Counterspelled Booming Blade

[Psyren]

And it's a lot easier for spellcasting to have monocultural underpinnings when, you know, all of it comes from the designs of a single deity. Or even a small group of deities that nevertheless are in complete agreement on the basic fundamentals of its operation (in the case of Krynn.)

Which is not to say that I think a world in which Counterspell works on some magical traditions and not others, until your character embarks on a quest to train in more traditions than the one they started with, is an inherently bad idea or anything. It could even be fun. But that doesn't mean the simpler approach doesn't have any explanation beyond "lolgame" either.

[Blatant Beast]

No because it's magic but not that magic because magic.

I will admit, I feel this way, sometimes about 5e.
Take for example the penalty that the Synaptic Static spell applies.
The penalty is the result of a spell and should be a spell effect that can be targeted by Dispel Magic, right?

Nope.

Synaptic Static has a duration of Instantaneous.
It can not be the target of a Dispel Magic.

The penalty from Synaptic Static is not actually magical, it is a physical effect, like Fabricate. Instead of creating an object like the Fabricate spell, Synaptic Static instead creates a wound, that apparently is not described by any Condition, the Exhaustion mechanic, nor the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic.

Being a physical effect, presumably a Medicine check could cure the wound created by Synaptic Static.
🥴
This seems really complicated, doesn’t it?
Who takes the Medicine skill?

Would a DM even allow a check, or would the DM just declare the penalty to be Magic?

If a DM does declare the penalty to be Magic, then it is a magical penalty, that is not subject to Dispel Magic, because, well, (sheepishly),it’s magic.🤢

[Hairfish]

I find it useful to remember that any combat taking place in a game is just a model for "real combat". Especially if it's turn-based; in the fiction of the adventure, each enemy orc isn't really waiting in a queue to run up and try to hit your character with an axe, and even if they all beat your initiative roll, your character didn't really just stand in one place and do nothing while they attacked.

An attack with a melee weapon may or may not consist of a single swing within the game's fiction, maybe you battered the enemy's shield with a series of quick overhand blows and then swung from the side to get under the shield and connect. A successful attack roll doesn't even necessarily mean an attack connected; in older versions of D&D, the rules were explicit that hit points weren't a model for how many times you could get hit in the head with an axe, they represented your ability to avoid taking a lethal blow. The attack that depletes your last hp is the one that splits your head in two, but the ones before that weren't just bouncing off your skull, you were expending hp to avoid/negate them in some fashion.

Even D&D's six-second combat round is an approximation and any actions that an individual takes during their turn within that round may have really taken more than or less than the same amount of time as the round itself.

The character whose BB gets countered isn't entitled to a free weapon attack because the cantrip's action includes one. In the fiction of the adventure, maybe their turn only took 3 seconds and when they cast BB uncountered the next round it takes 9 seconds to cast the spell and find an opening to make the attack roll. Maybe they were going to make an attack in the first round and couldn't find an opening because they were anticipating having the thunder magic to help drive the attack home. Maybe they did make the attack and it just wasn't effective or got parried or whatever.

[stoutstien]

If you truly don't think verbal, somatic, and material spell components are possible to distinguish from random gibberish, hand movements, or pocket lint in the fiction then there's not much else to say; it just brings us back around

I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying it impossible to describe it in game without referring to rules that don't exist outside the meta layer l.

The hero sees what the GM says they see so it comes across as a screw job when spells like effects start popping off and the only way to know the difference is by just memorizing when which is which.

[Xetheral]

Inaccurate. You can cast it in reaction to anything, it just doesn't work unless the "anything" is a spell.

As said in the Xanathar's:

I'm not confident that the text you cite from Xanathar's actually applies here. That text deals with what happens if you try to cast a spell on an invalid target, which with spells requiring an Action (which everyone has once per round) or a Bonus Action (given by a spell) to cast is something that can happen. But characters don't have a Reaction to use to try to cast a Reaction spell unless the specified trigger condition is met. Therefore, arguably, if the trigger condition isn't met, one can't even try to cast Counterspell because they lack the necessary type of action to do so. So, unless I'm missing something, I don't think your statement that a character can cast Counterspell in reaction anything is correct.

