Counterspelled Booming Blade

[sithlordnergal]

That's not RAW, as written if Tidal Wave comes into contact with an unprotected flame it extinguishes it, so Tidal Wave per RAW extinguishes Wall of Fire.

I suspect it is RAW because spells don't typically interact with each other, and the ones that do usually have a pretty specific call out. Things like Wall of Force specifically call out Disintegrate, Prismatic Wall calls out Fire damage, Cold Damage, Force Damage, strong wind, Passwall, Daylight, and Dispel Magic. Meanwhile Fog Cloud and Incendiary Cloud both state they can be dispersed by wind. If Wall of Fire was meant to be ended by Tidal Wave, then it'd probably state within the wording of the spell that Tidal Wave disrupts it. Or Tidal Wave would have mentioned magical fire such as Wall of Fire in its description.

That's exactly the point, spells don't need to list what other spells can end them, that's for the other spells to say.

Dispel Magic handles that within its own wording, as it specifically states that it ends spells on a target, object, or in an area. The key word is "spells" in this case, so we know it goes against the norm by interacting with spells.

[Blatant Beast]

You are absolutely, 100% reading that wrong. Sorry, but you just are. The phrase you are talking about, copied directly from dndbeyond:

This is irrelevant. Again, this is the only text section that is RAW justification for "Spells do what they say they do, except for the spell's title".....that is it, and it can be dismissed entirely as flavor text.

The support for the "Spells do what they say they do, except the title" argument depends upon a line....a single punctuation point.

An argument that depends upon the judge reading a single punctuation mark in the manner the arguer wishes, is just not a very robust argument. Supreme Court Justices have had disagreements over the meaning of comma, in a particular statue, even when those same judges have a general ideological agreement.

I will put it this way, I would never make an argument that solely rests upon a singular interpretation of a punctuation mark, unless I had no other choice.

I will pose this challenge to everyone: Find and cite another passage in the 5e rules that makes it clear that the slogan "spells do what they say they do, except the title of the spell" has an actual textual backing in the rules...ie...is actual Written Rules.

Until that happens, "spells do what they say they do, except the spell's title" is a slogan without actual written support.

Put up evidence, or accept defeat...I will wait with baited breath.....

[Dr.Samurai]

I mean, I absolutely run it that way. Among other things, it cuts down on the amount of times I have the wizard player ask if he can have a spell do something that is blatantly not part of the effect, but also just means players can plan around spells working in a specific way unless the wording is genuinely unclear.

If the DM lets the spells do a lot of extra stuff based on how well the caster players can talk bull****, it'll make casters even more overpowered.

Apologies, missed these two responses earlier.

I think it's a give and take with casters. Firstly, you don't have to allow for anything if you don't want to, so it doesn't automatically make them overpowered. But secondly, it can act as a check against them as well. Remember, this conversation started (if I'm tracking things correctly) with Cloud of Daggers and using mundane objects to interfere with the area of damage. Between the druid and the ranger, my current party doesn't have Dispel Magic or Counterspell prepared. But we can still try stuff to deal with spell effects. It keeps the game fun and interesting and doesn't require one single type of counterplay (Dispel/Counterspell).

I think it is informative to look at RAW intended spell interactions as a counter example to the proposed Tidal Wave/Wall of Fire interaction.

Gust of Wind states:
"A line of strong wind ... blasts from you ... The gust disperses gas or vapor, and it extinguishes candles, torches, and similar unprotected flames in the area. It causes protected flames, such as those of lanterns, to dance wildly and has a 50 percent chance to extinguish them."

Incendiary Cloud states:
"It lasts for the duration or until a wind of moderate or greater speed (at least 10 miles per hour) disperses it."

Stinking Cloud states:
"The cloud lingers in the air for the duration ... A moderate wind (at least 10 miles per hour) disperses the cloud after 4 rounds. A strong wind (at least 20 miles per hour) disperses it after 1 round."

The interaction between Gust of Wind and "cloud" spells is clearly intended and codified in the RAW.

Wall of Fire states:
"The wall is opaque and lasts for the duration."

Tidal Wave states:
"The water then spreads out across the ground in all directions, extinguishing unprotected flames in its area and within 30 feet of it, and then it vanishes."

In contrast to the two "cloud" spells, there is no end condition stated for Wall of Fire beyond its duration (and Concentration). I think you could also argue that the fact that the listed examples in Gust of Wind's description of protected vs unprotected flames are all mundane indicates that "unprotected flames" would not include Wall of Fire.

None of this is to say that a ruling allowing the interaction is wrong or explicitly disallowed by RAW. In fact, using a third level spell to counter a fourth level spell is hardly outside the realm of reasonableness and the thematic resonance between the two spells is cool.

I appreciate all of this, and I know that this is the sort of normal way that we address things like this but... doesn't this seem like a whole lot of analysis for a simple bit of reasoning? The spell creates a wall of fire. We know how fire generally works. The other spell creates a tidal wave of water. It says it takes out unprotected flames. The wall is an unprotected flame.

Cross-referencing with other spells to attempt to set a precedent for what can take out spells and what is unprotected seems like making a bigger deal out of this than it is. It strikes me as having the sole purpose of preserving a status for spells.

Re: Tidal Wave vs Wall of Fire, you asked what is keeping it from being 'unprotected'? I'd say the fact that the caster is concentrating on the effect, protects it from well, basically everything. Else, Dispel Magic should just take it out without a roll. You're contesting something, aka the Will of the Caster, right?

I'd be inclined to agree with you, and I mentioned forcing a Concentration check originally when this popped up.

But I don't think this tracks here though. Because Dispel Magic forces a contest even when the spell isn't Concentration, so it isn't Concentration that's forcing the save or protecting the spell.

