Counterspelled Booming/Greenflame Blade?

[Galithar]

In another thread someone commented on these cantrips being subject to counterspell. Obviously as spells they are. My question though is how would you rule that to interact with the melee attack made as part of the casting?

Would a counterspelled Booming Blade have no effect? Or would you still resolve the mundane weapon attack that is part of the casting and simply negate the spell portion?

[Amnestic]

The entire spell is negated, which includes the weapon attack. If I had to narrate it I'd say that the bounceback of magic from the spell fizzling knocks the weapon attack off balance and makes it whiff or something along those lines.

[Silly Name]

A succesful Counterspell makes the "spell fails and has no effect".

The weapon attack is part of BB/GFB, so that's countered too. Relevant Sage Advice (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/05/22/if-my-green-flame-blade-is-counterspelled-do-i-still-get-to-make-a-normal-melee-attack/).

[kazaryu]

In another thread someone commented on these cantrips being subject to counterspell. Obviously as spells they are. My question though is how would you rule that to interact with the melee attack made as part of the casting?

Would a counterspelled Booming Blade have no effect? Or would you still resolve the mundane weapon attack that is part of the casting and simply negate the spell portion?

RaW, yes would counter blade cantrips. However, i'd be fine letting the PC still get the attack off, and probably will if...for some reason i ever decide to counterspell a blade cantrip.

[Gignere]

RaW, yes would counter blade cantrips. However, i'd be fine letting the PC still get the attack off, and probably will if...for some reason i ever decide to counterspell a blade cantrip.

Remember RAW unless you spend your reaction to ID the spell you are CSing blind. There is noway for you to tell that the target is casting a blade trip versus fireball.

[KorvinStarmast]

I am going to suggest that folks take a look at the deep dive done on this question here. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/177158/22566) They errata'ed SCAG to make it align with Tasha's for those two cantrips, and I think that leads to the following ruling making the most sense:

If you are using pre errata spell, the attack still gets to roll and try to hit.
If using post errata spell, don't bother rolling.

And I will say that WoTC made a real meal out of this one. :smallyuk:

[MoiMagnus]

Remember RAW unless you spend your reaction to ID the spell you are CSing blind. There is noway for you to tell that the target is casting a blade trip versus fireball.

More precisely, there is no information you are guaranteed to have by the rule, which is not exactly the same as being blind. The existence of perception checks doesn't make you blind to everything you didn't took a perception check to identify (few DMs would rule that you always need to spend a reaction to make a perception check to know which enemy fired an arrow at you).

On top of circumstantial information (like the enemy rushing into melee before starting to cast a spell, and the list of components used), the DM is free to give you additional information about the spell cast if they judge that you recognise this specific spell being cast by this specific enemy at sight without a needing check (e.g I would personally rule that if an enemy cast the same spell twice, you notice that the incantation is the same as before without needing to spend a reaction), or if they judge that part of the effect is obvious from the incantation style (like the target area).

[MrStabby]

You make a melee weapon attack as part of the spell. No spell happens so no attack as part of the spell.

[Lunali]

RaW, yes would counter blade cantrips. However, i'd be fine letting the PC still get the attack off, and probably will if...for some reason i ever decide to counterspell a blade cantrip.

The only time I can think of where it'd be worthwhile to counter one would be the time it happened to me, and it wouldn't be worth it with that ruling. That time would be an AT rogue using it for their attack as countering it negates their sneak attack for the turn.

[MrStabby]

The only time I can think of where it'd be worthwhile to counter one would be the time it happened to me, and it wouldn't be worth it with that ruling. That time would be an AT rogue using it for their attack as countering it negates their sneak attack for the turn.

Imagine that... you spend a 3rd level spell to counter booming blade and you don't even stop the attack.

[diplomancer]

Remember RAW unless you spend your reaction to ID the spell you are CSing blind. There is noway for you to tell that the target is casting a blade trip versus fireball.

RAW says no such thing. An optional (and, in my experience, not much used) rule in Xanathar does.

Anyway, it's very easy to imagine a situation where using CS against a cantrip is the optimal course of action (suppose the cantrip has good odds of bringing down an ally, who will miss his turn before being brought up again- very good and efficient use of your reaction). And yes, it cancels the whole cantrip. Definitely now with the new text, I believe also with the old text; though I see the argument Korvinstarmast presented in the link, I really don't think that sort of hyper-precise reading works for 5e. Spells effects are cancelled, the melee attack is part of the spell effects, melee attack is cancelled; simple and easy, and definitely RAI (and now, RAW).