Counterspelled Booming Blade

[Theodoxus]

RAG is a fine standard. At least then the questions would revolve around "Counterspelled Booming Blade: what is your guideline; attack roll or nah?" Or "Wall of Fire, what would change if I renamed it Wall of Toasting, guidance appreciated!"

"Synaptic Static, can you dispel the muddlement, since it ends with a save and thus feels like a magic effect - how do you rule?"

This is kind of fun...

[GeneralVryth]

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."

As someone who has worked for multiple major companies (not in gaming, but plenty have roles for "Tech Writers"), that is a lot of faith to have in them. And I like House's quote on the subject, "Occam's Razor, the simplest answer is always someone screwed up."

RAG is a fine standard. At least then the questions would revolve around "Counterspelled Booming Blade: what is your guideline; attack roll or nah?" Or "Wall of Fire, what would change if I renamed it Wall of Toasting, guidance appreciated!"

"Synaptic Static, can you dispel the muddlement, since it ends with a save and thus feels like a magic effect - how do you rule?"

This is kind of fun...

I can't tell if you are mocking me or not here. But that is close to the core principle of most pen and paper RPGs. You have a starting set of rules, and an arbiter trusted by the group (hopefully), and when there is a question the Arbiter makes a decision (perhaps in consult with the group), and then you move on. Trying to argue technicalities about rulesets that were likely never meant to be perfect or complete just seems like an exercise in frustration (and I am aware of the irony of being in this thread).

[Theodoxus]

I can't tell if you are mocking me or not here. But that is close to the core principle of most pen and paper RPGs. You have a starting set of rules, and an arbiter trusted by the group (hopefully), and when there is a question the Arbiter makes a decision (perhaps in consult with the group), and then you move on. Trying to argue technicalities about rulesets that were likely never meant to be perfect or complete just seems like an exercise in frustration (and I am aware of the irony of being in this thread).

Nope, not mocking. Though it would be nice if WotC had promoted this idea instead of 'rulings not rules'. The difference is subtle, but profound.

[Psyren]

You have a starting set of rules, and an arbiter trusted by the group (hopefully), and when there is a question the Arbiter makes a decision (perhaps in consult with the group), and then you move on. Trying to argue technicalities about rulesets that were likely never meant to be perfect or complete just seems like an exercise in frustration (and I am aware of the irony of being in this thread).

Most actual groups don't run like a forum thread though; they follow pretty much the process you describe.

And the ones that don't... well, they learn - perhaps the hard way - why discussing rules the way a D&D forum would isn't the healthiest thing to do in play.

RAG is a fine standard. At least then the questions would revolve around "Counterspelled Booming Blade: what is your guideline; attack roll or nah?" Or "Wall of Fire, what would change if I renamed it Wall of Toasting, guidance appreciated!"

"Synaptic Static, can you dispel the muddlement, since it ends with a save and thus feels like a magic effect - how do you rule?"

This is kind of fun...

I don't see what's stopping anyone from asking their DM these same questions under the current system, though.

[Blatant Beast]

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.

Valid in the sense of a Truth Table, yes. The only interpretation, No.
Is it a sound interpretation..YMMV

I 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."

This is a fallacy, I am afraid.

If a target is a creature, object, or creation of magical force then Disintegrate can destroy it
Forcecage is a creation of magical force
Therefore, Disintegrate can destroy a Forcecage.

This is a Modus ponens, sound formulation.

Your proposal about spells not being able to interact without explicit mention, strikes me as unsound, and unsupported by the text...it is technically an untrue, and unsound inference...a fallacy.

[Theodoxus]

I don't see what's stopping anyone from asking their DM these same questions under the current system, though.

Not their DM, no. But this is directed at the forum. And this thread (among probably thousands of others) proves that some forumites do not recognize RAG at all.

[GeneralVryth]

Most actual groups don't run like a forum thread though; they follow pretty much the process you describe.

And the ones that don't... well, they learn - perhaps the hard way - why discussing rules the way a D&D forum would isn't the healthiest thing to do in play.

