Counterspelled Booming Blade

[Psyren]

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.

Correct, and that RAW is a data point that I'm ultimately using to support my ruling.

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.

That's true, but again, the RAW is that the spell lasts for its duration unless otherwise stated. That is another data point that ultimately I'm using to support my ruling.

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.

For the record, I'm not going against the extinguish line. I'm ruling that tidal wave extinguishes the flames and then they reappear immediately. That would satisfy both the Tidal Wave clause and the Wall of Fire duration by RAW. It wouldn't be particularly helpful for those folks who want Tidal Wave to defeat Wall of Fire of course.

[Blatant Beast]

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.

Psyren, I am talking about the Cauldron example, not the underwater vent.

A DM can set a fix damage amount for anything that is not in dispute.
A DM can say something does 48d10 damage, and then take average damage to get the result they want.

Unfortunately, I know how the sausage gets made, and I do not think it is pretty or elegant. As I said, it is a rules aesthetic concern, I have that I am sharing.
It is perfectly fine, if you do not share the concern.

I find it wonky that a person trapped in a cauldron of boiling water takes more damage with their head out of the cauldron then when completely submerged, by RAW.

It is a specific situation in which, if I were the Sage of Sage Advice, I would recommend people to feel free to override the general Underwater rules, and make a more specific ruling that better fits the cauldron of of boiling water scenario.

The slogan “Rulings not Rules” is a great summation of the fact that D&D games can be so diverse that using the text as written, can be the wrong call, and a DM should make a ruling for the specific circumstance.

I feel comfortable asserting that I think you are probably in general agreement with that sentiment. Theodoxus is absolutely correct, RAW is dumb, in the literal sense of the word…which is why DM exist, to make the Rules less Dumb, to not blindly adhere to the rules when they lead you off the broken bridge, metaphorically speaking.

What I wonder is, would those that are more focused on RAW only games, also make a DM judgement call that in the specific case of being completely submerged in a cauldron of boiling water, as the Rules as Written are deficient for that case.

[Theodoxus]

"Rulings not Rules" is just another way to say Rules as Guidelines, and boy do I wish that phrasing had been around in 2014! You take what the rules say about a thing (as much or as little as is provided) and decide if what is written works (and makes sense) for your current scenario, or if you can extrapolate it so that the rules abiding adjacent to the scenario still work in the greater context.

Then (and ideally, only then) if you're still confused and your table hasn't been helpful in resolving it, should you come to a forum like this and ask for others guidance on the issue.

I find it fascinating that people say you can't win an argument on the internet; or that trying to change someone's mind is a fools errand. I hadn't put too much stock into 'RAW only', but I came into this thread with a particular mindset, even if I didn't know it, and have come out with a different one. I'm probably a bit more 'centrist' in my viewpoint on this matter; I prefer to have solid grounding rules to walk on - but I'm ok with extrapolating reasonable rulings when all around is quicksand. I do think that trying to convince someone on the negatives (WoF doesn't shed light because it doesn't say it does) is a bit foolhardy. Stop trying to make Fetch a thing! Just say 'in my ruling, since it doesn't say it creates light, it's a lightless wall' - that's fine. Saying 'if you cast WoF in a pitch black room, it remains pitch black, that's RAW' - well, you'll be sad then when I rule otherwise I guess. And that's ok too, but heating elements glow, so my Wall of Toasting emits light, damn it.

[Psyren]

Psyren, I am talking about the Cauldron example, not the underwater vent.

I was talking about the vent. Boiling in a cauldron I would expect to be less damaging than swimming in a volcanic plume, even if both are underwater.

I find it wonky that a person trapped in a cauldron of boiling water takes more damage with their head out of the cauldron then when completely submerged, by RAW.

Even if you rule that one invokes the resistance while the other doesn't for some reason, it doesn't follow that a volcano will do less damage than mere boiling water. You have the tools to avoid the incongruous result rather than simply throwing up your hands and declaring it to be "wonky."

