Counterspelled Booming Blade

[Blatant Beast]

Magical Fire =/= Fire

Magical Fire is undefined;

Magical Fire is not undefined in 5e, I do not believe it exists. There is only fire damage.

Bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage have a distinction between B/P/S from a magical source, such as a magic Longsword, or a creature that has attacks that count as magical, but I do not recall a case where a distinction between Fire and magical fire damage has been made in 5e.

Even in 5e, Magical B/P/S is being phased somewhat phased out. Mord Presents Monsters of the Multiverse converted creatures that had magical B/P/S damage into Force Damage. Presumably, the Monster Manual 2024, will convert the rest of creature magical B/P/S into Force damage as well.

Magical Fire damage though…not RAW.

[Dr.Samurai]

The issue with Daylight and players being confused isn't due to RAW being vague, the confusion is the name of the spell.

I disagree. What you are saying is correct if you have the well-established online understanding of what "RAW" is. RAW is everything that you and others are arguing that doesn't exist in the books. As an example "the spell doesn't say it creates sunlight, and that is how we know it doesn't create sunlight" is a rationale, an approach to RAW; but it's not RAW. If the spells Sunbeam and Sunburst did not exist as examples of spells that say they create Sunlight, there would be no reason to assume the light of the Daylight spell isn't sunlight, because that's what daylight is. Even in Sunbeam and Sunburst, we see differences in how this is spelled out; one spell tells you it creates brilliant sunlight. The other spell tells you you create brilliant light that does a bunch of stuff, and then tacks on "this is sunlight" in the very last sentence.

Its just like how players and DMs I play with both get confused when I cast Chill Touch until they remember its a Ranged Spell that deals Necrotic Damage instead of a Touch spell that deals Cold Damage.

It's not though. In that case, the parameters that are being confused are actually in the spell description. Whether Daylight is sunlight or not is not referenced in the spell. Again, you and others take absence of language as a positive assertion, and literally call it Rules as Written, which is hilarious.

The confusion around Daylight is because of the name AND ALSO the fact that the spell doesn't say whether it is sunlight or not.

And you don't have to tell people they have to look at these other spells to understand, you simply have to tell them that the spell doesn't specifically make sunlight in the description, and people are fine with that. They might sigh and say the name is a bit misleading, but they accept that the spell doesn't make sunlight because it doesn't say it makes sunlight.

Someone just said they have to constantly remind their players so... doesn't seem so easy peasy. And that makes sense to me, because it's not actually RAW because the spell doesn't say. If the spell said, there wouldn't be confusion.

That's not an issue with RAW so much as just poor naming.

It's not an issue with RAW for you because you have a reasoning tool that you use to decide for yourself what RAW is, and this tool has been honed by the online community for many years now. But "it doesn't say therefore..." is not RAW.

Sure it has flames, but they are not regular flames. They don't act like normal fire because the spell doesn't say it burns things like other, similar spells do. Again, look at Create Bonfire. It specifies that it sets things on fire, Wall of Fire does not, therefore Wall of Fire would not set things on fire. The two are pretty similar spells in such that they fill an area with magical fire and they both last longer than 1 or 2 rounds, but only one will set things on fire.

You act like there haven't been threads going on into infinity about Create Bonfire either lol.

The rules also don't say the two spells interact in any way.

Tidal Wave literally says it interacts with unprotected flames...

Because in order for them to do so, they both need to have special requirements. In the case of Wall of Fire, it would need a sentence that says it can be put out by some amount of water, but it doesn't so it can;t be extinguished by any amount of water.

This requirement that the spell itself has to say it can be impacted by another spell that says it would impact it is something you are insisting on that is not supported by the RAW.

Question for you, does Gust of Wind, which also states it puts out unprotected flames, put out a Wall of Fire? By your reading of RAW, it does. Also, do Tidal Wave and Gust of Wind instantly put out a fire elemental, since those are not protected flames?

