Counterspelled Booming Blade

[KorvinStarmast]

The PHB says this:
“ VERBAL (V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component.“

It is not a cut and dry as some will lead you to believe. The quoted section could be said of prayers in real life. I have been to religious ceremonies in languages I do not speak, and I can almost always tell when the Officiant is reciting prayers because their voice changes, and often becomes more singing like.

Then we have Tasha’s which basically states that as long as one is not altering the effect of the spell, you change cosmetic elements, which presumably could include things like….the chanting of mystical words, into the chanting of mystical words that are also a prayer to a deity one serves.

Spoiler: something like a rant

Show

On another note, for 10 years now online D&D discourse, has revolved around and been obsessed by RAW. The game itself was designed with the intent that players ask to do ad hoc things, and for DMs to apply judgement to resolve things.

Even Jeremy Crawford was RAW obsessed, despite 5e not really being designed to be a Rules as Written type game. Errors made is RAW obsession lead to Crawford in an Interview with Todd Kendrick explicitly categorizing Sage Advice as “just his opinion”, and Crawford in the same interview also states that his opinions, (and thus Sage Advice) should not be used as a weapon.

Clearly the RAW obsession has not made the discourse better, if WotC is basically disavowing it.

RAW opponents often dismiss, homebrew, or other style of play, because as they often state openly, they do not want to read about other people’s homebrew, their rules, or their thoughts.

RAW folks only want to digest the lowest level of atomized and disjointed rule chicken nuggets for the mechanized games. They do not want to hear about other people’s innovations.

I find that a shame, and frankly am sick and refuse to allow the most anti-social point of view, RAW Uber alles, dominate the 5e conversation, anymore.

There are plenty of D&D games that do not use, nor track spell components. Be it material and otherwise….especially with younger players.

I can appreciate how you feel. RAW au outrance can be an obstacle to sharing the joy that is playing D&D.
The truth is that V/S/M components have been with us since AD&D 1e, about 45 years or so. It's more or less imbedded in D&D.

I played the original game before AD&D, and we got along just fine without spell components.

There is a lot of room to work during play.

[RSP]

By that logic, an argument can (and probably should) be made that spell slots aren't lost and/or consumed components are not consumed.
After all, the spell is interrupted, not completed, correct?

Except that’s not how Counterspell works:

“If the creature is casting a spell of 3rd level or lower, its spell fails and has no effect.”

The spell “fails” and “has no effect”. That’s not “it’s as if the spell was never cast”.

Think of it in order of operations (RAW quotes provided):

“When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spell’s level or higher, effectively “filling” a slot with the spell.”

So when character A decides to cast a spell, the slot is used.

Then, character B notices the casting and cast Counterspell and successfully counters character A’s spell.

Character A has their spell “fail and have no effect.” Character A doesn’t get their slot back, because that was lost when they started casting, and nothing in Counterspell tells you the slot is regained.

[Xihirli]

The PHB says this:

Clearly the RAW obsession has not made the discourse better, if WotC is basically disavowing it.

RAW opponents often dismiss, homebrew, or other style of play, because as they often state openly, they do not want to read about other people’s homebrew, their rules, or their thoughts.

RAW folks only want to digest the lowest level of atomized and disjointed rule chicken nuggets for the mechanized games. They do not want to hear about other people’s innovations.

I find that a shame, and frankly am sick and refuse to allow the most anti-social point of view, RAW Uber alles, dominate the 5e conversation, anymore.

There are plenty of D&D games that do not use, nor track spell components. Be it material and otherwise….especially with younger players.

In this thread specifically, the OP was asking what would happen. Ie, what do the rules say. People showing up and answering that question doesn’t make them obsessed with a certain style of play. It was not my intention, nor I believe the other posters in the thread’s intention, to tell you that if you are running Counterspell differently you are having badwrongfun, and I apologize if I gave that impression.

