So, part of casting Green Flame Blade (or Booming Blade) involves a weapon attack against a target. I know that, logically, if someone were to counterspell the cantrip that there should still be a weapon attack that just isn't magically enhanced... but on the other hand, RAW, the Melee Weapon Attack is still part of the spell, and there could be an argument that counterspelling it would interrupt the entire thing.
Personally, I would still allow the melee attack to go through, but I'm just curious about what people think would be the correct response.
I like to imagine the spell requirements make you waste time and energy flailing the weapon around doing weird arcana stuff. Then, when the spell energy ignites, it drives the force of the weapon true into the target. So, if you get counterspelled while performing the spell you ended up just doing weird arcana stuff to no effect.
Green Flame Blade You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting andmake a melee attackwith it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it.
I think it's down to DM interpretation but, as you're using the weapon from the very beginning with the intention of making a melee attack with it, I'd certainly allow you to continue on with a combat attack though I might give disadvantage.
I think the question would be why someone would want to counterspell a cantrip. If it's a last ditch effort to save themself or an enemy, I'd allow the counterspell to "throw of the attack with the tendrils of power of the counterspell ". If it's a monster or some kind of spellcaster that can just counterspell WAY to much so it counterspells everything, I'd let there be just a normal attack.
I think the question would be why someone would want to counterspell a cantrip. If it's a last ditch effort to save themself or an enemy, I'd allow the counterspell to "throw of the attack with the tendrils of power of the counterspell ". If it's a monster or some kind of spellcaster that can just counterspell WAY to much so it counterspells everything, I'd let there be just a normal attack.
I think that's partly why this topic doesn't really come up as an issue in games... why waste a third level spell on a cantrip? So in that sense, it's a problem that takes care of itself, but it's still one of those thought experiments that comes up with the game.
I know that the actual rules of the spell would interrupt the entire casting of GFB, but it's a pretty unique spell in that it uses the weapon to make a regular melee attack. This partly came to mind because of another thread where someone asked about Steel Wind Strike, which also requires use of a weapon in the casting of the spell, but SWS produces a unique force-based attack regardless of the weapon used, whereas GFB still includes a standard melee weapon attack as part of the spell itself. It's almost like a smite, in that regard, but with different rules attached.
Still, I think that even in a heavily simulation-based mindset you can still justify counterspell interrupting the entire process as Ravnodus and Sutlo have mentioned... there's more to the spell than just a single, smooth weapon attack, otherwise you could justify combining it with Extra Attack, so there's a lot that could be described by a savvy DM to not make it feel like it breaks immersion or anything.
I think the question would be why someone would want to counterspell a cantrip. If it's a last ditch effort to save themself or an enemy, I'd allow the counterspell to "throw of the attack with the tendrils of power of the counterspell ". If it's a monster or some kind of spellcaster that can just counterspell WAY to much so it counterspells everything, I'd let there be just a normal attack.
At a bare minimum, the counterspeller has to pass an Arcana check to know the spell is a cantrip, and if the DM takes literally the claim that Counterspellinterrupts the cast, meaning it's not finished yet, the check can't be made yet and the counterspeller has no idea what spell they're counterspelling.
The wording was changed as of Tasha's, and it makes things much less ambiguous. The old version used to say that the weapon attack happened "as part of the action used to cast the spell", which is admittedly more confusing. The new version just makes it clear that the weapon attack itself is a direct effect of the spell, which means Counterspell would prevent it from happening.
My take is that the part "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell" is fluff and not mechanics. The mechanics are "On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect".
This interpretation means that you make the melee weapon attack as (somatic component) part of casting of the spell, but the spell effect does not materialize. So weapon damage - yes; spell damage - no.
You could also read it as the spell is interrupted and the somatic component was not used (if you are less strict in the reading of the spell description), which then would mean no weapon damage, either. However, this would also imply that the original caster would not have used any spell components and you could make a strong case neither did they use a spell slot.
My take is that the part "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell" is fluff and not mechanics. The mechanics are "On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect".
This interpretation means that you make the melee weapon attack as (somatic component) part of casting of the spell, but the spell effect does not materialize. So weapon damage - yes; spell damage - no.
You could also read it as the spell is interrupted and the somatic component was not used (if you are less strict in the reading of the spell description), which then would mean no weapon damage, either. However, this would also imply that the original caster would not have used any spell components and you could make a strong case neither did they use a spell slot.
There's likely more to the somatic component than just making the melee weapon attack as the weapon is the material component and there is no verbal component.
My take is that the part "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell" is fluff and not mechanics. The mechanics are "On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect".
Unfortunately the rules doesn't differentiate between fluff/mechanics (even though they really ought to in some places). Fortunately it usually doesn't matter, it certainly doesn't in this case.
This interpretation means that you make the melee weapon attack as (somatic component) part of casting of the spell, but the spell effect does not materialize. So weapon damage - yes; spell damage - no.
