Counterspelled Booming Blade

[RSP]

Why not?
Armor as DR is a valid way of doing thing and narratively has been supported in multiple editions including 5e.

Spells are physical like anything else is, adjudication of their effects is as natural as setting a check with a DC.

Armor as DR is completely different than “metal interferes with CoD”. Not sure why you think those are the same thing.

And if you want armor to have DR, knock yourself out: however, I’d suggest not using it in only niche situations like when exposed to CoD. Just make a homebrew rule of armor having DR.

... is not an argument about disrupting spells with your action. It's an argument about making sense in the game. You are making the point that if the chain interferes with the spell, then so should armor. You are not arguing about whether someone should be able to disrupt a 2nd level spell with an action.

The argument “if a metal chain disrupts CoD, why wouldn’t other metals, particularly ones with more area within the CoD” is valid. The argument of whether or not to allow any action used to disrupt spells is also valid.

Your argument that asking those questions is akin to removing Evasion from the game just because, still baffles me as to how you think the two are related. It certainly doesn’t come across to me as a way “to make sense of the game”, as you suggest.

[stoutstien]

Those situations are very different. Players know shield exists, it's not amazing to have your attack foiled by shield but it's hardly surprising when an enemy spellcaster uses it. On the other hand if I cast a spell that does 4d4 when someone enters it, and they block it by any other means than counterspell or dispel magic, just with some basic damn chains, I'd be miffed. I didn't know I could do that. Could I have done that for other scenarios? Is the DM just being super lenient when NPCs use improvised actions? In short, using the rules against the players is fair game, it's predictable and deterministic.
If an enemy hits me with suggestion or dominate person or whatever it sucks, but I know how it works and how to deal with it. But I wouldn't appreciate it if I counterspelled an enemy rogue's booming blade and he still gets to sneak attack me. I just expended a 3rd level slot and he gets to keep 60% of his action? If the rogue had tried to fireball me the counterspell would've worked 100%, but not this one cantrip? Seriously?

Players know it die to spells only work with the players knowledge rather than the heros. magic is special and plays like a disjointed adjunction of the game. If you had to deal with a cloud of daggers filling a space that wasn't a spell how would your hero do it?

Players don't know they can because they have been trained to avoid asking or even considering it. Predicable play is about getting in a range of possible results that make sense not following the rules to illogical ends just to try to rationalize poor editing and lack of foresight.

[Keltest]

Players know it die to spells only work with the players knowledge rather than the heros. magic is special and plays like a disjointed adjunction of the game. If you had to deal with a cloud of daggers filling a space that wasn't a spell how would your hero do it?

Uh, leave the space? All jokes aside, I as a hero am not deliberately standing in the violent sphere of spinning death even if I can survive it.

[stoutstien]

Uh, leave the space? All jokes aside, I as a hero am not deliberately standing in the violent sphere of spinning death even if I can survive it.

Sometimes you don't have the option to do otherwise. That's a conflict and leads to actually enjoyable game play rather than procedural actions that are neither engaging or worth the table time.

Let's look a cleaner example:

Could you smother a create bonfire spell?

[Dr.Samurai]

Sorry, my nonsense is probably drifting into the conversation in weird ways.

Me addressing that its not weird for armor to have protective value to RSP, being conflated with your points.

No worries Witty Username, it's not your fault at all. I am following the conversation well enough. Hopefully others can too and read very clearly that RSP brought up the armor and you and I were responding to that.

I mean we talk about ability checks and how to set DCs and they can hardly be considered rules, let alone as written.
Why to do things a certain way is a fair line of reasoning, even for things with set rules.
Even if that is more DM to DM advice than anything actionable by a player.

I'm inspired...

Spoiler

Show

I didn't know I could do that. Could I have done that for other scenarios?

This is precisely the point. Everyone is taking for granted that spell effects are untouchable except by spells that specifically say they interact with them. This is not a foregone conclusion in the game. Stoutstein mentioned having to "retrain" his players to probe things like this and consider tactics or strategies that are not explicitly spelled out in the books. The game, as we all know, is MUCH larger than what is printed.