I will say that I hate all the gaps in the rules when I DM. Having a player ask to do something and I have to, on the spot in two seconds, design an aspect of the game that the people I bought the book of left unclear. It’s probably what eventually soured me to 5e. I don’t want to have to design a game, or be on the spot for emergency patching an unfinished or "designed for the players to ask to do ad hoc things", to run one. Or if I do, I’m just gonna run Roll for Shoes.

You say innovations, well I actually love hearing other people’s rule changes. I ran a game for a bit using Amnestic’s packet of rule changes to 5e. That being said, I’m aware that other people’s innovations aren’t the rules of the game. And the OP was asking what would happen if Booming Blade was countered. What are we supposed to pull from to answer the question properly if not the rules of the game?

[Slipjig]

You might be mad that your BB got CS'd and the attack didn't happen. I'd be overjoyed that some moron blew a 3rd+ spell slot on my zero resource BB.

In this instance that cantrip would have included 7d6 Sneak Attack damage, so it's not THAT crazy a move.

[Aimeryan]

The problem that may arise here is based on what the person imagines Booming Blade to be doing and what the text says it does.

Mind Picture 1 (MP1): The effect of the spell is to temporarily enchant the weapon with magic, then you choose to strike an opponent - a successful hit delivers the spell's magic in addition to the weapon damage.
Mind Picture 2 (MP2): The effect of the spell makes the weapon strike the target - delivering the effects of the spell and the weapon damage on a successful hit.
Mind Picture 3 (MP3): The effect of the spell makes you strike an opponent - a successful hit delivers the spell's magic in addition to the weapon damage.

MP1 is congruent with how a spell like Searing Smite works. You can hold the effect of the spell until you choose to attack in the normal way (or the duration runs out). The key here is that the attacking portion is another action, not an effect of the spell. These spells usually require a Bonus Action to cast, freeing up your Action to attack on the same turn. Counterspelling the spell stops the enchanting process, but you can still attack with your Action afterwards if you choose.

MP2 is congruent with how a spell like Spiritual Weapon works. This uses your spell attack modifier instead of your normal attack modifier. Counterspelling the spell stops the effect from occurring, thus stopping the weapon strike.

MP3 is congruent with how a spell like Booming Blade works. It still uses the normal way of making a melee attack once forced to do so by the spell, so all the limitations of that are still in place, in addition to making you target a creature within 5ft rather than the normal weapon range. Counterspelling the spell stops the effect from occurring, thus stopping the weapon strike. Another spell that does something similar is Crown of Madness, which when cast on someone forces them to make a melee attack on a creature within range of your choice.

Is it weird to use a spell to force yourself to attack? Eh, yeah. Personally, it would make more sense to work like an MP1 spell, but that would likely require it was a Bonus Action instead, which would make the spell too powerful as currently written in additional to seemingly being too much like a Smite spell. In any case, the answer to the question the OP posed is indeed that Counterspelling the spell also stops the attack.

[KorvinStarmast]

So when character A decides to cast a spell, the slot is used.

Then, character B notices the casting and casts Counterspell {KS edit: if within 60'} and successfully counters character A’s spell.

Character A has their spell “fail and have no effect.” Character A doesn’t get their slot back, because that was lost when they started casting, and nothing in Counterspell tells you the slot is regained.

That's how we run it.

[Theodoxus]

In this instance that cantrip would have included 7d6 Sneak Attack damage, so it's not THAT crazy a move.

Slightly better, but is the CS'er going to waste all their slots stopping that 7d6 sneak round after round until they're out, and the SA finally goes off (or, I guess, the Rogue decides that getting an extra d8 of thunder damage and hoping for an additional amount if their target moves isn't worth losing their attack, and uses a melee attack instead).

