cantrip is multi target which means it does not work with warcaster which means I cannot use a spell on OA granted by movement.

[MaxWilson]

It says the melee attack has its normal effects, which sounds like it includes maneuvers, sneak attack, smites, critical hits, etc. If that's the case, however, then it's significantly better than a straight melee attack for any character that doesn't have Extra Attack, which strikes me as a bit of a problem.

It's only a problem if it is also better than whatever else the character could be doing with her action, including Blade Ward, Thunderclap, Dodge, and Disengage. If it makes melee wizards somewhat more popular than they would otherwise be, I think that's great! Melee in 5E needs all the help it can get to stay relevant.


If you look at Bladeyeoman heatmap in the other thread, you'll see that even with advantage you need to hit on 10+ to get some gain from basic damage. If you have any rider (SA or smite) you could easily expect 25 damage before SS and that'd require hitting on 7+ to use -5/+10 successfully.

But remember, Dralnu in #31 mentioned a Rogue with both Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter. Meaning, if he hits on his first attack, he's already done his sneak attack damage, but he still gets a bonus action attack. In that case, the regular Sharpshooter logic applies, and if he has advantage on the attack due to Faerie Fire or a Restrained target, etc., he should probably take the -5/+10 option because he's not risking his sneak attack damage.


I feel like this cantrip may be a little too powerful on rogues but it also can be extremely flavourful especially if you homebrew it to different damage types.

Even for Rogues, Greenflame Blade is not a no-brainer. It prevents you from dual-wielding (since you didn't take the Attack action), which could reduce your chances to score a sneak attack this round.


Also of note, the Fire Elemental Adept feat allows this cantrip to really shine. Get a slight boost to average damage by turning those 1's into 2's and, wait for it, ignore the fact that quite a few creatures have immunity to fire.

The cantrip gets crazy in the hands of a red/gold/brass bloodline sorcer at level 6. What's insane is that you can add your charisma mod to the damage on both targets due to the Elemental Affinity class feature, particularly your melee attack. This happens at level 6. Bladelocks have to wait until level 12 and spend an invocation. wut.

Fire Elemental Adapt ignores resistance, not immunity.

In order for a cantrip to be "crazy" it has to be something you could use on a regular basis, otherwise it's just an occasional trick like a Fireball. Dragon sorcerers are not so durable that they can actually hang out in melee for extended periods, so it would be hard to actually abuse this cantrip. About the best you could probably do is to (Quickened) Blur yourself and then enter melee with your Greenflame Blade, relying on Shield to make up the difference when you do get hit. Without Blur you'd be extremely fragile, with Blur you're probably all right--but you do still burn Shields relatively fast, and you're not actually doing significantly more damage than you would be doing with Flaming Sphere and Fire Bolt. (3d8+3*CHA+STR for the Greenflame Blade, vs. 2d6+210+2*CHA, is about 30.5 vs. 28, with Cha 20 and Str 14--and in reality you'll probably miss more often with Greenflame Blade.) So it isn't actually a problem, it's just a flavorful way to play if you find melee weapons Cool.

[MeeposFire]

Exactly.
And it would also have help had MoF actually posed the QUESTION (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2014/09/16/polearm-caster/) for that tweet rather than just the response.

"Do Polearm Master and War Caster combine to allow a magic user to make a spell opportunity attack when they enter reach?"
Now read the answer. The answer given was NO, and then it was expanded upon.
Can I do this?
No, and here's why.



That is EXACTLY what he says.
Question: "Can I use a spell if I have both of these?"
Answer: No.

But what if I use a spell which grants a melee weapon attack?
No, because it's still a spell.
Furthermore, Warcaster allows you to cast a spell in place of making an OA, and Polearm Master's OA must be made with the polearm. So if you even consider GFB's spallcasting to be a melee attack with a weapon, which it is certainly not, then you're still left with the fact that Warcaster's ability means the OA is no longer an OA because it has replaced the OA.
You are granted an OA which is allowed to be taken with that one weapon you are wielding. You cannot trade that OA with a singular weapon for an ability which replaces an OA. By doing so, you are no longer making an OA with that weapon, which is required for PM's OA.

