Counterspelling Booming Blade: What happens?!?

[Guy Lombard-O]

So this thought occurred to me as I was plotting the course for an upcoming level up of my PC, who's picking up Booming Blade next level...what happens if the DM counterspells my booming blade attempt? This actually seems like a possibility, considering how many enemies we've encountered lately who throw them out there (4 separate counterspellers in our last batch of enemies). And we're not announcing the spell ahead of time, as per RAW.

So, if the actual Booming Blade spell gets countered, what happens to the underlying attack? My thought is that per mechanical RAW, the melee attack itself is spoiled, since I'd be technically taking the Cast a Spell action, not the Attack action. But logically (I know, I know! Why bring "logic" into D&D, especially into spellcasting!) it seems like the underlying weapon attack should still be viable.

Am I correct in thinking that the whole weapon attack would be stopped? If not, why not?

[nickl_2000]

RAW, you don't make the melee attack. RAI, you don't make the melee attack.

You are taking a cast a spell action, since that spell is countered nothing in the spell description happens therefore no melee attack.


I guess I think of the attack as part of the Somatic Component of the Booming Blade spell. If you lose the spell you lose that as well.

[chiefwaha]

My initial thought, without thinking too much or looking up anything, RAW would definitely not allow an attack.

As a DM, I'd probably go with the RAW. And to be honest, as much as it sucks to lose your action, them counterspelling a cantrip should be considered a win.

[Amnestic]

Yes, the attack itself is also 'countered'. You can fluff this however you like, of course, but one simple 'reason' is that the energies of the counterspell throw your weapon off balance so much your swing/stab/etc. is ruined and can't hit.

[strangebloke]

came up two sessions ago.

And yeah, the attack is canceled.

As for how to justify this? Well, Counterspell just snuffed out the magic you were drawing in the blade, and might have had some kind of feedback effect which caused to you to stop your action.

[RSP]

I guess I think of the attack as part of the Somatic Component of the Booming Blade spell. If you lose the spell you lose that as well.

I would caution against this way of thinking. I 100% agree the attack is lost, RAW and RAI. However, that’s because the attack is part of the spell effect, not the S component.

When Counterspell is successfully cast, the “spell fails and has no effect.” But if the attack is part of the components, it could, RAW, continue, as Counterspell does nothing to stop the components of the spell.

[nickl_2000]

I would caution against this way of thinking. I 100% agree the attack is lost, RAW and RAI. However, that’s because the attack is part of the spell effect, not the S component.

When Counterspell is successfully cast, the “spell fails and has no effect.” But if the attack is part of the components, it could, RAW, continue, as Counterspell does nothing to stop the components of the spell.

This raises an interesting question. If there is a costly material component for a spell that in counterspelled, does it get consumed?

[Amnestic]

This raises an interesting question. If there is a costly material component for a spell that in counterspelled, does it get consumed?

I don't believe there's a solid answer for this but my answer would be:
Yes if it's counterspelled (because the spell slot is still expended)
No as standard if it's due to losing concentration on a long cast (because the spell slot is not expended), however some material components (such as incense burned for Find Familiar) might still be expended regardless since you can only really burn incense once before it's...burned.

[RSP]

This raises an interesting question. If there is a costly material component for a spell that in counterspelled, does it get consumed?


I don't believe there's a solid answer for this but my answer would be:
Yes if it's counterspelled (because the spell slot is still expended)
No as standard if it's due to losing concentration on a long cast (because the spell slot is not expended), however some material components (such as incense burned for Find Familiar) might still be expended regardless since you can only really burn incense once before it's...burned.

That’s the difference between casting a spell and not casting a spell.

Counterspell causes a spell that is cast to fail and have no effect. The slot is used. Components are used. However, there just is no effect.

If a component isn’t present (like trying to cast a V spell in Silence), then the spell can not be cast. No slot used because it couldn’t be cast in the first place (similar to if one tried to cast a spell but they had no appropriate level slots remaining - you can go through the motions of casting it - V,S,M - but no slot means no casting).

Specific to whether a costly component is used, I don’t think there’s anything specific in the RAW, but, like the slot not being used, I’d say RAI it’s not used.

For reference, here’s the RAW:

“When a character casts a spell, he or she expends a slot of that spell’s level or higher, effectively “filling” a slot with the spell.”

“If you can’t provide one or more of a spell’s components, you are unable to cast the spell.”

[jaappleton]

RAW, you don't make the melee attack. RAI, you don't make the melee attack.

You are taking a cast a spell action, since that spell is countered nothing in the spell description happens therefore no melee attack.


I guess I think of the attack as part of the Somatic Component of the Booming Blade spell. If you lose the spell you lose that as well.

This is exactly how I'd rule it.

Nonetheless, an interesting question posed by the OP. The list of actions displayed in an ability or spell is always important to follow regarding RAW and RAI. If A then B. No B without A, of course.

[Man_Over_Game]

I'd disagree with ...well, apparently everyone.

To me, it seems pretty clear that Booming Blade is supposed to be something like a Smite Spell, they just wanted to find a way to make sure it wouldn't cost a Bonus Action or Concentration or something like the Smite Spells do. This is also referenced by the fact that the sword cantrips now target Self instead of a target.

The devs for 5e were always big on pushing narrative sense over mechanics (even if their system works against that goal), and I think it's a philosophy that stands out here. A weapon attack without a Self Buff is still a weapon attack, in my book.

