# Greenflame Blade Cantrip from SCAG, Courtesy of EXTRA LIFE



## ad_hoc (Oct 3, 2015)

Here is the Greenflame Blade cantrip from SCAG thanks to the Extra Life charity event. This, like the already unlocked table of contents and the preface previews of November 3rd's _Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide_, is part of the fundraising efforts by WotC and others to raise money for children's hospitals.  Next up, if they reach $70,000, is the Urban Bounty Hunter background.




​


----------



## ad_hoc (Oct 3, 2015)

pukunui said:


> Cool. How did you get the link? It's not showing up as live on either the Extra Life page or the D&D website page.




hmmmm...

It shows up on a donation page here:

http://www.extra-life.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=donorDrive.participant&participantID=168188


----------



## pukunui (Oct 3, 2015)

Weird. I guess whoever's updating the links on the pages is just working slowly.


----------



## UnadvisedGoose445 (Oct 3, 2015)

I was hoping this would mesh well with the Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature, and I'm pleased that it does


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 3, 2015)

This was one of my favorite at-will powers from 4e for swordmages.  I wanted to remake my swordmage from 4e as a 5e character but this was his most used power and the character didn't feel right without it.  So glad it is back.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 3, 2015)

This is very powerful for any melee class with only one attack.  I foresee many rogue and cleric builds taking this cantrip.


----------



## UnadvisedGoose445 (Oct 3, 2015)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> This was one of my favorite at-will powers from 4e for swordmages.  I wanted to remake my swordmage from 4e as a 5e character but this was his most used power and the character didn't feel right without it.  So glad it is back.




Exact same here. I didn't mind the concept of the Eldritch Knight, but the spell selection was very poor, especially if I wanted to take advantage of War Magic. The EE supplement helped with things like Absorb Elements, or even Melf's Minute Meteors, but what I felt was really missing was at-will/cantrip support to give the feel of really mixing sword and sorcery and still feeling at least close to as effective as a Battlemaster.


----------



## Psikerlord# (Oct 3, 2015)

Paraxis said:


> This is very powerful for any melee class with only one attack.  I foresee many rogue and cleric builds taking this cantrip.




Yeah, this is broken. SA + extra d8s on top? No thanks. 

Sigh.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 3, 2015)

Paraxis said:


> This is very powerful for any melee class with only one attack.  I foresee many rogue and cleric builds taking this cantrip.



Agreed. My 14th-level arcane trickster is drooling. 2d8 bonus damage on every sneak attack? Plus, if there's another enemy within 5 feet, I get to deal 2d8+2 damage to that enemy too? YES PLEASE.

Unfortunately, while it's awesome for rogues and clerics, it's kind of mediocre for the class it's presumably aimed at, the eldritch knight fighter. Most of the time, Extra Attack will be better.


----------



## JackOfAllTirades (Oct 3, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> Agreed. My 14th-level arcane trickster is drooling. 2d8 bonus damage on every sneak attack? Plus, if there's another enemy within 5 feet, I get to deal 2d8+2 damage to that enemy too? YES PLEASE.
> 
> Unfortunately, while it's awesome for rogues and clerics, it's kind of mediocre for the class it's presumably aimed at, the eldritch knight fighter. Most of the time, Extra Attack will be better.




This is also true for Blade Pact Warlocks, I think. Although I wouldn't mind pumping it up with _Elemental Bane_. 

Actually, at this point I'm not clear on which classes get this cantrip added to their lists. Do we have that info yet?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Oct 3, 2015)

Dausuul said:


> Unfortunately, while it's awesome for rogues and clerics, it's kind of mediocre for the class it's presumably aimed at, the eldritch knight fighter. Most of the time, Extra Attack will be better.



It's better in the situations it was designed for.  If you are wielding a 1 handed weapon, like a long sword then at 5th level, you get 2 attacks each doing 1d8+4 damage.

If you use this cantrip and there is someone nearby, then you do 2d8+4 damage to the first one and 1d8+3 damage to the second one(assuming a 16 in your casting stat).  The second attack doesn't require an attack roll so you can hit an easy to hit enemy and use that to damage a second enemy.  The same thing applies to 11th level.  You are doing a total of 5d8+10 points of damage when 3 attacks do 3d8+15.  Plus, since you are 7th level or higher, as an Eldrich Knight you also are getting a bonus action attack so you are doing a total of 6d8+15.

Overall, that's better than making extra attacks.  Yes, there are some edge cases where some feats might put you over the damage from the cantrip, but otherwise this looks pretty solid.

If you use it to attack only one enemy, it'll be worse though.


----------



## UnadvisedGoose445 (Oct 3, 2015)

Hmm. I'm starting to question the validity of this, as it's still not posted on either the D&D website or the Extra Life page. The scan looks a little funky too, though that could maybe be my phone?

Edit: Nevermind, I was wrong. It's posted on D&D's official tumblr.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 3, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> Yeah, this is broken. SA + extra d8s on top? No thanks.
> 
> Sigh.



I think it's fine.

It's not as if Rogue Sneak Attack damage is so impressive that a couple of more dice takes it over the top or anything.

Besides, it isn't free damage. You do need to take a feat or multiclass to get it, unless you go Trickster (assuming this is for them), and thus does not go Assassin.

But it's nice to see a feature that actually stacks with your primary ability. If sneak damage was already problematic and overshadowing fighter and wizard damage, I'd be much more likely to agree with you.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 3, 2015)

JackOfAllTirades said:


> Actually, at this point I'm not clear on which classes get this cantrip added to their lists. Do we have that info yet?



The ToC previewed earlier indicates that there are only cantrips for sorcerers, warlocks and wizards, so it'll be one or more of those. Since it seems like it was designed for eldritch knights, it'll have to be on the wizard list at the very least.



UnadvisedGoose445 said:


> Edit: Nevermind, I was wrong. It's posted on D&D's official tumblr.



It was also posted on FB earlier. It looks like it's a screenshot from the working file, since there's what appears to be a mouse cursor.


----------



## Inglorin (Oct 3, 2015)

This cantrip is worded weirdly. Can it be twinned?


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 3, 2015)

Edit


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 3, 2015)

UnadvisedGoose445 said:


> I was hoping this would mesh well with the Eldritch Knight's War Magic feature, and I'm pleased that it does



How?


----------



## pukunui (Oct 3, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> How?



You cast the cantrip, which includes a melee attack, then you get to make another melee attack as a bonus action.


----------



## UnadvisedGoose445 (Oct 3, 2015)

^ that. I admit that it may be ostensibly better on Arcane Trickster's due to how SA works, but still. At level 7 when you get the feature it allows you to up the damage on one attack, and still get a full second one off with a bonus action. On top of damaging a second enemy that is adjacent. Yes, Extra Attack becomes a more attractive single target option at level 11, but still. It provides options and feels more "Eldritch Knight" than any other cantrip previously compatible with War Magic. 

Hopefully there are one or two more provided that help out with at-will melee damage that actually blends physical attacks with magic. It's what I miss from the Swordmage.


----------



## The Grassy Gnoll (Oct 3, 2015)

It'll be for Wizards so Jim Darkmagic can cast it and get the audience to sing along.


----------



## Celtavian (Oct 3, 2015)

Psikerlord# said:


> Yeah, this is broken. SA + extra d8s on top? No thanks.
> 
> Sigh.




It does 3d8+ability modifier damage. That's around +16 points. The same as 4d6 sneak attack damage. Now a fighter with three attacks can get the equivalent of 4d6 sneak attack damage. Why would a rogue benefit more?


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 3, 2015)

Celtavian said:


> It does 3d8+ability modifier damage. That's around +16 points. The same as 4d6 sneak attack damage. Now a fighter with three attacks can get the equivalent of 4d6 sneak attack damage. Why would a rogue benefit more?



I believe he is thinking it is overpowered to have an effect that adds to top-tier sneak damage, effectively making this cantrip mandatory if you build your character towards the singular goal "maximum sneak damage".


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 3, 2015)

Celtavian said:


> It does 3d8+ability modifier damage. That's around +16 points. The same as 4d6 sneak attack damage. Now a fighter with three attacks can get the equivalent of 4d6 sneak attack damage. Why would a rogue benefit more?



A rogue benefits relatively more, as does any single-attack character. 

