Counterspelled Booming Blade

[Keltest]

What allows you to make a melee attack is the basic rules. Anyone can take a dagger and make a melee attack. I think the point I was trying to make sailed past you on that one.
1.You don't need to be casting a spell to make a melee attack.
2. If order for a given melee attack to get the magical rider on it, you have to cast one of those two cantrips.


Not that hard to parse.

Again, the spells are badly written.

Interestingly, if your PC has a butter knife worth at least one silver piece - as it is written now - and you have that cantrip, you can use that improvised weapon to make this work. Great way to ruin a dinner party.

As opposed to casting Fire Bolt which would ruin dinner without even needing the knife, and set the table on fire to boot? The Tasha's versions at least are pretty straightforward here. I think I at least need you to explain what is badly written about them.

[Psyren]

No, you need rules, or situational limits. (“Hey do you think the King will mind if we torch the throne room with a fireball? Yes? Ok”)

We have rules. And implementing "situational limits" is also known as "designing an encounter."

There is something about needing to inflate the damage in order to halve it that I find aesthetically displeasing.

I'm not "inflating" anything - I'm using the printed Improvising Damage value from the table in the DMG, which you're supposed to use for things like jumping into a volcano vent.

[diplomancer]

What allows you to make a melee attack is the basic rules. Anyone can take a dagger and make a melee attack. I think the point I was trying to make sailed past you on that one.
1.You don't need to be casting a spell to make a melee attack.
2. If order for a given melee attack to get the magical rider on it, you have to cast one of those two cantrips.


Not that hard to parse.

Again, the spells are badly written.

Interestingly, if your PC has a butter knife worth at least one silver piece - as it is written now - and you have that cantrip, you can use that improvised weapon to make this work. Great way to ruin a dinner party.

In the basic rules, what allows you to make a melee attack is taking the Attack Action (or other bonus actions/reactions that allow such). Anyone can make a melee attack, but not if they choose to take the Dodge Action, for instance. But the person who used Booming Blade did not take the Attack Action, but the Cast a Spell Action. Ordinarily, you can't take the Cast a Spell Action and also make a melee weapon attack on the same Action, unless the spell says so. But if you take the Cast a Spell Action and the spell gets cancelled...

...Why? Those of us on the side of the argument that think magical fire and mundane fire aren't identical, have no reason to conclude that being underwater affects them both identically.

Sure, and nothing stops you from running it like this at your table. But there is nothing in RAW that determines it to be like this. And the fact that there are rules that say they work differently in a specific environment (the vacuum of Spelljammer Wildspace) does not allow you to conclude that they also work differently in an entirely different environment, specially when there are rules about those other environments, in the core book none the less, that don't mention such differences.

And I'd really like someone to address my argument about Lesser Restoration and Blinding Smite, and if you agree that Lesser Restoration indeed cures the Blindness of the Blinding Smite even without addressing the spell specifically why does the Tidal Wave extinguishing unprotected flames does not extinguish the unprotected flames of Wall of Fire, just because it does not address the spell specifically.

Perhaps relevant to this discussion: Jeremy Crawford has actually stated that Disintegrate works on Forcecage, even if neither Forcecage or Disintegrate mention each other directly.

This thread has been very informative for me, and has led me to realize that a lot of assumptions I had about the game have no basis in the RAW. Disintegrate not working on a Force Cage was one of them, for instance.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ordinarily, you can't take the Cast a Spell Action and also make a melee weapon attack on the same Action, unless the spell says so. But if you take the Cast a Spell Action and the spell gets cancelled...

And that's a part of the problem with both of these cantrips. You are actually doing two actions with one cantrip: you are making a melee attack and casting a cantrip that takes one action.
Now, if the casting was with a bonus action...

As I mentioned further up, writing this more like Shillelagh would have been a better approach.

[Psyren]

Sure, and nothing stops you from running it like this at your table. But there is nothing in RAW that determines it to be like this. And the fact that there are rules that say they work differently in a specific environment (the vacuum of Spelljammer Wildspace) does not allow you to conclude that they also work differently in an entirely different environment, specially when there are rules about those other environments, in the core book none the less, that don't mention such differences.

