Counterspelled Booming Blade

[Dr.Samurai]

Reactions come AFTER the trigger, unless the specific ability (Shield, for example) says otherwise.

Interrupting a spell with a reaction attack is the kind of thing that falls under DM ruling. Logically it should be possible, and especially for martials there's a lot of opportunity cost since you can't unload a full attack action this way, but it's up to the DM whether "starting" to cast a spell means "casting a spell" or "declaring intent to cast a spell."

It doesn't cone up because it's mostly useless unless you don't follow the rules.

This is the real core issue.

If you follow the rules, spells get a huge leg up because they get to do what the say and magic is magic so it can do just about anything and everything. Nonspells options are left feeling anemic. However, if you do allow coloring outside the lines then magic can now do even more so the gap doesn't shrink.

This end up in a game state that you have to enforce one style of rulings for one part of the game (spells can only do what the say they do) that is in direct conflict with the very spirit of TTRPGs in hopes to strike a balance.

I knew there was a reason I don't generally ready actions .

I may have to try this "being a spellcaster" thing. Sounds like they're really favored by the rules .

[stoutstien]

It's not that simple; magic having more interactions doesn't necessarily mean an individual caster becomes stronger. To use your earlier example, ruling that wind wall can stop insect plague means the caster using insect plague now has more counters to deal with.

True but it's not something that is particularly easy to do the same for non magic on magic action.

The most recent example I have is a player tossing a chain in a cloud of daggers to gum it up to save an ally that got an unlock break on the damage rolls.

It took my years to retrain my players to even think this way and due to natural limitations with interacting with the environment, spells are still the easy buttons.

[Psyren]

True but it's not something that is particularly easy to do the same for non magic on magic action.

The most recent example I have is a player tossing a chain in a cloud of daggers to gum it up to save an ally that got an unlock break on the damage rolls.

It took my years to retrain my players to even think this way and due to natural limitations with interacting with the environment, spells are still the easy buttons.

I don't agree with this interaction (how do you "gum up" a cloud?) but more to the point, I don't see why such an interaction is necessary in the first place. It's a 5' immobile cube, just yank your ally out of it before their turn starts, or heal them, or protect them from slashing damage etc. There's no need to resort to cartoon physics.

[Dr.Samurai]

I understand why "spells do what they say they do" is a meme that gets used in online conversation.

But I agree that it is against the spirit of the game, and modules actually have things that you can interact with with spells in ways beyond the spell description. Seems intuitive to me that that would be the case.

[stoutstien]

There's no need to resort to cartoon physics.

You mean magic. The thing that can do what ever it need to do? The ability to summon infallible spinning blades with infinite energy to keep spinning even against solid surfaces. That cartoon physics?

In this case none was able to get close enough to grab them but there was some stuff in the environment that they grabbed and chucked. I would say a length of of chain slowing free floating spinning daggers is a lot less crazy than saying they can't.

[Theodoxus]

Yeah... I'm not sure about the chain either. I mean, at that point, you'll need to know the hardness of the chain, the hardness of the daggers, rolling damage, seeing if the chain gets sliced up...

Magical floating and spinning daggers seem like they would beat mundane chain every time.

I mean, E for effort, and in the heat of the moment, probably the right call - but afterwards, I'd retcon it as a one time boon for the party and next time it won't work.

[stoutstien]

Yeah... I'm not sure about the chain either. I mean, at that point, you'll need to know the hardness of the chain, the hardness of the daggers, rolling damage, seeing if the chain gets sliced up...

Magical floating and spinning daggers seem like they would beat mundane chain every time.

I mean, E for effort, and in the heat of the moment, probably the right call - but afterwards, I'd retcon it as a one time boon for the party and next time it won't work.

So could CoD chew a wood door down? That a heck of a lot softer than iron but I bet most GM wouldn't allow CoD to be a wood chipper.

In this case it was nearly 200 lbs/30 ft of evil guy dipping spike covered cages in acid chain.

[JackPhoenix]

I knew there was a reason I don't generally ready actions .

I may have to try this "being a spellcaster" thing. Sounds like they're really favored by the rules .

Not when it comes to readied actions. It takes concentration to ready a spell, and you're wasting the slot if the trigger don't come up, not just the action.

So could CoD chew a wood door down? That a heck of a lot softer than iron but I bet most GM wouldn't allow CoD to be a wood chipper.