As an aside, I asked one of my DMs his opinion. He said he'd rule that the CS would negate the spell damage, but that the attack portion would still work. I asked for clarification, like if a 5th level EK used BB (assuming something like the Crusher feat to push, or having Mobility to move away - to lock down the target), and how it wouldn't be fair to grant the attack, but not get their Extra Attack. He replied he'd allow the EA in that case, because "D&D heroes should feel like heroes, and narratively that's far more interesting."

So, he at least, eschews RAW for the Rule of Cool in this instance.

[da newt]

I've got to agree that RAW disagreements sour D&D as a whole. They psuedo reenforce the DM vs Player competitive adversarial relationship that is far too prevalent (IMO). This is, of course, normal human nature - we all like our beliefs to be 'right' and the vast majority of folks want to 'win.' It's far too easy for the DM to get caught up in the 'nah uh you can't do that thing to my team because my current interpolation of the rules as written prevents it' ... as if they require the justification to make a ruling. It's also totally normal for a group of Player to expect / demand a consistent / fair implementation of the rules - but these normal human tendencies foment conflict / tension.

[Amnestic]

Slightly better, but is the CS'er going to waste all their slots stopping that 7d6 sneak round after round until they're out, and the SA finally goes off (or, I guess, the Rogue decides that getting an extra d8 of thunder damage and hoping for an additional amount if their target moves isn't worth losing their attack, and uses a melee attack instead).

As an aside, I asked one of my DMs his opinion. He said he'd rule that the CS would negate the spell damage, but that the attack portion would still work. I asked for clarification, like if a 5th level EK used BB (assuming something like the Crusher feat to push, or having Mobility to move away - to lock down the target), and how it wouldn't be fair to grant the attack, but not get their Extra Attack. He replied he'd allow the EA in that case, because "D&D heroes should feel like heroes, and narratively that's far more interesting."

So, he at least, eschews RAW for the Rule of Cool in this instance.

While I can respect his logic, it falls short for me.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and the player was counterspelling it, would he rule similarly? Apparently not, since that would mean the player "wouldn't feel like heroes", and now there's two separate rulings for the same situation, just depending on who's wearing the counterspell hat that round.

And like, if CS "robs" the hero of feeling heroic for a CS on a Booming Blade of all things, then what does it do when they CS a Fireball? Or Disintegrate? Or Meteor Swarm?

[Keltest]

I've got to agree that RAW disagreements sour D&D as a whole. They psuedo reenforce the DM vs Player competitive adversarial relationship that is far too prevalent (IMO). This is, of course, normal human nature - we all like our beliefs to be 'right' and the vast majority of folks want to 'win.' It's far too easy for the DM to get caught up in the 'nah uh you can't do that thing to my team because my current interpolation of the rules as written prevents it' ... as if they require the justification to make a ruling. It's also totally normal for a group of Player to expect / demand a consistent / fair implementation of the rules - but these normal human tendencies foment conflict / tension.

I think things like "spells only do what they say they do" is useful and indeed important for managing player expectations when the DM is, for whatever reason, not going to make a ruling on something, like if youre planning your action and don't want to interrupt another player's turn. Like, you can ask if you can do something unusual, and they might say yes, but when you need to be able to 100% count on something happening, if its not in the spell text, don't assume it will work.

[diplomancer]

I've got to agree that RAW disagreements sour D&D as a whole. They psuedo reenforce the DM vs Player competitive adversarial relationship that is far too prevalent (IMO). This is, of course, normal human nature - we all like our beliefs to be 'right' and the vast majority of folks want to 'win.' It's far too easy for the DM to get caught up in the 'nah uh you can't do that thing to my team because my current interpolation of the rules as written prevents it' ... as if they require the justification to make a ruling. It's also totally normal for a group of Player to expect / demand a consistent / fair implementation of the rules - but these normal human tendencies foment conflict / tension.

Considering what RAW is is useful. But when you're playing, specially if you're a player, don't discuss it unless the DM specifically asks you about it. I know RAW better than most of my DMs, and they know it, but I never bring it up unless asked, and if someone asks the DM "can I do this?" and I know that RAW says "No", I don't bring it up unless asked directly.

