Counterspelled Booming Blade

[JackPhoenix]

Every thing you have described only exists in the rules not the world.

Spells don't exist in the world? If you say so.

It's clear only if have that exact feature either memorized or right in front of you in print and probably a different rule in a different book to make it not 100% nonsense.
The only way you, as player or character, know any of it is rote or note.

Yes, imagine having to know what the ability you're using does. How dare the WotC demand the players know the rules!

Can Dispel magic actually dispel magic? No it dispel some spells some times.

So the spell is (slightly) misnamed, and you didn't bother to read what it does, therefore, the "world logic" is broken?

Okay. describe the difference between these occurrences purely from an in-game perspective in such a way that the information that the character perceives allows the player to make decisions without referring to a rule.

How is the player supposed to make a decision concerning a rule (casting Counterspell, where the existence of Counterspell itself and its function is a rule, reaction casting is a rule, spell slot usage is a rule, and spellcasting itself is a rule, amongst other things) without refering at least that rule? It's a game with rules, but if that's problem for you, you're free to go to childish arguments in the vein of "I cast a spell" "Nuh uh, I counter your spell" "Nuh uh, you can't, my spell can't be countered" "Well, I'm immune then!" "No, you're not!"

The consequence of this line of thinking is a Wizard can go around identifying magic that is and is not a spell by constantly attempting to cast Counterspell.

Considering there's no "magic that is not a spell" that requires spellcasting components that allow you to determine whether someone is casting a spell, that's simply not true.

If your group uses the optional rules from XGE, and someone attempts to cast Counterspell on a Channel Divinity usage, then the CD fulfills all the criteria of being the “something that can not be affected by the spell”.

As Channel Divinity doesn't do anything that suggests you're casting a spell, I don't know how could anyone attempt to try to Counterspell it.

[Dr.Samurai]

A question came up recently about what happens when a SCAG-trip is Counterspelled. The specific incident is an Arcane Trickster who stacks Booming Blade + Sneak Attack.

So here's the question: does the Counterspell shut the attack down completely, or does the attacker still get a normal attack (+Sneak Attack in this case)? My thought is that the AT didn't take the Attack action, he was making an attack AS PART OF HIS SPELL, so that Counterspell stops both. But I can also see a DM ruling the other way ("The CS stops the magic effect, but not the sword thrust.").

Thoughts?

The spell is what allows you to attack. The Arcane Trickster has not taken the attack action, so there is no attack happening at the time of the Counterspell. The Counterspell interrupts the casting of Booming Blade and stops it.

There's no way an attack would go off. That'd be incredibly generous of the DM to rule that way. So much so it begs the question why the DM counterspelled in the first place.

[Psyren]

But if they had "handcuffs" then stuff like SB wouldn't show up nearly as often because they have something to check it against rather then needing to do a 1 to 1 with every single spell if the same level.

"Nearly as often?" One midly undercosted spell in one MTG splat from 3 years ago? Give me a break, man

And it's not like SB is a table-destroying nuclear bomb either; if it were a single level higher, or lost the advantage-granting portion, it would be perfectly fine. You're acting like they printed level 1 Wish or something, it's borderline histrionic.

My complaint isn't about CS particularly but on how spells have not real baseline or pattern to prevent needing to just flip pages or memorize them to make them useable. This is exasperated by spell on spell interactions as they have a higher potential of missing something critical leading to nonsense.

In the end spell caster become them most daunting classes to pick up but also the most boring once you figure it out because there isn't much flexibility.

There is no hard and fast scientific way to ensure no spell is ever unbalanced. Spell design is foremost an art, and to use a Bob Ross phrasing, happy little accidents will happen. The DM should embrace their intended role to tailor optional and supplemental (same thing) material to their table's comfort level.

[Blatant Beast]

Considering there's no "magic that is not a spell" that requires spellcasting components that allow you to determine whether someone is casting a spell, that's simply not true.

Uhh my man, can you imagine a rock so heavy that not even Tyr can lift it?
People invent and homebrew in real life.

Turn Undead requires the cleric uttering a censorious prayer and presenting their holy symbol.

This looks an awful lot like casting a spell, to someone that in game does not have a magical education, and out game to someone that does not know the rules.