Probably because door is an object, and the spell only damages creatures. Like, say, an iron golem, which is also made of iron, and much more massive solid slab of metal than your chain.

[stoutstien]

Probably because door is an object, and the spell only damages creatures. Like, say, an iron golem, which is also made of iron, and much more massive solid slab of metal than your chain.

Thats playing to rule again and the fact CoD special and deal auto damage. A CR 16 NPC shouldn't have glaring fault due to wording like the fact save based damage bypassing most types of immunities that spell casters can already circumvent because they can just switch the damage type anyways.

[Psyren]

You mean magic.

The length of chain was magic? What spell was that?

In this case none was able to get close enough to grab them but there was some stuff in the environment that they grabbed and chucked. I would say a length of of chain slowing free floating spinning daggers is a lot less crazy than saying they can't.

They "fill the air." Even if you ruled that the chain interfered with a dozen of them, I don't see that materially affecting the spell's function.

But the beauty is, it's your table, just because I find your ruling to be ridiculous doesn't actually matter.

[stoutstien]

The length of chain was magic? What spell was that?



They "fill the air." Even if you ruled that the chain interfered with a dozen of them, I don't see that materially affecting the spell's function.

But the beauty is, it's your table, just because I find your ruling to be ridiculous doesn't actually matter.

They don't have to interfere with all of them. they only have to interfere the ones that are capable of hitting the target. The daggers themselves aren't sentient anyways so they can't reposition themselves to have more or less effectiveness. They can't stab or bludgeoned so they can only spin so the same way a sticking a broom in a ceiling fan they aren't goin to as effective for a few beats.

Chain not doing anything but buying a round and maybe giving the falling comrade some cover but it never got to that as they ended up chucking the caster concentrating on it into the CoD well.

Sure I give some leeway to non spell stuff because I detest the idea that spells or the best way to do everything all the time.

So if a raging barbarian wants to shove a flame sphere back you bet I'm going allow that.

[Psyren]

They don't have to interfere with all of them. they only have to interfere the ones that are capable of hitting the target.

Unless the target is the exact same size and shape as a length of chain - not buying it.

Sure I give some leeway to non spell stuff because I detest the idea that spells or the best way to do everything all the time.

4d4 immobile slashing damage from a 2nd-level slot is hardly "the best way to do everything all the time."

So if a raging barbarian wants to shove a flame sphere back you bet I'm going allow that.

I'm okay with that one but I'm not sure what good it would do. The caster can just ram it back into them on their turn.

[RSP]

They don't have to interfere with all of them. they only have to interfere the ones that are capable of hitting the target. The daggers themselves aren't sentient anyways so they can't reposition themselves to have more or less effectiveness. They can't stab or bludgeoned so they can only spin so the same way a sticking a broom in a ceiling fan they aren't goin to as effective for a few beats.

Chain not doing anything but buying a round and maybe giving the falling comrade some cover but it never got to that as they ended up chucking the caster concentrating on it into the CoD well.

Sure I give some leeway to non spell stuff because I detest the idea that spells or the best way to do everything all the time.

So if a raging barbarian wants to shove a flame sphere back you bet I'm going allow that.

So what if the target in the cloud is wearing plate? Does that also interfere with the spell? Does a much smaller area of metal chain disrupt the cloud more than a much larger area of metal plate?

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm surprised at the pushback that a physical object thrown into the cloud of daggers might interfere with their flight and therefore their capacity to slash for that turn.

Someone presumably used their action or an attack to do that.

May as well rule that a rogue with Evasion at ground zero of a fireball can't evade because "How?".

[RSP]

I'm surprised at the pushback that a physical object thrown into the cloud of daggers might interfere with their flight and therefore their capacity to slash for that turn.

Someone presumably used their action or an attack to do that.

May as well rule that a rogue with Evasion at ground zero of a fireball can't evade because "How?".

Nope. Nothing at all like that. Why do you believe removing an ability from a character for no reason is the same as “so long as you do something with your action, you can disrupt 2nd level spells”?

[stoutstien]

So what if the target in the cloud is wearing plate? Does that also interfere with the spell? Does a much smaller area of metal chain disrupt the cloud more than a much larger area of metal plate?

Honestly plate definitely should provide more protection against CoD but what would the poor caster do if they had to more than mash a spell button.

[Dr.Samurai]

Nope. Nothing at all like that. Why do you believe removing an ability from a character for no reason is the same as “so long as you do something with your action, you can disrupt 2nd level spells”?

