Counterspelled Booming Blade

[Slipjig]

A question came up recently about what happens when a SCAG-trip is Counterspelled. The specific incident is an Arcane Trickster who stacks Booming Blade + Sneak Attack.

So here's the question: does the Counterspell shut the attack down completely, or does the attacker still get a normal attack (+Sneak Attack in this case)? My thought is that the AT didn't take the Attack action, he was making an attack AS PART OF HIS SPELL, so that Counterspell stops both. But I can also see a DM ruling the other way ("The CS stops the magic effect, but not the sword thrust.").

Thoughts?

[Mastikator]

It stops the entire spell, including the attack roll. TBH I'd be pretty miffed if I counter spelled an enemy's cantrip and the DM said "ok but the attack still goes off".

[KorvinStarmast]

A question came up recently about what happens when a SCAG-trip is Counterspelled. The specific incident is an Arcane Trickster who stacks Booming Blade + Sneak Attack.

So here's the question: does the Counterspell shut the attack down completely, or does the attacker still get a normal attack (+Sneak Attack in this case)? My thought is that the AT didn't take the Attack action, he was making an attack AS PART OF HIS SPELL, so that Counterspell stops both. But I can also see a DM ruling the other way ("The CS stops the magic effect, but not the sword thrust.").

Thoughts?

Suggest you C&P the spell text that you are referring to (booming blade) and edit that into your question.

[Xihirli]

I don’t know how I would explain it in the fiction of the world while maintaining verisimilitude, but by game mechanics the attack is halted.

EDIT: I’ve got it! "As you wreath your weapon in thunder, the enemy mage disrupts your spell and the thunder explodes early, rattling your sword as it’s all you can do just to hold onto it."

[Schwann145]

This is one of those instances where the GM should definitely step in and rule against the RAW.

There is simply no reasonable way to tell a player, "your physical attack didn't happen because someone turned the magic part off." They didn't turn off your ability to swing your sword, after all.

[Dalinar]

Down to DM ruling, IMO.

RAW you are not taking the attack action, but attacking as a part of the spell; and since Counterspell prevents the spell from happening, neither does the attack. However, it's kinda silly to assert that just because the magic didn't happen, you didn't also swing your sword. If you do want to rule Counterspell prevents the attack as well, be prepared to narrate how the counterspell physically disrupted you to the point where you can't even attack (see Xirhili's post above).

[Amnestic]

This is one of those instances where the GM should definitely step in and rule against the RAW.

There is simply no reasonable way to tell a player, "your physical attack didn't happen because someone turned the magic part off." They didn't turn off your ability to swing your sword, after all.

"The built up magic around your blade discharges all at once, knocking you off balance and preventing you from attacking" explains it perfectly within the narrative of the world, and sticks to RAW.

[sithlordnergal]

This is one of those instances where the GM should definitely step in and rule against the RAW.

There is simply no reasonable way to tell a player, "your physical attack didn't happen because someone turned the magic part off." They didn't turn off your ability to swing your sword, after all.

You could describe it as the Counterspell disrupted the magic, and that disruption was enough to cause the attack to automatically miss.

That said, I side with RAW here. Counterspell stops the Cantrip, and attacking is specifically part of the cantrip's mechanics. Therefore, the attack is stopped.

[stoutstien]

Welcome to results of magic being a stack of explicit expectations. You constantly need to make fairly important changes to the world logic solely for the purpose for the rules to be workable in game.

Can you CS booming blade. Yes
Can you CS searing smite. Yes but only when it cast not activated
Can you CS divine smite. No because it's magic but not that magic because magic.

[JackPhoenix]

Welcome to results of magic being a stack of explicit expectations. You constantly need to make fairly important changes to the world logic solely for the purpose for the rules to be workable in game.

Can you CS booming blade. Yes
Can you CS searing smite. Yes but only when it cast not activated
Can you CS divine smite. No because it's magic but not that magic because magic.

I'm not sure why do you think there's any issue with "world logic" in any of these cases.
You can CS Booming Blade when it is cast, preventing any effects of the spell from happening, because that's what Counterspell does.
You have to CS Searing Smite when it is cast, because Counterspell isn't Dispel Magic and can't end already cast spell. You can't Counterspell a Mage Armor a hour after it was cast either.
You can't CS Divine Smite, because Divine Smite isn't a spell, and Counterspell only stops spells. You can't Counterspell a Potion of Healing or a mind flayer's Mind Blast either. The game is rather clear that spells are just a small subset of magic. Hell, you can't even Counterspell actual spells that have their components removed through Subtle Spell metamagic, or through a magic item, because the components are the key in determining whether you can perceive a spell being cast, and seeing a spell being cast is a requirement to use Counterspell.

