D&D 5E Can you twin booming blade

[Xetheral]

The melee attack is, quite explicitly, part of the action used to cast the spell, not part of the effect of the spell.

The text of the spell is indeed explicit: the melee weapon attack is part of the action used to cast the spell. I can't agree with your second claim, however, that the melee weapon attack is not an effect of the spell.

Consider: The only thing permitting the caster to make a melee weapon attack as part of the Cast a Spell action is the text of the Booming Blade spell itself. If the spell is successfully countered with Counterspell, none of the text in the body of the description of Booming Blade applies, and thus no melee weapon attack can be made. Similarly, if trying to cast Booming Blade in an antimagic field, you don't get to make a melee weapon attack as part of your Cast a Spell action. (This contrasts with other spells, where--because VSM components are generally permitted by the Cast a Spell rules--you can still complete VSM components as part of your Cast a Spell action in an antimagic field, there simply isn't any result.)

Yes, this creates a paradox where the melee weapon attack is both a requirement to successfully casting Booming Blade, and simultaneously is an effect of successfully casting the spell. I would argue, however, that it is the creation of this paradox that is the underlying problem with how Booming Blade is written that leads to so many issues.

 

[Charlaquin]

The text of the spell is indeed explicit: the melee weapon attack is part of the action used to cast the spell. I can't agree with your second claim, however, that the melee weapon attack is not an effect of the spell.

Consider: The only thing permitting the caster to make a melee weapon attack as part of the Cast a Spell action is the text of the Booming Blade spell itself.

I don’t think this works as a counter-argument because if it was the intent for the attack not to be part of the effect of the spell (which we know it wasn’t, but hypothetically if it was), what is the alternative to putting that instruction in the text of the spell?

If the spell is successfully countered with Counterspell, none of the text in the body of the description of Booming Blade applies, and thus no melee weapon attack can be made.

I don’t agree with that interpretation. The caster of a spell that gets countered has still taken the Cast a Spell action, of which the attack is part.

Similarly, if trying to cast Booming Blade in an antimagic field, you don't get to make a melee weapon attack as part of your Cast a Spell action. (This contrasts with other spells, where--because VSM components are generally permitted by the Cast a Spell rules--you can still complete VSM components as part of your Cast a Spell action in an antimagic field, there simply isn't any result.)

Again, I disagree. Attacking isn’t magic, so a. antimagic field shouldn’t prevent the character from doing it, any more than it stops them from performing the verbal components.

Yes, this creates a paradox where the melee weapon attack is both a requirement to successfully casting Booming Blade, and simultaneously is an effect of successfully casting the spell. I would argue, however, that it is the creation of this paradox that is the underlying problem with how Booming Blade is written that leads to so many issues.

Well, on that I do agree with you. BB and GFB are written in a way that causes confusion, and even if you don’t agree with my technical reading of the rules, I hope I have demonstrated how it is at least a possible interpretation of the text, despite explicitly being contrary to the design intent. It would have been far better to have just worded it “you make a melee weapon attack against the target with the weapon used as the material components” instead of putting in the bit about it being part of the action used to cast the spell.

 

[Xetheral]

I don’t think this works as a counter-argument because if it was the intent for the attack not to be part of the effect of the spell (which we know it wasn’t, but hypothetically if it was), what is the alternative to putting that instruction in the text of the spell?

Interesting point. Hmm. I'm not sure there is anywhere to put such an instruction. Maybe in the components line they could have written: "V, S (see text), M (a weapon)"? That might have permitted part of the text of the spell to describe the somatic component as including a melee weapon attack, rather than the text exclusively describing the spell's effect. (I can see that approach creating other problems, however.) But I don't think it's fatal to my argument even if there isn't anywhere to put such an instruction--it would just mean that a spell-specific exception to the Cast a Spell rules can't be expressed in 5e without creating the type of problems we see in Booming Blade.