Gust of Wind refers to similar fires to a torch, so no, I would not consider a Wall of Fire similar to a torch. We know what a Tidal Wave is so we know why the spell might be able to douse a wall of fire.

Elementals are creatures. But again... this is reasoning, this isn't RAW. This is the point. These questions are not RAW. "Oh but this spell says this" "Oh but what would happen here" etc etc is everyone trying to arrive at some space they can all agree on, precisely because the RAW doesn't go deep enough.

It doesnt heal, reform or return because it doesn't go away in the first place. If water was enough to put out WoF, it would have said so.

This is completely unsupported by the rules.

And we're not talking about water. We're talking about a magical spell that specifically says it puts fires out when it comes into contact with them.

Except it doesn't call out magical fire at all. This is like saying Tidal Wave extinguishes life too, or iron, or crystals, or..., because it doesn't say it doesn't.

Lol, what a take...

Magical Fire =/= Fire

This is the whole crux of the thing.

I am fine with you having this baseless assumption and running your game this way. That's totally cool.

But you are using this reasoning and asserting that it is a RAW reading. And it isn't. At all. And everything else hinges on this understanding of magical fire.

"Magical Fire =/= Fire" is Aimeryan's opinion on magical fire in the game, not RAW. How relevant your opinion on magical fire is, is suspect because Wall of Fire never even uses the term "magical fire". This is just you and others, creating a body of OPINION over how ever many years and all agreeing that it is "RAW", even though it's not.

I don't know where this opacity this with wall of fire came from. But I imagine if you ask most whether they think you would be able to see through a wall of fire, they would likely say no.

Of course. You can't see through a raging inferno lol. You can see through the upper bits of a candle flame or something, sure. Not all parts of a flame are opaque or translucent. I'd take the wording in Wall of Fire as being there to simplify the spell and not let there be a question about whether or not you can see through it, given the nature of flames.

I was surprised at the comments about opacity. But then again... they don't think that when Wall of FIRE says it creates a wall of FIRE that it is actually creating FIRE. So I guess I shouldn't be surprised lol.

As a general aside "Rules as written" being gospel, is just plain dumb. Documents the size of of the PHB much less all of the game rules of D&D always have mistakes or things that could be better worded or clarified (for example I am not convinced Daylight wasn't meant to be sunlight). The only way to really know is to get an author to clarify what they think, and they may not have thought about it one way in the first place (and you may not even agree with them). What it should be is "Rules as guidelines" a place to start, from there do what makes sense and feels right for your game/world.

To piggyback onto this... imagine how big the PHB would have to be to include all of the spells it already has, but then also add to the description all of the ways that someone might interact with the spell. And then add something like "if the spell doesn't have an interaction listed in its entry, it is impossible".

[Keltest]

And we're not talking about water. We're talking about a magical spell that specifically says it puts fires out when it comes into contact with them.

By dousing it with water.

If Tidal Wave isn't water, then Wall of Fire isn't fire, and you STILL don't have the spells interacting.

[Dr.Samurai]

By dousing it with water.

Tsk tsk tsk... magical water.

Remember... when things are magical, we can't expect them to work like real life things. This is what you've all told us. So I know it doesn't make sense to you that water would put out a magical fire, but this is magical water, and spells do what they say they do. So this SPELL, that creates MAGICAL water and says it puts out fires, would put out Wall of Fire.

If you disagree with this, you are privileging magical fire over magical water, and one spell over another. This is again not RAW.

[Keltest]

Tsk tsk tsk... magical water.

Remember... when things are magical, we can't expect them to work like real life things. This is what you've all told us. So I know it doesn't make sense to you that water would put out a magical fire, but this is magical water, and spells do what they say they do. So this SPELL, that creates MAGICAL water and says it puts out fires, would put out Wall of Fire.

If you disagree with this, you are privileging magical fire over magical water, and one spell over another. This is again not RAW.

Unprotected (magical) fire. A spell continually keeping the fire going is protection.

[Christew]

RAW is everything that you and others are arguing that doesn't exist in the books. As an example "the spell doesn't say it creates sunlight, and that is how we know it doesn't create sunlight" is a rationale, an approach to RAW; but it's not RAW ....

