Where is that explicitly stated? Genuinely curious because 5e has gone out of its way to make clear that anything accomplished by using a reaction happens outside of the normal parameters for combat flow.
Why do you say that? Everything I've read says that Reactions happen on someone's turn. Not necessarily your turn, but always on someone's turn.
Greenstone, agreed, with the notable caveat of most spell casting times using action/bonus action/reaction when they aren't measured in minutes or hours... the only time you're going to find "Action" or "Reaction" or the like is going to be in Chapter 9 and other description of turns in combat. I think that the use of the terms "action" and "reaction" and the like for casting times for spells outside of combat is a result of unfortunate editing or space constraints, rather than an attempt to paint the action economy as in any way relevant outside of combat (since nowhere else in the PHB is there any indication that it is).
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
You cast a spell with a Bonus Action... can you cast another spell during your turn? No, unless it is specifically "a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
The rule sucks, quit trying to redeem it by saying that it doesn't mean exactly what it says it means.
This better not go on for another 12 pages like that other thread. People, read this post right here and understand that this is an explicit and specific rule. Reactions do NOT and never have been exempt from this rule because this rule overrides it with a very clear exclusion.
I think the rule is explicitly clear and easy to understand. I don’t really care about the realism of it, but to each their own.
Where is that explicitly stated? Genuinely curious because 5e has gone out of its way to make clear that anything accomplished by using a reaction happens outside of the normal parameters for combat flow.
Why do you say that? Everything I've read says that Reactions happen on someone's turn. Not necessarily your turn, but always on someone's turn.
Yes, exactly. I only meant in the sense that Reactions are inherently specialized cases for that very reason; they exist outside the scope of the standard combat turn, and it is not logical (from a systems design perspective) for the BA spellcasting rule (as written) to apply to Reaction spells.
I'm not going to get into an argument over whether it's RAW or not... just going to list the reasons why it being RAW is/would be a bad thing.
Casting time
While there are methods available to potentially cast 1 Action spells as a Reaction, the reality is that in almost every instance the spell being used will have an actual casting time of 1 Reaction. These spells can only be used as a Reaction, regardless of whose turn it is. Counterspell has been mentioned, but Shield is a good one too. Let's say you're casting a BA spell which happens to trigger an OA from an enemy with Mage Killer. You're unable to cast Shield even though that's exactly why you have the spell prepared.
Martial parallel
Non-casters don't have this same restriction (obviously, of course), or really anything remotely similar. They have full use of their abilities. Can you imagine how much outcry there would be if a Martial character were told they couldn't make an OA against a Disengageing creature because they had also used a BA already? No, that's exactly what the feat is for.
Reactions are inherently in response to something sudden, and not terribly common to begin with.
That's just not a good system design. Depending on how meta a DM is running their groups' combat encounters, a lot of groups might not ever even see a chance to use Reactions.
Action economy balancing revolves around the range of what a character can do on their turn with their Action/Bonus Action/Move, not their Reaction. That is what the BA spellcasting rule is for. Whether the trigger for a Reaction occurs on-or-off your own turn should be irrelevant. If a trigger for a Reaction occurs, and the player/creature hasn't already used their Reaction, they should be allowed to use the ability they have invested in.
I'm sure we've all been in at least one campaign where the DM never let their creatures provoke OAs... even if their players made investments in abilities that are only used for OAs. It's bullshit, right? It's the same for spellcasters never getting to use their Reaction spells.
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.
I'm sure we've all been in at least one campaign where the DM never let their creatures provoke OAs... even if their players made investments in abilities that are only used for OAs. It's bullshit, right? It's the same for spellcasters never getting to use their Reaction spells.
Well, if they never provoke OAs because they don't do the things that would result in OAs, you've successfully achieved the purpose of OAs (the purpose of OAs is control, not damage). If they just have special abilities that make them immune to OAs, that's arbitrarily preventing people from using their abilities.
Where is that explicitly stated? Genuinely curious because 5e has gone out of its way to make clear that anything accomplished by using a reaction happens outside of the normal parameters for combat flow.
Why do you say that? Everything I've read says that Reactions happen on someone's turn. Not necessarily your turn, but always on someone's turn.
Yes, exactly. I only meant in the sense that Reactions are inherently specialized cases for that very reason; they exist outside the scope of the standard combat turn, and it is not logical (from a systems design perspective) for the BA spellcasting rule (as written) to apply to Reaction spells.
I'm not going to get into an argument over whether it's RAW or not... just going to list the reasons why it being RAW is/would be a bad thing.
