Green-Flame Blade: Interaction with Smites, Elemental Weapon, and Extra Attacks

[Spectre9000]

Basically, I'm trying to figure out how Green-Flame Blade interactions with many other mechanics of classes and spells.

How does Green-Flame Blade interact with the following in any and all combinations?


Extra Attack
Quickened Spell Metamagic
Distant Spell Metamagic
Two-Weapon Fighting
Elemental Affinity
Divine Smite
Improved Divine Smite
Smite spells
Elemental Weapon



The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect—such as the highest bonus—from those castings applies while their durations overlap. For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell’s benefit only once; he or she doesn’t get to roll two bonus dice.


From the Combining Magical Effects rules it seems as if I can use all those spells in combination with Green-Flame Blade, along with Divine Smite, and Improved Divine Smite. Please correct me, if that's not the case. However, I am far less certain of how it works with Metamagic, Elemental Affinity, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Extra Attack.

[Sir cryosin]

Basically, I'm trying to figure out how Green-Flame Blade interactions with many other mechanics of classes and spells.

How does Green-Flame Blade interact with the following in any and all combinations?


Extra Attack
Quickened Spell Metamagic
Distant Spell Metamagic
Two-Weapon Fighting
Elemental Affinity
Divine Smite
Improved Divine Smite
Smite spells
Elemental Weapon



The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect—such as the highest bonus—from those castings applies while their durations overlap. For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell’s benefit only once; he or she doesn’t get to roll two bonus dice.


From the Combining Magical Effects rules it seems as if I can use all those spells in combination with Green-Flame Blade, along with Divine Smite, and Improved Divine Smite. Please correct me, if that's not the case. However, I am far less certain of how it works with Metamagic, Elemental Affinity, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Extra Attack.
TWF and extra attack does not work with them because to use them you need to take the attack action BB and GFB are casting a spell for meta magic it's just another spells treat it as one as for smite yes you can you can smite when you make a weapon attack and the spells tell you to make a weapon attack

[Jrandom]

With regards to Extra Attack, you need to take an "Attack Action" to get that to work. Casting GFB is a spell (cantrip,) so you can't combo both. Two weapon fighting, takes an bonus action, after you have taken an "Attack Action," so also a no-go with GFB.

[MaxWilson]

Sure, you can stack them all. If you have a high-level Hasted Paladin/Sorcerer for example he can attack three times with a longsword and then Quickened Greenflame Blade, smiting with 4th level slots on each hit, for a total of 27d8+4*STR damage. (133.5 damage with Str 16.)

It's extremely inefficient though. Costs a total of 29 spell points (5 (Haste) + 4*6 (smiting)) and 2 sorcery points, which is more than twice as much as a 9th level spell.

[Oramac]

Ok, what about with the Great Weapon Fighting style? Do you reroll 1's and 2's with GFB or BB?

[Sir cryosin]

Only the weapon dice

[Spectre9000]

What about Elemental Affinity with regards to plus ability modifier on GFB?.

[Spectre9000]

Only the weapon dice

The spell damage is part of the weapon attack and RAW should be re-rolled as well. GWF simply states any damage die rolled as a result of a melee two-handed attack are re-rolled if they are a 1 or 2. GFB damage is part of a weapon attack. I would say that only applies to the actual attack, as the secondary effect is not actually an attack. So, at 5th level, you'd be able to re-roll the 1d8 from the GFB on the melee attack, but not the 1d8 as part of the damage to the second creature.

[Sir cryosin]

What about Elemental Affinity with regards to plus ability modifier on GFB?.

How is elemental affinity worded I don't have my books right now.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The spell damage is part of the weapon attack and RAW should be re-rolled as well. GWF simply states any damage die rolled as a result of a melee two-handed attack are re-rolled if they are a 1 or 2. GFB damage is part of a weapon attack. I would say that only applies to the actual attack, as the secondary effect is not actually an attack. So, at 5th level, you'd be able to re-roll the 1d8 from the GFB on the melee attack, but not the 1d8 as part of the damage to the second creature.

No.

GWF only applies to the weapon damage and not to any extra damage from outside sources.

This includes smite, sneak attack, battle master dice, or any spell effects.

Unless the damage is inherent to the weapon it doesn't get refilled.

Also to cast a cantrip, including green flame blade, you actually have to take the "Cast a spell action". The spell may allow you to make a weapon attack but you are still casting a cantrip, thus "cast a spell action" is needed. Extra attack wouldn't work with it.


Edit
On GWF
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/13/great-weapon-fighting-rerolling-smite-hex-and-hunters-mark/

On GFB and extra attack
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/06/are-booming-blade-and-green-flame-blade-compatible-with-extra-attack/

You or your DM can rule it whichever way you want though.

Edit 2

However anything that relies on a weapon hit/attack/whatever such as Smite or Sneak Attack does work with GFB. But things that rely on "attack action" such as extra attack or whatever does not.

[Talamare]

Sure, you can stack them all. If you have a high-level Hasted Paladin/Sorcerer for example he can attack three times with a longsword and then Quickened Greenflame Blade, smiting with 4th level slots on each hit, for a total of 27d8+4*STR damage. (133.5 damage with Str 16.)

It's extremely inefficient though. Costs a total of 29 spell points (5 (Haste) + 4*6 (smiting)) and 2 sorcery points, which is more than twice as much as a 9th level spell.

Just to be clear, 20d8 of it is from Smites from 4 attacks
Matter of fact, if you just dual wield and use your bonus action from DWF, you can get the same effect without MC Sorc/GFB/Quicken
Since AoV gets Haste

[joaber]

Sure, you can stack them all. If you have a high-level Hasted Paladin/Sorcerer for example he can attack three times with a longsword and then Quickened Greenflame Blade, smiting with 4th level slots on each hit, for a total of 27d8+4*STR damage. (133.5 damage with Str 16.)