If you have three or four attacks (or even five), chances are "extra attack" is better than casting this cantrip.

If you have seventh or ninth level spells to cast, chances are "cast spell" is better than casting this cantrip.

You can't just think "fighters benefit equally" - this forgets the higher opportunity cost for a character with either "many attacks" or "powerful spells" as alternative actions to take. This cantrip seems likely to benefit Rogues the most, and perhaps things like melee Rangers or Valor Bards or War Clerics thereafter...


----------



## Azurewraith (Oct 3, 2015)

perhaps im being dense but how is this so awesome for rogues sneak attack as it only applies once per turn?


----------



## Ahrimon (Oct 3, 2015)

My war cleric would enjoy this.  Hopefully I'll be able to pick it up from sorcerer or warlock with magic initiate since he's not the brightest ale in the tavern.


----------



## Azurewraith (Oct 3, 2015)

Ahrimon said:


> My war cleric would enjoy this.  Hopefully I'll be able to pick it up from sorcerer or warlock with magic initiate since he's not the brightest ale in the tavern.



 The darker the Ale the better!


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 3, 2015)

Azurewraith said:


> perhaps im being dense but how is this so awesome for rogues sneak attack as it only applies once per turn?



Not sure what you aren't seeing, but this cantrip provides damage THAT STACKS WITH sneak damage, that is, it is damage that comes on top of sneak damage.

The cantrip can only be cast once a turn. Sneak damage is only once a turn. Neither of these things diminish the rogue's enjoyment of this cantrip, so...?


----------



## Azurewraith (Oct 3, 2015)

Ok i was over thinking things and it is just that simple I wonder if it will be better than dipping 5for fighter extra attack and picking up archery and Sharpshooter.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 3, 2015)

So this might me the cantrip designed for the bladesinger.

That it is s single attack would sugest the bladesinger could sugest the bladesinger will be a wizard subclass as they only get one attack, so with this cantrip they don't need to fit the extra attack feature into the bladesinger subclass


----------



## Corpsetaker (Oct 3, 2015)

I think it would have been better if an actual blade of green flame materialized in your hand and took on the physical form of any weapon you like.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 3, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I think it would have been better if an actual blade of green flame materialized in your hand and took on the physical form of any weapon you like.



A decent idea, but remember Wizards have poor weapon proficiencies. 

My guess is things would have become just a tad too complicated if the cantrip had to say "think of any weapon that you're proficient with"...


----------



## Prism (Oct 3, 2015)

Azurewraith said:


> Ok i was over thinking things and it is just that simple I wonder if it will be better than dipping 5for fighter extra attack and picking up archery and Sharpshooter.




Taking 5 levels of fighter probably reduces your damage rather then increases it. You lose at least 2d6 of sneak attack and gain an extra attack that can't be used with sneak attack since you can only do it once per turn.

 This spell simply adds more damage to your existing attack. Its great for an arcane trickster, high elf rogues and any rogue that takes the magic adept feat. Also since the rogue is so mobile with disengage as a bonus action they have a good chance of being able to get adjacent to two opponents before striking (and then moving out of combat safely)

All this assumes it is in fact a wizard cantrip, which it may not be


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 3, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> A decent idea, but remember Wizards have poor weapon proficiencies.
> 
> My guess is things would have become just a tad too complicated if the cantrip had to say "think of any weapon that you're proficient with"...




I think This cantrip was designed with the bladesinger in mind, as a bladesinger would already have a weapon in hand.


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 3, 2015)

My first thought was this would be fun to cast with a reach weapon, but the spell says it only works out to 5 ft. So much for that green flaming whip idea...


----------



## Yunru (Oct 3, 2015)

Dragon Sorcerer Gish confirmed.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 3, 2015)

Edwin Suijkerbuijk said:


> So this might me the cantrip designed for the bladesinger.
> 
> That it is s single attack would sugest the bladesinger could sugest the bladesinger will be a wizard subclass as they only get one attack, so with this cantrip they don't need to fit the extra attack feature into the bladesinger subclass



Yes, this is an excellent match for all single-attack classes (that still want to rough it up)


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Oct 3, 2015)

I'm not sure if a spell that forces the rogue to go into melee really qualifies as a best choice. Maybe for the cleric, but rogues in our game are opting to stay behind and do their sneak attack thing from a safe distance.

It probably helps that I, as a DM, have rarely spared squishy characters who dare join the melee ranks dealing a lot of damage without having the HPs to support it. As always, IMMV.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 3, 2015)

Giltonio_Santos said:


> I'm not sure if a spell that forces the rogue to go into melee really qualifies as a best choice. Maybe for the cleric, but rogues in our game are opting to stay behind and do their sneak attack thing from a safe distance.




But this is the thing. The game lacked a real incentive to play a "melee rogue". 

There were few or no real benefits to using daggers over bolts and arrows. Everything a melee rogue could do, a ranged rogue could do as well, but at a much safer distance.

Finally there is an attractive option that is only available to melee builds!


----------



## Li Shenron (Oct 3, 2015)

I was hoping for an evocation cantrip with a ST, for _Potent Cantrip_...


----------



## Corpsetaker (Oct 3, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> A decent idea, but remember Wizards have poor weapon proficiencies.
> 
> My guess is things would have become just a tad too complicated if the cantrip had to say "think of any weapon that you're proficient with"...




I just had this idea in my mind of a Sorcerer who focused on melee combat with his spells and had this as his main one. Or even the Eldritch Knight who could become sort of like a jedi knight.


----------



## Corpsetaker (Oct 3, 2015)

I think I would actually craft a magic item where it's just the handle of a longsword with this spell cast into it where a green flame appears where the blade should be. Much like Thundarr's Sunsword.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos (Oct 3, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> But this is the thing. The game lacked a real incentive to play a "melee rogue".
> 
> There were few or no real benefits to using daggers over bolts and arrows. Everything a melee rogue could do, a ranged rogue could do as well, but at a much safer distance.




In this case, the cantrip is pure win. I like the idea of high risk, high reward.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Oct 3, 2015)

A little different from the 4e version in that it doesn't turn your weapon damage in to fire damage, either, and it uses your spellcasting ability modifier rather than some other ability score.

I like the change to general spellcasting ability modifier, but I dunno about keeping the weapon damage "normal" instead of changing it to fire. Probably it's fine as the character will have other fire attacks....


----------



## ppaladin123 (Oct 3, 2015)

Prism said:


> Taking 5 levels of fighter probably reduces your damage rather then increases it. You lose at least 2d6 of sneak attack and gain an extra attack that can't be used with sneak attack since you can only do it once per turn.
> 
> This spell simply adds more damage to your existing attack. Its great for an arcane trickster, high elf rogues and any rogue that takes the magic adept feat. Also since the rogue is so mobile with disengage as a bonus action they have a good chance of being able to get adjacent to two opponents before striking (and then moving out of combat safely)
> 
> All this assumes it is in fact a wizard cantrip, which it may not be




You have to factor in the possibility of a miss. A second attack gives you another opportunity to apply sneak attack damage if you miss with your first attack. So you give up a slightly higher maximum sneak attack for a higher probability of applying a sneak attack at all. The more accurate you are/less likely you are to miss, the less valuable that extra attack is in terms of "expected damage," though.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 3, 2015)

pukunui said:


> The ToC previewed earlier indicates that there are only cantrips for sorcerers, warlocks and wizards, so it'll be one or more of those. Since it seems like it was designed for eldritch knights, it'll have to be on the wizard list at the very least.




And anyone who wants to pick it up with Magic Initiate could.

My longsword monk would like it, just for the flavor. /nods


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 3, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> But this is the thing. The game lacked a real incentive to play a "melee rogue".
> 
> There were few or no real benefits to using daggers over bolts and arrows. Everything a melee rogue could do, a ranged rogue could do as well, but at a much safer distance.
> 
> Finally there is an attractive option that is only available to melee builds!




Melee builds? 

A rogue can be very effective in melee or ranged combat thanks to finesse weapons. No building or adjustments required. There is no need to choose or lock yourself into one method of fighting, just do whichever is best in a given situation. The well prepared rogue can be effective at whatever distance the situation permits.


----------



## ppaladin123 (Oct 3, 2015)

ExploderWizard said:


> Melee builds?
> 
> A rogue can be very effective in melee or ranged combat thanks to finesse weapons. No building or adjustments required. There is no need to choose or lock yourself into one method of fighting, just do whichever is best in a given situation. The well prepared rogue can be effective at whatever distance the situation permits.




Well, yes but you never really had an incentive to get up close and personal and risk a sword to the face..it is just that if you got stuck in such a scenario (ranged is not always feasible given the terrain/circumstances) you could still effectively fight back. This adds an extra component to your decision about how to engage even if you are in a wide open field in broad daylight...do I risk going toe-to-toe with this slab of meat in exchange for more damage?

It is not really about viability (rogues that spend their time in melee do pretty well regardless) as opposed to making a "fighting style" not automatically strictly inferior (though still quite effective in absolute terms).


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 3, 2015)

Assuming it is a wizard cantrip as it most likely is.

Ways to gain green flame.


Be a high elf
Be a wizard
Be a eldritch knight
Be an arcane trickster
Bard magical secrets ability
Magic initiate feat


In all the above ways Int is the casting ability score except for bards magical secrets and then it is charisma. 

Who gains the most out of this cantrip, any single attack melee character.  So any rogue, cleric, lore bard, maybe land druid (combine this with shillelagh), obviously wizard (abjurers can be front line).

IDK about this spell it just seems like a power boost to many classes.


----------



## gyor (Oct 3, 2015)

High Elf Paladin's just went up a notch.

 This is a really good cantrip to take for Lore Bards.

 High Elf Rogue Assassins.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 3, 2015)

Paraxis said:


> Assuming it is a wizard cantrip as it most likely is.
> 
> Ways to gain green flame.
> 
> ...




Don't forget "be a Tomelock." Frankly, Find Familiar ritual (advantage) + Shillelagh cantrip + Greenflame Blade cantrip makes Tomelocks better at melee, early on, than Bladelocks are.

I have mixed feelings about this cantrip, mostly centering on the weird "attack one creature using a different creature's AC" side effect. There could be cases where it's easier to hurt certain things (like a +3 Plate Armor guy with a +3 shield) by bringing along a chicken which you kill right next to it, and that kind of rubs me the wrong way. Also, I'm a bit concerned that this spell might overshadow Shocking Grasp, since you get as much damage to the second target as Shocking Grasp would do to its only target, which means the chicken exploit turns it into "shocking grasp with 100% accuracy, but no reaction-negating side effect."

I think my ruling on this spell would be, "It's allowed, but you have to roll a melee spell attack against creature #2, regardless of whether or not you hit the primary target." Same overall power, less exploit.

*Edit:* BTW, it's interesting that monks cannot use this spell with unarmed attacks.


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 3, 2015)

Pact of tome warlock could take greenflame and shillelagh, use a staff attacking with charisma to hit and damage, and greenflame.

So at 5th level with 18 charisma it would be +7 to hit main target for 1d8+4+1d8 fire damage, and the secondary target takes 1d8+4 fire damage. 

It is also interesting that there is no attack roll or save for the secondary target they just take the fire damage if primary target is hit.

EDIT: Hemlock beat me to it by a couple minutes.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 3, 2015)

Great minds think alike!


----------



## Jester David (Oct 3, 2015)

This pretty much became THE cantrip for any high elf in a melee class.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 3, 2015)

why does no one think warlocks will get this just as a cantrip?


----------



## Benji (Oct 3, 2015)

Wouldn't the sneak damage be dealt to the original creature, while the flame damage would be applied to the second? How does that stack?


----------



## Paraxis (Oct 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> why does no one think warlocks will get this just as a cantrip?




They probably will. 

The section from the table of contents is called "Cantrips for Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards" so there is a good chance it will be a cantrip for all three classes.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> why does no one think warlocks will get this just as a cantrip?




I think it's more a matter of "everyone assumes this is an Eldritch Knight cantrip", and in the absence of information defaults to assuming that it is a wizard-only cantrip. It could wind up on the warlock list and that would be fine, there's just no way to know either way if it will.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 3, 2015)

Benji said:


> Wouldn't the sneak damage be dealt to the original creature, while the flame damage would be applied to the second? How does that stack?




at 5th level green flame blade effects both targets...

so if an arcane trickster took it, had a 14 and 15 in casting and dex and was fighting in a three way fight (so he can sneak attack because both other guys are fighting too) he hits for:

dagger        1d4+1d8+2+3d6   (average 19) prime target and 1d8+2 to secondary  
short sword 1d6+1d8+2+3d6   (average 20) prime target and 1d8+2 to secondary  
Rapier        1d8+1d8+2+3d6    (average 21) prime target and 1d8+2 to secondary

that is 1d8 over the normal sneak attack to prime and a free 1d8+2 to the secondary...


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Oct 3, 2015)

If you think this is too much for sneak attack, you could easily rule it invalid for sneak attack because it's a spell.


----------



## gyor (Oct 3, 2015)

This would be a great cantrip for favoured souls, attack twice with your normal attacks and then use a quickened Greenfire Blade Cantrip.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl (Oct 3, 2015)

gyor said:


> This would be a great cantrip for favoured souls, attack twice with your normal attacks and then use a quickened Greenfire Blade Cantrip.




sounds like it's better then the eldritch knight make an attack and use a cantrip power...


----------



## Ainulindalion (Oct 3, 2015)

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> sounds like it's better then the eldritch knight make an attack and use a cantrip power...




But isn't at will.


----------



## Benji (Oct 3, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> at 5th level green flame blade effects both targets...




So Totally missed that part of the description.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Oct 3, 2015)

I do like the cantrip. Wven for a rogue arcane trickster. You give up the option for a second attack. I really do like every incentive not to do twf with every class. 
One thing I hope is that the bladesinger will either gain proficiency in rapiers or even gain finesse on long swords when wielding them one handed.


----------



## JackOfAllTirades (Oct 3, 2015)

pukunui said:


> The ToC previewed earlier indicates that there are only cantrips for sorcerers, warlocks and wizards, so it'll be one or more of those. Since it seems like it was designed for eldritch knights, it'll have to be on the wizard list at the very least.




Thanks!


----------



## Prism (Oct 3, 2015)

UngeheuerLich said:


> I do like the cantrip. Wven for a rogue arcane trickster. You give up the option for a second attack. I really do like every incentive not to do twf with every class.




I agree that is important. Having seen a rogue in our party miss fairly often with his first attack and rely on the follow up second weapon to get the sneak damage in that round, its a risk to cast this cantrip assuming it will always be better. Without the second opponent being adjacent i'm not sure how worth it, it really is.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 3, 2015)

What I like best about this cantrip is that it works only in melee. Melee in 5E needs all the help it can get to stay relevant.


----------



## Samurai (Oct 3, 2015)

pukunui said:


> Cool. How did you get the link? It's not showing up as live on either the Extra Life page or the D&D website page.
> 
> 
> The wording of the cantrip feels a little awkward to me but I think I like the overall effect. If I'm reading it correctly, it essentially works like this:
> ...




Yes, but you also have to shout "GREEN FLAME!" when the spell goes off, or else Chris Perkins will be unhappy.


----------



## Edwin Suijkerbuijk (Oct 3, 2015)

Samurai said:


> Yes, but you also have to shout "GREEN FLAME!" when the spell goes off, or else Chris Perkins will be unhappy.




Cris perkins will be the Dm in the  sunday seaaion from 8 am till 12.

http://www.twitch.tv/wotc_dnd


----------



## Redthistle (Oct 3, 2015)

Exen Trik said:


> My first thought was this would be fun to cast with a reach weapon, but the spell says it only works out to 5 ft. So much for that green flaming whip idea...




A green flaming whip? That strikes me as so cool that if I was your DM I'd grant it.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Oct 3, 2015)

Strikes me as a lot more narrow than it looks at first blush.

Costs an action.  Seems pretty useless for most classes that get the "Extra attack" ability.  I don't even know if Eldritch Knight's War Magic makes this good.  Probably good enough to take.  Decent for other classes, but not many of them want to be involved in melee at higher levels.  Pretty crap for levels 1-4.  Only hitting secondary targets within 5 feet that you can see is pretty limiting, too.  It's all fire damage, too, which is pretty meh at higher levels.  