[Dr.Samurai]

I find it fascinating that people say you can't win an argument on the internet; or that trying to change someone's mind is a fools errand. I hadn't put too much stock into 'RAW only', but I came into this thread with a particular mindset, even if I didn't know it, and have come out with a different one.

I very much agree with this sentiment.

There are certain traps I think that are easy to fall into when playing the game.

My table got caught in the trap of "if I let you do that, it undermines the feature of this other class", and I accepted the ruling because it seemed sensible, though it didn't sit right. It wasn't until it came up in a discussion on this forum that someone (Psyren, in fact) mentioned "well, that class gets to do it in this defined way, without a check, but that doesn't mean that others can't attempt to do something similar with some sort of check or roll" (I'm paraphrasing).

Mind blown. And seemed super obvious after reading it.

So I brought that back to my table and everyone agreed. But it was one of those things that if you hear the former ruling on it first, you might think that's the right way to go.

I'm surprised that there isn't a video that sort of goes over a lot of these common issues and explains to lean into the intent/rulings/approach of the game/design. Maybe there is and I haven't seen it, but could be very useful.

[Amnestic]

My table got caught in the trap of "if I let you do that, it undermines the feature of this other class", and I accepted the ruling because it seemed sensible, though it didn't sit right. It wasn't until it came up in a discussion on this forum that someone (Psyren, in fact) mentioned "well, that class gets to do it in this defined way, without a check, but that doesn't mean that others can't attempt to do something similar with some sort of check or roll" (I'm paraphrasing).

Now we just need to settle the argument of what Int (Arcana) DC I need to hit on my fifth level samurai fighter to cast Fireball.

[Theodoxus]

Hmm... casting a spell without a spell slot, nor a magic item designed for it?

That's gonna be an impossible task in most situations. I could see a case where someone else is providing you the spell slot - the power to do the casting - somehow (I leave that mechanic up to the player asking to do it). And then the INT (Arcana) check would be to see if you've watched enough of your friendly neighborhood wizard in how to actually conjure up that little bead of doom.

In my personal homebrew campaign word, magic is just code to influence quintillions of nanobots that actually form the effects. Wizards learn the code; sorcerers inherently know how to manipulate it, etc. A Fighter could conceivably steal someone else's datapad and release the code that generates a fireball - but without the right key to let the nanites know you're a codeworker, they'll wreck havoc on your system, yanking the energy needed to form that ball of fire.. essentially, dealing as much damage to you as the fireball does to someone else. I suppose an Arcana check could be used to try to fake the key... but it likewise would be nigh impossible. A DC 30 at least. YMMV.

[Dr.Samurai]

Now we just need to settle the argument of what Int (Arcana) DC I need to hit on my fifth level samurai fighter to cast Fireball.

Fair point. In the case of my table, it was jumping down (like parkour) vs the monk's slow fall. All characters can jump, and the vertical jump doesn't specify that you have to jump "up". But the DM told me if I was jumping "down" it would be like the monk's feature.

I think there is a difference between an action approximating something a different class feature can do, and straight up rolling to have a class feature. Like I don't think you can roll to gain weapon proficiencies, and I don't think you could roll to gain spellcasting.

[KorvinStarmast]

"Rulings not Rules" is just another way to say Rules as Guidelines,

Captain Jack Sparrow, and I, thank you.

And that's ok too, but heating elements glow, so my Wall of Toasting emits light, damn it.

Is that an Artificer spell?

Hmm... casting a spell without a spell slot, nor a magic item designed for it?

I guess Chapter 10 and Chapter 11 don't exist, nor do the Spell Casting Features in each class description.

Now we just need to settle the argument of what Int (Arcana) DC I need to hit on my fifth level samurai fighter to cast Fireball.

Nope. Check Chapter 7. You only make an ability check if something is possible. Long jumping to the moon is not possible; there is no DC to set

Mind you, if the Samurai has a scroll that might be an interesting avenue to explore via an INT(Arcana) check...depends.
I'd offer disadvantage if allowed, but, there's a problem imbedded with that from the get go.
If I am a Cleric and I try to read a Wizard scroll, I can't understand it.
Not sure how a Fighter would fare any better.
See Chapter 10 and Chapter 11, and also see DMG.