[Unoriginal]

I'm not confident that the text you cite from Xanathar's actually applies here. That text deals with what happens if you try to cast a spell on an invalid target, which with spells requiring an Action (which everyone has once per round) or a Bonus Action (given by a spell) to cast is something that can happen. But characters don't have a Reaction to use to try to cast a Reaction spell unless the specified trigger condition is met. Therefore, arguably, if the trigger condition isn't met, one can't even try to cast Counterspell because they lack the necessary type of action to do so. So, unless I'm missing something, I don't think your statement that a character can cast Counterspell in reaction anything is correct.

If I play a Wizard/Rogue multiclass with the War Caster feat, I should be able to cast Booming Blade as a Reaction instead of an opportunity attack, correct?

Would I be able to do that if what I believe is a creature leaving my space is actually an illusion?

[stoutstien]

If I play a Wizard/Rogue multiclass with the War Caster feat, I should be able to cast Booming Blade as a Reaction instead of an opportunity attack, correct?

Would I be able to do that if what I believe is a creature leaving my space is actually an illusion?

Funny enough no. Even using the the optional rules you're referring to you still can't because in order to do so you must first meet the conditions for the opportunity attack and WC to replace it with the spell.
A GM might allow you to waste your reaction but you never get the point where you actually cast the spell.

[KorvinStarmast]

Funny enough no. Even using the the optional rules you're referring to you still can't because in order to do so you must first meet the conditions for the opportunity attack and WC to replace it with the spell.
A GM might allow you to waste your reaction but you never get the point where you actually cast the spell.

Or maybe those two cantrips were a bad idea in the first place. They could have modeled them on shillelagh and had more success.

[Unoriginal]

Funny enough no. Even using the the optional rules you're referring to you still can't because in order to do so you must first meet the conditions for the opportunity attack and WC to replace it with the spell.
A GM might allow you to waste your reaction but you never get the point where you actually cast the spell.

So your position is that illusions of creatures can't trigger opportunity attacks, even if the attacker is identifying the illusion as a creature?

[Psyren]

I'm not saying they can't. I'm saying it impossible to describe it in game without referring to rules that don't exist outside the meta layer.

"Somatic component" is a term that exists within the fiction layer, not just the metagame layer. People in a D&D universe who are capable of counterspelling know what a somatic component looks like, what a verbal component sounds like, and how to distinguish them from mundane movements and speech. That is how the trigger functions.

If that breaks your personal suspension of disbelief, that's too bad.

The hero sees what the GM says they see so it comes across as a screw job when spells like effects start popping off and the only way to know the difference is by just memorizing when which is which.

What "spell effects?" Counterspell occurs before the spell generates any. By the time you see a spell effect it's too late.

[stoutstien]

So your position is that illusions of creatures can't trigger opportunity attacks, even if the attacker is identifying the illusion as a creature?

By the book No you can't. You might get to use a reaction to do something that looks like an attack of opportunity but you never actually make an attack because there's nothing to attack. On the other hand if the player does believe it's an illusion they're better off just walking through it rather than trying to attack it.

Magic<spells> doesn't care what you your character believe. it's the same reason why you can't just decide you don't believe in the illusion and are unaffected by them in the first place.

*Illusions in general are a whole other can of worms because they're so poorly defined and every single illusionary effect has its own particular rules that you must refer to in order for it to be used. You can't Target a mirror illusion duplicate because It's magic but not that magic because magic.*

[Blatant Beast]

I'm not confident that the text you cite from Xanathar's actually applies here. That text deals with what happens if you try to cast a spell on an invalid target, which with spells requiring an Action (which everyone has once per round) or a Bonus Action (given by a spell) to cast is something that can happen. But characters don't have a Reaction to use to try to cast a Reaction spell unless the specified trigger condition is met. Therefore, arguably, if the trigger condition isn't met, one can't even try to cast Counterspell because they lack the necessary type of action to do so. So, unless I'm missing something, I don't think your statement that a character can cast Counterspell in reaction anything is correct.

The consequence of this line of thinking is a Wizard can go around identifying magic that is and is not a spell by constantly attempting to cast Counterspell.

If the target isn’t a spell, then some mysterious force stays their hand, and no resources are lost…per your opinion.