Your DM is free to rule otherwise, and he or she might even arguably feel justified on doing so for the reasons that all of you above are disagreeing, but by the RAI the answer is absolutely 100% No.

The question posed was about the spell but his answer was not what you say it is. You need to look more closely at the answer.

The question asked was does this work? And the answer was "no" but he clarified why it was no which is what you are glossing over. He did not say that the answer is "no because you cannot use a spell with PM" which is what you actually need for him to say.

He said "no it does not work because you have to use one of the specified weapons" (paraphrased). That is a big difference because in the clarification he is stating why the original premise does not work and his rational had nothing to do with it being a spell. He could have easily have just said "PM can never be used with a spell even with war caster"but did not do so instead saying that you had to use a specific weapon to use that attack. At the time of the question there were no spells that made a weapon attack with a polearm. Now we do and so his explanation no longer applies in this instance since we do make an attack with one of those weapons. If he does not want this to still work he would need to revise the reason.

Rules and laws change. Right now in many parts of the US if you asked "can two men be married" the answer WAS "No as the state law says only certain types of couples can be married" but after the Supreme Court case that said that gay marriage was legal everywhere in the country then a gay couple would become one of those certain groups allowed to be married and the answer must change to reflect that as gay marriage would now be compliant to the reason given. In our case the gay marriage is the combo, the old answer was no because you need to use a polearm to use the ability, green flame blade is the new law/change of the perception of the law as it gives a spell that is in the weapon attack with a polearm group, and having the combo work is like how gay marriage is now legal in the US.

Please note that my example is not a political endorsement or castigation (for or against) of gay marriage it was just the best example I could think of right now to get my point across.

This also means that if you full fill his requirement (and all the other ones for both feats) then it works fine.

Remember the stipulation given is "did you use a polearm attack". I can say with confidence that if make a weapon attack with a polearm that made an attack. This should satisfy the Sage's listed concern.

Now for your last point about replacing the OA and it not being an opportunity attack idea I don't think the point holds up. The rules state in PM that you get an OA and warcaster replaces an OA with spell. Nothing in those rules prohibit this from working in any way so we need to see if the sage The sage says you have to use a weapon with the attack but does not show any indication that the replacement part in and of itself is a problem. I would think if it was a problem he would need to make a point of it as the abilities themselves do not seem to have any actual issues with it. I will say that this reasoning is why warcaster could NOT be used with sentinel. Since sentinel modifies OAs and warcaster replaces the use of an OA I can see how that it would not work in this case (PA does not have this problem because it gives you an additional way to get an OA but does not change the effect of the OA itself).

Not that this proves things one way or the other but would you have the same problem if there was a feat that said "replace your OA with the attack action as if it was used on your turn"? No spell this time so it 100% should fit with what the sage said and the feats themselves so would you really say that the replacement idea you are using would be used against this? (of course I know such an ability would be over powered so it would not actually exist but humor me in this).

EDIT: Also my apologies. I thought I had not used language that might be considered aggressive in my earlier posts but I guess I did not do a good enough job. I am trying to disagree with you without being too aggressive and I am trying (and perhaps I am failing) to not make this into a discussion where people are yelling at each other so to speak. Hopefully I can do better in the future.

[DivisibleByZero]

The question posed was about the spell but his answer was not what you say it is. You need to look more closely at the answer.

No, you need to look LESS closely at the answer and stop trying to lawyerize it.


Do Polearm Master and War Caster combine to allow a magic user to make a spell opportunity attack when they enter reach?
No - polearm master applies only if you use the weapons it lists to make the attack

Now take that last sentence out, which was just a clarification because a simple No in response to a tweet is basically rude.
So let's take off the legal glasses and remove what was unnecessary and look at it again.


Do Polearm Master and War Caster combine to allow a magic user to make a spell opportunity attack when they enter reach?
No

Question asked and answered. Simple.
"Can I use a spell if I have both of those?"
No.