The below quote:

So what if the target in the cloud is wearing plate? Does that also interfere with the spell? Does a much smaller area of metal chain disrupt the cloud more than a much larger area of metal plate?

... is not an argument about disrupting spells with your action. It's an argument about making sense in the game. You are making the point that if the chain interferes with the spell, then so should armor. You are not arguing about whether someone should be able to disrupt a 2nd level spell with an action.

Or maybe you are now, because I made a point about trying to make sense of the game to this degree.


The only place where spells operate in this way is here, on the internet, in forums like these. In a movie or a novel, and in actual home games, the heroes would be able to interact with and engage the deadly floating cloud of daggers. Because that's fun and interesting. But here in "RAW IS GOD" world, we get clobbered with nonstop copy/pasting of the rules and finger wagging and nay-saying.

If a giants barbarian grabs a wagon and overturns it over the cloud of daggers to trap it underneath, that's awesome. If the DM rules that the daggers are slowly cutting their way through, even cooler. If someone puts their hand up and reaches for a rulebook, throw a wagon on them too .

[Theodoxus]

The problem with appealing to the rule of cool on an internet board is everyone has a different interpretation of what is cool. So, we're reduced to dealing with the reality of the rules as they are presented to us. Anecdote away on either true happenings or imagined ones, but they're just anecdotes. They'll either inspire or be ignored or possibly ridiculed (publicly or not).

The issue with utilizing mundane solutions to overcome magical problems is already rearing its head: you then need to determine what's plausible and what isn't, and why. Appealing to the least common denominator of 'it's magic' removes a lot; appealing to RAW removes everything the Dev's accounted for, and generally (though internet arguments prove the rule) makes adjudicating unknowns easier.

[Witty Username]

So what if the target in the cloud is wearing plate? Does that also interfere with the spell? Does a much smaller area of metal chain disrupt the cloud more than a much larger area of metal plate?

Why not?
Armor as DR is a valid way of doing thing and narratively has been supported in multiple editions including 5e.

Spells are physical like anything else is, adjudication of their effects is as natural as setting a check with a DC.

[Dr.Samurai]

The problem with appealing to the rule of cool on an internet board is everyone has a different interpretation of what is cool. So, we're reduced to dealing with the reality of the rules as they are presented to us. Anecdote away on either true happenings or imagined ones, but they're just anecdotes. They'll either inspire or be ignored or possibly ridiculed (publicly or not).

I think Stoutstein was making a point about being open to non-magic solutions to magical problems, and how his players generally don't think that way and resort to "spells must be used to contend with spells".

Replying to that with "but these are the letters and words the printer put on the paper in the book" seems to be missing the point.

And to push the point further, I wonder if part of the reasons the players he refers to, and many others that play D&D, have this mindset is precisely because of the sanitized "RAW only" nature of these discussions.

The issue with utilizing mundane solutions to overcome magical problems is already rearing its head: you then need to determine what's plausible and what isn't, and why.

That's not a problem though; that's D&D.

Appealing to the least common denominator of 'it's magic' removes a lot; appealing to RAW removes everything the Dev's accounted for, and generally (though internet arguments prove the rule) makes adjudicating unknowns easier.

I totally understand. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense to appeal to RAW. But I do think it slowly morphs opinions about the game over time. The internet culture bleeds into the real world of course, and you get all of these truisms about the game that aren't actually true because there are these people called "DMs" that do whatever they want at their tables, and "players" that dare to move past the RAW and ask if they can do xyz on their turn.

[Psyren]

The below quote:

... is not an argument about disrupting spells with your action. It's an argument about making sense in the game. You are making the point that if the chain interferes with the spell, then so should armor. You are not arguing about whether someone should be able to disrupt a 2nd level spell with an action.

Or maybe you are now, because I made a point about trying to make sense of the game to this degree.


The only place where spells operate in this way is here, on the internet, in forums like these. In a movie or a novel, and in actual home games, the heroes would be able to interact with and engage the deadly floating cloud of daggers. Because that's fun and interesting. But here in "RAW IS GOD" world, we get clobbered with nonstop copy/pasting of the rules and finger wagging and nay-saying.

If a giants barbarian grabs a wagon and overturns it over the cloud of daggers to trap it underneath, that's awesome. If the DM rules that the daggers are slowly cutting their way through, even cooler. If someone puts their hand up and reaches for a rulebook, throw a wagon on them too .

