Counterspelled Booming Blade

[Theodoxus]

Can we at least agree to the fact that there is no RAW stance on the interaction between TW and WoF? Both are agnostic to the other when it comes to direct opposition. And thus any decision as to their interaction is purely a ruling, which can be debated on the merits, but not using an appeal to authority vis a vis RAW.

Much like the original question, there is nothing stated in the rules as to what happens when CS is used on BB. Inferences can be made, and whatever might end up being decided at a specific table might be debated, but there's no authority to appeal to in that case either. Best case scenarios and reasoned explanations for why you'd make the call you would are as far as this discussion can go.

But I won't be shocked in the least when this post is ignored and the thread balloons to 20+ pages as folks nitpick a couple other spells that have implied interaction without being spelled out. Yippee.

[Rukelnikov]

The RAW definitely gives the duration of the spell and the effect during that duration.

The RAW also states TW extinguishes fires, you are giving unwritten qualities to WoF, namely it can't be put out, and disregarding WRITTEN qualities of TW, namely it extinguishes unprotected flames, thus the reading that TW doesn't put out WoF is strictly within the realm of houseruling.

[Keltest]

The RAW also states TW extinguishes fires, you are giving unwritten qualities to WoF, namely it can't be put out, and disregarding WRITTEN qualities of TW, namely it extinguishes unprotected flames, thus the reading that TW doesn't put out WoF is strictly within the realm of houseruling.

I'm not disregarding it at all. Having an ongoing magical effect maintaining the fire simply is protection.

[Darth Credence]

If you get pushed by a tidal wave into a wall of fire's AoE, it just really sucks until it carries you out of it.

I did not think that the tidal wave moved, just appeared where it was cast and then collapsed into water. But if it moves, then we have way more options! Can we all get ready and surf the tidal wave through the wall of fire? Because I'm thinking if I'm ever playing a wizard, I'm definitely going to keep tidal wave prepared and keep a boogie board in a bag of holding for just such an occasion.

[Rukelnikov]

I'm not disregarding it at all. Having an ongoing magical effect maintaining the fire simply is protection.

But that's not in the text, that an extra quality you choose to give it, I'm not against it, but against calling something that is not written to be RAW.

[Keltest]

I did not think that the tidal wave moved, just appeared where it was cast and then collapsed into water. But if it moves, then we have way more options! Can we all get ready and surf the tidal wave through the wall of fire? Because I'm thinking if I'm ever playing a wizard, I'm definitely going to keep tidal wave prepared and keep a boogie board in a bag of holding for just such an occasion.

Presumably it moves within the area, based on the way it "crashes down".

[JackPhoenix]

Snip

Yep, just as I expected.

Much like the original question, there is nothing stated in the rules as to what happens when CS is used on BB. Inferences can be made, and whatever might end up being decided at a specific table might be debated, but there's no authority to appeal to in that case either. Best case scenarios and reasoned explanations for why you'd make the call you would are as far as this discussion can go.

What do you mean? The book is completeny unambiguous on what happens: The spell fails and has no effect.

[Christew]

Can we at least agree to the fact that there is no RAW stance on the interaction between TW and WoF? Both are agnostic to the other when it comes to direct opposition. And thus any decision as to their interaction is purely a ruling, which can be debated on the merits, but not using an appeal to authority vis a vis RAW.

I support this.

Much like the original question, there is nothing stated in the rules as to what happens when CS is used on BB. Inferences can be made, and whatever might end up being decided at a specific table might be debated, but there's no authority to appeal to in that case either. Best case scenarios and reasoned explanations for why you'd make the call you would are as far as this discussion can go.

I'm less on board here. I think that DMs are welcome to rule as they see fit, but I don't find support in the RAW for the idea that a counter spelled BB still results in an attack.

[stoutstien]

Easiest fix is to cut the blade cantrips out and add it to the EK (maybe also allow picking one as a feat) as a once per turn smite like ability.

[Psyren]

Easiest fix is to cut the blade cantrips out and add it to the EK (maybe also allow picking one as a feat) as a once per turn smite like ability.

I have an even easier one - reject the idea that anything needs 'fixing' about this interaction and keep playing as normal.