But I wouldn't appreciate it if I counterspelled an enemy rogue's booming blade and he still gets to sneak attack me. I just expended a 3rd level slot and he gets to keep 60% of his action? If the rogue had tried to fireball me the counterspell would've worked 100%, but not this one cantrip? Seriously?

I would consider this counterspell ruling to be a bad ruling, IMO. DMs are free to rule as they wish, but given that the attack is part of the spell's effect, it should be counterspelled. I don't consider this as a point for or against interacting with spell effects generally with non-magical items/tactics.

The argument “if a metal chain disrupts CoD, why wouldn’t other metals, particularly ones with more area within the CoD” is valid.

It's really not. But the point is THIS is the argument you were making. You moved the goalposts to "why should an action counter a 2nd level spell slot" after I commented.

The argument of whether or not to allow any action used to disrupt spells is also valid.

Then actually make this argument. Right now you've said a sentence. And I don't agree that spell effects and slots take up a sacred space that is intrinsically superior to some other character's action economy and hit points.

Your argument that asking those questions is akin to removing Evasion from the game just because, still baffles me as to how you think the two are related. It certainly doesn’t come across to me as a way “to make sense of the game”, as you suggest.

And I am baffled that you are so baffled. We are coexisting in baffle space. Hello.

Uh, leave the space? All jokes aside, I as a hero am not deliberately standing in the violent sphere of spinning death even if I can survive it.

I think this is also the point. We are being funneled into this space of "if you see magic and don't have magic yourself, there are no options". And there is no reason for this to be the case. There may be other options than "take the damage" or "run". The rogue might climb in a barrel, put the lid on, and the barbarian might roll it through the cloud of daggers into the next room. Boom, rogue has bypassed the hazard.

[Keltest]

I think this is also the point. We are being funneled into this space of "if you see magic and don't have magic yourself, there are no options". And there is no reason for this to be the case. There may be other options than "take the damage" or "run". The rogue might climb in a barrel, put the lid on, and the barbarian might roll it through the cloud of daggers into the next room. Boom, rogue has bypassed the hazard.

So, cloud of daggers in particular is a nasty spell to talk about because its unusually difficult to get around its effects. Fireball? Full cover, evasion, immunity to fire, and even then dex save for half if you have no other options. Having said that, "Shoot the wizard" is still a perfectly viable response to cloud of daggers. Make him drop concentration, or just kill him outright, and the spell goes away. I would also suggest that I would be absolutely delighted if I managed to get the rogue to waste probably two turns dealing with this barrel, and the barbarian to waste at least one turn, just to deal with a second level spell that isnt really all that deadly if you don't actually just sit in it.

Really, I think "ignore the cloud of daggers and just go stab the wizard anyway" is a perfectly legitimate response. Its not a huge AoE and it doesnt deal a lot of damage. The point is to say "don't stop in this specific area for a few turns" not "I kill you strong."

[Slipjig]

How would you like it if you, as a wizard, used cloud of daggers to block a doorway but one enemy used a chain (or whatever action) to cancel it so the rest of the enemies could move through unharmed?

I would never have an NPC do that to a player's spell. If a DM wants to raise the stakes for the player's, they have all sorts of ways to do that DON'T invalidate the player's choices.

But if heroic PCs want to engage in creative problem solving, that's totally in line with the fiction and should be encouraged. I probably wouldn't have had this particular example work, though I would have let them try it. But if a PC manages to collapse a water tower onto an enemy's Wall of Fire in order to extinguish it, I'd at least let them roll for it.

[stoutstien]

I would never have an NPC do that to a player's spell. If a DM wants to raise the stakes for the player's, they have all sorts of ways to do that DON'T invalidate the player's choices.

But if heroic PCs want to engage in creative problem solving, that's totally in line with the fiction and should be encouraged. I probably wouldn't have had this particular example work, though I would have let them try it. But if a PC manages to collapse a water tower onto an enemy's Wall of Fire in order to extinguish it, I'd at least let them roll for it.

Which is really the goal. The nitty-gritty table level decisions aren't important here.though those discussions are lot more fun than going through the rule if/then ringer.

