Counterspelled Booming Blade

[Psyren]

They weren't something new that 4e brought, 3e had lots of them, called tags, I imagine they were left out of 5e because they wanted the book to read less gamey.

Indeed.

You know what innovation really helped with that, yet was inexplicably (I'm sure someone will now quote some article or dev roundtable) left out of 5E? Keywords.

If there was a Keyword for Fire that included things like 'sets unattended flammable material on fire and provides 5' of bright light per spell level unless otherwise noted' Then they would have saved a LOT of column space, and could have done similar for every energy type, perhaps giving better definitions to them at the same time.

But Keywords I'm sure is a trigger word for 4E expats... so we can't have that affecting our feefees.

That just kicks the can next door. "They didn't include the 'Ignite' keyword! Clearly Wall of Fire can't light this torch!" I'll take natural language and rulings over rules instead of going back to that any day. If you like keywords so much, write down your favorite ones during session zero and share them with your players.

Yeah, but fire in the real world doesn't spontaneously erupt into an opaque wall that's only hot on one side either. To say that magic fire behaves atypically to real fire would be a tad redundant methinks.

No one is saying wall of fire can't behave atypically to mundane fire. But two DMs arriving at different conclusions when reading it is a feature of 5e, not a bug. That's why the rules as written invoke concepts like "common sense" (DMG 246) and "use your best judgment" (DMG 247). My best judgment doesn't have to align with yours, and neither of us is wrong as long as both our groups are having fun.

[Keltest]

No one is saying wall of fire can't behave atypically to mundane fire. But two DMs arriving at different conclusions when reading it is a feature of 5e, not a bug. That's why the rules as written invoke concepts like "common sense" (DMG 246) and "use your best judgment" (DMG 247). My best judgment doesn't have to align with yours, and neither of us is wrong as long as both our groups are having fun.

I will concede the decision of whether the floor that the wall is on is considered to be in the AoE of Wall of Fire is a perfectly legitimate example of a ruling rather than a houserule. But that just makes it a bad example of the point, because there is rules text stating what happens. The spell is still doing what it says it does, as opposed to, say, tidal wave extinguishing wall of fire.

[sithlordnergal]

I'm curious as to how people would rule the Wall of Fire vs Tidal Wave spell interaction since that was mentioned above.

Personally, I would rule that they don't interact at all. While Wall of Fire is technically unprotected, we have examples of Wall spells that can be affected by other spells and damage. Those interactions are called out specifically in the text of the different spells. Wall of Fire doesn't call out Tidel Wave as something that affects it, and Tidel Wave doesn't mention any fire spells. As such, it seems to me that the Wall of Fire continues to exist because it only goes away once the duration ends, concentration ends, or Dispel Magic is used.

As for why, well because it is magic. In my eyes its no different than the Darkness spell creating an area of absolute darkness that can only be countered by 3rd level light spells or higher. Does it make sense? No. Does it need to? Not really, at least in my mind. This is still a game after all, and that to me that means verisimilitude sometimes has to be sacrificed because its a game.

[KorvinStarmast]

it happens in the gaseous plume above the volcano.

Which is a direct result of pinto beans, aka, goodberry!

[Theodoxus]

They weren't something new that 4e brought, 3e had lots of them, called tags, I imagine they were left out of 5e because they wanted the book to read less gamey.

Right, I forgot where I was posting. Silly me for not invoking the entire lineage of keywords/tags throughout the living history of D&D and the myriad clones for the sake of brevity. My blunder.

It's weird when a gaming company, making a game, that has gamist rules, doesn't want said game to appear gamey, so they cull the ideas from their super gamey version of the game that made it gamey. And I thought venison tasted funny...

Which is a direct result of pinto beans, aka, goodberry!

Pedantic 'Beans are not Berries' rant goes here.

[Dr.Samurai]

I will concede the decision of whether the floor that the wall is on is considered to be in the AoE of Wall of Fire is a perfectly legitimate example of a ruling rather than a houserule. But that just makes it a bad example of the point, because there is rules text stating what happens. The spell is still doing what it says it does, as opposed to, say, tidal wave extinguishing wall of fire.

