Counterspelled Booming Blade

[Blatant Beast]

I have never stated that "spells do whatever I feel like", nor have I ever advocated for such a position.

Indeed, that is part and parcel of why I think it is time to retire the RAW UBER Alles position, as from the arguments presented in this thread alone...the results of RAW Uber Alles seem less contingent on the text, and more on what the reader feels would be best.

I've made a cogent argument, I've refuted counter arguments, and I am more than willing to discuss this topic further, as long as we stick to the merits of the arguments themselves.

Theo, your post sounds seems like it might be a sour grapes response.
My position is grounded in the rules, and so far, withstands scrutiny.

The RAW Uber Alles position does not appear to be surviving scrutiny, thus far.

[Blatant Beast]

I imagine you will reject it as proof, but I already offered you a more germane passage on the subject than the one you misquoted.

Would you mind reposting it? I probably missed it in the flurry of activity.
I feel like I start writing a post, but 15 other posts are placed into the discussion before I finish.

[JackPhoenix]

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

I'd say it's like mudwrestling a pig.

I wrote previously: The wall of fire, has all the properties of fire, except for those differences enumerated in the spell description.

And you have failed to provide any basis for that claim. Wall of Fire: Doesn't look like fire, doesn't have the requirements of a fire, doesn't behave like a fire, but it does have "properties of fire", because you said so.

I am still waiting on the textual proof for "Spells do what they say they do, except for the title", folks.

Is that sentence supposed to mean anything?

[Blatant Beast]

And you have failed to provide any basis for that claim. Wall of Fire: Doesn't look like fire, doesn't have the requirements of a fire, doesn't behave like a fire, but it does have "properties of fire", because you said so.

Are you stating that your Rules as Written Argument, is ignoring the fact that the first line of Wall of Fire states: "You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range." https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/wall-of-fire
The phrase "wall of fire" is not capitalized in the spell description, so the text is not referring to the name of the spell. If we take the text, as it is written, the spell does what it says it does, it makes a wall of fire.

Now the fire, as everyone acknowledges, is produced by a spell and has specific differences to normal fire. A Wall of Fire spell is opaque, which means you can not see through it, the wall has no luster, and does not reflect light.

A Wall of Fire is a trap. It does not appear to be luminously flaming, it appears dull. The effect of this is someone might approach it, without noticing it is hot, until it is too late, and gets burned, cuz it does not look like a normal flame.

A Wall of Fire is still fire, despite having differences from regular fire, because of magic, and because the text tells us it is so.

Again, how can one make a Rules as Written argument, when in fact one is ignoring the rules as written?

I think I am done in this thread, it has become a farce.

[Keltest]

Are you stating that your Rules as Written Argument, is ignoring the fact that the first line of Wall of Fire states: "You create a wall of fire on a solid surface within range." https://www.dndbeyond.com/spells/wall-of-fire
The phrase "wall of fire" is not capitalized in the spell description, so the text is not referring to the name of the spell. If we take the text, as it is written, the spell does what it says it does, it makes a wall of fire.

Now the fire, as everyone acknowledges, is produced by a spell and has specific differences to normal fire. A Wall of Fire spell is opaque, which means you can not see through it, the wall has no luster, and does not reflect light.

A Wall of Fire is a trap. It does not appear to be luminously flaming, it appears dull. The effect of this is someone might approach it, without noticing it is hot, until it is too late, and gets burned. cuz it does not look like a normal flame.

A Wall of Fire is still fire, despite having differences from regular fire, because of magic, and because the text tells us it is so.

Again, how can one make a Rules as Written argument, when in fact one is ignoring the rules as written?

I think I am done in this thread, it has become a farce.

Well perhaps you would have more success persuading people if you weren't cherry picking sentences out of the spell description instead of taking the whole thing as a single unit. Or indeed, engaging with the points being brought up. For example, under your reading, why does the fire not simply go out immediately due to lack of fuel? Thats what fire does after all.

[Blatant Beast]

Well perhaps you would have more success persuading people if you weren't cherry picking sentences out of the spell description instead of taking the whole thing as a single unit. Or indeed, engaging with the points being brought up. For example, under your reading, why does the fire not simply go out immediately due to lack of fuel? Thats what fire does after all.

Already addressed in a prior post....(hint, hint spell Duration).

[Keltest]

Already addressed in a prior post....(hint, hint spell Duration).

But spell duration doesn't apply when its doused in water, apparently?

[JackPhoenix]

But spell duration doesn't apply when its doused in water, apparently?

Oh no, it doesn't apply only when it's hit by Tidal Wave, it still applies when you cast it completely underwater.

[Blatant Beast]

Depends upon the situation.
Tidal Wave canceling Wall of Fire seems consistent with other spell interactions as others have stated.

