Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade: Utility against creatures with immunity to non-magical damage?
$begingroup$
Both Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade have the following text:
You make a single melee weapon attack against a creature you can see within the spell's range. If the attack hits...
Reading this question makes me believe that a weapon which has been magically enchanted or enhanced, even temporarily, would overcome this immunity, and that both base weapon damage and cantrip damage would apply on a hit (and double on a critical hit).
Question: What damage, if any, would be generated by attacking a creature (with immunity to damage from non-magical weapons) with a non-magical weapon as part of a Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade attack?
dnd-5e spells damage immunities
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Both Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade have the following text:
You make a single melee weapon attack against a creature you can see within the spell's range. If the attack hits...
Reading this question makes me believe that a weapon which has been magically enchanted or enhanced, even temporarily, would overcome this immunity, and that both base weapon damage and cantrip damage would apply on a hit (and double on a critical hit).
Question: What damage, if any, would be generated by attacking a creature (with immunity to damage from non-magical weapons) with a non-magical weapon as part of a Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade attack?
dnd-5e spells damage immunities
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Both Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade have the following text:
You make a single melee weapon attack against a creature you can see within the spell's range. If the attack hits...
Reading this question makes me believe that a weapon which has been magically enchanted or enhanced, even temporarily, would overcome this immunity, and that both base weapon damage and cantrip damage would apply on a hit (and double on a critical hit).
Question: What damage, if any, would be generated by attacking a creature (with immunity to damage from non-magical weapons) with a non-magical weapon as part of a Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade attack?
dnd-5e spells damage immunities
$endgroup$
Both Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade have the following text:
You make a single melee weapon attack against a creature you can see within the spell's range. If the attack hits...
Reading this question makes me believe that a weapon which has been magically enchanted or enhanced, even temporarily, would overcome this immunity, and that both base weapon damage and cantrip damage would apply on a hit (and double on a critical hit).
Question: What damage, if any, would be generated by attacking a creature (with immunity to damage from non-magical weapons) with a non-magical weapon as part of a Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade attack?
dnd-5e spells damage immunities
dnd-5e spells damage immunities
edited 1 hour ago
V2Blast
20.9k360132
20.9k360132
asked 1 hour ago
DavoDavo
4721314
4721314
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Only the cantrip's extra damage would damage the creature
As part of both cantrips' effect, extra damage is dealt. If it had said the weapon's damage was changed, the weapon's damage would have been effective.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The base weapon attack that's part of the cantrip doesn't become magical.
Jeremy Crawford, official 5e rules designer, addresses this question here:
Is the attack made as part of Booming Blade magical? It's delivered as part of a spell, but has its "usual effects" and is a prerequisite for the spell to work.
The booming blade spell isn't intended to make the required weapon attack magical.
So the weapon attack you make as part of the spell is not magical on its own.
...But the extra damage is magical.
The booming blade spell description says:
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 it becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves before then, it immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
Similarly, green-flame blade says:
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.
When the caster of either cantrip reaches higher levels, the initial attack does extra damage as well (in addition to boosting the secondary damage).
Per Crawford's ruling above, the required weapon attack remains nonmagical; the fact that the spell calls for a normal weapon attack doesn't change the properties of the weapon. However, the added damage done by the spell itself is magical, as it's caused directly by the spell. This is true both of the secondary damage of both spells, and of the extra initial damage both spells do at higher levels.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139922%2fbooming-blade-or-green-flame-blade-utility-against-creatures-with-immunity-to-n%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Only the cantrip's extra damage would damage the creature
As part of both cantrips' effect, extra damage is dealt. If it had said the weapon's damage was changed, the weapon's damage would have been effective.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Only the cantrip's extra damage would damage the creature
As part of both cantrips' effect, extra damage is dealt. If it had said the weapon's damage was changed, the weapon's damage would have been effective.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Only the cantrip's extra damage would damage the creature
As part of both cantrips' effect, extra damage is dealt. If it had said the weapon's damage was changed, the weapon's damage would have been effective.
$endgroup$
Only the cantrip's extra damage would damage the creature
As part of both cantrips' effect, extra damage is dealt. If it had said the weapon's damage was changed, the weapon's damage would have been effective.
edited 58 mins ago
V2Blast
20.9k360132
20.9k360132
answered 58 mins ago
RallozarXRallozarX
3827
3827
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The base weapon attack that's part of the cantrip doesn't become magical.
