It's your turn. You want to cast a spell. Here's your guide.
It just seems a little misleading because it doesn't specify action. Say you want to cast a spell with your bonus action, so you refer to the chart. "Ok, yes. Oh, I cast firebolt with my bonus action."
It's your turn. You want to cast a spell. Here's your guide.
It just seems a little misleading because it doesn't specify action. Say you want to cast a spell with your bonus action, so you refer to the chart. "Ok, yes. Oh, I cast firebolt with my bonus action."
A little clarification might be needed for the extreme loophole wizards that are out there, but the chart is pretty spot on for how absolutely concise it is. As long as someone follows the rules of spellcasting, realizes that the only way that they can cast Fire Bolt with a bonus action is with an ability like Sorcerer's Quicken Metamagic, and therefore casts it with their action, they are fine. We've seen that this isn't always a given on these forums, though.
It's your turn. You want to cast a spell. Here's your guide.
It just seems a little misleading because it doesn't specify action. Say you want to cast a spell with your bonus action, so you refer to the chart. "Ok, yes. Oh, I cast firebolt with my bonus action."
That's where the chart demonstrates that for all of the possible spell casting situations, it still boils down to the rule's simplicity. To use your example, if you put yourself in a situation to cast fire bolt as a bonus action (with quickened spell?) then you would go down the YES line. In the end, the spell isn't important, it's the action you take when casting that matters.
Can I cast a non-cantrip spells with my reaction (e.g Shield) if i have already cast a spell with my bonus action, that not in my turn (but the same or not the same round)?
example:
Cultist (init 15) Me (init 10) Zombie (init 5)
Case 1: Me A: Firebolt BA: healing word
Zombie A: Attack Me R: Shield
Case 2: Me A: Firebolt BA: healing word
/next round Cultist A: Attack Me R: Shield
Which one can I perform? Both or either? (or neither?)
Can I cast a non-cantrip spells with my reaction (e.g Shield) if i have already cast a spell with my bonus action, that not in my turn (but the same or not the same round)?
Yes. The restriction is on casting spells on the same turn. It appears that the mechanics of ready for spells will prevent casting a regular spell with a readied action, however.
If you use your action to ready the casting action, you're casting a spell right then and there--you are just releasing it later on using your reaction. The chart covers this situation. If you have already used your bonus action to cast a spell, then you are going down the YES path of the chart and the only spell you can ready is a cantrip with a casting time of one action.
Case 1 and case 2 are both fine because the reaction does not happen on your turn. It happens on the creature's turn.
Question I had similar to this. Hexblade/Paladin on his steed. Within 5 feet of monster and mount can’t take another hit. Bonus action Expeditious Retreat (affects both paladin and his found steed). Mount disengage action then bonus action dash and move to 110 feet. Then eldritch blast on mob. Is this valid? Find steed says they act as one.
While you’re mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.
You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.
An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.
In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount."
With an intelligence of 6 I would think the paladin mount could disengage either controlled or independent. It would need to be controlled to use Player action after mount disengage and movement I believe.
Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit. While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed.
While you’re mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.
You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.
An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.
In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount."
With an intelligence of 6 I would think the paladin mount could disengage either controlled or independent. It would need to be controlled to use Player action after mount disengage and movement I believe.
Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit. While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed.
Really just checking if Player Bonus action, Mount on same Initiative Action, Mount Bonus Action, Mount Movement, Player Action is legal RAW/RAI.
As far as I can tell, it's valid. Your character would still be a valid target for OA since it doesn't say that the disengage affects you. There's any number of scenarios where that both makes sense and doesn't so I could see rulings go either way. The full rules might have additional rules that support a ruling of either side.
But Player bonus action Expeditious Retreat on only you also affects your steed per either the basic rules (as you quoted them) or Find Steed or Find Greater Steed. That should allow the steed to bonus action Dash and Disengage. You could then move and cast Eldritch Blast or any other cantrip (but not a leveled spell). This would be beneficial if you were attacking a creature other than the one you were within 5 ft of, since it would force you to make the roll at disadvantage. It would also be beneficial if you were 5th level+ and wanted to target multiple creatures possibly including the one that you were escaping from. Otherwise, an Attack+ Divine Smite could possibly deal more damage.
