Problems come in with Quickened cantrips like mind sliver followed by a saving throw leveled spell as action to benefit from cantrips -1d4 to the saving throw in one go.
By the bonus action rules you cannot do this but by the 1 cantrip 1 leveled spell version you can
Edit: I’m being stupid this morning so yes you can cast mind sliver as the action and leveled spell quickened so ends up being both spells on your turn
Problems come in with Quickened cantrips like mind sliver followed by a saving throw leveled spell as action to benefit from cantrips -1d4 to the saving throw in one go.
Problems should not arise as the situation you described is not possible to pull off RAW.
You can however do it in the reverse order: use your Action to cast Mind Sliver followed by the Quickened leveled saving throw spell.
and then because we're being silly, we can use Ravnodaus' war caster example to throw in one more ray of frost as a reaction, lol.
No, this wouldn’t work, typically.
The Warcaster feat allows you to cast a “spell as a reaction”. This means it uses your reaction to use Warcaster. The spell you cast must meet a specific criteria to be able to be cast this way.
Now… that being said, we can rule this one of two ways:
1) The pedantic way: “the spell is 1 action!”
In this case, if you Misty Step to your opponent and their Readied movement triggers your Opp Attack.. this means you lose your Reaction* (Opp Attack), and you’ve also cast a spell of 1 action, which means you lose your Action** as well. So with this wording, you can Bonus Action spell and Action spell in one round, at the cost of your Action. I don’t even want to know the rules knots you have to tie to make this work…
* - You have to lose your Reaction otherwise you’d be able to retain your Reaction for other actions in other rounds.
** - You have to lose your Action because the entire argument is that a Warcaster spell is an Action spell, not a Reaction.
2) The typical way: “the spell is cast as a reaction, and counts as a reaction”
Then all previous rulings and rules apply.
Obviously both could be considered by your DM obviously, best to ask them that specific scenario and see what they think. Or, it’s possible they might just allow Reaction/BA Spells by default and all of it is moot.
For the rules junkies, I still think this is the most complete list:
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
What you need to ask yourself with the War Caster feat as it’s written:
You’re using your Reaction to Cast a Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action. The Bonus Action rule prohibits casting any other Spell that turn except a Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action.
Two Interpretations
a) “Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action” is just a qualifying statement not a description of actions. If so, you are using your “Reaction to Cast X (with Y qualifiers)”. In this case, the Rule allows for it explicitly because it fits the criteria (the qualifiers match in each case).
b) “Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action” is a Spell Type and a Specific Casting time. If you read it this way, using your “Reaction to cast a spell” is negated by the fact that you’re using a Reaction (not an Action), to cast said spell.
Does that make more sense? English is hard via text.
What you need to ask yourself with the War Caster feat as it’s written:
You’re using your Reaction to Cast a Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action. The Bonus Action rule prohibits casting any other Spell that turn except a Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action.
Two Interpretations
a) “Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action” is just a qualifying statement not a description of actions. If so, you are using your “Reaction to Cast X (with Y qualifiers)”. In this case, the Rule allows for it explicitly because it fits the criteria (the qualifiers match in each case).
b) “Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action” is a Spell Type and a Specific Casting time. If you read it this way, using your “Reaction to cast a spell” is negated by the fact that you’re using a Reaction (not an Action), to cast said spell.
Does that make more sense? English is hard via text.
Casting it with a reaction never changes the fact that it is "A cantrip with a casting time of 1 action" and therefore it always qualifies for the exception "except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.".
So, this would be case a). Ie. Booming Blade is a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. Therefore you can cast Booming Blade on the same turn in which you use your Bonus Action to cast a spell of a level 1+.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
What you need to ask yourself with the War Caster feat as it’s written:
You’re using your Reaction to Cast a Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action. The Bonus Action rule prohibits casting any other Spell that turn except a Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action.
Two Interpretations
a) “Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action” is just a qualifying statement not a description of actions. If so, you are using your “Reaction to Cast X (with Y qualifiers)”. In this case, the Rule allows for it explicitly because it fits the criteria (the qualifiers match in each case).
b) “Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action” is a Spell Type and a Specific Casting time. If you read it this way, using your “Reaction to cast a spell” is negated by the fact that you’re using a Reaction (not an Action), to cast said spell.