It's extremely inefficient though. Costs a total of 29 spell points (5 (Haste) + 4*6 (smiting)) and 2 sorcery points, which is more than twice as much as a 9th level spell.

If you cut of the smites, now is a good spend, since haste 1 minute and you can twin.

[Spectre9000]

No.

GWF only applies to the weapon damage and not to any extra damage from outside sources.

This includes smite, sneak attack, battle master dice, or any spell effects.

Unless the damage is inherent to the weapon it doesn't get refilled.

Also to cast a cantrip, including green flame blade, you actually have to take the "Cast a spell action". The spell may allow you to make a weapon attack but you are still casting a cantrip, thus "cast a spell action" is needed. Extra attack wouldn't work with it.


When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll, even if the new roll is a 1 or a 2. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit.



As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails. On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and green fire leaps from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it. The second creature takes fire damage equal to your spellcasting ability modifier.

This spell's damage increases when you reach higher levels. At 5th level, the melee attack deals an extra 1d8 fire damage to the target, and the fire damage to the second creature increases to 1d8 +your spellcasting ability modifier. Both damage rolls increase by 1d8 at 11th level and 17th level.


GWF applies to a melee two-handed weapon attack and any damage die rolled, hence "a damage die", not just the base weapon damage, or else it would explicitly state that. GFB deals damage explicitly through that melee weapon attack, and only through that attack. The secondary creature has no weapon attack made against it and therefore, GWF doesn't apply, but as to the actual weapon attack, GWF is most certainly applied to the damage added to that attack from GFB. GFB explicitly states the melee weapon attack deals an extra 1d8. Mike Mearls even stated that spell damage on weapon attacks use GWF (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/09/09/great-weapon-fighting-and-smite/).

[MaxWilson]

Just to be clear, 20d8 of it is from Smites from 4 attacks
Matter of fact, if you just dual wield and use your bonus action from DWF, you can get the same effect without MC Sorc/GFB/Quicken
Since AoV gets Haste

Yes, you can. I mention it because Paladin/Sorcerer is a popular build, and Sorcerers almost always have Quicken anyway. This way you get extra damage (plus 3d8+CHA more to a secondary target) and don't have to spend a round swapping your longsword and shield out for a pair of shortswords. When you need to nova, you probably need to nova now, not after a round of prep. (For similar reasons you're unlikely IMO to already have Haste up but I included it for completeness.)

[SpawnOfMorbo]

snip.

Mike Mearles has already stated that his responses are not RAW or RAI, that it is typically just his opinion on the matter and how he would rule it at his table. All questions answered by JC are the ones that are legit.

Quoting Mike Mearles would be like quoting me or anyone else on the internet.

GWF only applies to weapon damage and not to extra damage as that extra damage is not from the weapon. You are wrong and it has been settled by JC as to what the ability does.

You can houserule it a different way, whatever, but by the rules of the game GFB doesn't work with GWF.

You are confusing weapon damage and extra damage, extra damage is not weapon damage, but as the plain English says Extra damage.

[joaber]

RAW GWF work with divine smite, sneak attack...
RAI by jeremy crawford no.

It's say "a damage die for an attack...", not for the weapon damage. All those extra dices are from that same attack

[EvadableMoxie]

Extra Attack

You need to perform the attack action to gain extra attacks via the Extra attack Feature. Casting GFB is casting a spell, not taking an attack action. However, something like EK's War Magic does work, as it lets you make an attack after casting a spell.

Quickened Spell Metamagic

The casting of the spell becomes a bonus action. You can Cast GFB and then use your main action for something else, although if you cast a spell, it must be a cantrip as casting any spell as a bonus action limits you to a cantrip as your main action. You could therefore use Quicken Spell to cast GFB blade twice in one turn.

Distant Spell Metamagic

The spell's range is doubled to 10 ft. You still must hit the enemy with a melee attack, but this can be accomplished via reach weapons. The second enemy must still be within 5ft of the target, as distant spell only effects the casting range, not the range of secondary effects. The Spell-Sniper feat allows you to do this At-will.

Two-Weapon Fighting

You must use the attack action to trigger Two-Weapon Fighting's Bonus action attack. Casting GFB is casting a spell, not taking an attack action.

Elemental Affinity

This feature has been errata'd so that the bonus damage only applies once. The DM may let you pick, or might rule it must apply to the initial damage only.

Divine Smite

You may choose to activate this ability using the melee attack performed by GFB, as it only states you must hit the enemy with a melee weapon attack. It does not state you must take the attack action.

Improved Divine Smite

You gain the bonus damage from the melee attack performed by GFB, as it only states you must hit the enemy with a melee weapon attack. It does not state you must take the attack action.

Smite spells

These spells are triggered by the melee attack performed by GFB, as they state they trigger on a melee weapon attack. They do not state you must take the attack action.

Elemental Weapon

You gain the +1 to attack and the 1d4 bonus damage to the attack performed by GFB, as none of the effects are contingent upon taking the attack action.

[Desamir]

RAW GWF work with divine smite, sneak attack...
RAI by jeremy crawford no.

It's say "a damage die for an attack...", not for the weapon damage. All those extra dices are from that same attack

This is the correct answer. RAW, GWF affects Divine Smite, in the same way that crits double your smite dice.


When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll...


When you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one paladin spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon's damage.

If you smite with a greatsword, each damage die you roll for that attack counts as "a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands." Therefore it gets rerolled.

Designer intent (Crawford even explicitly uses the word intent in the tweet) is relevant to a discussion of RAW, but it is not the same thing as RAW.

[Spectre9000]

Extra Attack

You need to perform the attack action to gain extra attacks via the Extra attack Feature. Casting GFB is casting a spell, not taking an attack action. However, something like EK's War Magic does work, as it lets you make an attack after casting a spell.

Quickened Spell Metamagic

The casting of the spell becomes a bonus action. You can Cast GFB and then use your main action for something else, although if you cast a spell, it must be a cantrip as casting any spell as a bonus action limits you to a cantrip as your main action. You could therefore use Quicken Spell to cast GFB blade twice in one turn.

