Counterspelled Booming Blade

[diplomancer]

Respectfully though, when someone claims a RAW argument, and then has to start making a bunch of if/then statements and inferences and drawing from the absence of written rules, etc. that becomes a major bait and switch.

And throughout this thread it seems to me that the RAW argument is serving to preserve years of accepted online interpretations/rulings, instead of trying to actually argue what the "RAW" says. As an example, a lantern was specifically create to "protect" flames from wind and rain or other causes. So when the spell mentions unprotected flames, it is referencing flames that are not in an enclosure like a lantern that shields it from wind and water.

Your interpretation that "unprotected flames" cannot mean magical flames is an interpretation that isn't supported by the rules. I don't have an issue with your interpretation. I have an issue with you claiming it to be the rules as written.

This bears repeating, specially the part of "the RAW argument is serving to preserve years of accepted online interpretations/rulings, instead of trying to actually argue what the "RAW" says." I had taken for granted, for instance, that Disintegrate did not work on Forcecage, because one spell does not mention the other. It does work on Forcecage, and there is no need for the spells to mention each other directly for that to be the case. And this is both RAW and confirmed RAI, as long as something allows the caster to see the Forcecage. There is, in fact, no rule that says that spells only interact with each other when they mention each other directly. If the effects of a spell are such that they interact with the effects of another spell, then the two spells interact. And this is so obvious that in fact everyone agrees with it (for instance Fireball can easily "end" Conjure Animals, right? Or Lesser Restoration can "end" Blinding Smite), until they start with the fallacious thinking "wall of force mentions disintegrate, forcecage doesn't, that means that disintegrate does not work on forcecage".

By that logic, every ruling is following RAW, since every ruling can include a superflous reason for why RAW is different in this case. Wall of Fire: XYZ, DM: "Not XYZ because that guys hair is black - I'm following RAW, la la la la la...".

No, RAW means the rules as written. If they are rules and they are written, those are the rules as written. Any rules not written are not the rules as written. Anything that does not follow the rules as written without a superior rule as written overriding is not following the rules as written. If a spell says it does X, then it does X, by the rules as written. If there is not a superior rule as written saying the spell does not do X when under Y circumstances then a ruling saying the spell does not do X under those Y circumstances is not following RAW.

Ok. I'm going to cite some rules text here, and I'd like some rules text about water ending any of these effects, that would not apply to fire spells:

This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames.

A bullseye lantern casts bright light in a 60-foot cone and dim light for an additional 60 feet. Once lit, it burns for 6 hours on a flask (1 pint) of oil.

For 1 hour, a candle sheds bright light in a 5-foot radius and dim light for an additional 5 feet.

A hooded lantern casts bright light in a 30-foot radius and dim light for an additional 30 feet. Once lit, it burns for 6 hours on a flask (1 pint) of oil. As an action, you can lower the hood, reducing the light to dim light in a 5-foot radius.

A lamp casts bright light in a 15-foot radius and dim light for an additional 30 feet. Once lit, it burns for 6 hours on a flask (1 pint) of oil.

A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage.

And those are the effects of water that I could find in the game rules:

Heavy Precipitation:
Everything within an area of heavy rain or heavy snowfall is lightly obscured, and creatures in the area have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. Heavy rain also extinguishes open flames and imposes disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on hearing.

Extinguishes "open" flames. So I guess the raging Wall of Fire counts as closed flames, because the magic "closes" it.

Decanter of Endless Water:

This stoppered flask sloshes when shaken, as if it contains water. The decanter weighs 2 pounds.

You can use an action to remove the stopper and speak one of three command words, whereupon an amount of fresh water or salt water (your choice) pours out of the flask. The water stops pouring out at the start of your next turn. Choose from the following options:

"Stream" produces 1 gallon of water.
"Fountain" produces 5 gallons of water.
"Geyser" produces 30 gallons of water that gushes forth in a geyser 30 feet long and 1 foot wide. As a bonus action while holding the decanter, you can aim the geyser at a creature you can see within 30 feet of you. The target must succeed on a DC 13 Strength saving throw or take 1d4 bludgeoning damage and fall prone. Instead of a creature, you can target an object that isn't being worn or carried and that weighs no more than 200 pounds. The object is either knocked over or pushed up to 15 feet away from you.

Does absolutely nothing to any fire, be it magical or otherwise.

Holy Water

As an action, you can splash the contents of this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. In either case, make a ranged attack against a target creature, treating the holy water as an improvised weapon. If the target is a fiend or undead, it takes 2d6 radiant damage.

Great against undead. Doesn't help against a candle. You can't even throw it at a candle or splash its contents on a candle, you can only target a creature with it.

Create or Destroy Water:

Create Water. You create up to 10 gallons of clean water within range in an open container. Alternatively, the water falls as rain in a 30-foot cube within range, extinguishing exposed flames in the area.

