Counterspelled Booming Blade

[KorvinStarmast]

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.

I have both books. A while back WotC wrote a "SCAG errata" which was intended to align the SCAG version with the changed/rectoneed Tasha's version.

May be a while before I can answer you, but I do have both books somewhere ...(we've been moving stuff around and my office is basically the room where all junk ends up, which has more or less buried my D&D books under stuff ...)

[Keltest]

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.

Same difference. The spell still has language that ends the effect under certain conditions that Wall of Fire doesn't have. There isn't a clause for Wall of Fire being extinguished because it can't be extinguished, as opposed to the summoned beast or animal which can be killed.

[Dr.Samurai]

Same difference. The spell still has language that ends the effect under certain conditions that Wall of Fire doesn't have. There isn't a clause for Wall of Fire being extinguished because it can't be extinguished, as opposed to the summoned beast or animal which can be killed.

It's not the same difference. We were relying on "duration" or "concentration". Now we're not, we're back to "It doesn't say it can be extinguished".

[JackPhoenix]

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

What allows you to make that melee attack? It's not the Cast a Spell action you just took, otherwise you'd be able to make a melee attack when you cast a Fire Bolt, too. And it's not the Attack action, because you didn't use that.

[Xetheral]

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.

The SCAG version says: "As part of the action to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, or the spell fails."

So making the attack as part of the Cast a Spell action was explicitly a requirement to be able to cast the spell successfully, but arguably you had to cast the spell successfully to create the effect that let you make the required attack as part of the Cast a Spell action. The circular nature of this version of the spell text made the question of counterspelling Booming Blade even more contentious prior to the errata.

[Theodoxus]

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.

I partially covered this in my original reply using both, but here's the original SCAG text:

As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails.
On a hit, the target suffers the attack's normal effects, and it becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves before then, it immediately takes 1d8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.

Here's Tasha's text:

You brandish the weapon used in the spell's casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you.
On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack's normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn. If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more before then, the target takes ld8 thunder damage, and the spell ends.

[Dr.Samurai]

The SCAG version says: "As part of the action to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell’s range, or the spell fails."

So making the attack as part of the Cast a Spell action was explicitly a requirement to be able to cast the spell successfully, but arguably you had to cast the spell successfully to create the effect that let you make the required attack as part of the Cast a Spell action. The circular nature of this version of the spell text made the question of counterspelling Booming Blade even more contentious prior to the errata.

That makes a big difference in my opinion, and I could see why the OP would ask the question then.

[Hytheter]

The real question is, why Counterspell Booming Blade? Counterspelling a cantrip is just petty...

[Rukelnikov]

Same difference. The spell still has language that ends the effect under certain conditions that Wall of Fire doesn't have. There isn't a clause for Wall of Fire being extinguished because it can't be extinguished, as opposed to the summoned beast or animal which can be killed.

That's you injecting text where it isn't, Continual Flame can't be extinguished because the spell says so, Wall of Fire has no such wording.

[Blatant Beast]

What allows you to make that melee attack? It's not the Cast a Spell action you just took, otherwise you'd be able to make a melee attack when you cast a Fire Bolt, too. And it's not the Attack action, because you didn't use that.

I agree. No matter which version of Booming Blade is used, the action taken is the Cast a Spell Action, which Counterspell interrupts, and the entire spell is cancelled.

There are no degrees of Success rules for spells, so when Counterspell cancels the spell, all the spell is prevented.

Allowing the attack to go through, is ignoring the Actions in Combat rules. In a sense it would be similar to someone countering a Magic Missile spell, but the DM ruling that one missile still hits the target.

5e does not really track time scales less than 6 seconds….The Counterspell goes off, but the game does not calculate, nor car about determining when exactly in the 6 second turn the Booming Blade is countered, or even at which point of time each stage of the spell casting happens.

[diplomancer]

Lesser Restoration does not state that it ends Blinding Smite spell, so if you cast Lesser Restoration on someone that's been blinded by Blinding Smite, the creature is cured of its blindness but because Blinding Smite continues active, the creature immediately gets blinded again.