So I think going forward we should just dispense with the "magical fire doesn't work like normal fire" arguments because here we see that it actually isn't the point.

Because not only does normal water not put out magical fire... but also magical water does not put out a magical fire.

The point is and will continue to be that some people believe the spell description is the be all end all of how a spell can function and be interacted with. That is the point of contention here. The "but it's magical fire" is just a distraction.

I consider it a hard sell that the spell description is meant to capture every way in which the spell effect can be interacted with. Again, this appears to be a major assumption about what RAW is.

[Keltest]

So I think going forward we should just dispense with the "magical fire doesn't work like normal fire" arguments because here we see that it actually isn't the point.

Because not only does normal water not put out magical fire... but also magical water does not put out a magical fire.

The point is and will continue to be that some people believe the spell description is the be all end all of how a spell can function and be interacted with. That is the point of contention here. The "but it's magical fire" is just a distraction.

I consider it a hard sell that the spell description is meant to capture every way in which the spell effect can be interacted with. Again, this appears to be a major assumption about what RAW is.

I mean, its the flip side to martial versatility. Martials can do anything they can persuade the DM to allow them to do with their skill checks, in exchange for having very few defined guaranteed abilities with them. Spellcasters get a lot of things theyre guaranteed to behave in a certain way, in exchange for ONLY being able to use those abilities in those ways.

[Psyren]

I will concede the decision of whether the floor that the wall is on is considered to be in the AoE of Wall of Fire is a perfectly legitimate example of a ruling rather than a houserule. But that just makes it a bad example of the point, because there is rules text stating what happens. The spell is still doing what it says it does, as opposed to, say, tidal wave extinguishing wall of fire.

There is no rules text stating what happens if you put an unlit torch into a wall of fire. Determining what happens then is a ruling.

I mean, its the flip side to martial versatility. Martials can do anything they can persuade the DM to allow them to do with their skill checks, in exchange for having very few defined guaranteed abilities with them. Spellcasters get a lot of things theyre guaranteed to behave in a certain way, in exchange for ONLY being able to use those abilities in those ways.

Numerous spells are full of ambiguities though, and always have been, so your "ONLY a certain way" may not match up with someone else's, nor even with the designer who wrote the thing. For a Commune spell, what information might be beyond a deity's knowledge? For a Suggestion spell, who determines if your request sounds reasonable? For a Phantasmal Force, who determines how the creature will behave if they think the illusion is real? These are all gaps in the rules that the DM is meant to fill. That's the system working as intended.

[Keltest]

There is no rules text stating what happens if you put an unlit torch into a wall of fire. Determining what happens then is a ruling.



Numerous spells are full of ambiguities though, and always have been, so your "ONLY a certain way" may not match up with someone else's, nor even with the designer who wrote the thing. For a Commune spell, what information might be beyond a deity's knowledge? For a Suggestion spell, who determines if your request sounds reasonable? For a Phantasmal Force, who determines how the creature will behave if they think the illusion is real? These are all gaps in the rules that the DM is meant to fill. That's the system working as intended.

Yeah, but nobody has said "DMs literally never have to make rulings with spells."

[Dr.Samurai]

I mean, its the flip side to martial versatility. Martials can do anything they can persuade the DM to allow them to do with their skill checks, in exchange for having very few defined guaranteed abilities with them. Spellcasters get a lot of things theyre guaranteed to behave in a certain way, in exchange for ONLY being able to use those abilities in those ways.

If I thought, in the least bit, that tables across the world were treating spells in this way and DMs shot down, as a matter of game design principle, any attempt to have spells interact in ways not explicitly spelled out in their descriptions, I may be tempted to consider this.

But I don't think that is the case, at all. Modules don't do this, and I think many DMs and players out there think of magic as something that is impacting the world and is a very real presence that behaves in reasonable ways, despite the discrete description that they have.

This is not to say that people are getting far more out of their spells all the time. But I just don't think it's a surprising thing to think that enough water might impact a Wall of Fire, and that these types of questions aren't posed and addressed at every game table.