Distant Spell Metamagic

The spell's range is doubled to 10 ft. You still must hit the enemy with a melee attack, but this can be accomplished via reach weapons. The second enemy must still be within 5ft of the target, as distant spell only effects the casting range, not the range of secondary effects. The Spell-Sniper feat allows you to do this At-will.

Two-Weapon Fighting

You must use the attack action to trigger Two-Weapon Fighting's Bonus action attack. Casting GFB is casting a spell, not taking an attack action.

Elemental Affinity

This feature has been errata'd so that the bonus damage only applies once. The DM may let you pick, or might rule it must apply to the initial damage only.

Divine Smite

You may choose to activate this ability using the melee attack performed by GFB, as it only states you must hit the enemy with a melee weapon attack. It does not state you must take the attack action.

Improved Divine Smite

You gain the bonus damage from the melee attack performed by GFB, as it only states you must hit the enemy with a melee weapon attack. It does not state you must take the attack action.

Smite spells

These spells are triggered by the melee attack performed by GFB, as they state they trigger on a melee weapon attack. They do not state you must take the attack action.

Elemental Weapon

You gain the +1 to attack and the 1d4 bonus damage to the attack performed by GFB, as none of the effects are contingent upon taking the attack action.

I wish there was some way to upvote or +1 you. Thanks for the answers, and you gave me some interesting thoughts about the distant spell metamagic with GFB.


Additionally, I didn't initially think Twinned Metamagic would apply to this spell, but now I'm rethinking that. How would you say Twinned Metamagic affects GFB?

[EvadableMoxie]

Additionally, I didn't initially think Twinned Metamagic would apply to this spell, but now I'm rethinking that. How would you say Twinned Metamagic affects GFB?

The official (Or at least the one from Jeremy Crawford) answer is you cannot twin GFB, because it targets two creatures:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/10/can-you-us-twinned-spell-with-green-flame-blade/

[Spectre9000]

The official (Or at least the one from Jeremy Crawford) answer is you cannot twin GFB, because it targets two creatures:

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/11/10/can-you-us-twinned-spell-with-green-flame-blade/

Didn't know if you could possibly twin the secondary effect. Thanks for the answer.

[MaxWilson]

Mike Mearles has already stated that his responses are not RAW or RAI, that it is typically just his opinion on the matter and how he would rule it at his table. All questions answered by JC are the ones that are legit.

Quoting Mike Mearles would be like quoting me or anyone else on the internet.

Which, BTW, would be completely fine. Not adhering slavishly to JeremyCrawford's rulings is a completely valid way to play D&D. Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford both say so. :)


Extra Attack

You need to perform the attack action to gain extra attacks via the Extra attack Feature. Casting GFB is casting a spell, not taking an attack action. However, something like EK's War Magic does work, as it lets you make an attack after casting a spell.

Just to clarify here: EvadableMoxie is not saying that the EK's War Magic triggers Extra Attack. It does not. War Magic lets you use your bonus action on a single attack. I believe that the Ranger's Break the Horde ability is the only way to get two attacks out of a single bonus action War Magic.

Normally though, you'd just get a cantrip with your action + War Magic attack with your bonus action.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Which, BTW, would be completely fine. Not adhering slavishly to JeremyCrawford's rulings is a completely valid way to play D&D. Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford both say so. :)

That's fine, but when talking about RAW and RAI we have one source to explain what was written or what was intended to be written and that's JC. You don't have to rule it that way if you don't want to, but he is the primary source.

With things like this you also need a consistent source for answers, if you are receiving any sort of "official" answers, or you get 3.5's CustServ issues where you can ask the same question three times and get 5 different, all conflicting, answers thrown back at you.

[MeeposFire]

That's fine, but when talking about RAW and RAI we have one source to explain what was written or what was intended to be written and that's JC. You don't have to rule it that way if you don't want to, but he is the primary source.

With things like this you also need a consistent source for answers, if you are receiving any sort of "official" answers, or you get 3.5's CustServ issues where you can ask the same question three times and get 5 different, all conflicting, answers thrown back at you.

JC is not particularly reliable. When talking about polearm master he would talk about how using non-polearm weapons was not intended and it is due to how of course the feat was not designed to work with other things like that. But when talking about crossbow expert it was revealed by designers that the ability to make ranged attack with ALL ranged attacks (including spells) without disadvantage in melee was intended. So how are DMs supposed to know when they are making an ability designed to be more permissive like crossbow expert and not such as in polearm master when both are written with the permissive language?

Also the ruling on magic initiate has no basis on any rules found anywhere else in the system. It isn't unbalanced but it certainly makes no sense on how you would get there based on the rest of the rules in 5e. Heck the rulings of not being to cast the 1st level spell using your normal spell slots at all, the ruling of only spontaneous casters can cast it with their spell slots (due to it being known), and all casters being able to cast it using their normal slots all have more rules justification in 5e than the given answer in the tweet which honestly has no basis (seriously any other time if you happen to know a spell from any source you can cast it using your slots regardless of where the spell is from including warlock slots).

So you would think that JC would be reliable and always make rulings that are not heavily based on the direct text but then he throws you another curve ball where several of his rulings (such as with sorcerer and their ability to cha bonus to damage on a spell) are heavily influenced by the exact wording of an ability.

So sometimes making up new rules. Sometimes very RAW oriented. Sometimes very intent related. He is all over the place.

[MaxWilson]

That's fine, but when talking about RAW and RAI we have one source to explain what was written or what was intended to be written and that's JC. You don't have to rule it that way if you don't want to, but he is the primary source.

As far as I'm concerned, he is not the primary source for RAW, at least not when he is writing on Twitter. The primary source for the Rules As Written is the published rulebooks, where the rules are written.

JC can provide context on the Rules As Intended, but if he wants to change or clarify the Rules As Written he has to actually amend the rule text, as was done with poison rules in the DMG.