Re: Intimate knowledge of spell effects - I'd say that's basically the whole point of Intelligence (Arcana) skill checks. You could either use the Xanathar's Arcana rules, or make a ruling on the fly, or whatever. It could also be part of a discussion (session O or OOC at a later time) probably with any arcane casters in the party (or adjacent, like Arcana or Light Clerics) about how magic interacts and what is required on the fly to grok the odd cases.

This makes sense to me.

But in the context of earlier, with (presumably) non-magical players trying to gum up a cloud of daggers or bifurcate a wall of fire, they might not have Arcana. And you might get this dissonance between what the players think the PCs would assume about magic, and how the DM actually thinks magic works.

As a player, if such things weren't addressed up front, I'd definitely get with the DM to see where they're coming from. And if they're not forthcoming, start experimenting in game. "Before we go to bed, I'm going to use my last 1st level slot to cast Burning Hands on a small bush to see if it catches fire - just curious about the physics of fire." And then let the DM decide on the spot (or even declare my character had already done this experiment in Wizard College and the results are X).

Makes sense, again if you can cast spells.

Does that mean it can't be dispelled either because it doesn't say it can be?

That's nowhere in the text and in the realm of homebrew/ruling, not RAW.

That's exactly the point, spells don't need to list what other spells can end them, that's for the other spells to say.

Right. Dispel Magic tells you it dispells spells.

Tidal Wave tells you it extinguishes unprotected flames. Don't really need much more than that.

Would you think that arcana checks would be appropriate to determine how things can interact with a spell (question for everyone, just related to this bit)?

100%

But I'm thinking about the story beats and playing the characters as characters and not as game pieces. As mentioned before, it's not obvious to me that my Rune Knight fighter in Giant form can't cover up the Cloud of Daggers with an overturned wagon. As a creature in the game world, he might think that's a good idea and do it. The DM might then be like "That doesn't work/that's not how magic works/the spell doesn't say that".

I think if someone is going to run the game that way, it needs to be explicitly said in session 0, because otherwise there will be some growing pains. Something like "In this campaign, people in the world know that only magic can affect magic." Because my Rune Knight doesn't know much about magic and wouldn't have reason to think "oh that floating cloud of daggers is somehow physical and hurts people, but can't in turn be interacted with physically by me or others".

I'm thinking of perhaps looking at my list of house rules on spells (which covers the ones most commonly argued about, but I never thought to add in Wall of Fire v Tidal Wave) and assigning DCs to know something about it. Then compare passive arcana scores to the levels there and volunteer information, with the thought that as the players become used to this, they will instead begin to ask for information about spells and make checks of their own with their ideas. I think that using arcana as a gate makes sense because it's lore about spells, and knowing what a spell can do fits. I also think there should be some gating since there should be some reason to pick arcana as a skill, but I also try to arrange for every skill to have some use.

Let's take wall of fire. Let's say that a DM decides that all fire spells can ignite flammable objects that are not being carried or worn (DC 0). In addition, they decide that anything worn or carried that spends more than a single round in magical fire ignites as well, since they do want someone to be able to light a torch from a wall of fire by holding it in there for a half dozen seconds (DC 5). Specific to wall of fire, they have decided that the wall is too hot to be affected by normal water, and will instantly turn it to steam, but the steam itself is not worth worrying about damage since the fire is so much hotter(DC 10). It can, however, be temporarily extinguished by magic water in the area where the two interact, but at the start of the caster's next turn, the fire will fill back in (DC 12). Finally, since the fire is not burning from a source but is fire coming from the elemental plane of fire in that specific area, dropping a conference table across the fire will do nothing until the table catches fire after a round (DC 15). (Those DCs are just examples, not refined, as are the rulings.)

The party comes across an enemy who casts a wall of fire. The players say something like, "Crap, what do we do now?" DM looks over everyone's passive Arcana, and finds that their wizard has a passive 14 as the highest in the group, everyone else is 10 or 11. So the DM tells the table, "This is clearly magical fire, and as such you know that putting something in it will light it on fire given time, and that water is not going to affect it. Wizard, in the course of your studies, you have encountered some information about this wall of fire, and you know that magical water is enough to temporarily suppress the wall, but it will come back." Then a player says, "Nice, I have a decanter of endless water, so I want to use that to punch a hole through." The DM suppresses a wince, not having considered that, but realizing it will do something based on existing rules. He quickly checks the Decanter, sees 30' long by 1' wide, and figures OK, then it can take out 30 cubic feet of fire, and says, "As an action on your turn, you can use the decanter to carve out a 30 square foot section, which will let you see through the wall, but would not provide enough room to pass through without harm." Player responds, can I use an object interaction to toss it to the next person, creating another 30 square feet, and so on, until we have a big enough opening and the people left can charge through?" DM says yes, they do it if they have enough characters to do so, and someone makes it through to attack the caster. Maybe even someone else during this whole thing thought of taking the wagon and pushing it in to cover stuff up, maybe they got from knowing it would ignite in time that it wouldn't work, but if they ask, an active Arcana check can be made to determine if they know.

Hopefully, the next time they come across something, they are now primed to think, what do we know about this? and ask the question. If so, maybe they start asking questions about things they know and don't know, and start attempting to put together plans to deal with it.

Is this too much work at a table? Is it still just limiting everyone to what the DM can come up with since they will be asking about things the DM has prepared, or does it really open it up for going farther with something like the decanter? Can anyone think of some refinements that might make it better serve the goal of allowing players to more fully interact with the world, or critique that it does not do anything to that end? I would think that these checks have to pretty much be a free action, since otherwise, it gets to the wasting actions concern from the good Dr.

I love stuff like this and I think it makes a lot of sense. And it doesn't guarantee that the players are experts, but gives them a chance to know things that could be useful.