Jeremy Crawford, official 5e rules designer, addresses this question here:
Is the attack made as part of Booming Blade magical? It's delivered as part of a spell, but has its "usual effects" and is a prerequisite for the spell to work.
The booming blade spell isn't intended to make the required weapon attack magical.
So the weapon attack you make as part of the spell is not magical on its own.
...But the extra damage is magical.
The booming blade spell description says:
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 it becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves before then, it immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
Similarly, green-flame blade says:
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.
When the caster of either cantrip reaches higher levels, the initial attack does extra damage as well (in addition to boosting the secondary damage).
Per Crawford's ruling above, the required weapon attack remains nonmagical; the fact that the spell calls for a normal weapon attack doesn't change the properties of the weapon. However, the added damage done by the spell itself is magical, as it's caused directly by the spell. This is true both of the secondary damage of both spells, and of the extra initial damage both spells do at higher levels.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The base weapon attack that's part of the cantrip doesn't become magical.
Jeremy Crawford, official 5e rules designer, addresses this question here:
Is the attack made as part of Booming Blade magical? It's delivered as part of a spell, but has its "usual effects" and is a prerequisite for the spell to work.
The booming blade spell isn't intended to make the required weapon attack magical.
So the weapon attack you make as part of the spell is not magical on its own.
...But the extra damage is magical.
The booming blade spell description says:
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 it becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves before then, it immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
Similarly, green-flame blade says:
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.
When the caster of either cantrip reaches higher levels, the initial attack does extra damage as well (in addition to boosting the secondary damage).
Per Crawford's ruling above, the required weapon attack remains nonmagical; the fact that the spell calls for a normal weapon attack doesn't change the properties of the weapon. However, the added damage done by the spell itself is magical, as it's caused directly by the spell. This is true both of the secondary damage of both spells, and of the extra initial damage both spells do at higher levels.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The base weapon attack that's part of the cantrip doesn't become magical.
Jeremy Crawford, official 5e rules designer, addresses this question here:
Is the attack made as part of Booming Blade magical? It's delivered as part of a spell, but has its "usual effects" and is a prerequisite for the spell to work.
The booming blade spell isn't intended to make the required weapon attack magical.
So the weapon attack you make as part of the spell is not magical on its own.
...But the extra damage is magical.
The booming blade spell description says:
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 it becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves before then, it immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
Similarly, green-flame blade says:
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.
When the caster of either cantrip reaches higher levels, the initial attack does extra damage as well (in addition to boosting the secondary damage).
Per Crawford's ruling above, the required weapon attack remains nonmagical; the fact that the spell calls for a normal weapon attack doesn't change the properties of the weapon. However, the added damage done by the spell itself is magical, as it's caused directly by the spell. This is true both of the secondary damage of both spells, and of the extra initial damage both spells do at higher levels.
$endgroup$
The base weapon attack that's part of the cantrip doesn't become magical.
Jeremy Crawford, official 5e rules designer, addresses this question here:
Is the attack made as part of Booming Blade magical? It's delivered as part of a spell, but has its "usual effects" and is a prerequisite for the spell to work.
The booming blade spell isn't intended to make the required weapon attack magical.
So the weapon attack you make as part of the spell is not magical on its own.
...But the extra damage is magical.
The booming blade spell description says:
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 it becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves before then, it immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.
Similarly, green-flame blade says:
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.
When the caster of either cantrip reaches higher levels, the initial attack does extra damage as well (in addition to boosting the secondary damage).
Per Crawford's ruling above, the required weapon attack remains nonmagical; the fact that the spell calls for a normal weapon attack doesn't change the properties of the weapon. However, the added damage done by the spell itself is magical, as it's caused directly by the spell. This is true both of the secondary damage of both spells, and of the extra initial damage both spells do at higher levels.
answered 53 mins ago
V2BlastV2Blast
20.9k360132
20.9k360132
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f139922%2fbooming-blade-or-green-flame-blade-utility-against-creatures-with-immunity-to-n%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown