Whether or not Agonizing Blast works with the weapon cantrips is a matter of great debate. Some say it works, others that it doesn't.
I personally say it doesn't work. The spells don't deal damage directly, rather they enchant your weapon (target is self), and then as part of casting the spell you make a normal weapon attack.
I have seen some DM's rule that it works since the cantrips deal damage as part of the spell, and others that it only works after level 5 where the cantrips add extra damage to your attack. Really, there isn't anything concrete from WotC on whether or not it is supposed to work, so you'll have to make the call as DM.
While the above reasonably summarizes the state of RAW, I argue that it should be allowed to work.
The intent of AB is that it adds damage to your attack cantrips. Pedanticism about whether it's the right kind of attack is undermining the intent. GFB is an attack cantrip, therefore it should be eligible. (Not to mention you're crossing editions, so GFB hasn't been updated to bring it unto the current templating. But I apply the same argument to True Strike.)
While the above reasonably summarizes the state of RAW, I argue that it should be allowed to work.
The intent of AB is that it adds damage to your attack cantrips. Pedanticism about whether it's the right kind of attack is undermining the intent. GFB is an attack cantrip, therefore it should be eligible. (Not to mention you're crossing editions, so GFB hasn't been updated to bring it unto the current templating. But I apply the same argument to True Strike.)
What about with true strike? Isn't that an attack cantrip? How about Hex spell as well? If you have access being a sorcerer, and have sorcerous burst, then can you have that same bonus?
While the above reasonably summarizes the state of RAW, I argue that it should be allowed to work.
The intent of AB is that it adds damage to your attack cantrips. Pedanticism about whether it's the right kind of attack is undermining the intent. GFB is an attack cantrip, therefore it should be eligible. (Not to mention you're crossing editions, so GFB hasn't been updated to bring it unto the current templating. But I apply the same argument to True Strike.)
What about with true strike? Isn't that an attack cantrip?
Yes, it is.
How about Hex spell as well?
Neither an attack spell nor a cantrip.
If you have access being a sorcerer, and have sorcerous burst, then can you have that same bonus?
If you can manage to gain it as a Warlock cantrip, instead of as a Sorcerer cantrip, then you can. (You can gain it as a warlock cantrip, but not by multiclassing.)
I'm not sure what you are asking, as none of these have any relation to the GFB question.
I'm not sure what you are asking, as none of these have any relation to the GFB question.
As the GFB is not in the 2024 PHB, it is difficult to understand were people are going. This is a result of being compatible with older material when one only has access to the 2024 books.
While the above reasonably summarizes the state of RAW, I argue that it should be allowed to work.
The intent of AB is that it adds damage to your attack cantrips. Pedanticism about whether it's the right kind of attack is undermining the intent. GFB is an attack cantrip, therefore it should be eligible. (Not to mention you're crossing editions, so GFB hasn't been updated to bring it unto the current templating. But I apply the same argument to True Strike.)
I don't believe True Strike (or Booming/Green Flame Blade) are attack cantrips.
Something can either be a weapon attack or a spell attack. It cannot be both. If it's a spell attack, it must natively use your spellcasting stat. If it's a weapon attack, it uses your Str/Dex unless some other ability changes this.
Weapon attacks can benefit from features like Sneak Attack, Weapon Mastery, etc. Spell attacks can benefit from features like Agonizing Blast, Radiant Soul, etc. You cannot have an attack that benefits from both the first list and the second.
I personally say it doesn't work. The spells don't deal damage directly, rather they enchant your weapon (target is self), and then as part of casting the spell you make a normal weapon attack.
The range of Green Flame-Blade is 'Self(5 foot)', which explicitly means self is not the target, just the origin. This is the format used for spells where the caster is the origin but not target, such as Cone of Cold 'Self(60 foot)' or Conjure Barrage 'Self(60 foot)'. Range changed to just 'Self' for True Strike but presumably this was due to the issue where Range Weapons like polearms could not benefit from their range property for Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade... overall the reason for these changes haven't been clarified, nor should Agonising Blast apply or not.
While the above reasonably summarizes the state of RAW, I argue that it should be allowed to work.
The intent of AB is that it adds damage to your attack cantrips. Pedanticism about whether it's the right kind of attack is undermining the intent. GFB is an attack cantrip, therefore it should be eligible. (Not to mention you're crossing editions, so GFB hasn't been updated to bring it unto the current templating. But I apply the same argument to True Strike.)
I don't believe True Strike (or Booming/Green Flame Blade) are attack cantrips.
It is a cantrip. You use it to attack. It is therefore an attack cantrip.
The whole point of extending agonizing blast to other cantrips is so people can play warlocks with other themes without feeling that they're mechanically forced into Eldritch Blast. It's still disadvantaged, because AB scales with number of attacks and most attack cantrips increase damage, not attack count, but it's less disadvantaged.
There is no good reason not to include warlocks whose attack cantrip of choice is Stab. (And the rules arguments saying it's that way are not, in fact, anything close to clear-cut, anyway.)
Weapon attacks can benefit from features like Sneak Attack, Weapon Mastery, etc. Spell attacks can benefit from features like Agonizing Blast, Radiant Soul, etc. You cannot have an attack that benefits from both the first list and the second.
The Legacy Aasimar feature Radiant Soul is a poor example anyway, as it reads "once on each of your turns, you can deal extra radiant damage to one target when you deal damage to it with an attack or a spell." and thus, perfectly free to be combined with Sneak Attack for a character with that feature.
The 2024 Aasimar's Celestial Radiance extra-damage feature works the same way "Once on each of your turns before the transformation ends, you can deal extra damage to one target when you deal damage to it with an attack or a spell" and is fully compatible with both Sneak Attack and Weapon Mastery for a character with either feature.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
Radiant Soul is the level 6 ability of Celestial Warlocks.
In terms of weapon vs. spell attacks, I answered this already. Spell attacks use your spellcasting stat. While spell attacks aren't the only way to deal spell damage, they are the only way potentially applicable to this discussion. Weapon attacks use your Str/Dex and thus the two types of attacks can never overlap. Even though some abilities will change the stat, they do not transform weapon attacks into spell attacks. There is no such thing as a hybrid spell/weapon attack anywhere in the rules. For any given attack roll, you can either apply weapon modifiers (such as Mastery or Sneak Attack) or spell modifiers (such as those Warlock abilities). You cannot apply both and, in this case, it's clear that you're applying the weapon attack modifiers.
While the above reasonably summarizes the state of RAW, I argue that it should be allowed to work.
The intent of AB is that it adds damage to your attack cantrips. Pedanticism about whether it's the right kind of attack is undermining the intent. GFB is an attack cantrip, therefore it should be eligible. (Not to mention you're crossing editions, so GFB hasn't been updated to bring it unto the current templating. But I apply the same argument to True Strike.)
I don't believe True Strike (or Booming/Green Flame Blade) are attack cantrips.
Something can either be a weapon attack or a spell attack. It cannot be both. If it's a spell attack, it must natively use your spellcasting stat. If it's a weapon attack, it uses your Str/Dex unless some other ability changes this.
Weapon attacks can benefit from features like Sneak Attack, Weapon Mastery, etc. Spell attacks can benefit from features like Agonizing Blast, Radiant Soul, etc. You cannot have an attack that benefits from both the first list and the second.
You said that True Strike is not an attack cantrip. However, under the 2024 rules, you make the weapon attack using your spellcasting modifier, so by your own definition of spell attack, it is one, and therefore can benefit from Agonizing Blast.
The only reason you use your spellcasting modifier is that the spell explicitly changes it from Str/Dex. That means it must be a weapon attack prior to be modified by True Strike. However, True Strike does not make it into a spell attack any more than Shillelagh makes weapon attacks into spell attacks. In neither case does the effect claim to transform a weapon attack into a spell attack.
Radiant Soul is the level 6 ability of Celestial Warlocks.
In terms of weapon vs. spell attacks, I answered this already. Spell attacks use your spellcasting stat. While spell attacks aren't the only way to deal spell damage, they are the only way potentially applicable to this discussion. Weapon attacks use your Str/Dex and thus the two types of attacks can never overlap. Even though some abilities will change the stat, they do not transform weapon attacks into spell attacks. There is no such thing as a hybrid spell/weapon attack anywhere in the rules. For any given attack roll, you can either apply weapon modifiers (such as Mastery or Sneak Attack) or spell modifiers (such as those Warlock abilities). You cannot apply both and, in this case, it's clear that you're applying the weapon attack modifiers.
Ah, the Aasimar "Radiant Soul" ability was the only one that came up when I used the D&D Beyond search, my mistake.
I think we're getting a bit far afield from the original Agonizing Blast question with the concentration on spell and weapon attacks, because the Agonizing Blast Invocation (2024) doesn't care whether the damage from the cantrip is from an attack at all.
Agonizing Blast
Prerequisite: Level 2+ Warlock, a Warlock Cantrip That Deals Damage
Choose one of your known Warlock cantrips that deals damage. You can add your Charisma modifier to that spell’s damage rolls.