[McNinja]

No, you need to look LESS closely at the answer and stop trying to lawyerize it.



Now take that last sentence out, which was just a clarification because a simple No in response to a tweet is basically rude.
So let's take off the legal glasses and remove what was unnecessary and look at it again.



Question asked and answered. Simple.
"Can I use a spell if I have both of those?"
No.
What the hell logic is this?

Mearls said you need to use a weapon. Greenflame clearly states you need to use a weapon. You're using a ****ing weapon.

[DivisibleByZero]

What the hell logic is this?

Mearls said you need to use a weapon. Greenflame clearly states you need to use a weapon. You're using a ****ing weapon.

Except that you're NOT REALLY making a weapon attack. In its simplest form, and at its core, you're casting a spell. That the spell in question just happens to have a weapon attack as its delivery method doesn't change the fact that it is indeed a spell.

Can I use a spell if I have both of those?
-- No.
Is Greenflame Blade a spell?
-- Yes.
Can I use Greenflame Blade if I have both of those?
-- No, because GFB is a spell, and we have already established that you may not use a spell for the OA granted by PM.

[CNagy]

You would be correct if this was just PM but I think you possibly have missed that we are including warcaster in this discussion (easy to do since I think I may have been assuming people knew that but I may have neglected to mention it if so my apologies).

Even if you possess both Polearm Master and War Caster, and if Greenflame Blade only targeted a single creature (the case can be argued on that, even), you still wouldn't get to use Greenflame Blade with the Polearm Master's OA.

RAW/RAI is procedural. Even with War Caster, you still don't make the leap from being required to use the polearm to make a single melee attack to being able to instead cast a cantrip, even if said cantrip then requires you to make a single melee attack as part of the casting. In other words, War Caster allows you to trump general OA rules, but it doesn't allow you to violate Polearm Master's requirements for the OA you get when you trigger Polearm Master.

[JoeJ]

Also of note, the Fire Elemental Adept feat allows this cantrip to really shine. Get a slight boost to average damage by turning those 1's into 2's and, wait for it, ignore the fact that quite a few creatures have immunity to fire.

Elemental Adept lets you ignore resistance, not immunity.

[Paeleus]

Elemental Adept lets you ignore resistance, not immunity.

I appreciate the word check. FIXED.

[Ralanr]

Just to be clear, we all know that Arcane Trickster rogue doesn't gain access to evocation spells outside of two levels (in rogue)and it's extremely limited in picking right?

[DivisibleByZero]

Just to be clear, we all know that Arcane Trickster rogue doesn't gain access to evocation spells outside of two levels (in rogue)and it's extremely limited in picking right?

This is a cantrip. Cantrips have no such limitations. Those limitations are for spells of 1st level and higher. As far as cantrips are concerned, ATs can choose any wizard cantrip they like, as long as mage hand is one of them.

[JoeJ]

It's only a problem if it is also better than whatever else the character could be doing with her action, including Blade Ward, Thunderclap, Dodge, and Disengage. If it makes melee wizards somewhat more popular than they would otherwise be, I think that's great! Melee in 5E needs all the help it can get to stay relevant.

I think it's a problem specifically for martial characters, not casters. A high elf fighter or rogue with this cantrip can spam it every round, making them significantly better in close combat than an equivalent character of any other race.

[Submortimer]

I think it's a problem specifically for martial characters, not casters. A high elf fighter or rogue with this cantrip can spam it every round, making them significantly better in close combat than an equivalent character of any other race.

Only at low levels, and even then not by much. Post level 5, there are diminishing returns, especially for fighters.

[Ralanr]

This is a cantrip. Cantrips have no such limitations. Those limitations are for spells of 1st level and higher. As far as cantrips are concerned, ATs can choose any wizard cantrip they like, as long as mage hand is one of them.

Ah. My bad.

[Coidzor]

No, you need to look LESS closely at the answer and stop trying to lawyerize it.

Pot, meet Kettle.

You're both lawyerizing in the extreme simply by virtue of having this argument drag on.