True. I guess it's meant as a reminder or lamentation to us forum goers that the words in the book are not gospel, and it's fine to agree to disagree. I kind of wish this thread was getting fewer replies because people were just agreeing to disagree, while one's like HoboKnight's trying to come up with a fun, difficult and not TPK challenge got more replies.

[Rukelnikov]

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.

Tidal Wave doesn't need to, a spell does what it says it does, you are questioning its text, it says it extinguishes flames, you are saying, "but what about magical flames?", if the spell didn't work against magical flames it would say so in its description.

EDIT: Or well, you are saying, but what against flames created by a spell, and again, if that was an exception it would have to be written in TW's description, it is not, thus it makes no exceptions. This doesn't mean an exception can't exist, 5e is an exceptions based game, for instance, a new spell could read, "this spells flames can't be quenched by spells or magical effects".

[Keltest]

Tidal Wave doesn't need to, a spell does what it says it does, you are questioning its text, it says it extinguishes flames, you are saying, "but what about magical flames?", if the spell didn't work against magical flames it would say so in its description.

EDIT: Or well, you are saying, but what against flames created by a spell, and again, if that was an exception it would have to be written in TW's description, it is not, thus it makes no exceptions. This doesn't mean an exception can't exist, 5e is an exceptions based game, for instance, a new spell could read, "this spells flames can't be quenched by spells or magical effects".

Tidal wave doesnt end the spell, and the spell is what is keeping the flames there. Ergo, the flames are still there. The spells dont need to interact.

[diplomancer]

Tidal wave doesnt end the spell, and the spell is what is keeping the flames there. Ergo, the flames are still there. The spells dont need to interact.

Tidal wave ends the flames (explicitly, by RAW, and with no caveat such as "non-magical flame"), therefore it ends the spell, since the spell is about having flames (and the spell does not say the flame is unquenchable).

[Keltest]

Tidal wave ends the flames (explicitly, by RAW, and with no caveat such as "non-magical flame"), therefore it ends the spell, since the spell is about having flames (and the spell does not say the flame is unquenchable).

where is the actual text that says it ends the spell?

[diplomancer]

where is the actual text that says it ends the spell?

First of all, this is not how conclusions work, which is why I used "therefore", as a conclusion from the fact that it ends flames. If it ends flames, and the spell's effect is flames, it ends the spell's effects in the area where both spells overlap.

It says it ends flames. I guess the caster can keep concentrating if he wants too, there's just no flame to burn people anymore (assuming, of course, that the tidal wave affected the entire wall of fire, otherwise the flames would continue in the area that was not extinguished by the Tidal Wave spell, in which case, yes, the spell would continue normally in its diminished area).

But "the magic makes it a special type of protected flame, even though 'unprotected flame' is just a regular English idiom that anyone can understand and not a special game term with a specific meaning" is definitely not RAW.

[KorvinStarmast]

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..."

One is still making the melee attack. The brandishing appears to be the Material Component. (Again, the spell is badly written).

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.

No, it for sure disrupts the spell. I don't think it disrupts the attack since Counterspell does not say that it disrupts material components. It disrupts the spell, and a spell is a magical effect. The magical effect of green flame, or thunderous stuff, is not a mundane attack, which the attack itself is (and it uses the attack role stats of the mundane attack, not using the spell casting ability but the attack (dex or str) ability. The attack itself is mundane. You roll the damage for the melee attack AND you roll the damage for the spell/magical aspect also. Separately. They are two distinct things.

Now, were the attack (as written in the SCAG spell source) using the spell casting ability rather than the mundane melee ability, then I'd have a hard time taking that position.
But it doesn't.
(Hexblade's silly exception being an exception, of course. Bad hexblade, and you were published after GFB and BB were published. At this point, I will offer a raspberry).

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..."

Interesting point.

"just play it like your DM told you to and don't come crying asking around here what we think."

That's actually good advice, as regards table harmony and fun. We Playgrounders can go a bit off the rails, can't we?