Repeatable. You can gain this invocation more than once. Each time you do so, choose a different eligible cantrip.
As such, I would say the extra damage from at least the Level 5+ versions of True Strike and Green-Flame Blade definitely qualifies, and would probably also consider the base weapon damage as dealing damage, as it's directly caused as part of casting the spell, using the Magic Action.
That said, the 2024 Rules Glossary does have Official Definitions for Spell Attack and Weapon Attack, and there is no hard line between them.
Spell Attack
A spell attack is an attack roll made as part of a spell or another magical effect. See also “Spells” (“Casting Spells”).
Weapon Attack
A weapon attack is an attack roll made with a weapon. See also “Weapon.”
The attack rolls made when casting True Strike and Green-Flame Blade are both Spell Attacks and Weapon Attacks. There is no requirement at all on either one about which ability score is used for either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
Radiant Soul is the level 6 ability of Celestial Warlocks.
So yes, that one is limited to spell attacks that deal radiant or fire damage.
Now, when one uses True Strike, the attack can deal radiant damage. It can do this only because the spell says so. I find it a hard sell that this doesn't count.
In terms of weapon vs. spell attacks, I answered this already. Spell attacks use your spellcasting stat. While spell attacks aren't the only way to deal spell damage, they are the only way potentially applicable to this discussion. Weapon attacks use your Str/Dex and thus the two types of attacks can never overlap. Even though some abilities will change the stat, they do not transform weapon attacks into spell attacks. There is no such thing as a hybrid spell/weapon attack anywhere in the rules. For any given attack roll, you can either apply weapon modifiers (such as Mastery or Sneak Attack) or spell modifiers (such as those Warlock abilities). You cannot apply both and, in this case, it's clear that you're applying the weapon attack modifiers.
There is nothing saying that an attack cannot be both. (Or, if there is, I would appreciate a specific citation.) Categories need not be mutually exclusive, and the weapon attack cantrips sit on the border. If they are allowed to take advantage of agonizing blast and radiant soul, nothing goes wrong. The game balance is not meaningfully affected -- stabby mages do not suddenly become the dominant archetype in the world of "people who care deeply about DPR".
Other than your personal aesthetic preferences being offended, what's the problem?
I think it does work. That being said I think all these spells should have been designed in a way that turned the attack into a spell attack. A warlock adding AB to a weapon cantrip whatever, its never really better than just EB by any real margin. But then all the MC shenanigans, rogues frequently taking origin feats to give them cantrips so their sneak attack does more damage, etc I think its bad for the game.
The Attack Rolls section in the D20 Tests section lists the three types of Attack rolls: Melee Weapon/Unarmed Attack, Ranged Weapon Attack and Spell Attack. There is no overlap between them and no way for an attack to be more than one type (as this would create a situation where you don't know what stat to use). The "Attack Rolls" section in the Spells chapter also reiterates that Spell Attacks must use the Spellcasting stat.
There are abilities - such as Shillelagh/True Strike or Finesse - that change the stat for a weapon attack. However, these abilities do not change the underlying nature of the attack itself.
The Attack Rolls section in the D20 Tests section lists the three types of Attack rolls: Melee Weapon/Unarmed Attack, Ranged Weapon Attack and Spell Attack. There is no overlap between them and no way for an attack to be more than one type (as this would create a situation where you don't know what stat to use). The "Attack Rolls" section in the Spells chapter also reiterates that Spell Attacks must use the Spellcasting stat.
There are abilities - such as Shillelagh/True Strike or Finesse - that change the stat for a weapon attack. However, these abilities do not change the underlying nature of the attack itself.
You are fully making up the notion that there's no way for an attack to be more than one type because that would lead to confusion about what stat to use. The spell will say if it changes the stat to use, and it does so for Shillelagh and True Strike. It does not have that language for Green Flame blade and booming blade, therefore it uses the default stat. There is no confusion.
The Attack Rolls section in the D20 Tests section lists the three types of Attack rolls: Melee Weapon/Unarmed Attack, Ranged Weapon Attack and Spell Attack. There is no overlap between them and no way for an attack to be more than one type (as this would create a situation where you don't know what stat to use). The "Attack Rolls" section in the Spells chapter also reiterates that Spell Attacks must use the Spellcasting stat.
There are abilities - such as Shillelagh/True Strike or Finesse - that change the stat for a weapon attack. However, these abilities do not change the underlying nature of the attack itself.
You are fully making up the notion that there's no way for an attack to be more than one type because that would lead to confusion about what stat to use. The spell will say if it changes the stat to use, and it does so for Shillelagh and True Strike. It does not have that language for Green Flame blade and booming blade, therefore it uses the default stat. There is no confusion.