[Theodoxus]

Depends on the interpretation: "As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack..." vs "You brandish the weapon used in the spell's casting and make a melee attack..."

That word 'Must' in the SCAG version makes it imperative that the attack has to happen, and disrupting the attack (either via CS or something like Parry), negates the spell and the attack.

Tasha's changed the wording, making it a bit more ambiguous; does the attack happen prior to the spell? Plain English reading it appears to be so. The description continues "On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attacks normal effects, AND THEN becomes sheathed in booming energy..."

Given the discussion at the start of the thread, as well as various anecdotal evidence (including a couple DMs I play with), the answers run the gamut of no effect at all to melee weapon still hits and deals damage, just the booming portion is negated. If folks can't agree on the interaction, it must needs be RAW needs refinement in this matter. Given that the SCAGtrips appeared after the PHB was written, AND Tasha's more ambiguous rewording long after, with no (as far as I've been able to determine) errata directed expressly at the interaction between CS and weaponized spell attacks... I stand by my sentiment on the interaction between the two.

I have an even easier one - reject the idea that anything needs 'fixing' about this interaction and keep playing as normal.

This reads as "just play it like your DM told you to and don't come crying asking around here what we think. I'm sure I'm wrong, and that's not what you meant.

[stoutstien]

I have an even easier one - reject the idea that anything needs 'fixing' about this interaction and keep playing as normal.

I dont like the idea if any single spell warping so many class metas regardless on how funny the individual reactions are. Us a flat upgrade for just about anyone that only gets a single weapon attack, in some cases it bears out two, which is just an unnecessary thing to have floating around with no ties besides "it's a spell so why not".

[Rukelnikov]

What do you mean? The book is completeny unambiguous on what happens: The spell fails and has no effect.

This is the correct reading of the OP question's interaction btw.

[sithlordnergal]

The RAW also states TW extinguishes fires, you are giving unwritten qualities to WoF, namely it can't be put out, and disregarding WRITTEN qualities of TW, namely it extinguishes unprotected flames, thus the reading that TW doesn't put out WoF is strictly within the realm of houseruling.

Once again, you ignore the fact that in order for two spells to interact with each other, they both need to have something within their description that allows it. Take a similar example of Disintegrate, Wall of Force, and Forcecage.

Wall of Force states "A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly", and Disintegrate states "This spell automatically disintegrates a Large or smaller nonmagical object or a creatio⁠n of magical force"

Forcecage can create a 20 by 20 cage, or a 10 by 10 cage. The 10 by 10 cage falls solidly into the "Large or smaller" category for Disintegrate, yet Disintegrate will not destroy Forcecage because it does not have the same statement that Wall of Force does about being destroyed by a Disintegrate spell. You can't destroy a Forcecage with Desintegrate, just like you can't extinguish Wall of Fire with Tidal Wave. Because in order for the two spells to interact, they BOTH require something that allows them to interact with each other. The only exceptions to this are Antimagic Field, Dispel Magic, and Counterspell, and the only reason those exceptions work is because they go beyond just individual spells and call out all spells.

[diplomancer]

Once again, you ignore the fact that in order for two spells to interact with each other, they both need to have something within their description that allows it.

There is no RAW that states so. It's a possible principle of interpretation, that a DM can choose to apply if he wishes to (and then he usually should stick by it), but is in no way obliged to.

Take a similar example of Disintegrate, Wall of Force, and Forcecage.

And this is where the logical fallacy gets exposed. That the devs decided to specify, in RAW, how two particular spells interact, by no means imply that no other spells interact with each other, ever, subject to DM's adjudication. It only means that, for this particular interaction, the devs have decided to issue a rule and not leave it totally open to DMs.

How I'd rule the particular interaction between Wall of Fire and Tidal Wave? Probably make the caster of Wall of Fire make a Concentration save, with the DC being the Spell Save DC of the caster of Tidal Wave. If he saves, he was able to keep the magic going and the fire rushes back, if he fails, he didn't. I believe this ruling acknowledges the magical nature of Wall of Fire without simply negating the actual RAW of Tidal Wave.

[Rukelnikov]

Once again, you ignore the fact that in order for two spells to interact with each other, they both need to have something within their description that allows it. Take a similar example of Disintegrate, Wall of Force, and Forcecage.