[jaappleton]

I'd disagree with ...well, apparently everyone.

To me, it seems pretty clear that Booming Blade is supposed to be something like a Smite Spell, they just wanted to find a way to make sure it wouldn't cost a Bonus Action or Concentration or something like the Smite Spells do. This is also referenced by the fact that the sword cantrips now target Self instead of a target.

The devs for 5e were always big on pushing narrative sense over mechanics (even if their system works against that goal), and I think it's a philosophy that stands out here. A weapon attack without a Self Buff is still a weapon attack, in my book.

Ah, but as the character uses the 'cast a spell action', the weapon attack is made as part of the casting.

If the casting is interrupted or rendered null... No weapon attack can be made.

[RSP]

Ah, but as the character uses the 'cast a spell action', the weapon attack is made as part of the casting.

If the casting is interrupted or rendered null... No weapon attack can be made.

Correction: the weapon attack is made as part of the spell effect, not part of the casting.

No spell effect=no weapon attack.

[Amnestic]

I'd disagree with ...well, apparently everyone.

To me, it seems pretty clear that Booming Blade is supposed to be something like a Smite Spell, they just wanted to find a way to make sure it wouldn't cost a Bonus Action or Concentration or something like the Smite Spells do. This is also referenced by the fact that the sword cantrips now target Self instead of a target.

I mean if they wanted to make it a BA "on next successful attack" deal then they could've done so, it's not like that was new ground for them, the smite spells were in the OG PHB, so I disagree with your conclusion it's meant to be a "Smite-Lite" spell. If they wanted that, they would have made it so. They chose to make it a Cast a Spell action, not a 'held' buff.

[Man_Over_Game]

Ah, but as the character uses the 'cast a spell action', the weapon attack is made as part of the casting.

If the casting is interrupted or rendered null... No weapon attack can be made.

I'm not disagreeing that what you're saying makes sense within the mechanics and the system.

However, I disagree that a DM's job is just mechanics, though. I choose to make an exception because it makes sense in the world it takes place in.

Plus, I doubt that every spell/effect interaction was curated before any of it makes it to print. We can assume they had intended for this interaction, but my gut says they didn't take it into account or they didn't think it was worthwhile to change for an interaction that's probably never going to happen. Because had I tried to account for Booming Blade acting like a Smite Spell buff in a way that didn't change its action cost while still considering Counterspell, it'd seem like a lot of dumb work and extra words for nobody's benefit. Chances are, the guy swinging the sword is still capable of swinging the sword even when a spell isn't telling him to.


Yes, the attack itself is also 'countered'. You can fluff this however you like, of course, but one simple 'reason' is that the energies of the counterspell throw your weapon off balance so much your swing/stab/etc. is ruined and can't hit.
This is an excellent solution, it just also presumes the fact that a spell-less weapon attack isn't one of the possible outcomes. It justifies a nonsensible outcome, as opposed to just taking the outcome that makes sense.

[RSP]

I'm not disagreeing that what you're saying makes sense within the mechanics and the system.

However, I disagree that a DM's job is just mechanics, though. I choose to make an exception because it makes sense in the world it takes place in.

Plus, I doubt that every spell/effect interaction was curated before any of it makes it to print. We can assume they had intended for this interaction, but my gut says they didn't take it into account or they didn't think it was worthwhile to change for an interaction that's probably never going to happen. Because had I tried to account for Booming Blade acting like a Smite Spell buff in a way that didn't change its action cost while still considering Counterspell, it'd seem like a lot of dumb work and extra words for nobody's benefit. Chances are, the guy swinging the sword is still capable of swinging the sword even when a spell isn't telling him to.

Just curious if you allow melee attacks current with spell attacks, such as using a natural weapon attack with the casting, and spell attack, of Inflict Wounds.

To me, this is the same conceptual space as getting to make the weapon attack even though BB was Counterspelled.

[Man_Over_Game]

Just curious if you allow melee attacks current with spell attacks, such as using a natural weapon attack with the casting, and spell attack, of Inflict Wounds.

To me, this is the same conceptual space as getting to make the weapon attack even though BB was Counterspelled.

You're making a melee attack with the weapon, which basically ends up being a [Melee Weapon Attack] + [Booming Blade]. That is, a basic attack with a rider on top.

Inflict Wounds explicitly mentions Melee Spell Attack, which means it doesn't use a weapon. There aren't examples of spell attacks that also use a weapon.

However, that's not the point. The point is, I refuse to let the system interfere with the reality I set for my players. The 5e system is a tool for me to use, it's my responsibility to figure out how to use it to make my job easier, not for me to figure out how to adjust my reality so that every niche interaction makes sense.

From my understanding, that's also the same perspective the lead developer encourages players to take, too, which is why he's so adamant that people shouldn't listen to his rulings when they don't want to. The system is less important than the opinions of those who play it.

I'm not saying that anyone's interpretations are even wrong, just that I think it'd make more sense within the narrative and for my players that Counterspelling a Booming Blade attack would end up just making a normal attack roll. Hell, you don't even account for Booming Blade until after the normal attack hits, so it's not like you have to change anything about the attack once the Counterspell takes place.

[Yakk]

You're making a melee attack with the weapon, which basically ends up being a [Melee Weapon Attack] + [Booming Blade]. That is, a basic attack with a rider on top.