The default rule is that the spell does what it says it does when you cast it. The burden of proof is on you to find a rule that says being underwater changes that, especially since the only printed effect being underwater actually has is resistance to the fire damage it produces.

And I'd really like someone to address my argument about Lesser Restoration and Blinding Smite, and if you agree that Lesser Restoration indeed cures the Blindness of the Blinding Smite even without addressing the spell specifically why does the Tidal Wave extinguishing unprotected flames does not extinguish the unprotected flames of Wall of Fire, just because it does not address the spell specifically.

Lesser Restoration specifically ends the condition so that's what I'd go with.

[Keltest]

Sure, and nothing stops you from running it like this at your table. But there is nothing in RAW that determines it to be like this. And the fact that there are rules that say they work differently in a specific environment (the vacuum of Spelljammer Wildspace) does not allow you to conclude that they also work differently in an entirely different environment, specially when there are rules about those other environments, in the core book none the less, that don't mention such differences.

And I'd really like someone to address my argument about Lesser Restoration and Blinding Smite, and if you agree that Lesser Restoration indeed cures the Blindness of the Blinding Smite even without addressing the spell specifically why does the Tidal Wave extinguishing unprotected flames does not extinguish the unprotected flames of Wall of Fire, just because it does not address the spell specifically.

Perhaps relevant to this discussion: Jeremy Crawford has actually stated that Disintegrate works on Forcecage, even if neither Forcecage or Disintegrate mention each other directly.

This thread has been very informative for me, and has led me to realize that a lot of assumptions I had about the game have no basis in the RAW. Disintegrate not working on a Force Cage was one of them, for instance.

You know, when somebody highlights the specific rules text they are using to reach their conclusion and you respond by going "thats not RAW" it gives the sense that you aren't actually that interested in their arguments. Its one thing to say "I disagree with your reading of the text." but claiming it isnt RAW implies you think we just made it up whole cloth.

At any rate, yes Lesser Restoration removes the blinded condition and it doesn't come back because the Smite spells only apply the condition the one hit per spell. If they make the save or the condition is removed, the spell doesn't "have" to end, the paladin can sit there concentrating on a spell that has discharged its effects for no reason if they want to.

[JackPhoenix]

What allows you to make a melee attack is the basic rules. Anyone can take a dagger and make a melee attack. I think the point I was trying to make sailed past you on that one.
1.You don't need to be casting a spell to make a melee attack.
2. If order for a given melee attack to get the magical rider on it, you have to cast one of those two cantrips.

1: Sure, if you take Attack action. But if you're taking an Attack action, you're not casting a spell (ignoring the Bladesinger Extra Attack), Booming Blade or anything else.
2: I'm not sure what are you trying to say. There's PLENTY of ways to get a magical rider on a melee weapon attack: Divine Favor, all flavors of smites, magic weapons....

Again, the spells are badly written.

They are not. There are issues with them, but the issues are not with the way they are written. Now, the old, now invalid version? Those had issues, that's why they were errata'd.

And that's a part of the problem with both of these cantrips. You are actually doing two actions with one cantrip: you are making a melee attack and casting a cantrip that takes one action.

No. You are not doing two actions with one cantrip, you're doing one: Casting a spell, and then doing what the spell's description says (which, in this case, involves making an attack) if you manage to cast it successfully. Just like when you're casting a Shocking Grasp. Or a Fire Bolt, which has a ranged attack instead. Or any other spell that includes attack. There's plenty of those. The problem is not with the spells.

Now, if the casting was with a bonus action...

THEN you'd have issues.

[diplomancer]

The default rule is that the spell does what it says it does when you cast it. The burden of proof is on you to find a rule that says being underwater changes that, especially since the only printed effect being underwater actually has is resistance to the fire damage it produces.

If that were the case, the Spelljammer rule you mentioned is superfluous. And by the way "the spell does what it says it does" is one of those assumptions I had before reading this thread that is not actually RAW. The game is silent on how to adjudicate casting spells in different environments. But then it's also silent on a lot of different things in different environments, not just spells. How to adjudicate those different interactions is left up to the DM, and it is false to say that a DM that does not allow Wall of Fire to work in water is "not following RAW", while the one who does allow it "is following RAW". There simply are no rules about this particular interaction (that there are no rules does NOT mean that allowing them to work fits the RAW while not allowing them to work does not fit the RAW. Silence means silence, inferences from silence can be valid, but are not conclusive), and DMs can decide how to do it in a way that best fits their group.