It isn't clear to me if you're supposed to make the melee weapon attack using the normal attack ability, or if you're supposed to use the spellcasting attack ability.  The attack is explicitly part of the spell, unlike the paladin smite spells and ranger strike spells.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 3, 2015)

Bacon Bits said:


> Strikes me as a lot more narrow than it looks at first blush.
> 
> Costs an action.  Seems pretty useless for most classes that get the "Extra attack" ability.  I don't even know if Eldritch Knight's War Magic makes this good.  Probably good enough to take.  Decent for other classes, but not many of them want to be involved in melee at higher levels.  Pretty crap for levels 1-4.  Only hitting secondary targets within 5 feet that you can see is pretty limiting, too.  It's all fire damage, too, which is pretty meh at higher levels.




War Magic makes it good for a while. At level 7, you'd have a choice between making two attacks and keeping your bonus action for other things like Expeditious Retreat or dual-wielding or Crossbow Expert, or using your action and bonus action to make a Greenflame Attack and a bonus action attack from War Magic. The Greenflame adds an extra 2d8+Int damage (spread across two targets) relative to the regular Attack Attack option, although if you're fighting only one creature it's merely an extra 1d8. At 11th level it's a choice between three attacks, or two attacks and an extra 4d8+Int (spread across two targets), which is still pretty respectable, especially against creatures that are resistant to normal weapons like Banshees and Wraiths. At level 17 it's an extra 6d8+Int, but at 20th level it's now costing you two attacks instead of one. Ergo, Greenflame is good against pairs of opponents at levels 7-10 and 17-19 if you don't have another bonus action, and not trash at levels 11-16. At level 20 it could be trash compared to other options like Sharpshooter or GWM Power Attack; depends on how many high-AC opponents are in the mob.

Against mobs, Thunderclap for 4d6 to everyone within 5 feet is probably preferable to Greenflame. Also, thunder is a better damage type against everyone except mummies and trolls.


----------



## Curmudjinn (Oct 3, 2015)

I find it kind of ..boring. I'm not one to worry about the math side of roleplaying, so it really doesn't jump out at me. I would prefer a few more utilitarian cantrips.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 3, 2015)

I just now hope for the other awesome atwill from sword mages... SWORDBURST...


----------



## ZickZak (Oct 4, 2015)

gyor said:


> This would be a great cantrip for favoured souls, attack twice with your normal attacks and then use a quickened Greenfire Blade Cantrip.




Luckily FS wont get released in its current state.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 4, 2015)

I can see the power in this spell...

For a 5th+ Eldritch Knight...

primary opponent is heavily up-armored (Say AC25)... but has a low-armored ally within 5'...
You attack the AC 13 ally, and autohit the AC25 bigbad... Yeah, I can see one of my players abusing the hell out of this one.


----------



## Raven.Blooded (Oct 4, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I just now hope for the other awesome atwill from sword mages... SWORDBURST...




Yes to Swordburst!  Swordmage is one of the few things I loved about 4e


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 4, 2015)

aramis erak said:


> I can see the power in this spell...
> 
> For a 5th+ Eldritch Knight...
> 
> ...




There doesn't even have to be a low-AC ally nearby. The spell says you must attack "one creature within range", not "another creature within range." Ergo you can cast this spell on yourself, hopefully with a very tiny weapon that does little damage, and then use the Greenfire to attack the AC 25 bigbad (or PC). It's a sacrifice play.


----------



## ClockworkNinja (Oct 4, 2015)

Corpsetaker said:


> I think I would actually craft a magic item where it's just the handle of a longsword with this spell cast into it where a green flame appears where the blade should be. Much like Thundarr's Sunsword.




That exact thing already exists. 
DMG pg 205, the "Sunblade"


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Oct 4, 2015)

I like it. There are two kinds of subclasses in 5e: those that give you an viable scaling at-will weapon attack, and those that give you a viable scaling at-will magic (cantrip) attack. Prior to _greenflame blade_ if you were in a weapon subclass you could take Magic Initiate and pick a viable at-will magic attack (such as _eldritch blast_). If you were in a cantrip subclass, there was no easy way to gain a viable at-will weapon attack. With _greenflame blade_--now there is. A great imbalance has been rectified.

It's also a pretty nifty choice for eldritch knights and high level valor bards.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 4, 2015)

Nice synergy with warcaster too.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 4, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> I like it. There are two kinds of subclasses in 5e: those that give you an viable scaling at-will weapon attack, and those that give you a viable scaling at-will magic (cantrip) attack.




And then there's the monk, whose attacks basically don't scale at all past level 2. 

(3 attacks goes to 4 at level 5, and the weapon dice get slightly larger, but that's about it.)

I'm not complaining BTW--not every class has to be offensive combat-centric. Monks are best IMO as scouts and support characters, and their main role in combat is to plink away with arrows until such time as they need to make a Stunning Strike or four on a target of opportunity.


----------



## aarduini (Oct 4, 2015)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I just now hope for the other awesome atwill from sword mages... SWORDBURST...




This exist already. Thunderclap!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 4, 2015)

aarduini said:


> This exist already. Thunderclap!





sword burst was a force effect (like magic missle) that hit eveyr target adjacent to you...


----------



## aarduini (Oct 4, 2015)

You still had to make the attack roll to hit the target. Thunderclap is a Thunder effect that hits every target adjacent to you as long as they fail their save. I don't see much difference.


----------



## Xeviat (Oct 4, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> And then there's the monk, whose attacks basically don't scale at all past level 2.
> 
> (3 attacks goes to 4 at level 5, and the weapon dice get slightly larger, but that's about it.)
> 
> I'm not complaining BTW--not every class has to be offensive combat-centric. Monks are best IMO as scouts and support characters, and their main role in combat is to plink away with arrows until such time as they need to make a Stunning Strike or four on a target of opportunity.




Eh ... the monk has 2 attacks at 1st, and it jumps to 3 attacks at 5th. They also have the option to add an attack at 2nd, and they are able to add that 1 attack more often per short rest as they gain levels because they gain more ki. They get enough Ki to be able to use that extra attack on every round eventually and still have some left over. Whether or not that compares to a fighter's 3rd and 4th attack, or a paladin's Improved Divine Smite, I don't know; the scaling monk weapon damage may help with that.


----------



## Yunru (Oct 5, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> And then there's the monk, whose attacks basically don't scale at all past level 2.
> 
> (3 attacks goes to 4 at level 5, and the weapon dice get slightly larger, but that's about it.)



By that logic the Fighter's attacks don't scale period. I mean 1/rest thet go from 1 to 2 at second level, but that doesn't count. They go from 1 to 2 permanently at level 5, but that doesn't count. Ditto 11, 17 and 20.

At least the Monk gets die increases and treated as magical


----------



## ClockworkNinja (Oct 5, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> And then there's the monk, whose attacks basically don't scale at all past level 2.
> 
> (3 attacks goes to 4 at level 5, and the weapon dice get slightly larger, but that's about it.)




As they gain levels, the Monk gets more attacks and those attacks get more damaging, how does that not count as scaling damage? 

I have issues with the monk, but this isn't one of them.


----------



## raphaelus (Oct 5, 2015)

Kobold Avenger said:


> If you think this is too much for sneak attack, you could easily rule it invalid for sneak attack because it's a spell.




Agree. You could go: "You cannot combine Sneak Attack with the cantrip as the _sneak _part doesn't go with verbal exclamation and green glow."


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 5, 2015)

Yunru said:


> By that logic the Fighter's attacks don't scale period. I mean 1/rest thet go from 1 to 2 at second level, but that doesn't count. They go from 1 to 2 permanently at level 5, but that doesn't count. Ditto 11, 17 and 20.
> 
> At least the Monk gets die increases and treated as magical




I don't understand what logic you're using here. The Monk's attacks increase by 30% at level 5, and maybe another 10% over the next fifteen levels. What's what I mean by "basically don't scale at all"--the magnitude of the increase between 2nd and 20th level is small.

The fighter on the other hand increases his attacks by 300% over the same period. The scaling is significant.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 5, 2015)

10% after level 5?!? 

Either you are mistaken or the high level monk is the world's puniest attacker...


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 5, 2015)

Hemlock said:


> I don't understand what logic you're using here. The Monk's attacks increase by 30% at level 5, and maybe another 10% over the next fifteen levels. What's what I mean by "basically don't scale at all"--the magnitude of the increase between 2nd and 20th level is small.
> 
> The fighter on the other hand increases his attacks by 300% over the same period. The scaling is significant.