Inflict Wounds explicitly mentions Melee Spell Attack, which means it doesn't use a weapon. There aren't examples of spell attacks that also use a weapon.

However, that's not the point. The point is, I refuse to let the system interfere with the reality I set for my players. The 5e system is a tool for me to use, it's my responsibility to figure out how to use it to make my job easier, not for me to figure out how to adjust my reality so that every niche interaction makes sense.

From my understanding, that's also the same perspective the lead developer encourages players to take, too, which is why he's so adamant that people shouldn't listen to his rulings when they don't want to. The system is less important than the opinions of those who play it.
Basically, 5e is missing a category of casting time; the "attack boost".

Smite and Smite-like spells, various Smite class features, and SCAG cantrips are all attempts to add the "attack boost" casting time into the game each with different mechanical quirks.

[Grod_The_Giant]

...you laugh and say "hah-hah, you just wasted a 3rd level slot to block a cantrip?"

[Chronos]

Man_Over_Game, do you allow casters with Extra Attack (such as bladesingers or eldritch knights) make multiple attacks when using Booming Blade? Why or why not?

[strangebloke]

...you laugh and say "hah-hah, you just wasted a 3rd level slot to block a cantrip?"

pretty much my player's reaction. However, the situation was such that the spellcaster in question would have literally died if she hadn't done that, and as a result she got to take another whole round of actions. Pretty fun moment!

[Man_Over_Game]

Man_Over_Game, do you allow casters with Extra Attack (such as bladesingers or eldritch knights) make multiple attacks when using Booming Blade? Why or why not?

I don't.

1st, that'd be a blatant example of power creep. Everyone would need to pack Booming Blade to keep up with the guy that does.
2nd, the spell states you make a melee attack with a weapon, regardless of your Extra Attacks.

I understand that casting Counterspell against Booming Blade would technically cancel out the melee weapon attack, but that's a purely mundane thing that someone could have done even without Booming Blade. If anything, Booming Blade is dependent on a Melee Weapon Attack, but Melee Weapon Attacks are not dependent on Booming Blade. So, to me, Booming Blade comes off as a cantrip that is added on top of a normal weapon attack, not the other way around.

But to take it from my perspective, say your team is up against an enemy with an Antimagic Field aura and they don't know it yet. One of them goes to hit him with Booming Blade. Would it be more interesting if they stood in place, or if they bopped him with a weak attack with no juice?

I choose to make an exception because I believe it makes my games more realistic and sensible for that kind of world, as it implies there are physics at work that make sense when the rules sometimes don't. I don't think that's an unorthodox choice, and I don't think that makes me a bad DM for making it.

[PhantomSoul]

I don't.

1st, that'd be a blatant example of power creep. Everyone would need to pack Booming Blade to keep up with the guy that does.
2nd, the spell states you make a melee attack with a weapon, regardless of your Extra Attack feat.

I understand that casting Counterspell against Booming Blade would technically cancel out the melee weapon attack, but that's a purely mundane thing that someone could have done even without Booming Blade. If anything, Booming Blade is dependent on a Melee Weapon Attack, but Melee Weapon Attacks are not dependent on Booming Blade. So, to me, Booming Blade comes off as a cantrip that is added on top of a normal weapon attack, not the other way around.

But to take it from my perspective, say your team is up against an enemy with an Antimagic Field aura and they don't know it yet. One of them goes to hit him with Booming Blade. Would it be more interesting if they stood in place, or if they bopped him with a weak attack with no juice?

I choose to make an exception because I believe it makes my games more realistic and sensible for that kind of world, as it implies there are physics at work that make sense when the rules sometimes don't. I don't think that's an unorthodox choice, and I don't think that makes me a bad DM for making it.


Do you keep the purely mechanical aspect of Extra Attack requiring the Attack Action, or does a failed Booming Blade (from Counterspell) then get to make two Attacks instead of one (assuming it remains on their Turn, not as a Reaction, where the Extra Attack benefits also don't apply)?

I'd easily just fluff it as Booming Blade getting interrupted as you try to power up, and then there's no attack made because you got interrupted (think of it like the big bad getting stopped in their tracks from putting the time and energy into the boost).

[Man_Over_Game]

Do you keep the purely mechanical aspect of Extra Attack requiring the Attack Action, or does a failed Booming Blade (from Counterspell) then get to make two Attacks instead of one (assuming it remains on their Turn, not as a Reaction, where the Extra Attack benefits also don't apply)?

I'd easily just fluff it as Booming Blade getting interrupted as you try to power up, and then there's no attack made because you got interrupted (think of it like the big bad getting stopped in their tracks from putting the time and energy into the boost).

I'd probably just have it where you make the singular attack. You were still expecting to make a single attack with Booming Blade, just now there's a significant lack of thunder.

[RSP]

Inflict Wounds explicitly mentions Melee Spell Attack, which means it doesn't use a weapon. There aren't examples of spell attacks that also use a weapon.

Which is why I mentioned natural weapons. If you need to make the touch attack to land the spell, do you allow making said touch with either an unarmed strike or natural weapon (such as a bite or claw)?

For reference, the range of IW is “Touch” and the effect description is: “Make a melee spell attack against a creature you can reach. On a hit, the target takes 3d10 necrotic damage.”