In game, I would need more context. As a DM, I often will hold a vote and let everyone have their say on the preferred interactions, and go with the group consensus...but again DMs can rule any number of way that are all technically correct.

If someone dumps a 50 gallon water barrel on a Conjure Bonfire, as a DM I have no problem calling for the caster to make a Concentration check, which if they fail, negates the spell.

Conjure Bonfire is a cantrip, the only resource being lost is the control and action required to recast it, same as if they lost Concentration through damage, or through a rough ride on choppy seas.

I most likely would not have a 50 gallon drum of water have any effect at all on a Fire Storm spell, but again actual game circumstances and campaign tone would have a real world effect on my adjudication.

ohh Jack (face palms), the embarrassment...really not funny blue text....I can not say anything nice, so I am going to refrain from reading your stuff, and from saying mean things, like my mum taught me.

[Dr.Samurai]

Lol

Spells do what they say they do. We only follow RAW.

Tidal Wave puts out unprotected flames.

It wouldn't put out Wall of Fire. Wall of Fire is protected.

Where does it say that?

[Keltest]

Lol

Spells do what they say they do. We only follow RAW.

Tidal Wave puts out unprotected flames.

It wouldn't put out Wall of Fire. Wall of Fire is protected.

Where does it say that?

Either the spell duration keeps it going against things that would ordinarily put out fires, or it doesn't. Pick one.

[Blatant Beast]

Either the spell duration keeps it going against things that would ordinarily put out fires, or it doesn't. Pick one.

There seems to be other possible options, like calling for a D20 Test.

[Dr.Samurai]

Either the spell duration keeps it going against things that would ordinarily put out fires, or it doesn't. Pick one.

No, you pick one. Either spells do what they say they do, like Tidal Wave putting out fires, or they don't. Either you follow RAW or you don't. Pick one.

EDIT: To use similar type of argumentation... Control Flames specifically mentions that it targets "nonmagical flames". Tidal Wave lacks that descriptor. Bam! Why would it do this if it didn't put out magical flames???

This is the bug in treating the absence of language as the presence of language. When calling on the Rules as Written, you all are often invoking what isn't written.

[Keltest]

No, you pick one. Either spells do what they say they do, like Tidal Wave putting out fires, or they don't. Either you follow RAW or you don't. Pick one.

EDIT: To use similar type of argumentation... Control Flames specifically mentions that it targets "nonmagical flames". Tidal Wave lacks that descriptor. Bam! Why would it do this if it didn't put out magical flames???

This is the bug in treating the absence of language as the presence of language. When calling on the Rules as Written, you all are often invoking what isn't written.

It can put them out... if they aren't protected, say by magic continually keeping the flame going.

[Aimeryan]

So it's not only a fire that does not burn things or create heat or generate light, but it's also a fire without flames.

Interesting.

...

...

...

How is it a Wall of Fire again?

If you want to be really freaked out consider that flames are translucent, not opaque. Yet Wall of Fire is opaque. Flames also project light. Yet Wall of Fire does not. Flames also radiate heat in all directions. Yet Wall of Fire does not. Perhaps this is why Wall of Fire does not mention flames, at all. It is wild that Wall of Fire would not be made of flames. Its like... magic.

-----------------

It can put them out... if they aren't protected, say by magic continually keeping the flame going.

True; would people consider an underwater cutting torch as protected flame? I would because the components necessary to keep the flame going is protected, not because there is something surrounding the flame specifically. Now consider that concentrating on Wall of Fire keeps it going and that Tidal Wave does nothing to stop that other than the normal save for taking damage. Essentially, if they make the save then Wall of Fire is protected.

[Dr.Samurai]

It can put them out... if they aren't protected, say by magic continually keeping the flame going.

As I’ve said previously I’m fine with these types of rulings. Nothing in the RAW states this though, so it is indeed a ruling.

[Keltest]

As I’ve said previously I’m fine with these types of rulings. Nothing in the RAW states this though, so it is indeed a ruling.

Im fairly certain that a spell's duration is indeed in the RAW.

[Aimeryan]

As I’ve said previously I’m fine with these types of rulings. Nothing in the RAW states this though, so it is indeed a ruling.

Tidal Wave does not call out magical fire.

[Dr.Samurai]

Im fairly certain that a spell's duration is indeed in the RAW.

Tidal wave putting out flames is also in the RAW.

Duration does not protect a spell from Dispel Magic.

Tidal Wave does not call out magical fire.

I already addressed this using the same argumentation as your side. Other spells call out non magical fire specifically. The absence of this language in Tidal Wave therefore must mean it can affect magical fire.

Wall of Fire doesn’t say it sheds light, therefore it doesn’t.

Tidal Wave doesn’t say it is limited to non magical fires, therefore it isn’t.

This is RAW reasoning so far.

[Keltest]

Tidal Wave does not call out magical fire.