If you want to do armor as DR - whether generally, against BPS spells, or just this spell in particular - I'm totally fine with that. I understand why that's not a baseline rule but it's a fine table rule. And you shouldn't care about "finger wagging and nay-saying" here on the internet, because literally all that matters for your table is whether your DM reads and agrees with that or not.

As far as the wagon, I'm not sure what that's supposed to do. If it's capable of covering a 5x5x5 square, that's great, but it means you couldn't share a space with it anyway, so it's not like it can make that square safe for you to stand in. You go from the square being able to damage you, to the square just becoming an obstacle.

[Dr.Samurai]

If you want to do armor as DR - whether generally, against BPS spells, or just this spell in particular - I'm totally fine with that. I understand why that's not a baseline rule but it's a fine table rule.

Never mentioned this...

And you shouldn't care about "finger wagging and nay-saying" here on the internet, because literally all that matters for your table is whether your DM reads and agrees with that or not.

And you shouldn't care about people caring about finger wagging and nay-saying here on the internet I guess

As far as the wagon, I'm not sure what that's supposed to do. If it's capable of covering a 5x5x5 square, that's great, but it means you couldn't share a space with it anyway, so it's not like it can make that square safe for you to stand in. You go from the square being able to damage you, to the square just becoming an obstacle.

It's a hazard on the battlefield that you can be pushed or dragged into. Or maybe it's taking up half a hallway and now someone can climb over it.

But again, I feel the point is being missed. The point is about allowing for the freedom to interact with the game beyond what the RAW says, which I think is what Stoutstein was getting at.

If someone does try to throw a wagon or something over the space, and the DM says "it bounces off", that's outside the RAW. If the DM says "it gets shredded" that's outside the RAW. If the DM says "it just falls into the space and the blades phase right through the wood" that's against the RAW.

So taking this RAW stance is basically saying "don't even try anything because the DM will have to adjudicate", which, as said before, is against the spirit of the game.

[GeoffWatson]

If you don't want to use the rules as written, the answer to every question becomes "Ask your DM". So the discussion is pointless either way.

How would you like it if you, as a wizard, used cloud of daggers to block a doorway but one enemy used a chain (or whatever action) to cancel it so the rest of the enemies could move through unharmed?

[Psyren]

Never mentioned this...

You mentioned "armor interfering with spells" - DR/resistance seemed to be what you were referring to, but I'm open to other interpretations or means to bring that about. (Keep in mind that CoD has no saving throw or attack roll, so approaches appear limited.)

And you shouldn't care about people caring about finger wagging and nay-saying here on the internet I guess

I don't

If someone does try to throw a wagon or something over the space, and the DM says "it bounces off", that's outside the RAW. If the DM says "it gets shredded" that's outside the RAW. If the DM says "it just falls into the space and the blades phase right through the wood" that's against the RAW.

I agree with the first one. "It gets shredded" though fits fine with the RAW, it just depends on how many HP the wagon has. The third one only matters if you and the wagon can somehow occupy the same space simultaneously, which doesn't seem common.

So taking this RAW stance is basically saying "don't even try anything because the DM will have to adjudicate", which, as said before, is against the spirit of the game.

I can't speak for everyone in this thread but I certainly have never said "don't even try anything."

[Dr.Samurai]

If you don't want to use the rules as written, the answer to every question becomes "Ask your DM". So the discussion is pointless either way.

Not at all. But certainly we can allow for non-RAW commentary as well right? Like below.

How would you like it if you, as a wizard, used cloud of daggers to block a doorway but one enemy used a chain (or whatever action) to cancel it so the rest of the enemies could move through unharmed?

It seems to me like a very static universe in which creatures would see a spell effect and would not think to or try to do anything about it but simply accept that magic is magic and oh well, we're SoL.

Like, if someone grabbed a long rectangular table, with the flat side toward the blades, and ran through the space to try and shove the daggers into the next square, can they do that? Or is that forbidden because the blades were created by a spell?

Maybe the guy just winds up in the cloud of daggers and takes the damage, maybe he pushes the daggers one square over, maybe he still takes damage when he does it.

No clue, but I wouldn't fault a player for thinking about it and asking to try it, and for a DM adjudicating that it could work. And if no one is at fault for doing those things, it shouldn't be shot down for coming up in a conversation.