Lesser Restoration specifically ends the condition so that's what I'd go with.

And Tidal Wave specifically extinguishes unprotected flames, so that's what I'd go with. Is the difference because Lesser Restoration affects a condition defined by the rules of the game, while Tidal Wave doesn't? I don't see why that should make a difference, but even with that ruling, I'm glad that we agree that there is no need for a spell to reference another spell in order to completely remove its effects, even while the other spell is still active and running the clock on its duration. That's all that I want to be admitted from this interaction... that the duration of a spell has simply nothing to do with whether its effects can be removed through different methods, and that all "for the duration" statements in the rules have the actual unwritten but necessary "rebus sic standibus" clause.

At any rate, yes Lesser Restoration removes the blinded condition and it doesn't come back because the Smite spells only apply the condition the one hit per spell. If they make the save or the condition is removed, the spell doesn't "have" to end, the paladin can sit there concentrating on a spell that has discharged its effects for no reason if they want to.

Wall of Fire also only creates a Wall of Fire one time per spell, it does not recreate the Wall of Fire every round, like, for instance, Call Lightning recreates its Lightning effect every round. If the fire is extinguished, the spell doesn't have to end, the Wizard can sit there concentrating on a spell that has discharged its effects for no reason if they want to (he can even have a reason to do it, like the War Wizard example... but the effects would have been extinguished, even if the spell technically hasn't). In both cases, the spell creates an effect, and this effect can be removed in different ways, be it by spells, class features, or whatever, without the need for the spell to be referenced by those other features that remove the effects of the spell. In both cases, while technically the spell hasn't been dispelled, there would in most cases be no reason to keep the spell going.

So it is, in fact, false to say that the only way a spell can affect another spell is by directly referencing it in its text, we all agree that one spell can completely extinguish the effects of another spell without it having been explicitly mentioned in either of their descriptions, and we all agree that it is in fact false to say otherwise. Where we disagree is on the particular cases, not the general rule.

[Keltest]

Wall of Fire also only creates a Wall of Fire one time per spell, it does not recreate the Wall of Fire every round, like, for instance, Call Lightning recreates its Lightning effect every round. If the fire is extinguished, the spell doesn't have to end, the Wizard can sit there concentrating on a spell that has discharged its effects for no reason if they want to (he can even have a reason to do it, like the War Wizard example... but the effects would have been extinguished, even if the spell technically hasn't). In both cases, the spell creates an effect, and this effect can be removed in different ways, be it by spells, class features, or whatever, without the need for the spell to be referenced by those other features that remove the effects of the spell. In both cases, while technically the spell hasn't been dispelled, there would in most cases be no reason to keep the spell going.

So it is, in fact, false to say that the only way a spell can affect another spell is by directly referencing it in its text, we all agree that one spell can completely extinguish the effects of another spell without it having been explicitly mentioned in either of their descriptions, and we all agree that it is in fact false to say otherwise. Where we disagree is on the particular cases, not the general rule.

Yeah, but since wall of fire doesn't go out in the first place, it doesn't need to come back. Its just there. The magic keeps it there even in circumstances where ordinary fire would go out. Like being under water, or in a vacuum.

[diplomancer]

And that's a part of the problem with both of these cantrips. You are actually doing two actions with one cantrip: you are making a melee attack and casting a cantrip that takes one action.

Making a melee attack is not an Action, taking some specifc Actions (or Bonus Actions, or Reactions) allow you to make a melee attack. When you cast Steel Wind Strike you're not taking 5 actions, you're taking the Cast a Spell action that allows you to make 5 melee attacks.

Yeah, but since wall of fire doesn't go out in the first place, it doesn't need to come back. Its just there. The magic keeps it there even in circumstances where ordinary fire would go out. Like being under water, or in a vacuum.

Which is ok to rule it like this, but it's not in the rules (apart from the specific Spelljammer vacuum rules). There are actual spells that say that they create flames that cannot be quenched (i.e, Continual Flame). Wall of Fire is not one of those spells.