Fair point.

The fireball one is not a fair point.

[Dr.Samurai]

The fireball one is not a fair point.

Insofar as I could have offered more context/explanation to prevent that inference in the first place .

[JackPhoenix]

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.

That was, in fact, something you could do with touch spells in 3.x. Of course, back then, touch AC was a thing, so attacking regular AC was strictly worse option. 5e doesn't allow that, and you can't hold the charge like you could then. I guess it could work with Vampiric Touch.

[diplomancer]

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.

This bears repeating, specially the part of "the RAW argument is serving to preserve years of accepted online interpretations/rulings, instead of trying to actually argue what the "RAW" says." I had taken for granted, for instance, that Disintegrate did not work on Forcecage, because one spell does not mention the other. It does work on Forcecage, and there is no need for the spells to mention each other directly for that to be the case. And this is both RAW and confirmed RAI, as long as something allows the caster to see the Forcecage. There is, in fact, no rule that says that spells only interact with each other when they mention each other directly. If the effects of a spell are such that they interact with the effects of another spell, then the two spells interact. And this is so obvious that in fact everyone agrees with it (for instance Fireball can easily "end" Conjure Animals, right? Or Lesser Restoration can "end" Blinding Smite), until they start with the fallacious thinking "wall of force mentions disintegrate, forcecage doesn't, that means that disintegrate does not work on forcecage".

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.

Ok. I'm going to cite some rules text here, and I'd like some rules text about water ending any of these effects, that would not apply to fire spells:

This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames.

A bullseye lantern casts bright light in a 60-foot cone and dim light for an additional 60 feet. Once lit, it burns for 6 hours on a flask (1 pint) of oil.

For 1 hour, a candle sheds bright light in a 5-foot radius and dim light for an additional 5 feet.

A hooded lantern casts bright light in a 30-foot radius and dim light for an additional 30 feet. Once lit, it burns for 6 hours on a flask (1 pint) of oil. As an action, you can lower the hood, reducing the light to dim light in a 5-foot radius.

A lamp casts bright light in a 15-foot radius and dim light for an additional 30 feet. Once lit, it burns for 6 hours on a flask (1 pint) of oil.

A torch burns for 1 hour, providing bright light in a 20-foot radius and dim light for an additional 20 feet. If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage.

And those are the effects of water that I could find in the game rules:

Heavy Precipitation:
Everything within an area of heavy rain or heavy snowfall is lightly obscured, and creatures in the area have disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on sight. Heavy rain also extinguishes open flames and imposes disadvantage on Wisdom (Perception) checks that rely on hearing.

Extinguishes "open" flames. So I guess the raging Wall of Fire counts as closed flames, because the magic "closes" it.

Decanter of Endless Water:

This stoppered flask sloshes when shaken, as if it contains water. The decanter weighs 2 pounds.

You can use an action to remove the stopper and speak one of three command words, whereupon an amount of fresh water or salt water (your choice) pours out of the flask. The water stops pouring out at the start of your next turn. Choose from the following options:

"Stream" produces 1 gallon of water.
"Fountain" produces 5 gallons of water.
"Geyser" produces 30 gallons of water that gushes forth in a geyser 30 feet long and 1 foot wide. As a bonus action while holding the decanter, you can aim the geyser at a creature you can see within 30 feet of you. The target must succeed on a DC 13 Strength saving throw or take 1d4 bludgeoning damage and fall prone. Instead of a creature, you can target an object that isn't being worn or carried and that weighs no more than 200 pounds. The object is either knocked over or pushed up to 15 feet away from you.

Does absolutely nothing to any fire, be it magical or otherwise.

Holy Water

As an action, you can splash the contents of this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. In either case, make a ranged attack against a target creature, treating the holy water as an improvised weapon. If the target is a fiend or undead, it takes 2d6 radiant damage.