So, if BB doesn’t need the spell to make the attack, can you make an attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon concurrent with the attack needed to touch an opponent for “touch” spells?

I get where you’re coming from, I think, I just think it’s a slippery slope to try and justify “but I could do this.”

This also would, to me, seem to allow the “how come I can only get one attack in during a 6-second window if that’s all I’m doing?” type arguments. I mean it makes no in-game sense that a character can run 30’, use an object (Thief’s BA ability) and still have time to make an attack; yet if you don’t do the running and use of an object, you still only have time to make just one attack.

[Man_Over_Game]

Which is why I mentioned natural weapons. If you need to make the touch attack to land the spell, do you allow making said touch with either an unarmed strike or natural weapon (such as a bite or claw)?

For reference, the range of IW is “Touch” and the effect description is: “Make a melee spell attack against a creature you can reach. On a hit, the target takes 3d10 necrotic damage.”

So, if BB doesn’t need the spell to make the attack, can you make an attack with an unarmed strike or natural weapon concurrent with the attack needed to touch an opponent for “touch” spells?

That's actually kinda addressed through in-game mechanics. The relevant stat changes when you're making a Spell Attack instead of a Weapon Attack. Booming Blade actually ignores your Spell Attack bonus, so it ends up using the same stats on the attack regardless as to whether it has magic or not.

But to answer your question more directly, no. I have a few reasons Inflict Wounds wouldn't get to make an unarmed attack on top of it all, but mostly it's because we're talking about exceptions. Exceptions should be explicit to a specific scenario because a decision has to be made, not something that should be used for general-purpose rules. Inflict Wounds is not the only Spell Attack in the game, so it's probably smarter to make broad changes to a fairly core mechanic.

However, anti-magic spells against spells that have nonmagical properties will always be complicated in nature, so it's best to handle them on a case-by-case basis.


OP asked a weird question, I think it's fair that, when any weird question comes up, that there remains the option of ignoring the rules because it's better for the game. I think it is better for the game to ignore the rules in this one case, not much more to it than that.

Frankly, this kind of stuff is in my job description. These kinds of interactions are what my players like to see in DnD. They want to know they're playing in a complicated world, not one made of rulebooks and simple expectations.

[PhantomSoul]

That's actually kinda addressed through in-game mechanics. The relevant stat changes when you're making a Spell Attack instead of a Weapon Attack. Booming Blade actually ignores your Spell Attack bonus, so it ends up using the same stats on the attack regardless as to whether it has magic or not.

...

It's all explained through in-game mechanics... seemingly better than the narrative escape is to justify giving an attack for Booming Blade! :) The slippery slope of narrative escapes or justifications in the thread seems to support that sticking with the narrative and mechanical interpretation for Booming Blade (you're interrupted when Casting, which also means you don't get to the stage of making an Attack) ends up more consistent with rules and more consistent in narration than trying to insert a narrative description without the mechanical ones here (you're interrupted when Casting, and yet do the thing that the Casting lets you do). The case-by-case basis advocated later in the quoted post seems actually to make things worse for me, but I also like the consistency of sticking with the mechanical rules on this one given both the mechanics and the narrative line up well for it.

[Foolwise]

I feel there's an issue of timing that hasn't been discussed. Booming Blade needs to be counterspelled when it gets cast. If the player is rolling to land the melee attack that comes with Booming Blade, it is too late to counterspell it imo. That would be the same as trying to counterspell a fireball after the DM calls for everyone to roll Dex saves. The fireball already left the caster by that point.

With BB, I envision the cantrip as the caster infusing their weapon with magical booming energy when they cast it. They then use it to attack, the energy transferring on a successful hit. But once they swing their weapon, the casting portion of BB has concluded and it can no longer be counterspeled.

Perhaps I am mistaken and there are no timing issues. Counterspell can make a fireball fizzle mid-air after it was casted, and likewise it can turn a BB hit into a miss. But that seems wrong to me.

[Guy Lombard-O]

...you laugh and say "hah-hah, you just wasted a 3rd level slot to block a cantrip?"

Honestly, if we're talking about an attack that's got enough power behind it...like, say, a tier 3 Arcane Trickster's Booming sneak attack, it might actually be well worth the Counterspell slot to foil that cantrip...assuming you also foil the entire weapon attack behind it.

[RSP]

I feel there's an issue of timing that hasn't been discussed.

I don’t think the question is “can you Counterspell when the attack is being made”, but, rather, “if Counterspelled, does one still get the attack.”

The timing, RAW, is that Counterspell is cast while the target spell is being cast. You are correct that it cannot be cast after the target spell has taken affect.

[brainface]

I'm going to agree with Man_over_Game, mechanically the answer is very clear but also narratively unsatisfying, so I wouldn't do it. The Eldritch Knight winding up to make a magic sword slash only for it to be silenced into a simple strike is a much better image to me.

Now, if electro-shockymcmage or cryofreezy mage cast some counterspell that shocked the boomblader out of their combat stance or temporarily flash froze them, so they can't make an attack, that's neat!

If gandalf mcwizard shouts "counterspell!" and then says "put your sword down, I've cast counterspell, see, you were taking a cast a spell action and not an attack with a weapon action, so you lose your action and aren't allowed to attack me, please refer to the player's handbook on page..." I'm going to roll my eyes pretty hard.