In my experience, DMs are more permissive than RAW, unless you try to make a weird broken combo from RAW, in which case they will shut it down.

[Theodoxus]

While I can respect his logic, it falls short for me.

If the shoe was on the other foot, and the player was counterspelling it, would he rule similarly? Apparently not, since that would mean the player "wouldn't feel like heroes", and now there's two separate rulings for the same situation, just depending on who's wearing the counterspell hat that round.

And like, if CS "robs" the hero of feeling heroic for a CS on a Booming Blade of all things, then what does it do when they CS a Fireball? Or Disintegrate? Or Meteor Swarm?

I suspect you're correct with the flip side of the coin. Regarding other CS's, I suspect since what you've listed are all pure magical attacks with no material component dealing damage directly - like with a SCAGtrip, he'd be ok with their heroics getting the sad trombone for the round.

OTOH, this is purely theoretical. I've never faced a foe as a player in his games that used CS... more than likely because his campaigns fizzle out before we get to 5th level, and he's far more likely to throw a ton of low CR critters at us than a few higher CR dudes who might have CS on their spell list...

[JackPhoenix]

I think things like "spells only do what they say they do" is useful and indeed important for managing player expectations when the DM is, for whatever reason, not going to make a ruling on something, like if youre planning your action and don't want to interrupt another player's turn. Like, you can ask if you can do something unusual, and they might say yes, but when you need to be able to 100% count on something happening, if its not in the spell text, don't assume it will work.

In addition, and relevant to the RAW discussion, we're arguing on a internet forum. Most of us don't know each other personally and don't play the game together (I know there are few exceptions). The RAW is the only thing we all have in common. If someone asks a rule question about something they want to use in a game, I don't and can't know what their GM's final ruling on the matter will be. I only know what's written in the books. That's why bringing your houserules into discussion where nobody asks or cares about your houserules is irrelevant.

[Dr.Samurai]

The nature of forum discussions requires talking about D&D in a way that isn't really practical at the actual game table. Because most DMs that I know deviate from RAW and come up with their own stuff and change things they don't like, etc.

Needing the common ground that JackPhoenix mentions requires us to adhere to RAW. And it means that many of the conversations we have are less than useful in the end.

[RSP]

I think things like "spells only do what they say they do" is useful and indeed important for managing player expectations when the DM is, for whatever reason, not going to make a ruling on something, like if youre planning your action and don't want to interrupt another player's turn. Like, you can ask if you can do something unusual, and they might say yes, but when you need to be able to 100% count on something happening, if its not in the spell text, don't assume it will work.

I’d add as advice for players who have an idea of what their PC will be doing:

Explicitly tell your DM what your PC will be doing in terms of their abilities, as you see it, as early as possible.

I tend to do this in session zero, something as simple as “For this PC, I foresee Shadow Blade being used with BB/GFB being the basis of their combat actions. This will include eventual upcasting of SB, so their turn might be an attack (with Adv if the target is in Dim Light or Darkness, per SB) for 1d8 BB, 2d8 + mod SB for 3d8+mod total. Obviously that will increase with upcasting SB (3d8 or 4d8) and at the cantrip increase thresholds. Let me know if you have any issue with this.”

If I foresee any “outside the box” uses of abilities/spells, or interaction of abilities, I’ll shoot my DM an email/text as soon as I think of it. That way we have any discussion outside of game play, and I know what the DM is expecting and I’m not surprising them with anything.

[Dalinar]

The nature of forum discussions requires talking about D&D in a way that isn't really practical at the actual game table. Because most DMs that I know deviate from RAW and come up with their own stuff and change things they don't like, etc.

Needing the common ground that JackPhoenix mentions requires us to adhere to RAW. And it means that many of the conversations we have are less than useful in the end.