Notice also that Lesser Restoration is a 2nd level spell while Blinding Smite is a 3rd level spell.

I hope everyone agrees that what I've just said is nonsense. But it's the same logic as with Wall of Fire vs. Tidal Wave. The game does not need to spell out what happens if something occurs that ends the effects of a spell. While it technically doesn't end the spell, it has no more effect, and the caster would usually stop concentrating on it, if it's concentration.

But wait. BG3 has magical items and features that give bonuses "if you're concentrating on a spell". As far as I'm aware, no such magical items or features exist on tabletop 5E, but there's nothing in the rules preventing them from existing either. In that case, the caster would have a good reason to keep concentrating on the spell, even if all its effects are extinguished, and in fact there's nothing that ended the actual spell, so the caster could keep concentrating on it if he wanted to. It just would not "renew" the effect, be the effect blindness, fire, or any other effect.

[JackPhoenix]

The real question is, why Counterspell Booming Blade? Counterspelling a cantrip is just petty...

Because you can't tell the enemy is casting Booming Blade. Identifying a spell being cast is also a reaction, you can either try to figure out what is the enemy doing, or you can Counterspell it, you can't do both at the same time.
In practice, of course, that's not always the case.

[Dr.Samurai]

That's you injecting text where it isn't, Continual Flame can't be extinguished because the spell says so, Wall of Fire has no such wording.

This is the point where we don't all have to be right to suck the wind out of the RAW sails.

If you use the reasoning "other spells with magical fire say they light things on fire, so spells that don't say they do don't light things on fire", then you should also be using the reasoning that "other spells with magical fire specifically say they can't be extinguished, therefore other spells that don't say that can be extinguished".

It's the same thing. This is not RAW, this is rationalization. Which is fine, necessary, expected, etc. But don't call it RAW.

Lesser Restoration does not state that it ends Blinding Smite spell, so if you cast Lesser Restoration on someone that's been blinded by Blinding Smite, the creature is cured of its blindness but because Blinding Smite continues active, the creature immediately gets blinded again.

Notice also that Lesser Restoration is a 2nd level spell while Blinding Smite is a 3rd level spell.

I hope everyone agrees that what I've just said is nonsense. But it's the same logic as with Wall of Fire vs. Tidal Wave. The game does not need to spell out what happens if something occurs that ends the effects of a spell. While it technically doesn't end the spell, it has no more effect, and the caster would usually stop concentrating on it, if it's concentration.

But wait. BG3 has magical items and features that give bonuses "if you're concentrating on a spell". As far as I'm aware, no such magical items or features exist on tabletop 5E, but there's nothing in the rules preventing them from existing either. In that case, the caster would have a good reason to keep concentrating on the spell, even if all it's effects are extinguished, and in fact there's nothing that ended the actual spell, so the caster could keep concentrating on it if he wanted to. It just would not "renew" the effect, be the effect blindness, fire, or any other effect.

I believe the War Wizard has a feature where if they are concentrating on a spell they gain a bonus to AC or saves or something. Around level 10 I think.

I wish there was some sort of "War" fighter subclass with cool Reaction abilities and passive buffs to AC and Saves. That'd be neat. Maybe one day we'll get a fighter subclass devoted to "war" or something...

[diplomancer]

I believe the War Wizard has a feature where if they are concentrating on a spell they gain a bonus to AC or saves or something. Around level 10 I think.

Good catch. In that case, indeed, he could want to keep the spell going even if the effects have been extinguished, and, RAW, I believe it should be possible, since nothing has ended the actual spell, just its effects.

[GeneralVryth]

Because you can't tell the enemy is casting Booming Blade. Identifying a spell being cast is also a reaction, you can either try to figure out what is the enemy doing, or you can Counterspell it, you can't do both at the same time.
In practice, of course, that's not always the case.

That was problematic rule when written, and best ignored.