Edit: Addendum--If a player counterspells my evil cleric's Inflict Wounds, the cleric's still going to awkwardly and ineffectively poke the player's character in the forehead.

[PhantomSoul]

I'm going to agree with Man_over_Game, mechanically the answer is very clear but also narratively unsatisfying, so I wouldn't do it. The Eldritch Knight winding up to make a magic sword slash only for it to be silenced into a simple strike is a much better image to me.

Now, if electro-shockymcmage or cryofreezy mage cast some counterspell that shocked the boomblader out of their combat stance or temporarily flash froze them, so they can't make an attack, that's neat!

If gandalf mcwizard shouts "counterspell!" and then says "put your sword down, I've cast counterspell, see, you were taking a cast a spell action and not an attack with a weapon action, so you lose your action and aren't allowed to attack me, please refer to the player's handbook on page..." I'm going to roll my eyes pretty hard.

Bolded (by me) is that case that's nice to picture anyway based on the mechanics and the spell and that seemed naturally evoked when thinking about it, and it makes a narrative difference between the Smite Spells (magic and attack are separate) vs. Scagtrips (magic is part of the attack / the attack is part of the magic) that's nicely reflected mechanically.

[RSP]

But to answer your question more directly, no. I have a few reasons Inflict Wounds wouldn't get to make an unarmed attack on top of it all, but mostly it's because we're talking about exceptions…

…OP asked a weird question, I think it's fair that, when any weird question comes up, that there remains the option of ignoring the rules because it's better for the game.

I’m not trying to question whether it’s in your power or if it’s the right move for your table, just genuinely curious why you choose this as the exception at your table.

Game wise, there is no exception here, nor is this “a weird question.” It’s essentially “can a spell effect take place after the spell has been Counterspelled?” The RAW answer is clearly “no” (I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with this).

Inflict Wounds and a bunch of other spells all have attacks that get cancelled if the spell is Counterspelled, there’s nothing unique about BB or GFB in that sense.

I’m just curious why this stands out to you as “in-game that doesn’t make sense” over other mechanical issues that have the exact same (or better) arguments.

I mean, if I’m-game, a character has enough time in 6 seconds to cast a spell, have that spell Counterspelled, and still separately get off an attack, why can’t they do that regardless of what spell is Counterspelled?

[Witty Username]

"The blade explodes prematurely, staggering the caster, you fail to complete your attack as you need to regain your balance"
Seems satisfying.
RAW the attack fails. Narrative wise, it depends on what you think makes a better image.

[Gurgeh]

From a purely mechanical point of view, the scagtrips are already pretty overtuned. Making them a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose scenario on top of that just seems rude.

[Man_Over_Game]

I’m not trying to question whether it’s in your power or if it’s the right move for your table, just genuinely curious why you choose this as the exception at your table.

Game wise, there is no exception here, nor is this “a weird question.” It’s essentially “can a spell effect take place after the spell has been Counterspelled?” The RAW answer is clearly “no” (I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with this).

Inflict Wounds and a bunch of other spells all have attacks that get cancelled if the spell is Counterspelled, there’s nothing unique about BB or GFB in that sense.

I’m just curious why this stands out to you as “in-game that doesn’t make sense” over other mechanical issues that have the exact same (or better) arguments.

I mean, if I’m-game, a character has enough time in 6 seconds to cast a spell, have that spell Counterspelled, and still separately get off an attack, why can’t they do that regardless of what spell is Counterspelled?

It kinda makes sense to me that you already tried to cast the spell portion of your action. You chanted the words, channeled the energy, rushed forward with your scary stick, it just didn't do the magic part because the spell fizzled. Its the Cast a Spell Action without the spell, but you still did all the non-spell things in that spell.

Why does Counterspell have to canonically occur before the spell is supposed to? Why shouldn't the spell fail at the last possible moment? You lose your spell slot, after all. That implies that effort was spent.

[SociopathFriend]

So this thought occurred to me as I was plotting the course for an upcoming level up of my PC, who's picking up Booming Blade next level...what happens if the DM counterspells my booming blade attempt?

You laugh in his face and do it again and dare him to Counterspell it again. They'll run out of spell slots long before you run out of Cantrip.

[Amnestic]

You laugh in his face and do it again and dare him to Counterspell it again. They'll run out of spell slots long before you run out of Cantrip.

I expect most NPC casters will run out of hit points before they come close to running out of spellslots during a fight. A player counterspelling a cantrip is rarely (but occasionally!) the 'right' tactical move. An NPC counterspelling a player's cantrip is far more reasonable due to the asymmetric nature of the fight, though they should still probably aim for levelled spells if they can.

On the topic of "still making an attack", I'd just say they get counterspelled before they make it that far. The first line is:


You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you.

So the spellcaster sees you doing this (ornate) brandishing to charge up and cuts it off before it can start. They're not counterspelling it "mid-swing". Why can't they then do something else? Well the same reason any other spell being counterspelled doesn't then let you take another action, that's not how it works.

[RSP]

It kinda makes sense to me that you already tried to cast the spell portion of your action. You chanted the words, channeled the energy, rushed forward with your scary stick, it just didn't do the magic part because the spell fizzled. Its the Cast a Spell Action without the spell, but you still did all the non-spell things in that spell.

Why does Counterspell have to canonically occur before the spell is supposed to? Why shouldn't the spell fail at the last possible moment? You lose your spell slot, after all. That implies that effort was spent.