As far as I can tell, it's valid. Your character would still be a valid target for OA since it doesn't say that the disengage affects you. There's any number of scenarios where that both makes sense and doesn't so I could see rulings go either way. The full rules might have additional rules that support a ruling of either side.
Forced movement doesn't cause attacks of opportunity. I could see someone arguing that the movement isn't forced since you're allies, but then you have to figure out where the line is for it. I prefer the simple version where the creature that's moving is the one that provokes attacks.
Can I cast a non-cantrip spells with my reaction (e.g Shield) if i have already cast a spell with my bonus action, that not in my turn (but the same or not the same round)?
I don't like to talk about rounds as if when they begin/end matters. Literally 0 rules/effects care when the round officially changes. All duration effects count beginnings or ends of turns of the creature that triggered/caused it, never round changes.
So technically, both your examples are experimentally identical (no asymmetrical variable).
Question I had similar to this. Hexblade/Paladin on his steed. Within 5 feet of monster and mount can’t take another hit. Bonus action Expeditious Retreat (affects both paladin and his found steed). Mount disengage action then bonus action dash and move to 110 feet. Then eldritch blast on mob. Is this valid? Find steed says they act as one.
Find Steed says:
"Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit. While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed."
The first sentence is descriptive flavor to inform the mechanic described in the second sentence. It is not itself a prescription of any sort of mechanic around sharing a turn, which is not permissible within RAW or RAI. Your mount is always a separate creature from you with its own turn that is wholly separate from yours. Even when you share the same initiative, one of you must go before the other, just like if you and another member of your party were to roll the same initiative.
So the order of events you describe above is not legal per RAW/RAI.
While you’re mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.
You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.
An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.
In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount."
With an intelligence of 6 I would think the paladin mount could disengage either controlled or independent. It would need to be controlled to use Player action after mount disengage and movement I believe.
Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit. While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed.
Really just checking if Player Bonus action, Mount on same Initiative Action, Mount Bonus Action, Mount Movement, Player Action is legal RAW/RAI.
As far as I can tell, it's valid. Your character would still be a valid target for OA since it doesn't say that the disengage affects you. There's any number of scenarios where that both makes sense and doesn't so I could see rulings go either way. The full rules might have additional rules that support a ruling of either side.
But Player bonus action Expeditious Retreat on only you also affects your steed per either the basic rules (as you quoted them) or Find Steed or Find Greater Steed. That should allow the steed to bonus action Dash and Disengage. You could then move and cast Eldritch Blast or any other cantrip (but not a leveled spell). This would be beneficial if you were attacking a creature other than the one you were within 5 ft of, since it would force you to make the roll at disadvantage. It would also be beneficial if you were 5th level+ and wanted to target multiple creatures possibly including the one that you were escaping from. Otherwise, an Attack+ Divine Smite could possibly deal more damage.
Expeditious Retreat would only affect the caster and not the mount as per the basic rules, the exception being when the mount was summoned via the Find Speed or Find Greater Speed spells.
However, the proposed order of events is not permitted RAW/RAI as the mount is still a separate creature with a separate turn. Shared initiative does not mean shared turns. If you and a fellow party member both roll 16 for initiative, you share that initiative, and you decide who goes first.
As far as I can tell, it's valid. Your character would still be a valid target for OA since it doesn't say that the disengage affects you. There's any number of scenarios where that both makes sense and doesn't so I could see rulings go either way. The full rules might have additional rules that support a ruling of either side.
Forced movement doesn't cause attacks of opportunity. I could see someone arguing that the movement isn't forced since you're allies, but then you have to figure out where the line is for it. I prefer the simple version where the creature that's moving is the one that provokes attacks.
A person making that argument would be wrong as per the rules:
"You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy."
If your mount moves out of an enemy's reach, you are not a valid target for an opportunity attack from that enemy because you did not use your movement, action, or reaction.
So by that ruling if I ride my mount toward a goblin. Swing my axe and kill it. It is not possible to have the mount move on to the next goblin in line? So I need to dismount and chase the goblin on foot?
Per not just the RAW but also the RAI (as evidenced by Jeremy Crawford's Sage Advice responses on the topic), yes, you would need to dismount in order to move closer to a second target that is not within your reach. Your mount and you have the same initiative, but the two of you have wholly separate turns. The same thing applies to the artificer's steel defender as well as other similar "summoned" entities.