Does that make more sense? English is hard via text.
Casting it with a reaction never changes the fact that it is "A cantrip with a casting time of 1 action" and therefore it always qualifies for the exception "except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.".
So, this would be case a). Ie. Booming Blade is a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. Therefore you can cast Booming Blade on the same turn in which you use your Bonus Action to cast a spell of a level 1+.
Right. Exactly like I said, except a is not the only interpretation - b is also a valid interpretation, if the “Cantrip with a casting time of 1 action” is not just a qualifying statement but also a limiting statement of object and verb.
For example: under Casting Time: “Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.”
In one way: The Casting Time is in the description of the spell (and a qualifier)
In another way: A Spell Cast as a Reaction, is a Spell that uses a Reaction to Cast.
So when you say you are limited by “a Cantrip with a Casting Time of 1 action”… does this refer to the Spell Description or the Casting Time it is cast?
I’ll contend that either could be *technically* correct but it’s not going to resolve the table discussions - the DM is the best arbiter, as always. I’d throw this on the pile of what would best be resolved/clarified in 5.5.
Warcaster is actually a interesting interaction, because yeah the BA rule only cares about casting time "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
And Warcaster keeps the casting time to 1 action. Weird stuff.
So yeah the most spells you can cast on your own is 3 (Action, Action Surge, Reaction), the most spells you can cost generally is 1 & 3 cantrips (Action, Action Surge, Bonus Action, Reaction).
Theoretically you can get significantly more spells by going Wild Magic Sorcerer and triggering any wild magic that casts a spell, however that's very dependent on both your DM & rng (there is no limit on number of times a DM can force you to roll for Wild Magic, and one of the effects is granting a additional action which could trigger wild magic again for a theoretical infinite loop).
That's extremely questionable though, and I think is also beyond the scope of this thread (Which has likely been answered to death already).
For example: under Casting Time: “Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.”
In one way: The Casting Time is in the description of the spell (and a qualifier)
In another way: A Spell Cast as a Reaction, is a Spell that uses a Reaction to Cast.
So when you say you are limited by “a Cantrip with a Casting Time of 1 action”… does this refer to the Spell Description or the Casting Time it is cast?
I’ll contend that either could be *technically* correct but it’s not going to resolve the table discussions - the DM is the best arbiter, as always. I’d throw this on the pile of what would best be resolved/clarified in 5.5.
The reason option B is incorrect is because Warcaster can only be used with a Cantrip that has a casting time of 1 action. If you're using the warcaster to reaction cast a cantrip, de facto it is: A cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
It has to be or you couldn't be using it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The casting time is not simply a tag to me, it's the action actually used to cast the spell.
When you cast a spell via War Caster, you select a spell with a casting time of 1 action, and cast it now as a reaction. If the casting remains otherwise unchanged, the feat would be almost never usable since you wouldn't be able to use it off turn not being able to use an action and a reaction.
My only conclusion is that a War Caster spell's Casting Time that originally requires 1 action to cast, now require a reaction.
Casting Time: Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast. Reactions Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.
The casting time is not simply a tag to me, it's the action actually used to cast the spell.
When you cast a spell via War Caster, you select a spell with a casting time of 1 action, and cast it now as a reaction. If the casting remains otherwise unchanged, the feat would be almost never usable since you wouldn't be able to use it off turn not being able to use an action and a reaction.
My only conclusion is that a War Caster spell's Casting Time that originally requires 1 action to cast, now require a reaction.
Casting Time: Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast. Reactions Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.
You're incorrect because the way you want to parse these rules prevent anyone from ever using Warcaster to sub in a spell. Warcaster:
When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.
The spell must have a Casting time of 1 action. This is unavoidably true to use it for warcaster.
You cast it with a reaction.
The spell has a casting time of 1 action.
How can both be true? Both must be true to use this feature. Both are true because the spell has its own casting time, and you can ignore it because you have a feature that grants you an exception. But your feature doesn't change the nature of the spell, the spell itself has a casting time of 1 action.
Pay close attention to what the "subject" of a sentence is. If it requires "you" to do something, like "you must spend a reaction" then it is talking about what "you do". But if it required, instead, some trait of something else, like the "spell" having a cast time of 1 action, it isn't asking you about yourself, it is asking you about "the spell".