The spell failing at the last possible moment is fine, assuming you mean “at the end of the casting”. But the attack doesn’t come during the casting of BB/GFB, it comes after the spell has been cast and it’s time to move from the casting portion, to the effect portion; just like the fireball doesn’t take effect and explode during the casting, it only appears after the spell has been fully and successfully cast.

RAW, you can only Counterspell while a spell is in the “casting phase.” Once it’s past that, and into the “effect phase” there is no chance to Counterspell.

Narratively, if it makes sense that a character has time to make an attack after having one of their 1 Action casting time spells Counterspelled, then why can’t they make that attack (or take any other Action) whenever any of their 1 Action spells are Counterspelled (not limiting this just to GFB/BB)?

I still have yet to see the narrative exception in BB/GFB that allows this (not that you have to explain it to me if you don’t want to, just trying to get your POV correctly - I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss this).



Now, if electro-shockymcmage or cryofreezy mage cast some counterspell that shocked the boomblader out of their combat stance or temporarily flash froze them, so they can't make an attack, that's neat!

…

Edit: Addendum--If a player counterspells my evil cleric's Inflict Wounds, the cleric's still going to awkwardly and ineffectively poke the player's character in the forehead.

As I saw at least one other poster point out, choosing to narratively describe one Counterspell different from another Counterspell is a choice the DM makes. As the DM is making that choice, I find it difficult for them to then use that choice as an excuse for why one thing happens or doesn’t.

That is, the DM is choosing the narrative of one PC “shocking” a character with their Counterspell causing the target to lose their turn; but then narratively describing another PC’s Counterspell as not “shocking” the target spell caster, so that target gets to do something else with Action. The DM is the one making that choice, which is, essentially, that one PC’s Counterspell is definitively more powerful than another PC’s Counterspell.

That DM shouldn’t then throw their hands up and say “thems the rules” if the non-shocking-Counterspell PC asks why their spells are less effective: it’s clearly the DM who is responsible for that decision.

As for the Counterspelling of Inflict Wounds still having the touch attack, how does this play with effects that damage on a hit, like Fire Shield or Shadow of Moil; or effects that trigger on a miss like a BM’s Riposte?

I know it’s a niche situation, but I’m assuming for consistency, these things still trigger in you games?

Likewise, do you have you Players RP the situation in-character? That is, does the EK who is the target of the IWs and doesn’t know it was Counterspelled by his Wizard friend behind him, still cast Shield to avoid the now-ineffective touch attack?

Adding all these factors to a spell that was made inert is going to slow game play (however, that might not be a concern at some tables).

[AHF]

I expect most NPC casters will run out of hit points before they come close to running out of spellslots during a fight. A player counterspelling a cantrip is rarely (but occasionally!) the 'right' tactical move. An NPC counterspelling a player's cantrip is far more reasonable due to the asymmetric nature of the fight, though they should still probably aim for levelled spells if they can.

On the topic of "still making an attack", I'd just say they get counterspelled before they make it that far. The first line is:



So the spellcaster sees you doing this (ornate) brandishing to charge up and cuts it off before it can start. They're not counterspelling it "mid-swing". Why can't they then do something else? Well the same reason any other spell being counterspelled doesn't then let you take another action, that's not how it works.


This is the same way I rule it. You are first charging up the weapon with thunderous energy. It doesn’t take long to miss the chance to swing - you’ve got 6 seconds. That charging up/brandishing act gets interrupted by the counter spell and can be flavored any number of ways: the caster keeps attempting to infuse the weapon with magic and misses the window; there is some feedback that distracts or knocks the pc off balance; the weapon itself gets flung backwards and the pc is hanging on to it rather than actually attacking; etc.

[Yakk]

...you laugh and say "hah-hah, you just wasted a 3rd level slot to block a cantrip?"
No, they spent a 3rd level slot and a reaction to nullify an action.

Pretty damn good.

[Yakk]

The spell failing at the last possible moment is fine, assuming you mean “at the end of the casting”. But the attack doesn’t come during the casting of BB/GFB, it comes after the spell has been cast and it’s time to move from the casting portion, to the effect portion; just like the fireball doesn’t take effect and explode during the casting, it only appears after the spell has been fully and successfully cast.

RAW, you can only Counterspell while a spell is in the “casting phase.” Once it’s past that, and into the “effect phase” there is no chance to Counterspell.

Narratively, if it makes sense that a character has time to make an attack after having one of their 1 Action casting time spells Counterspelled, then why can’t they make that attack (or take any other Action) whenever any of their 1 Action spells are Counterspelled (not limiting this just to GFB/BB)?

I still have yet to see the narrative exception in BB/GFB that allows this (not that you have to explain it to me if you don’t want to, just trying to get your POV correctly - I do appreciate you taking the time to discuss this).
To many people, the S component of GFB/BB is the attack with the weapon.

They could have been explicit like this:

You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. The attack is the somatic component of the casting of this spell. On a hit, [...]
But a natural way of reading a spell is that the S components are part of the description, even if not specifically called out.

For example, burning hands starts with:

As you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread, a thin sheet of flames shoots forth from your outstretched fingertips.
That seems like a description of the Somatic component of the spell, right?