All you need is to give players enough leeway that they aren't stuck looking at magic and spells as some sort of disjointed part of the game that can't be tangibly interacted with unless specifically using methods that are also highly particular to interpretation.

"Yes. The enemy made a spell attack but it wasn't a spell spell so you can't counter spell it."

[Dr.Samurai]

So, cloud of daggers in particular is a nasty spell to talk about because its unusually difficult to get around its effects. Fireball? Full cover, evasion, immunity to fire, and even then dex save for half if you have no other options. Having said that, "Shoot the wizard" is still a perfectly viable response to cloud of daggers. Make him drop concentration, or just kill him outright, and the spell goes away. I would also suggest that I would be absolutely delighted if I managed to get the rogue to waste probably two turns dealing with this barrel, and the barbarian to waste at least one turn, just to deal with a second level spell that isnt really all that deadly if you don't actually just sit in it.

Really, I think "ignore the cloud of daggers and just go stab the wizard anyway" is a perfectly legitimate response. Its not a huge AoE and it doesnt deal a lot of damage. The point is to say "don't stop in this specific area for a few turns" not "I kill you strong."

This might be veering into specific details about the encounter that are unknown. For my part, I'm assuming its impactful for the wizard to cast the spell in the first place, and therefore not a wasted action to begin with, and therefore its impactful for the PCs to deal with it in some way, even if they can't dispel it.

And we can talk about other examples as well if Cloud of Daggers is not helpful. Like if someone casts Spike Growth and the barbarian flips over a large table over a portion of it, can the PCs walk on the table without taking damage?

[Keltest]

This might be veering into specific details about the encounter that are unknown. For my part, I'm assuming its impactful for the wizard to cast the spell in the first place, and therefore not a wasted action to begin with, and therefore its impactful for the PCs to deal with it in some way, even if they can't dispel it.

And we can talk about other examples as well if Cloud of Daggers is not helpful. Like if someone casts Spike Growth and the barbarian flips over a large table over a portion of it, can the PCs walk on the table without taking damage?

I would say sure. Theyre not walking on the ground. Although if the barbarian starts carrying around a conference table specifically to use as a way to get around spike growth and difficult terrain, I'm gonna have words with that barbarian.

[JackPhoenix]

Uh, leave the space? All jokes aside, I as a hero am not deliberately standing in the violent sphere of spinning death even if I can survive it.

Or get some cover. I certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to think swinging a chain in there would do anything except maybe get me hit by the other end of the chain whipping around after it gets wrapped on one of the blades.

So, cloud of daggers in particular is a nasty spell to talk about because its unusually difficult to get around its effects. Fireball? Full cover, evasion, immunity to fire, and even then dex save for half if you have no other options. Having said that, "Shoot the wizard" is still a perfectly viable response to cloud of daggers. Make him drop concentration, or just kill him outright, and the spell goes away. I would also suggest that I would be absolutely delighted if I managed to get the rogue to waste probably two turns dealing with this barrel, and the barbarian to waste at least one turn, just to deal with a second level spell that isnt really all that deadly if you don't actually just sit in it.

Really, I think "ignore the cloud of daggers and just go stab the wizard anyway" is a perfectly legitimate response. Its not a huge AoE and it doesnt deal a lot of damage. The point is to say "don't stop in this specific area for a few turns" not "I kill you strong."

Total cover still works, it's just with how tiny the CoD's AoE is, if you're playing on a grid, it's kinda hard to make it practical in combat. You're getting, at best, slightly less than a half of a square while using flat object as the source of the cover. If you can enclose the point of origin in a box, you're clear.

I would say sure. Theyre not walking on the ground. Although if the barbarian starts carrying around a conference table specifically to use as a way to get around spike growth and difficult terrain, I'm gonna have words with that barbarian.

Hey now, don't dismiss the usefulness of carrying a table around! There's a lot of stuff you can do with that, not just against Spike Growth. See: cover.

[Dr.Samurai]

I would say sure. Theyre not walking on the ground. Although if the barbarian starts carrying around a conference table specifically to use as a way to get around spike growth and difficult terrain, I'm gonna have words with that barbarian.