Again, pay close attention to what warcaster is telling us. At no point does it say we change the spell's casting time, it merely grants us the exception to cast it as a reaction anyway. To contrast that, look at Quicken Spell metamagic:
Quickened Spell
When you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 action, you can spend 2 sorcery points to change the casting time to 1 bonus action for this casting.
Quicken spell is modifying the spell itself in a way warcaster feat doesn't do. The spell you cast with warcaster isn't being modified, you, personally, are simply being granted an exception to cast it despite the fact its casting time is 1 action.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
An official ruling in Sage Advice Compendium confirms War Caster bypass the 1 action casting time. So i conclude it'd work before or after a bonus action spell.
Can you use a melee spell attack to make an opportunity attack? You can’t if the spell attack is created by casting a spell. When a creature triggers an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to make a melee attack against it. The opportunity attack doesn’t suddenly give you the ability to cast a spell, such as shocking grasp. Each spell has a casting time. A game feature, such as an opportunity attack, doesn’t let you bypass that casting time, unless the feature says otherwise. The War Caster feat is an example of a feature that does let you bypass a 1-action casting time to cast a spell in place of an opportunity attack. A few monsters can make opportunity attacks with melee spell attacks. Here’s how: certain monsters—including the banshee, lich, and specter—have a melee spell attack that isn’t delivered by a spell. For example, the banshee’s Corrupting Touch action is a melee spell attack but no spell is cast to make it. The banshee can, therefore, make opportunity attacks with Corrupting Touch.
My only conclusion is that a War Caster spell's Casting Time that originally requires 1 action to cast, now require a reaction.
That is my conclusion as well.
Similarly, the quickened spell metamagic changes the casting time to 1 Bonus Action for that one casting of the spell, so the Bonus Action rule comes into play.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Problems come in with Quickened cantrips like mind sliver followed by a saving throw leveled spell as action to benefit from cantrips -1d4 to the saving throw in one go.
By the bonus action rules you cannot do this but by the 1 cantrip 1 leveled spell version you can
Edit: I’m being stupid this morning so yes you can cast mind sliver as the action and leveled spell quickened so ends up being both spells on your turn
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Problems should not arise as the situation you described is not possible to pull off RAW.
You can however do it in the reverse order: use your Action to cast Mind Sliver followed by the Quickened leveled saving throw spell.
No, this wouldn’t work, typically.
The Warcaster feat allows you to cast a “spell as a reaction”. This means it uses your reaction to use Warcaster. The spell you cast must meet a specific criteria to be able to be cast this way.
Now… that being said, we can rule this one of two ways:
1) The pedantic way: “the spell is 1 action!”
In this case, if you Misty Step to your opponent and their Readied movement triggers your Opp Attack.. this means you lose your Reaction* (Opp Attack), and you’ve also cast a spell of 1 action, which means you lose your Action** as well. So with this wording, you can Bonus Action spell and Action spell in one round, at the cost of your Action. I don’t even want to know the rules knots you have to tie to make this work…
* - You have to lose your Reaction otherwise you’d be able to retain your Reaction for other actions in other rounds.
** - You have to lose your Action because the entire argument is that a Warcaster spell is an Action spell, not a Reaction.
2) The typical way: “the spell is cast as a reaction, and counts as a reaction”
Then all previous rulings and rules apply.
Obviously both could be considered by your DM obviously, best to ask them that specific scenario and see what they think. Or, it’s possible they might just allow Reaction/BA Spells by default and all of it is moot.
For the rules junkies, I still think this is the most complete list:
https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/85145-spell-action-economy?page=8
Maybe go back and read page 2 for the in-depth discussion of this interaction. I don't feel like quoting myself on page 4.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The spell you cast via Warcaster must have a casting time of 1 action. This is undeniably true, it is even printed in the text of Warcaster.
"The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature."
So even if you're using your reaction to cast it, it is a spell with a casting time of 1 action.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
What you need to ask yourself with the War Caster feat as it’s written:
You’re using your Reaction to Cast a Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action. The Bonus Action rule prohibits casting any other Spell that turn except a Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action.