I don’t agree with that interpretation. The caster of a spell that gets countered has still taken the Cast a Spell action, of which the attack is part.

Interesting! So are you saying that the ability to make a melee weapon attack as part of a Cast a Spell action is a result of casting Booming Blade without being an effect of the spell? If so, it seems to me that you're not using the natural language definition of "effect" and are instead assuming a D&D-specific definition. (Which definition is better is up for debate--I'm just pointing out that your reading requires departing from natural language.)

I'm not on Twitter, but it would be interesting to see whether JC thinks Counterspell stops the melee weapon attack. If anyone wants to ask, I'd recommend this wording:

Is the melee weapon attack required to cast Booming Blade an effect of the spell that would be stopped by a Counterspell? Or can the caster of a counterspelled Booming Blade still make an unenhanced melee weapon attack as part of their Cast a Spell action?​

EDIT: Nevermind, I should have googled before posting. It's already been asked, and the answer is no, you don't get to make the melee weapon attack: If my Green-Flame Blade is Counterspelled, do I still get to make a normal melee attack.

Again, I disagree. Attacking isn’t magic, so a. antimagic field shouldn’t prevent the character from doing it, any more than it stops them from performing the verbal components.

Here I think the rules are very clear: you cannot cast a spell in an Antimagic Field due to the text "Within the sphere, spells can't be cast". The only way to make a melee weapon attack as part of a Cast a Spell action is if you're casting Booming Blade or Greenflame Blade. Since neither spell can be cast in an AMF, the normal rules of Cast a Spell apply, which only permit VSM/F components and not melee weapon attacks.

Well, on that I do agree with you. BB and GFB are written in a way that causes confusion, and even if you don’t agree with my technical reading of the rules, I hope I have demonstrated how it is at least a possible interpretation of the text, despite explicitly being contrary to the design intent. It would have been far better to have just worded it “you make a melee weapon attack against the target with the weapon used as the material components” instead of putting in the bit about it being part of the action used to cast the spell.

I agree that your proposed wording would have avoided these problems.

 

[Salthorae]

I don't think the wording of BB or GFB are great, but I also don't think they are as complicated RAW as people in this thread make them out.

I think these portions of that thread are relevant to this discussion on component vs. effect:

Attack is part of the spell effect

Those cantrips are purposefully unusual. Unlike smite spells, the cantrips incorporate a weapon attack in the spell effect.

And

The attack can't be disentangled from the spell

If the attack could be disentangled from the spell's effect, the attack would be a component, not part of the effect.

RAI, whatever your view on the wording of the spells, you can twin BB as Crawford has explicitly stated in the previous linked tweet.

 

[Charlaquin]

Interesting point. Hmm. I'm not sure there is anywhere to put such an instruction. Maybe in the components line they could have written: "V, S (see text), M (a weapon)"? That might have permitted part of the text of the spell to describe the somatic component as including a melee weapon attack, rather than the text exclusively describing the spell's effect. (I can see that approach creating other problems, however.) But I don't think it's fatal to my argument even if there isn't anywhere to put such an instruction--it would just mean that a spell-specific exception to the Cast a Spell rules can't be expressed in 5e without creating the type of problems we see in Booming Blade.

But that’s the thing. If a spell-specific exception to the Cast a Spell rules can’t be expressed in 5e without creating the type of problems we see in Booming Blade, then the existence of the problems we see in Booming Blade could be an indicator of intent to create a spell-specific exception to the Cast a Spell rules. Especially because if the intent was not to create a spell-specific exception to the Cast a Spell rules, they could easily have done so without creating those problems.

I mean, we have confirmation that wasn’t their intent, so evidently the problems are just a result of poor wording. But I don’t think that would have been at all clear without Crawford’s tweets.

Interesting! So are you saying that the ability to make a melee weapon attack as part of a Cast a Spell action is a result of casting Booming Blade without being an effect of the spell? If so, it seems to me that you're not using the natural language definition of "effect" and are instead assuming a D&D-specific definition. (Which definition is better is up for debate--I'm just pointing out that your reading requires departing from natural language.)