And I still don't undestand why the magic "keeps the fire", even if it's quenched by the magical water of Tidal Wave, but does not "keep the blindness".

[Psyren]

If that were the case, the Spelljammer rule you mentioned is superfluous.

Sure, but it's useful to spell out anyway, especially since it works differently in 5e Spelljammer than in prior editions and 5e has the goal of bringing some of those legacy players back. Rules text being superfluous/redundant isn't a crime.

But then it's also silent on a lot of different things in different environments. How to adjudicate those different interactions is left up to the DM, and it is false to say that a DM that does not allow Wall of Fire to work in water is "not following RAW", while the one who does allow it "is following RAW".

Good thing I never said that then? Who are you arguing with here?

And Tidal Wave specifically extinguishes unprotected flames, so that's what I'd go with. Is the difference because Lesser Restoration affects a condition defined by the rules of the game, while Tidal Wave doesn't?

I mean there's all kinds of justifications a DM can use for treating them differently, such as the individual DM's definition of "unprotected flames", to the use of "ends" vs "extinguishes", to the discharge nature of Blinding Smite vs Wall of Fire's more continuous effect, and so on. Again though, nobody is saying you're wrong for Tidal Wave removing the effect for the remainder of the spell's duration, just that we are ruling differently.

[Keltest]

Which is ok to rule it like this, but it's not in the rules (apart from the specific Spelljammer vacuum rules). There are actual spells that say that they create flames that cannot be quenched (i.e, Continual Flame). Wall of Fire is not one of those spells.

And I still don't undestand why the magic "keeps the fire", even if it's quenched by the magical water of Tidal Wave, but does not "keep the blindness".

Mostly because lesser restoration doesn't have the caveat about "unprotected" blindness. It just removes it, period. Wall of Fire is protected by the spell.

[diplomancer]

Mostly because lesser restoration doesn't have the caveat about "unprotected" blindness. It just removes it, period. Wall of Fire is protected by the spell.

Just to be clear: You are saying that if Tidal Waves did not have the "unprotected" clause, you would rule that it extinguishes Wall of Fire? In that case, our difference is really only about what the meaning of what "unprotected flame" is, though I must say your meaning is, in my opinion, not what regular English would mean by "unprotected flame".

It would also contradict what you've said on this post:

Yall are giving me a headache. We know WoF doesn't act like mundane fire because the spell tells us all the ways it doesn't: only hot on one side, doesn't spread, and it exists in that spot for one minute or until the caster's concentration drops, whichever comes first. Period, full stop, do not pass go, that wall of fire is there until the spell ends, and nothing interacts with that except Dispel Magic, which can end the spell prematurely, or antimagic field, which suppresses the spell until the field goes away. Tidal Wave doesn't end the spell, ergo the wall of fire is still there.

All it takes for this post to be false is for there to be an effect that douses flames, without the caveat of "unprotected flame". Say, if there is an adventure where there is a dam and the text of the adventure says "if the dam is broken, it floods such and such an area, extinguishing all flames in it". Or if they write a spell that douses flames, even if it doesn't reference Wall of Fire.

The most important takeaway: spells (or other events in the game) can extinguish the effects of other spells without specifically being referenced to in either spell text. This is how the game is supposed to work. All spells or features come out with the clause rebus sic standibus.

[Dr.Samurai]

You know, when somebody highlights the specific rules text they are using to reach their conclusion and you respond by going "thats not RAW" it gives the sense that you aren't actually that interested in their arguments. Its one thing to say "I disagree with your reading of the text." but claiming it isnt RAW implies you think we just made it up whole cloth.

Respectfully though, when someone claims a RAW argument, and then has to start making a bunch of if/then statements and inferences and drawing from the absence of written rules, etc. that becomes a major bait and switch.

And throughout this thread it seems to me that the RAW argument is serving to preserve years of accepted online interpretations/rulings, instead of trying to actually argue what the "RAW" says. As an example, a lantern was specifically create to "protect" flames from wind and rain or other causes. So when the spell mentions unprotected flames, it is referencing flames that are not in an enclosure like a lantern that shields it from wind and water.

Your interpretation that "unprotected flames" cannot mean magical flames is an interpretation that isn't supported by the rules. I don't have an issue with your interpretation. I have an issue with you claiming it to be the rules as written.