Again... "spells do what they say they do" is an online construct, for online discourse.

[Keltest]

If I thought, in the least bit, that tables across the world were treating spells in this way and DMs shot down, as a matter of game design principle, any attempt to have spells interact in ways not explicitly spelled out in their descriptions, I may be tempted to consider this.

But I don't think that is the case, at all. Modules don't do this, and I think many DMs and players out there think of magic as something that is impacting the world and is a very real presence that behaves in reasonable ways, despite the discrete description that they have.

This is not to say that people are getting far more out of their spells all the time. But I just don't think it's a surprising thing to think that enough water might impact a Wall of Fire, and that these types of questions aren't posed and addressed at every game table.

Again... "spells do what they say they do" is an online construct, for online discourse.

I mean, I absolutely run it that way. Among other things, it cuts down on the amount of times I have the wizard player ask if he can have a spell do something that is blatantly not part of the effect, but also just means players can plan around spells working in a specific way unless the wording is genuinely unclear.

[GeoffWatson]

If the DM lets the spells do a lot of extra stuff based on how well the caster players can talk bull****, it'll make casters even more overpowered.

[Witty Username]

I mean, the wall of fire question seems pretty clear to me.

Either the DM rules that it can damage/ignite objects and players try to use it to do such.

Or the DM rules that it cannot bypass/damage objects and players try to use that knowledge to their advantage.

Like say if someone drops a wood plank on a Wall of Fire. Does it damage the plank, and if it doesn't then wouldn't it block the flame, allowing the party to make a safe path.

But that is trying to make sense of Wall of Fire as a world object, a DM can use a literal sense where the effect cannot be blocked and cannot damage objects. But all that does is make Wall of Fire make lesss sense and the RAW doesn't actually support the ruling very well.

[Psyren]

Yeah, but nobody has said "DMs literally never have to make rulings with spells."

My point is that "ONLY a certain way" is at best an oversimplification, and at worst completely divorced from the way most DMs approach their expected role.

If the DM lets the spells do a lot of extra stuff based on how well the caster players can talk bull****, it'll make casters even more overpowered.

Not necessarily, it cuts both ways. If the caster prepared wall of fire but the ambush happens in the wooden tavern's common room, then that's essentially a dead preparation for that encounter unless he doesn't care about the innkeeper's livelihood or his party's safety. I'm willing to bet most tables would.

[Amnestic]

That's a giant list of homebrew though, and I do think it's good (having looked over it a number of times ). But it specifically reads like homebrew to me, as opposed to something like JH's lists of houserules when he puts up a recruitment thread.

https://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/share/4ccm-8pBW
I have one of those too. \o/

[Aimeryan]

I consider it a hard sell that the spell description is meant to capture every way in which the spell effect can be interacted with. Again, this appears to be a major assumption about what RAW is.

The contention here is that this is all everyone has, while your DM/Table/Homebrew rules are specific to you. So, when we talk about something like Wall of Fire and someone asks 'Does it set things alight?' or 'Can water put it out?' we have to collectively give them the RAW, which does not state those things happen - while, of course, you as an individual can suggest your own additional rulings after the fact (preferrably making sure to point out they are not RAW).

The 'magical' nature of these spells is the exact point - they are not based on real world physics. Thus, we cannot extrapolate from a real world physics point of view. Which is why we state what they specifically say first and foremost, then if we choose we may state our extrapolations based on our own internal code set we have made for magic in that campaign, being clear that this is such.

[Rukelnikov]

Personally, I would rule that they don't interact at all. While Wall of Fire is technically unprotected, we have examples of Wall spells that can be affected by other spells and damage. Those interactions are called out specifically in the text of the different spells. Wall of Fire doesn't call out Tidel Wave as something that affects it, and Tidel Wave doesn't mention any fire spells. As such, it seems to me that the Wall of Fire continues to exist because it only goes away once the duration ends, concentration ends, or Dispel Magic is used.

As for why, well because it is magic. In my eyes its no different than the Darkness spell creating an area of absolute darkness that can only be countered by 3rd level light spells or higher. Does it make sense? No. Does it need to? Not really, at least in my mind. This is still a game after all, and that to me that means verisimilitude sometimes has to be sacrificed because its a game.