[Paeleus]

Only at low levels, and even then not by much. Post level 5, there are diminishing returns, especially for fighters.

Agreed. With a minor circumstantial exception. Eldritch Knight's War Magic. And only against enemies with fire vulnerability.

There are diminishing returns against a single enemy. But I would add that there is increased overall damage against a mob. It's like an extra tool in the EK's toolbox.

[DivisibleByZero]

Pot, meet Kettle.

You're both lawyerizing in the extreme simply by virtue of having this argument drag on.
I'm not lawyerizing anything. I'm citing what has already been stated.

Do Polearm Master and War Caster combine to allow a magic user to make a spell opportunity attack when they enter reach?
No - polearm master applies only if you use the weapons it lists to make the attack
Which, when not trying to lawyerize the exact wording of what was stated after the question had already been answered very simply and very clearly in the negative, translates to:

Do Polearm Master and War Caster combine to allow a magic user to make a spell opportunity attack when they enter reach?
No
And that would include this spell, because Greenflame Blade is indeed a spell, not matter how many times people try to say that it's a weapon attack with a polearm.

[Submortimer]

Agreed. With a minor circumstantial exception. Eldritch Knight's War Magic. And only against enemies with fire vulnerability.

There are diminishing returns against a single enemy. But I would add that there is increased overall damage against a mob. It's like an extra tool in the EK's toolbox.

Exactly. What this DOES do is kinda make the Ranger's Colossus strike look like a punk in comparison, but he still can't do it at range.

[Submortimer]

Also, WRT the "Can I use GFB with PM" argument...Rule F***ing Zero. Stop trying to turn it into a massive lawyering argument.

Is it RAW? No. GFB is a spell, can't use spells with PM OA's, argument done.

Is it RAI? Probably not, but this is the first of these type of spells to be printed.

Is it thematic and cool as F***? Hell yeah it is.

Figure out what is fun at your table, and do that. I can ASSURE you, in the long run, those extra couple d8 of damage aren't going to break the whole freaking game.

[CNagy]

Agreed. With a minor circumstantial exception. Eldritch Knight's War Magic. And only against enemies with fire vulnerability.

There are diminishing returns against a single enemy. But I would add that there is increased overall damage against a mob. It's like an extra tool in the EK's toolbox.

Sure mixes well with that new Prestige Class, too. Take the Elemental Adept feat and two levels of Rune Scriber; the Fire rune lets you turn your weapon damage into fire, then roll damage twice and take the higher amount. The feat turns all your 1s into 2s and makes that pesky Fire Resistance of monsters not a problem... no cure for Fire Immune, though. Maybe take another level in Scribe, grab the Ice rune and put it on a backup weapon.

[Maxilian]

Sure mixes well with that new Prestige Class, too. Take the Elemental Adept feat and two levels of Rune Scriber; the Fire rune lets you turn your weapon damage into fire, then roll damage twice and take the higher amount. The feat turns all your 1s into 2s and makes that pesky Fire Resistance of monsters not a problem... no cure for Fire Immune, though. Maybe take another level in Scribe, grab the Ice rune and put it on a backup weapon.

I like the idea of having another weapon as a back up for case of Immunity, but... i think is more likely to find enemies that are immune to both elements, the earth one may be better (ignore all resistance and immunities)

[Kane0]

Out of curiosity, what's the most tricked out build we can think of that can make greatest use of GFB?

Dragon Sorc would probably be mandatory for quickened GFB as well as the bonus when using fire damage, plus AC and access to shield.
Elemental Adept feat also pretty much required to ignore resistance
At least one level of the new Rune Scriber for fire rune goodness

Will probably want a dip in fighter for action surge + fighting style (+1 AC or touch more damage from GWF or Duelist)
Maybe a paladin dip for smites, especially the fire damage one. Also gets you a fighting style.
A source of hunters mark or hex would also be a good thing, fiend pact warlock 2 gets you a backup ranged attack as well as short rest slots and THP on a kill

[bid]

I'm not lawyerizing anything. I'm citing what has already been stated.
No matter how much you drag this on, you've already lost this argument.