Guiding Bolt has a Verbal and Somatic component, which a Spellcasting Focus can replace, which in this case is the same holy symbol.

The Tasha optional rules allows players to reskin things.
If these optional rules are allowed, by RAW a PC could use the same prayer and presentation of Holy Symbol for Turn Undead as a Guidance Spell.

Indeed, this would be tactically advantageous against the dangerous munchkins out in the world, (CR Annoying).

So no, I reject your preposterously limited view. Sorry.

[Psyren]

This looks an awful lot like casting a spell, to someone that in game does not have a magical education, and out game to someone that does not know the rules.

"Someone who does not have a magical education" can't counterspell either, so that's moot. The one exception stoutstien was able to find was a magic item that comes bundled with the original caster's spellcasting ability anyway, so it's still moot.

[stoutstien]

Spells don't exist in the world? If you say so.

Yes, imagine having to know what the ability you're using does. How dare the WotC demand the players know the rules!

So the spell is (slightly) misnamed, and you didn't bother to read what it does, therefore, the "world logic" is broken?


How is the player supposed to make a decision concerning a rule (casting Counterspell, where the existence of Counterspell itself and its function is a rule, reaction casting is a rule, spell slot usage is a rule, and spellcasting itself is a rule, amongst other things) without refering at least that rule? It's a game with rules, but if that's problem for you, you're free to go to childish arguments in the vein of "I cast a spell" "Nuh uh, I counter your spell" "Nuh uh, you can't, my spell can't be countered" "Well, I'm immune then!" "No, you're not!"


Considering there's no "magic that is not a spell" that requires spellcasting components that allow you to determine whether someone is casting a spell, that's simply not true.

As Channel Divinity doesn't do anything that suggests you're casting a spell, I don't know how could anyone attempt to try to Counterspell it.

I'm not asking if you use rules to resolve the action I'm asking you can describe it for an in-game perspective so the players can choose an action that you can then use to choose which rules are relevant. This is why nobody tries to use windwall versus insect plague.

in an attempt to prevent all the back and forth they created more than if they didn't try in the first place because you have to go through the entire process from start to finish and figure out how it's supposed to work. Since there's no pattern to fall back on there's no cognitive shortcuts to expedite the process. Why do some smite spells allow you to use range weapons and other ones can't? What determine which components are needed for the spell? Why are some spells attacks and other ones saves? Why can't you use acid splash on the door unless it's animated then you can until it's not and then you suddenly cant anymore.

It's like asking somebody to memorize a thousand unrelated randomized words rather than memorizing a song. Even if they don't get the exact words right they will have a much higher chance of getting more of it correct and have a better understanding of what it's actually trying to represent.

Furthermore there's plenty of magic in the game that uses components that aren't spells. See every stereotypical ceremony to sacrifice the Innocence to summon a blood god or the process in which a lich is created. It's definitely magic it definitely takes components but it's not a spell unless the GM rules otherwise.

[Darth Credence]

I will admit, I feel this way, sometimes about 5e.
Take for example the penalty that the Synaptic Static spell applies.
The penalty is the result of a spell and should be a spell effect that can be targeted by Dispel Magic, right?

Nope.

Synaptic Static has a duration of Instantaneous.
It can not be the target of a Dispel Magic.

The penalty from Synaptic Static is not actually magical, it is a physical effect, like Fabricate. Instead of creating an object like the Fabricate spell, Synaptic Static instead creates a wound, that apparently is not described by any Condition, the Exhaustion mechanic, nor the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic.

Being a physical effect, presumably a Medicine check could cure the wound created by Synaptic Static.
🥴
This seems really complicated, doesn’t it?
Who takes the Medicine skill?

Would a DM even allow a check, or would the DM just declare the penalty to be Magic?

If a DM does declare the penalty to be Magic, then it is a magical penalty, that is not subject to Dispel Magic, because, well, (sheepishly),it’s magic.🤢

Would you expect that you could use dispel magic to bring someone back who had just been disintegrated by Disintegrate? I mean, the spell creates an entirely new condition - that of being a pile of fine grey dust - that is not described by any condition, the exhaustion mechanic, or the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. It's a physical effect, obviously, so should you be able to make a medicine check to cure it?