That's not RAW, as written if Tidal Wave comes into contact with an unprotected flame it extinguishes it, so Tidal Wave per RAW extinguishes Wall of Fire.

[Theodoxus]

Can you cast Wall of Fire along the sand at the bottom of the ocean?

Re: using a plank to bifurcate a WoF; my ruling at the time would be that the wall simply reforms over the plank. I might be coerced into granting it "safe" passage (provided said plank is at least 15' wide so crossing it in the middle leaves you outside the 10' of the walls effect) from the time the plank is put down until the caster of the wall's next turn, but that's as far as I'd go. Tossing down a 2x4 to traverse won't provide any benefit, you're effectively walking through the fire at that point.

Re: ambush in a tavern, since the spell doesn't mention igniting things on fire, no harm no foul - certainly on the "safe" side of the wall (how does fire only produce damaging heat in one direction? Probably the same way it produces no light...)

Re: Torches, to use properly, they need to be carried. All the fire spells that describe ignition state 'aren't being worn or carried.' I guess "does tossing a torch through a wall of fire ignite it?" I mean, I guess if you're trying to use it as flaming improvised weapons at creatures on the other side... but then, can a torch take 5d8 damage without turning to ash? hmm, another ruling.

[Dr.Samurai]

The contention here is that this is all everyone has, while your DM/Table/Homebrew rules are specific to you.

Yes, this is the contention. Because I disagree with this. Or it may be better to say that I think this is true in the most minute way as to be practically irrelevant. Because we share something much greater than that, which is all of our experiences and stories and shenanigans in the game. And I'm willing to bet many of our best and most memorable moments in D&D hinge on rulings and interactions not spelled out in the books.

So, when we talk about something like Wall of Fire and someone asks 'Does it set things alight?' or 'Can water put it out?' we have to collectively give them the RAW, which does not state those things happen - while, of course, you as an individual can suggest your own additional rulings after the fact (preferrably making sure to point out they are not RAW).

Yeah, and then the conversation dies. Does it light things on fire? "The text doesn't say, so no" Can it be put out? The text doesn't say, so no" What can we do? "Dispel Magic or Break Concentration".

End of story. This is hardly a service.

The 'magical' nature of these spells is the exact point - they are not based on real world physics.

No this isn't the point, as I've already said. Because Tidal Wave is magic and creates magic water and puts out unprotected flames. What, by RAW, is protecting Wall of Fire? You should be throwing your hands in the air because "the magical nature" and instead you're taking a hard stance that this wouldn't work, despite the fact that both components are, indeed, magic in nature.

Thus, we cannot extrapolate from a real world physics point of view.

Yes we can. I appreciate that perhaps your table dispenses with all anchor points from realism, but not everyone does this.

That's not RAW, as written if Tidal Wave comes into contact with an unprotected flame it extinguishes it, so Tidal Wave per RAW extinguishes Wall of Fire.

Curious what others have to say about this.

Can you cast Wall of Fire along the sand at the bottom of the ocean?

Re: using a plank to bifurcate a WoF; my ruling at the time would be that the wall simply reforms over the plank. I might be coerced into granting it "safe" passage (provided said plank is at least 15' wide so crossing it in the middle leaves you outside the 10' of the walls effect) from the time the plank is put down until the caster of the wall's next turn, but that's as far as I'd go. Tossing down a 2x4 to traverse won't provide any benefit, you're effectively walking through the fire at that point.

Re: ambush in a tavern, since the spell doesn't mention igniting things on fire, no harm no foul - certainly on the "safe" side of the wall (how does fire only produce damaging heat in one direction? Probably the same way it produces no light...)

Re: Torches, to use properly, they need to be carried. All the fire spells that describe ignition state 'aren't being worn or carried.' I guess "does tossing a torch through a wall of fire ignite it?" I mean, I guess if you're trying to use it as flaming improvised weapons at creatures on the other side... but then, can a torch take 5d8 damage without turning to ash? hmm, another ruling.