[Keltest]

Just to be clear: You are saying that if Tidal Waves did not have the "unprotected" clause, you would rule that it extinguishes Wall of Fire? In that case, our difference is really only about what the meaning of what "unprotected flame" is, though I must say your meaning is, in my opinion, not what regular English would mean by "unprotected flame".

Sure. If it put out all fires, period, well, sorry Wall of Fire. Youre fire. As for regular english, we don't really have an analogous situation to wall of fire. Thats why it's magic.

[KorvinStarmast]

Making a melee attack is not an Action

Incorrect. Making a melee weapon attack takes an action: the Attack Action.

That is the general rule
It is only by exception (two weapon fighting rule for example, Specific over general) that making a melee weapon attack is handled by another rule.

As to: Steel Wind Strike. That is a 5th Level spell, and not appropriate for a discussion about a cantrip.

[Keltest]

Incorrect. Making a melee weapon attack takes an action: the Attack Action.

That is the general rule
It is only by exception (two weapon fighting rule for example, Specific over general) that making a melee weapon attack is handled by another rule.

As to: Steel Wind Strike. That is a 5th Level spell, and not appropriate for a discussion about a cantrip.

The Attack action is one action that allows you to make a melee weapon attack. It is not the only action to do so, and it isn't a case of specific trumping general to allow another action to also do so, because there is no rule that says the Attack action is the only way to make a melee weapon attack.

[diplomancer]

Incorrect. Making a melee weapon attack takes an action: the Attack Action.

I fail to understand you. Making the melee attack is not the Action, the Attack Action is the Action. And when you take that Action, you can make one weapon attack (or more if another feature allows it).

That is the general rule. It is only by exception (two weapon fighting rule for example, Specific over general) that making a melee weapon attack is handled by another rule.

Precisely. And Booming Blade is one of those rules that create an exception to the general rule "if you want to make a weapon attack, you should take the Attack Action", but when you do decide to use this cantrip, you're not taking the Attack Action, but the Cast a Spell action. If you allow the melee attack to take place even if the spell is counterspelled, you are effectively allowing the caster to switch from the Cast a Spell Action to the Attack Action (but one attack only always, kinda like the hasted Attack action), AFTER he had selected and used the Cast a Spell Action.

As to: Steel Wind Strike. That is a 5th Level spell, and not appropriate for a discussion about a cantrip.

Why exactly? In both cases, you're taking the Cast a Spell Action, and taking this action allows you to make one weapon attack (in the case of Booming Blade) or five spell attacks (in the case of Steel Wind Strike), and Counterspell stops both spells equally. Cantrips are spells.

[Aimeryan]

How to adjudicate those different interactions is left up to the DM, and it is false to say that a DM that does not allow Wall of Fire to work in water is "not following RAW", while the one who does allow it "is following RAW".

By that logic, every ruling is following RAW, since every ruling can include a superflous reason for why RAW is different in this case. Wall of Fire: XYZ, DM: "Not XYZ because that guys hair is black - I'm following RAW, la la la la la...".

No, RAW means the rules as written. If they are rules and they are written, those are the rules as written. Any rules not written are not the rules as written. Anything that does not follow the rules as written without a superior rule as written overriding is not following the rules as written. If a spell says it does X, then it does X, by the rules as written. If there is not a superior rule as written saying the spell does not do X when under Y circumstances then a ruling saying the spell does not do X under those Y circumstances is not following RAW.

[Dr.Samurai]

Saying that magic that explicitly creates fire is not creating fire but some strange version that doesn't behave like fire is not RAW.

[Rukelnikov]

By that logic, every ruling is following RAW, since every ruling can include a superflous reason for why RAW is different in this case. Wall of Fire: XYZ, DM: "Not XYZ because that guys hair is black - I'm following RAW, la la la la la...".

No, RAW means the rules as written. If they are rules and they are written, those are the rules as written. Any rules not written are not the rules as written. Anything that does not follow the rules as written without a superior rule as written overriding is not following the rules as written. If a spell says it does X, then it does X, by the rules as written. If there is not a superior rule as written saying the spell does not do X when under Y circumstances then a ruling saying the spell does not do X under those Y circumstances is not following RAW.