You are compartmentalizing the RAW in order to justify this position. It is not compelling.

How do we know that magical fire =/= mundane fire?
Because the distinction is made within the RAW.

How do we know the Daylight spell doesn't create sunlight?
Because within the RAW, spells that create sunlight are specified as doing so.

A more apropos example would be "the spell doesn't say that it creates sunlight, and spells that do create sunlight say that they create sunlight, and that is how we know it doesn't create sunlight." You are kind of just indicting the limitations of language again (and the limitations imposed by publishing a commercial product). "This section of the RAW that I have arbitrarily isolated is not so voluminous as to contain explicit reference to every potential interaction that is allowable or not; therefore I can ignore the rest of the RAW" is not a kill shot to the RAW -- it is just a strange approach to reading.

[Dr.Samurai]

Unprotected (magical) fire. A spell continually keeping the fire going is protection.

A very interesting interpretation of "protection". Do you consider this "RAW"?

You are compartmentalizing the RAW in order to justify this position. It is not compelling.

RAW positions are not compelling when they lean heavily on things that are not written, on inferences, assumptions, wordplay, etc.

How do we know that magical fire =/= mundane fire?
Because the distinction is made within the RAW.

No it isn't. Again... Wall of Fire does not create "magical fire". It creates a wall "of fire". It does not tell us that this wall is distinct from "normal fire" because you can't put it out with water and it doesn't shed light, etc. These are assumptions you are making that cannot be found in the RAW.

How do we know the Daylight spell doesn't create sunlight?
Because within the RAW, spells that create sunlight are specified as doing so.

A more apropos example would be "the spell doesn't say that it creates sunlight, and spells that do create sunlight say that they create sunlight, and that is how we know it doesn't create sunlight."

I made this point, and was told that we actually don't have to look at other spells to know what Daylight does, because the key factor in knowing what Daylight does is what the spell *doesn't say*, and that alone informs us.

So even among the RAW crowd we have a different approach to how to parse the language.

You are kind of just indicting the limitations of language again (and the limitations imposed by publishing a commercial product).

If this is where you keep going back to, it's because you are using the limitations of language/publishing to justify a reasoning tool for RAW. "They didn't include every interaction possible due to limitations, therefore they must intend for no interactions to be possible beyond the text" is not a RAW position, but is used to defend RAW.

"This section of the RAW that I have arbitrarily isolated is not so voluminous as to contain explicit reference to every potential interaction that is allowable or not; therefore I can ignore the rest of the RAW" is not a kill shot to the RAW -- it is just a strange approach to reading.

Who needs a kill shot when the RAW hasn't even surfaced in this discussion? None of you are using "RAW" to defend your position on Wall of Fire. There's been a lot of thoughtful ideas and takes, but none of it RAW.

[KorvinStarmast]

Pro Tip: Never use a wall of fire to cook brisket. You need a low, slow fire that burns for a long time... (I say this because one of the guys at our church, when we were doing a fund raising bbq to sell brisket plates, went a little over the top on how much charcoal/wood to use and thankfully our brisket maestro checked temps during the first hour and we had to make an adjustment. Cooking it faster doesn't make it better ...)

[Christew]

RAW positions are not compelling when they lean heavily on things that are not written, on inferences, assumptions, wordplay, etc.

Okay. How about those that lean on things that are written elsewhere in the rules? Like the examples I used ....

No it isn't. Again... Wall of Fire does not create "magical fire". It creates a wall "of fire". It does not tell us that this wall is distinct from "normal fire" because you can't put it out with water and it doesn't shed light, etc. These are assumptions you are making that cannot be found in the RAW.

Again the raw differentiates magical and non magical fire. The fact that it isn't reprinted under wall of fire doesn't mean that the distinction "cannot be found in the RAW."

I made this point, and was told that we actually don't have to look at other spells to know what Daylight does, because the key factor in knowing what Daylight does is what the spell *doesn't say*, and that alone informs us.