Yeah, I think the hot side/safe side effect of Wall of Fire is goofy/weird/magical enough without the "no light, doesn't harm objects, can't be extinguished" bits needing to be added.

I really like the idea of bifurcating the wall with something large enough to allow passage. I'm just not sure my character or other PCs would know the spell well enough to know "yeah this covered wagon I'm about to push into the wall will take exactly 0 damage from the fire and allow us to climb over for a few seconds".

And this is probably my bigger issue with this approach, is that characters in the world either know that they can do nothing against magic unless they use magic themselves, or they waste time and energy thinking they can deal with magic in conventional ways only to find out they can't, and the spell winds up not just dealing damage or having its discrete stated effect, but also causing the adventurer to waste their actions as well.

The former is an absolutely boring state to adventure in, and the latter makes spells even more powerful than they already are.

[Christew]

No this isn't the point, as I've already said. Because Tidal Wave is magic and creates magic water and puts out unprotected flames. What, by RAW, is protecting Wall of Fire? You should be throwing your hands in the air because "the magical nature" and instead you're taking a hard stance that this wouldn't work, despite the fact that both components are, indeed, magic in nature.

I think it is informative to look at RAW intended spell interactions as a counter example to the proposed Tidal Wave/Wall of Fire interaction.

Gust of Wind states:
"A line of strong wind ... blasts from you ... The gust disperses gas or vapor, and it extinguishes candles, torches, and similar unprotected flames in the area. It causes protected flames, such as those of lanterns, to dance wildly and has a 50 percent chance to extinguish them."

Incendiary Cloud states:
"It lasts for the duration or until a wind of moderate or greater speed (at least 10 miles per hour) disperses it."

Stinking Cloud states:
"The cloud lingers in the air for the duration ... A moderate wind (at least 10 miles per hour) disperses the cloud after 4 rounds. A strong wind (at least 20 miles per hour) disperses it after 1 round."

The interaction between Gust of Wind and "cloud" spells is clearly intended and codified in the RAW.

Wall of Fire states:
"The wall is opaque and lasts for the duration."

Tidal Wave states:
"The water then spreads out across the ground in all directions, extinguishing unprotected flames in its area and within 30 feet of it, and then it vanishes."

In contrast to the two "cloud" spells, there is no end condition stated for Wall of Fire beyond its duration (and Concentration). I think you could also argue that the fact that the listed examples in Gust of Wind's description of protected vs unprotected flames are all mundane indicates that "unprotected flames" would not include Wall of Fire.

None of this is to say that a ruling allowing the interaction is wrong or explicitly disallowed by RAW. In fact, using a third level spell to counter a fourth level spell is hardly outside the realm of reasonableness and the thematic resonance between the two spells is cool.

[Theodoxus]

Yes, this is the contention. Because I disagree with this. Or it may be better to say that I think this is true in the most minute way as to be practically irrelevant. Because we share something much greater than that, which is all of our experiences and stories and shenanigans in the game. And I'm willing to bet many of our best and most memorable moments in D&D hinge on rulings and interactions not spelled out in the books.

Yeah, and then the conversation dies. Does it light things on fire? "The text doesn't say, so no" Can it be put out? The text doesn't say, so no" What can we do? "Dispel Magic or Break Concentration".

End of story. This is hardly a service.

No this isn't the point, as I've already said. Because Tidal Wave is magic and creates magic water and puts out unprotected flames. What, by RAW, is protecting Wall of Fire? You should be throwing your hands in the air because "the magical nature" and instead you're taking a hard stance that this wouldn't work, despite the fact that both components are, indeed, magic in nature.

Yes we can. I appreciate that perhaps your table dispenses with all anchor points from realism, but not everyone does this.


Curious what others have to say about this.

Yeah, I think the hot side/safe side effect of Wall of Fire is goofy/weird/magical enough without the "no light, doesn't harm objects, can't be extinguished" bits needing to be added.

I really like the idea of bifurcating the wall with something large enough to allow passage. I'm just not sure my character or other PCs would know the spell well enough to know "yeah this covered wagon I'm about to push into the wall will take exactly 0 damage from the fire and allow us to climb over for a few seconds".