CapnZapp said:


> 10% after level 5?!?
> 
> Either you are mistaken or the high level monk is the world's puniest attacker...




Monk, unarmed: 2x(1d4+3) (max start) to 4x(1d10+5) is 11 to 42, a 381.81% gain over 17 levels.
Plus any extra from feats or gear. Extracting the 17th root, it's about 8.2% per level. 
Using weapons, 1d8+3 + 1d4+3 starting, improving by a couple points to 13, merely 223.07% for 7.14% per level.

The fighter goes from 2d6+3 max start, to 4x(2d6+5), for 10 to 48, over 20 levels. 380% improvement over 20, for about (extracting the 20th root) about 8.16% per level.
Rogue goes from a peak of 1d8+1d6+3 to 1d8+10d6+5, for 11 to 50.5, for 259% improvement over 20 levels; 7.92% per level.

The monk is a lower gain per level... but has other specials to make up for it.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 5, 2015)

Okay. Thank you, but a few points.

I myself am not interested in relative gain (the percentage numbers), only in comparing absolute numbers, since that's the only relevant number impacting the game. That is, nobody cares if you do twice as much damage as you did thirty sessions ago or five times as much. Only if my character do about the same damage as yours, at any given point in time.

HOWEVER that is my view. The discussion here IS about those relative numbers.

BUT, and here's the rub, they talk about the increase after level 5!

So I guess my point is simply that your numbers (level one vs level twenty) do little to refute or support the claim under discussion.

Which is "monk only gains 10% after level five".

My response to this is: if this is true, the monk is either incredibly OP at level five, incredibly lame at level twenty, or, more likely, both.

IF this claim is true.


----------



## Zalabim (Oct 5, 2015)

At level one, monk does 13, fighter does 11.33.

At level 5, monk does 32 with flurry, 24.5 without flurry, and fighter does 24.66, and has action surge, and 4d8 SD.

At level 11, monk does 38 with flurry, has extra Ki for stunning strikes, and fighter does 40 and has action surge and 5d10 SD.

At level 17, monk does 52.5 with flurry and opportunist, has plenty of ki for stunning strikes, and fighter does 40 and has 2 action surges and 6d10 SD.

The Open Hand monk has Quivering Palm.

At level 20, monk does 52.5 with flurry and opportunist, has plenty of ki for stunning strikes or enough for empty body, and fighter does 53.33 and has 2 action surges and 6d12 SD.

Going a bit from memory here, but my description would be that monk does less damage but has advantage more often (the gap is still about .88:1), while fighters will benefit more from combat feats (hasn't used bonus action or reaction), advantageous situations (like a party member stunning an enemy), and magic weapons (since they make four or more weapon attacks) (as will barbarians, paladins, etc to different degrees). The monk just doesn't have much to optimize. They already get advantage, bonus action, and reaction attacks (deflect missiles sometimes, if nothing else).

Sidenote: Monks love the girdles of X giant's strength.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 5, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Which is "monk only gains 10% after level five".
> 
> My response to this is: if this is true, the monk is either incredibly OP at level five, incredibly lame at level twenty, or, more likely, both.
> 
> IF this claim is true.




At level five, the monk has up to two weapon attacks for d8+5 and two unarmed strikes for d6+5 (e.g. Wood Elf who spends Level 4 ASI on Dex--although boosting Dex is not necessarily the best choice). Average 36 if all attacks hit. At level twenty, he has two weapon attacks for d10+5 and two unarmed strikes for d10+5. Average 42. If he's a Shadow Monk he might or might not get a reaction attack on top.

You could call that "incredibly lame at level 20", but as I mentioned in my first post, I don't think the monk is lame because DPR is not her role. She's a scout and intel specialist, and an emergency responder who is ready to jump on any leaks and plug them with Stunning Strike x4. Most of the time the (Shadow) monks in my part(ies) don't even enter melee, they hang back and plink with (sometimes-poisoned) arrows until their unique talents are needed.



> That is, nobody cares if you do twice as much damage as you did thirty sessions ago or five times as much.





I should think most players would care rather a lot if they do the same damage at level 20 that they did at level 5. D&D is about progression. It takes a special kind of mindset to value intel and defensive progression over DPR progression; so I would expect most players to find monk progression between levels 6 and 17 somewhat unsatisfying, except for increases in ki. At level 18 you get Empty Body which I think most players would find satisfying though.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 5, 2015)

Zalabim said:


> At level one, monk does 13, fighter does 11.33.
> 
> At level 5, monk does 32 with flurry, 24.5 without flurry, and fighter does 24.66, and has action surge, and 4d8 SD.
> 
> ...




You touched on this, but neglecting feats in the analysis means you are vastly underestimating fighter DPR progression. It's kind of a major class feature, unless you're in a game where feats are disallowed. Consider a Mounted Combatant Polearm Master GWM Battlemaster with Str 20, or a Sharpshooter Eldritch Knight (Crossbow Expert?). The former maxes out around 120 damage (if all attacks hit), not 53. The latter maxes out at only 100 DPR, or 80 at long range, but has more tactical options. Monk can't compete with either of those options in DPR terms--and doesn't have to.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Oct 5, 2015)

In case the numbers didn't make it clear--monk isn't weak in DPR at high level. They fall somewhere in between Hunter Ranger and Valor Bard. That puts them below the top tier damage dealers who are packing d10 HD (and warlocks with _Agonizing Blast_), but above everyone else. Plus, they have enough ki that they can probably spend it just about every round for increased damage.

They do, however, peak early. A low level monk is a monster striker--no feats or optimization required. The monk we had in LMoP had the weakest stats (I allowed players to roll and choose to keep it or use point buy, and he had the lowest rolls), but was consistently out-damaging the sword and board fighter and competing with the rogue.

They really shine in all the special abilities--of which they get a huge number.


----------



## Xeviat (Oct 6, 2015)

You're still comparing the monk's 4 attacks at level 5 to their 4 attacks at level 20, but are failing to point out that the monk can only do 4 attacks 5 times per short rest at level 5, yet they can do it 20 times per short rest at level 20. It's like getting a second use of action surge. More uses, more damage per short rest.


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 6, 2015)

Xeviat said:


> You're still comparing the monk's 4 attacks at level 5 to their 4 attacks at level 20, but are failing to point out that the monk can only do 4 attacks 5 times per short rest at level 5, yet they can do it 20 times per short rest at level 20. It's like getting a second use of action surge. More uses, more damage per short rest.




Yes, that's true. Their max damage doesn't scale much, but their ability to sustain it longer does.


----------



## pukunui (Oct 6, 2015)

shintashi said:


> wait, so does it arc to a third opponent? like cantrip attack, attack, then attack?



No. I was responding to someone who asked how it interacted with War Magic, which lets you cast a cantrip and then make a melee attack as a bonus action. So with _greenflame blade_, since it involves making a melee attack, you still get to make two attacks on your turn via War Magic.


----------



## Zalabim (Oct 6, 2015)

The fighter could choose feats for a benefit other than extra damage in combat, like Healer or Resilient (Wisdom). The monk could also take Sharpshooter. I'm just not interested in revisiting the mechanics of trading attack bonus for damage bonus. It should suffice to say that the fighter does more damage than the monk later on, even accounting as the monk reliably having advantage and the fighter not having advantage at all, at least when the fighter uses a greatsword. This seems to coincide with the Monk maxing their dexterity bonus and coming into abilities like proficiency with all saves and AC higher than Plate armor.


----------



## Azurewraith (Oct 6, 2015)

Meh who cares if the monk does less damage they are immune to diseases can teleport cast a handful of useful utility spells quivering palm they are the most mobile class can catch arrows take away the fighters weapon hes dead in the water the monk just laughs as he headbutts you don't forget the stuns oh did i mention quivering palm.I know they cant do all these things at the same time but the monks lack of damage is more than made up for by the other things they are capable of,


----------



## Jaelommiss (Oct 6, 2015)

In a game where I am paying a paladin/warlock, my DM was nice enough to let me swap Eldritch Blast for Greenflame Blade, with the warning that I'll lose it if warlocks do not end up getting this cantrip. Last night I got to test it out. For reference, I am playing a variant human paladin 1/ warlock 1 with Heavy Armour Master and a greatsword. During the session we faced a few encounters, though it only came up in two of them. The other player is a level 2 rogue.