Lmao

Grarg, carrying a conference table: It's the new 10ft pole, believe me!

This actually occurred to me in our Against the Giants campaign. Some stone giant shaman threw down a spike growth that basically paralyzed my party. I wondered if I could flip one of the tables over to cover it, and how that would work. But I wasn't near the table, we were mobbed by bad guys, and the table is Huge size, so I never asked the DM. But the general thought came to me.

[Witty Username]

Armor as DR is completely different than “metal interferes with CoD”. Not sure why you think those are the same thing.

Its the same idea, protection reduces damage. Armor as DR is codifing it as a game rule but can also be covered by adjudication.

Why should armor have no protective value against weapons it is designed to stop?
Cloud of daggers being reduced in effectiveness by cover or protective gear makes alot of sense.

[Keltest]

Its the same idea, protection reduces damage. Armor as DR is codifing it as a game rule but can also be covered by adjudication.

Why should armor have no protective value against weapons it is designed to stop?
Cloud of daggers being reduced in effectiveness by cover or protective gear makes alot of sense.

If you want to make Cloud of Daggers an attack roll spell, by all means. Presumably the idea is that theyre magically sharp and/or so thickly clustered that theyre still getting to you through any armor you have, but its a fine enough houserule if you feel the need to allow people to protect themselves from it.

[Witty Username]

I am more, why should cloud of daggers be unblockable and unstoppable?
Which is where the conversation seems to be going.

[Blatant Beast]

Those situations are very different. Players know shield exists, it's not amazing to have your attack foiled by shield but it's hardly surprising when an enemy spellcaster uses it. On the other hand if I cast a spell that does 4d4 when someone enters it, and they block it by any other means than counterspell or dispel magic, just with some basic damn chains, I'd be miffed. I didn't know I could do that. Could I have done that for other scenarios? Is the DM just being super lenient when NPCs use improvised actions? In short, using the rules against the players is fair game, it's predictable and deterministic.
If an enemy hits me with suggestion or dominate person or whatever it sucks, but I know how it works and how to deal with it. But I wouldn't appreciate it if I counterspelled an enemy rogue's booming blade and he still gets to sneak attack me. I just expended a 3rd level slot and he gets to keep 60% of his action? If the rogue had tried to fireball me the counterspell would've worked 100%, but not this one cantrip? Seriously?

These are two very distinct scenarios. (Initiating Rant)
The Rogue using Booming Blade is taking a greedy action.
The rogue is calculating that the extra damage from stacking Booming Blade, Shadow Blade and Sneak Attack is worth the chance of the Cast a Spell Action being Countered.

It is a high reward, moderate risk type of move.

In the case of Cloud of Daggers and other spells, I think it shows a clear bias, and a generalized error in thinking, that people presume that one can’t interact with spell effects without Magic, besides killing the caster.

It may be difficult to determine whom cast the spell, firstly…so breaking Concentration is not always an option.

Secondly, I am a bit surprised that people have not had someone try to extinguish a Conjure Bonfire with pouring water on it. The magical bonfire is tenuously based in reality, only the caster’s concentration keeps the flame alive. This strikes me as a fire than can be doused, perhaps necessitating a Concentration Save by the caster.

This is part of the point I was making regarding the malus assessed by Synaptic Static…by RAW the penalty is something that can be interacted with, due to the effect being the result of an instantaneous spell. Yet many games, would probably deny the opportunity because it is magic. A Magic that other magic can’t touch, and regular actions cant interact with because that is the erroneous notion people have in their head.

Why wouldn’t people try to defeat a spinning turnstile of knives that is a Cloud of Daggers? If the Cormyrian Purple Dragon Kinghts are assigned to secure a location, are they going to just give up when they encounter the spell?

Of course not…the Fantasy Marines will try to improvise, adapt, and overcome the obstacle.

Cloud of Daggers is also a bit busted, from a balance perspective. Blade Barrier offers a Dexterity Saving Throw, so folks with Evasion scoff at the spell. Yet, Cloud of Daggers just works, no attack rolls, no saving throws, despite being a lower level spell….talk about a lack of sensical balance…why is the mini version of Blade Barrier often straight up better than the grand version?