I’d say that’s a fair assessment. The thing is, I have noticed that 5e really only pretends to use natural language, while subtly assigning highly technical meanings to natural-sounding terms. This is unsurprising to me, coming as it does from Wizards of the Coast, whose decades of experience with fine-tuning the wording in Magic the Gathering has made them experts at making technical language sound natural. 5e’s language is actually pretty lacking compared to M:tG’s standard, but that makes sense since a. it’s a different team and b. “the rules read like Magic cards” was a big critique of 4e.

I'm not on Twitter, but it would be interesting to see whether JC thinks Counterspell stops the melee weapon attack. If anyone wants to ask, I'd recommend this wording:

Is the melee weapon attack required to cast Booming Blade an effect of the spell that would be stopped by a Counterspell? Or can the caster of a counterspelled Booming Blade still make an unenhanced melee weapon attack as part of their Cast a Spell action?​

EDIT: Nevermind, I should have googled before posting. It's already been asked, and the answer is no, you don't get to make the melee weapon attack: If my Green-Flame Blade is Counterspelled, do I still get to make a normal melee attack.

Yeah, I am not surprised that’s his stance on it, in light of the other answers he has given to questions about these two spells. My point isn’t that my reading was their intent, it’s that my reading is what a technical interpretation of the text would indicate.

Here I think the rules are very clear: you cannot cast a spell in an Antimagic Field due to the text "Within the sphere, spells can't be cast". The only way to make a melee weapon attack as part of a Cast a Spell action is if you're casting Booming Blade or Greenflame Blade. Since neither spell can be cast in an AMF, the normal rules of Cast a Spell apply, which only permit VSM/F components and not melee weapon attacks.

A good point, well made. I must concede that if we are being consistent in reading the rules technically, this would be the correct interpretation of the result of attempting to cast BB or GFB in an antimagic field.

 

[Xetheral]

I don't think the wording of BB or GFB are great, but I also don't think they are as complicated RAW as people in this thread make them out.

I think these portions of that thread are relevant to this discussion on component vs. effect:

Attack is part of the spell effect


And

The attack can't be disentangled from the spell



RAI, whatever your view on the wording of the spells, you can twin BB as Crawford has explicitly stated in the previous linked tweet.

I feel the complication comes from the fact that BB and GFB are the only spells where a portion of their effect (the melee weapon attack) is required to preceed the successful casting of the spell (or else the spell fails and isn't successfully cast). Lots of D&D rules are abstract, and some spells (e.g. Shield) have a retroactive effect, but having the effect of successfully casting Booming Blade also be a requirement for successfully casting it is taking things a bit far, in my opinion.

But that’s the thing. If a spell-specific exception to the Cast a Spell rules can’t be expressed in 5e without creating the type of problems we see in Booming Blade, then the existence of the problems we see in Booming Blade could be an indicator of intent to create a spell-specific exception to the Cast a Spell rules. Especially because if the intent was not to create a spell-specific exception to the Cast a Spell rules, they could easily have done so without creating those problems.

I mean, we have confirmation that wasn’t their intent, so evidently the problems are just a result of poor wording. But I don’t think that would have been at all clear without Crawford’s tweets.

I agree that if it's impossible in 5e to clearly indicate a spell-specific exception to the Cast a Spell rules, then the lack of clarity in Booming Blade could indeed be evidence that the developers were trying to express an exception that they didn't give themselves room to express.

I don't think it would be enough evidence to persuade me that they didn't also (paradoxically) intend for the melee weapon attack to be an effect of the spell, but I can't be entirely sure I would feel the same way if we didn't have the benefit of the tweets.