1. 2 skeletons, 13 HP - open field, 40 foot separation
The enemies won initiative and moved towards us (DM had taken their bows away). I moved in, almost killed one, and lit the other one up for 3 fire damage using GFB. A round of misses later, I struck down the first one and again hit the other with GFB, reducing it to roughly half health. The rogue then finished it off at range.
Analysis: GFB provided a small amount of damage to a secondary target. After two rounds it would enough to defeat an enemy a single round sooner.

2. 12 zombies, 22 HP, DC 5+last damage taken to kill when reduced to 0HP - 3 foot doorway, ballbearings set in doorway
In this fight they could only get to me two at a time (one standing, one prone). The rogue stayed back and fired his bow while I held the doorway. This fight took somewhere close to 20 rounds before they all stopped moving, but on the whole they attacked two at a time, one would get slain and then another would advance. When reduced to 0HP, zombies fell prone before determining whether they passed their save or not. GFB was use primarily to force zombies at 1HP to remake the Con save, while regular weapon damage brought down healthy zombies.
Analysis: Unavoidable damage is great for situations where only a small amount of damage is needed to force a save with serious consequences. Almost every round I was forcing a zombie to make a DC 8 Con save or die. In a situation where there are casters supporting a more powerful creature, GFB could be used to force concentration checks. 

Parting thoughts: GFB seems to be balanced for damage at low levels. The fire damage to a second target complements the original strike, though is strictly superior to merely attacking without extra attacks or features dependent on taking the Attack Action (monk's martial arts, dual wielding, shoves, grappling, etc.). The ability to force another creature to take damage may be slightly too powerful in situations where damage taken will cause a saving throw. Giving the secondary target a Dex save to avoid the damage might be useful for balancing this. Forced damage is previously unseen in cantrips, where a successful save results in no damage. As a potential counterpoint, the damage only occurs after a successful attack roll. Further testing is required to determine the severity of the problem. 

I would be interested in reading other peoples' results using this cantrip, especially at higher levels.


----------



## Z. H. Darkstar (Oct 6, 2015)

High Elf Swashbuckler (provided that it hasn't changed much since UA) with a Fighter dip for Dueling and armor proficiency becomes a veritable Dex tank of GFB goodness.

Use GFB as Attack replacement, and still get Fancy Footwork activation, freeing up your bonus action to Dodge. Toujours l'Audace grants Sneak Attack on all non-disadvantage finesse/ranged weapon attacks. Current wording of GFB seems like the attack made is a melee weapon attack and not a melee spell attack. Grab a shield and medium armor, and you're good to go spreading Greenflame across the frontlines.


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 7, 2015)

Wow, this cantrip really makes Favored souls powerhouses. the equivalent of quadruple attack at sixth level... twelve times per day... I think that Favored soul 3+/ paladin 2/ warlock 3 is crazy insane....



cbwjm said:


> Except that sneak attack doesn't always require you to be sneaking. You also apply sneak attack to attacks where the target has an enemy within 5' of it.




I thought you needed to be in melee to get that benefit...


----------



## FormerlyHemlock (Oct 7, 2015)

MoonSong(Kaiilurker) said:


> Wow, this cantrip really makes Favored souls powerhouses. the equivalent of quadruple attack at sixth level... twelve times per day... I think that Favored soul 3+/ paladin 2/ warlock 3 is crazy insane....




To be fair, quadruple attack-equivalent against paired foes twelve times per day at the cost of all your spells and sorcery points is a lot less impressive than Fireball is. You're probably better off just casting Careful Web six times and killing the enemy with Acid Splash or ranged weapon attacks at advantage.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2015)

cbwjm said:


> Just reread sneak attack (basic rules online is handy) and it doesn't actually say that you need to be in melee as well, just that the target needs to be within 5ft. of a hostile. Of course, if you want to use greenflame blade then you do need to be in melee.




Sneak attack requires an attack though. The secondary damage is not an attack. You don't roll. So no sneak damage on the secondary target. You'd still get it on the first one though same as sneaking with any attack spell.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 7, 2015)

The main counter to your Favored Soul example is that FS are playtest materials.

Not taking unearthed arcana material into account when you publish new stuff is the right thing to do.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2015)

Ok, I've kinda lost track here.  Why are we worried that the spell is overpowered?


----------



## MoonSong (Oct 7, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> The main counter to your Favored Soul example is that FS are playtest materials.
> 
> Not taking unearthed arcana material into account when you publish new stuff is the right thing to do.




Well, from what I can tell, Favored souls seem to be popular and widely available. I know of at least three DMs who allow them.  And you know it was more of a "wow this is so cool, sorcerers are finally getting cool toys to play with" than "broken stuff, overpowered they ruined the game forever ..."


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 7, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Ok, I've kinda lost track here.  Why are we worried that the spell is overpowered?



Mass hallucination?


----------



## spectacle (Oct 7, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Ok, I've kinda lost track here.  Why are we worried that the spell is overpowered?



It's not overpowered. It is however a straight damage upgrade for a few character types. Nothing to worry about immediately, but it does mark the beginning of power creep in 5E.


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 7, 2015)

Hussar said:


> Ok, I've kinda lost track here.  Why are we worried that the spell is overpowered?



It's a bit different so we went through the motions of worry and supposition. In the end the only edge cases of concern are stacking it with smites and sneak attack, and neither is much of a problem.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 7, 2015)

No it doesn't. 

It marks the beginning of the levelling of the playing field where some builds are allowed to catch up.

This adds to the game's overall quality, which is pretty much the opposite of what calls for power-creep usually is intended to mean.


----------



## Jaappleton (Oct 7, 2015)

So, still no indication of what classes can get access to this?


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 7, 2015)

Officially no, 

According to me...any arcane.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 7, 2015)

My guesses?

Wizard, Warlock - very likely 
Sorcerer - likely
Bard - somewhat likely 
Others - unlikely


----------



## Jaappleton (Oct 7, 2015)

Really hoping for Clerics, to beef them up for Melee a bit. Warlocks seem likely to help Bladelocks out, help give them incentive to forgo Eldritch Blast.


----------



## spectacle (Oct 7, 2015)

Jaappleton said:


> So, still no indication of what classes can get access to this?



The table of contents we've seen says "new cantrips for wizards, sorcerers and warlocks" so 1-3 of those classes. Almost certainly wizard since it seems designed for a swordmage type character. 

If your class doesn't get it it should be a good cantrip to pick up with the magic initiate feat, since the spellcasting stat only affects the bonus damage to the secondary target. Most of the damage is in the dice, and you use your melee attack stat to hit.


----------



## Jaappleton (Oct 7, 2015)

Agreed. My issue is that I'm impatient and that my DM would allow for its usage now if I had a definitive answer. Though since it's essentially guaranteed for Wizards, High Elf essentially becomes a prime pick for my next character if a Charisma based caster can't traditionally access it.


----------



## Sword of Spirit (Oct 7, 2015)

A College of Lore Bard can pick it up at 5th level through his class features. That lets him melee almost as well as College of Valor (depending on weapon choice and magic), until 17th level when College of Valor can use Battle Magic + _greenflame blade_ to completely leave the Lore bard in the dust.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing either.


----------



## UnadvisedGoose445 (Oct 7, 2015)

Sword of Spirit said:


> A College of Lore Bard can pick it up at 5th level through his class features. That lets him melee almost as well as College of Valor (depending on weapon choice and magic), until 17th level when College of Valor can use Battle Magic + _greenflame blade_ to completely leave the Lore bard in the dust.
> 
> I'm not saying this is a bad thing either.




Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe even Battle Magic wouldn't allow for the casting of Greenflame blade, as it's considered casting a cantrip, not simply making a weapon attack.


----------



## Z. H. Darkstar (Oct 7, 2015)

UnadvisedGoose445 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe even Battle Magic wouldn't allow for the casting of Greenflame blade, as it's considered casting a cantrip, not simply making a weapon attack.




Cantrips are spells. Spells taken via Magical Secrets count as bard spells. A Valor Bard could cast GFB and get the bonus action attack. It's a way of keeping your second attack if you rely on GFB as an Attack replacement. Of course, that eats up your bonus action in terms of action economy. At 14th level, you'd be giving up your bonus action for an extra 2d8 fire damage on a single target and 2d8+Cha on a possible second target nearby.