So even among the RAW crowd we have a different approach to how to parse the language.

Almost as though we are a collection of individuals and attempts to create an exclusive binary are unwarranted and obfuscatory.

If this is where you keep going back to, it's because you are using the limitations of language/publishing to justify a reasoning tool for RAW. "They didn't include every interaction possible due to limitations, therefore they must intend for no interactions to be possible beyond the text" is not a RAW position, but is used to defend RAW.

The position that the RAW can only be properly referenced without recourse to reason of any kind is not one that I am willing to engage with.

Who needs a kill shot when the RAW hasn't even surfaced in this discussion? None of you are using "RAW" to defend your position on Wall of Fire. There's been a lot of thoughtful ideas and takes, but none of it RAW.

I've quoted tons of RAW in this discussion. I don't agree =/= not RAW.

[stoutstien]

The fact that daylight does not in fact make day light is all the evidence I need to disregard RaW as nothing more than individual writers making different assumption on how the base game function and no one thought to take the time to actually read it.

Could they have fixed it? Sure but instead they just..added a new spell because of course they did.

[Dr.Samurai]

Okay. How about those that lean on things that are written elsewhere in the rules? Like the examples I used ....

It’s an inference. You are looking at another spell to decide what a different spell can and can’t do. And calling your determination RAW.

To give another example that’s not Wall of Fire, you’re saying that the sunlight from Sunbeam can’t be reflected by a mirror because the text doesn’t say it can and “light” does not mean “light” as we know it but “magical light that only has the properties listed in the spell”.

This is not RAW.

Again the raw differentiates magical and non magical fire. The fact that it isn't reprinted under wall of fire doesn't mean that the distinction "cannot be found in the RAW."

Sorry, I may have missed it. Where is this distinction in the RAW made?

Almost as though we are a collection of individuals and attempts to create an exclusive binary are unwarranted and obfuscatory.

The binary would support you, not me.

The position that the RAW can only be properly referenced without recourse to reason of any kind is not one that I am willing to engage with.

Needing to rationalize your way to a conclusion undermines the label of RAW. That’s the point.

Obviously we will need to reason our way through the game. That’s also the point. People that claim that this and this are or aren’t allowed because RAW have very little room to stand on.

I've quoted tons of RAW in this discussion. I don't agree =/= not RAW.

And quoting text doesn’t mean it actually supports what you’re saying.

[Darth Credence]

The fact that daylight does not in fact make day light is all the evidence I need to disregard RaW as nothing more than individual writers making different assumption on how the base game function and no one thought to take the time to actually read it.

Could they have fixed it? Sure but instead they just..added a new spell because of course they did.

Daylight creates daylight. Exactly as it says. Unfortunately for people wanting to use this against vampires and the like, they are harmed by sunlight, not daylight. Therefore, the spell does exactly what it says it does, doesn't contradict the title, and doesn't harm vampires. You're welcome.

To give another example that’s not Wall of Fire, you’re saying that the sunlight from Sunbeam can’t be reflected by a mirror because the text doesn’t say it can and “light” does not mean “light” as we know it but “magical light that only has the properties listed in the spell”.

Thanks for posting this! I have one of those laser grid games, and now I have a plan to use it in the campaign. Beams of burning light going around corners in a maze!

Pro Tip: Never use a wall of fire to cook brisket. You need a low, slow fire that burns for a long time...

If you place the brisket on the cool side of the wall of fire, you get the appropriate indirect heat for it. You just have to cast the spell around 500 times.

[Blatant Beast]

How do we know that magical fire =/= mundane fire?
Because the distinction is made within the RAW.

Uhh...Magical Fire does not exist in 5e. There is only Fire. Some fires are 'natural' some are created by other means.

It seems like you are making stuff up....which is my entire point about the Law of Parsimony and the positions that have been staked out by RAW Uber Alles. Searching for or arguing for 'Magical' fire as a means to make your model work...is not Parsimonious...and it is not making the actual text paramount.