No, it really isn't complicated at all. Think of it as a concussion. Your mind is assaulted and there is lingering damage. We don't have any real way to cure a concussion in a hospital, so why would it be curable by someone with the medicine skill? That skill is to help stabilize someone or diagnose an illness, so as a DM I would allow it to stabilize someone who is in death saves or diagnose an illness - I'd probably allow a couple of HP recovery from it if asked, too, even though that is not part of the skill. If someone got hit by synaptic static, I'd let someone with medicine look at them, tell them that they have a brain injury, but they will recover soon just by doing what they normally do.

[JackPhoenix]

People invent and homebrew in real life.

Obviously, based on the rest of your post. But "I can create whatever bovine crap I want, therefore you're wrong" is not exactly a sound argument

Turn Undead requires the cleric uttering a censorious prayer and presenting their holy symbol.
This looks an awful lot like casting a spell, to someone that in game does not have a magical education, and out game to someone that does not know the rules.

Not really. The game is clear that verbal components are distinct from normal speech. And if you don't know the rules, you're in no position to discuss them.

Guiding Bolt has a Verbal and Somatic component, which a Spellcasting Focus can replace, which in this case is the same holy symbol.

No, it can't.

The Tasha optional rules allows players to reskin things.
If these optional rules are allowed, by RAW a PC could use the same prayer and presentation of Holy Symbol for Turn Undead as a Guidance Spell.

You can customize the cosmetic effect of the spell. You are explicitly NOT allowed to make the spell look like something else.

So no, I reject your preposterously limited view. Sorry.

And I don't care about your homebrew. Not sorry.

[stoutstien]

"Nearly as often?" One midly undercosted spell in one MTG splat from 3 years ago? Give me a break, man

And it's not like SB is a table-destroying nuclear bomb either; if it were a single level higher, or lost the advantage-granting portion, it would be perfectly fine. You're acting like they printed level 1 Wish or something, it's borderline histrionic.

There's been game alerting spells released in ever single book that has had spells. the changes are consistently allowing spells to do something new in a way that devalues other options or allowing them to something they already can do but better and/or more effectively.

No single one of these is game breaking but asking every GM to QC every single spell in cross reference with every other spell that only occasionally follow the spell creation guidelines doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

[JackPhoenix]

I'm not asking if you use rules to resolve the action I'm asking you can describe it for an in-game perspective so the players can choose an action that you can then use to choose which rules are relevant. This is why nobody tries to use windwall versus insect plague.

Again, the mere fact Counterspell exists and can prevent a spell being cast is a rule. You can't separate rules and fiction in this case.

in an attempt to prevent all the back and forth they created more than if they didn't try in the first place because you have to go through the entire process from start to finish and figure out how it's supposed to work. Since there's no pattern to fall back on there's no cognitive shortcuts to expedite the process. Why do some smite spells allow you to use range weapons and other ones can't? What determine which components are needed for the spell? Why are some spells attacks and other ones saves? Why can't you use acid splash on the door unless it's animated then you can until it's not and then you suddenly cant anymore.

I agree there should be higher degree of standardization between spells, especially when it comes to components (I even suggested my idea how it should be done in an earlier thread), but that's has nothing to do with "world logic".

Furthermore there's plenty of magic in the game that uses components that aren't spells. See every stereotypical ceremony to sacrifice the Innocence to summon a blood god or the process in which a lich is created. It's definitely magic it definitely takes components but it's not a spell unless the GM rules otherwise.

Can you show any example of this "magic that uses components that isn't a spell"?

[Psyren]

There's been game alerting spells released in ever single book that has had spells. the changes are consistently allowing spells to do something new in a way that devalues other options or allowing them to something they already can do but better and/or more effectively.

What the heck is a "game alerting spell?"
What examples do you have of the spell designers' rank incompetence in "every single book that has had spells" besides Silvery Barbs?

No single one of these is game breaking but asking every GM to QC every single spell in cross reference with every other spell that only occasionally follow the spell creation guidelines doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

Literally no one is asking 'every GM' to do that but you. "They printed one slightly undercosted spell 3 years ago therefore game balance is entirely up to us, all hope is lost, let chaos reign!" is, as mentioned, a histrionic position to take.