[McNinja]

Also, WRT the "Can I use GFB with PM" argument...Rule F***ing Zero. Stop trying to turn it into a massive lawyering argument.

Is it RAW? No. GFB is a spell, can't use spells with PM OA's, argument done.

Is it RAI? Probably not, but this is the first of these type of spells to be printed.

Is it thematic and cool as F***? Hell yeah it is.

Figure out what is fun at your table, and do that. I can ASSURE you, in the long run, those extra couple d8 of damage aren't going to break the whole freaking game.
RAW, it's legal. All PM requires is that you use a weapon, which you clearly do since using a weapon is expressly stated in the GFB cantrip.

[Firechanter]

I'm not sure I understand the argument here.
GFB takes an Action to use. That's pretty much all you need to know to determine what works and what doesn't.

So how is it supposed to work with PM? PM does two things:
One, it gives you a Bonus Attack if you are taking the Attack Action. You aren't taking the Attack Action, you are taking the Cast A Spell Action. So no Bonus Attack.
Two, it gives you an OA when someone enters your Reach. You can't take an Action when someone provokes an OA from you, you can't cast a spell, you just make a melee attack.

[CNagy]

RAW, it's legal. All PM requires is that you use a weapon, which you clearly do since using a weapon is expressly stated in the GFB cantrip.

No, it's not. You don't get to say "well, if it ends up being an attack, it's all good." A creature moves towards you, it triggers Polearm Master, Polearm Master gives you an Opportunity Attack, Opportunity Attacks allow you to make a single melee attack, ???, you get to cast a spell instead? Making a melee attack =/= casting a cantrip that then involves a melee attack.

[Kane0]

Single word multiple use strikes again. In 3.PF you had 'level', in 5e you have 'attack'.

The attack action is not the same as making a weapon (or spell) attack. You use the attack action to make a weapon attack (or more if you have extra attack the class feature), an opportunity attack is not the attack action but allows you to make a weapon attack as a reaction. The Greenfire Blade cantrip requires you to make a weapon attack as part of the cantrip, which is not the attack action and thus does not allow you to use the extra attack class ability with it nor the feats that modify your use of the attack action (by granting you a bonus action attack for example).

Clear as mud, no?

[Paeleus]

Polearm Master requires you to be wielding a weapon with reach to activate an OA when they come into reach. Named weapons are glaive, halberd, pike, or quarter staff. Reach is 10'.

War Caster allows spells with a casting time of one action to be used in place of a melee attack. The spell must target the *ahem* target. So far, so good.

Greenflame Blade has a range of 5 ft. And the creature has to be in range of the spell, or it fails. BRICKWALL. Unless you invested at least 3 levels in sorcerer and picked up Distant Spell.

END OF DISCUSSION.

[MeeposFire]

Polearm Master requires you to be wielding a weapon with reach to activate an OA when they come into reach. Named weapons are glaive, halberd, pike, or quarter staff. Reach is 10'.

War Caster allows spells with a casting time of one action to be used in place of a melee attack. The spell must target the *ahem* target. So far, so good.

Greenflame Blade has a range of 5 ft. And the creature has to be in range of the spell, or it fails. BRICKWALL. Unless you invested at least 3 levels in sorcerer and picked up Distant Spell.

END OF DISCUSSION.

Good potential point on reach weapons (I am not going to look into that issue since I already think this does not work for other reasons) but remember the staff is NOT a reach weapon so your point does not apply to those wielding a staff. Keep that in mind.

[Paeleus]

Good potential point on reach weapons (I am not going to look into that issue since I already think this does not work for other reasons) but remember the staff is NOT a reach weapon so your point does not apply to those wielding a staff. Keep that in mind.

Ohhhh good point about the staff. Is this mainly a disagreement on feat synergy? Because I can see GFB (only coming from a staff) being used in conjunction with War Caster to take the OA granted by PM when a creature enters reach.