Which is the main take away this thread, has really shown in detail...when the RAW Uber Alles position proponents have been faced with honest, earnest, critique regarding fidelity to the text, and the manner in which they interpret the text....the response was seemingly to abandon the Rules as Written.

If you have to invent Magical Fire, (a category that does not exist in 5e), to defend your position, then perhaps you should concede that by RAW your position is untenable.

The Tidal Wave vs Wall of Fire has turned into a bit of a sideshow discussion. It is a DM's call regarding the spell interactions....my opinion, it is best to leave it there.

[Keltest]

Yall are giving me a headache. We know WoF doesn't act like mundane fire because the spell tells us all the ways it doesn't: only hot on one side, doesn't spread, and it exists in that spot for one minute or until the caster's concentration drops, whichever comes first. Period, full stop, do not pass go, that wall of fire is there until the spell ends, and nothing interacts with that except Dispel Magic, which can end the spell prematurely, or antimagic field, which suppresses the spell until the field goes away. Tidal Wave doesn't end the spell, ergo the wall of fire is still there.

[Blatant Beast]

I do not care about the Tidal Wave interaction. Do you agree, Keltest, that a Wall of Fire is actually Fire, as the text states?

[Keltest]

I do not care about the Tidal Wave interaction. Do you agree, Keltest, that a Wall of Fire is actually Fire, as the text states?

I think the difference is semantic. To use your words, I don't care. If its fire, it doesn't behave like fire, and if its just magic that looks like fire... it still doesn't behave like fire. Whether it is technically fire or not is irrelevant.

[Blatant Beast]

Thank you for sharing.
Luckily, 5e in play, only needs consistent rulings, not correct rulings, so we all can play and have fun, regardless of our positions.

In terms of discussion, however, I disagree, that it does not matter. I am going to repost a bit of what I wrote in post #299, because I think it addresses why having the correct view, makes a large impact on arriving at the correct resolution:

From post #299:
"The Wall of Fire spell description, indicates the manner in which the magical effect acts in an aberrant manner from fire in general. The spell still references the concept of Fire.

The traits of fire are still present. Any modification to the fire, will be expressed in the spell write up, but beyond those changes, the assumption is the spell still acts as fire.

The RAW UBER ALLES crowd, is trying to argue that because magic is involved, we should assume that normal properties of Fire should be ignored, and only concentrate on what is written in the spell description.

This is incorrect reasoning, and frankly a huge gigantic leap in logic. Wall of Fire is referencing the concept of Fire on purpose. Conjure Bonfire is referencing the concept of a Bonfire.

Wall of Fire could have been written to make it clear, that an enclosure or wall of magic that does fire damage was summoned, but the spell intentionally, and specifically calls out it makes a wall of fire...not fake fire, not magical fire, (as there is no magical fire type of damage),....but actual fire, with some alterations due to the magic.

Fire produces heat. Fire, typically produces light. The devs, in the limited time they had to produce the game, expected people would be able to apply their own experiences and reasoning to what the qualities of fire are. 5e does not explain gravity...we just have falling rules, the game is not a simulation of life...it is a game, that requires you to be aware of certain base concepts like, fire, light, dark, etc, etc."

As to Korvin's Point about never using a Wall of Fire to cook...absolutely slow and low, brings the brisket to perfection. Of course the RAW Uber Alles position, would simply state that one could never use a Wall of (Eponymous) Fire to cook on.....after all it isn't actually a Fire. The fire element was replaced with Folger's Crystals, and nobody can tell the difference..😊

[Keltest]

So if somebody were to cast Wall of Fire underwater, you would not allow it to work? If they were to cast it indoors, would the building burn down? I haven't actually seen anyone commit to these positions yet, probably because they make the spell a whole lot less usable, and open a bunch of cans of worms they don't want to agree to. But you can't have one without the other.

ETA: What about smoke? If you cast the spell in an enclosed or airtight space, does the room fill with smoke and suffocate everyone? That much fire would be hot enough to warp metal and damage stone. Will it destroy a stone structure?

