Counterspelled Booming Blade

[Christew]

This seems pretty definitive and I am mostly in agreement with this.

At the very least, I don't see how the other side of this is intrinsically more "right" than what Blatant Beast just said. And that's important because one side believes itself to be an authoritative guiding force on how to play the game. And yet, the foundation seems rather shaky.

There are posters on both sides that have made claims of authority. Pick the interpretation that suits your table/players best. Probably best to refrain from making statements about the other side "playing incorrectly" though.

The Parsimony argument is specious. You could as easily say that one side requires only the assumption that spells do what is presented in the spell effect and nothing more; while the other requires multiple assumptions regarding the similarity between magical fire and mundane fire, and the similarity between IG fire and IRL fire, etc.

So it's not only a fire that does not burn things or create heat or generate light, but it's also a fire without flames.

Snip

How is it a Wall of Fire again?

It deals fire damage?

Anecdotal evidence and real world physics are simply not informative to understanding the game mechanics (see falling), doubly so when the game mechanic under discussion is a magic spell.