Great against undead. Doesn't help against a candle. You can't even throw it at a candle or splash its contents on a candle, you can only target a creature with it.

Create or Destroy Water:

Create Water. You create up to 10 gallons of clean water within range in an open container. Alternatively, the water falls as rain in a 30-foot cube within range, extinguishing exposed flames in the area.

So yet another thing that magic does to Wall of Fire, apart from protecting it and keeping it closed, is to make it unexposed. That's a lot of things that the magic is doing without mentioning it directly in the actual written rules of the spell.

From Watery Sphere:

When the spell ends, the sphere falls to the ground and extinguishes all normal flames within 30 feet of it. Any creature restrained by the sphere is knocked prone in the space where it falls. The water then vanishes.

Finallly! A spell in the game that actually treats normal flames differently from magical flames! As far as I know, it is the only spell that explicitly, without the need for any particular interpretation, that, in fact, does not affect Wall of Fire. By the logic being expounded by many in this thread, the fact that this spell calls out "normal flames" while other spells don't would mean that other spells affect magical flames.

And to round up, from the description of the Water Elemental, that affects (or not) magical and non-magical flame equally:

"A water elemental is a cresting wave that rolls across the ground, becoming nearly invisible as it courses through a larger body of water. It engulfs creatures that stand against it, filling their mouths and lungs as easily as it smothers flame". Ironically, while its mechanical description shows how it can drown creatures, it says nothing about doing anything to flames, be they magical or non-magical. The same applies to all other elemental creatures made from water, you can thrust a Torch at them for 1 fire damage without extinguishing the Torch.

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.

And that same reasoning applies to Blinding Smite.

That's true, but again, the RAW is that the spell lasts for its duration unless otherwise stated. That is another data point that ultimately I'm using to support my ruling.

If you mean "unless otherwise stated by the text of the spell itself", your argument proves too much, and Lesser Restoration does not end Blinding Smite, or ends the Blindness but it comes back immediately. If you mean "unless otherwise stated somewhere else, with no need of referencing the spell specifically, just by dealing directly with its effects", I'd agree with that, and point out that Tidal Wave states that it extinguishes unprotected flames.

For the record, I'm not going against the extinguish line. I'm ruling that tidal wave extinguishes the flames and then they reappear immediately. That would satisfy both the Tidal Wave clause and the Wall of Fire duration by RAW. It wouldn't be particularly helpful for those folks who want Tidal Wave to defeat Wall of Fire of course.

But you're interpreting differently the interaction between Lesser Restoration and Blinding Smite, even though both the Blindness and the Wall of Fire are the spell effects that "lasts for the duration of the spell".

"Rulings not Rules" is just another way to say Rules as Guidelines, and boy do I wish that phrasing had been around in 2014! You take what the rules say about a thing (as much or as little as is provided) and decide if what is written works (and makes sense) for your current scenario, or if you can extrapolate it so that the rules abiding adjacent to the scenario still work in the greater context.

Then (and ideally, only then) if you're still confused and your table hasn't been helpful in resolving it, should you come to a forum like this and ask for others guidance on the issue.

I find it fascinating that people say you can't win an argument on the internet; or that trying to change someone's mind is a fools errand. I hadn't put too much stock into 'RAW only', but I came into this thread with a particular mindset, even if I didn't know it, and have come out with a different one. I'm probably a bit more 'centrist' in my viewpoint on this matter; I prefer to have solid grounding rules to walk on - but I'm ok with extrapolating reasonable rulings when all around is quicksand. I do think that trying to convince someone on the negatives (WoF doesn't shed light because it doesn't say it does) is a bit foolhardy. Stop trying to make Fetch a thing! Just say 'in my ruling, since it doesn't say it creates light, it's a lightless wall' - that's fine. Saying 'if you cast WoF in a pitch black room, it remains pitch black, that's RAW' - well, you'll be sad then when I rule otherwise I guess. And that's ok too, but heating elements glow, so my Wall of Toasting emits light, damn it.

I very much agree with this sentiment.