[kazaryu]

This is why nobody tries to use windwall versus insect plague.

no..."nobody" uses windwall versus insect plague because "nobody" has been in a position to try to use windwall versus insect plague. thats such an incredibly specific interaction. what?

It's like asking somebody to memorize a thousand unrelated randomized words rather than memorizing a song. Even if they don't get the exact words right they will have a much higher chance of getting more of it correct and have a better understanding of what it's actually trying to represent.

magic isn't trying to represent anything real...the reason. are you literally suggesting that the writers should feel obligated to comprehensively write down the rules for how magic works, in a robust enough manner to cover the wide variety of effects that magic already covers? and you're suggesting that in doing so it would make things simpler than just asking the player to suspend their disbelief? seriously, it sounds like you're making an argument that the writers should have made the rules for magic so comprehensive that a natural consequence is that anyone that wants to play a spellcaster would essentially need to put in as much studying as a fictional wizard just to play the game. im sure thats not what you intend to imply. but it sure seems like it.

Furthermore there's plenty of magic in the game that uses components that aren't spells. See every stereotypical ceremony to sacrifice the Innocence to summon a blood god or the process in which a lich is created. It's definitely magic it definitely takes components but it's not a spell unless the GM rules otherwise.

where are you reading the mechanics for those to say they don't involve spells? there's plenty of spells that are exactly those types of rituals. ceremony and hallow are both great examples of that. there's no specific rules for creating a lich, so how can you claim that it involves to spells?

[KorvinStarmast]

"As time has gone on?" Counterspell was printed in 2014 and Booming Blade was printed in 2015. They've been around almost since the beginning of 5e.

As regards the QC, I was referring to that other spell from Strixhaven in that remark. Go back and read it with that understanding. (Just noticed someone caught that)
And for that matter, the change in Tasha's to GFB and BB was not a good idea.
Counerspell is fine, nowhere did I kvetch about it. (The Xanathar's silliness is not value added).

[stoutstien]

Can you show any example of this "magic that uses components that isn't a spell"?

off the top of my head is the ritual to create Yuan-ti Broodguards, liches, and the ritual in RoT at the end.
Well technically you don't need the mask to complete the ritual but it does speed it up so I'd count it.

There's quite a few rituals that are mentioned in passing in npc descriptions that involve components of some sort. Not necessarily a bad thing because they're actually great for introducing conflict but they're also kind of tricky to introduce.

[Psyren]

As regards the QC, I was referring to that other spell from Strixhaven in that remark. Go back and read it with that understanding. And for that matter, the change in Tasha's to GFB and BB was not a good idea.
Counerspell is fine, nowhere did I kvetch about it. (The Xanathar's silliness is not value added).

I already acknowledged the mistake above, but thanks anyway.

Again, the mere fact Counterspell exists and can prevent a spell being cast is a rule. You can't separate rules and fiction in this case.

Exactly, nor should you try. Anything that only affects a subset of magic (spells, specifically) will be at least somewhat arbitrary.

[stoutstien]

no..."nobody" uses windwall versus insect plague because "nobody" has been in a position to try to use windwall versus insect plague. thats such an incredibly specific interaction. what?

And why not? The spell creates physical insects and since they are tangible they should interact with other tangible factors.
This is something that instinctually should work but doesn't because spells don't always work that way.

This isn't a one-off it's all over the place when you're dealing with spells. It completely invalidates any form of actual tactical thinking what creative problem solving because it's not allowed.

[Psyren]

And why not? The spell creates physical insects and since they are tangible they should interact with other tangible factors.
This is something that instinctually should work but doesn't because spells don't always work that way.

This isn't a one-off it's all over the place when you're dealing with spells. It completely invalidates any form of actual tactical thinking what creative problem solving because it's not allowed.

Where does it say you're not allowed to rule on a spell interaction or edge case like that? Pretty sure the book says the exact opposite. This desire to be spoonfed goes against 5e's fundamental design.

[stoutstien]

Where does it say you're not allowed to rule on a spell interaction or edge case like that? Pretty sure the book says the exact opposite. This desire to be spoonfed goes against 5e's fundamental design.