You are absolutely, 100% reading that wrong. Sorry, but you just are. The phrase you are talking about, copied directly from dndbeyond:

It is unquestionably saying that in most cases the spells are unleashed in the span of seconds. This is in most cases because some spells have long casting times. It is not in any way saying that the spell releases the desired effect in most cases. You have to actively ignore both rules of the English language and the way people normally speak to be able to claim that.

Claiming that "it might be a hyphen" is not helping your cause, either. It isn't a hyphen, and it isn't in place to do what a hyphen would do, anyway. Hyphens are used to make compound words, or to add prefixes - a one-of-a-kind item, or ex-husband. "effect-in" is not a compound word with any meaning, so if that is a hyphen that sentence is meaningless. If it's an em dash, then it has meaning, and the meaning is that most of the time spells go off in a few seconds.

Even if this is the case, I think Blatant Beast has a point about appealing to "RAW" and simultaneously appealing to "its magic, we don't know how it works/don't assume it works like normal stuff".

[Keltest]

Apologies, missed these two responses earlier.

I think it's a give and take with casters. Firstly, you don't have to allow for anything if you don't want to, so it doesn't automatically make them overpowered. But secondly, it can act as a check against them as well. Remember, this conversation started (if I'm tracking things correctly) with Cloud of Daggers and using mundane objects to interfere with the area of damage. Between the druid and the ranger, my current party doesn't have Dispel Magic or Counterspell prepared. But we can still try stuff to deal with spell effects. It keeps the game fun and interesting and doesn't require one single type of counterplay (Dispel/Counterspell).

I appreciate all of this, and I know that this is the sort of normal way that we address things like this but... doesn't this seem like a whole lot of analysis for a simple bit of reasoning? The spell creates a wall of fire. We know how fire generally works. The other spell creates a tidal wave of water. It says it takes out unprotected flames. The wall is an unprotected flame.

Regarding casters in general, it is a bit of give and take, but between my own experience and what ive seen on the forums over the years indicates that it should be more take than give with casters. The torch example in particular is sufficiently petty that I would probably just say yes to avoid an argument over it, but if we expanded it to, say, a building made of wood, I would absolutely stand my ground that Wall of Fire does not set the building entirely on fire (as opposed to Fireball, which would start a big fire). Fireball says it sets things on fire, WoF does not, on top of having some downright strange areas of effect that indicate the fire really is being magically compelled to act against its nature.

As far as if its protected, I would generally argue that the magic sustaining the spell counts as protection (or alternatively, that it isn't actually fire enough for the purposes of being quenched, but thats a hill im less willing to die on).

[Rukelnikov]

I suspect it is RAW because spells don't typically interact with each other, and the ones that do usually have a pretty specific call out. Things like Wall of Force specifically call out Disintegrate, Prismatic Wall calls out Fire damage, Cold Damage, Force Damage, strong wind, Passwall, Daylight, and Dispel Magic. Meanwhile Fog Cloud and Incendiary Cloud both state they can be dispersed by wind. If Wall of Fire was meant to be ended by Tidal Wave, then it'd probably state within the wording of the spell that Tidal Wave disrupts it. Or Tidal Wave would have mentioned magical fire such as Wall of Fire in its description.

RAW doesn't require suspicions, spells do what they say they do, Wall of Fire creates fire, Tidal Wave extinguishes unprotected flames, if you prefer WoF not to be extinguished by TW you can houserule it that way, but that's unequivocally a houserule.

Dispel Magic handles that within its own wording, as it specifically states that it ends spells on a target, object, or in an area. The key word is "spells" in this case, so we know it goes against the norm by interacting with spells.

And TW extinguishes flames, which is what WoF produces. If it wasn't meant to extinguish magical flames it would say "extinguishes non-magical flames"

[Blatant Beast]

Keltest and others, are twisting the Law of Parsimony.

A Wall of Fire, is made from fire. The wall of fire, has all the properties of fire, except for those differences enumerated in the spell description. That is a true parsimonious reading of the spell, and would be consistent with "spells do what they say they do".

Your interpretation of the spell is not parsimonious. When you read this line from the Wall of Fire spell: "You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range" you are in effect substituting this line:

"You create a wall of magic on a solid surface within range, that looks like fire, and does fire damage but is not actually fire". It is only by this reading, (which is clearly not parsimonious, it adds a huge amount of assumptions), that one is allowed to disregard the natural properties of fire, that you and other's advocate for.

Psyren has the right of this, Wall of Fire is silent in the spell description on whether it sets things alight, but it has all the properties of fire, which means it would set something ablaze that is thrust into it for a sufficient period of time.

A Fireball spell requires the explicit clarification that it starts fires, because it is not inherently clear that a " A bright streak flash(ing) from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame." is going to necessarily result in a fire.

I've created flameless explosions before, both in my military service, and once when intentionally mishandling a pressure cooker as a miscreant teenager, and with M80 fireworks a bunch of times.

Flame Bolt, likewise, needs an explicit rider that it causes flame, because it is not unmistakably obvious that the "mote of fire" the cantrip spell creates, catches things on fire. In my aforementioned, miscreant teenage years, we also shot Roman Candles at each, never once did those motes of flame catch someone, or something on fire.

The RAW Uber Alles crowd, seemingly, has been misapplying the Law of Parsimony for over 10 years now, and frankly seem to have been playing incorrectly.

Wall of Fire is fire, and acts like a fire, except for those explicit exclusions/differences that are delineated in the spell description.

[Christew]

Again, this is the only text section that is RAW justification for "Spells do what they say they do, except for the spell's title".....that is it, and it can be dismissed entirely as flavor text.

Clip

I will pose this challenge to everyone: Find and cite another passage in the 5e rules that makes it clear that the slogan "spells do what they say they do, except the title of the spell" has an actual textual backing in the rules...ie...is actual Written Rules.

Until that happens, "spells do what they say they do, except the spell's title" is a slogan without actual written support.