I'd say that’s a fair assessment. The thing is, I have noticed that 5e really only pretends to use natural language, while subtly assigning highly technical meanings to natural-sounding terms. This is unsurprising to me, coming as it does from Wizards of the Coast, whose decades of experience with fine-tuning the wording in Magic the Gathering has made them experts at making technical language sound natural. 5e’s language is actually pretty lacking compared to M:tG’s standard, but that makes sense since a. it’s a different team and b. “the rules read like Magic cards” was a big critique of 4e.

I agree that 5e does not consistently stick to natural language. Since they apparently wanted to stick to natural language, I'm usually willing to give extra weight to those interpretations that don't require assuming a new technical definition. But it's not a lot of extra weight, simply because there are so many examples of where they didn't use natural language.

Personally, I think the effort to try to use natural language went too far. It would have been clearer if they'd acknowledged where they weren't using natural language and then being explicit about the technical definitions they were using. Addressing the complaints about 4e could have been better handled by limiting the number of technical terms, rather than trying (and necessarily failing) to avoid technical terms outright.

 

[Krachek]

I agree, they’re so kludgy.

When too much importance is put on two cantrips there is something wrong, I think they would better be a subclass feature of the bladesinger. Like eldritch blast would be better as a class feature of the warlock.

 

[Ashrym]

I feel the complication comes from the fact that BB and GFB are the only spells where a portion of their effect (the melee weapon attack) is required to preceed the successful casting of the spell (or else the spell fails and isn't successfully cast).

That's not part of the spell. There is no weapon attack preceding the spell. There is a weapon attack as part of casting the spell.

"As part of the action used to cast this spell..."

The the weapon attack and spell are the same thing.

The only difference between booming blade and firebolt is that the attack modifier and damage done are based on a weapon in hand.

 

[Xetheral]

That's not part of the spell. There is no weapon attack preceding the spell. There is a weapon attack as part of casting the spell.

"As part of the action used to cast this spell..."

The the weapon attack and spell are the same thing.

The only difference between booming blade and firebolt is that the attack modifier and damage done are based on a weapon in hand.

The full text of the first paragraph is: "As part of the action used to cast this spell, you must make a melee attack with a weapon against one creature within the spell's range, otherwise the spell fails." (Emphasis added.)

If the melee attack came after the spell has already been successfully cast, it would be impossible for the spell to fail by not making the attack. (A spell can't both succeed and fail.) But we the spell can fail if you don't make the attack. Ergo, the melee attack has to come after you start casting the spell, but before you successfully cast it.

 

[lumenbeing]

This discussion, while occasionally invoking the name of “natural language”, wholly ignores common sense. These game rules are an abstraction of a fiction. In the fiction, if a character was physically capable of performing two weapon attacks (swinging a sword for example) in the same turn in the course of casting a spell, then they should be able to Multiattack in the course of a normal attack action. How can a sorcerer do something like that? They can’t. They aren't fighters. Yet in the alternative reality that is this discussion, they suddenly have the equivalent of the second attack ability. The spell has a casting time of 1 round. So this sorcerer can attack 2 creatures in 6 seconds? No. If he could he should be able to do it every round as a mwa.
Let’s imagine that the spell said “as part of the action of casting this spell, you must toss a gold coin to a creature within 5’ of you”, and let’s further imagine you only have 1 gold coin in your pocket. By the logic given in comments above, by twinning the spell, you just doubled your money! Twinning a spell doesn’t give the caster access to resources that weren’t there to begin with.
What was the intent of Booming Blade? To add a cool spell effect to a weapon attack while keeping it all neatly within the “cast a spell” action. You swing a sword at somebody and if you hit them their movement is restricted to some degree. The designers cocked up the wording. And I bet they never gave 2 seconds thought to how Twinned Spell would word with it. Rather than fix it, or admit their own failure, JC retcons their intent by Tweet. I’m sorry but, no. The requirement that the caster “must make” a weapon attack does not grant a weapon attack. That’s just dumb. That’s putting a coin in your pocket that wasn’t there.