Because the way it's formatted it doesn't allow players to even consider it unless you literally hand it to them. It discourages this kind of thought process and it also is why the vast majority of GM's knee jerk reaction is going to be to say no because that's not what the rules say.

This means when either dealing or playing a spellcaster you don't get clever and you just work the rules into your best advantage and that's that.

[Theodoxus]

"Somatic component" is a term that exists within the fiction layer, not just the metagame layer. People in a D&D universe who are capable of counterspelling know what a somatic component looks like, what a verbal component sounds like, and how to distinguish them from mundane movements and speech. That is how the trigger functions.

If that breaks your personal suspension of disbelief, that's too bad.

What "spell effects?" Counterspell occurs before the spell generates any. By the time you see a spell effect it's too late.

Reduction ad absurdum rejected.

I'm not pretending the designers are perfect, they make mistakes like any other human beings do. But the way counterspell interacts with observable spell components both in the rules layer and the fiction layer is not one of them.

I don't understand this point on components. No where in Counterspell does it reference components. It only mentions 'spell': "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." The only consideration is if it's the magic being cast is defined (officially, or at least at the DM level) as a spell. This would allow someone to try to CS a Sorcerer using subtle spell, provided they had an inkling the Sorcerer was casting. I guess you could go around blowing spell slots trying the CS any constipated looking dude on the street if you wanted to.

[diplomancer]

I don't understand this point on components. No where in Counterspell does it reference components. It only mentions 'spell': "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell." The only consideration is if it's the magic being cast is defined (officially, or at least at the DM level) as a spell. This would allow someone to try to CS a Sorcerer using subtle spell, provided they had an inkling the Sorcerer was casting. I guess you could go around blowing spell slots trying the CS any constipated looking dude on the street if you wanted to.

The trigger for the reaction of counterspell is "which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell". You have to actually see the creature casting the spell, not "see a creature and presume that it's casting a spell". And it's components that allow you to see someone casting a spell, which is why you can't counterspell a spell without any components, be it innate casting or suppressed by Subtle Casting.

[Theodoxus]

Ah, so it's RAInfered, not written. Cool.

[Psyren]

I don't understand this point on components. No where in Counterspell does it reference components.

Components are how you perceive a spell being cast. A spell cast that lacks components you can perceive (e.g. Subtle Spell) therefore can't be countered, per Sage Advice.

Because the way it's formatted it doesn't allow players to even consider it unless you literally hand it to them. It discourages this kind of thought process and it also is why the vast majority of GM's knee jerk reaction is going to be to say no because that's not what the rules say.

This means when either dealing or playing a spellcaster you don't get clever and you just work the rules into your best advantage and that's that.

You're the only one being discouraged from this thought process that I can see. The actual books state that the rules don't (and can't) account for every possible situation that might arise in the game, and that the DM needs to determine such outcomes - DMG pg. 5.

[stoutstien]

You're the only one being discouraged from this thought process that I can see. The actual books state that the rules don't (and can't) account for every possible situation that might arise in the game, and that the DM needs to determine such outcomes - DMG pg. 5.

Yes no one has ever quoted "spells only do what they say" as the sole reason why stuff like this doesn't work.

[Schwann145]

What "spell effects?" Counterspell occurs before the spell generates any. By the time you see a spell effect it's too late.

Hmmm, debatable.
After all, the spell being countered is fully cast. You're not interrupting the cast with Counterspell, as evidenced by the fact that the spell slot is used and any consumed material components are still consumed.

I imagine it would be a GM call whether any effects are visible or not before they are countered.

The game is clear that verbal components are distinct from normal speech.

Do you have a source for this?
I'm pretty sure the game isn't clear at all on most spell component specifics in 5e unless they're specifically consumed or valuable.

[RSP]

Hmmm, debatable.
After all, the spell being countered is fully cast. You're not interrupting the cast with Counterspell, as evidenced by the fact that the spell slot is used and any consumed material components are still consumed.

I imagine it would be a GM call whether any effects are visible or not before they are countered.

You very much are interrupting the casting. From the RAW on Counterspell:

“You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.”

If the spell casting is completed, then it’s too late to Counterspell. Moreover, you can only use the Reaction to cast Counterspell is someone is in the process of casting, not after:

“1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell”

If the Fireball explodes, it’s too late to Counterspell.