Wall of Force states "A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly", and Disintegrate states "This spell automatically disintegrates a Large or smaller nonmagical object or a creatio⁠n of magical force"

Forcecage can create a 20 by 20 cage, or a 10 by 10 cage. The 10 by 10 cage falls solidly into the "Large or smaller" category for Disintegrate, yet Disintegrate will not destroy Forcecage because it does not have the same statement that Wall of Force does about being destroyed by a Disintegrate spell. You can't destroy a Forcecage with Desintegrate, just like you can't extinguish Wall of Fire with Tidal Wave. Because in order for the two spells to interact, they BOTH require something that allows them to interact with each other. The only exceptions to this are Antimagic Field, Dispel Magic, and Counterspell, and the only reason those exceptions work is because they go beyond just individual spells and call out all spells.

A spell doesn't define other spells, only itself, dispel magic dispels wall of fire without wall of fire having a say on it.

[sithlordnergal]

A spell doesn't define other spells, only itself, dispel magic dispels wall of fire without wall of fire having a say on it.

The only reason Dispel Magic can do that is because it specifically states it ends spells. If it didn't say anything about spells, then it wouldn't work on spells. Funnily enough, the limitation to spells is also why it doesn't work on a magical effect that isn't a spell.

And this is where the logical fallacy gets exposed. That the devs decided to specify, in RAW, how two particular spells interact, by no means imply that no other spells interact with each other, ever, subject to DM's adjudication. It only means that, for this particular interaction, the devs have decided to issue a rule and not leave it totally open to DMs.

How I'd rule the particular interaction between Wall of Fire and Tidal Wave? Probably make the caster of Wall of Fire make a Concentration save, with the DC being the Spell Save DC of the caster of Tidal Wave. If he saves, he was able to keep the magic going and the fire rushes back, if he fails, he didn't. I believe this ruling acknowledges the magical nature of Wall of Fire without simply negating the actual RAW of Tidal Wave.

Its not at all a logical fallacy to check if similar spells interact with each other to determine if two spells interact with each other in the same way. Wall of Force and Forcecage are similar spells with hoe they create something made out of Force. But to paraphrase Chistew "the spell doesn't say that it is destroyed by Disintegrate, and spells that can be destroyed by Disintegrate say that they can be destroyed by Disintegrate, and that is how we know it can't be destroyed by Disintegrate."

[Theodoxus]

Once again, you ignore the fact that in order for two spells to interact with each other, they both need to have something within their description that allows it. Take a similar example of Disintegrate, Wall of Force, and Forcecage.

Wall of Force states "A disintegrate spell destroys the wall instantly", and Disintegrate states "This spell automatically disintegrates a Large or smaller nonmagical object or a creatio⁠n of magical force"

Forcecage can create a 20 by 20 cage, or a 10 by 10 cage. The 10 by 10 cage falls solidly into the "Large or smaller" category for Disintegrate, yet Disintegrate will not destroy Forcecage because it does not have the same statement that Wall of Force does about being destroyed by a Disintegrate spell. You can't destroy a Forcecage with Desintegrate, just like you can't extinguish Wall of Fire with Tidal Wave. Because in order for the two spells to interact, they BOTH require something that allows them to interact with each other. The only exceptions to this are Antimagic Field, Dispel Magic, and Counterspell, and the only reason those exceptions work is because they go beyond just individual spells and call out all spells.

What other 'creations of magical force' are there beyond Wall of Force and Forcecage? Leomund's Tiny Hut... is that disintegrable? Seems like it should be, right? But it doesn't specify... so I'd rule that Forcecage falls under the same description and should be affected by disintegrate.

[sithlordnergal]

What other 'creations of magical force' are there beyond Wall of Force and Forcecage? Leomund's Tiny Hut... is that disintegrable? Seems like it should be, right? But it doesn't specify... so I'd rule that Forcecage falls under the same description and should be affected by disintegrate.

Leomund's wouldn't be able to be destroyed either since it lacks the wording required for the two spells to interact. I suspect it would be used for non-spell related creations of magical Force. Things that fall outside of your standard spell list. So if you have some sort of thing made out of magical Force that falls outside of your usual Wall of Force, Forcecage, or Leomund's Tiny Hut.