Put up evidence, or accept defeat...I will wait with baited breath.....

On what do your base your contention that the passage you misquoted, and subsequently misinterpreted, is the only justification?

See PHB p.202, Casting A Spell (emphasis added):
"Each spell description begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect."

Cross-referencing with other spells to attempt to set a precedent for what can take out spells and what is unprotected seems like making a bigger deal out of this than it is. It strikes me as having the sole purpose of preserving a status for spells.

My personal goal in any parsing of the rules is to achieve the most coherent and internally consistent base state understanding of the game possible given the RAW so that rulings at my table can proceed from that agreed upon base state. Given that there are interactions between spells that are confirmed by both spell effects, I am subsequently reticent to make any sweeping generalizations about the interactions of spells that do not feature such confirmation. Others are welcome to decide differently at their tables.

RAW doesn't require suspicions, spells do what they say they do, Wall of Fire creates fire, Tidal Wave extinguishes unprotected flames, if you prefer WoF not to be extinguished by TW you can houserule it that way, but that's unequivocally a houserule.

And TW extinguishes flames, which is what WoF produces. If it wasn't meant to extinguish magical flames it would say "extinguishes non-magical flames"

The reasoning here is unequivocally your personal opinion and not an unambiguous statement of the RAW. By your reasoning, one could as easily argue that TW cannot extinguish WoF because if it was meant to extinguish WoF, TW would say "extinguishes magically produced walls of fire" or WoF would say "you create a wall of unprotected flames."

Of note the words "flame" or "flames" appear nowhere in the spell effect of Wall of Fire.

[sithlordnergal]

RAW doesn't require suspicions, spells do what they say they do, Wall of Fire creates fire, Tidal Wave extinguishes unprotected flames, if you prefer WoF not to be extinguished by TW you can houserule it that way, but that's unequivocally a houserule.



And TW extinguishes flames, which is what WoF produces. If it wasn't meant to extinguish magical flames it would say "extinguishes non-magical flames"

Then would Tidal Wave instantly extinguish Fire Elementals, which are also unprotected flames? Not from the damage Fire Elementals take from touching enough water, just from that spell description itself? If you're correct, then it would because there's nothing in the text or description of Fire Elementals that state they are Protected Flames. I would say RAW disagrees with you.

While Tidal Wave does mention unprotected flames, spells that can be disrupted early specifically call out those disruptions within their text. If Wall of Fire stated a certain amount of water could put it out, then I could see Tidal Wave working and disrupting it early. If Tidal Wave was meant to put out Wall of Fire, it would have an additional sentence like "including fire created by spells such as Wall of Fire". Neither spells have anything talking about that. Compare that to Gust of Wind and Incendiary Cloud or Fog Cloud. The reason you can disperse Fog Cloud is because Fog Cloud first states that it can be ended early via wind, then Gust of Wind states it can disperse wind.

Its sort of like the AND statement in a Logic Problem. In order for an AND statement to be True, you need P and Q to be True. If one of those is False, then the entire thing ends up false. The only exceptions to these are Counterspell, which causes a spell to have no effect, Dispel Magic, which specifically states it ends all spells, and Antimagic Field, which specifically states spells and magical effects are suppressed.

Keltest and others, are twisting the Law of Parsimony.

A Wall of Fire, is made from fire. The wall of fire, has all the properties of fire, except for those differences enumerated in the spell description. That is a true parsimonious reading of the spell, and would be consistent with "spells do what they say they do".

Your interpretation of the spell is not parsimonious. When you read this line from the Wall of Fire spell: "You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range" you are in effect substituting this line:

"You create a wall of magic on a solid surface within range, that looks like fire, and does fire damage but is not actually fire". It is only by this reading, (which is clearly not parsimonious, it adds a huge amount of assumptions), that one is allowed to disregard the natural properties of fire, that you and other's advocate for.

Psyren has the right of this, Wall of Fire is silent in the spell description on whether it sets things alight, but it has all the properties of fire, which means it would set something ablaze that is thrust into it for a sufficient period of time.

A Fireball spell requires the explicit clarification that it starts fires, because it is not inherently clear that a " A bright streak flash(ing) from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame." is going to necessarily result in a fire.

I've created flameless explosions before, both in my military service, and once when intentionally mishandling a pressure cooker as a miscreant teenager, and with M80 fireworks a bunch of times.

Flame Bolt, likewise, needs an explicit rider that it causes flame, because it is not unmistakably obvious that the "mote of fire" the cantrip spell creates, catches things on fire. In my aforementioned, miscreant teenage years, we also shot Roman Candles at each, never once did those motes of flame catch someone, or something on fire.

The RAW Uber Alles crowd, seemingly, has been misapplying the Law of Parsimony for over 10 years now, and frankly seem to have been playing incorrectly.

Wall of Fire is fire, and acts like a fire, except for those explicit exclusions/differences that are delineated in the spell description.

So your argument is that the only reason spells include the fact they set things on fire is because it could be seen as being too small to set something on fire, or might not involve fire in the first place?

Question for you then. Why does Create Bonfire, a spell that fills a fire foot cube with Fire and lasts for 1 minute, call out setting items on fire, but Wall of Fire does not? Create Bonfire is essentially the cantrip version of Wall of Fire with duration and how fire fills the area. So why does it feel the need to call out that it ignites things and Wall of Fire does not? With your logic, Create Bonfire shouldn't have to state that, right? But it does, and Wall of Fire does not. Which means the two spells act differently from each other, and one sets objects on fire while the other doesn't

[Dr.Samurai]

Keltest and others, are twisting the Law of Parsimony.

A Wall of Fire, is made from fire. The wall of fire, has all the properties of fire, except for those differences enumerated in the spell description. That is a true parsimonious reading of the spell, and would be consistent with "spells do what they say they do".