[Schwann145]

You very much are interrupting the casting. From the RAW on Counterspell:

“You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.”

If the spell casting is completed, then it’s too late to Counterspell. Moreover, you can only use the Reaction to cast Counterspell is someone is in the process of casting, not after:

“1 reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of you casting a spell”

If the Fireball explodes, it’s too late to Counterspell.

By that logic, an argument can (and probably should) be made that spell slots aren't lost and/or consumed components are not consumed.
After all, the spell is interrupted, not completed, correct?

[Seekergeek]

This morning, at the end of page 1, I nearly posted about how it’s threads like this that keep me coming back here. But y’all have been talking at respective brick walls for a while now. ****in’ nerds. I love this place.

[Psyren]

Yes no one has ever quoted "spells only do what they say" as the sole reason why stuff like this doesn't work.

That quote is a response to players trying to weaponize spell text to do shenanigans. No one has ever said the DM's hands are tied by the letter of what the spell says.

"Hey DM, you're forbidden from ruling that wind wall interacts with insect plague at your table, sorry" would be utter idiocy.

Do you have a source for this?
I'm pretty sure the game isn't clear at all on most spell component specifics in 5e unless they're specifically consumed or valuable.

Sage Advice again: "Verbal components are mystic words, not normal speech."

(Actually, can I just recommend that anyone posting in a thread like this read Sage Advice? This is literally the kind of confusion it's designed to straighten out.)

By that logic, an argument can (and probably should) be made that spell slots aren't lost and/or consumed components are not consumed.
After all, the spell is interrupted, not completed, correct?

The spell doesn't take effect, even when those resources are lost. Though this may explain why they decided the 2024 version of Counterspell shouldn't consume those resources.

[Witty Username]

By that logic, an argument can (and probably should) be made that spell slots aren't lost and/or consumed components are not consumed.
After all, the spell is interrupted, not completed, correct?

That is how it works in the rules playtest.

I have been joking with my friends that they are also renaming counterspell Remand, for a rather specific mtg joke.

I would say the attack is stopped. Its part of the spell, if counterspell works by disrupting verbal or somatic components in theory it could also throw off an attack.

[Blatant Beast]

Do you have a source for this?
I'm pretty sure the game isn't clear at all on most spell component specifics in 5e unless they're specifically consumed or valuable.

The PHB says this:
“ VERBAL (V)
Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion. Thus, a character who is gagged or in an area of silence, such as one created by the silence spell, can't cast a spell with a verbal component.“

It is not a cut and dry as some will lead you to believe. The quoted section could be said of prayers in real life. I have been to religious ceremonies in languages I do not speak, and I can almost always tell when the Officiant is reciting prayers because their voice changes, and often becomes more singing like.

Then we have Tasha’s which basically states that as long as one is not altering the effect of the spell, you change cosmetic elements, which presumably could include things like….the chanting of mystical words, into the chanting of mystical words that are also a prayer to a deity one serves.

On another note, for 10 years now online D&D discourse, has revolved around and been obsessed by RAW. The game itself was designed with the intent that players ask to do ad hoc things, and for DMs to apply judgement to resolve things.

Even Jeremy Crawford was RAW obsessed, despite 5e not really being designed to be a Rules as Written type game. Errors made is RAW obsession lead to Crawford in an Interview with Todd Kendrick explicitly categorizing Sage Advice as “just his opinion”, and Crawford in the same interview also states that his opinions, (and thus Sage Advice) should not be used as a weapon.

Clearly the RAW obsession has not made the discourse better, if WotC is basically disavowing it.

RAW opponents often dismiss, homebrew, or other style of play, because as they often state openly, they do not want to read about other people’s homebrew, their rules, or their thoughts.

RAW folks only want to digest the lowest level of atomized and disjointed rule chicken nuggets for the mechanized games. They do not want to hear about other people’s innovations.

I find that a shame, and frankly am sick and refuse to allow the most anti-social point of view, RAW Uber alles, dominate the 5e conversation, anymore.

There are plenty of D&D games that do not use, nor track spell components. Be it material and otherwise….especially with younger players.