By RAW, Cloud of Daggers states nothing about damaging objects, so by RAW someone wearing a large sack, or a box can just walk through the spell…unless one is going to argue the knives somehow teleport through the box.

The spell does not direct a DM to consider object interactions, so that should work both ways, if we are being fair…the Cloud of Daggers only hurts creatures, so a large burlap sack defeats it.

This is the consequence of electing to use a very limited rules analysis schema..

[Psyren]

Let's look a cleaner example:

Could you smother a create bonfire spell?

If you're asking how I'd rule - yes and no. The fire doesn't appear to need any fuel, so I would rule that you can dowse it temporarily (for example, with a Create Water downpour), but that it would return on the caster's turn if they're still concentrating on it and the water or other smothering factor has ceased. (I would further rule that Wall of Fire works in similar fashion, though you might need a stronger source of water like a Tidal Wave spell.)

I am more, why should cloud of daggers be unblockable and unstoppable?
Which is where the conversation seems to be going.

CoD is designed and balanced around bypassing the typical spell defenses (no attack roll or saving throw), thus resulting in its lower damage and area for its level-scaling. If you want to nerf it by introducing susceptibility or interferability, again that's absolutely fine as a table rule - but I would eiither expect a corresponding buff to its effects, or for fewer caster players at your tables to be interested in it at all, if all the enemy needs to render it inoperable is a bit of chain or rope.

With that said, you know your players and the kinds of houserules they'll tolerate better than I possibly can.

Personally I happen to like its default niche as a reliable damage zone even for caster builds that have a very low primary stat, similar to magic missile being a reliable blast for the same reason.

Spoiler: CoD build idea

Show

One build that put this quality of the spell to excellent use was Colby's "Bardic Brawler" - a strength-based Loxodon Valor Bard who grapples multiple enemies using their hands and trunk, and drags them through its Cloud of Daggers, subjecting them to the spell's damage multiple times in a round. The build's strength is the fact that you can be a Bard who depriotizes Charisma while still being an effective combatant and support character, and that is the strength of what would be otherwise a pretty mediocre bard who only has 14 Cha or so starting out.

[RSP]

And I am baffled that you are so baffled. We are coexisting in baffle space. Hello.

This isn’t helping the conversation. Can you explain why you think negating the Evasion feature when Fireball is cast on the Rogue is akin to questioning how plate mail would interact with CoD?

[Blatant Beast]

CoD is designed and balanced around bypassing the typical spell defenses (no attack roll or saving throw), thus resulting in its lower damage and area for its level-scaling. If you want to nerf it by introducing susceptibility or interferability, again that's absolutely fine as a table rule - but I would eiither expect a corresponding buff to its effects

(Using this as a springboard, not necessarily directed at Psyren)

It is not nerfing a spell, to point out that Cloud of Daggers is susceptible to Blanket Technology, by RAW.

Which begs the question, how many games let you walk through a Cloud of Dagger spell, unharmed, while wearing a blanket? The answer is not zero.

It seems like WotC surveys should be asking questions that elicit answers about the breakdown of what segment of the D&D community operate under the various and differing rules assumptions, rather than re-arranging the deck chairs on the latest iteration of warlock for one D&D.

Nowhere, in the 5e books are the words: “Spells do what they say they do” written down. This is a community generated mantra.

Page 201 of the PHB has this to say about spells:
“ WHAT Is A SPELL?
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping
of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse
into a specific, limited expression. In casting a spell,
a character carefully plucks at the invisible strands of raw magic suffusing the world, pins them in place in a particular pattern, sets them vibrating in a specific way, and then releases them to unleash the desired effect-in most cases, all in the span of seconds.”

Yet even in this quote, it is made clear with the use of the hyphen, that spell unleash their desired effect only “in most cases”.

So no, BY The POWER OF RAW, spells only do what they say they do, “in most cases”. I would like the internet to acknowledge that we have been discussing D&D, wrong for 10 years now.

If you would like to join my class action lawsuit, feel free to contact the law firm of Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe. ;)

[Psyren]

Nowhere, in the 5e books are the words: “Spells do what they say they do” written down. This is a community generated mantra.