There are certain traps I think that are easy to fall into when playing the game.

My table got caught in the trap of "if I let you do that, it undermines the feature of this other class", and I accepted the ruling because it seemed sensible, though it didn't sit right. It wasn't until it came up in a discussion on this forum that someone (Psyren, in fact) mentioned "well, that class gets to do it in this defined way, without a check, but that doesn't mean that others can't attempt to do something similar with some sort of check or roll" (I'm paraphrasing).

Mind blown. And seemed super obvious after reading it.

So I brought that back to my table and everyone agreed. But it was one of those things that if you hear the former ruling on it first, you might think that's the right way to go.

I'm surprised that there isn't a video that sort of goes over a lot of these common issues and explains to lean into the intent/rulings/approach of the game/design. Maybe there is and I haven't seen it, but could be very useful.

Yes to both of these posts. There are a lot of assumptions of online discussion that simply ain't so, and this thread made me realize it.

[Psyren]

And that same reasoning applies to Blinding Smite.

...

If you mean "unless otherwise stated by the text of the spell itself", your argument proves too much, and Lesser Restoration does not end Blinding Smite, or ends the Blindness but it comes back immediately. If you mean "unless otherwise stated somewhere else, with no need of referencing the spell specifically, just by dealing directly with its effects", I'd agree with that, and point out that Tidal Wave states that it extinguishes unprotected flames.

...

But you're interpreting differently the interaction between Lesser Restoration and Blinding Smite, even though both the Blindness and the Wall of Fire are the spell effects that "lasts for the duration of the spell".

I know I'm ruling the two differently. I already gave justifications for that, which you didn't reply to.

Yes to both of these posts. There are a lot of assumptions of online discussion that simply ain't so, and this thread made me realize it.

I'm glad we could spend 19 pages aligning around the idea that 5e is based on rulings, not rules

[diplomancer]

I know I'm ruling the two differently. I already gave justifications for that, which you didn't reply to.

Your justifications, however, had no connection to your other argument about spell durations and how spells just go on for their duration unless something in their description says otherwise. And while Blinding Smite has a "discharge effect" to blind the target, it has no such effect in keeping the blindness ongoing, that is the pure magic of it and the spell description. And we KNOW that it is the pure magic of it that keeps it ongoing, and not just the already discharged bright light, because the blindness can be disrupted by attacking the caster's concentration- which would not be the case otherwise (like, for instance, in the case of Synaptic Static, which can't even be dispelled).

There are, in fact, two arguments being made:

argument 1- Tidal Wave does not douse the flames of Wall of Fire, because those flames are protected by the spell, and Tidal Wave explicitly only extinguishes unprotected flames. I find this argument exceedingly odd and almost humpty-dumpty like. But I accept it as a possible and valid interpretation.

argument 2- Tidal Wave does not douse the flames of Wall of Fire, because a spell's effects always lasts for its duration, regardless of what happens to those effects, unless something in the spell's description says otherwise. This is simply false, and not supported by the rules. The single counter example of Blinding Smite proves that it's false. Whether someone rules that the effects of a spell were disrupted somehow will be dealt on a case by case basis by different DMs, but that you CAN extinguish the effects of a spell without referencing the spell directly or anything in the spell's description that says how to disrupt it has been conclusively proven by the Blinding Smite example.

I'm glad we could spend 19 pages aligning around the idea that 5e is based on rulings, not rules

That's our forum for you :)

[Amnestic]

Fair point. In the case of my table, it was jumping down (like parkour) vs the monk's slow fall. All characters can jump, and the vertical jump doesn't specify that you have to jump "up". But the DM told me if I was jumping "down" it would be like the monk's feature.

I think there is a difference between an action approximating something a different class feature can do, and straight up rolling to have a class feature. Like I don't think you can roll to gain weapon proficiencies, and I don't think you could roll to gain spellcasting.

But if the effect is the same then what's the difference?