And that's why it's okay to answer in the form of "here is how I read the rules, but also I think it's more fun to run it like this." At the end of the day, what's the point of a D&D forum if we're not using it to share experiences on how to make the game more fun? Whether that's in the form of asking for rules clarifications or swapping anecdotes or doing fiddly buildcrafting or any number of other things.

The funny thing about "rules as written" is that people often use the phrase to assert things about the rules that may not actually be true or at least may be open to interpretation. I happen to think Spell Sniper allowing you to use Booming Blade at 10ft is RAW provided you have a reach weapon, but a lot of people would assert otherwise (it comes down to "Self (5ft radius)" being a nonsensical range for an attack roll spell any way you slice it).

I don't bring that situation up to start a side tangent on whether my interpretation is correct or not, but just to demonstrate that there is no such thing as a version of D&D where everyone agrees exactly on what the rules are in every situation. So treating RAW as an authority on the way the game should be run is not the correct use of the concept; calling something RAW is just saying that it is likely to be portable to other tables because it's in the rules of the game, even though plenty of tables run heavy on homebrew and house rules.

I don't think we're actually in disagreement on any of this, but maybe I'm misunderstanding?

I’d add as advice for players who have an idea of what their PC will be doing:

Explicitly tell your DM what your PC will be doing in terms of their abilities, as you see it, as early as possible.

I tend to do this in session zero, something as simple as “For this PC, I foresee Shadow Blade being used with BB/GFB being the basis of their combat actions. This will include eventual upcasting of SB, so their turn might be an attack (with Adv if the target is in Dim Light or Darkness, per SB) for 1d8 BB, 2d8 + mod SB for 3d8+mod total. Obviously that will increase with upcasting SB (3d8 or 4d8) and at the cantrip increase thresholds. Let me know if you have any issue with this.”

If I foresee any “outside the box” uses of abilities/spells, or interaction of abilities, I’ll shoot my DM an email/text as soon as I think of it. That way we have any discussion outside of game play, and I know what the DM is expecting and I’m not surprising them with anything.

Yes, this is super important. If you are going to a table and you are running a character that you expect to make a lot of use of a specific tactic, run it by your DM to make sure you're both on the same page about how it works.

[sithlordnergal]

The funny thing about "rules as written" is that people often use the phrase to assert things about the rules that may not actually be true or at least may be open to interpretation. I happen to think Spell Sniper allowing you to use Booming Blade at 10ft is RAW provided you have a reach weapon, but a lot of people would assert otherwise (it comes down to "Self (5ft radius)" being a nonsensical range for an attack roll spell any way you slice it).

So, I know this has nothing to do with the conversation...but that change always made me so annoyed. Its such a nonsensical change. The OG had a Range of 5ft, which means Spell Sniper worked with it. Clearly they wanted to change it so Spell Sniper didn't work with it because apparently people found a 10ft Booming Blade "OP", but muddied the water so that I can see it being run either way. -_- If they didn't want it to work with Spell Sniper they could have made the Range "Self", then stated it you make a Weapon Attack against a creature within 5 feet of you in the spell description. Now its clear it doesn't work with Spell Sniper.

Its just like how they require the Material Component be a weapon worth 1 sp. I don't even know what they were trying to "fix" with that change, and Sage Advice even went on to say "Hey, we made this change, but there's nothing wrong with letting it work with Shadow Blade despite it technically not being worth anything". Why make the change in the first place if you're gonna walk back on it!?! Its dumb, they accomplished nothing, and made it slightly less user friendly.

[Theodoxus]

Yes, this is super important. If you are going to a table and you are running a character that you expect to make a lot of use of a specific tactic, run it by your DM to make sure you're both on the same page about how it works.

Not just working, but if it will continue to work. Some tricks grow long in the tooth, or end up being annoying to the DM over time, and instead of working with the player to make sure they're on the same page, I've seen far too many times where the DM just goes full on passive aggressive and ruins the players fun at every turn.