Though even then, Disintegrate won't remove all creations of magical Force, since a Cube of Force fits that description, and it has an exception where it isn't destroyed and just loses charges instead.

[diplomancer]

The only reason Dispel Magic can do that is because it specifically states it ends spells. If it didn't say anything about spells, then it wouldn't work on spells. Funnily enough, the limitation to spells is also why it doesn't work on a magical effect that isn't a spell.




Its not at all a logical fallacy to check if similar spells interact with each other to determine if two spells interact with each other in the same way. Wall of Force and Forcecage are similar spells with hoe they create something made out of Force. But to paraphrase Chistew "the spell doesn't say that it is destroyed by Disintegrate, and spells that can be destroyed by Disintegrate say that they can be destroyed by Disintegrate, and that is how we know it can't be destroyed by Disintegrate."

It is, in fact, a logical fallacy to say, "A and B interact with each other in a specified, declared, way, therefore, because C and D are silent on how they interact, they don't interact at all". The conclusion simply does not follow from the premise.

For instance, one could just as easily conclude "therefore A interacts with similar effect B' as it does with B", and conclude Disintegrate works on Leomund's Tiny Hut. (And as a matter of fact, this kind of analogical reasoning is how judges adjudicate when the law is silent)

[sithlordnergal]

It is, in fact, a logical fallacy to say, "A and B interact with each other in a specified, declared, way, therefore, because C and D are silent on how they interact, they don't interact at all". The conclusion simply does not follow from the premise.

Not at all, its your basic AND statement. If B, C, and D are all similar, in this case they create something out of magical Force, and A and B have a specified interaction that A and C or A and D do not, then A and B interact differently from the other cases. If they were all meant to act in the same way, then either they would all specify it, or none of them would.

[GeneralVryth]

If they were all meant to act in the same way, then either they would all specify it, or none of them would.

Why would they do that? That is an assumption that many pages of debate have danced around.

[Blatant Beast]

Yep, just as I expected.

My contention has been and still is magical fire is a subset of Fire,(the concept), and has all the features of Fire, except the specific provisions outlined directly in the spell description, there should be no surprise.

5e has an Exception Based rules system. The number of times that the origin of fire is relevant, is limited to specific spells or items, (Pyrotechnics, Control Flames, for example).

The D&D Development team could have emphasized design choices that leaned into Magical Fire damage. No Monster comes to my mind, in this moment, that is Vulnerable or Resistant to Magical Fire damage alone, for example. Magical Elemental Damage's relevancy is rather limited to specific triggers.

The fundamental dispute is that some look at a spell like Wall of Fire, and interpret a spell effect made of fire, to act like fire, up to restrictions delineated in the spell description.

Others read a spell like Wall of Fire and interpret the spell effect to have none of the qualities of fire, except for those qualities delineated in the spell description.

There is probably no easy means to reconcile these opposed interpretations without WotC giving direct clarification, and based off that JC/Todd Kendrick interview I referenced previously it sure sounds like JC is out of playing Sage for 5e, for the time being.

People do not change their firmly held beliefs through fact based evidence. Trying to convince people to change their beliefs, usually results in people becoming more strident in those same beliefs. I never expected to change some people's mind.

What I strove to do, is to demonstrate that the position I have dubbed RAW Uber Alles, is not the only interpretation schemata possible, that another cogent and sound schemata exists.

What this thread is demonstrating, is RAW Uber Alles may not be the Dominate Paradigm, and is certainly not the only paradigm, as it is clear that many people, beyond myself, do not agree with RAW Uber Alles' application and results.

If constructive conversation is going to be possible here, the RAW Uber Alles position has to accept that theirs is not the only game in town, and to treat others with a different interpretation schemata with respect, as well as their position.

I'm not saying, one has to agree with the others position, but we should acknowledge it is a sound and valid alternative, even if we would never use it, and disagree with it.

The playground rules have this proviso: "Putting down or insulting ANY play preference, including (but not explicitly limited to) choice of game system, choice of preferred levels, classes, or races, choice of setting, choice of power level, etc. You cannot call another poster a munchkin or make any other disparaging remarks about how they like to play the game. You can express your own preference, you can express why you don't care for their preference, but you can't put someone down for feeling differently."