In fairness, 5e doesn't really distinguish except on an individual basis. If it doesnt call out magical fire, it works fine on it, if you can find any sources of magical fire that aren't protected somehow. The stuff ignited by fireball/bolt maybe?

Tidal wave putting out flames is also in the RAW.

Duration does not protect a spell from Dispel Magic.

Sure, because Dispel Magic ends the spell. Tidal Wave does not (unless it causes the caster to drop concentration). As long as the spell is still going, the fire is still energized, its protected.

[Theodoxus]

So is stating that TW douses WoF. But the advantage to those who seem to have an imperial need to disdain RAW is that everyone most agree that ruling however you want is 100% RAW written into the rules.

You get to rule that TW douses WoF because it fits your verisimilitude. Anyone AI trying to reconcile the two spells doesn't [tend] to have such a concept and thus looks for interaction spelled [no pun] out between them. Finding none, as you note, rules 100% of the time that neither spell interferes with the other.

Why that apparently makes you mad strikes me as funny.

[Dr.Samurai]

Sure, because Dispel Magic ends the spell. Tidal Wave does not (unless it causes the caster to drop concentration). As long as the spell is still going, the fire is still energized, it’s protected.

Again, you’re far outside RAW.

The wall of fire is created a single time. It is not created every turn; it doesn’t heal; it doesn’t reform.

Tidal Wave, which is a magic effect by the way, the inscrutable wonky thing that we can’t know how it really works, puts out unprotected fires. That big wall of fire is unprotected, as in not physically sheltered to prevent contact with the water. The magical tidal wave that puts out fires will put out the wall of fire.

And then it’s gone. Nothing “energizes” it to return.

Spells do what they say they do. Tidal wave puts out fires. Wall of fire isn’t protected unless it says it is. It doesn’t, therefore tidal wave puts it out.

This is all raw reasoning used in this thread.

[sithlordnergal]

But nothing in the spell description of Daylight says it doesn't create daylight. I mean... the very fact that you have to keep reminding people should demonstrate that this obvious RAW everyone thinks exists is maybe a bit more vague than you think. It's propped up by people talking about it online for ten years. But if you introduce someone to the game tomorrow, and they can cast Daylight, and they know a vampire is susceptible, they're going to make that assumption.

And you are going to have to say "Actually, because the Daylight spell doesn't say you create daylight, it doesn't create daylight". And if they think that's a little confusing, they would be correct. And telling someone "In order to know what this spell does, you have to go look at what these other spells do" is nonsensical.

The issue with Daylight and players being confused isn't due to RAW being vague, the confusion is the name of the spell. Its just like how players and DMs I play with both get confused when I cast Chill Touch until they remember its a Ranged Spell that deals Necrotic Damage instead of a Touch spell that deals Cold Damage.

And you don't have to tell people they have to look at these other spells to understand, you simply have to tell them that the spell doesn't specifically make sunlight in the description, and people are fine with that. They might sigh and say the name is a bit misleading, but they accept that the spell doesn't make sunlight because it doesn't say it makes sunlight. That's not an issue with RAW so much as just poor naming.

It's just probing where you guys abandon your positions. The idea that you can't draw from the real world seems pretty extreme to me, and a wall of fire without flame is pretty funny.

Sure it has flames, but they are not regular flames. They don't act like normal fire because the spell doesn't say it burns things like other, similar spells do. Again, look at Create Bonfire. It specifies that it sets things on fire, Wall of Fire does not, therefore Wall of Fire would not set things on fire. The two are pretty similar spells in such that they fill an area with magical fire and they both last longer than 1 or 2 rounds, but only one will set things on fire.

The point is that some people think there is a base way the game would be played by a perfectly neutral arbiter DM that is simply going by the rules as they are written in the books. That if you pose this robot DM with the question "Would Tidal Wave impact a Wall of Fire?" it would say "no" every time because that is what the rules say.

But the rules don't say that.

The rules also don't say the two spells interact in any way. Because in order for them to do so, they both need to have special requirements. In the case of Wall of Fire, it would need a sentence that says it can be put out by some amount of water, but it doesn't so it can;t be extinguished by any amount of water.

This is a perfectly fine way to adjudicate it. My point though is that this isn't RAW.

It follows the same logic that RAW tends to use with these sorts of interactions. Its just like the question of "Is this a magical effect". Is that little list of questions RAW? No, but it follows the same line of reasoning used by RAW.

Is the word "always" in the spell description?

Ohh, my mistake, the word used is "any". "The target rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with the phantasm", not always. Which does change up the spell a little bit...but the end result remains the same. The target is going to rationalize any illogical outcomes, no matter what they are, because "any" would include those outcomes.

Again, you’re far outside RAW.

The wall of fire is created a single time. It is not created every turn; it doesn’t heal; it doesn’t reform.