As for counterspelling a Bladetrip? It should stop the attack (regardless of what can be divined from some ambiguous rules). It's a 3rd level spell versus a cantrip, it should be effective (and it's arguably 1 less fireball coming your way). The important question is what does that look like in the game world for it to make sense? I like the idea that counterspell causes some minor physical impact that disrupts the motions of the spell and subsequently the attack (though a description with more spell specific flair could also be fun as long as they have minimal additional effects).

[Aimeryan]

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

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?

You did.

As whether to use real world physics or not, either works for the cases I have presented - so, while I remain to advocate that magic does not work like real world physics (which is why it is magic), if you insist it does then here is the counter on those grounds, instead.

A question for you - would you allow Wall of Fire on a plane without air?

[Dr.Samurai]

As whether to use real world physics or not, either works for the cases I have presented - so, while I remain to advocate that magic does not work like real world physics (which is why it is magic), if you insist it does then here is the counter on those grounds, instead.

I don't think this is consistent actually, but even so I don't think your point about the flame actually stands.

A question for you - would you allow Wall of Fire on a plane without air?

Yes.

But I am not claiming to have a RAW position on this, I am claiming that RAW is really RAW+people's opinions. And that even when we use the same reasoning tools as the ones used to establish RAW, we get conflicting results.

And I believe so far the conversation has treated the spell as fueling the fire for the purposes of discussion; on both sides I believe.

[Psyren]

You did.

As whether to use real world physics or not, either works for the cases I have presented - so, while I remain to advocate that magic does not work like real world physics (which is why it is magic), if you insist it does then here is the counter on those grounds, instead.

A question for you - would you allow Wall of Fire on a plane without air?

We do have a RAW answer to that one - per Spelljammer Ch. 2, magical fire works fine in a vacuum. So that further supports the "the spell is active, therefore so is the fire" ruling.

[Kane0]

A question came up recently about what happens when a SCAG-trip is Counterspelled.

So here's the question: does the Counterspell shut the attack down completely, or does the attacker still get a normal attack?

Mechanically, the spell got countered so the effects of the spell do not happen, which would include the attack involved.

Inmersionally, you're still swinging your weapon even if the magic part got stopped (unless the counterspell physically interrupts or disrupts that)

So it comes down to the table/DM and their approach between rules first vs fiction first.

[Keltest]

Mechanically, the spell got countered so the effects of the spell do not happen, which would include the attack involved.

Inmersionally, you're still swinging your weapon even if the magic part got stopped (unless the counterspell physically interrupts or disrupts that)

So it comes down to the table/DM and their approach between rules first vs fiction first.

As far as the fiction goes, there isn't a 1:1 correlation between making a weapon attack and actually thrusting with the weapon. A level 3 fighter isnt literally swinging his weapon once every 6 seconds. Theres still an exchange of blows going on before one has a chance to connect.

[Blatant Beast]

We do have a RAW answer to that one - per Spelljammer Ch. 2, magical fire works fine in a vacuum. So that further supports the "the spell is active, therefore so is the fire" ruling.

Anything from Spelljammer is optional RAW, similar to XGE, TCoE, etc.
I am not surprised in the limited page count of that product, WotC decided to use the simplified rule that spells just work.

The Phlogiston Was flammable in O.G. AD&D Spelljammer.
Part of what made adventuring in an exotic environment fun, (for me), in prior editions of D&D, is the rule changes that required people to change their tactics, and also the exploration involved in finding out how magic works on Inner, Outer, or In-between the Planes places.

One other benefit of altering how things work in exotic locales, is it allows other spells, that typically would be subpar, to perhaps have a moment to shine.

If the Fireball spell always works, as written even in the most extreme environments, they why would anyone ever take some newer spell options, say the Antagonize spell from The Book of Many Things, that is straight up horrible?

In the example of the AD&D Phlogiston, casting Fireball, normally a S-Tier action, (to use the parlance of the day), is generally going to be a bad decision.

If environments do not impact spells, then the amount of optimization needed to ‘solve’ D&D is limited to very low order of optimization.

Indeed, part of the reason why I think there is such Sturm und Drang, whenever someone challenges the prevalent assumptions is because people have grown quite comfortable with 5e being ‘solved’.