[MeeposFire]

No, it's not. You don't get to say "well, if it ends up being an attack, it's all good." A creature moves towards you, it triggers Polearm Master, Polearm Master gives you an Opportunity Attack, Opportunity Attacks allow you to make a single melee attack, ???, you get to cast a spell instead? Making a melee attack =/= casting a cantrip that then involves a melee attack.


I am not understanding where you are going with this argument. This whole thing revolves around warcaster which solves this whole issue that you are bringing up right here.

Let us ignore the PM argument for a second since it appears to be a separate argument in bold since as far as I can tell you are talking about how you cannot replace an OA with a cantrip even if it is a melee attack.

I don't think anybody is trying to say that you can generally replace an OA with a melee spell just because it is a melee spell. The rules don't allow that. The normal rule says it must be a weapon attack.

Now if you have warcaster one of its abilities allows you to replace the OA with a spell (which does not have to be melee though it helps) so long as the OA is triggered by movement. This is fairly explicit so in this case if you have an OA provoked by movement you can replace the melee weapon attack with a spell such as shocking grasp.

Are we on agreement on this part?

[MeeposFire]

Ohhhh good point about the staff. Is this mainly a disagreement on feat synergy? Because I can see GFB (only coming from a staff) being used in conjunction with War Caster to take the OA granted by PM when a creature enters reach.

That is actually the whole argument going on right now. Oddly though I am arguing that greenflame could be used with PM assuming it worked with warcaster the problem is that I think it does not work with war caster due to green flame blade being a spell that hits multiple targets.

The big argument here is whether the spell would work with PM using the sage tweet. The sage tweet says the combo of warcaster and PM does not work because he says you need to use PM specific weapons with the attack.

Their contention is that the answer of "no" applies even if his reasoning why it does not work is addressed.

My argument is that the answer was the product of the time. At the time there were no spells that used a PM weapon based attack so the answer was no at the time hence his reasoning. My argument rests on the idea that if his reasoning is addressed then the answer is changed. What I would say that green flame blade makes a weapon attack potentially with a PM specific weapon. Since that would appear to address the sage's concerns the answer should be changed to yes.

I believe that new information can change answers to questions assuming they make something legal that was not before.

[Kane0]

So the question becomes, as with math, is the answer more important, or how you got it?

[MeeposFire]

So the question becomes, as with math, is the answer more important, or how you got it?

Not the best analogy because in math if a variable changes then the answer would change and assuming if you accept that this cantrip makes a weapon attack with a PM weapon (clearly I do) then using the math analogy the answer would have to change because a variable would change and so the two situations are no longer equal.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

So the question becomes, as with math, is the answer more important, or how you got it?If your answer is wrong, clearly there's a problem with how you got it.

[DivisibleByZero]

No matter how much you drag this on, you've already lost this argument.

And just because you don't like and can't accept that the question has already been answered by the designers in a way that you're unhappy with doesn't mean that I'm wrong.
Houserule it however you like, but by the RAW and by the RAI this is not an acceptable way to use GFB in conjunction with PM and WC.

[bid]

And just because you don't like and can't accept that the question has already been answered by the designers in a way that you're unhappy with doesn't mean that I'm wrong.
Oh I'm perfectly happy with whatever RAW is. You seem to misunderstand why you've been wrong for some time.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

And just because you don't like and can't accept that the question has already been answered by the designers in a way that you're unhappy with doesn't mean that I'm wrong.
Houserule it however you like, but by the RAW and by the RAI this is not an acceptable way to use GFB in conjunction with PM and WC.Haha, how the hell do you argue wishful thinking when the other side acknowledges the trick doesn't work anyway?

[Paeleus]

Since the mood is tense, does GWF apply to this cantrip?

[MeeposFire]

Since the mood is tense, does GWF apply to this cantrip?

The spell does literally say that you make a melee attack with a weapon. Both aspects of the GWM feat apply on melee attacks made with a weapon so I cannot see how they couldn't off the top of my head. However to sue the penalty to attack for maore damage portion you would have to use a heavy weapon with the attack (oddly not required to use a two handed weapon though currently all heavy weapons happen to be two handed). The bonus action attack ability can be used with any weapon.