You said "jumping down (parkour)" vs. "Slow Fall" when the end goal is the same: Reduce fall damage. One just has a name on it, because it's "always on". That was the revelation you hit: It's "okay" to emulate a class feature with an ability check, because the class gets it all the time without rolling.

So how's it different to "unleashing a burst of magical flame" vs. Fireball? Is it purely vibes based? If spellcasting's off the table...Wild Shape? Channel Divinity? Stunning Strike?

Nope. Check Chapter 7. You only make an ability check if something is possible.

Why isn't it possible? Where's that written?

If I can emulate a superhuman feat of agility by succeeding on a skill check, why can't I emulate a supernatural feat of magic by doing the same thing? The world is magical, after all.

Would the answer change if I were a race that had an innate cantrip such as high elf or tiefling?

[Aimeryan]

Hah, Dr.Samurai is really going to hate this one:
Flames are the visible gaseous part of a fire. Now, Wall of Fire never says it makes flame, nor any gas, and the requirements for the spell do not require gas. However, lets set that part aside.
Flames are the visible gaseous part of a fire. Alright, Wall of Fire is now invisible, thanks to Tidal Wave. You move into the area? Please make a Dexterity Saving Throw.

[Psyren]

Your justifications, however, had no connection to your other argument about spell durations and how spells just go on for their duration unless something in their description says otherwise.

Of course they're connected; that baseline is why I would want/need a justification to treat them differently in the first place.

And while Blinding Smite has a "discharge effect" to blind the target, it has no such effect in keeping the blindness ongoing, that is the pure magic of it and the spell description. And we KNOW that it is the pure magic of it that keeps it ongoing, and not just the already discharged bright light, because the blindness can be disrupted by attacking the caster's concentration- which would not be the case otherwise (like, for instance, in the case of Synaptic Static, which can't even be dispelled).

And if you want to rule either that the blindness comes back or that TW ends the fire spell, those are perfectly fine. I'm just explaining why I would treat the two interactions differently at my table. The RAW is a starting point that I use to ultimately support my ruling, not the be-all/end-all.

EDIT to your edit:

There are, in fact, two arguments being made:

argument 1- Tidal Wave does not douse the flames of Wall of Fire, because those flames are protected by the spell, and Tidal Wave explicitly only extinguishes unprotected flames. I find this argument exceedingly odd and almost humpty-dumpty like. But I accept it as a possible and valid interpretation.

argument 2- Tidal Wave does not douse the flames of Wall of Fire, because a spell's effects always lasts for its duration, regardless of what happens to those effects, unless something in the spell's description says otherwise. This is simply false, and not supported by the rules. The single counter example of Blinding Smite proves that it's false. Whether someone rules that the effects of a spell were disrupted somehow will be dealt on a case by case basis by different DMs, but that you CAN extinguish the effects of a spell without referencing the spell directly or anything in the spell's description that says how to disrupt it has been conclusively proven by the Blinding Smite example.

Mine was neither of these. I did douse/extinguish the flames, it just didn't last.

Question: how would you rule it if only part of the wall of fire overlapped with the tidal wave area? At your table, would the wall be extinguished entirely, just the overlapping portion, or would it remain completely intact?

[Dr.Samurai]

But if the effect is the same then what's the difference?

You said "jumping down (parkour)" vs. "Slow Fall" when the end goal is the same: Reduce fall damage.

To clarify, the end goal, for me at the time, was simply not to fall prone. I wouldn't mind the damage.

One just has a name on it, because it's "always on". That was the revelation you hit: It's "okay" to emulate a class feature with an ability check, because the class gets it all the time without rolling.

So how's it different to "unleashing a burst of magical flame" vs. Fireball? Is it purely vibes based? If spellcasting's off the table...Wild Shape? Channel Divinity? Stunning Strike?

Yes, vibes. Everyone can jump. My leonin barbarian has an 8ft vertical leap. The rules say the DM can allow for an Athletics check to jump further than your normal Strength would allow. I asked if I could jump down and make a roll, and if that would allow me to land on my feet. The DM said no specifically because of the monk's Slow Fall feature.