Your interpretation of the spell is not parsimonious. When you read this line from the Wall of Fire spell: "You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range" you are in effect substituting this line:

"You create a wall of magic on a solid surface within range, that looks like fire, and does fire damage but is not actually fire". It is only by this reading, (which is clearly not parsimonious, it adds a huge amount of assumptions), that one is allowed to disregard the natural properties of fire, that you and other's advocate for.

Psyren has the right of this, Wall of Fire is silent in the spell description on whether it sets things alight, but it has all the properties of fire, which means it would set something ablaze that is thrust into it for a sufficient period of time.

A Fireball spell requires the explicit clarification that it starts fires, because it is not inherently clear that a " A bright streak flash(ing) from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame." is going to necessarily result in a fire.

I've created flameless explosions before, both in my military service, and once when intentionally mishandling a pressure cooker as a miscreant teenager, and with M80 fireworks a bunch of times.

Flame Bolt, likewise, needs an explicit rider that it causes flame, because it is not unmistakably obvious that the "mote of fire" the cantrip spell creates, catches things on fire. In my aforementioned, miscreant teenage years, we also shot Roman Candles at each, never once did those motes of flame catch someone, or something on fire.

The RAW Uber Alles crowd, seemingly, has been misapplying the Law of Parsimony for over 10 years now, and frankly seem to have been playing incorrectly.

Wall of Fire is fire, and acts like a fire, except for those explicit exclusions/differences that are delineated in the spell description.

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.

Of note the words "flame" or "flames" appear nowhere in the spell effect of Wall of Fire.

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.

Interesting.

...

...

...

How is it a Wall of Fire again?

[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.

[Keltest]

The Daylight spell doesn't actually create daylight, so I don't see why we should be married to Wall of Fire creating literal fire that behaves identically to mundane fire, rather than something that is just similar to fire.

[Dr.Samurai]

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.

I said I mostly agree; I wouldn't say people are playing incorrectly either.

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.

No, I don't think it's specious. I think it's a kill shot. It robs the RAW-side argument of the authority they think they have. It's clear, given the discussion that arises from just reading that one spell can put out unprotected fires, and people think this doesn't include wall of fire, that RAW is not nearly as helpful as people think it is. And when they try to make the case that it is definitive in some way, there's a heap of assumptions and inferences built in. Our side can be weak as well; that has no bearing on whether the RAW side is solid or not.

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.

The Daylight spell doesn't actually create daylight, so I don't see why we should be married to Wall of Fire creating literal fire that behaves identically to mundane fire, rather than something that is just similar to fire.

Ok. So when you see Wall of Fire in your games... what does it look like?

The spell says: You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range. You can make the wall up to 60 feet long, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick, or a ringed wall up to 20 feet in diameter, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick. The wall is opaque and lasts for the duration.

You've argued that it doesn't mention flames, so the fire has no flames. And we shouldn't expect it to because "Anecdotal evidence and real world physics are simply not informative to understanding the game mechanics" and "I don't see why we should be married to Wall of Fire creating literal fire that behaves identically to mundane fire". So what do you guys think the wall looks like according to RAW, without drawing on real world fire since that's irrelevant, and without there being flames since we just made the argument against that a few posts ago?

[Keltest]

I think it can look like fire and just not behave like it. Because it already explicitly doesn't behave like fire.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think it can look like fire and just not behave like it. Because it already explicitly doesn't behave like fire.

In other words... sometimes we can refer back to normal fire, and other times we say you can't.

This is not RAW. This is picking and choosing. The spell does not "explicitly" say the wall does not behave like fire, except on one side. It also does not explicitly say that "because it is different in this one respect, it is therefore different in every respect".

[Darth Credence]

This is irrelevant.

Everything you are saying is irrelevant to the point I am making, which is that you are completely misinterpreting the sentence. I do not care one way or another about your argument as to whether or not spells only do what they say. I am pointing out that you have completely misread something that the people you are replying to have read correctly, and you continue to double down on your misreading as having value.

It doesn't. When you start with a complete misreading of the text, anything else that flows from it is pointless.

[Theodoxus]

I think saying anyone is speaking with authority is massive hyperbole. It's exceedingly disingenuous, especially with the amount of walking on eggshells going around saying "A DM can make whatever alterations (using whatever euphemism you want to call it) they want."

We ALL agree it's 100% the DMs call.

The quibbling breaks down into whether folks agree with a specific DMs call, and the fact they wouldn't rule something the same way, and generally, why.

[Christew]

I said I mostly agree; I wouldn't say people are playing incorrectly either.

Cheers.

No, I don't think it's specious. I think it's a kill shot. It robs the RAW-side argument of the authority they think they have. It's clear, given the discussion that arises from just reading that one spell can put out unprotected fires, and people think this doesn't include wall of fire, that RAW is not nearly as helpful as people think it is. And when they try to make the case that it is definitive in some way, there's a heap of assumptions and inferences built in. Our side can be weak as well; that has no bearing on whether the RAW side is solid or not.

To a degree you are just describing the nature of language. I don't see the kill shot.

Ok. So when you see Wall of Fire in your games... what does it look like?

A wall of shaped magical energy.

The spell says: You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range. You can make the wall up to 60 feet long, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick, or a ringed wall up to 20 feet in diameter, 20 feet high, and 1 foot thick. The wall is opaque and lasts for the duration.

Indeed. In the vein of distinguishing the wall created by the spell and IRL fire: IRL fire is not opaque.

You've argued that it doesn't mention flames, so the fire has no flames. And we shouldn't expect it to because "Anecdotal evidence and real world physics are simply not informative to understanding the game mechanics" and "I don't see why we should be married to Wall of Fire creating literal fire that behaves identically to mundane fire". So what do you guys think the wall looks like according to RAW, without drawing on real world fire since that's irrelevant, and without there being flames since we just made the argument against that a few posts ago?