A DM is always free to run this however they want, but if you're asking strictly from a RAW/RAI perspective, then, yeah, kinda restricted.
Per not just the RAW but also the RAI (as evidenced by Jeremy Crawford's Sage Advice responses on the topic), yes, you would need to dismount in order to move closer to a second target that is not within your reach. Your mount and you have the same initiative, but the two of you have wholly separate turns. The same thing applies to the artificer's steel defender as well as other similar "summoned" entities.
A DM is always free to run this however they want, but if you're asking strictly from a RAW/RAI perspective, then, yeah, kinda restricted.
It depends on whose turn it is and how you attacked. If it's the mount's turn, you readied an attack for when a creature was within range, and you used a reaction to make your attack, then the mount could carry on moving. You wouldn't be able to attack again until your next turn but could still attack any creatures within range once that turn starts. PAM is borderline for also generating a reaction attack. You aren't using your movement to bring a creature within range, but neither is that creature using its movement to come within range. Other effects that allow you to make a reaction attack when creatures attack a creature within 5 ft of you could also be a possibility, such as sentinel.
Once it's your turn, the mount can't move anymore, barring some kind of reaction that allows movement unless the rules for your mount say otherwise. DM fiat can overrule, but that's always the case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Nah, the chart is fine as it is. Or are you saying something on it is incorrect?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
It just seems a little misleading because it doesn't specify action. Say you want to cast a spell with your bonus action, so you refer to the chart. "Ok, yes. Oh, I cast firebolt with my bonus action."
A little clarification might be needed for the extreme loophole wizards that are out there, but the chart is pretty spot on for how absolutely concise it is. As long as someone follows the rules of spellcasting, realizes that the only way that they can cast Fire Bolt with a bonus action is with an ability like Sorcerer's Quicken Metamagic, and therefore casts it with their action, they are fine. We've seen that this isn't always a given on these forums, though.
That's where the chart demonstrates that for all of the possible spell casting situations, it still boils down to the rule's simplicity. To use your example, if you put yourself in a situation to cast fire bolt as a bonus action (with quickened spell?) then you would go down the YES line. In the end, the spell isn't important, it's the action you take when casting that matters.
EDIT: Jhfffan got there first.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I get a little bit confused.
Can I cast a non-cantrip spells with my reaction (e.g Shield) if i have already cast a spell with my bonus action, that not in my turn (but the same or not the same round)?
example:
Cultist (init 15)
Me (init 10)
Zombie (init 5)
Case 1:
Me
A: Firebolt
BA: healing word
Zombie
A: Attack
Me
R: Shield
Case 2:
Me
A: Firebolt
BA: healing word
/next round
Cultist
A: Attack
Me
R: Shield
Which one can I perform? Both or either? (or neither?)
Yes. The restriction is on casting spells on the same turn. It appears that the mechanics of ready for spells will prevent casting a regular spell with a readied action, however.
If you use your action to ready the casting action, you're casting a spell right then and there--you are just releasing it later on using your reaction. The chart covers this situation. If you have already used your bonus action to cast a spell, then you are going down the YES path of the chart and the only spell you can ready is a cantrip with a casting time of one action.
Case 1 and case 2 are both fine because the reaction does not happen on your turn. It happens on the creature's turn.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Get it!
thanks very much
Question I had similar to this. Hexblade/Paladin on his steed. Within 5 feet of monster and mount can’t take another hit. Bonus action Expeditious Retreat (affects both paladin and his found steed). Mount disengage action then bonus action dash and move to 110 feet. Then eldritch blast on mob. Is this valid? Find steed says they act as one.
Mount can’t take the disengage Action, you do. Unless you let it have its own turn, and then doesn’t it go after you?
Edit: as long as it’s Find Steed, Find Greater Steed specifies “You control the Steed in combat.”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Pulled this from the Basic Rules
"Controlling a Mount
While you’re mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.
You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.
An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.
In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount."
With an intelligence of 6 I would think the paladin mount could disengage either controlled or independent. It would need to be controlled to use Player action after mount disengage and movement I believe.
Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit. While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed.