The rules explicitly list three mutually exclusive options. If you believe there is some specific rule that trumps those rules, then cite it.
The rules explicitly list three mutually exclusive options. If you believe there is some specific rule that trumps those rules, then cite it.
You've already been asked to cite a source for your claim that something cannot be both a weapon attack and a spell attack. You go first.
And your claim that there are three mutually exclusive options does not suffice, because those are general rules, and in D&D, specific trumps general. The specific rules for these cantrips which say "as part of the casting of this spell, you make a weapon attack" trumps the general rule of what you claim are "mutually exclusive options."
My player choose Green flame Blade for cantrips of agonizing blast. He's add spellcasting ability modifier + charisma modifier in the damage?
Whether or not Agonizing Blast works with the weapon cantrips is a matter of great debate. Some say it works, others that it doesn't.
I personally say it doesn't work. The spells don't deal damage directly, rather they enchant your weapon (target is self), and then as part of casting the spell you make a normal weapon attack.
I have seen some DM's rule that it works since the cantrips deal damage as part of the spell, and others that it only works after level 5 where the cantrips add extra damage to your attack. Really, there isn't anything concrete from WotC on whether or not it is supposed to work, so you'll have to make the call as DM.
While the above reasonably summarizes the state of RAW, I argue that it should be allowed to work.
The intent of AB is that it adds damage to your attack cantrips. Pedanticism about whether it's the right kind of attack is undermining the intent. GFB is an attack cantrip, therefore it should be eligible. (Not to mention you're crossing editions, so GFB hasn't been updated to bring it unto the current templating. But I apply the same argument to True Strike.)
What about with true strike? Isn't that an attack cantrip? How about Hex spell as well? If you have access being a sorcerer, and have sorcerous burst, then can you have that same bonus?
Yes, it is.
Neither an attack spell nor a cantrip.
If you can manage to gain it as a Warlock cantrip, instead of as a Sorcerer cantrip, then you can. (You can gain it as a warlock cantrip, but not by multiclassing.)
I'm not sure what you are asking, as none of these have any relation to the GFB question.
I'm not sure what you are asking, as none of these have any relation to the GFB question.
As the GFB is not in the 2024 PHB, it is difficult to understand were people are going. This is a result of being compatible with older material when one only has access to the 2024 books.
I don't believe True Strike (or Booming/Green Flame Blade) are attack cantrips.
Something can either be a weapon attack or a spell attack. It cannot be both. If it's a spell attack, it must natively use your spellcasting stat. If it's a weapon attack, it uses your Str/Dex unless some other ability changes this.
Weapon attacks can benefit from features like Sneak Attack, Weapon Mastery, etc. Spell attacks can benefit from features like Agonizing Blast, Radiant Soul, etc. You cannot have an attack that benefits from both the first list and the second.
The range of Green Flame-Blade is 'Self(5 foot)', which explicitly means self is not the target, just the origin. This is the format used for spells where the caster is the origin but not target, such as Cone of Cold 'Self(60 foot)' or Conjure Barrage 'Self(60 foot)'. Range changed to just 'Self' for True Strike but presumably this was due to the issue where Range Weapons like polearms could not benefit from their range property for Green-Flame Blade or Booming Blade... overall the reason for these changes haven't been clarified, nor should Agonising Blast apply or not.
It is a cantrip. You use it to attack. It is therefore an attack cantrip.
The whole point of extending agonizing blast to other cantrips is so people can play warlocks with other themes without feeling that they're mechanically forced into Eldritch Blast. It's still disadvantaged, because AB scales with number of attacks and most attack cantrips increase damage, not attack count, but it's less disadvantaged.
There is no good reason not to include warlocks whose attack cantrip of choice is Stab. (And the rules arguments saying it's that way are not, in fact, anything close to clear-cut, anyway.)
Why not? What principle of the rules says so?
The Legacy Aasimar feature Radiant Soul is a poor example anyway, as it reads "once on each of your turns, you can deal extra radiant damage to one target when you deal damage to it with an attack or a spell." and thus, perfectly free to be combined with Sneak Attack for a character with that feature.
The 2024 Aasimar's Celestial Radiance extra-damage feature works the same way "Once on each of your turns before the transformation ends, you can deal extra damage to one target when you deal damage to it with an attack or a spell" and is fully compatible with both Sneak Attack and Weapon Mastery for a character with either feature.
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
Charisma Saving Throw: DC 18, Failure: 20d6 Psychic Damage, Success: Half damage
Radiant Soul is the level 6 ability of Celestial Warlocks.