And this is probably my bigger issue with this approach, is that characters in the world either know that they can do nothing against magic unless they use magic themselves, or they waste time and energy thinking they can deal with magic in conventional ways only to find out they can't, and the spell winds up not just dealing damage or having its discrete stated effect, but also causing the adventurer to waste their actions as well.

The former is an absolutely boring state to adventure in, and the latter makes spells even more powerful than they already are.

Re: Tidal Wave vs Wall of Fire, you asked what is keeping it from being 'unprotected'? I'd say the fact that the caster is concentrating on the effect, protects it from well, basically everything. Else, Dispel Magic should just take it out without a roll. You're contesting something, aka the Will of the Caster, right?

Re: Intimate knowledge of spell effects - I'd say that's basically the whole point of Intelligence (Arcana) skill checks. You could either use the Xanathar's Arcana rules, or make a ruling on the fly, or whatever. It could also be part of a discussion (session O or OOC at a later time) probably with any arcane casters in the party (or adjacent, like Arcana or Light Clerics) about how magic interacts and what is required on the fly to grok the odd cases.

As a player, if such things weren't addressed up front, I'd definitely get with the DM to see where they're coming from. And if they're not forthcoming, start experimenting in game. "Before we go to bed, I'm going to use my last 1st level slot to cast Burning Hands on a small bush to see if it catches fire - just curious about the physics of fire." And then let the DM decide on the spot (or even declare my character had already done this experiment in Wizard College and the results are X).

[KorvinStarmast]

Can you cast Wall of Fire along the sand at the bottom of the ocean?

Yes, but according to the underwater combat rules (which are sparse) the folks have resistance to that fire damage ...

[Rukelnikov]

I think it is informative to look at RAW intended spell interactions as a counter example to the proposed Tidal Wave/Wall of Fire interaction.

Gust of Wind states:
"A line of strong wind ... blasts from you ... The gust disperses gas or vapor, and it extinguishes candles, torches, and similar unprotected flames in the area. It causes protected flames, such as those of lanterns, to dance wildly and has a 50 percent chance to extinguish them."

Incendiary Cloud states:
"It lasts for the duration or until a wind of moderate or greater speed (at least 10 miles per hour) disperses it."

Stinking Cloud states:
"The cloud lingers in the air for the duration ... A moderate wind (at least 10 miles per hour) disperses the cloud after 4 rounds. A strong wind (at least 20 miles per hour) disperses it after 1 round."

The interaction between Gust of Wind and "cloud" spells is clearly intended and codified in the RAW.

Wall of Fire states:
"The wall is opaque and lasts for the duration."

Tidal Wave states:
"The water then spreads out across the ground in all directions, extinguishing unprotected flames in its area and within 30 feet of it, and then it vanishes."

In contrast to the two "cloud" spells, there is no end condition stated for Wall of Fire beyond its duration (and Concentration). I think you could also argue that the fact that the listed examples in Gust of Wind's description of protected vs unprotected flames are all mundane indicates that "unprotected flames" would not include Wall of Fire.

None of this is to say that a ruling allowing the interaction is wrong or explicitly disallowed by RAW. In fact, using a third level spell to counter a fourth level spell is hardly outside the realm of reasonableness and the thematic resonance between the two spells is cool.

Does that mean it can't be dispelled either because it doesn't say it can be?

Re: Tidal Wave vs Wall of Fire, you asked what is keeping it from being 'unprotected'? I'd say the fact that the caster is concentrating on the effect, protects it from well, basically everything. Else, Dispel Magic should just take it out without a roll. You're contesting something, aka the Will of the Caster, right?

That's nowhere in the text and in the realm of homebrew/ruling, not RAW.

[Mastikator]

Does that mean it can't be dispelled either because it doesn't say it can be?

Are there any spells that say they can be dispelled? (other than the ones that say permanent until dispelled)

[Rukelnikov]

Are there any spells that say they can be dispelled? (other than the ones that say permanent until dispelled)

That's exactly the point, spells don't need to list what other spells can end them, that's for the other spells to say.