I will say, I look upon such atomized reasoning with a dubious eye.

Page 86 of XGE states this:
“ If you cast a spell on someone or something that can't be affected by the spell, nothing happens to that target, but if you used a spell slot to cast the spell, the slot is still expended”

If your group uses the optional rules from XGE, and someone attempts to cast Counterspell on a Channel Divinity usage, then the CD fulfills all the criteria of being the “something that can not be affected by the spell”.

The Invalid Spell Target section of XGE makes no mention of Actions in it’s entry, so your comments about Actions and Reactions are not germane, I am afraid.

[stoutstien]

"Somatic component" is a term that exists within the fiction layer, not just the metagame layer. People in a D&D universe who are capable of counterspelling know what a somatic component looks like, what a verbal component sounds like, and how to distinguish them from mundane movements and speech. That is how the trigger functions.

If that breaks your personal suspension of disbelief, that's too bad.



What "spell effects?" Counterspell occurs before the spell generates any. By the time you see a spell effect it's too late.

Unless you slap counter spell into a ring a spell storing and then anybody is capable of recognizing it because magic. I guess transferable magic comes with an instruction manual.

My suspension of disbelief is completely irrelevant here. It's a fundamental breakdown of magic as a system because it's an incoherent pile of stuff that is both extremely sensitive to interpretation while at the same time not having any real patterns or built-in parameters.

[Blatant Beast]

By the book No you can't. You might get to use a reaction to do something that looks like an attack of opportunity but you never actually make an attack because there's nothing to attack. On the other hand if the player does believe it's an illusion they're better off just walking through it rather than trying to attack it.

You are both saying the similar things vis a vis OA attacks/attempts, while trying to disagree with each other.

A DM might chose to bypass an attack roll, but both of you agree, that a PC that sees an Illusion of a creature, can act normally, and attempt an OA.

The Attack Roll itself, may not happen, but physical interaction does which would reveal the illusion.

Alternatively, a DM that did not want reveal, automatically, that the Target is an Illusion when the Player calls for an OA, might give the illusion an AC of 5. If the PC misses the attack, the Illusion is not revealed.

Inferences are part of logical reasoning. Logically speaking, what underpinnings of the Invalid Spell Target, would not apply for a weapon attack?

The principles underpinning Invalid Spell Targets seem sound enough, that one can infer it would apply to Invalid Targets in general.

Essentially, you are advocating for reading the rules, without the application of inference, which is really advocating for nitwhittery.

Survey Says: X

[stoutstien]

You are both saying the similar things, while trying to disagree with each other.

A DM might chose to bypass an attack roll, but both of you agree, that a PC that sees an Illusion of a creature, can act normally, and attempt an OA.

The Attack Roll itself, may not happen, but physical interaction does which would reveal the illusion.

Alternatively, a DM that did not want reveal, automatically, that the Target is an Illusion when the Player calls for an OA, might give the illusion an AC of 10. If the PC misses the attack, the Illusion is not revealed.

Inferences are part of logical reasoning. Logically speaking, what underpinnings of the Invalid Spell Target, would not apply for a weapon attack?

Essentially, you are advocating for reading the rules, without the application of inference, which is really advocating for nitwhittery.

Survey Says: X

I'm actually advocating for the complete opposite because the rules themselves are asinine and frequently unusable. What I take issue with is people trying to pretend the rules works as written. Got hung up on counter spell but there are as many occurrences that the rules don't work compared to when they do with spells as a whole.

If you bring a DM's actually adjudicating spells pitchforks come out in a hurry because obviously all those exploits were intentional interactions.

[Unoriginal]

Essentially, you are advocating for reading the rules, without the application of inference, which is really advocating for nitwhittery.

I'm certainly not advocating for that.

[Psyren]

Unless you slap counter spell into a ring a spell storing and then anybody is capable of recognizing it because magic. I guess transferable magic comes with an instruction manual.

Why yes, it quite literally does:

"While wearing this ring, you can cast any spell stored in it. The spell uses the slot level, spell save DC, spell attack bonus, and spellcasting ability of the original caster, but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell."