Casting time
While there are methods available to potentially cast 1 Action spells as a Reaction, the reality is that in almost every instance the spell being used will have an actual casting time of 1 Reaction. These spells can only be used as a Reaction, regardless of whose turn it is. Counterspell has been mentioned, but Shield is a good one too. Let's say you're casting a BA spell which happens to trigger an OA from an enemy with Mage Killer. You're unable to cast Shield even though that's exactly why you have the spell prepared.
Martial parallel
Non-casters don't have this same restriction (obviously, of course), or really anything remotely similar. They have full use of their abilities. Can you imagine how much outcry there would be if a Martial character were told they couldn't make an OA against a Disengageing creature because they had also used a BA already? No, that's exactly what the feat is for.
Reactions are inherently in response to something sudden, and not terribly common to begin with.
That's just not a good system design. Depending on how meta a DM is running their groups' combat encounters, a lot of groups might not ever even see a chance to use Reactions.
Action economy balancing revolves around the range of what a character can do on their turn with their Action/Bonus Action/Move, not their Reaction. That is what the BA spellcasting rule is for. Whether the trigger for a Reaction occurs on-or-off your own turn should be irrelevant. If a trigger for a Reaction occurs, and the player/creature hasn't already used their Reaction, they should be allowed to use the ability they have invested in.
I'm sure we've all been in at least one campaign where the DM never let their creatures provoke OAs... even if their players made investments in abilities that are only used for OAs. It's bullshit, right? It's the same for spellcasters never getting to use their Reaction spells.
There’s a fundamental flaw in logic that undermines your arguments before you even start talking about whether it’s good or bad. The rule follows a VERY CLEAR and concise and sound logical syllogism:
1) If you cast a spell as a bonus action you can NOT cast another spell on your Turn.
2) You can disregard Rule #1 if (and only if) you cast a Cantrip with a Casting Time of 1 Action.
This a logical statement that has no ambiguity whatsoever. There’s no mention of “Action Economy”. There’s no confusion about whose turn it applies to. The exception is a “Cantrip with a Casting Time of 1 Action”, not “Actions can only be used to cast Cantrips”.
You can not avoid Rule #1 unless you meet the *specific* conditions of Rule #2. Rule #2 is the only exception to avoid Rule #1.
So when someone says “I want to Misty Step, then Fire Bolt the enemy”, you go through the flow. Rule #1 and Rule #2 applies, with #2 providing the exception to #1. You are therefore allowed to cast Fire Bolt.
Then their Fire Bolt gets Countered, and they say “I’ll Counterspell the Counterspell!”. Rule #1 applies, and because Counterspell does not meet the conditions of Rule #2, they cannot cast it. Rule #1 is absolute in this regard: “You can NOT cast another spell on your turn”.
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
You cast a spell with a Bonus Action... can you cast another spell during your turn? No, unless it is specifically "a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
The rule sucks, quit trying to redeem it by saying that it doesn't mean exactly what it says it means.
This better not go on for another 12 pages like that other thread. People, read this post right here and understand that this is an explicit and specific rule. Reactions do NOT and never have been exempt from this rule because this rule overrides it with a very clear exclusion.
I think the rule is explicitly clear and easy to understand. I don’t really care about the realism of it, but to each their own.
Actually the wording is "can't cast another spell during the same turn, except... " rather than "can't have cast...." What that actually means, in English, is that you can have cast a spell normally, then cast one with a bonus action and then after using the bonus action you cannot cast another spell. It does not actually say you can use a bonus action to cast a spell unless you have already used a bonus action that turn, but 'can't cast another' is in a separate sentence. Pronouns take the identity of the nearest appropriate noun so 'another' is, based on that wording, another beyond the one cast by way of the bonus action.
Now if someone casts a spell as a bonus action before taking an action, then they would be out of luck for casting anything else. However, based on the wording, if they only use a normal action to cast or use the reaction before using a bonus action to cast, they should be fine for reaction casting.
To reason this way, you'd have to argue "during the same turn" means something other than it actually does. During the same turn means the entirety of that turn. If you cast a full action 2nd level spell first on your turn on round three, then because of the sentence "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." and the fact that you have already cast another spell, you would not be able to cast a bonus action spell because if you did then the "during the same turn" part of the rule could not be fulfilled.
Kotath, I'm all for pinning RAW on the language that was used vs. the language that should have been used, but the language as written is at least neutral as to timing, and reading it to only control if the Bonus Action is the first action taken is just too problematic with too many unforeseen consequences throughout the rest of the core rules. It isn't written "once you have cast a bonus action spell, you can't cast another spell except...", which is what would be needed to clearly make this a forward-only prohibition.