[stoutstien]

I'm not sure why do you think there's any issue with "world logic" in any of these cases.
You can CS Booming Blade when it is cast, preventing any effects of the spell from happening, because that's what Counterspell does.
You have to CS Searing Smite when it is cast, because Counterspell isn't Dispel Magic and can't end already cast spell. You can't Counterspell a Mage Armor a hour after it was cast either.
You can't CS Divine Smite, because Divine Smite isn't a spell, and Counterspell only stops spells. You can't Counterspell a Potion of Healing or a mind flayer's Mind Blast either. The game is rather clear that spells are just a small subset of magic. Hell, you can't even Counterspell actual spells that have their components removed through Subtle Spell metamagic, or through a magic item, because the components are the key in determining whether you can perceive a spell being cast, and seeing a spell being cast is a requirement to use Counterspell.

Every thing you have described only exists in the rules not the world. It's the acid splash the check for mimics in a 1000 different forms. It only makes sense on a rule layer and it's as a case by case basis based on very particular wording choices. It's clear only if have that exact feature either memorized or right in front of you in print and probably a different rule in a different book to make it not 100% nonsense. Which is why a large bulk of discussion regarding 5e is someone asking how something is supposed to work and that something is usually magic.

The only way you, as player or character, know any of it is rote or note. the last wave of complaints about NPCs having magic<not spell> actions is a good example but its always been in the game. as it grows more common the disconnect is becoming more obvious.It's crap design that they continue to build on top of because its a lot easier from a design stand point to pump out stand alone spells and spell like accessories than to make it work whole cloth.

Can Dispel magic actually dispel magic? No it dispel some spells some times.

Can you counter spell a initiate spell casting ability? Depends on if you still need components which is again case by case per MM. Gets funky with components with price tags.

A single spell on spell interaction is understandable but magic<spells> as a whole is garbage because it's just a bunch of them stables together.

[Psyren]

Welcome to results of magic being a stack of explicit expectations. You constantly need to make fairly important changes to the world logic solely for the purpose for the rules to be workable in game.

Can you CS booming blade. Yes
Can you CS searing smite. Yes but only when it cast not activated
Can you CS divine smite. No because it's magic but not that magic because magic.

That you have issues with the "world logic" for any of these is frankly a personal problem. They all fit with my world just fine.

[stoutstien]

That you have issues with the "world logic" for any of these is frankly a personal problem. They all fit with my world just fine.

Okay. describe the difference between these occurrences purely from an in-game perspective in such a way that the information that the character perceives allows the player to make decisions without referring to a rule.

Magic and particularly spellcasting has ended up in a position where you are no longer using rules as a touchstone for GM to resolve actions because if they don't follow what they say explicitly they don't work anymore. Ironically in their attempt to make magic less broken they made it more broken because they made it infinitely exploitable.

[Unoriginal]

Booming Blade and other blade cantrips take enough time/commitment that you can't cast the spell and do extra attacks during the same turn(unless you have half a dozen levels in Eldritch Knight or Bladesinger).

Since the attack one of the components of the casting, it's probable the caster has to coordinate all the components together, and disrupting one disrupt the rest.

[Schwann145]

"The built up magic around your blade discharges all at once, knocking you off balance and preventing you from attacking" explains it perfectly within the narrative of the world, and sticks to RAW.

If the Counterspell is that physical (which the spell description says nothing of the sort...) then there should be further consequences for such a disruption. Advantage on attacks against the off-balance target until their next turn, for instance.

Which would be wild.

[Theodoxus]

There isn't anything in either description of CS nor BB that describes what happens mechanically when it's successful. It's 100% homebrew to provide any explanation as to why BB's attack component didn't happen outside of the rules of CS itself. The rules of the game are clear, CS stops BB from going off, full stop. How you describe it, isn't.

Thunder vibrations is as good an idea as any - doesn't mean you're so off balance as to provide advantage to your foes. Doesn't mean your hand is so numb you drop your weapon like you were affected by Heat Metal. Both are mechanical properties not provided by CS.

Does a CS'd Fireball make a fart noise and a puff of sulfur?
Does a CS'd Magic Missile create mini fireworks of Force?
Does a CS'd Hypnotic Pattern make a sad trombone noise?

Not by RAW, but sure, why not?

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.

[Psyren]

Okay. describe the difference between these occurrences purely from an in-game perspective in such a way that the information that the character perceives allows the player to make decisions without referring to a rule.

It's not hard. Counterspell works by attempting to disrupt the magic of a spell whose caster is in range of you and whose components you are capable of observing at the moment of casting. Something that is not a spell, something that is a spell but that lacks components you can observe, or something that is a spell with components you can observe but that you weren't able to disrupt at the moment of casting (e.g. due to being out of range of the caster), are therefore not able to be countered.