[Asmotherion]

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

Counterspell only negates the spell part. Booming blade says you make a melee attack, and if it connects, the spell makes it deal extra effects and damage. This means the melee attack still goes off.

[Darth Credence]

I really like the idea of bifurcating the wall with something large enough to allow passage. I'm just not sure my character or other PCs would know the spell well enough to know "yeah this covered wagon I'm about to push into the wall will take exactly 0 damage from the fire and allow us to climb over for a few seconds".

And this is probably my bigger issue with this approach, is that characters in the world either know that they can do nothing against magic unless they use magic themselves, or they waste time and energy thinking they can deal with magic in conventional ways only to find out they can't, and the spell winds up not just dealing damage or having its discrete stated effect, but also causing the adventurer to waste their actions as well.

The former is an absolutely boring state to adventure in, and the latter makes spells even more powerful than they already are.

Would you think that arcana checks would be appropriate to determine how things can interact with a spell (question for everyone, just related to this bit)?

I'm thinking of perhaps looking at my list of house rules on spells (which covers the ones most commonly argued about, but I never thought to add in Wall of Fire v Tidal Wave) and assigning DCs to know something about it. Then compare passive arcana scores to the levels there and volunteer information, with the thought that as the players become used to this, they will instead begin to ask for information about spells and make checks of their own with their ideas. I think that using arcana as a gate makes sense because it's lore about spells, and knowing what a spell can do fits. I also think there should be some gating since there should be some reason to pick arcana as a skill, but I also try to arrange for every skill to have some use.

Let's take wall of fire. Let's say that a DM decides that all fire spells can ignite flammable objects that are not being carried or worn (DC 0). In addition, they decide that anything worn or carried that spends more than a single round in magical fire ignites as well, since they do want someone to be able to light a torch from a wall of fire by holding it in there for a half dozen seconds (DC 5). Specific to wall of fire, they have decided that the wall is too hot to be affected by normal water, and will instantly turn it to steam, but the steam itself is not worth worrying about damage since the fire is so much hotter(DC 10). It can, however, be temporarily extinguished by magic water in the area where the two interact, but at the start of the caster's next turn, the fire will fill back in (DC 12). Finally, since the fire is not burning from a source but is fire coming from the elemental plane of fire in that specific area, dropping a conference table across the fire will do nothing until the table catches fire after a round (DC 15). (Those DCs are just examples, not refined, as are the rulings.)

The party comes across an enemy who casts a wall of fire. The players say something like, "Crap, what do we do now?" DM looks over everyone's passive Arcana, and finds that their wizard has a passive 14 as the highest in the group, everyone else is 10 or 11. So the DM tells the table, "This is clearly magical fire, and as such you know that putting something in it will light it on fire given time, and that water is not going to affect it. Wizard, in the course of your studies, you have encountered some information about this wall of fire, and you know that magical water is enough to temporarily suppress the wall, but it will come back." Then a player says, "Nice, I have a decanter of endless water, so I want to use that to punch a hole through." The DM suppresses a wince, not having considered that, but realizing it will do something based on existing rules. He quickly checks the Decanter, sees 30' long by 1' wide, and figures OK, then it can take out 30 cubic feet of fire, and says, "As an action on your turn, you can use the decanter to carve out a 30 square foot section, which will let you see through the wall, but would not provide enough room to pass through without harm." Player responds, can I use an object interaction to toss it to the next person, creating another 30 square feet, and so on, until we have a big enough opening and the people left can charge through?" DM says yes, they do it if they have enough characters to do so, and someone makes it through to attack the caster. Maybe even someone else during this whole thing thought of taking the wagon and pushing it in to cover stuff up, maybe they got from knowing it would ignite in time that it wouldn't work, but if they ask, an active Arcana check can be made to determine if they know.

Hopefully, the next time they come across something, they are now primed to think, what do we know about this? and ask the question. If so, maybe they start asking questions about things they know and don't know, and start attempting to put together plans to deal with it.