"You can cast" means any required secondary knowledge needed to utilize the spell, such any triggers the spell requires, are baked into that function of the item - otherwise, you wouldn't be able to cast the spell and the RAW would be violated. The fact that the spell uses the original caster's statistics rather than yours further proves that your own knowledge and spellcasting ability are irrelevant.

If that concept truly bothers you, either don't hand out rings of spell storing or houserule how they function; simple.

My suspension of disbelief is completely irrelevant here.

Your suspension of disbelief is the only thing that matters here. WotC shouldn't be handcuffed in their spell and item design because a handful of players can't justify a perfectly reasonable interaction to themselves. And if you want to modify counterspell to better fit your personal idea of how it should work, that's perfectly fine, nobody is going to send the fun police after you for doing so.

[Blatant Beast]

While I am sympathetic to some of your points, Stoutstein, I do think The Rules do largely work as written, with some glaring exceptions such as the Mounted Rules.

Even something as unusual as the penalty from Synaptic Static, makes sense, and works as intended when you break it down.

Now the explanation is cumbersome, and a DM can error and call the penalty a magical effect rather easily; which I can see how such an unclear design could lead someone to call it asinine.

Yet, all that said, Synaptic Static does work as written, it does make sense by technical RAW, and is a pretty effective spell with cool flavor.

[kazaryu]

How can the characters tell the difference between the three if the same events are occuring with someone holding something in their hand, mumbling, and waving their arms.

because...the same thing isn't happening. i mean if you break it down SUPER simplistically "magic happens while person is holding weapon" but...i mean thats REALLY simplistic.

with BB/GFB you see the spell get cast. the caster does whatever the somatic component is and you see the weapon gather energy as they strike.

searing smite the spell cast is discrete from the attack. it doesn't have to be flavored as such, but if flavoring them together causes problems for you..thats on you, don't flavor them together. but the spell cast occurs independent of the attack. by the time the attack happens the blade is already enhanced. and in both situations, the CS'er is focused on the moment the blade becomes visibly enhanced.

divine smite has no lead up, its a magic that occurs as the blade strikes. there's no required casting components. there's nothing to react to, or to get confused about in world. again, unless you flavor it like that...but again, if you're adding flavor that is causing problems for your own worlds logic...thats on you.

[Blatant Beast]

I'm certainly not advocating for that.

That part is not directed at you. My apologies for that being unclear.

[stoutstien]

Why yes, it quite literally does:

"While wearing this ring, you can cast any spell stored in it. The spell uses the slot level, spell save DC, spell attack bonus, and spellcasting ability of the original caster, but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell."

"You can cast" means any required secondary knowledge needed to utilize the spell, such any triggers the spell requires, are baked into that function of the item - otherwise, you wouldn't be able to cast the spell and the RAW would be violated. The fact that the spell uses the original caster's statistics rather than yours further proves that your own knowledge and spellcasting ability are irrelevant.

If that concept truly bothers you, either don't hand out rings of spell storing or houserule how they function; simple.



Your suspension of disbelief is the only thing that matters here. WotC shouldn't be handcuffed in their spell and item design because a handful of players can't justify a perfectly reasonable interaction to themselves. And if you want to modify counterspell to better fit your personal idea of how it should work, that's perfectly fine, nobody is going to send the fun police after you for doing so.

Hey look magic being magic because magic again. Almost like it's a pattern of inconsistencies.

Maybe someone should handcuff them. You create coherent design by first setting parameters which they never did. 3 years ago if somebody brought up silvery barred on Homebrew page he would have gotten shut down seven ways from Sunday. Now it's official everybody's going to bend over backwards trying to rationalize its existence. It's possible to rationalize anything from their spells to a god eating turtle in space but it doesn't make it correct.

[stoutstien]

While I am sympathetic to some of your points, Stoutstein, I do think The Rules do largely work as written, with some glaring exceptions such as the Mounted Rules.

Even something as unusual as the penalty from Synaptic Static, makes sense, and works as intended when you break it down.

Now the explanation is cumbersome, and a DM can error and call the penalty a magical effect rather easily; which I can see how such an unclear design could lead someone to call it asinine.

Yet, all that said, Synaptic Static does work as written, it does make sense by technical RAW, and is a pretty effective spell with cool flavor.