[Asmotherion]

Way to make the bladelock even more OP :P

No seriously, Warlock was my favorite class since 3.5, and still is. And yeah, the concept is a mage with some martial ability, but the primary ability of a Warlock should be Eldrich Blast. So, yeah, the Bladelock is the optimum for Warlock, and now, instead of balancing things out, they thought "Hey, why not make the blade pact even more powerfull"?

I guess I can get the context of chanelling a (weaker) eldrich blast through a mellee attack, wich was something the 3.5 Warlock used to do. hmmm.

[Dimolyth]

Well, as an "ordinary cantrip" it is really great. With only one hit it is up to weapon damage+5+3d8 damage to primary target & 3d8+5 to secondary target. Which is pretty much competitive for OP eldritch blast. Eldritch blast gets range, but needs 4 succesfull attacks. Greenflame is mellee and against to adjacent targets, but needs only one hit.
That is fair. Sort of - beacause you trade out 2 levels of warlock to, you know, one cantrip. But let`s say that is fair.

First. If it is in a wizard spell list - it is "must have" for arcane tricksters, and "must have at certain levels" for eldritch knights. Automatical cantrip tax for optimizers and the rest of the party of optimizers - isn`t that was the reason why 3.5 became needlessly complicated (c)?

Second. If it is the only obscured exclusive cantrip, available to new arcane tradition. 5e logic will tell you capital letters no. Tome warlocks would get Shillelagh+Greenflame - and thus more effective bladelocks, then bladelocks. Mellee lore bards become superrior than valor, (3rd level college feature is already better, and now a half of lore 6th level feature with greenflame is a sort of equivalent of Extra Attack).

Third. Multiclassing option. (+ Arcane trickster, if he gets this cantrip without multiclass). Combining this cantrip with all martial goodies we have - colossus slayer, smites, feats (GWM, Polearm Master, Warcaster) battlemaster manneuvres, sneak attacks... so, it has so many ways to be optimised that it outlists eldritch blast really (let`s imagine - spell-less ranger3/arcane trickster X with warcaster(+sentinel-?). Then, there is an option bonus action spell+cantrip - that instantly turns quicken spelling fire dragon sorcerers to solid gishes. So now any one could be good at mellee as martials are.

I would rather empower this spell and make it first level. Something like adding condition to both targets. Or, I would depower this spell -decreasing damage progression and letting secondary target a save, or maybe eliminating that "mellee weapon attack".

Well, you would rather balance "prestige classes exclusive abilities" - bladesingers, dwarven defenders, and others as feats rather than class archetypes.

[PoeticDwarf]

Nice cantrips for eldritsch Knights and arcane Tricksters. Just give them free damage on an extra enemy, it is fire, and it isn't much, but as I said, it is free.

[Unahim]

First. If it is in a wizard spell list - it is "must have" for arcane tricksters, and "must have at certain levels" for eldritch knights. Automatical cantrip tax for optimizers and the rest of the party of optimizers - isn`t that was the reason why 3.5 became needlessly complicated (c)?

No way. I don't get why everyone keeps saying this...

My arcane trickster cantrips are message, shocking grasp and mage hand (obviously). I'd never give up the Message, it's way too useful to communicate with my party after I scouted ahead, got into a flanking position before we'll ambush, just during social situations where I don't want to be overheard, etc. I can't drop mage hand, and would not if I could, I pull way too many shenanigans with it.

So that leaves Shocking Grasp versus Greenflame Blade. Greenflame Blade gives a little extra damage (but not signficantly so, at level 5 GFB would deal 1d6 + 1d8 + mod for me while shock does 2d8, then add 3d6 sneak attack and the base damage difference pales...) but Shocking Grasp has a damage type that is resisted less often, disables the opponent's reaction (and not just for you, it lasts until the start of their next turn, so your entire party can take advantage of it) which has come in use tons of times, and gives advantage on the attack against people wearing a lot of metal, for extra hit chance and guarantueed sneak attack even on your own.

I wouldn't swap my shocking grasp for GFB even if I could, they seem equally matched to me and I prefer GFB. People are being somewhat short-sighted in this discussion.