The mount should get a bonus action based on expeditious-retreat correct?
Really just checking if Player Bonus action, Mount on same Initiative Action, Mount Bonus Action, Mount Movement, Player Action is legal RAW/RAI.
As far as I can tell, it's valid. Your character would still be a valid target for OA since it doesn't say that the disengage affects you. There's any number of scenarios where that both makes sense and doesn't so I could see rulings go either way. The full rules might have additional rules that support a ruling of either side.
But Player bonus action Expeditious Retreat on only you also affects your steed per either the basic rules (as you quoted them) or Find Steed or Find Greater Steed. That should allow the steed to bonus action Dash and Disengage. You could then move and cast Eldritch Blast or any other cantrip (but not a leveled spell). This would be beneficial if you were attacking a creature other than the one you were within 5 ft of, since it would force you to make the roll at disadvantage. It would also be beneficial if you were 5th level+ and wanted to target multiple creatures possibly including the one that you were escaping from. Otherwise, an Attack+ Divine Smite could possibly deal more damage.
Forced movement doesn't cause attacks of opportunity. I could see someone arguing that the movement isn't forced since you're allies, but then you have to figure out where the line is for it. I prefer the simple version where the creature that's moving is the one that provokes attacks.
I don't like to talk about rounds as if when they begin/end matters. Literally 0 rules/effects care when the round officially changes. All duration effects count beginnings or ends of turns of the creature that triggered/caused it, never round changes.
So technically, both your examples are experimentally identical (no asymmetrical variable).
Ok rant over.
Find Steed says:
"Your steed serves you as a mount, both in combat and out, and you have an instinctive bond with it that allows you to fight as a seamless unit. While mounted on your steed, you can make any spell you cast that targets only you also target your steed."
The first sentence is descriptive flavor to inform the mechanic described in the second sentence. It is not itself a prescription of any sort of mechanic around sharing a turn, which is not permissible within RAW or RAI. Your mount is always a separate creature from you with its own turn that is wholly separate from yours. Even when you share the same initiative, one of you must go before the other, just like if you and another member of your party were to roll the same initiative.
So the order of events you describe above is not legal per RAW/RAI.
Expeditious Retreat would only affect the caster and not the mount as per the basic rules, the exception being when the mount was summoned via the Find Speed or Find Greater Speed spells.
However, the proposed order of events is not permitted RAW/RAI as the mount is still a separate creature with a separate turn. Shared initiative does not mean shared turns. If you and a fellow party member both roll 16 for initiative, you share that initiative, and you decide who goes first.
A person making that argument would be wrong as per the rules:
"You also don't provoke an opportunity attack when you teleport or when someone or something moves you without using your movement, action, or reaction. For example, you don't provoke an opportunity attack if an explosion hurls you out of a foe's reach or if gravity causes you to fall past an enemy."
If your mount moves out of an enemy's reach, you are not a valid target for an opportunity attack from that enemy because you did not use your movement, action, or reaction.
So by that ruling if I ride my mount toward a goblin. Swing my axe and kill it. It is not possible to have the mount move on to the next goblin in line? So I need to dismount and chase the goblin on foot?
Per not just the RAW but also the RAI (as evidenced by Jeremy Crawford's Sage Advice responses on the topic), yes, you would need to dismount in order to move closer to a second target that is not within your reach. Your mount and you have the same initiative, but the two of you have wholly separate turns. The same thing applies to the artificer's steel defender as well as other similar "summoned" entities.
A DM is always free to run this however they want, but if you're asking strictly from a RAW/RAI perspective, then, yeah, kinda restricted.
It depends on whose turn it is and how you attacked. If it's the mount's turn, you readied an attack for when a creature was within range, and you used a reaction to make your attack, then the mount could carry on moving. You wouldn't be able to attack again until your next turn but could still attack any creatures within range once that turn starts. PAM is borderline for also generating a reaction attack. You aren't using your movement to bring a creature within range, but neither is that creature using its movement to come within range. Other effects that allow you to make a reaction attack when creatures attack a creature within 5 ft of you could also be a possibility, such as sentinel.
Once it's your turn, the mount can't move anymore, barring some kind of reaction that allows movement unless the rules for your mount say otherwise. DM fiat can overrule, but that's always the case.