A lot of rules in 5E suck because of unclear or inconsistent wording. This isn't one of them, it's very clearly written on paper, it just sucks because it was designed to suck and is logically counter intuitive.
…Reactions are inherently specialized cases for that very reason; they exist outside the scope of the standard combat turn,
That's the bit you have wrong. Reactions are not outside the scope of the turn — they happen during a turn.
Reactions
Certain special abilities, spells, and situations allow you to take a special action called a reaction. A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's. The opportunity attack, described later in this chapter, is the most common type of reaction.
[PHB, Chapter 9: Combat, The Order of Combat, Your Turn] Emphasis mine.
What has the goal of this thread actually become? Originally, it was about whether the rule should be rewritten. Are you/we now trying to understand what the intended purpose is and work with that? If so, I would guess the following:
Looking at the Sage Advice Compendium, you can only deduce that the rule is written in relationto a specific action. Even though bonus actions are separate entities from actions, the Sage Advice implies that casting a bonus action spell limits your related/first action for that turn. I know it is not stated in the PHB, but this is what it says in the Sage Advice and so that overrules/extends some of its specific use cases. Secondly, if you may cast another non-cantrip spell in the same turn using Action Surge, then the same applies for using a reaction to cast another spell I would say. It would be inconsistent not to.
The purpose of the rule? To me it suggests that casting a spell as a bonus action is so straining on your energy and/or concentration that during your action you can only cast a cantrip. Being allowed to squeeze in another action using Action Surge , i.e. granting yourself additional energy/concentration, is outside of the (intended) ruling.
As to rewriting the rule: many rules aren't perfect. It would be good if they updated this rule seeing it is not consistent with the Sage Advice. Will this be done any time soon? Probably not, so I would always stick to RAW + all other official sources, where the latter overrides the former if it is more recent.
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
You cast a spell with a Bonus Action... can you cast another spell during your turn? No, unless it is specifically "a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."
The rule sucks, quit trying to redeem it by saying that it doesn't mean exactly what it says it means.
This better not go on for another 12 pages like that other thread. People, read this post right here and understand that this is an explicit and specific rule. Reactions do NOT and never have been exempt from this rule because this rule overrides it with a very clear exclusion.
I think the rule is explicitly clear and easy to understand. I don’t really care about the realism of it, but to each their own.
Actually the wording is "can't cast another spell during the same turn, except... " rather than "can't have cast...." What that actually means, in English, is that you can have cast a spell normally, then cast one with a bonus action and then after using the bonus action you cannot cast another spell. It does not actually say you can use a bonus action to cast a spell unless you have already used a bonus action that turn, but 'can't cast another' is in a separate sentence. Pronouns take the identity of the nearest appropriate noun so 'another' is, based on that wording, another beyond the one cast by way of the bonus action.
Now if someone casts a spell as a bonus action before taking an action, then they would be out of luck for casting anything else. However, based on the wording, if they only use a normal action to cast or use the reaction before using a bonus action to cast, they should be fine for reaction casting.
To reason this way, you'd have to argue "during the same turn" means something other than it actually does. During the same turn means the entirety of that turn. If you cast a full action 2nd level spell first on your turn on round three, then because of the sentence "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." and the fact that you have already cast another spell, you would not be able to cast a bonus action spell because if you did then the "during the same turn" part of the rule could not be fulfilled.
Again there is a difference between 'cannot cast,' which is present tense and 'cannot have cast,' which is past tense. It says the former, so you do this, and now, therefore, you cannot cast another spell. "I eat a full meal, I eat dessert and am so full that I cannot eat another bite" does not mean that you cannot eat the full meal. You already ate it, then you ate dessert and therefore you cannot eat another bite additional to the full meal and dessert.
Or more specifically here, perhaps your house has a rule that if you eat dessert first, you forsake your regular meal, even if that means you go hungry, thus teaching you not to eat dessert first, i.e. if you use a bonus action for spell casting first, you cannot use a regular action for anything other than a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action (sneaking a light snack).
You are making an analogy with filling a colloquialism about filling a stomach; not a rule about dinner. Sure the verb is present tense, but the phrase choice "during the same turn" makes the particular present time frame for the tense of the verb the entire turn. It isn't too hard to understand. During your turn means from its beginning to its end; that special little phrase has meaning. The rule is nothing like your tortured analogy.
Your reading is a bad way to read English. If I cannot cast a particular spell during my turn, then why does the order matter? If I cast a 2nd level spell, then how is it possible to fulfill the rule "cannot cast a spell during the same turn..." by casting a bonus action spell? It would still be during that same turn, correct?
With do respect, it does not say 'cannot cast a spell on the same turn.' It says 'cannot cast another spell on the same turn.' There is actually a difference, just as there is a difference between 'cannot cast' and 'cannot have cast.'