5E Spelljammer’s design ethos, does nothing to alter the underlying ‘solutions’…which is a shame. Exotic locations should be exotic, not just in appearance, but also in rules.

One of my critiques of the Radiant Citadel, was it felt like the Stargate SyFy Channel series, where every alien planet the team went to looked like Canada.

5e being ‘solved’ is an issue, it can make the game seem very boring and repetitive.

[Theodoxus]

That's very true. One of the reasons I stopped playing BG3 is, even with all the different class options, the encounters were identical. After a few playthroughs, and exploring every corner you can get to, you find the optimal items for the build - or, more likely, change your build to use the items optimally... and it's all very samey. You try different playthrough ideas; the pacifist way, the murder hobo way, the LG way, the NE way, the TN way... all warlocks, all druids, all wizards... but since the actual encounters never change, it very quickly lost its luster for me. Heck, I never finished the game outside of the Act 2 Gale bomb...

And translating that to the table top, I'm finding that the mechanics don't matter much. The fights don't matter much - it's the story the group is telling that's more fun. The more I've listened to game podcasts, the more I realize the books don't matter, the company that creates the books don't matter; even the voice actors don't matter. They lie to me anyway about rolls - they're doing it for the pure drama with a pastiche of D&D for coloring.

But the story - the roleplay - the gathering together around the virtual campfire that is the battlemap and the dice and the minis... to tell stories. That's what truly matters.

[Psyren]

Anything from Spelljammer is optional RAW, similar to XGE, TCoE, etc.
I am not surprised in the limited page count of that product, WotC decided to use the simplified rule that spells just work.

I'm not saying the rule isn't optional. I ignore some of the optional splat rules myself, like the one from XGtE about needing a reaction to identify a spell; I have no issue with optional rules being optional.

All I'm pointing out with that citation, is that there is an official answer to Aimeryan's question, which I see as the designers conveying what they expect most people to do. Whether his DM chooses to use that answer at their table (or him if that's him), is entirely up to them, but the answer nevertheless exists.

If the Fireball spell always works, as written even in the most extreme environments, they why would anyone ever take some newer spell options, say the Antagonize spell from The Book of Many Things, that is straight up horrible?

In the example of the AD&D Phlogiston, casting Fireball, normally a S-Tier action, (to use the parlance of the day), is generally going to be a bad decision.

If environments do not impact spells, then the amount of optimization needed to ‘solve’ D&D is limited to very low order of optimization.

Indeed, part of the reason why I think there is such Sturm und Drang, whenever someone challenges the prevalent assumptions is because people have grown quite comfortable with 5e being ‘solved’.

5E Spelljammer’s design ethos, does nothing to alter the underlying ‘solutions’…which is a shame. Exotic locations should be exotic, not just in appearance, but also in rules.

One of my critiques of the Radiant Citadel, was it felt like the Stargate SyFy Channel series, where every alien planet the team went to looked like Canada.

5e being ‘solved’ is an issue, it can make the game seem very boring and repetitive.

You've made quite the leap here; "Fire spells work in a vacuum" is not at all the same thing as saying "environments don't impact spells."

The devs made one decision about one specific interaction of magical fire to make it convenient to use in spacefaring campaigns, which incidentally are the ones where airless environments/hard vacuum are most likely to be relevant anyway. But that doesn't mean all possible environmental interactions with magical fire are out the window now. One of the examples that came up earlier in the thread was casting an AoE fire spell in the wooden tavern's common room or a dry forest, and the damage that an indiscriminate player could cause to innocent life and property. You can craft encounters with environments where such things matter (or don't matter) with ease, so any lack of variation or texture in your combat encounters is ultimately an issue of your own making.

[Keltest]

At the very least, Wall of Fire is less effective underwater because everything gains resistance to the damage. Another indication that fire spells are intended to work underwater (at least) by the way. So its not like there are no environmental effects on magic at all.

[diplomancer]

At the very least, Wall of Fire is less effective underwater because everything gains resistance to the damage. Another indication that fire spells are intended to work underwater (at least) by the way. So its not like there are no environmental effects on magic at all.