2014 Divine Smite is category A.
Searing Smite is category B or C depending on the circumstances of how and when they cast it relative to your failed counter attempt, assuming you failed to counter it (it is indeed counterable otherwise.)

[Unoriginal]

Counterspell interferes with the casting of a spell.

Booming Blade's attack is part of the casting.

Therefore Counterspell interferes with the attack.

Counterspell can't do anything to a spell already cast, and BB is not a spell that boost your weapon or your striek once the casting is finished.

I'd be overjoyed that some moron blew a 3rd+ spell slot on my zero resource BB.

Harsh to call them a moron, it's not like they'd know which spell you're casting.

Although the weapon in hand can be a clue.

[DarknessEternal]

Counterspell shut the attack down completely,

This.

It is the only way to read the rules.

[Psyren]

Harsh to call them a moron, it's not like they'd know which spell you're casting.

Honestly this is why our table ignores the silly Xanathar's identification rule.

[stoutstien]

It's not hard. Counterspell works by attempting to disrupt the magic of a spell whose caster is in range of you and whose components you are capable of observing at the moment of casting. Something that is not a spell, something that is a spell but that lacks components you can observe, or something that is a spell with components you can observe but that you weren't able to disrupt at the moment of casting (e.g. due to being out of range of the caster), are therefore not able to be countered.

2014 Divine Smite is category A.
Searing Smite is category B or C depending on the circumstances of how and when they cast it relative to your failed counter attempt, assuming you failed to counter it (it is indeed counterable otherwise.)

How can the characters tell the difference between the three if the same events are occuring with someone holding something in their hand, mumbling, and waving their arms. This is all happening in less than a second as a reaction that occurs *before* the triggering event is completed (somehow).

Everything in the universe can tell the difference between a spell and a spell like feature but also can't determine the difference between a spell that use a component and a spell that usually does but doesn't. Crappy spidey senses?

Your explanation fails to do what I asked which is explain it from an in-game view. It only function as a rule interacting with a rule and it's not even good at this because they couldn't QC a laffy Taffy joke.

[Unoriginal]

How can the characters tell the difference between the three if the same events are occuring with someone holding something in their hand, mumbling, and waving their arms.

That's one is simple: they can't tell.

You're not supposed to identify what they're doing while they're doing it, unless you're using the Xanathar's rules. In which case you're not supposed to identify what they're doing while they're doing it without spending your reaction and an usually non-trivial INT(Arcana) check.

But it's not because one can't identify the difference at a glance that the difference doesn't exist.

[stoutstien]

That's one is simple: they can't tell.

You're not supposed to identify what they're doing while they're doing it, unless you're using the Xanathar's rules. In which case you're not supposed to identify what they're doing while they're doing it without spending your reaction and an usually non-trivial INT(Arcana) check.

But it's not because one can't identify the difference at a glance that the difference doesn't exist.

But CS has stipulations that it only works if you do recognize it's a spell or you can't use it. You can't fire it off if you think it's a spell and if it there is a spell<no components > you also can't cast it blindly in the off chance it's occuring.

Image of weapon attacks worked this way. You can't potentially hit an unseen target by looking for clues of there location because it gives you a error message and your sword stops working. To br fair OA do work which is also kinda weird. They tried to stream line off turn actions and ended up making them slow, finicky, and uneventful all at once.

[Unoriginal]

But CS has stipulations that it only works if you do recognize it's a spell or you can't use it.

Inaccurate. You can cast it in reaction to anything, it just doesn't work unless the "anything" is a spell.

As said in the Xanathar's:

If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended. If the spell normally has no effect on a target that succeeds on a saving throw, the invalid target appears to have succeeded on its saving throw, even though it didn't attempt one (giving no hint that the creature is in fact an invalid target). Otherwise, you perceive that the spell did nothing to the target.

You can't fire it off if you think it's a spell and if it there is a spell<no components > you also can't cast it blindly in the off chance it's occuring.

If the spell has no component, you can't cast CS because there is nothing to react to.

That's it.

[Blatant Beast]

How can the characters tell the difference between the three if the same events are occuring with someone holding something in their hand, mumbling, and waving their arms..

That is like saying how can someone tell the difference between a softball underhand throw, a baseball overhand pitch, or a forward pass in American football; afterall each event occurs with something in their hands, and throwing something…..

The obvious answer is like specific actions in the real world, the varied actions in D&D also have their specific actions, that identify them.

[Psyren]

How can the characters tell the difference between the three if the same events are occuring with someone holding something in their hand, mumbling, and waving their arms. This is all happening in less than a second as a reaction that occurs *before* the triggering event is completed (somehow).