JC is not particularly reliable. When talking about polearm master he would talk about how using non-polearm weapons was not intended and it is due to how of course the feat was not designed to work with other things like that. But when talking about crossbow expert it was revealed by designers that the ability to make ranged attack with ALL ranged attacks (including spells) without disadvantage in melee was intended.

Another example of a goofy JeremyCrawford ruling is when he said that Devil's Sight's ability to see normally in darkness (magical and nonmagical) does not let you see normally in dim light. This has two problems: (1) it is contrary to plain English, and requires you to read the rules with a very jargoney eye, (2) truesight uses the exact same language on MM page 9. JC claimed that dim light is supposed to be unaffected so it can be a "spooky" power for the warlock, but then why would truesight also be "spooky" in the same way? Things like this persuade me that Crawford often says things without actually knowing what he's talking about, and the more often he pulls stuff like this the more and more I am inclined to ignore anything that didn't actually make it into a written update to the rulebooks.

I've been ignoring Sage Advice columns since 1993 or so when Skip Williams wrote them for Dragon because the advice was always bad and often contrary to the actual rules of the game. Good to see that 5E is continuing the venerable Sage Advice tradition.

[LordVonDerp]

Only the weapon dice

Such as smite dice, magic weapon dic, crit dice, etc.

[E’Tallitnics]

Another example of a goofy JeremyCrawford ruling is when he said that Devil's Sight's ability to see normally in darkness (magical and nonmagical) does not let you see normally in dim light. This has two problems: (1) it is contrary to plain English, and requires you to read the rules with a very jargoney eye, (2) truesight uses the exact same language on MM page 9. JC claimed that dim light is supposed to be unaffected so it can be a "spooky" power for the warlock, but then why would truesight also be "spooky" in the same way? Things like this persuade me that Crawford often says things without actually knowing what he's talking about, and the more often he pulls stuff like this the more and more I am inclined to ignore anything that didn't actually make it into a written update to the rulebooks.

What's "goofy" about that!? Neither one of those descriptions mention Dim Light. Therefore it's entirely logical that they wouldn't have any effect on Dim Light.

Just because the RAW don't match a preconceived notion of how something should work doesn't mean there's something wrong with the RAW.

Example: If you're a human and I cast Darkvision on you your ability to see in Dim Light is unchanged. If you're standing next to a High Elf you both see in Darkness exactly the same. However because of their Racial Trait the Elf can see better in Dim Light because they see it as Bright Light.

[MaxWilson]

What's "goofy" about that!? Neither one of those descriptions mention Dim Light. Therefore it's entirely logical that they wouldn't have any effect on Dim Light.

(1) Dim light is partial darkness.
(2) The justification given by Crawford for his reading of Devil's Sight ('Devil's Sight is meant to be an eerie ability: "Douse that candle so that the Dark Powers will lend me sight."') makes no sense at all for Truesight. Ref: https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/664148808377368576

You're making an entirely separate argument that jargon ought to be primary, that the PHB should be read with an eye towards keywords and not in natural English. Fine, okay, whatever. It's your game. But Jeremy Crawford didn't do that--he made an argument that the jargon usage was deliberate because of warlock flavor text, when that argument is clearly inapplicable to identical wordings elsewhere in the rule text. That's what's goofy. He clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, or the ability would have been worded differently.

But if you like having characters with True Seeing have their vision impaired by someone lighting a torch in the darkness, who am I to stop you? Play how you like to.

[djreynolds]

Sure, you can stack them all. If you have a high-level Hasted Paladin/Sorcerer for example he can attack three times with a longsword and then Quickened Greenflame Blade, smiting with 4th level slots on each hit, for a total of 27d8+4*STR damage. (133.5 damage with Str 16.)

It's extremely inefficient though. Costs a total of 29 spell points (5 (Haste) + 4*6 (smiting)) and 2 sorcery points, which is more than twice as much as a 9th level spell.

But it would be cool, for people like me, who like to spend all of their weekly allowance at once at the candy store and then limp along till the next long rest

[E’Tallitnics]

The PH is written with keywords (aka: Game Terms). Those being the bolded words that are throughout the manual.

How those Game Terms interact with each other is the framework of the game. Not sure why you think they can, should be, ignored.

Dim Light is partial darkness, but saying that 'partial' should be treated the same as 'full' is like saying half plate should be the same AC as full plate.

Lighting a torch in complete darkness substantially changes the environment. Again, not sure why you're thinking that shouldn't matter.

And personally I think that JC sometimes answers the tweets after a few drinks. :-D Perhaps not the greatest thing to do, but he's done such an awesome job on creating 5e I'm not going to fault him for enjoying life in a manner many of us do as well. (And it's just a guess, as I don't know him personally.)

Plus when he does make a mistake he admits it and corrects his error ASAP. (His cutting words tweet is a perfect example of that.)

[Zalabim]

I see a lot of controversy on rulings start from a position of "JC is wrong" and then try to find out why. For Cutting Words, this lead to a whole chain of discussion to explain how Cutting Words is not identical to Bane and Bless and arguments over whether Cutting Words could change the d20 roll, or only the total value, forgetting that the rule says it's an automatic hit and critical hit regardless of modifiers or AC. Who pointed that bit out? Anyone?


JC is not particularly reliable. When talking about polearm master he would talk about how using non-polearm weapons was not intended and it is due to how of course the feat was not designed to work with other things like that. But when talking about crossbow expert it was revealed by designers that the ability to make ranged attack with ALL ranged attacks (including spells) without disadvantage in melee was intended. So how are DMs supposed to know when they are making an ability designed to be more permissive like crossbow expert and not such as in polearm master when both are written with the permissive language?


There's no world where you could call the language used in crossbow expert's "You don't have disadvantage" benefit the same or as permissive as the language used in any of polearm master's benefits. Polearm Master is very specific with each of its benefits. Crossbow Expert is very obviously not that specific with that benefit.