Or that they wanted to leave design space open for the case of a fire spell that did work under water. As it is, though there are underwater rules, nothing says any magical fire works underwater, apart from the Continual Flame spell that keeps working, because it has specific text about it that other fire spells lack. And if you are going to infer from silence that they do work on water, you'd have to do the same for regular fire. Maybe physics is just different in D&D and ordinary fire burns underwater, though less intensively, hence the resistance, who knows?

Meanwhile, no response on whether Lesser Restoration can stop the effects of Blinding Smite without referencing it specifically, thus effectively ending Blinding Smite for all practical purposes (except for a few corner cases like the War Wizard previously mentioned).

[Psyren]

And if you are going to infer from silence that they do work on water, you'd have to do the same for regular fire.

...Why? Those of us on the side of the argument that think magical fire and mundane fire aren't identical, have no reason to conclude that being underwater affects them both identically.

[Blatant Beast]

You've made quite the leap here; "Fire spells work in a vacuum" is not at all the same thing as saying "environments don't impact spells." .

You overlooked the conditional IF at the start of the sentence.
What I was bemoaning was a super exotic D&D environment lacks mechanical rules that makes it truly unique. The explosive Phologiston of AD&D was the example I was citing of environmental rules that change the way one plays.

Keltest, I do not think the Underwater rules are conclusive proof that fire spells work underwater, but, that said, if there was ever a place in the PHB to mention that Fire spells do not work at all, it would be on pg 198…and it doesn’t. I agree it is circumstantial evidence, at the least.

One issue with the underwater rules, is what happens if, like in the recent Shogun mini-series, someone is being boiled alive in a large cauldron, or in an underwater adventure a plume of volcanically heated water?

Logically, the damage should probably be Fire damage, but by RAW an underwater plume of superheated water would effectively do half damage.

[Psyren]

You overlooked the conditional IF at the start of the sentence.
What I was bemoaning was a super exotic D&D environment lacks mechanical rules that makes it truly unique. The explosive Phologiston of AD&D was the example I was citing of environmental rules that change the way one plays.

You don't need a "super exotic environment" to get players to use different tactics, is my point.
As far as the Phlogiston being highly flammable, I can see why they didn't want DMs who just want a fun space romp to need to deal with that sort of thing, but if you miss it you can always bring it back in at your own table.

One issue with the underwater rules, is what happens if, like in the recent Shogun mini-series, someone is being boiled alive in a large cauldron, or in an underwater adventure a plume of volcanically heated water?

Logically, the damage should probably be Fire damage, but by RAW an underwater plume of superheated water would effectively do half damage.

Why wouldn't it be fire damage? Half of, say, 24d10 is still going to kill most humanoids.

[Blatant Beast]

You don't need a "super exotic environment" to get players to use different tactics, is my point.

No, you need rules, or situational limits. (“Hey do you think the King will mind if we torch the throne room with a fireball? Yes? Ok”)

Why wouldn't it be fire damage? Half of, say, 24d10 is still going to kill most humanoids.

There is something about needing to inflate the damage in order to halve it that I find aesthetically displeasing.

In real life, being thrown into a giant cauldron of boiling water, and having a lid placed on the cauldron that forces the unfortunate person to be submerged is a horrible fate. In D&D a Hag that places a person in a cauldron of boiling water, would be better served by letting them keep their head out of the water, and not be completely submerged. Seems odd.

[KorvinStarmast]

What allows you to make that melee attack? It's not the Cast a Spell action you just took, otherwise you'd be able to make a melee attack when you cast a Fire Bolt, too. And it's not the Attack action, because you didn't use that.

What allows you to make a melee attack is the basic rules. Anyone can take a dagger and make a melee attack. I think the point I was trying to make sailed past you on that one.
1.You don't need to be casting a spell to make a melee attack.
2. If order for a given melee attack to get the magical rider on it, you have to cast one of those two cantrips.


Not that hard to parse.

Again, the spells are badly written.

Interestingly, if your PC has a butter knife worth at least one silver piece - as it is written now - and you have that cantrip, you can use that improvised weapon to make this work. Great way to ruin a dinner party.