Yet again - it's a mantra aimed at players asking RAW questions from strangers online. It was never intended to amputate Rule of Fun/Cool from willing DMs - and even if a given poster intended it that way, they have zero power over someone else's DM anyway.

So no, BY The POWER OF RAW, spells only do what they say they do, “in most cases”.

Right - and the cases in which they don't, are up to the DM, as above.

[Blatant Beast]

Yet again - it's a mantra aimed at players asking RAW questions from strangers online. It was never intended to amputate Rule of Fun/Cool from willing DMs - and even if a given poster intended it that way, they have zero power over someone else's DM anyway..

Prevalent Opinions, have power.
The Parable of the Emperor’s New Clothes, and what is accounted as truth, despite the fact that a naked emperor is clearly visible…just shreds the sentiment expressed in the quotation.

A new DM confronted with 4+ peers shouting, and sending links to numerous online sources, including possibly WotC Employee Tweets, could likely cave in to the pressure.

Thick skinned, cold hearted, Rat Bastard DM’s, that don’t give a Flying Carpet about what their players want are not the standard model, any longer. :)

[Psyren]

Prevalent Opinions, have power.
The Parable of the Emperor’s New Clothes, and what is accounted as truth, despite the fact that a naked emperor is clearly visible…just shreds the sentiment expressed in the quotation.

Sure, but that's the table's problem to deal with. You can't police the internet's "prevalent opinions."

A new DM confronted with 4+ peers shouting, and sending links to numerous online sources, including possibly WotC Employee Tweets, could likely cave in to the pressure.

Thick skinned, cold hearted, Rat Bastard DM’s, that don’t give a Flying Carpet about what their players want are not the standard model, any longer. :)

You don't have to be a thick-skinned cold-hearted rat bastard to say to yourself "my table isn't having fun, I need to fix it." That's pure common sense.

[Dr.Samurai]

Psyren, you are exemplifying the issue. You are saying "Don't worry about what the internet says, just worry about your table" and when someone says "My players are bludgeoning me with internet mantras and truisms" you say "Well their happiness is what matters, just do it". And now the table is ruled by internet mantras and truisms.

I don't think anything malicious has been done. But I do think the connectivity over the years has caused the discourse to naturally evolve into a RAW-only type of conversation, and this approach returns back to the table and changes how the game is viewed/played. We should just be cognizant of it. A lot of this discussion is useful only to those of us hanging out in the space .

Like... all of us that are authorities on "the game" and can talk about how this works and how these things interact, etc. are not actually authorities of the game. We're just reading and comprehending, and maybe have more things memorized than most. But "the game" is a myth. There is no "game" that we can be authorities on because it's ever changing. All of the internet optimizers sit atop a tower of cards that we keep propped up. We think the tower stands because it's a foundation of "math", but it only stands because we all agree that we're going to play the game the same exact way. But we know everyone doesn't play the game the same way. How many times has someone commented that Skrum's games are different than their own, or I've told NichG his games are very different than what I'm used to, etc.

We pretend there is a default game out there, but there isn't. The most by-the-books game ever run will need to adjudicate.

[Witty Username]

CoD is designed and balanced around bypassing the typical spell defenses (no attack roll or saving throw), thus resulting in its lower damage and area for its level-scaling. If you want to nerf it by introducing susceptibility or interferability, again that's absolutely fine as a table rule - but I would eiither expect a corresponding buff to its effects, or for fewer caster players at your tables to be interested in it at all, if all the enemy needs to render it inoperable is a bit of chain or rope.

So, my thought on this, do you allow Acrobatics to climb?

It is kinda the same gameplay factors on the table.
The value of strength vs dexterity, player creativity vs the intended functions of the game etc.

But allowing Acrobatics to climb isn't normally described as a houserule or in relation to RAW in the same way that spell effects are able to be interacted with.

As a community we seem much less inclined to adjudicate when spell effects are involved.

But lets put these in conflict,

Say I wanted to jump over a cloud of daggers,
Jumping has a set distance for height and length, but many treat that as a minimum without a roll and an Athletics check can increase that distance per the DM.