[Amnestic]

Its just like how they require the Material Component be a weapon worth 1 sp. I don't even know what they were trying to "fix" with that change, and Sage Advice even went on to say "Hey, we made this change, but there's nothing wrong with letting it work with Shadow Blade despite it technically not being worth anything". Why make the change in the first place if you're gonna walk back on it!?! Its dumb, they accomplished nothing, and made it slightly less user friendly.

Because the old material component was costless ("a weapon") it was, RAW, possible for you to pull said weapons from your material component pouch, which I guess they didn't want 'cos it was a bit silly.

[sithlordnergal]

Because the old material component was costless ("a weapon") it was, RAW, possible for you to pull said weapons from your material component pouch, which I guess they didn't want 'cos it was a bit silly.

...You know, I never thought of that part. Yeah, that is pretty silly, and by the rules you could absolutely have done that. You just carry a worthless weapon in your component pouch. Ok, that change makes a lot more sense to me now.

[KorvinStarmast]

The nature of forum discussions requires talking about D&D in a way that isn't really practical at the actual game table. Because most DMs that I know deviate from RAW and come up with their own stuff and change things they don't like, etc. Needing the common ground that JackPhoenix mentions requires us to adhere to RAW.

Not adhere to RAW, use RAW as a first approximation, or a first level assumption, and as a point of departure. RAW is the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it.

And that's why it's okay to answer in the form of "here is how I read the rules, but also I think it's more fun to run it like this." At the end of the day, what's the point of a D&D forum if we're not using it to share experiences on how to make the game more fun?

That's a good approach.

The funny thing about "rules as written" is that people often use the phrase to assert things about the rules that may not actually be true

And the devs change their minds.

treating RAW as an authority on the way the game should be run is not the correct use of the concept; calling something RAW is just saying that it is likely to be portable to other tables because it's in the rules of the game, even though plenty of tables run heavy on homebrew and house rules.

Like my first 5e DM who had zombies be immune to turn undead. We found that out by accident, not by him advising us of the change.

Yes, this is super important. If you are going to a table and you are running a character that you expect to make a lot of use of a specific tactic, run it by your DM to make sure you're both on the same page about how it works.

Great advice. I did this with Phoenix Phyre as regards Simulacrum, and we had a nice discussion what does and doesn't work. (Yes, sim coudl breast feed, no, sim could not give birth).
Had a similar discussion on True Polymorph as regards "Object to creature" since it was my intention to put together a small flock of Silver Dragons. (CR 9). We arrived at a better solution of 1, and I needed to get approval from an adult gold and an adult blue to do that since where that should comes from MATTERS to dragons.
And he knew my inetent: get a mate/girlfriend for the copper dragon, young, who we had met much earlier in the campaign.
Matchmaker, Matchmaker, make me a match ...

The OG had a Range of 5ft, which means Spell Sniper worked with it. Its just like how they require the Material Component be a weapon worth 1 sp. I don't even know what they were trying to "fix" with that change, and Sage Advice even went on to say "Hey, we made this change, but there's nothing wrong with letting it work with Shadow Blade despite it technically not being worth anything". Why make the change in the first place if you're gonna walk back on it!?! Its dumb, they accomplished nothing, and made it slightly less user friendly.

They should have left well enough alone.
Everyone is proficient with a dagger, and it works with both of those spells.

[Dr.Samurai]

Not adhere to RAW, use RAW as a first approximation, or a first level assumption, and as a point of departure. RAW is the beginning of the conversation, not the end of it.

Very good way of putting it.

[Schwann145]

With SCAGtrips written as poorly as they are (even the updated versions), you're pretty much guaranteed to be stuck in a spot where, whatever your answer to the question is, it will feel "off."

Making a mundane attack (using regular attack stats even, not your casting stat) is a required part of casting the spell.
Counterspell doesn't counter mundane actions, only magic.
So logically it would follow that Counterspell couldn't counter the attack.
But by RAW it does, because it's a required part of casting the spell, and Counterspell stops the spell entirely.