Exactly, that's why arguing Wall of Fire flames are somehow protected is not RAW.

[Psyren]

Saying that magic that explicitly creates fire is not creating fire but some strange version that doesn't behave like fire is not RAW.

And yet RAW is that magical fire burns in a vacuum while regular fire doesn't. So they're not the same. The only question then is determining exactly in which scenarios they differ.

As an example, a lantern was specifically create to "protect" flames from wind and rain or other causes. So when the spell mentions unprotected flames, it is referencing flames that are not in an enclosure like a lantern that shields it from wind and water.

And that's an entirely valid reading of "protected." But not the only one.

[Witty Username]

No, RAW means the rules as written. If they are rules and they are written, those are the rules as written. Any rules not written are not the rules as written. Anything that does not follow the rules as written without a superior rule as written overriding is not following the rules as written. If a spell says it does X, then it does X, by the rules as written. If there is not a superior rule as written saying the spell does not do X when under Y circumstances then a ruling saying the spell does not do X under those Y circumstances is not following RAW.

I feel that this is the time to remind everyone that magic items do not exist by RAW, as their creation process is impossible.

Point 1, magic items are not able to be created without a magical formula for the item.
Point 2, a magical formula is a magic item one rarity higher than the item associated.
Point 3, Legendary magic items do not have magical formulas.

So, in order to create a magical formula, you need a formula for it one rarity higher, hence all require legendary formulas which cannot exist and cannot be created. As such, by RAW, magic items don't exist.

[Dr.Samurai]

And yet RAW is that magical fire burns in a vacuum while regular fire doesn't. So they're not the same.

I think you're missing the point. They are not the same when the rules specifically tell us they are not the same.

Otherwise you can't claim you are arguing from RAW.

And that's an entirely valid reading of "protected." But not the only one.

Let me include the part you left you: I don't have an issue with your interpretation. I have an issue with you claiming it to be the rules as written.

So yes, there are interpretations. If someone says "this is my interpretation" I'm okay with that. It's when someone says "this is RAW" and it's nowhere to be found in the RAW that I take issue.

[Psyren]

I think you're missing the point. They are not the same when the rules specifically tell us they are not the same.

Otherwise you can't claim you are arguing from RAW.

I'm arguing from RAW when I say that Wall of Fire persists for its duration unless something breaks the caster's concentration or ends the spell. I provided the citation of "Duration" earlier for that reason.

Let me include the part you left you: I don't have an issue with your interpretation. I have an issue with you claiming it to be the rules as written.

So yes, there are interpretations. If someone says "this is my interpretation" I'm okay with that. It's when someone says "this is RAW" and it's nowhere to be found in the RAW that I take issue.

It's both. The RAW is that Wall of Fire lasts until it ends. The interpretation is that that extends to environments that would be atypical for mundane fire.

[Keltest]

I think you're missing the point. They are not the same when the rules specifically tell us they are not the same.

Otherwise you can't claim you are arguing from RAW.

Let me include the part you left you: I don't have an issue with your interpretation. I have an issue with you claiming it to be the rules as written.

So yes, there are interpretations. If someone says "this is my interpretation" I'm okay with that. It's when someone says "this is RAW" and it's nowhere to be found in the RAW that I take issue.

So you don't disagree with how we read the RAW, but you disagree that what we're reading is actually there?

[Theodoxus]

No. You are not doing two actions with one cantrip, you're doing one: Casting a spell, and then doing what the spell's description says (which, in this case, involves making an attack) if you manage to cast it successfully. Just like when you're casting a Shocking Grasp. Or a Fire Bolt, which has a ranged attack instead. Or any other spell that includes attack. There's plenty of those. The problem is not with the spells.

So, Shocking Grasp and Inflict Wounds, and any other cantrip/spell that requires touching someone with a hand should deal 1+STR mod damage on top of the spell damage? Sounds good to me. Monk/Clerics punching someone with Inflict Wounds running sounds pretty epic.

Saying that magic that explicitly creates fire is not creating fire but some strange version that doesn't behave like fire is not RAW.

Wall of Toasting would like some words with you for calling it 'strange'.

And that's an entirely valid reading of "protected." But not the only one.