Given that the cosmetics of spell effects are the purview of the player casting the spell at my table, it could look like a lot of things. It is definitely opaque and deals fire damage though. Regardless, I don't really see how the visual of the spell supports your contentions about the mechanical effects thereof.

[JackPhoenix]

A Wall of Fire, is made from fire. The wall of fire, has all the properties of fire, except for those differences enumerated in the spell description. That is a true parsimonious reading of the spell, and would be consistent with "spells do what they say they do".

Properties of fire, like requiring fuel and oxygen (and heat)? No mention of the lack of need for either is mentioned in the spell's description, yet nothing stops the spell from being cast underwater, in a vacuum, or on the plane of ice and cold (and I'd like to point out, cold in the context of D&D isn't just a lack of heat, it's a form of energy of its own).

The only one breaking your "Law of Parsimony" is you, by adding more properties and condition to the spell not mentioned in the description.

[Theodoxus]

Indeed. In the vein of distinguishing the wall created by the spell and IRL fire: IRL fire is not opaque.

And it is only hot on one side... which is probably the most magical thing about it, and certainly doesn't comport to natural fire in any way. That these things apparently scream "it's JUST fire! It's extinguished by a sufficient mass of water (except under the sea, apparently) or Sleet Storm, or Cone of Cold, or any other myriad ways to generate cold and/or wet that would snuff out an IRL forest fire" is mindboggling to me and pretty much takes the fantastical nature of D&D magic and tosses it on its head.

But hey, if it makes sense to some, more power to you.

[Mastikator]

That's exactly the point, spells don't need to list what other spells can end them, that's for the other spells to say.

Cloudkill doesn't say that Gust of Wind removes Cloudkill, it says that wind removes Cloudkill. If the DM decides that it's windy then that will remove Cloudkill, nobody needs to cast a spell for there to be wind.

If Wall of Fire was meant to be extinguished by a some amount of water then it should say so. Doesn't matter if the water came from a spell or a keg of water.

[Dr.Samurai]

We ALL agree it's 100% the DMs call.

I'm not sure this is totally accurate. I think some people think no call has to be made, because the RAW is definitive. I think that's the actual dispute. If the spell description doesn't speak to it, it's not possible.

Then we get the wink wink nod nod "you're free to do whatever you want with your game... but really we all know the game is meant to be run this way and you're changing it ".

The quibbling breaks down into whether folks agree with a specific DMs call, and the fact they wouldn't rule something the same way, and generally, why.

I think the quibbling is this:

One Side
1. Wall of Fire can't be put out by Tidal Wave --> DM Call
2. Wall of Fire can be put out by Tidal Wave --> DM Call

Other Side
1. Wall of Fire can't be put out by Tidal Wave --> RAW
2. Wall of Fire can be put out by Tidal Wave --> DM Call

Blatant Beast may be on another side (not sure):
1. Wall of Fire can't be put out by Tidal Wave --> DM Call
2. Wall of Fire can be put out by Tidal Wave --> RAW


Wow, one phone call makes a difference lol, now I see a bunch of other responses. Will reply shortly when I am able.

[sithlordnergal]

The Daylight spell doesn't actually create daylight, so I don't see why we should be married to Wall of Fire creating literal fire that behaves identically to mundane fire, rather than something that is just similar to fire.

So many players of mine have tried to use Daylight against vampires, only for me to remind them the spell Daylight does not create actual daylight. Same holds true with Chill Touch. Players AND DMs both look at me funny when I say "I cast Chill Touch on the guy 100 feet away" before they remember Chill Touch is neither a Touch spell, nor does it deal Cold damage XD

[KorvinStarmast]

The law of persimmon suggests that you can't call a 3-wood a 3-wood unless it is made of wood, yet metal clubs shaped similarly to a traditional 3-wood or 4-wood are still called 3-wood and 4-wood ...
I just had to wedge that joke in there.
(Yes, I know that a lot of wooden golf clubs were made from laminated maple; I still have a four-wood made of that, and a persimmon driver...but I currently use a metal driver made from 17-4 Stainless Steel ...)

As to the spell casting passage: not a hyphen, however, I'll double check my first printing PHB and see how that looks.

The answer to the wall of fire is likely found by looking at the types of damage section of the PHB, Combat. A torch does fire damage. A fire bolt does fire damage. A wall of fire does fire damage. A fire ball does fire damage.
A wall of fire is fire.
It is the fourth level magical effect that allows this fire to (a) burn for the duration of concentration without the usual fuel/oxygen, )b) to be cast underwater and still burn, and to (c) take on the dimensions/shapes described in the spell - to answer (in part) Jack Phoenix's question for a ways back. (That wasn't a hyphen either!)

Of course, a lightning bolt sets fire to things just as a fire ball does, which makes everything about as clear as mud since it does lightning damage, but we don't see shocking grasp (which does lightning damage) also set fire to things as part of its magical effect.

The fun we have.

For even more fun, the 'damage' types' themselves do not make a distinction as regards magical or mundane. That is reserved for attacks: is the attack magical or not? Or, is it with a magical weapon, or not?
All of that is a separate topic of discussion.

[Theodoxus]

I'm not sure this is totally accurate. I think some people think no call has to be made, because the RAW is definitive.

Even definitive RAW can be ruled/houseruled against though. I mean, I'm sure there's DMs out there who would rule something that's actually defined, like removing the auto hit nature of Magic Missiles, or not letting Monk's use Ki to fuel Patient Defense if it made sense for their campaign. But that's a super niche case, so not sure it proves the rule here.

The rest of what you said, I agree with, at least how you outlined it.

