Can an upcast Continual Flame be dispelled by the Darkness spell?

Based on the comments of the accepted answer on this question Is there a spell that can create a permanent fire? and after doing a search for half an hour I couldn’t find an answer.

My scenario: I want to create a PC that does not have darkvision but wants to have a constant source of light. It is a cleric that wants to put the Continual Flame on his shield. He doesn’t want the Darkness spell to dispel the expensive spell on his shield so he upcasts it to 3rd level so that he can see in the darkness spell and in regular darkness as well.

Darkness (PHB page 230):

Magical darkness spreads from a point you choose within range to fill a 15-foot-radius sphere for the duration. The darkness spreads around corners. A creature with darkvision can’t see through this darkness, and nonmagical light can’t illuminate it. If the point you choose is on an object you are holding or one that isn’t being worn or carried, the darkness emanates from the object and moves with it. Completely covering the source of the darkness with an opaque object, such as a bowl or a helm, blocks the darkness. If any of this spell’s area overlaps with an area of light created by a spell of 2nd level or lower, the spell that created the light is dispelled.

Continual Flame (PHB page 227):

A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen. A continual flame can be covered or hidden but not smothered or quenched.

According to PHB page 201:

When a spellcaster casts a spell using a slot that is of a higher level than the spell, the spell assumes the higher level for that casting

If I cast Continual Flame at 3rd level, would Darkness dispel it? Would the flame shine in the Darkness?

Related questions:

Darkness vs Daylight Interactions Accepted answer suggests Continual Flame wins.

Does the Light cantrip cancel out the 2nd level Darkness spell? Accepted answer suggests Continual Flame wins.

Both of those questions and answers touch on this but neither has a solid answer for this scenario.

Can I Haste, booming blade, green flame blade and smite?

So I am new to Dungeons and Dragons, and for a one shot my DM is planning on a battle royal. What I want to do is a level 10 divine soul sorcerer and 2 levels in paladin.

First round I cast haste then run away. Next turn I will cast booming blade with quicken to make it a bonus action. Then cast green flame blade. Finally I attack using Divine smite. Do these effects stack to make one really powerful attack?

I feel it shouldn’t work, since booming blade reads:

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, otherwise the spell fails.

I feel like I need to attack right after casting.

Would I still be able to cast conjure barrage if I was also using flame arrow?

Conjure barrage specifies that the ammunition used to cast it must be non magical but I can’t find anywhere if an arrow under the effect of flame arrow is considered magical or not.

What I mean by that is, is the arrow in and of itself magical or does flame arrow just set it on fire as it’s launched as though it had been warped in cloth soaked in oil and lit (but without those steps)?

Would I still be able to use it as a medium to cast the conjure barrage spell or would I not be able to cast that till I lost concentration on flame arrow/the spell ran its course and if not would the effects stack?

Does Green Flame Blade work if I’ve cast shillelegh on my staff

Shillelegh says that your attacks become magical but Green Flame Blade says it works with a melee attack.

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, otherwise the spell fails.

Does the fact that my staffs attacks become magical stop Green Flame Blade from working?

Can I combine Haste, Green Flame Blade, Divine Smite, and Thunderous Smite like this?

This question is asking if my coup de grace manoeuvre action-sequence, that could only be pulled off once per long rest, is working as intended. I’ll try to keep what I am trying to do as simple as possible.

In this scenario, I am a level 5 sorcerer and level 2 paladin.

Round one; cast haste on self.

Round two; try to hit target with longsword casting green flame blade, and expending a level 3 spell slot for divine smite, then follow up with a second attack using my 2nd lvl 3 level spell slot for a 2nd divine smite, but with my bonus action stop concentrating on haste, and cast thunderous smite as a bonus action, landing the hit for a total of: 1d8+2+4d8+1d6+1d8+2+4d8+2d6.

For the sake of this question, let’s assume I have all of my spell slots unused.

Green Flame Blade and Negative Modifiers

If you have a negative spell-casting modifier (let’s say -1 in Intelligence) and cast Green Flame Blade (at a level below 5th). What damage does the second creature take? None, -1, or round off to 1 damage?

For reference:

Green Flame Blade

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

Why, from a lore perspective, are druids the only class who can cast the Flame Blade spell?

I am only really familiar with D&D 5e, and whatever of D&D 3.5e I was exposed to whilst playing NWN2 some number of years back, but as far as I am aware, only druids have the spell flame blade on their spell list.

At face value, I can’t see why this would be. Summoning a sword of fire seems like the sort of thing that sorcerers or warlocks should be able to do as well; in 5e at least, they can cast shadow blade, so why not flame blade?

Originally, I thought I wanted to know the designer-reasons behind this decision (and hence didn’t ask it, as that’s off topic), but then I realised that if such a designer’s reason didn’t include anything about the in-universe lore behind it, then I would be left rather dissatisfied (i.e. if it turns out that it’s because, I don’t know… Gary Gygax lost a bet back in the day, and that’s the official reason, then technically my question would be answered, but that’s not really what I’m looking for).

What I’m really after is why this makes sense from a lore perspective. Is there something special about forming a blade out of the element of fire that is specific to druids, or requires nature-y divine magic to perform? I accept that it is the case that, RAW, only druids can cast flame blade, but why does that make sense in-universe? If my sorcerer, the head of the Sorcerer’s Guild, saw a fellow party member, a druid, cast flame blade, then my sorcerer may well wonder “why can’t I, nor any sorcerer I’ve ever met, do that?”. That’s what I’m after.

So my questions are:

  • Firstly, is my premise actually true? Across the editions of D&D (for which flame blade exists), has it always been a druid-exclusive spell? (Note that I’m excluding the ability to cast it as a racial spell, such as the Mephistopheles tiefling from Mordenkainen’s Tome of Foes, and I’m also excluding bards learning it via Magical Secrets and other such hacks; this is about whether or not it’s on a classes’ default spell list);
  • Secondly, the title question: why, from a lore perspective, are druids the only class who can cast flame blade? I’m looking for answers with citations from any official material from any edition of D&D.

If the answer is dependant on a specific setting, let’s assume that the setting is the Forgotten Realms.

Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade: Utility against creatures with immunity to non-magical damage?

Both Booming Blade and Green Flame Blade have the following text:

You make a single melee weapon attack against a creature you can see within the spell’s range. If the attack hits…

Reading this question makes me believe that a weapon which has been magically enchanted or enhanced, even temporarily, would overcome this immunity, and that both base weapon damage and cantrip damage would apply on a hit (and double on a critical hit).

Question: What damage, if any, would be generated by attacking a creature (with immunity to damage from non-magical weapons) with a non-magical weapon as part of a Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade attack?