Sorcerers with Distant Spell can actually make GFB work with reach weapons. This actually gives some crazy synergy with the Storm Sorcerer (the likely included Sorcerous Origin because Swashbuckler) multiclassed with Fighter/Paladin/Bladelock. It still wouldn't affect the range of the secondary target, but it would allow for reach weapons to use GFB. Heart of the Storm would also kick in with each GFB use, regardless of using Distant Spell.


----------



## Jaelommiss (Oct 7, 2015)

Z. H. Darkstar said:


> Sorcerers with Distant Spell can actually make GFB work with reach weapons. This actually gives some crazy synergy with the Storm Sorcerer (the likely included Sorcerous Origin because Swashbuckler) multiclassed with Fighter/Paladin/Bladelock. It still wouldn't affect the range of the secondary target, but it would allow for reach weapons to use GFB. Heart of the Storm would also kick in with each GFB use, regardless of using Distant Spell.





Heart of the Storm would never activate on GFB because it is neither 1) "a spell other than a cantrip" nor 2) a spell "that deals lightning or thunder damage." 

The Spell Sniper feat might be a superior alternative to the Distant Spell metamagic. No cost to use (other than acquiring the feat) and it provides the cantrip itself, allowing any class with spellcasting to use it. One potential reading of the spell is that the range mentioned in the spell description refers to the spell's range, not the reach with the weapon used ("you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within range"). This would potentially allow for a greatsword attack at 10 foot range, or 20 if Distant Spell is coupled with Spell Sniper, regardless of the weapon's regular limitations. PHB 202 supports this reading with the statement "The target of a spell must be within *the spell's range*." The target referred to by GFB is the enemy attacked. Changing the fluff a little bit so that it is a giant flaming extension of the weapon that makes the attack would explain how weapon attacks are being made at a distance.

Edit: A paladin or ranger could pick up Spell Sniper at level 4. Sword and board smiting at 10 feet is horrifying to contemplate.


----------



## Z. H. Darkstar (Oct 7, 2015)

Jaelommiss said:


> Heart of the Storm would never activate on GFB because it is neither 1) "a spell other than a cantrip" nor 2) a spell "that deals lightning or thunder damage."
> 
> The Spell Sniper feat might be a superior alternative to the Distant Spell metamagic. No cost to use (other than acquiring the feat) and it provides the cantrip itself, allowing any class with spellcasting to use it. One potential reading of the spell is that the range mentioned in the spell description refers to the spell's range, not the reach with the weapon used ("you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within range"). This would potentially allow for a greatsword attack at 10 foot range, or 20 if Distant Spell is coupled with Spell Sniper, regardless of the weapon's regular limitations. PHB 202 supports this reading with the statement "The target of a spell must be within *the spell's range*." The target referred to by GFB is the enemy attacked. Changing the fluff a little bit so that it is a giant flaming extension of the weapon that makes the attack would explain how weapon attacks are being made at a distance.




Your reading of "Whenever you cast a spell other than a cantrip that deals lightning or thunder damage" differs from mine. Without proper punctuation to separate the qualifiers, it reads like it's only excluding Shocking Grasp and Thunderclap with language that excludes other future cantrips of the same damage types. If the power was meant to exclude all cantrips and non-L/T spells, then saying "spell of 1st level or higher that deals lightning or thunder damage" would have stated that much more clearly.

I'd be willing to accept that my interpretation is wrong, provided the final version has appropriate language to that effect or designer comments back up that ruling. I'm merely looking at the new materials with Munchkin lenses to see what I have to look for at my tables, once the book is AL legal. That synergy with Storm was too big to overlook.

Didn't even realize about the Spell Sniper synergy. I expect that Crawford and Mearls are going to get a lot of tweets about that combo in the near future.

Edit: I think the melee weapon's reach still plays a factor in the spell's usage. There was a long-winded thread back on the WotC forum that confirmed that movement during a spell was only allowed if the spell explicitly called for it, such as Expeditious Retreat letting the player Dash as part of the initial casting.

Edit 2: A variant Human EK 16 would be a mean SOB with OAs; plenty capable of getting Spell Sniper, Warcaster, Sentinel, Polearm Master, and GWM without giving up Str 20. A Dex EK could instead forego PAM and GWM by only taking 8 levels in EK and going Swashbuckler the rest of the way with a whip. As a matter of fact, I have my Season 4 build. Time to create a Belmont...


----------



## UnadvisedGoose445 (Oct 7, 2015)

Z. H. Darkstar said:


> Cantrips are spells. Spells taken via Magical Secrets count as bard spells. A Valor Bard could cast GFB and get the bonus action attack. It's a way of keeping your second attack if you rely on GFB as an Attack replacement. Of course, that eats up your bonus action in terms of action economy. At 14th level, you'd be giving up your bonus action for an extra 2d8 fire damage on a single target and 2d8+Cha on a possible second target nearby.




Ah, I was misreading the poster's intent: I thought he/she/them was implying that you could cast a full spell, and then use GFB for the bonus action attack. Using it to get a second mundane attack as a bonus action totally works, though it's seven levels behind when the Eldritch Knight can do it.


----------



## Pauper (Oct 7, 2015)

Jaelommiss said:


> One potential reading of the spell is that the range mentioned in the spell description refers to the spell's range, not the reach with the weapon used ("you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within range"). This would potentially allow for a greatsword attack at 10 foot range, or 20 if Distant Spell is coupled with Spell Sniper, regardless of the weapon's regular limitations. PHB 202 supports this reading with the statement "The target of a spell must be within *the spell's range*."




The problem with this interpretation is the text of Greenflame Blade itself: "You must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within range, _otherwise the spell fails_." (emphasis mine) If the spell empowered a weapon to make an attack at the spell's range regardless of the weapon's reach, then the spell could not possibly fail and the text indicating such would be pointless. 



> Edit: A paladin or ranger could pick up Spell Sniper at level 4. Sword and board smiting at 10 feet is horrifying to contemplate.




Here's the other problem with using Spell Sniper to acquire Greenflame Blade -- if the spell is a wizard cantrip (and there's no indication it's anything other than that, at present), then Spell Sniper directs you to use Intelligence as the spellcasting ability for the spell. The same area of the rules indicates that when making an attack with a spell, you use your spellcasting ability for that attack: "Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus + any special modifiers." (PH, p.205) Note that Greenflame Blade is ambiguous on this point -- it says to make a "melee attack with a weapon", not a "melee weapon attack" or a "melee spell attack with a weapon" (see Spiritual Weapon for an example of the latter). So it's possible to interpret that a paladin or ranger who uses Spell Sniper to gain Greenflame Blade as a cantrip from the wizard list must use Intelligence to make the Greenflame Blade melee attack, not Strength, Dexterity, Wisdom, or Charisma -- the same would be true when using Magic Initiate to gain the cantrip, as you use the spellcasting ability score of the class from which you gained the cantrip, which is Intelligence for wizard spells.

The spell probably should have been designed like the various Smite spells; castable as a bonus action and applying on the next hit with a melee weapon rather than as a spellcasting action that incorporates a melee attack, but I suspect the spell's designers weren't considering the possibility of non-wizards getting the cantrip on their spell list.


----------



## Z. H. Darkstar (Oct 7, 2015)

Judging by both the heading of the section it appears in "Cantrips for Sorcerers, Warlocks, and Wizards" and the compact nature of the format as seen by both the ToC and Mastermind previews, I suspect that all spells in that section will be for all three classes for the sake of saving page space on an unnecessary list. A single sentence stating that all spells appear on each class' list would suffice at a fraction of the page real estate. Plus, there's justification for it being on the other class lists, instead of just Wizard. There's a distinct lack of cantrips absent for use with Bladelocks, and Sorcerers typically get most of the damaging stuff that Wizards get. The Favored Soul subclass just begs for GFB to cement its martial slant. Therefore, it's a safe assumption that the few new cantrips added are for all three classes. That means that Cha versions of the spells could very well exist too.

A spell like this also allows for DMs to treat combat more like a puzzle. Surround a high AC unit with some grunts who only Dodge to give your players a winnable combat of a higher difficulty.