I mean... the answer to the OP is very obviously that the Counterspell would stop the attack. 100% RAW, but we're still entertaining a discussion about it anyways.

[Hairfish]

Agreed. Consider that everyone is acting within the same 6ish second time window simultaneously.

But this is patently false. Real fights don't happen in discrete 6 second chunks.

The actions in the combat happen when they need to in order to fit within the fiction of the narrative. Whatever else the counterspeller was doing with their turn is entirely irrelevant.

As to why Counterspell is faster to cast than the spell it disrupts, the obvious answer is that CS is very easy to cast. It's almost always easier to destroy something than it is to build it. CS might not even be a spell at all, as a scholar of thaumaturgy would consider it. Just shout a couple words of arcane negation, direct them with a simple (relative to a regular spell) gesture and hit the weave with anti-magic comparable to that of a 3rd-level spell slot.

[Blatant Beast]

It seems to me like a very static universe in which creatures would see a spell effect and would not think to or try to do anything about it but simply accept that magic is magic and oh well, we're SoL.

Like, if someone grabbed a long rectangular table, with the flat side toward the blades, and ran through the space to try and shove the daggers into the next square, can they do that? Or is that forbidden because the blades were created by a spell?

Maybe the guy just winds up in the cloud of daggers and takes the damage, maybe he pushes the daggers one square over, maybe he still takes damage when he does it.

No clue, but I wouldn't fault a player for thinking about it and asking to try it, and for a DM adjudicating that it could work. And if no one is at fault for doing those things, it shouldn't be shot down for coming up in a conversation.

Well said.

[Witty Username]

Never mentioned this...

Sorry, my nonsense is probably drifting into the conversation in weird ways.

Me addressing that its not weird for armor to have protective value to RSP, being conflated with your points.

If you don't want to use the rules as written, the answer to every question becomes "Ask your DM". So the discussion is pointless either way.

I mean we talk about ability checks and how to set DCs and they can hardly be considered rules, let alone as written.
Why to do things a certain way is a fair line of reasoning, even for things with set rules.
Even if that is more DM to DM advice than anything actionable by a player.

[Blatant Beast]

If you don't want to use the rules as written, the answer to every question becomes "Ask your DM". So the discussion is pointless either way.

This is precisely the attitude I was describing in my rant earlier.
This seems to boil down to saying that nuanced conversations without clear answers are pointless. I hope I am misunderstanding.

How would you like it if you, as a wizard, used cloud of daggers to block a doorway but one enemy used a chain (or whatever action) to cancel it so the rest of the enemies could move through unharmed?

The same as any PC that has their attack foiled by a Shield spell, or their ability to Attack at due to a Charm effect.

The game, ideally, should be about play and Counterplay. All classes should be able to to do stuff and react to stuff being done. A discussion about encounter design might focus on Counterplay as a design goal.

CharOP focused RAW probably does not view the game from the same vantage.
The most cynical take on Char Op focused RAW is it likes pure board game-like expressions..in which the whole point is to erect barriers on the game board until you can trap your foe in a Forecage with Mord’s Hound and flip the board over exclaiming: Checkmate! I win D&D!

Of course this is just parody. I’m sure there has never been a thread here about Forecage and Mord’s Faithful Hound being a game ending combo.

[Mastikator]

The same as any PC that has their attack foiled by a Shield spell, or their ability to Attack at due to a Charm effect.

The game, ideally, should be about play and Counterplay. All classes should be able to to do stuff and react to stuff being done. A discussion about encounter design might focus on Counterplay as a design goal.

Those situations are very different. Players know shield exists, it's not amazing to have your attack foiled by shield but it's hardly surprising when an enemy spellcaster uses it. On the other hand if I cast a spell that does 4d4 when someone enters it, and they block it by any other means than counterspell or dispel magic, just with some basic damn chains, I'd be miffed. I didn't know I could do that. Could I have done that for other scenarios? Is the DM just being super lenient when NPCs use improvised actions? In short, using the rules against the players is fair game, it's predictable and deterministic.
If an enemy hits me with suggestion or dominate person or whatever it sucks, but I know how it works and how to deal with it. But I wouldn't appreciate it if I counterspelled an enemy rogue's booming blade and he still gets to sneak attack me. I just expended a 3rd level slot and he gets to keep 60% of his action? If the rogue had tried to fireball me the counterspell would've worked 100%, but not this one cantrip? Seriously?