Is this too much work at a table? Is it still just limiting everyone to what the DM can come up with since they will be asking about things the DM has prepared, or does it really open it up for going farther with something like the decanter? Can anyone think of some refinements that might make it better serve the goal of allowing players to more fully interact with the world, or critique that it does not do anything to that end? I would think that these checks have to pretty much be a free action, since otherwise, it gets to the wasting actions concern from the good Dr.

[Psyren]

Incendiary Cloud is another one that should logically ignite flammable things despite not saying it.

Curious what others have to say about this.

My ruling was "suppressed for a round unless the tidal wave broke the caster's concentration entirely." But other DMs can rule differently, and that's okay - again, feature, not bug.

[Blatant Beast]

If the DM lets the spells do a lot of extra stuff based on how well the caster players can talk bull****, it'll make casters even more overpowered.

That already happens now. This is precisely why I used the example earlier of the malus applied by the spell Synaptic Static. Players will try to make a RAI/RAW argument that the Malus, (the static synaptic as it were) is a magical effect, that as the result of being an instantaneous magical effect, is immune to Dispel Magic, despite this Instantaneous effect lasting for a minute.

This is incorrect...the Result of an Instantaneous magic, would be a physical effect...but that does not stop people from trying to argue the other way.

Either (a) you are looking at an unofficial PDF, or (b) somehow pasting induced a typo, because the 10th printing unambiguously features an em dash in the passage that you quoted. .

You are not addressing the salient point of the argument. Remember, I am the one that brought that section up as an example of the only place within the rules as written, that could be interpreted as an official acceptance of the slogan of "Spells do what they say the do".

That section of the PHB can be dismissed as Flavor Text, as there is no gamist functions being described. To rest the validity of the slogan "Spells do what they say they do" on an em dash is a weak argument.

I would not feel comfortable, if the only support for textual interpretation of the argument "spells do what they say they do" is a vague line...that might be a hyphen.. essentially that argument boils down to "is my line long or is it short". Talk about a judgement call.

More Importantly, however, we know for a fact that spells do not "do what they say they do".
The spell Daylight, just makes bright light. If spells did what they say they did, it would be daylight/sunlight that is created.

At best, Spells do what they say they do, except for the name of the spell.....which is no basis for an overarching rule. That is like determining your government because some watery woman lobs a scimitar at your head....

Yeah, but fire in the real world doesn't spontaneously erupt into an opaque wall that's only hot on one side either. To say that magic fire behaves atypically to real fire would be a tad redundant methinks.

This example undercuts your position. 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 minor 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.

[Darth Credence]

You are not addressing the salient point of the argument. Remember, I am the one that brought that section up as an example of the only place within the rules as written, that could be interpreted as an official acceptance of the slogan of "Spells do what they say the do".

That section of the PHB can be dismissed as Flavor Text, as there is no gamist functions being described.
To rest the validity of the slogan "Spells do what they say they do" on an em dash is a weak argument.

I would not feel comfortable, if the only support for textual interpretation of the argument "spells do what they say they do" is a vague line...that might be a hyphen.. essentially that argument boils down to "is my line long or is it short". Talk about a judgement call.

You are absolutely, 100% reading that wrong. Sorry, but you just are. The phrase you are talking about, copied directly from dndbeyond:

In casting a spell, a character carefully plucks at the invisible strands of raw magic suffusing the world, pins them in place in a particular pattern, sets them vibrating in a specific way, and then releases them to unleash the desired effect — in most cases, all in the span of seconds.

It is unquestionably saying that in most cases the spells are unleashed in the span of seconds. This is in most cases because some spells have long casting times. It is not in any way saying that the spell releases the desired effect in most cases. You have to actively ignore both rules of the English language and the way people normally speak to be able to claim that.

Claiming that "it might be a hyphen" is not helping your cause, either. It isn't a hyphen, and it isn't in place to do what a hyphen would do, anyway. Hyphens are used to make compound words, or to add prefixes - a one-of-a-kind item, or ex-husband. "effect-in" is not a compound word with any meaning, so if that is a hyphen that sentence is meaningless. If it's an em dash, then it has meaning, and the meaning is that most of the time spells go off in a few seconds.