Is this making cloud of daggers worse, definitely
But it is making jumping better as well.

We already accept alot of rules flexibility with the game,
Why should spells be considered any more sacred?

[sithlordnergal]

I would never have an NPC do that to a player's spell. If a DM wants to raise the stakes for the player's, they have all sorts of ways to do that DON'T invalidate the player's choices.

But if heroic PCs want to engage in creative problem solving, that's totally in line with the fiction and should be encouraged. I probably wouldn't have had this particular example work, though I would have let them try it. But if a PC manages to collapse a water tower onto an enemy's Wall of Fire in order to extinguish it, I'd at least let them roll for it.

See, on the one hand I agree with you based on the post you were quoting, but on the other I'm fine with telling players "Sorry, that's just how the game works even if it makes no sense". An NPC using chains to bypass a spell is BS and would never fly at my table. The same holds true for players. Players wouldn't be able to put out a Wall of Fire, no matter how much water they have. Wall of Fire doesn't have anything that states it can be ended early, so the only way to end it early is via Dispel Magic and breaking Concentration.

I tend to stick to RAW more than RAI as a DM, and I try to avoid making rulings that go against what's already written. Does that mean sometimes weird things happen due to weird rule interactions? Sure it does. I recently DMed a game where I caused someone to fall Unconscious, then tried to move them via Telekinesis. They were able to make the Strength check to avoid being moved by Telekinesis, and succeeded, so despite being Unconscious they resisted it.

As for the idea of players needing to feel "Heroic", I dunno about that. I've been told by my players they tend not to feel super heroic in my games, because I make dungeons and encounters difficult. Which is fair, my end goal for a dungeon and boss is to bring the entire party to as close to death as possible without causing a TPK. As a result, I use what some DMs might consider to be "underhanded" tactics. Nothing that goes against the rules, but stuff like Counterspelling the Cleric's healing spells, using Chill Touch to prevent healing entirely, Paralyzing players, or using Dominate Person to force players to waste their most valuable resources early. And I have absolutely killed players. But I have never caused a TPK.

So, my thought on this, do you allow Acrobatics to climb?

It is kinda the same gameplay factors on the table.
The value of strength vs dexterity, player creativity vs the intended functions of the game etc.

But allowing Acrobatics to climb isn't normally described as a houserule or in relation to RAW in the same way that spell effects are able to be interacted with.

Case in point of me using RAW more than most. I can't think of a single time that I've allowed a player to use Acrobatics to climb something. Doesn't matter how they describe it, they always use Athletics. Same with Jumping. I don't give players any kind of ability check, its based purely on their Strength Score and if they were able to pull off a running jump first. Caused my players a bit of trouble when the majority were Dex based in a trap that required you to jump to get across it. The Monk was fine though, cause they could dash across vertical surfaces. XD

[Psyren]

Psyren, you are exemplifying the issue. You are saying "Don't worry about what the internet says, just worry about your table" and when someone says "My players are bludgeoning me with internet mantras and truisms" you say "Well their happiness is what matters, just do it". And now the table is ruled by internet mantras and truisms.

I said the TABLE'S happiness matters. The table includes the DM. And I can't really think of a nicer or more succinct way to say "you should stick to playing with mature adults who happen to be your friends and thus are willing to compromise in order to achieve that mutual objective."

I don't think anything malicious has been done. But I do think the connectivity over the years has caused the discourse to naturally evolve into a RAW-only type of conversation, and this approach returns back to the table and changes how the game is viewed/played. We should just be cognizant of it. A lot of this discussion is useful only to those of us hanging out in the space .

5e is the absolute least RAW-focused edition D&D has ever had, at least since the proliferation of online communities and message boards (I can't speak to how rules debates went in the 1e and 2e days.) Looking over at the 3.5 forum, they're still arguing about *checks notes* Rainbow Servant + Warmage, or whether Dispel Magic and Greater Dispel Magic are different spells or not, or whether you can sell your simulacrum's soul in place of your own because the word "mortal" isn't defined in the rules.