[diplomancer]

I'm not sure if I were DM'ing a underwater adventure that I'd let Wall of Fire work normally. Maybe let it last for one round. As a player, it would not even occur to me to cast it. And before people start saying "the spell does not say it doesn't work underwater", it doesn't have to; this falls entirely within the purview of rule 1, "player describes what he does, DM describes the results".

And the rulebook would have to be incredibly tedious otherwise, probably several thousand pages long.

[sithlordnergal]

I'm not sure this is totally accurate. I think some people think no call has to be made, because the RAW is definitive. I think that's the actual dispute. If the spell description doesn't speak to it, it's not possible.

Then we get the wink wink nod nod "you're free to do whatever you want with your game... but really we all know the game is meant to be run this way and you're changing it ".

So I run in the "If the spell description doesn't speak to it, it's not possible." category. I basically ask two questions for special spell interactions such as Wall of Fire and Tidal Wave:

A) Does a spell have any conditions that end it prematurely?

B) Does a spell cause the conditions that can end the previous spell prematurely

If both of those answers are yes, then one spell can be ended by the other. If any of those questions are no, then the spells don't interact with each other. As for fire spreading, I also look to the spell description. If a spell states it causes items to catch on fire, then items catch on fire. If the spell doesn't state that, then items won't catch on fire.

After all, why would you bother specifying that Create Bonfire ignites objects but Wall of Fire doesn't if they were both intended to light objects on fire. Both spells create fire within a specific area and both spells last longer than instantaneous. But only one specifies it sets things on fire.

And this can work to a spell's favor. Phantasmal Force calls out "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm." That means the target will ALWAYS rationalize an illogical outcome from the spell. It doesn't matter how illogical the illusion is, or any of that. The target will always rationalize it because "always" means always.

[Blatant Beast]

So your argument is that the only reason spells include the fact they set things on fire is because it could be seen as being too small to set something on fire, or might not involve fire in the first place?

No, my post was about reading comprehension, and what a more true parsimonious reading results in.

Question for you then. Why does Create Bonfire, a spell that fills a fire foot cube with Fire and lasts for 1 minute, call out setting items on fire, but Wall of Fire does not?

Only the Developer that wrote the spell can give you the true RAI. In terms of Create Bonfire, this line: "The bonfire ignites flammable objects in its area that aren’t being worn or carried." makes it clear that an actual bonfire is present, since the spell effect will ignite ground covering and unintended items. One could theoretically cook on the cantrip's effect, presuming the pans will survive the damage.

Wall of Fire, only damages creatures, and only those actually in the wall or approaching from the hot side.

Again, if we apply what we know about the rules, we know that the Dungeon Master's Guide exhorts the DM to use common sense when dealing with damaging objects, so it is possible for a DM to rule that a Wall of Fire would damage unattended objects thrust into the fire, as well.

There are posters on both sides that have made claims of authority.

That is essentially the opening crawl from Revenge of the Sith: "There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere."

The issue is the evil of the incorrect view in the RAW Uber Alles position, is worse, than the discomfort of having the incorrect reading of the rules corrected.

I think it can look like fire and just not behave like it. Because it already explicitly doesn't behave like fire.

Which returns us to what I wrote above about how you are reading Wall of Fire:
"You create a wall of magic on a solid surface within range, that looks like fire, and does fire damage but is not actually fire"."

Clearly, my surmise is correct, because, you confirmed it.
So to sum up: your Rules as Written argument, ignores the actual text, supplies it's own extra un-written meanings, and states that "spells do what they say they do, except for whatever is written in the title"

Your position seems to lack fidelity to the Rules as Written part.

Ruling that Concentration makes a Wall of Fire count as protected flame, (which usually means a contained flame, such as in a lantern, or raised brazier), has no basis in actual text...it is your judgement call. Which, to your credit, you seem to realize Keltest.

Cheers.

To a degree you are just describing the nature of language. I don't see the kill shot.

A wall of shaped magical energy.

Yet, the actual text of Wall of Fire states: "You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range."
Are you quite sure, you are making a Rules as Written argument? The literature and stances you have stated do not support the actual text.

Properties of fire, like requiring fuel and oxygen (and heat)?

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Wall of Fire has a duration of Concentration (1 minute).
The PHB states the following:
"Some spells require you to maintain concentration
in order to keep their magic active. If you lose concentration, such a spell ends"

I wrote previously: The wall of fire, has all the properties of fire, except for those differences enumerated in the spell description.

Bob is your uncle, the magic of the spell via it's duration, enumerates that fuel and oxygen may not be strictly required. I suppose a DM could rule that one could not cast a fire spell in vacuum.

No mention of the lack of need for either is mentioned in the spell's description, yet nothing stops the spell from being cast underwater, in a vacuum, or on the plane of ice and cold (and I'd like to point out, cold in the context of D&D isn't just a lack of heat, it's a form of energy of its own).

No spell mentions requiring oxygen, neither does the Torch entry under Equipment in the PHB.
Does that mean in 5e Torches do not require oxygen?

Prior editions of D&D did have whole sections on casting spells on other planes or underwater.
5e is silent on the topic, so a DM decides what best fits their game.

I am still waiting on the textual proof for "Spells do what they say they do, except for the title", folks.

[Theodoxus]

And we're still waiting on the textual proof that "spells do whatever you feel like they should do" depending on your whim at this instance, and next time, they might just do the opposite because luls.

[Christew]

I am still waiting on the textual proof for "Spells do what they say they do, except for the title", folks.

I imagine you will reject it as proof, but I already offered you a more germane passage on the subject than the one you misquoted.

[Dr.Samurai]

To a degree you are just describing the nature of language. I don't see the kill shot.

Sure... in the context of a discussion and refuting points.

RAW is the common ground that we all use because it's said to be the base parts of the game that we can all agree on. It is literally the rules as they are written on the paper.