In terms of weapon vs. spell attacks, I answered this already. Spell attacks use your spellcasting stat. While spell attacks aren't the only way to deal spell damage, they are the only way potentially applicable to this discussion. Weapon attacks use your Str/Dex and thus the two types of attacks can never overlap. Even though some abilities will change the stat, they do not transform weapon attacks into spell attacks. There is no such thing as a hybrid spell/weapon attack anywhere in the rules. For any given attack roll, you can either apply weapon modifiers (such as Mastery or Sneak Attack) or spell modifiers (such as those Warlock abilities). You cannot apply both and, in this case, it's clear that you're applying the weapon attack modifiers.
You said that True Strike is not an attack cantrip. However, under the 2024 rules, you make the weapon attack using your spellcasting modifier, so by your own definition of spell attack, it is one, and therefore can benefit from Agonizing Blast.
The only reason you use your spellcasting modifier is that the spell explicitly changes it from Str/Dex. That means it must be a weapon attack prior to be modified by True Strike. However, True Strike does not make it into a spell attack any more than Shillelagh makes weapon attacks into spell attacks. In neither case does the effect claim to transform a weapon attack into a spell attack.
Ah, the Aasimar "Radiant Soul" ability was the only one that came up when I used the D&D Beyond search, my mistake.
I think we're getting a bit far afield from the original Agonizing Blast question with the concentration on spell and weapon attacks, because the Agonizing Blast Invocation (2024) doesn't care whether the damage from the cantrip is from an attack at all.
As such, I would say the extra damage from at least the Level 5+ versions of True Strike and Green-Flame Blade definitely qualifies, and would probably also consider the base weapon damage as dealing damage, as it's directly caused as part of casting the spell, using the Magic Action.
That said, the 2024 Rules Glossary does have Official Definitions for Spell Attack and Weapon Attack, and there is no hard line between them.
The attack rolls made when casting True Strike and Green-Flame Blade are both Spell Attacks and Weapon Attacks. There is no requirement at all on either one about which ability score is used for either.
🎵I'm on top of the world, looking down on creation, wreaking death and devastation with my mind.
As the power that I've found erupts freely from the ground, I will cackle from the top of the world.🎵
Charisma Saving Throw: DC 18, Failure: 20d6 Psychic Damage, Success: Half damage
So yes, that one is limited to spell attacks that deal radiant or fire damage.
Now, when one uses True Strike, the attack can deal radiant damage. It can do this only because the spell says so. I find it a hard sell that this doesn't count.
There is nothing saying that an attack cannot be both. (Or, if there is, I would appreciate a specific citation.) Categories need not be mutually exclusive, and the weapon attack cantrips sit on the border. If they are allowed to take advantage of agonizing blast and radiant soul, nothing goes wrong. The game balance is not meaningfully affected -- stabby mages do not suddenly become the dominant archetype in the world of "people who care deeply about DPR".
Other than your personal aesthetic preferences being offended, what's the problem?
I think it does work. That being said I think all these spells should have been designed in a way that turned the attack into a spell attack. A warlock adding AB to a weapon cantrip whatever, its never really better than just EB by any real margin. But then all the MC shenanigans, rogues frequently taking origin feats to give them cantrips so their sneak attack does more damage, etc I think its bad for the game.
The Attack Rolls section in the D20 Tests section lists the three types of Attack rolls: Melee Weapon/Unarmed Attack, Ranged Weapon Attack and Spell Attack. There is no overlap between them and no way for an attack to be more than one type (as this would create a situation where you don't know what stat to use). The "Attack Rolls" section in the Spells chapter also reiterates that Spell Attacks must use the Spellcasting stat.
There are abilities - such as Shillelagh/True Strike or Finesse - that change the stat for a weapon attack. However, these abilities do not change the underlying nature of the attack itself.
You are fully making up the notion that there's no way for an attack to be more than one type because that would lead to confusion about what stat to use. The spell will say if it changes the stat to use, and it does so for Shillelagh and True Strike. It does not have that language for Green Flame blade and booming blade, therefore it uses the default stat. There is no confusion.
The rules explicitly list three mutually exclusive options. If you believe there is some specific rule that trumps those rules, then cite it.
You've already been asked to cite a source for your claim that something cannot be both a weapon attack and a spell attack. You go first.
And your claim that there are three mutually exclusive options does not suffice, because those are general rules, and in D&D, specific trumps general. The specific rules for these cantrips which say "as part of the casting of this spell, you make a weapon attack" trumps the general rule of what you claim are "mutually exclusive options."