If you cast a spell with a level as an action or bonus action then you can only cast a cantrip as the other.
Simple. Applies to actions and bonus actions.
This would be a homebrew rule I’m sure some would play with.
Or not, you can read the rule book where it says if you cast a bonus action spell the only way you can cast a spell as an action is if it’s a cantrip on that same turn. That means not leveled. That means no fireball then a quickened fireball as a bonus action.
You can’t infer rules from other rules and not call it homebrew. There are ways to cast two leveled spells per turn through Action - Spell and Action Surge - Spell. See the problem you get into when you try and add layers of homebrew and call it RAW?
Rather than argue over the exact meaning of the rule in the PHB, read the version from XGtE's list of ten rules that trip people up:
Bonus Action Spells
If you want to cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 bonus action, remember that you can’t cast any other spells before or after it on the same turn, except for cantrips with a casting time of 1 action.
Thank goodness you found that. I was starting to doubt sanity...
Logically if a bonus action says it takes a fraction of the time of a normal action then if you do something that is a bonus action you could easily fit in a reaction if you can fit that same reaction in with an action.
... since the rule only mentions bonus actions and actions I omit reactions from that rule
Reactions are their own thing entirely.
Not one of those statements is RAW and are completely your own opinion.
The rule doesn’t need to mention specific actions, it already says “you can’t cast ANY OTHER SPELLS before or after it on the same turn...”
Its literally staring you in the face: is a Reaction Spell a Spell? Yes. Is a Bonus Action Spell a Spell? Yes. Is an Action Spell a Spell? Yes. The rule applies to every Spell. The ONLY exception to the rule is only a specific Spell with a specific casting time.
This is so far off the OP it’s nuts. 2 camps, pick one that make sense to you. I’m of the logical RAW one, specific beats general and a bonus action is faster than an action, RAW. Other camp is reading into things not listed that have been cleared up by sage advice but still, apparently not clear. Oh well, no worries! Pick the one ya like and roll lol
This is so far off the OP it’s nuts. 2 camps, pick one that make sense to you. I’m of the logical RAW one, specific beats general and a bonus action is faster than an action, RAW. Other camp is reading into things not listed that have been cleared up by sage advice but still, apparently not clear. Oh well, no worries! Pick the one ya like and roll lol
I’d let this go but your “camp” is not RAW and it’s not logical. You continue to apply “opinion” in your arguments and call it RAW despite repeated attempts to break it down line by line. You can call it 2 camps and I’d agree with you, but claiming a thing as RAW is misleading to others when it includes no analysis of the actual wording provided and only your personal opinions as proof.
Let’s agree that there are 2 camps, and leave it at that.
The more I think about this rule, the more I ask myself "why is this rule even necessary?" Truly, why? Bonus action spells aren't so world-shattering that casting a 1 Action & 1 Bonus Action spell in the same turn kills the system.
So it's gotta be to prevent multiple leveled spells in a single turn, right? Action Surge already exists, and that usage (ironically from a non-spellcasting class) is officially supported.
So it's gotta be to prevent Sorcerers from overusing Quickened Spell, right? They're paying a finite resource, specifically from their class abilities, to do so... wouldn't it make more sense to balance a class' abilities around the spellcasting system, rather than balance a system around a class?
It seems to me that they should have just paid more attention to a general power scale for Bonus Action spells (which have a casting time of 1 BA by default). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
OP here. Sorry I opened this can of worms! Truthfully, I can't remember this ever coming up in one of my games, and I've run a lot of them. I was just thinking about this particular rule hypothetically and wanted to get some opinions.
Here's my take as a DM: If it ever comes up, I'm just going to house rule that reaction spells can be cast along side bonus actions on the same turn. It's not RAW, but it makes more sense. After all, if you can cast a 1 action spell and a reaction spell on your turn, why not a bonus action and reaction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You can’t infer rules from other rules and not call it homebrew. There are ways to cast two leveled spells per turn through Action - Spell and Action Surge - Spell. See the problem you get into when you try and add layers of homebrew and call it RAW?
Thank goodness you found that. I was starting to doubt sanity...
Not one of those statements is RAW and are completely your own opinion.
The rule doesn’t need to mention specific actions, it already says “you can’t cast ANY OTHER SPELLS before or after it on the same turn...”
Its literally staring you in the face: is a Reaction Spell a Spell? Yes. Is a Bonus Action Spell a Spell? Yes. Is an Action Spell a Spell? Yes. The rule applies to every Spell. The ONLY exception to the rule is only a specific Spell with a specific casting time.
This is so far off the OP it’s nuts. 2 camps, pick one that make sense to you. I’m of the logical RAW one, specific beats general and a bonus action is faster than an action, RAW. Other camp is reading into things not listed that have been cleared up by sage advice but still, apparently not clear. Oh well, no worries! Pick the one ya like and roll lol
I’d let this go but your “camp” is not RAW and it’s not logical. You continue to apply “opinion” in your arguments and call it RAW despite repeated attempts to break it down line by line. You can call it 2 camps and I’d agree with you, but claiming a thing as RAW is misleading to others when it includes no analysis of the actual wording provided and only your personal opinions as proof.
Let’s agree that there are 2 camps, and leave it at that.
My camp may quite possibly have better bourbon 😜
'Specific beats general' means "this rule states something that specifically contradicts the general rule". No such statement exists for reactions.
The more I think about this rule, the more I ask myself "why is this rule even necessary?" Truly, why? Bonus action spells aren't so world-shattering that casting a 1 Action & 1 Bonus Action spell in the same turn kills the system.
So it's gotta be to prevent multiple leveled spells in a single turn, right? Action Surge already exists, and that usage (ironically from a non-spellcasting class) is officially supported.
So it's gotta be to prevent Sorcerers from overusing Quickened Spell, right? They're paying a finite resource, specifically from their class abilities, to do so... wouldn't it make more sense to balance a class' abilities around the spellcasting system, rather than balance a system around a class?
It seems to me that they should have just paid more attention to a general power scale for Bonus Action spells (which have a casting time of 1 BA by default). ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Agreed
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Yeah, if the problem is quickened spells providing too much spike potential, just change how quickened spells work.
Is there a camp that thinks the rule is fine like it is? Because that's my camp if there is one.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
OP here. Sorry I opened this can of worms! Truthfully, I can't remember this ever coming up in one of my games, and I've run a lot of them. I was just thinking about this particular rule hypothetically and wanted to get some opinions.
Here's my take as a DM: If it ever comes up, I'm just going to house rule that reaction spells can be cast along side bonus actions on the same turn. It's not RAW, but it makes more sense. After all, if you can cast a 1 action spell and a reaction spell on your turn, why not a bonus action and reaction.