Your proposal about spells not being able to interact without explicit mention, strikes me as unsound, and unsupported by the text...it is technically an untrue, and unsound inference...a fallacy.

Once again my sig will get a mention, the one by Malifice.

And this thread (among probably thousands of others) proves that some forumites do not recognize RAG at all.

I was once trained to fly in a Replacement Air Group. (A few decades ago). I recognize a RAG when I see one. (They are now called an FRS, which means "Fleet Replacement Squadron" and I can tell you why that happened if you PM me).

Tidal wave ends the flames (explicitly, by RAW, and with no caveat such as "non-magical flame"), therefore it ends the spell, since the spell is about having flames (and the spell does not say the flame is unquenchable).

That's a fair interpretation.

First of all, this is not how conclusions work, which is why I used "therefore", as a conclusion from the fact that it ends flames. If it ends flames, and the spell's effect is flames, it ends the spell's effects in the area where both spells overlap.

It says it ends flames. I guess the caster can keep concentrating if he wants too, there's just no flame to burn people anymore (assuming, of course, that the tidal wave affected the entire wall of fire, otherwise the flames would continue in the area that was not extinguished by the Tidal Wave spell, in which case, yes, the spell would continue normally in its diminished area).

But "the magic makes it a special type of protected flame, even though 'unprotected flame' is just a regular English idiom that anyone can understand and not a special game term with a specific meaning" is definitely not RAW.

And a sound follow up.

[Keltest]

First of all, this is not how conclusions work, which is why I used "therefore", as a conclusion from the fact that it ends flames. If it ends flames, and the spell's effect is flames, it ends the spell's effects in the area where both spells overlap.

It says it ends flames. I guess the caster can keep concentrating if he wants too, there's just no flame to burn people anymore (assuming, of course, that the tidal wave affected the entire wall of fire, otherwise the flames would continue in the area that was not extinguished by the Tidal Wave spell, in which case, yes, the spell would continue normally in its diminished area).

But "the magic makes it a special type of protected flame, even though 'unprotected flame' is just a regular English idiom that anyone can understand and not a special game term with a specific meaning" is definitely not RAW.

If the spell is still going, and the spell makes the flames, then why do the flames stop?

[diplomancer]

If the spell is still going, and the spell makes the flames, then why do the flames stop?

Because Tidal Wave extinguishes flames, magical or non-magical, it makes no difference.
And that's actually the RAW.

[Keltest]

Because Tidal Wave extinguishes flames, magical or non-magical, it makes no difference.

I feel like youre not understanding my point. There is an ongoing effect, after the tidal wave hit, that says "there is a wall of fire here."

So why would there not be a wall of fire there?

[Psyren]

Because Tidal Wave extinguishes flames, magical or non-magical, it makes no difference.
And that's actually the RAW.

There's a couple of ways to interpret this RAW then:

1) Tidal Wave actually extinguishes the Wall of Fire and both spells end*.
2) Tidal Wave extinguishes the Wall of Fire, but the Wall of Fire returns immediately because the spell has duration remaining.
3) Tidal Wave extinguishes the Wall of Fire briefly, but the Wall of Fire returns some time later (e.g. on the caster's next turn concentrating.)
4) Tidal Wave doesn't extinguish the Wall of Fire, because the fire producing spell having an extant duration counts as "protection" for the flames.

My personal ruling would be #3, but I don't pretend that mine is the only valid reading of the interaction.

*Or the latter keeps going without actually producing anything

[JackPhoenix]

One is still making the melee attack. The brandishing appears to be the Material Component. (Again, the spell is badly written).

It's not. The component is listed in the line before the spell's effect. The brandishing is mentioned in the section describing the spell's effect.

No, it for sure disrupts the spell. I don't think it disrupts the attack since Counterspell does not say that it disrupts material components. It disrupts the spell, and a spell is a magical effect.

Attack is not, and cannnot, be a material component. The weapon is the material component.