Also the ruling on magic initiate has no basis on any rules found anywhere else in the system. It isn't unbalanced but it certainly makes no sense on how you would get there based on the rest of the rules in 5e. Heck the rulings of not being to cast the 1st level spell using your normal spell slots at all, the ruling of only spontaneous casters can cast it with their spell slots (due to it being known), and all casters being able to cast it using their normal slots all have more rules justification in 5e than the given answer in the tweet which honestly has no basis (seriously any other time if you happen to know a spell from any source you can cast it using your slots regardless of where the spell is from including warlock slots).


The basis for magic initiate is that the sorcerer's spellcasting rules say you can cast sorcerer spells you know by spending spell slots. The wording varies from class to class and it's not obvious (and thus could be said to be not true) for all of them. It does have a basis for some of them.


So you would think that JC would be reliable and always make rulings that are not heavily based on the direct text but then he throws you another curve ball where several of his rulings (such as with sorcerer and their ability to cha bonus to damage on a spell) are heavily influenced by the exact wording of an ability.

I daresay most of JC's rulings are from a direct reading of the text involved. When it is not, that's usually been made clear, like saying the intent for GWF-style.



But if you like having characters with True Seeing have their vision impaired by someone lighting a torch in the darkness, who am I to stop you? Play how you like to.

I know this is a pointless statement, but that's actually how it works in real life. I don't know about all the exotic parts of the spectrum we use machines to detect, but a lit torch will make it harder to see anything not lit up by the torch near it. Regardless of how realistic it is, that is what the rules say. I doubt it's possible to change the fantasy cliche of holding a torch in front of your face while you look for something in the dark, but, dammit, we can try. Torches are not flashlights, and stop shining the flashlight into the camera while I'm on the subject.

[Desamir]

Dim Light is partial darkness, but saying that 'partial' should be treated the same as 'full' is like saying half plate should be the same AC as full plate.

This is a great example because it actually proves Max's point. "Partial" shouldn't be treated the same as "full," it should be treated as less than full. An attack roll of 17 will hit half-plate, while an 18 will hit both half plate and full plate.

Saying that Devil's Sight/the Darkvision spell/Truesight should only work in full darkness (which is RAW) is like saying an 18 should miss half-plate.

[MaxWilson]

I know this is a pointless statement, but that's actually how it works in real life. I don't know about all the exotic parts of the spectrum we use machines to detect, but a lit torch will make it harder to see anything not lit up by the torch near it. Regardless of how realistic it is, that is what the rules say. I doubt it's possible to change the fantasy cliche of holding a torch in front of your face while you look for something in the dark, but, dammit, we can try. Torches are not flashlights, and stop shining the flashlight into the camera while I'm on the subject.

This is an interesting statement. In real life, what interferes with your vision isn't the dim light on the thing you're looking at--it's the bright light somewhere else that causes your pupils to contract, making you less capable of seeing things in the dim light and in darkness. In order to simulate this in D&D, you'd want to make True Seeing cease to function for things in dim light or in darkness while a bright light source is present.

It would be interesting and perhaps rewarding to create rules mimicking real life visual adjustments. It would add a tactical dimension of trying to bait enemies into dim light where an ambush is waiting, because the ambushers get advantage on the first round (their eyes are already adjusted).

[MeeposFire]

I see a lot of controversy on rulings start from a position of "JC is wrong" and then try to find out why. For Cutting Words, this lead to a whole chain of discussion to explain how Cutting Words is not identical to Bane and Bless and arguments over whether Cutting Words could change the d20 roll, or only the total value, forgetting that the rule says it's an automatic hit and critical hit regardless of modifiers or AC. Who pointed that bit out? Anyone?



There's no world where you could call the language used in crossbow expert's "You don't have disadvantage" benefit the same or as permissive as the language used in any of polearm master's benefits. Polearm Master is very specific with each of its benefits. Crossbow Expert is very obviously not that specific with that benefit.



The basis for magic initiate is that the sorcerer's spellcasting rules say you can cast sorcerer spells you know by spending spell slots. The wording varies from class to class and it's not obvious (and thus could be said to be not true) for all of them. It does have a basis for some of them.



I daresay most of JC's rulings are from a direct reading of the text involved. When it is not, that's usually been made clear, like saying the intent for GWF-style.



I know this is a pointless statement, but that's actually how it works in real life. I don't know about all the exotic parts of the spectrum we use machines to detect, but a lit torch will make it harder to see anything not lit up by the torch near it. Regardless of how realistic it is, that is what the rules say. I doubt it's possible to change the fantasy cliche of holding a torch in front of your face while you look for something in the dark, but, dammit, we can try. Torches are not flashlights, and stop shining the flashlight into the camera while I'm on the subject.

IN polearm master the opportunity attack ability makes no mention that you have to attack with the weapon with the attack anywhere in the feat. If we were to treat it like we do with crossbow expert then certainly it would be possible to make an opportunity attack granted from polearm master with another weapon so long as you wield a polearm when you make an attack (for instance a staff in one hand or the more likely and classic warcaster to cast a spell). It only says you need to wield a special weapon not use it in the attack which is very analogous to how crossbow experct gives a benefit but does not say it requires the use of a crossbow. IN one he expects you to know there is an invisible rule saying that you must use the weapon and in the other he expects you to know that we are supposed to not expect a part of a crossbow feat does not require a crossbow. That is inconsistent.

For magic initiate you actually show how this is inconsistent. If you know a spell a sorc can cast it. If a sorc will know a spell and cast it if you take magic initiate if it is a sorc spell then how does he not know it if it is not a sorc spell? That makes no sense as in every other case in 5e it does not matter how you know a spell if you know it you can cast it using your spell slots or with your warlock slots. If the ruling was that you did not know the spell and so could not be used with your spell slots you could make a consistent ruling. The same could be said if you declare that you know the spell so can use your slots with it. The JC ruling is inconsistent because it essentially created a new way to deal with knowing spells that is not actually described anywhere in the rules. That is why nobody was calling for that particular ruling before as there was no way you could come up with it from the rules that we knew.