[KorvinStarmast]

Going back to the original premise;

I just checked the PCs of the games I am in.
None of the PCs use the SCAG cantrips.
I also checked the PCs of the two games that I run.
None of the PCs use the SCAG cantrips.

I used GFB for a while on my Bard in Phoenix Phyre's world (our first campaign) but it was very much a case of "as a last resort" in her case. Her normal efforts usually didn't include mixing it up in melee - her job was to make our two melee fighters better, or to conjure some animals/beasts (usually dire wolves) to help in the fight.
As to the topic at hand:

My instinct is to let the attack remain in place, since the to hit and the damage are a part of the GFB and BB damage total.
All that is counter spelled is the spell effects. As regards Counterspell: as you go higher in level losing that rider damage substantially reduces the damage done.

I'll discuss with my players if this ever comes up.

[GeneralVryth]

Yall are giving me a headache. We know WoF doesn't act like mundane fire because the spell tells us all the ways it doesn't: only hot on one side, doesn't spread, and it exists in that spot for one minute or until the caster's concentration drops, whichever comes first. Period, full stop, do not pass go, that wall of fire is there until the spell ends, and nothing interacts with that except Dispel Magic, which can end the spell prematurely, or antimagic field, which suppresses the spell until the field goes away. Tidal Wave doesn't end the spell, ergo the wall of fire is still there.

Why doesn't it spread? Area of effect fire damage certainly would have the potential to start fires. Nothing in the spell says it can't start fires.

The reality is neither side in this debate is going to convince the other. 5 pages of argument certainly shows that.

[Keltest]

Why doesn't it spread? Area of effect fire damage certainly would have the potential to start fires. Nothing in the spell says it can't start fires.

The reality is neither side in this debate is going to convince the other. 5 pages of argument certainly shows that.

Because a spell says when it starts fires, and Wall of Fire doesn't have that text.

Spells do what they say they do, not what they don't say they do.

ETA: if youre going by the logic that a spell needs to exclude the things it can't do, then Wall of Fire shoots lightning bolts because it doesn't say that it can't do that.

[GeneralVryth]

So if somebody were to cast Wall of Fire underwater, you would not allow it to work? If they were to cast it indoors, would the building burn down? I haven't actually seen anyone commit to these positions yet, probably because they make the spell a whole lot less usable, and open a bunch of cans of worms they don't want to agree to. But you can't have one without the other.

ETA: What about smoke? If you cast the spell in an enclosed or airtight space, does the room fill with smoke and suffocate everyone? That much fire would be hot enough to warp metal and damage stone. Will it destroy a stone structure?

Underwater? No, or at least the effect would be modified.
Indoors, burning the building down? Depends on the building, certainly possible.
Smoke, or air implications? Depends on what the wall has to burn.
Stone? I think BG3 actually has the perfect kind of answer for this. Stone would be either resistant or immune to fire damage, and would have some kind of toughness. For example if it had 15 toughness and was only fire resistant, then the wall would need to do 30+ damage in the rough to damage the stone.

[Amnestic]

This discussion has brought to mind Watery Sphere. Should I have been running it as causing Drowning/Suffocation this whole time? I haven't been, since...well, it doesn't mention it, but if it turns off all verbal component spells I guess it goes up in my estimations.

[GeneralVryth]

Because a spell says when it starts fires, and Wall of Fire doesn't have that text.

Spells do what they say they do, not what they don't say they do.

ETA: if youre going by the logic that a spell needs to exclude the things it can't do, then Wall of Fire shoots lightning bolts because it doesn't say that it can't do that.

The first line of the spell is that it creates a wall of fire. That has implications, that is the general effect. The mechanical description later just states how it works mechanically in its most common circumstance. If some aspect of the general effect doesn't apply it needs to be called out (like it only being hot on one side). If there are effects that derive from that general effect that may not be obvious, but are important, it's important to state them, which is likely what you see in spells like Fireball.