Calling peoples opinions 'homebrew', stating that others opinions are just meaningless words and misrepresenting their positions as them doing whatever they want...it bothers people, we have stated as much in this thread...it would be nice if it stopped, and more constructive language be used.

[Keltest]

Why would they do that? That is an assumption that many pages of debate have danced around.

Consistency and clarity? Most other fire spells include in the spell effects that they ignite things. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the absence of that means that a spell does not ignite something specifically because of how consistent they are with it otherwise.

[Rukelnikov]

The only reason Dispel Magic can do that is because it specifically states it ends spells. If it didn't say anything about spells, then it wouldn't work on spells. Funnily enough, the limitation to spells is also why it doesn't work on a magical effect that isn't a spell.

ofc, the only reason dispel magic dispels spells, is because that's what it says on the text, the same reason tidal wave extinguishes WoF because that's what it says on the text, you are giving WoF non written qualities.

[Theodoxus]

TBF, being called 'RAW Uber Alles' either directly or indirectly feels like it's violating your own desire to have more conducive language. Just sayin'.

Then again, I'm not sure if you're lumping me in that group... I certainly don't feel like 'RAW or die' as the term would imply. I do think RAW should be adhered to whenever possible, unless campaign specifics dictate otherwise; I also feel that RAW should be the groundwork on which discussions are built upon, else why have any structure at all? The game would boil down to "my power negates your power unless I roll poorly."

[Psyren]

I dont like the idea if any single spell warping so many class metas regardless on how funny the individual reactions are. Us a flat upgrade for just about anyone that only gets a single weapon attack, in some cases it bears out two, which is just an unnecessary thing to have floating around with no ties besides "it's a spell so why not".

It's a flat upgrade if they can get it built into their class, otherwise there are costs/tradeoffs. That's fine.

This reads as "just play it like your DM told you to and don't come crying asking around here what we think. I'm sure I'm wrong, and that's not what you meant.

I don't recall stopping anyone from asking anything. (Or "crying" for that matter, if that's someone's bag.)

[sithlordnergal]

ofc, the only reason dispel magic dispels spells, is because that's what it says on the text, the same reason tidal wave extinguishes WoF because that's what it says on the text, you are giving WoF non written qualities.

There is a difference between a mundane fire and a fire caused by a spell effect, that's not giving ToF unwritten qualities. Its also consistent with how other spells do and do not interact with each other. Dispel Magic is different from Tidal Wave because it specifies "spells" in the description of what it does, and uses the word "spells" in its wording. Tidal Wave does not specify fire created via magic or spells.

[GeneralVryth]

Consistency and clarity? Most other fire spells include in the spell effects that they ignite things. It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the absence of that means that a spell does not ignite something specifically because of how consistent they are with it otherwise.

If clarity was intended, it obviously failed. This thread is proof. And consistency depends on the actual intent. It arguably is just as reasonable to assume certain fire spells are missing language that the others have, than assuming they lack a common effect of fire because they don't have some language other spells do.

What needed to happen was specify the fire spells that weren't intended to light other things on fire, don't. But that didn't and I am as of yet unaware of any clarification in either direction. So here we are.

Anyways, RAW has never been a good argument with me as there are clearly bad and unbalanced rules in the game. I much prefer RAG, "Rules as Guidelines" a starting point that can be adapted as needed (and arguably as intended).

[Keltest]

If clarity was intended, it obviously failed. This thread is proof. And consistency depends on the actual intent. It arguably is just as reasonable to assume certain fire spells are missing language that the others have, than assuming they lack a common effect of fire because they don't have some language other spells do.

What needed to happen was specify the fire spells that weren't intended to light other things on fire, don't. But that didn't and I am as of yet unaware of any clarification in either direction. So here we are.

Anyways, RAW has never been a good argument with me as there are clearly bad and unbalanced rules in the game. I much prefer RAG, "Rules as Guidelines" a starting point that can be adapted as needed (and arguably as intended).

As a general rule, I think "it was intentional" is a far more reasonable and likely outcome than "a major company completely failed to notice this in all its editing passes."