Many of JC's rulings are based on a strict reading of the rules but not all of them which means by your own admission that makes him inconsistent which is my point. How am I supposed to know when he is going to not be strict with the written rules?

[Zalabim]

Polearm Master really comes down to what the definition of wield is. That's similar to why there were questions whether reach weapons increased your reach for the purpose of OA or only when you're attacking with them, as on your turn. If wielding a weapon means using the weapon to make an attack, it's pretty much cut and dry. If wield just means hold the weapon in the appropriate number of hands, then it clearly goes the other way. Seems like a simple enough explanation to make, though I think the functional definition of wield varies from case to case at this time.

For spellcasting, the actual other rules do care about how you know the spell. As it says, "if you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know." The multiclassing rules clearly only give permission to cast spells you know from classes where you have the spellcasting feature for that class. Caveat: I don't actually know what the exact current ruling is on magic initiate right now.

[MeeposFire]

Polearm Master really comes down to what the definition of wield is. That's similar to why there were questions whether reach weapons increased your reach for the purpose of OA or only when you're attacking with them, as on your turn. If wielding a weapon means using the weapon to make an attack, it's pretty much cut and dry. If wield just means hold the weapon in the appropriate number of hands, then it clearly goes the other way. Seems like a simple enough explanation to make, though I think the functional definition of wield varies from case to case at this time.

For spellcasting, the actual other rules do care about how you know the spell. As it says, "if you have both the Spellcasting class feature and the Pact Magic class feature from the warlock class, you can use the spell slots you gain from the Pact Magic feature to cast spells you know or have prepared from classes with the Spellcasting class feature, and you can use the spell slots you gain from the Spellcasting class feature to cast warlock spells you know." The multiclassing rules clearly only give permission to cast spells you know from classes where you have the spellcasting feature for that class. Caveat: I don't actually know what the exact current ruling is on magic initiate right now.

The current ruling on magic initiate is that if the spell is on your class list you can cast it using your slots otherwise you can only cast it once from your special use from the feat. SO if you are a sorcerer and you did not take magic missile as one of your sorcerer spells but picked up magic initiate with the 1st level spell being magic missile you could use your 2nd level slots on magic missile for example. However if you were to take hex then you cannot. So in the first situation the feat apparently lets you "know" the magic missile spell but does not let you "know" the hex spell despite being the same feat, with the same written rules, with nothing in it saying that you treat spells from any particular class differently from another class. It is a very odd ruling from a rules standpoint.

That is why before the ruling you had 3 major factions with the first two being the biggest

1) The feat does not make you "know" the spell for spell casting purposes and so you cannot count it towards any spell casting. You can only use the spell once a day with the feat's special slot.

2) If you can cast a spell then you know a spell and if you know a spell then you can cast it using your normal slots in addition to that extra slot. This is of course the most permissive ruling though it was fought against by those who liked the 1st ruling I mentioned (by the way these first two are not in any particular order).

3) The least common but most nuanced was the idea that knowing a spell is actually a feature of spontaneous casters and not prepared casters and so magic initiate spells could be used with spell slots with spontaneous casters but not prepared ones. Kind of finicky and when I saw it posted it was literally the day before the actual ruling came out but it was an interesting thought being batted around. Due to the actual ruling we did not get to debate the veracity of this claim to see if it was equal to, worse, or better than the more common ideas.

The actual ruling I had never seen up to that point and I recall it being a surprising ruling when it came out though it did not bother a number of people since it did not mess with the balance of the game much and was similar to what some people were home brewing at the time (well they thought they were home brewing). Balancewise it works out ok but that would not be a point that I am arguing. It is just a strange ruling in terms of the known rules up to this point.



As for wielding remember to wield a weapon is not the same as attacking with a weapon, they are not synonymous. You can wield a weapon and not attack with it, heck this happens anytime you use an action spell with most classes. A berserker barbarian of high level is still wielding a weapon even if he chooses to use his attack to dash past an enemy and thus can use his retaliatory strike on the enemy with that weapon when the enemy uses an opportunity attack and hits him. If you are a two weapon fighter and you strike with your main hand weapon and then bonus action second wind does that mean you stop wielding your off hand weapon? Of course not you still wield that second weapon even if you don't actively use it at that point of time. So a weapon being wielded is short hand for "this weapon is ready to be used". An attack may require a wielded weapon but in order to wield a weapon does not require an attack to be made or even planning to be made (so long as it COULD be made). So for polearm master you certainly have to have the feat and the correct weapon ready to be used at the time of the reaction attack but after that so long as you don't stop wielding the weapon nothing forces you to use that weapon in the RAW.

The only thing stopping you is thematic influences from the feat itself which of course is that the feat is all about using certain weapons to get advantages when you use them. I can fully back this idea using a feat should require you to fit its theme and not get around using it. Of course we then have to question how the crossbow feat was designed from the get go to have a bonus that was designed to work without using a crossbow at all. You don't think it is at all strange that they are so adamant about you have to use a polearm in the polearm feat but on the crossbow feat it is ok to them that you take it without any intention at all of using or even owning a crossbow (and your character is never seen with one) such as an EB using warlock that wants to use it in melee too and not just is it ok (which from a strict RAW reading it should of course) but it was explicitly designed to do so? It sounds like something that should be on its own generic ranged attack feat rather than a weapon group specific feat that is supposed to represent increased focus on crossbows but is often taken by spell using warlocks with no crossbows (assuming they want to use EB in melee of course).

[Malifice]

Extra Attack

Doesnt work with GFB.


Quickened Spell Metamagic

Works, making GFB a bonus action.


Distant Spell Metamagic

Gives the cantrip a 10' range. Its the only way you can use a reach weapon to attack with GFB at reach.


Two-Weapon Fighting

Doesnt work. Requres the attack action. GFB uses the 'cast a spell action'.