If you rule that Counterspell stops your mundane attack, you're giving too much power to Counterspell.
If you rule that Counterspell doesn't stop the mundane attack, you're not following the RAW of Counterspell.

So, IMO, the game, overall, is better and makes more sense if you don't follow the RAW here. But it needs to be acknowledged that you are, in fact, breaking from RAW.
All because they didn't write the spell(s) very well.


Alternatively:
Counterspell only stops the effects of a spell, not the casting of said spell. Since the mundane attack can be considered "part of the casting" and not "an effect of" the spell, it could easily be ruled that the mundane attack still happens.
In much the same way that a consumed component is still consumed, the attack component still attacks.

[JackPhoenix]

Making a mundane attack (using regular attack stats even, not your casting stat) is a required part of casting the spell.

It's not. It's a part of the spell's effect, not part of the casting.

[Schwann145]

It's not. It's a part of the spell's effect, not part of the casting.

That gets into weird territory. Are you forced to make the attack? Can you choose not to and let the spell fizzle?

[Hairfish]

Not sure why having CS also stop the melee attack of BB/GFB would be "too much power". If you counter Shocking Grasp, the cantrip's caster doesn't get to make a free weapon attack.

[Schwann145]

Not sure why having CS also stop the melee attack of BB/GFB would be "too much power". If you counter Shocking Grasp, the cantrip's caster doesn't get to make a free weapon attack.

Shocking Grasp doesn't allow you to make a weapon attack.
I would happily argue that if you cast Shocking Grasp and it is Counterspelled, you still end up touching your intended target (assuming you roll high enough to have hit).

[Amnestic]

With SCAGtrips written as poorly as they are (even the updated versions), you're pretty much guaranteed to be stuck in a spot where, whatever your answer to the question is, it will feel "off."

Making a mundane attack (using regular attack stats even, not your casting stat) is a required part of casting the spell.
Counterspell doesn't counter mundane actions, only magic.
So logically it would follow that Counterspell couldn't counter the attack.

People, including myself, have provided explanations for how the narrative can fit the RAW without any sort of confusion around it. Your simply ignoring that doesn't make them go away.

Ruling otherwise could leads players to, very reasonably, ask questions like "Jim started to cast Booming Blade and got counterspelled and still got to attack with his turn, but when I cast Fireball I don't get to do the same? Why not? Either way the Cast A Spell action got interrupted before it went off, so I should have time to make the attack like Jim did."

What's the argument against it? Clearly time is not a factor. "Because Fireball doesn't say you get to attack?" Well Booming Blade only lets you attack if you Cast a Spell, and you didn't, because it got Counterspelled.

[Witty Username]

I would also add that RAW is our only measure of quality for rules.
Rules being strange or inconsistent are only really in a RAW lens, since otherwise we are assumed to just patch over everything and are not as connected to the quality of the system.

Also, it is usually are closest approximation to RAI (Rules as Intended) although Sage Advice and JC tweets do convey that some. So if one is trying to figure the unintended breakpoints of modifing a rule, RAW is often where we gotta go.

[RSP]

With SCAGtrips written as poorly as they are (even the updated versions), you're pretty much guaranteed to be stuck in a spot where, whatever your answer to the question is, it will feel "off."

Never had an issue with the SCAG Cantrips feeling off.

Counterspell causes the spell to fail and have no effect. Getting an attack is an effect. Hitting on that attack is neither failing nor having no effect.

Think of it this way: you can Quicken BB/GFB. If a Sorc Quickens BB, how does he get the BA attack without using magic? If he then makes a regular BB casting, how does he make two attacks, without magic?

Are you suggesting the Sorc can normally make two attacks without Quicken or Magic? That would seem to be the case if your argument about mundane attacks were to hold.