But yes, vibes. Totally vibes. Makes sense that someone trained in Athletics and able to jump well could jump down from something as well. Doesn't make as much sense that a samurai fighter would just be able to cast fireball all of a sudden.

Makes sense that someone trained in Deception and the Disguise Kit could make false identities, even if the Assassin subclass can already do that as a feature.

[Amnestic]

But yes, vibes. Totally vibes. Makes sense that someone trained in Athletics and able to jump well could jump down from something as well. Doesn't make as much sense that a samurai fighter would just be able to cast fireball all of a sudden.

Would it be all of a sudden if it required proficiency in arcana? If I was a high elf with the Firebolt cantrip? What about a third level wizard doing it? What about a fifth level cleric? Or an Eldritch Knight? If I'm a fifth level warlock and my buddy casts Fireball, can I make an arcana check to emulate it and cast it with a spell slot, even though it's not on my list?

I'm not necessarily aiming for an answer from you specifically, to be clear, but given the conversation I'm tossing it out there for others to ruminate and reflect on.

[JackPhoenix]

I find it wonky that a person trapped in a cauldron of boiling water takes more damage with their head out of the cauldron then when completely submerged, by RAW.

Do you have any evidence of that claim? I don't remember any RAW on being trapped in a cauldron of boiling water, and the only similar example from the books suggests otherwise.

[Psyren]

Would it be all of a sudden if it required proficiency in arcana? If I was a high elf with the Firebolt cantrip? What about a third level wizard doing it? What about a fifth level cleric? Or an Eldritch Knight? If I'm a fifth level warlock and my buddy casts Fireball, can I make an arcana check to emulate it and cast it with a spell slot, even though it's not on my list?

I'm not necessarily aiming for an answer from you specifically, to be clear, but given the conversation I'm tossing it out there for others to ruminate and reflect on.

No to all. As Samurai mentioned, anyone* can jump, but channeling latent magical energy into a fireball is much rarer, therefore more than a skill check is needed. Arcana represents theoretical knowledge, but the Spellcasting feature or similar is needed to make that practical.

*anyone abled

[diplomancer]

And if you want to rule either that the blindness comes back or that TW ends the fire spell, those are perfectly fine. I'm just explaining why I would treat the two interactions differently at my table. The RAW is a starting point that I use to ultimately support my ruling, not the be-all/end-all.

I would not say that ruling that the blindness comes back is "perfectly fine". In my opinion, that would be a terrible ruling, be it under RAW, RAI, RAF or RAG, to the point that I'd very likely stop playing with a DM that ruled it that way. Fortunately, it's also a theoretical ruling, because I don't believe any DM ever in existence ruled it that way.

EDIT to your edit:



Mine was neither of these. I did douse/extinguish the flames, it just didn't last.

I know. And I still can't see how you can rule it that way while ruling otherwise with Blinding Smite. In both cases you have an ongoing magical effect, kept by Concentration no less, that was finished. But in one case that effect immediately comes back after being finished, by the power of the spell, and in the other case it doesn't, power of the spell notwithstanding.

Question: how would you rule it if only part of the wall of fire overlapped with the tidal wave area? At your table, would the wall be extinguished entirely, just the overlapping portion, or would it remain completely intact?

I've already indicated it. It would only extinguish the Wall of Fire where the areas overlap. It's not extinguishing the spell, merely its effects, and naturally only in the area indicated by Tidal Wave. You can partially extinguish a spell's effects without ending the spell entirely.

[Psyren]

I would not say that ruling that the blindness comes back is "perfectly fine".

I meant I'd be fine if you ruled that way at your table, not that I would agree with it.

I know. And I still can't see how you can rule it that way while ruling otherwise with Blinding Smite.

I mean, I can explain the difference I see again, but I suspect we'd just be going in circles so I'll leave it there and we can agree to disagree.

I've already indicated it. It would only extinguish the Wall of Fire where the areas overlap. It's not extinguishing the spell, merely its effects, and naturally only in the area indicated by Tidal Wave. You can partially extinguish a spell's effects without ending the spell entirely.