Like... all of us that are authorities on "the game" and can talk about how this works and how these things interact, etc. are not actually authorities of the game. We're just reading and comprehending, and maybe have more things memorized than most. But "the game" is a myth. There is no "game" that we can be authorities on because it's ever changing. All of the internet optimizers sit atop a tower of cards that we keep propped up. We think the tower stands because it's a foundation of "math", but it only stands because we all agree that we're going to play the game the same exact way. But we know everyone doesn't play the game the same way. How many times has someone commented that Skrum's games are different than their own, or I've told NichG his games are very different than what I'm used to, etc.

We pretend there is a default game out there, but there isn't. The most by-the-books game ever run will need to adjudicate.

I don't disagree with any of this, so I'm not sure why it's being presented as some kind of counterargument to my position.

Say I wanted to jump over a cloud of daggers,
Jumping has a set distance for height and length, but many treat that as a minimum without a roll and an Athletics check can increase that distance per the DM.

Is this making cloud of daggers worse, definitely
But it is making jumping better as well.

We already accept alot of rules flexibility with the game,
Why should spells be considered any more sacred?

I don't have any problem with jumping over a 5x5x5 hazardous cube, provided there's more than 5ft of clearance above it.

[Theodoxus]

Page 201 of the PHB has this to say about spells:
“ WHAT Is A SPELL?
A spell is a discrete magical effect, a single shaping
of the magical energies that suffuse the multiverse
into a specific, limited expression. In casting a spell,
a character carefully plucks at the invisible strands of raw magic suffusing the world, pins them in place in a particular pattern, sets them vibrating in a specific way, and then releases them to unleash the desired effect-in most cases, all in the span of seconds.”

Yet even in this quote, it is made clear with the use of the hyphen, that spell unleash their desired effect only “in most cases”.

So no, BY The POWER OF RAW, spells only do what they say they do, “in most cases”. I would like the internet to acknowledge that we have been discussing D&D, wrong for 10 years now.

Occam's Razor 'in most cases' means 'unless something like Counterspell is used', or a save is made, or an attack roll is missed; and is future looking. I don't think it's a catchall for very potential interaction new under the sun between a spell and mundania.

The rest of the definition, using FAR more words, describes that actually, yes, spells do exactly as they are written to do, no more, no less.

Reminds me of internet bros talking about a certain comma in a certain amendment negating everything that came before said comma... as if the first part was written for no reason at all.

Why would WotC write such specific prose if at the end of it all, they essentially say "just kidding, it doesn't matter!"

[stoutstien]

If you're asking how I'd rule - yes and no. The fire doesn't appear to need any fuel, so I would rule that you can dowse it temporarily (for example, with a Create Water downpour), but that it would return on the caster's turn if they're still concentrating on it and the water or other smothering factor has ceased. (I would further rule that Wall of Fire works in similar fashion, though you might need a stronger source of water like a Tidal Wave spell.)

I would run it very similar to this besides if they come up with a particularly good idea I might make the caster user action to reinitiate the spell.

The riskier actions tend to correspond with a higher return.

[Dr.Samurai]

I said the TABLE'S happiness matters. The table includes the DM.

No, no. You said "[The DM's] table isn't having fun, [the DM] needs to fix it".

How does the DM fix this particular issue?

5e is the absolute least RAW-focused edition D&D has ever had, at least since the proliferation of online communities and message boards

Are you conflating the "edition" with how people talk about it online?

I don't disagree with any of this, so I'm not sure why it's being presented as some kind of counterargument to my position.

It's just a general thought that follows along this conversation. This edition is about rulings. That should include interactions with spells. Saying "but this is what the discrete description of the spell says" is meaningless in a game of imagination, improv, and make believe.

Reminds me of internet bros talking about a certain comma in a certain amendment negating everything that came before said comma... as if the first part was written for no reason at all.

Nice signature.

[KorvinStarmast]

This is survival now. This is D&D 6th edition.

That's Logan's Run.

May as well rule that a rogue with Evasion at ground zero of a fireball can't evade because "How?".

Flop, drop, and roll.

Could you smother a create bonfire spell?

With my mother in law? yes.