In fact, I play a high elf to boot, so I have an extra cantrip, and it's frost ray. It's way too useful as a quick ranged attack I can throw out without having to swap weapons, or to lower an enemy's movement by just such a bit that they can't get to me without a dash. I'd never give it up just for a few measly extra damages on my already devastating melee attacks. GFB is perfectly in line, it's good if you go "OMFG, 2-3 more damages on the averages!!!!" but for any rogue wanting a bit of flexibility, utility and all of that good stuff... nah.

[DivisibleByZero]

No way. I don't get why everyone keeps saying this...

By RAW, Greenflame Blade can apply sneak attack, as it includes a weapon attack which clearly states that said weapon attack applies as normal, which means sneak attack.
By RAW, Shocking Grasp cannot sneak attack, as it is a spell attack, not a ranged or finesse weapon attack.

That's why everyone keeps saying that. Because without houserules, it is literally the only cantrip which allows sneak attack damage.

edit:
For what it's worth, our table houserules that ATs can sneak attack with Wizard cantrips which have a ranged attack roll.
This allows an AT to thematically sneak attack with a spell. But only with Wizard cantrips (thus disallowing potential Eldritch Blast shenanigans via multiple attack rolls) and disallows Shocking Grasp (for the reasons you like it so much).
If they apply sneak attack, then the cantrip is cast as if they were 1st level, with no scaling. So they have to choose: Do they want to scale the spell, or do they want to sneak attack with it?
The non-scaling aspect makes it so that even EB wouldn't be an issue, but we stuck with only Wizard cantrips anyway.
For a melee AT, Greenflame Blade is strictly better than even our houserules.

[SharkForce]

one thing to add: polearm mastery does not say you get an attack against an enemy when they come into your reach. it says you get an attack when they move adjacent to you. it is probably a common house rule to allow the attack at 10 feet, but the feat does not say that. it says adjacent.

whether you have a glaive or a quarterstaff or a halberd or a giant extendo-glaive that can be 50 feet long and yet easy to handle and light as a feather to you while having full effect against enemies, you still get the attack when they move adjacent.

so there is in fact no range issue for any polearm of any variety.

[Paeleus]

one thing to add: polearm mastery does not say you get an attack against an enemy when they come into your reach. it says you get an attack when they move adjacent to you. it is probably a common house rule to allow the attack at 10 feet, but the feat does not say that. it says adjacent.

whether you have a glaive or a quarterstaff or a halberd or a giant extendo-glaive that can be 50 feet long and yet easy to handle and light as a feather to you while having full effect against enemies, you still get the attack when they move adjacent.

so there is in fact no range issue for any polearm of any variety.

I am looking at it right now, and (referring to the second bullet point) when wielding glaive, halberd, pike or quarter staff other creatures provoke an Oppurrunity Attack when they enter your reach. Not sure where you got your info bud... But I'm not infallible. Where'd you find this info?


Sidebar: Is it the nature of the weapon that the pike is not included in the first bullet point?

[CNagy]

I am looking at it right now, and (referring to the second bullet point) when wielding glaive, halberd, pike or quarter staff other creatures provoke an Oppurrunity Attack when they enter your reach. Not sure where you got your info bud... But I'm not infallible. Where'd you find this info?


Sidebar: Is it the nature of the weapon that the pike is not included in the first bullet point?

Yeah, the devs decided that the pike was too long of a weapon to effectively flip it around for a strike with the butt of the weapon. Can't remember if it was Mearls or Crawford who said it, but it was a twitter reply.

[SharkForce]

I am looking at it right now, and (referring to the second bullet point) when wielding glaive, halberd, pike or quarter staff other creatures provoke an Oppurrunity Attack when they enter your reach. Not sure where you got your info bud... But I'm not infallible. Where'd you find this info?


Sidebar: Is it the nature of the weapon that the pike is not included in the first bullet point?

huh...

just double checked and you're absolutely correct, and now i'm wondering what the heck i was thinking of.

carry on then.