Call me old fashioned... no, ignorant of the ways of lanterns, but I never put Lantern and unprotect flame together until this thread. I guess because the lanterns I used in my boy scout days were propane with mantles and there's no way those flames would survive being submerged ala Tidal Wave. Heck, the next most common lantern I had as a youth were hurricane lamps, and sure, they were ok in high winds, but again, come water? I wouldn't call them protected either. Especially the delicate glass chimneys... shattering under a deluge of water and you'd be lucky if the oil spreads and remains lit (or unlucky I suppose, if it's inside...)

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm arguing from RAW when I say that Wall of Fire persists for its duration unless something breaks the caster's concentration or ends the spell. I provided the citation of "Duration" earlier for that reason.

You're skipping around a bit here.

You are making the case that fire and magical fire are not the same, and pointing to Spelljammer as support of this.

I am saying that in order to argue from RAW, the rules have to tell us explicitly that it does or doesn't do something. So your spelljammer example is fine, assuming someone is using spelljammer. But it doesn't do anything to support that magical fire doesn't shed light, as an example, because it doesn't speak to that. Saying "well they're different in this one way according to spelljammer" doesn't mean they are different in all the ways you might want them to be.

It's both. The RAW is that Wall of Fire lasts until it ends. The interpretation is that that extends to environments that would be atypical for mundane fire.

It is an interpretation to say that a spell with a duration cannot be impacted by another spell unless it explicitly says so. It is an interpretation that "protected" means "by a spell's duration".

Tidal Wave says it extinguishes unprotected flames. In order to go against that RAW, you have to interpret that spell durations are intrinsically tied to their effects (the Conjure line of spells don't seem to support this, also see Lesser Restoration and Blinding Smite from Diplomancer's example), then say that spell durations can't be impacted by other spells, and also say that spell effects are "protected" by virtue of being magical effects of a spell.

None of this is actually stated anywhere in the RAW.

So you don't disagree with how we read the RAW, but you disagree that what we're reading is actually there?

I think what has been stated as RAW in this thread is an extremely generous use of the word.

As an example, the fact that the wall is made of fire does not mean that is sheds light to the RAW side. The fact that there aren't words written that say it sheds light is more definitive. This is not a "RAW" reading. The actual written rules tell us it is fire, which would mean it sheds light. That it doesn't shed light is unwritten. But the latter is being called RAW.

Call me old fashioned... no, ignorant of the ways of lanterns, but I never put Lantern and unprotect flame together until this thread. I guess because the lanterns I used in my boy scout days were propane with mantles and there's no way those flames would survive being submerged ala Tidal Wave. Heck, the next most common lantern I had as a youth were hurricane lamps, and sure, they were ok in high winds, but again, come water? I wouldn't call them protected either. Especially the delicate glass chimneys... shattering under a deluge of water and you'd be lucky if the oil spreads and remains lit (or unlucky I suppose, if it's inside...)

I mean... I'm quite sure this thread is the first time anyone has interpreted "protected" to mean "magical", so... there you are.

Though honestly I'm surprised to read this because this is what protected flames are IRL and Gust of Wind has this language in it, clearly indicating what is considered to be a protected flame: The gust disperses gas or vapor, and it extinguishes candles, torches, and similar unprotected flames in the area. It causes protected flames, such as those of lanterns, to dance wildly and has a 50 percent chance to extinguish them.

What else would people think a protected flame is?

[Theodoxus]

I find it odd that Gust of Wind has a 50% chance of dousing a lantern, but Tidal Wave has no chance... take a mundane campfire and aim a leafblower at it and tell me how long it takes to blow out. Then, instead, pour out a 5 gallon water bottle on the same fire and tell me how long it takes to get smothered.

Repeat the same with a hooded lantern. if the results aren't identical, I'll concede the point.

Now, this isn't the argument, but really, sometimes RAW is dumb.

This thread really does make the argument for RAG all the more.

[Dr.Samurai]

I agree, it is stupid lol.

Though the wording on Tidal Wave is that the water spreads out across the ground and puts out flames, so maybe it's meant to be like whatever water is still sort of splashing around after the deluge has gone by. But still, yeah, a deluge can't put out a hooded lantern, but the gust of wind might be able to.

If 5E were a teensy bit more granular it could benefit from a small section of general rules for fire magic.