And that interpretation is incorrect. Green-Flame Blade gives the answer in its description, "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it". The melee attack is an effect of the spell having been cast, "used in", not the other way around. And thus if the spell is stopped so is the melee attack.
You could also read it as the spell is interrupted and the somatic component was not used (if you are less strict in the reading of the spell description), which then would mean no weapon damage, either. However, this would also imply that the original caster would not have used any spell components and you could make a strong case neither did they use a spell slot.
The spell slot is used, that's at least the intention. I'd say that most would consider the component used too but expect some table variation. That isn't relevant to GFB though since the spell doesn't consume the material component.
So, part of casting Green Flame Blade (or Booming Blade) involves a weapon attack against a target. I know that, logically, if someone were to counterspell the cantrip that there should still be a weapon attack that just isn't magically enhanced... but on the other hand, RAW, the Melee Weapon Attack is still part of the spell, and there could be an argument that counterspelling it would interrupt the entire thing.
Personally, I would still allow the melee attack to go through, but I'm just curious about what people think would be the correct response.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Counterspell says that the spell being countered "has no effect". I'd have to conclude that that means no melee attack taking place.
I like to imagine the spell requirements make you waste time and energy flailing the weapon around doing weird arcana stuff. Then, when the spell energy ignites, it drives the force of the weapon true into the target. So, if you get counterspelled while performing the spell you ended up just doing weird arcana stuff to no effect.
I got quotes!
Green Flame Blade
You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it against one creature within 5 feet of you. On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects, and you can cause green fire to leap from the target to a different creature of your choice that you can see within 5 feet of it.
I think it's down to DM interpretation but, as you're using the weapon from the very beginning with the intention of making a melee attack with it, I'd certainly allow you to continue on with a combat attack though I might give disadvantage.
I think the question would be why someone would want to counterspell a cantrip. If it's a last ditch effort to save themself or an enemy, I'd allow the counterspell to "throw of the attack with the tendrils of power of the counterspell ". If it's a monster or some kind of spellcaster that can just counterspell WAY to much so it counterspells everything, I'd let there be just a normal attack.
I think that's partly why this topic doesn't really come up as an issue in games... why waste a third level spell on a cantrip? So in that sense, it's a problem that takes care of itself, but it's still one of those thought experiments that comes up with the game.
I know that the actual rules of the spell would interrupt the entire casting of GFB, but it's a pretty unique spell in that it uses the weapon to make a regular melee attack. This partly came to mind because of another thread where someone asked about Steel Wind Strike, which also requires use of a weapon in the casting of the spell, but SWS produces a unique force-based attack regardless of the weapon used, whereas GFB still includes a standard melee weapon attack as part of the spell itself. It's almost like a smite, in that regard, but with different rules attached.
Still, I think that even in a heavily simulation-based mindset you can still justify counterspell interrupting the entire process as Ravnodus and Sutlo have mentioned... there's more to the spell than just a single, smooth weapon attack, otherwise you could justify combining it with Extra Attack, so there's a lot that could be described by a savvy DM to not make it feel like it breaks immersion or anything.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
At a bare minimum, the counterspeller has to pass an Arcana check to know the spell is a cantrip, and if the DM takes literally the claim that Counterspell interrupts the cast, meaning it's not finished yet, the check can't be made yet and the counterspeller has no idea what spell they're counterspelling.
Green-Flame Blade
The wording was changed as of Tasha's, and it makes things much less ambiguous. The old version used to say that the weapon attack happened "as part of the action used to cast the spell", which is admittedly more confusing. The new version just makes it clear that the weapon attack itself is a direct effect of the spell, which means Counterspell would prevent it from happening.
Here is my interpretation, in the style of the underpants gnomes
My take is that the part "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell" is fluff and not mechanics. The mechanics are "On a success, the creature's spell fails and has no effect".
This interpretation means that you make the melee weapon attack as (somatic component) part of casting of the spell, but the spell effect does not materialize. So weapon damage - yes; spell damage - no.
You could also read it as the spell is interrupted and the somatic component was not used (if you are less strict in the reading of the spell description), which then would mean no weapon damage, either. However, this would also imply that the original caster would not have used any spell components and you could make a strong case neither did they use a spell slot.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
There's likely more to the somatic component than just making the melee weapon attack as the weapon is the material component and there is no verbal component.
Unfortunately the rules doesn't differentiate between fluff/mechanics (even though they really ought to in some places). Fortunately it usually doesn't matter, it certainly doesn't in this case.
And that interpretation is incorrect. Green-Flame Blade gives the answer in its description, "You brandish the weapon used in the spell’s casting and make a melee attack with it". The melee attack is an effect of the spell having been cast, "used in", not the other way around. And thus if the spell is stopped so is the melee attack.
The spell slot is used, that's at least the intention. I'd say that most would consider the component used too but expect some table variation. That isn't relevant to GFB though since the spell doesn't consume the material component.
The bigger question is, "Why waste a counter spell on this?"
OTOH, I agree that if one is used then there is no attack because the attack is part of the spell's effect and not separate from it.