Using this natural wording, the rules text of the spell describes both the components and casting of the spell *and* the magical effects of the spell. Unmentioned components are just not described; so Burning Hands as a V component, but the lack of description means it isn't described, not that it isn't needed. It describes what appears to be S components (holding your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread), and those are exactly the S components of the spell.

In short, not everything in the description is the effect of the spell.

What is the effect, and what describes the components, is something you have to decide for yourself.

Deciding that the non-magical attack part of Booming Blade is the somatic component is perfectly reasonable. Then the effect would be the extra damage on the hit; counterspell, and the effect is blocked, but the somatic component still happens.

[Man_Over_Game]

It's all explained through in-game mechanics... seemingly better than the narrative escape is to justify giving an attack for Booming Blade! :) The slippery slope of narrative escapes or justifications in the thread seems to support that sticking with the narrative and mechanical interpretation for Booming Blade (you're interrupted when Casting, which also means you don't get to the stage of making an Attack) ends up more consistent with rules and more consistent in narration than trying to insert a narrative description without the mechanical ones here (you're interrupted when Casting, and yet do the thing that the Casting lets you do). The case-by-case basis advocated later in the quoted post seems actually to make things worse for me, but I also like the consistency of sticking with the mechanical rules on this one given both the mechanics and the narrative line up well for it.

On that particular example, why it's fine for Booming Blade to make a weapon attack when Inflict Wounds doesn't, I just meant that it makes my job easier and there's one less exception I have to make.

If you were to try to allow Inflict Wounds to make a weapon attack if it fizzled somehow, you're either using your Spell Attack Bonus for a Weapon Attack, or you're telling the player to change what bonus they're using for their attack.

With Booming Blade, however, it uses your Weapon Attack Bonus regardless of whether the enemy receives the Thunder damage or not, so doesn't interrupt the natural flow of the scene.

I might even allow Inflict Wounds to be treated as a Melee Spell Attack even without the spell (so you do end up touching the enemy and otherwise would have cast it), that just doesn't have too much relevance except for some effects that function off of any attack (so it could trigger the Death Cleric's Touch of Death if the player wanted). Heck, I don't think I'd even be against someone changing the spell after it's been countered to cast a cantrip with similar setup if an attack was required (for something like Primal Savagery).


I will say that there is some bias here. I consider Counterspell to be a really strong spell, being able to counter spells higher than it consistently, being able to upcast it, and essentially being able to trade your Reaction for someone's Action (which is stupidly efficient). It is a spell that is always worth having, which tells me that it's a bit too strong. That's fine, as it means there is quite a bit you could soft-nerf about it before it starts becoming a spell that's as valuable as any other pick, so there's a lot of room to play with.

If an optional choice is so strong that it's no longer all that optional compared to its competitors, it's not fitting the design space it was designed for and modifications to it will likely result in more diversity and uniqueness across all of the other options, essentially giving players more content to use. Or, to put simply, nerf the strong stuff, buff the weak stuff, and the game gets better. Counterspell is one of the best spells in the game due to its efficiency, so it can be nerfed quite a bit before players will decide that other options are more worth it, so...nerf it. As long as it's still a good option even after the nerf, you haven't nerfed it too hard.

[Amnestic]

That seems like a description of the Somatic component of the spell, right?


Do you forbid people from using burning hands if they've got a shield equipped or otherwise have one hand occupied? I mean, if it's a somatic component, then specific>general and you need both hands free for it.

[Man_Over_Game]

Do you forbid people from using burning hands if they've got a shield equipped or otherwise have one hand occupied? I mean, if it's a somatic component, then specific>general and you need both hands free for it.

Ugh, not this argument again. I don't mean that your point isn't valid, it just doesn't leave us with any answers, just more frustrations as folks have to decide whether they're a rules-lawyer that prefers consistency for their players at the cost of making the game more annoying, or if you're a DM that prioritizes fun at the cost of sacrificing the consistency in the system that players can rely on.

It's the same argument of whether we should be including Encumbrance because it makes Strength characters shine, or if we shouldn't add Encumbrance because nobody likes it. Nobody's wrong or right, it just makes us all frustrated at the hand we're dealt.

There aren't any winners in that argument, so I'd like to recommend to the thread that we take a hard pass and move on from it.

[Yakk]

Do you forbid people from using burning hands if they've got a shield equipped or otherwise have one hand occupied? I mean, if it's a somatic component, then specific>general and you need both hands free for it.
Sure, Burning Hands is a two-handed spell.

Now, characters with a feature that modifies their ability to use S components could cast it differently. And this doesn't require "this lets you cast a spell one-handed" explicitly. Most PCs who are Gishes end up being able to use their weapon to produce somatic components through one way or another.

By treating the hands part as the somatic component description and not an effect of the spell, abilities that modify how you do somatic components implicitly modify it as well.

[Chronos]

The somatic component is brandishing the weapon. Now, normally, after you spent your time waving your weapon around in fancy patterns like that, you wouldn't have enough time to also attack on your turn. But the magic of the spell carries the momentum of the brandishing through into one (single) swing, and so when the casting is successful, you get to also make an attack in addition to the brandishing. Lose the magic, and you just spent your turn, not attacking, but instead just brandishing.