----------



## spectacle (Oct 8, 2015)

Pauper said:


> The spell probably should have been designed like the various Smite spells; castable as a bonus action and applying on the next hit with a melee weapon rather than as a spellcasting action that incorporates a melee attack, but I suspect the spell's designers weren't considering the possibility of non-wizards getting the cantrip on their spell list.



That would be OP, since you could then use GFB on the same turn as Extra Attack. Every melee character who isn't already using their bonus action each turn would want to pick up GFB to make one attack per turn hit a lot harder. I think the designers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the spell the way it is.


----------



## Z. H. Darkstar (Oct 8, 2015)

spectacle said:


> That would be OP, since you could then use GFB on the same turn as Extra Attack. Every melee character who isn't already using their bonus action each turn would want to pick up GFB to make one attack per turn hit a lot harder. I think the designers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote the spell the way it is.



I agree. I think the only part that could use clarification is the wording about the melee attack roll. Logic dictates that it's a melee weapon attack, as Sage Advice has said that a "melee weapon attack is a melee attack with a weapon." Application of the reflexive property would make our cantrip use a melee weapon attack roll.

I just realized another case of this cantrip having some synergy. Fire Draconic Sorcerers would get to add Cha to the fire damage caused by the spell. Fire Draconic 6/Fiend Bladelock 12 nets you +Cha to damage twice in a legal manner, as they're separate sources of damage. Fire Draconic also works well with a Tomelock Shillelagh build, as it doesn't break the rules about bonus action spells. The idea of attacking with a flaming piece of wood makes me want to make a Mick Foley-esque character.


----------



## MindxKiller (Oct 15, 2015)

Pauper said:


> The spell probably should have been designed like the various Smite spells; castable as a bonus action and applying on the next hit with a melee weapon rather than as a spellcasting action that incorporates a melee attack, but I suspect the spell's designers weren't considering the possibility of non-wizards getting the cantrip on their spell list.




I think the main reason it wasn't designed this way is to prevent the opportunity to full attack in addition to this spells effects as previously stated by someone further up, as well as to provide synergy with the War Magic feature of Eldritch Knights.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 31, 2015)

Ok so I have the book now but this is a long thread...  My warlock is also a level 3 arcane trickster - can I sneak attack with the spell or not?  I would seem to be overpowered if a full rogue were to take arcane trickster or buy the spell with a feat so I would not want to open that can of worms.  Eldritch Blast is bad enough for a dip but this seems worse?

And thinking about it, you keep your sneak attack available for opportunity attacks.  It makes so much sense to rule a combo out.  Presumably two weapon fighting is out because you are using your attack action to cast a spell and not to attack.


----------



## Prism (Oct 31, 2015)

Pauln6 said:


> Ok so I have the book now but this is a long thread...  My warlock is also a level 3 arcane trickster - can I sneak attack with the spell or not?  I would seem to be overpowered if a full rogue were to take arcane trickster or buy the spell with a feat so I would not want to open that can of worms.  Eldritch Blast is bad enough for a dip but this seems worse?
> 
> And thinking about it, you keep your sneak attack available for opportunity attacks.  It makes so much sense to rule a combo out.  Presumably two weapon fighting is out because you are using your attack action to cast a spell and not to attack.




Yes you can sneak attack with it. You do not have to keep sneak attacks available for opportunity attacks as you can already sneak using one even if you have used sneak during your own turn. Two weapon fighting is out though, which is the real risk as you have nothing as cover for a miss.


----------



## hejtmane (Oct 31, 2015)

Has anyone clarified the language in the spell


As part of casting this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within range, ...


What I wanted to clarify depending on how you read the wording. Do you cast the spell and as part of the spell you get a melee attack as part of the spell  or is it you cast the spell wait until next turn use weapon attacks and add the extra damage to the attacks. (I took it as the  second)


----------



## Exen Trik (Oct 31, 2015)

hejtmane said:


> Has anyone clarified the language in the spell
> 
> 
> As part of casting this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within range, ...
> ...



It's the first


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 31, 2015)

Prism said:


> Yes you can sneak attack with it. You do not have to keep sneak attacks available for opportunity attacks as you can already sneak using one even if you have used sneak during your own turn. Two weapon fighting is out though, which is the real risk as you have nothing as cover for a miss.




I think the wording does allow it but should it?

5d8+stat +10d6 primary + 4d8 + stat secondary bit powerful as an at-will ?  I can see that Eldritch Knights could end up with 1d10+4d8+stat + 4d8+stat + 1d10+stat +1d10+stat.

Assuming +5 primary stat and +3 secondary does that average as 83 for 20th level rogue (across two targets) compared to 60 for fighter (using up bonus action and spread across 2-4 targets).

The synergy with eldritch knight seems intentional but I wasn't sure that was true for the rogue.  Is this dealing the kind of damage that's expected at will or does it cross the line for stacking class features?

Edit: Oh hang on I should have read Eldritch knight first - the spell isn't the bonus action, a single additional attack is - much more balanced and a slam dunk that sneak attack should not really be stacking with the spell.  Looks like an oversight.


----------



## Z. H. Darkstar (Oct 31, 2015)

Allowing GFB (and by extension, Boom Blade) to work with Sneak Attack only adds a maximum of 3d8 to the damage total. It really isn't that much of a increase, as it requires 17th level to get that high. To get that extra damage on OAs, you need to take a feat. Doesn't really seem that unbalanced.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 31, 2015)

Z. H. Darkstar said:


> Allowing GFB (and by extension, Boom Blade) to work with Sneak Attack only adds a maximum of 3d8 to the damage total. It really isn't that much of a increase, as it requires 17th level to get that high. To get that extra damage on OAs, you need to take a feat. Doesn't really seem that unbalanced.




'Only 3d8' sounds like quite a lot at will.  But it's not only 3d8, it's also the damage on the extra target and the high damage of sneak attack is mitigated by its situational nature whereas the spell applies even when sneak attack would not.  Doesn't that lead to a significant damage boost for rogues who take this spell?  

I can see how swashbuckler's improved sneak attack is slightly balanced by the fact that you are placing yourself up front without support (albeit you might be able to withdraw).  I'm not sure that I see a similar downside to taking one of these cantrips.


----------



## CapnZapp (Oct 31, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> My guesses?
> 
> Wizard, Warlock - very likely
> Sorcerer - likely
> ...



Decent


----------



## Prism (Oct 31, 2015)

Pauln6 said:


> 'Only 3d8' sounds like quite a lot at will.  But it's not only 3d8, it's also the damage on the extra target and the high damage of sneak attack is mitigated by its situational nature whereas the spell applies even when sneak attack would not.  Doesn't that lead to a significant damage boost for rogues who take this spell?
> 
> I can see how swashbuckler's improved sneak attack is slightly balanced by the fact that you are placing yourself up front without support (albeit you might be able to withdraw).  I'm not sure that I see a similar downside to taking one of these cantrips.




It really comes down to two weapon fighting. If you take a rogue, using a shortsword with a free hand but a dagger ready in case the main attack misses, and then take the same rogue using Green Flame Blade they do pretty much the same damage vs an equal level opponent. The downside for the TWF rogue is that the must use their bonus action to attack about 1 in every 3 rounds and so aren't as flexible. The upside is they can eek out a couple more points of damage a round if they want to go full TWF every round.

Its worth taking one of these cantrips as an arcane trickster to give them the option of damaging a second opponent when that comes up but I wouldn't use it every round. Against tougher opponents its often better to have the option of the second attack from TWF

I wouldn't say this is worth taking the magic initiate feat in its own right but probably a decent option for a high elf.


----------



## Pauln6 (Oct 31, 2015)

Thanks - that really helps put it into perspective, and of course the additional damage on the spell only works if you have a second opponent nearby.

My current build is arcane trickster 3 / tome warlock 9 but I've been frustrated that her melee damage is weak.  She is not a TWF.  I was thinking of using the swashbuckler 3 instead with Arcane Initiate instead of Mobile and tome warlock the same.  The above spell will only add nice things to my build.

Edit:  I've also noticed that it's arguable that the secondary damage has to affect one of your allies if no enemies are adjacent to the target and that would be a nifty way to reduce the incidence of the spell stacking with sneak attack i.e. a 'creature' (not enemy) of your choice could mean that you get to choose which creature but you must choose one creature if there are any.  Bye bye familiars performing the help action.  I rather like the notion.


----------