Elemental Affinity

Works fine on elemental damage from GFB if you select fire as your element.


Divine Smite

Youre making an attack with a melee weapon so you can smite as normal.


Improved Divine Smite

Works with the GFB attack.


Smite spells

Also work just fine.


Elemental Weapon

Works just fine.

[Oramac]

Extra Attack

Doesnt work with GFB.

Ok, so at what point is it more effective to skip GFB (and/or BB) in favor of Extra Attack, and vice versa?

I'm no math whiz, but near as I cal tell, Extra Attack is always better unless you're adding a Smite or similar effect to the GFB/BB attack.

[Sception]

It is better when you're playing a character without Extra Attack. That's pretty much it. None of the SCAG gishy melee cantrips are particularly good for existing gish character types, since they all get Extra Attack, which is better in all but a few corner cases.

An exception is the eldritch knight, they seem pretty good for those. Clerics might get some decent use out of poaching them, but stat conflicts probably prevent that. Maybe bards? It's been a bit, I don't actually remember if bards get extra attack or not. If not, then maybe there.

Otherwise, I'd skip them for the most part, as non-gish casters don't want to be swinging melee weapons around, and gish casters swing their melee weapons better when not using these cantrips, at least from level 5 on. better to have a utility cantrip or backup ranged attack in that slot, imo.

[MeeposFire]

It is better when you're playing a character without Extra Attack. That's pretty much it. None of the SCAG gishy melee cantrips are particularly good for existing gish character types, since they all get Extra Attack, which is better in all but a few corner cases.

An exception is the eldritch knight, they seem pretty good for those. Clerics might get some decent use out of poaching them, but stat conflicts probably prevent that. Maybe bards? It's been a bit, I don't actually remember if bards get extra attack or not. If not, then maybe there.

Otherwise, I'd skip them for the most part, as non-gish casters don't want to be swinging melee weapons around, and gish casters swing their melee weapons better when not using these cantrips, at least from level 5 on. better to have a utility cantrip or backup ranged attack in that slot, imo.

For the cleric it is a straight boost (for instance booming blade has no special stat needs so any melee weapon based cleric can use it as a straight upgrade) assuming you were planning on being in melee and can afford to spend a feat (or a less OP racial choice) on increasing your basic at will damage.

Lore bards basically need to take one if they want to attack in melee with a weapon. They don't need to in general but if you wanted that then it would be your best option. For a valor bard it is more often not as good until the highest levels when you can use it and then get a bonus action attack. That is very late however.

Rogue gets tricky. It is a nice boost to damage because rogues do not get extra attack BUT they give up the ability to make an off hand attack when doing so (which means effectively your turn's sneak attack accuracy goes way down which means your bonus d8s from the spell are now competing with the accuracy loss on your SA d6s). This makes it far less effective than you would think at first glance. There are some neat things you can do with booming blade and a swashbuckler as they can move in and out of range on melee using targets which can force them to move and take bonus damage or you can stay close to the target if it uses ranged attacks and force them to move (and take damage and possibly an opportunity attack if he does not waste his action disengaging) or stay in melee with you where he probably is less effective or takes disadvantage with his ranged attack rolls.

Fighter 7 is a good start if you want to use these cantrips especially with the rogue class as rogue helps single attacks and fighter allows you to get a second shot at SA if you miss with booming blade.

[MaxWilson]

It is better when you're playing a character without Extra Attack. That's pretty much it. None of the SCAG gishy melee cantrips are particularly good for existing gish character types, since they all get Extra Attack, which is better in all but a few corner cases.

A Shadow Monk who Shadow Steps gets advantage on her next attack. So at 17th level, she's got a choice between making one attack for d10+5 at advantage and another Extra Attack for just plain d10+5, or making one Booming Blade attack for 4d8+5 at advantage plus 4d8 more if they move. The Booming Blade is better (23) than the regular attacks (21) even before you consider having advantage on the whole thing and the extra control damage (18).

[coredump]

As far as I'm concerned, he is not the primary source for RAW, at least not when he is writing on Twitter. The primary source for the Rules As Written is the published rulebooks, where the rules are written.

JC can provide context on the Rules As Intended, but if he wants to change or clarify the Rules As Written he has to actually amend the rule text, as was done with poison rules in the DMG.


It gets trickier, because WotC has officially stated that any rulings from WotC/DnD team members are *not* official. Except....JC has the official authority to make rulings that *are* official.

There is some wiggle room... they also say he "usually" does this via Sage Advice. Which leaves the twitter responses in a bit of a grey area. Further, when he uses terms like 'the intent', it leaves things a bit ambiguous.

But the upshot is, when he makes an official ruling, that *is* amending the rule text. (or at least clarifying it.)

[Desamir]

But the upshot is, when he makes an official ruling, that *is* amending the rule text. (or at least clarifying it.)

Clarifying it, sure. Amending it... not so much. I highly doubt WotC intends official errata to be buried in a twitter feed.

[Oramac]

Clarifying it, sure. Amending it... not so much. I highly doubt WotC intends official errata to be buried in a twitter feed.

Especially since a fair portion of the population (such as myself) doesn't even have twitter installed, nevermind follows it.

[coredump]

Clarifying it, sure. Amending it... not so much. I highly doubt WotC intends official errata to be buried in a twitter feed.

Well... like I said, there is a bit of a grey area, since they say it "usually" happens via Sage Advice.... but they also don't say 'only'. *And* they even provide his twitter handle when they give him the authority.

The actual quote: "One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice"


Especially since a fair portion of the population (such as myself) doesn't even have twitter installed, nevermind follows it.
Sure, but this isn't a magic tournament.... if you don't have access.... you just don't use those new rulings. No big deal.
You accept that the Errata's are official, but lots of people probably don't know about them either...

[MaxWilson]

Well... like I said, there is a bit of a grey area, since they say it "usually" happens via Sage Advice.... but they also don't say 'only'. *And* they even provide his twitter handle when they give him the authority.