[Yakk]

The somatic component is brandishing the weapon. Now, normally, after you spent your time waving your weapon around in fancy patterns like that, you wouldn't have enough time to also attack on your turn. But the magic of the spell carries the momentum of the brandishing through into one (single) swing, and so when the casting is successful, you get to also make an attack in addition to the brandishing. Lose the magic, and you just spent your turn, not attacking, but instead just brandishing.
Yes, that is one valid interpretation.

The interpretation that the mundane parts of the spell at the front of the spell description are not the spell effect but rather describing the somatic components is also valid.

Holding one interpretation as the only valid one is wrong, even if your interpretation is valid.

[RSP]

To many people, the S component of GFB/BB is the attack with the weapon.

I had to copy/paste your quote but here it is:

“ You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. The attack is the somatic component of the casting of this spell. On a hit, [...]”

My version doesn’t say “the attack is the somatic component of the casting…” What version are you using?



I might even allow Inflict Wounds to be treated as a Melee Spell Attack even without the spell (so you do end up touching the enemy and otherwise would have cast it), that just doesn't have too much relevance except for some effects that function off of any attack (so it could trigger the Death Cleric's Touch of Death if the player wanted). Heck, I don't think I'd even be against someone changing the spell after it's been countered to cast a cantrip with similar setup if an attack was required (for something like Primal Savagery).

I’m assuming this goes both ways: if your PCs cast Counterspell, the enemy still gets to use their Action; or is it just a buff to PCs?

Have you considered how this just adds more power to the casters vs martial debate, in they can recoup their Action/Attack even when they specifically get Counterspelled?

Again, not trying to attack your houserules, just pointing out stuff that as a Player or DM, I’d expect to be some sort of issue.

[Yakk]

I had to copy/paste your quote but here it is:

“ You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. The attack is the somatic component of the casting of this spell. On a hit, [...]”

My version doesn’t say “the attack is the somatic component of the casting…” What version are you using?

Crap. That was an edit mistake when writing the post originally; In my first draft, I made it clear I was giving a rewording that would highlight it as a somatic component, but that part was lost when I did some reediting.

I have edited the post to be more clear.

[RSP]

That seems like a description of the Somatic component of the spell, right?

No, it seems to be part of the effect. The same as Fireball’s: “A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame.”

That’s not a description of the S component either. Both are effects of the spell.

Here’s the RAW:

“Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.”

So the components are, RAW, listed in the beginning block of information (specifically where it says Components in bold). Everything after the block of information “describes the spell’s effect.”

It’s not an interpretation issue, it’s literally listed out in the RAW that the components are in one part and the effect in another.

[Yakk]

No, it seems to be part of the effect. The same as Fireball’s: “A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame.”

That’s not a description of the S component either. Both are effects of the spell.

Here’s the RAW:

“Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell’s name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell’s effect.”

So the components are, RAW, listed in the beginning block of information (specifically where it says Components in bold). Everything after the block of information “describes the spell’s effect.”

It’s not an interpretation issue, it’s literally listed out in the RAW that the components are in one part and the effect in another.
So if your counterspell fireball is countered, you don't point your finger.

And if you cast fireball, your finger magically points as part of the spell effect.

Similarly, burning hands causes your hands to magically form that shape.

Weird.

[RSP]

Crap. That was an edit mistake when writing the post originally; In my first draft, I made it clear I was giving a rewording that would highlight it as a somatic component, but that part was lost when I did some reediting.

I have edited the post to be more clear.

Im sure you can understand the mechanical difference if the rules were written this way. I’d say that mechanical difference is definitely part of why they didn’t write the spell that way.

I’m not sure what argument you’re making in “if they wrote the spell differently, it would work differently.” I mean, sure, but they didn’t write it that way.


So if your counterspell fireball is countered, you don't point your finger.

And if you cast fireball, your finger magically points as part of the spell effect.

Similarly, burning hands causes your hands to magically form that shape.

Weird.

I imagine you could still point your finger if you choose to if Fireball is Counterspelled.

But yes, magic is weird and those are all part of the spell effect, RAW.

You can choose not to use them, obviously, but that is how the rules are written.

Also keep in mind how Subtle Spell would affect such things. If the attack of BB is part of the S component and BB is cast using Subtle Spell, does the target just auto take damage with no attack roll (as there is no S component required anymore?).

Do they just take the non-attack spell effects automatically, completely wiping out the weapon attack?

[Yakk]

I imagine you could still point your finger if you choose to if Fireball is Counterspelled.

But yes, magic is weird and those are all part of the spell effect, RAW.

You can choose not to use them, obviously, but that is how the rules are written.

Also keep in mind how Subtle Spell would affect such things. If the attack of BB is part of the S component and BB is cast using Subtle Spell, does the target just auto take damage with no attack roll (as their is no S component required anymore?).

Do they just take the non-attack spell effects automatically, completely wiping out the weapon attack?
Similarly, if you subtle spell a fireball, you still point by that reading. Not very subtle.

[Mellack]

Similarly, if you subtle spell a fireball, you still point by that reading. Not very subtle.

Fireball still has a visible effect that streaks from the caster to the target. I think the pointing of a finger would be the least obvious part of that.

[RSP]

Similarly, if you subtle spell a fireball, you still point by that reading. Not very subtle.

Either way it streaks from you, so it wouldn’t be subtle anyway. Subtle Spell Metamagic doesn’t necessarily mean no one knows you cast a spell: just that you don’t use S or V components. Not sure if that’s what you’re arguing at this point though.