But throughout the course of this conversation, we have seen a lot more foisted on the RAW in order to defend RAW positions. It leaps off the page and into the minds and rationales of those defending it. Hence why Blatant Beast is calling out that your (and others) interpretation is adding a lot of assumptions into the text that aren't there, and why he is asking for someone to show him where it says it in the books. It can't be done, hence the kill shot. You are not going by RAW. You are going by the way you decide to adjudicate these instances.

A wall of shaped magical energy.

Sure sure, which looks like what exactly?

Remember, do not draw on real world stuff to answer this question, only what is in the spell description.

Indeed. In the vein of distinguishing the wall created by the spell and IRL fire: IRL fire is not opaque.

Is that so?

Given that the cosmetics of spell effects are the purview of the player casting the spell at my table, it could look like a lot of things. It is definitely opaque and deals fire damage though. Regardless, I don't really see how the visual of the spell supports your contentions about the mechanical effects thereof.

It's just probing where you guys abandon your positions. The idea that you can't draw from the real world seems pretty extreme to me, and a wall of fire without flame is pretty funny.

And it is only hot on one side... which is probably the most magical thing about it, and certainly doesn't comport to natural fire in any way. That these things apparently scream "it's JUST fire! It's extinguished by a sufficient mass of water (except under the sea, apparently) or Sleet Storm, or Cone of Cold, or any other myriad ways to generate cold and/or wet that would snuff out an IRL forest fire" is mindboggling to me and pretty much takes the fantastical nature of D&D magic and tosses it on its head.

But hey, if it makes sense to some, more power to you.

I completely disagree. In fact, I draw a similar conclusion to you from my end; treating magic in D&D like a purely gamist mechanic saps the fantasy from the game. The idea that a conjured Wall of Fire is necessarily unlike normal fire and just something that approximates fire in some superficial ways is alien to my perception of a world of fantasy.

I've already heard about such blades! They are believed to have special properties and can damage even the most powerful spell. This is exactly what is needed to protect against evil forces. I heard that craftsmen make them from ancient artifacts, imbuing them with magic and charging them with protective energy. Overall, this is an impressive and mysterious weapon that I hope I never have to use, but it's always useful to have in stock.

Ummm... I'm going to say this guy's on the RAW side

Cloudkill doesn't say that Gust of Wind removes Cloudkill, it says that wind removes Cloudkill. If the DM decides that it's windy then that will remove Cloudkill, nobody needs to cast a spell for there to be wind.

If Wall of Fire was meant to be extinguished by a some amount of water then it should say so. Doesn't matter if the water came from a spell or a keg of water.

I can only imagine that there are plenty of counter examples where this would not be tenable. But as a (mostly) martial player, I don't know all the spells well enough to know any off the top of my head.

But I defer back to the books telling DMs to use common sense.

So many players of mine have tried to use Daylight against vampires, only for me to remind them the spell Daylight does not create actual daylight. Same holds true with Chill Touch. Players AND DMs both look at me funny when I say "I cast Chill Touch on the guy 100 feet away" before they remember Chill Touch is neither a Touch spell, nor does it deal Cold damage XD

But nothing in the spell description of Daylight says it doesn't create daylight. I mean... the very fact that you have to keep reminding people should demonstrate that this obvious RAW everyone thinks exists is maybe a bit more vague than you think. It's propped up by people talking about it online for ten years. But if you introduce someone to the game tomorrow, and they can cast Daylight, and they know a vampire is susceptible, they're going to make that assumption.

And you are going to have to say "Actually, because the Daylight spell doesn't say you create daylight, it doesn't create daylight". And if they think that's a little confusing, they would be correct. And telling someone "In order to know what this spell does, you have to go look at what these other spells do" is nonsensical.

Even definitive RAW can be ruled/houseruled against though. I mean, I'm sure there's DMs out there who would rule something that's actually defined, like removing the auto hit nature of Magic Missiles, or not letting Monk's use Ki to fuel Patient Defense if it made sense for their campaign. But that's a super niche case, so not sure it proves the rule here.

Yes, but that is not the point though.

The point is that some people think there is a base way the game would be played by a perfectly neutral arbiter DM that is simply going by the rules as they are written in the books. That if you pose this robot DM with the question "Would Tidal Wave impact a Wall of Fire?" it would say "no" every time because that is what the rules say.

But the rules don't say that.

I'm not sure if I were DM'ing a underwater adventure that I'd let Wall of Fire work normally. Maybe let it last for one round. As a player, it would not even occur to me to cast it. And before people start saying "the spell does not say it doesn't work underwater", it doesn't have to; this falls entirely within the purview of rule 1, "player describes what he does, DM describes the results".

And the rulebook would have to be incredibly tedious otherwise, probably several thousand pages long.

Agreed.

So I run in the "If the spell description doesn't speak to it, it's not possible." category. I basically ask two questions for special spell interactions such as Wall of Fire and Tidal Wave:

A) Does a spell have any conditions that end it prematurely?

B) Does a spell cause the conditions that can end the previous spell prematurely

If both of those answers are yes, then one spell can be ended by the other. If any of those questions are no, then the spells don't interact with each other. As for fire spreading, I also look to the spell description. If a spell states it causes items to catch on fire, then items catch on fire. If the spell doesn't state that, then items won't catch on fire.

This is a perfectly fine way to adjudicate it. My point though is that this isn't RAW.

After all, why would you bother specifying that Create Bonfire ignites objects but Wall of Fire doesn't if they were both intended to light objects on fire. Both spells create fire within a specific area and both spells last longer than instantaneous. But only one specifies it sets things on fire.

A question for the philosophers.

And this can work to a spell's favor. Phantasmal Force calls out "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm." That means the target will ALWAYS rationalize an illogical outcome from the spell. It doesn't matter how illogical the illusion is, or any of that. The target will always rationalize it because "always" means always.

Is the word "always" in the spell description?