The magical effect of green flame, or thunderous stuff, is not a mundane attack, which the attack itself is (and it uses the attack role stats of the mundane attack, not using the spell casting ability but the attack (dex or str) ability. The attack itself is mundane. You roll the damage for the melee attack AND you roll the damage for the spell/magical aspect also. Separately. They are two distinct things.

The attack is still a part of the spell's effect. There's nothing "mundane" about it, because you've cast a spell to take it, you didn't take the Attack action. The only potential exception where that view could *possibly* have any standing is Bladesinger's Extra Attack, which allows replacing one attack with a cantrip.

Now, were the attack (as written in the SCAG spell source) using the spell casting ability rather than the mundane melee ability, then I'd have a hard time taking that position.
But it doesn't.
(Hexblade's silly exception being an exception, of course. Bad hexblade, and you were published after GFB and BB were published. At this point, I will offer a raspberry).

It doesn't matter what ability you're using to make the attack, because it's the spell itself, and nothing else, that allows you to make that attack.

[Witty Username]

Clearly, if booming blade is countered, the weapon used explodes with the force of a grenade, dealing 3d8 damge to the caster, and another 3d8 if they move before their next turn afterward.

[diplomancer]

"there is a wall of fire here."

Not RAW.

And I think you are not understanding my point. There is actually a rule that says that Tidal Wave extinguishes flames, and there is no rule that says extinguished flames come back or are not extinguished if they are magical. If Wall of Fire was something more like Call Lightning, you'd have a point.

Now, as I've mentioned, there are many possible ways to rule how the two spells interact, and I'd probably rule it in a way that acknowledges the magical nature of the flames without simply ignoring the text of Tidal Wave. But claiming Tidal Wave does absolutely nothing to the flames of Wall of Fire actually contradicts RAW.

Continual Flame, by the way, explicitly states it's unquenchable and unsmotherable. Wall of Fire could have similar wording, but doesn't.

[Aimeryan]

Just to re-iterate a point that has been lost: Tidal Wave extinguishes (unprotected) flames, not fire. Wall of Fire does not have (unprotected) flames. Ergo, the two would not interact regardless of your stance on magical fire vs fire.

In case any of you are wondering, a flame is the part of a fire involving gas. Wall of Fire is fueled by magic, not gas - hence, no flames.

[Psyren]

Not RAW.

And I think you are not understanding my point. There is actually a rule that says that Tidal Wave extinguishes flames, and there is no rule that says extinguished flames come back or are not extinguished if they are magical. If Wall of Fire was something more like Call Lightning, you'd have a point.

Now, as I've mentioned, there are many possible ways to rule how the two spells interact, and I'd probably rule it in a way that acknowledges the magical nature of the flames without simply ignoring the text of Tidal Wave. But claiming Tidal Wave does absolutely nothing to the flames of Wall of Fire actually contradicts RAW.

Right, but "Tidal Wave does something to it by RAW" doesn't necessarily mean there is a practical effect in round-to-round combat. Under interpretation #2 above, Tidal Wave absolutely puts out the Wall of Fire - but if it comes back the second the water is gone, then the damaging effects of the wall are functionally unbroken.

[diplomancer]

Right, but "Tidal Wave does something to it by RAW" doesn't necessarily mean there is a practical effect in round-to-round combat. Under interpretation #2 above, Tidal Wave absolutely puts out the Wall of Fire - but if it comes back the second the water is gone, then the damaging effects of the wall are functionally unbroken.

"It puts it out but it comes back"

I guess then that there is something in the Wall of Fire spell that states that if the Fire is extinguished, it comes back immediately, right? Like Continual Flame explicitly states it cannot be quenched or smothered. After all, spells only do what they say they do, isn't that right?

[Theodoxus]

Given TW is 3rd level, vs WoF's 4th level, I could understand being gracious and make TW act as a dispel magic, rolling against the 4th level effect. But in general, lower level spells don't just automatically cancel out higher level spells freely.

[Psyren]

I guess then that there is something in the Wall of Fire spell that states that if the Fire is extinguished, it comes back immediately, right?