The actual quote: "One exception: the game’s rules manager, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford), can make official rulings and usually does so in Sage Advice"

Except, that's a Sage Advice quote. Begging the question, not something in the rulebooks. If that were written in the PHB Chapter One or something that would be different. (And quite annoying, because it would mean that the PHB rules were incomplete without reference to an Internet service run by a completely different company, namely Twitter. Not a good way to publish your game rules.)

It may be "official" but it doesn't change the Rules As Written. It just represents the company who originally wrote the rules. Death of the Author.

[coredump]

Except, that's a Sage Advice quote. No. That is *not* a 'sage advice quote. It is not a statement by JC, and it was not found in the Sage Advice column.
It is found in an official WotC publication distributed via the official WotC site with a WotC copyright. To try and portray it as anything but an official WotC publication is disingenuous.


If that were written in the PHB Chapter One or something that would be different. SCAG is also an official WotC publication that was no twritten in the PHB Chapter One..... does that make it also 'not really' official?

The Errata is also an official WotC publication not mentioned in Chapter One..... since its not 'in the rulebook' should we not count it?

You can't just pick and choose which official WotC publications are 'real' and which are not. It is WotC's job to create and write the rules, *they* have the authority to define was does and does not count as 'official'. They have clearly stated that JC's rulings *are* official. You, as is everyone, are free to ignore whatever official rules you want..... but WotC has said they are official...




It may be "official" but it doesn't change the Rules As Written. It just represents the company who originally wrote the rules. Death of the Author.Sure it does, the same what that Errata does or SCAG does. That is kind of the point of being 'official'.

[Spectre9000]

No. That is *not* a 'sage advice quote. It is not a statement by JC, and it was not found in the Sage Advice column.
It is found in an official WotC publication distributed via the official WotC site with a WotC copyright. To try and portray it as anything but an official WotC publication is disingenuous.

SCAG is also an official WotC publication that was no twritten in the PHB Chapter One..... does that make it also 'not really' official?

The Errata is also an official WotC publication not mentioned in Chapter One..... since its not 'in the rulebook' should we not count it?

You can't just pick and choose which official WotC publications are 'real' and which are not. It is WotC's job to create and write the rules, *they* have the authority to define was does and does not count as 'official'. They have clearly stated that JC's rulings *are* official. You, as is everyone, are free to ignore whatever official rules you want..... but WotC has said they are official...


Sure it does, the same what that Errata does or SCAG does. That is kind of the point of being 'official'.

Dragon Magazines bore the WotC emblem and were "official," but few cared about it and didn't use much of the material there due to how broken and random it was. Sage Advice and whatnot aren't that bad, but anything not written in an actual WotC book that's been tested and proven should be taken with a grain of salt. Sage Advice should be taken as just that; advice, not rules. Errata, furthermore, is more of a clarification of intent, and a correction of typos, and should be acknowledged and accepted purely as RAI, not RAW. It's up to your DM to determine whether they wish to go with RAW or RAI, or somewhere in between. This argument is largely pointless, however, as what you're actually arguing isn't RAW versus RAI. You're arguing your own opinion at this point of how you feel the game should be played. Whilst it's ok for you to express your opinions and to play by your own rules, trying to say other people are wrong in an attempt to enforce your own believes on them is going a little too far. This is exactly what you're trying to do with your argument that anything with a WotC copyright is official and should be acknowledged as RAW. By that extension all the play test material is also RAW.

However, this is a thread about Green-Flame Blade, not Official vs "Official", and this thread has been answered. Feel free to continue talking about Green-Flame Blade and its many uses and pros and cons as I enjoy reading the intricacies surrounding it, but let's keep it on topic please.

[MaxWilson]

No. That is *not* a 'sage advice quote. It is not a statement by JC, and it was not found in the Sage Advice column.
It is found in an official WotC publication distributed via the official WotC site with a WotC copyright. To try and portray it as anything but an official WotC publication is disingenuous.

I found that quote here, in the Sage Advice Compentium: http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/SA_Compendium_1.01.pdf I'm not sure if you're referring to something different.

And you're also misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say it wasn't an official WotC publication, in fact I specifically called out that it was. I did say it wasn't an official game rule from the official rulebooks, and I outlined what including Sage ADvice in the rules would entail. (A reference in the PHB Chapter One to the Twitter account.)


SCAG is also an official WotC publication that was no twritten in the PHB Chapter One..... does that make it also 'not really' official?

The Errata is also an official WotC publication not mentioned in Chapter One..... since its not 'in the rulebook' should we not count it?

The Errata don't count in and of themselves, but they make a handy way of referencing updates to the rulebooks. There's a distinction there, but without a difference. The rulebook is the controlling copy though--if the Errata were in conflict with PHB 1.1 (due to poor editing of the errata, etc.) you'd have to go with the PHB 1.1. (Unless the DM vetoes the PHB with his own ruling.)

SCAG is a rules expansion. If you want to use it, you can, just like anything else. SCAG is as valid as Fifth Edition Foes or the Book of Lost Spells. DMs who want to use them, will.

You're really hung up on the word "official", but what you don't seem to realize is that to me, "official" isn't relevant. D&D isn't about corporate law and who has the copyright. It's about what's in the book that you bought. I happen to like 5E about as much as 2nd edition, so I'm playing it, but WotC doesn't get to retroactively alter the game I already bought. They can make a new game that I might or might not buy, and they can make expansions to the game like SCAG that I might or might not buy. That's it.

[Desamir]

Sure, but this isn't a magic tournament.... if you don't have access.... you just don't use those new rulings. No big deal.
You accept that the Errata's are official, but lots of people probably don't know about them either...

There's a major difference between errata and Sage Advice you're missing. Errata is merged into later printings of the books, while Sage Advice and twitter rulings are not. If something didn't warrant inclusion in the errata, then evidently it wasn't important enough to print.