Okay. Not how I'd rule it, but again, that's the game working as intended.

[Amnestic]

No to all. As Samurai mentioned, anyone* can jump,

Anyone can jump, yes. But only monks - an explicitly magical class - can fall in a way which prevents damage and prone. Yet apparently that skill is something you can emulate with a skill check. But the skill at spellcasting cannot be?

Arcana represents theoretical knowledge, but the Spellcasting feature or similar is needed to make that practical.

Arcana proficiency is all that's needed to enchant magical items per Xanathar's, indicating that skill in it allows the channeling of magical energy in a practical manner. You don't need a spellcasting feature to do so.

Can I use an athletics check to gain extra Attacks, to emulate Extra Attack? "Anyone can attack", after all. What about Reckless Attack or Barbarian Rage? Performance for Bardic Inspiration? Or a Paladin Aura? Sleight of Hand for Sneak Attack? Can I drop a pro-tier Religion check for a prayer to get me a few Cure Wounds on the spot - or, hell, why not Divine Intervention?

[Psyren]

Anyone can jump, yes. But only monks - an explicitly magical class - can fall in a way which prevents damage and prone. Yet apparently that skill is something you can emulate with a skill check. But the skill at spellcasting cannot be?

So this example wasn't brought up by or directed at me, but I certainly wouldn't let a skill check allow you to fall safely from literally any height. Treat a longer fall as a shorter one, sure, but not negate falling damage even from the stratosphere completely.

Arcana proficiency is all that's needed to enchant magical items per Xanathar's, indicating that skill in it allows the channeling of magical energy in a practical manner. You don't need a spellcasting feature to do so.

Incorrect, you also need an exotic material(s) and a magical formula. One or both of those items contains the magic that you yourself don't need to provide, which is why your own spellcasting ability isn't relevant. Without those additional things, you could have a +50 to Arcana and you wouldn't be able to enchant a thimble.

[Dr.Samurai]

Saying "just because another class can do something similar and automatically doesn't mean no other classes can do something like that" is not the same as saying "every class feature in the game can be replicated through an ability check".

I don't think anyone is arguing for the latter, and I can say I certainly wasn't.

[Amnestic]

Incorrect, you also need an exotic material(s) and a magical formula. One or both of those items contains the magic that you yourself don't need to provide, which is why your own spellcasting ability isn't relevant. Without those additional things, you could have a +50 to Arcana and you wouldn't be able to enchant a thimble.

An arcana check is all that's needed to identify a spell being cast by someone else - the 'magical formula' if you will. Am I good to go with a pouch of spelldust? Maybe a hit dice or three to fuel the 'energy'?

I also asked if other spellcasters can use arcana to cast from spells not on their spell list - even copying it from another who cast it - which you said 'no' to. If arcana substitutes for the "formula", and I've got the magic power through spellcasting/pact magic, so what's the reason behind the 'no-go' exactly?

[JNAProductions]

So this example wasn't brought up by or directed at me, but I certainly wouldn't let a skill check allow you to fall safely from literally any height. Treat a longer fall as a shorter one, sure, but not negate falling damage even from the stratosphere completely.

That's what Monk's Slow Fall does. It doesn't negate a fall from any height, it reduces damage you take. It CAN take it to 0, but even a 20th level Monk is not wholly immune to fall damage.

[Psyren]

An arcana check is all that's needed to identify a spell being cast by someone else - the 'magical formula' if you will.

No, a formula is a specific item with its own rarity - DMG 141. You can't substitute it with Arcana.

That's what Monk's Slow Fall does. It doesn't negate a fall from any height, it reduces damage you take. It CAN take it to 0, but even a 20th level Monk is not wholly immune to fall damage.

Negating 100 damage per fall will cover falls from most heights. I would not let a skill check do that.

[JNAProductions]

Negating 100 damage per fall will cover falls from most heights. I would not let a skill check do that.

That is true.
What about reducing a fall's damage by 20? What DC would you assign to that?