Counterspelled Booming Blade

[diplomancer]

The default rule is that the spell does what it says it does when you cast it. The burden of proof is on you to find a rule that says being underwater changes that, especially since the only printed effect being underwater actually has is resistance to the fire damage it produces.

If that were the case, the Spelljammer rule you mentioned is superfluous. And by the way "the spell does what it says it does" is one of those assumptions I had before reading this thread that is not actually RAW. The game is silent on how to adjudicate casting spells in different environments. But then it's also silent on a lot of different things in different environments, not just spells. How to adjudicate those different interactions is left up to the DM, and it is false to say that a DM that does not allow Wall of Fire to work in water is "not following RAW", while the one who does allow it "is following RAW". There simply are no rules about this particular interaction (that there are no rules does NOT mean that allowing them to work fits the RAW while not allowing them to work does not fit the RAW. Silence means silence, inferences from silence can be valid, but are not conclusive), and DMs can decide how to do it in a way that best fits their group.

Lesser Restoration specifically ends the condition so that's what I'd go with.

And Tidal Wave specifically extinguishes unprotected flames, so that's what I'd go with. Is the difference because Lesser Restoration affects a condition defined by the rules of the game, while Tidal Wave doesn't? I don't see why that should make a difference, but even with that ruling, I'm glad that we agree that there is no need for a spell to reference another spell in order to completely remove its effects, even while the other spell is still active and running the clock on its duration. That's all that I want to be admitted from this interaction... that the duration of a spell has simply nothing to do with whether its effects can be removed through different methods, and that all "for the duration" statements in the rules have the actual unwritten but necessary "rebus sic standibus" clause.

At any rate, yes Lesser Restoration removes the blinded condition and it doesn't come back because the Smite spells only apply the condition the one hit per spell. If they make the save or the condition is removed, the spell doesn't "have" to end, the paladin can sit there concentrating on a spell that has discharged its effects for no reason if they want to.

Wall of Fire also only creates a Wall of Fire one time per spell, it does not recreate the Wall of Fire every round, like, for instance, Call Lightning recreates its Lightning effect every round. If the fire is extinguished, the spell doesn't have to end, the Wizard can sit there concentrating on a spell that has discharged its effects for no reason if they want to (he can even have a reason to do it, like the War Wizard example... but the effects would have been extinguished, even if the spell technically hasn't). In both cases, the spell creates an effect, and this effect can be removed in different ways, be it by spells, class features, or whatever, without the need for the spell to be referenced by those other features that remove the effects of the spell. In both cases, while technically the spell hasn't been dispelled, there would in most cases be no reason to keep the spell going.

So it is, in fact, false to say that the only way a spell can affect another spell is by directly referencing it in its text, we all agree that one spell can completely extinguish the effects of another spell without it having been explicitly mentioned in either of their descriptions, and we all agree that it is in fact false to say otherwise. Where we disagree is on the particular cases, not the general rule.