There is: "A spell's duration is the length of time the spell persists" - PHB 203. Tidal Wave says nothing about ending the spell, so the general rule about a spell's duration remains valid.

[Dr.Samurai]

Besides the fact that I pretty strongly suspect that a car that got T-boned by an 18 wheeler on the highway would not in fact have a gas tank to have any gas in it, I don't think the situation is actually analogous. It would require an invulnerable car and truck or something, at which point youve kind of lost the analogy.

I suspect the point is, the Wall of Fire, much like the car is not invulnerable to what hit it. Even if the power source/concentration is still intact.

Correct.

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'm fine with agreeing on this. I think the thread has done a great job of demonstrating that RAW rulings are rulings that go far beyond 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.

Hmm... I definitely think the counterspell means no attack...

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.

Where is this stated as a fact?

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).

Agreed.

RAG is a fine standard. At least then the questions would revolve around "Counterspelled Booming Blade: what is your guideline; attack roll or nah?" Or "Wall of Fire, what would change if I renamed it Wall of Toasting, guidance appreciated!"

"Synaptic Static, can you dispel the muddlement, since it ends with a save and thus feels like a magic effect - how do you rule?"

This is kind of fun...

Agreed.

Tidal wave doesnt end the spell, and the spell is what is keeping the flames there. Ergo, the flames are still there. The spells dont need to interact.

If I use conjure beast and the beast takes hit point damage, does it not go away because the spell is keeping it there? No, of course not. The caster could keep concentrating if it would like, but the spell effect is gone; it has been destroyed by something else.

Just to re-iterate a point that has been lost: Tidal Wave extinguishes (unprotected) flames, not fire. Wall of Fire does not have (unprotected) flames. Ergo, the two would not interact regardless of your stance on magical fire vs fire.

I don't think the point was lost; I think no one is taking this point seriously.

In case any of you are wondering, a flame is the part of a fire involving gas. Wall of Fire is fueled by magic, not gas - hence, no flames.

So to keep everything clear, as many claims have been made by different people... we can't refer to the real world in the case of Wall of Fire... but when Tidal Wave says "flame" we can refer to the real world to understand what is meant? Is that right?

[Keltest]

If I use conjure beast and the beast takes hit point damage, does it not go away because the spell is keeping it there? No, of course not. The caster could keep concentrating if it would like, but the spell effect is gone; it has been destroyed by something else.

Congratulations on making me double check this, but the spell description specifically says that the beast disappears when it reaches 0 hit points. In this case, the rules text has an alternate end condition for the spell beyond the duration running out.

[KorvinStarmast]

It doesn't matter what ability you're using to make the attack, because it's the spell itself, and nothing else, that allows you to make that attack.

That is not true. You can make the melee attack whether or not you cast that spell.

That's the problem. The spell is badly written. I again point back to shillelagh and how it doesn't run into these problems, and how both of these spells ought to have been similarly constructed.

[Keltest]

That is not true. You can make the melee attack whether or not you cast that spell.

That's the problem. The spell is badly written. I again point back to shillelagh and how it doesn't run into these problems, and how both of these spells ought to have been similarly constructed.

Was the SCAG version written differently than the Tasha's version? I can't definitively find the SCAG version's text, but the Tasha's version at least has the melee attack as part of the effect of the spell, not something that happens independently from it.

[Dr.Samurai]

Congratulations on making me double check this, but the spell description specifically says that the beast disappears when it reaches 0 hit points. In this case, the rules text has an alternate end condition for the spell beyond the duration running out.

Sorry, to clarify I meant Conjure Animals.

The text says this: Each beast is also considered fey, and it disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends.

So let's say you conjure 1 Allosaurus. It is destroyed by hit point damage. The creature disappears. But the spell remains. It is not actually an alternate end condition for the spell, the text says the creature disappears when it drops to 0 hit points or when the spell ends. Killing it does not end the spell.

Similarly, Tidal Wave could put out the Wall of Fire and doesn't need to end the spell to do so.