Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7868824" data-attributes="member: 6779196">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?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.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.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.</blockquote>