Everything in the universe can tell the difference between a spell and a spell like feature but also can't determine the difference between a spell that use a component and a spell that usually does but doesn't. Crappy spidey senses?

Your explanation fails to do what I asked which is explain it from an in-game view. It only function as a rule interacting with a rule and it's not even good at this because they couldn't QC a laffy Taffy joke.

Again, this isn't hard. Things that are not spells don't have spell components (unless specifically stated). You know in-fiction that you can't counterspell divine smite because it has no spell components for you to observe. You also can't counterspell someone who is standing 65' away from you. Spell components and spell ranges are things that exist in the fiction.

[sithlordnergal]

How can the characters tell the difference between the three if the same events are occuring with someone holding something in their hand, mumbling, and waving their arms. This is all happening in less than a second as a reaction that occurs *before* the triggering event is completed (somehow).

Everything in the universe can tell the difference between a spell and a spell like feature but also can't determine the difference between a spell that use a component and a spell that usually does but doesn't. Crappy spidey senses?

Your explanation fails to do what I asked which is explain it from an in-game view. It only function as a rule interacting with a rule and it's not even good at this because they couldn't QC a laffy Taffy joke.

The same way you can tell the difference between someone juggling, someone playing a game of catch, and someone throwing a fastball in baseball. All three of those actions involve "Throwing something with your hands", all three of them require an item to be thrown, and you can easily juggle or toss a baseball, so all three can use the same object. But I can guarantee that you can tell the difference between those three things just by watching, even if you don't know how to do any of it.

We, as players and DMs, are not given specifics on how something might "look", because we, as players and DMs, have the freedom to add our own bit of creative flair to things. But there is apparently enough of a noticeable difference between casting a spell, concentrating on a spell, and using Divine Smite that a person trained with magic can spot the difference. And make no mistake, you DO need to be trained in magic in some manner because Counterspell is a third level spell. By the time you learn it, you're level 5, which is generally when you start learning actual powerful spells. You don't need to know anything about Arcana, you don't need a high Intelligence, but you need to know magic on some level higher than a beginner.

[stoutstien]

That is like saying how can someone tell the difference between a softball underhand throw, a baseball overhand pitch, or a forward pass in American football; afterall each event occurs with something in their hands, and throwing something…..

The obvious answer is like specific actions in the real world, the varied actions in D&D also have their specific actions, that identify them.

you aren't trying to see the difference between three different types of balls being tossed. You are tying to guess a baseball pitch during the windup besides you can't swing at a slider because you bat only moves if it's a fast ball but it also doesn't work on fastball thrown without a glove.

Since "flavor is free" and "spells do what they say they do" are both happening simultaneously there no applicable difference to begin with. The only thing spells care about is the rules which was my original complaint.

[Psyren]

you aren't trying to see the difference between three different types of balls being tossed. You are tying to guess a baseball pitch during the windup besides you can't swing at a slider because you bat only moves if it's a fast ball but it also doesn't work on fastball thrown without a glove.

Since "flavor is free" and "spells do what they say they do" are both happening simultaneously there no applicable difference to begin with. The only thing spells care about is the rules which was my original complaint.

If you truly don't think verbal, somatic, and material spell components are possible to distinguish from random gibberish, hand movements, or pocket lint in the fiction then there's not much else to say; it just brings us back around to:

That you have issues with the "world logic" for any of these is frankly a personal problem. They all fit with my world just fine.

[Blatant Beast]

Since "flavor is free" and "spells do what they say they do" are both happening simultaneously there no applicable difference to begin with. The only thing spells care about is the rules which was my original complaint.

Presenting a Holy Symbol and uttering a prayer, (which is needed for Turn Undead), is different than brandishing a weapon, doing some kata style movements with it, and attacking, which is what is needed for Booming Blade.

Even if someone ruled that a weapon was a Holy Symbol for a particular god, the difference between the two abilities requirements is the attack. Someone praying over Rosary beads is noticeably different than someone swinging Rosary beads violently at you.

A Reaction per the rules is an instant response.

In the case of Booming Blade, it is plausible to state the attack portion was telegraphed.

There is not one set standard of Magic thematics specified in the rules.

In a game world based of the Dying Earth Series by Jack Vance, all magic spells are the creation of a single culture…there is but one single form of verbal and somatic components in such a campaign. Spell Identification, (it would logically follow), should likely be fairly easy in such a world.

In another, entirely valid D&D world, such as Sigil or a D&D Fantasy version of the cinematic Casablanca, might feature a dizzying array of magical traditions and forms.

Perhaps in that world, the optional XGE rules are required, or perhaps the DM just rules the player has to decide to use Counterspell, blindly, and if the player guesses incorrectly, it is what it is.

Both methods, are equally valid, under the rules, in my opinion.
I do not agree with your premise, I am afraid.