The rules largely work because it doesn't matter what is explicitly written because the GM can decide how they're applied. There's usually enough contextual clues where you can get close enough where everyone is ok with it.
It's extremely difficult to do so with spells because there's not a pattern to follow to make sure your rulings are consistent enough for the players in GM to have roughly the same idea of what the possible outcomes are of a given action. This is why people harp on the fact that spells do what they say they do and nothing else because if you start messing with these it's really easy to bust It wide open.

Look at magic missile for example. When they officially ruled how it works they created hexvoker but if they would have ruled the other way, they would have created a whole different exploit. This is not a dig on players who look for these things because the way it's set up that is only way that you can really interact with it because if you go at face value there's a good chance you'll get screwed over because that's not what the spell actually says it does.

Spells are ridged which makes them difficult to reshape to apply to a given situation and prone to breaking if you do. It's not impossible but it goes back to my original point that the only way that you know how to do so is rote or note because even if the effects are relatively clear the nomenclature might not be. like Dispel magic not actually working on no spell magic or the sol storing item doesn't store spells but spell effects until the spell is in effect then it becomes a spell and the action you need to active it depends in if the item is itself is magic or not.

[Psyren]

Maybe someone should handcuff them.

No. Do that at your table via houserules, that's what they're for.

[stoutstien]

No. Do that at your table via houserules, that's what they're for.

So you be okay with them releasing a level one spell that does a thousand damage and instantly kills gods? Probably not right? But there's nothing preventing it.

Now level one spells and obvious exaggeration but they also consistently mess up by not double-checking every single interaction because the spells only work by individual interactions. Until necromancers become the best summoner in the game by making armies of magens if you use one book or how they didn't check what spells could actually summon before print. Hello flying invisible whale parties.

[Psyren]

So you be okay with them releasing a level one spell that does a thousand damage and instantly kills gods? Probably not right? But there's nothing preventing it.

Reduction ad absurdum rejected.

I'm not pretending the designers are perfect, they make mistakes like any other human beings do. But the way counterspell interacts with observable spell components both in the rules layer and the fiction layer is not one of them.

[KorvinStarmast]

. Now it's official everybody's going to bend over backwards trying to rationalize its existence. It's possible to rationalize anything from their spells to a god eating turtle in space but it doesn't make it correct.

No, not everyone. That spell is on the banned list at my table. (For that matter, so is that whole book).
Yes, per my usual rant, their QC efforts have eroded substantially as time has gone on.

[Psyren]

No, not everyone. That spell is on the banned list at my table. (For that matter, so is that whole book).
Yes, per my usual rant, their QC efforts have eroded substantially as time has gone on.

"As time has gone on?" Counterspell was printed in 2014 and Booming Blade was printed in 2015. They've been around almost since the beginning of 5e.

[stoutstien]

"As time has gone on?" Counterspell was printed in 2014 and Booming Blade was printed in 2015. They've been around almost since the beginning of 5e.

They were referring to my example of SB which is an other example that they is no coherent design behind spells.

[Psyren]

They were referring to my example of SB which is an other example that they is no coherent design behind spells.

Oh I missed that reference due to the typo in your earlier post, my apologies.

No argument here that Silvery Barbs was poorly designed, though that's a non sequitur to the original topic. Again, nobody here has claimed WotC is perfect. But there's a pretty vast gulf between silvery barbs and "a level one spell that does a thousand damage and instantly kills gods" too.

[stoutstien]

Oh I missed that reference due to the typo in your earlier post, my apologies.

No argument here that Silvery Barbs was poorly designed, though that's a non sequitur to the original topic. Again, nobody here has claimed WotC is perfect. But there's a pretty vast gulf between silvery barbs and "a level one spell that does a thousand damage and instantly kills gods" too.

But if they had "handcuffs" then stuff like SB wouldn't show up nearly as often because they have something to check it against rather then needing to do a 1 to 1 with every single spell if the same level.

My complaint isn't about CS particularly but on how spells have not real baseline or pattern to prevent needing to just flip pages or memorize them to make them useable. This is exasperated by spell on spell interactions as they have a higher potential of missing something critical leading to nonsense.

In the end spell caster become them most daunting classes to pick up but also the most boring once you figure it out because there isn't much flexibility.