Two Interpretations
a) “Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action” is just a qualifying statement not a description of actions. If so, you are using your “Reaction to Cast X (with Y qualifiers)”. In this case, the Rule allows for it explicitly because it fits the criteria (the qualifiers match in each case).
b) “Cantrip with a Casting time of 1 Action” is a Spell Type and a Specific Casting time. If you read it this way, using your “Reaction to cast a spell” is negated by the fact that you’re using a Reaction (not an Action), to cast said spell.
Does that make more sense? English is hard via text.
Casting it with a reaction never changes the fact that it is "A cantrip with a casting time of 1 action" and therefore it always qualifies for the exception "except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.".
So, this would be case a). Ie. Booming Blade is a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. Therefore you can cast Booming Blade on the same turn in which you use your Bonus Action to cast a spell of a level 1+.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Right. Exactly like I said, except a is not the only interpretation - b is also a valid interpretation, if the “Cantrip with a casting time of 1 action” is not just a qualifying statement but also a limiting statement of object and verb.
For example: under Casting Time: “Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so.”
In one way: The Casting Time is in the description of the spell (and a qualifier)
In another way: A Spell Cast as a Reaction, is a Spell that uses a Reaction to Cast.
So when you say you are limited by “a Cantrip with a Casting Time of 1 action”… does this refer to the Spell Description or the Casting Time it is cast?
I’ll contend that either could be *technically* correct but it’s not going to resolve the table discussions - the DM is the best arbiter, as always. I’d throw this on the pile of what would best be resolved/clarified in 5.5.
Warcaster is actually a interesting interaction, because yeah the BA rule only cares about casting time "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
And Warcaster keeps the casting time to 1 action. Weird stuff.
So yeah the most spells you can cast on your own is 3 (Action, Action Surge, Reaction), the most spells you can cost generally is 1 & 3 cantrips (Action, Action Surge, Bonus Action, Reaction).
Theoretically you can get significantly more spells by going Wild Magic Sorcerer and triggering any wild magic that casts a spell, however that's very dependent on both your DM & rng (there is no limit on number of times a DM can force you to roll for Wild Magic, and one of the effects is granting a additional action which could trigger wild magic again for a theoretical infinite loop).
That's extremely questionable though, and I think is also beyond the scope of this thread (Which has likely been answered to death already).
if I edit a message, most of the time it's because of grammar. The rest of the time I'll put "Edit:" at the bottom.
The reason option B is incorrect is because Warcaster can only be used with a Cantrip that has a casting time of 1 action. If you're using the warcaster to reaction cast a cantrip, de facto it is: A cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
It has to be or you couldn't be using it.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
The casting time is not simply a tag to me, it's the action actually used to cast the spell.
When you cast a spell via War Caster, you select a spell with a casting time of 1 action, and cast it now as a reaction. If the casting remains otherwise unchanged, the feat would be almost never usable since you wouldn't be able to use it off turn not being able to use an action and a reaction.
My only conclusion is that a War Caster spell's Casting Time that originally requires 1 action to cast, now require a reaction.
You're incorrect because the way you want to parse these rules prevent anyone from ever using Warcaster to sub in a spell. Warcaster:
The spell must have a Casting time of 1 action. This is unavoidably true to use it for warcaster.
How can both be true? Both must be true to use this feature. Both are true because the spell has its own casting time, and you can ignore it because you have a feature that grants you an exception. But your feature doesn't change the nature of the spell, the spell itself has a casting time of 1 action.
Pay close attention to what the "subject" of a sentence is. If it requires "you" to do something, like "you must spend a reaction" then it is talking about what "you do". But if it required, instead, some trait of something else, like the "spell" having a cast time of 1 action, it isn't asking you about yourself, it is asking you about "the spell".
Again, pay close attention to what warcaster is telling us. At no point does it say we change the spell's casting time, it merely grants us the exception to cast it as a reaction anyway. To contrast that, look at Quicken Spell metamagic:
Quicken spell is modifying the spell itself in a way warcaster feat doesn't do. The spell you cast with warcaster isn't being modified, you, personally, are simply being granted an exception to cast it despite the fact its casting time is 1 action.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
An official ruling in Sage Advice Compendium confirms War Caster bypass the 1 action casting time. So i conclude it'd work before or after a bonus action spell.
That is my conclusion as well.
Similarly, the quickened spell metamagic changes the casting time to 1 Bonus Action for that one casting of the spell, so the Bonus Action rule comes into play.