So yet another thing that magic does to Wall of Fire, apart from protecting it and keeping it closed, is to make it unexposed. That's a lot of things that the magic is doing without mentioning it directly in the actual written rules of the spell.

From Watery Sphere:

When the spell ends, the sphere falls to the ground and extinguishes all normal flames within 30 feet of it. Any creature restrained by the sphere is knocked prone in the space where it falls. The water then vanishes.

Finallly! A spell in the game that actually treats normal flames differently from magical flames! As far as I know, it is the only spell that explicitly, without the need for any particular interpretation, that, in fact, does not affect Wall of Fire. By the logic being expounded by many in this thread, the fact that this spell calls out "normal flames" while other spells don't would mean that other spells affect magical flames.

And to round up, from the description of the Water Elemental, that affects (or not) magical and non-magical flame equally:

"A water elemental is a cresting wave that rolls across the ground, becoming nearly invisible as it courses through a larger body of water. It engulfs creatures that stand against it, filling their mouths and lungs as easily as it smothers flame". Ironically, while its mechanical description shows how it can drown creatures, it says nothing about doing anything to flames, be they magical or non-magical. The same applies to all other elemental creatures made from water, you can thrust a Torch at them for 1 fire damage without extinguishing the Torch.

I'm arguing from RAW when I say that Wall of Fire persists for its duration unless something breaks the caster's concentration or ends the spell. I provided the citation of "Duration" earlier for that reason.

And that same reasoning applies to Blinding Smite.

That's true, but again, the RAW is that the spell lasts for its duration unless otherwise stated. That is another data point that ultimately I'm using to support my ruling.

If you mean "unless otherwise stated by the text of the spell itself", your argument proves too much, and Lesser Restoration does not end Blinding Smite, or ends the Blindness but it comes back immediately. If you mean "unless otherwise stated somewhere else, with no need of referencing the spell specifically, just by dealing directly with its effects", I'd agree with that, and point out that Tidal Wave states that it extinguishes unprotected flames.

For the record, I'm not going against the extinguish line. I'm ruling that tidal wave extinguishes the flames and then they reappear immediately. That would satisfy both the Tidal Wave clause and the Wall of Fire duration by RAW. It wouldn't be particularly helpful for those folks who want Tidal Wave to defeat Wall of Fire of course.

But you're interpreting differently the interaction between Lesser Restoration and Blinding Smite, even though both the Blindness and the Wall of Fire are the spell effects that "lasts for the duration of the spell".

"Rulings not Rules" is just another way to say Rules as Guidelines, and boy do I wish that phrasing had been around in 2014! You take what the rules say about a thing (as much or as little as is provided) and decide if what is written works (and makes sense) for your current scenario, or if you can extrapolate it so that the rules abiding adjacent to the scenario still work in the greater context.

Then (and ideally, only then) if you're still confused and your table hasn't been helpful in resolving it, should you come to a forum like this and ask for others guidance on the issue.

I find it fascinating that people say you can't win an argument on the internet; or that trying to change someone's mind is a fools errand. I hadn't put too much stock into 'RAW only', but I came into this thread with a particular mindset, even if I didn't know it, and have come out with a different one. I'm probably a bit more 'centrist' in my viewpoint on this matter; I prefer to have solid grounding rules to walk on - but I'm ok with extrapolating reasonable rulings when all around is quicksand. I do think that trying to convince someone on the negatives (WoF doesn't shed light because it doesn't say it does) is a bit foolhardy. Stop trying to make Fetch a thing! Just say 'in my ruling, since it doesn't say it creates light, it's a lightless wall' - that's fine. Saying 'if you cast WoF in a pitch black room, it remains pitch black, that's RAW' - well, you'll be sad then when I rule otherwise I guess. And that's ok too, but heating elements glow, so my Wall of Toasting emits light, damn it.

I very much agree with this sentiment.

There are certain traps I think that are easy to fall into when playing the game.

My table got caught in the trap of "if I let you do that, it undermines the feature of this other class", and I accepted the ruling because it seemed sensible, though it didn't sit right. It wasn't until it came up in a discussion on this forum that someone (Psyren, in fact) mentioned "well, that class gets to do it in this defined way, without a check, but that doesn't mean that others can't attempt to do something similar with some sort of check or roll" (I'm paraphrasing).

Mind blown. And seemed super obvious after reading it.

So I brought that back to my table and everyone agreed. But it was one of those things that if you hear the former ruling on it first, you might think that's the right way to go.

I'm surprised that there isn't a video that sort of goes over a lot of these common issues and explains to lean into the intent/rulings/approach of the game/design. Maybe there is and I haven't seen it, but could be very useful.

Yes to both of these posts. There are a lot of assumptions of online discussion that simply ain't so, and this thread made me realize it.