Tidal Wave, which is a magic effect by the way, the inscrutable wonky thing that we can’t know how it really works, puts out unprotected fires. That big wall of fire is unprotected, as in not physically sheltered to prevent contact with the water. The magical tidal wave that puts out fires will put out the wall of fire.

And then it’s gone. Nothing “energizes” it to return.

Spells do what they say they do. Tidal wave puts out fires. Wall of fire isn’t protected unless it says it is. It doesn’t, therefore tidal wave puts it out.

This is all raw reasoning used in this thread.

Question for you, does Gust of Wind, which also states it puts out unprotected flames, put out a Wall of Fire? By your reading of RAW, it does. Also, do Tidal Wave and Gust of Wind instantly put out a fire elemental, since those are not protected flames?

[Keltest]

Again, you’re far outside RAW.

The wall of fire is created a single time. It is not created every turn; it doesn’t heal; it doesn’t reform.

Tidal Wave, which is a magic effect by the way, the inscrutable wonky thing that we can’t know how it really works, puts out unprotected fires. That big wall of fire is unprotected, as in not physically sheltered to prevent contact with the water. The magical tidal wave that puts out fires will put out the wall of fire.

And then it’s gone. Nothing “energizes” it to return.

Spells do what they say they do. Tidal wave puts out fires. Wall of fire isn’t protected unless it says it is. It doesn’t, therefore tidal wave puts it out.

This is all raw reasoning used in this thread.

It doesnt heal, reform or return because it doesn't go away in the first place. If water was enough to put out WoF, it would have said so.

[Aimeryan]

Tidal Wave doesn’t say it is limited to non magical fires, therefore it isn’t.

Except it doesn't call out magical fire at all. This is like saying Tidal Wave extinguishes life too, or iron, or crystals, or..., because it doesn't say it doesn't.

Magical Fire =/= Fire

Magical Fire is undefined; the only thing we know about it is how it works in a spell that calls it. Wall of Fire has this magical fire deal fire damage to creatures because the spell says it does, and the amount is based on the spell. The spell does not deal fire damage to objects. The spell does not set objects alight. The spell does not shed light. The spell is opaque. The spell's magical fire lasts for the duration.

[Theodoxus]

I mean, if Daylight and Chill Touch are misnomers, perhaps Wall of Fire is too, and it should have been called Wall of Toasting instead, since it pretty much acts as the heating element of a toaster oven, only with a permeable (because magic) reflecting dish on the 'cool' side.

So, Greater Light, Necrotic No-Heal Flying Fist, and Wall of Toasting. Ok, I'm done.

[GeneralVryth]

I don't know where this opacity this with wall of fire came from. But I imagine if you ask most whether they think you would be able to see through a wall of fire, they would likely say no.

As another example this certainly doesn't appear see-though and I bet most would call it a wall of fire:
https://youtu.be/yRw4ZRqmxOc?t=74

Anyways, I tend to find myself agreeing with Samurai and Blatant Beast. I think in general being overly legalistic sucks the fun out the game. The vast majority of spells are pretty clear on what they do at a high level, and then they provide rules for the most common case. But the ability to be creative is one of the main advantages of having a human DM a game. So things that try and restrict that whether "RAW"* (and man I hate that phrase) or not are not good for the game.

As a general aside "Rules as written" being gospel, is just plain dumb. Documents the size of of the PHB much less all of the game rules of D&D always have mistakes or things that could be better worded or clarified (for example I am not convinced Daylight wasn't meant to be sunlight). The only way to really know is to get an author to clarify what they think, and they may not have thought about it one way in the first place (and you may not even agree with them). What it should be is "Rules as guidelines" a place to start, from there do what makes sense and feels right for your game/world.

[JackPhoenix]

I don't know where this opacity this with wall of fire came from.

From the spell's description.

[sithlordnergal]

From the spell's description.

I think he meant people thinking walls of fire aren't opaque IRL. Cause you really can't just see through a massive amount of fire.4

I mean, if Daylight and Chill Touch are misnomers, perhaps Wall of Fire is too, and it should have been called Wall of Toasting instead, since it pretty much acts as the heating element of a toaster oven, only with a permeable (because magic) reflecting dish on the 'cool' side.

So, Greater Light, Necrotic No-Heal Flying Fist, and Wall of Toasting. Ok, I'm done.

...I'm stealing Necrotic No-Heal Flying Fist when I make a Shadow Monk/Necromancer. Just so ya know.

[GeneralVryth]

I think he meant people thinking walls of fire aren't opaque IRL. Cause you really can't just see through a massive amount of fire.4

That is exactly what I meant. While fire may not be opaque in the traditional sense, most things a lay person are going to call a "Wall of Fire" are opaque for all practical purposes. Hence the link as an example.