This discussion has brought to mind Watery Sphere. Should I have been running it as causing Drowning/Suffocation this whole time? I haven't been, since...well, it doesn't mention it, but if it turns off all verbal component spells I guess it goes up in my estimations.

That's an interesting question. If the duration was longer than a minute, I think it would be relevant. But with only a 1 minute duration, there is not really enough time to drown unless a creature is trying to drown itself.

[Blatant Beast]

Keltest, the answer to those questions, for me, depends upon my campaign assumptions. In practice, each of my campaigns has different metaphysical qualities.

I have ran games, in which any spell or ability that can affect creatures can affect objects...in that game, yes, Wall of Fire will set objects near it ablaze.

I also run games, in which Wall of Fire only affects creatures, in which case, there will be no burning down the house.

I have ran an aquatic themed campaign, that did indeed place restrictions of fire spells, for races that did not have a native swim speed. Tritons could use any magic underwater. A High Elf would have trouble with Fire Magic underwater, but training could overcome that limitation.

Personally, I would have no problem if a DM, ruled a Torch could not be lit in a vacuum or extreme High Altitude, or that a Wall of Fire could not be cast underwater.

Some Magic works better than other magic, in certain scenarios. A PC based on charming things could be foiled by monster selection...things are immune to charms, low level charms often target humanoids, but it is easy to have a world where humanoids are actually rare so most foes are immune.

Part of being a PC is adapting, and overcoming adversity. Practically speaking, however, if the world metaphysics or campaign theme is going to for the life of the campaign invalidate certain spells, I would make that clear in session zero.

Playing a Rogue/Crit-meister in a 3e campaign that unbeknownst to me, was going to be Undead Heavy, (Kyuss Path of Worms) sucked, I make sure not to repeat the mistake.

Again, my quibble is not with people running the game how they want. My disagreement is purely on how the text is being interpreted.

(note: a bunch of posts were submitted after I started writing this)

[Theodoxus]

The fact that daylight does not in fact make day light is all the evidence I need to disregard RaW as nothing more than individual writers making different assumption on how the base game function and no one thought to take the time to actually read it.

Could they have fixed it? Sure but instead they just.. added a new spell because of course they did.

It appears that summoning actual sunlight requires a higher level spell slot (more power) than 3rd level would allow. Since Daylight doesn't have an 'At higher levels' note, even using a higher level slot to cast it wouldn't generate true sunlight. However, that's not RAW, just my ruling. RAW is silent in regards to empowering spells using higher level slots where it isn't noted.

I'm really curious all you 'fire is fire' people, how often do you create fires that are only hot on one side of the flame and not the other? A candle that you can safely put near curtains because it only heats up on the opposite side would be a massively useful safety measure.

If there is no such thing as magical fire, then surely mundane fire can be made to do everything outlined in the Wall of Fire description, no?

[GeneralVryth]

I'm really curious all you 'fire is fire' people, how often do you create fires that are only hot on one side of the flame and not the other? A candle that you can safely put near curtains because it only heats up on the opposite side would be a massively useful safety measure.

If there is no such thing as magical fire, then sure mundane fire can be made to do everything outlined in the Wall of Fire description, no?

That assumes the fire is only hot on one side, instead of the magic empowering the spell, blocking the heat/fire from affecting one side.

[Theodoxus]

Well that is certainly adding a fun bit of nuance not noted in the description. I'm perfectly happy with that ruling (and all of what BB has posted as well), but it's pure speculation until a DM codifies is as law/the reason it works that way.

[stoutstien]

This discussion has brought to mind Watery Sphere. Should I have been running it as causing Drowning/Suffocation this whole time? I haven't been, since...well, it doesn't mention it, but if it turns off all verbal component spells I guess it goes up in my estimations.

The duration prevents this outside casting while underwater. I would use the drowning rules then.

[Amnestic]

The duration prevents this outside casting while underwater.

Only if the target is holding their breath, which they wouldn't be doing actively if you cast it on top of someone and they didn't expect the spell.