If you draw a sword, you cannot draw that same sword again without sheathing it first. Until you draw it, you can make no attacks with it. After you draw it, you can make as many attacks as your available attack actions permit. Causality. What happens first affects what can happen later, not the other way around. Turn order matters.
Why are we slicing and dicing this again... ugh. You’re arguing that you can cast Fireball as an action, then Counterspell, then Quickened Fireball... but if you accidentally cast Quickened Fireball first you can’t cast Fireball or Counterspell? Is that really the pedantic pie you want to serve?
With do respect, it does not say 'cannot cast a spell on the same turn.' It says 'cannot cast another spell on the same turn.' There is actually a difference, just as there is a difference between 'cannot cast' and 'cannot have cast.'
If you draw a sword, you cannot draw that same sword again without sheathing it first. Until you draw it, you can make no attacks with it. After you draw it, you can make as many attacks as your available attack actions permit. Causality. What happens first affects what can happen later, not the other way around. Turn order matters.
You really want to try to argue "another" means "subsequent" and has some hidden temporal component? If you're going to argue about the meanings of words, please get them right. To take your reading, you have to use a very specific definition of some of the terms and completely ignore others. When you have to ignore part of the text of the rule to interpret it, that is where I start to think you might be off track.
It is pretty obvious how the wording works, and your arguments are falling on deaf ears. If you want to imply that the order of casting makes some difference in the time frame of "during your turn," go ahead in your home games. That is certainly not how the text is written, though. If you can tell me that somehow the order of casting spells makes them occur on different turns, then I'll agree with you.
The rule is something like "If you have pie, you cannot have cake on the same day." This is essentially an exclusive or expressed probably as succinctly as possible in English. It doesn't matter if you have pie or cake first, you can't have the other that day.
With do respect, it does not say 'cannot cast a spell on the same turn.' It says 'cannot cast another spell on the same turn.' There is actually a difference, just as there is a difference between 'cannot cast' and 'cannot have cast.'
If you draw a sword, you cannot draw that same sword again without sheathing it first. Until you draw it, you can make no attacks with it. After you draw it, you can make as many attacks as your available attack actions permit. Causality. What happens first affects what can happen later, not the other way around. Turn order matters.
While I agree the wording should mean what you say it should, I'm pretty certain that is not what was actually the intent of the rule creator. LOL.
With do respect, it does not say 'cannot cast a spell on the same turn.' It says 'cannot cast another spell on the same turn.' There is actually a difference, just as there is a difference between 'cannot cast' and 'cannot have cast.'
If you draw a sword, you cannot draw that same sword again without sheathing it first. Until you draw it, you can make no attacks with it. After you draw it, you can make as many attacks as your available attack actions permit. Causality. What happens first affects what can happen later, not the other way around. Turn order matters.
While I agree the wording should mean what you say it should, I'm pretty certain that is not what was actually the intent of the rule creator. LOL.
And that is fair enough. I agree that RoI may indeed be different from RoW. It would not be the first time.
And I detect there's an obvious error noone saw it before. To draw a sword, ONE must have seen the shape of a sword before ( or at least remember the measures of it ), because if you draw a sword and you don't know what is a sword nore you have a clear idea what type of sword you want, then the SPELL it goes away.
Above is the perfect example of taking something's wording too literally and completely missing intent. I can only hope this was intentional. God help us all.
This has been discussed at length and there are 2 camps basically. Those that say a bonus action deletes any other spell no matter what during your turn save a cantrip and those who say reaction spells don’t apply to that interpretation. I’m of the latter as the spell rules are specifically commenting on using an action and nothing stated about reaction spells. Even though the sage advice does say you can cast a reaction on your turn, there are those that say nope which doesn’t make sense to me, but oh well.
If you cast a spell, such as healing word, with a bonus action, you can cast another spell with your action, but that other spell must be a cantrip. Keep in mind that this particular limit is specific to spells that use a bonus action.
No statement of reaction spells but still some want to read into it and limit that. Not sure why but they can interpret things that way if they like even if it’s not listed anywhere.
With due respect, there are two camps: those who have read the rule as it is written (whether they like it or hate it), and those that don't care what the rule says and are instead just riffing off of "what makes sense"/what they remember about casting more than one spell in a round.
It's not that I want to keep this thread alive by rehashing old ground, but at least once per page the (very short, very straightforward, though strangely hard to remember and arguably crappy) rule should be quoted, lest latecomers to the thread curious about this rule skip to the end and think that it's really as complicated as you all are making it out to be:
Bonus Action
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
There's no exception in that for reactions, either in the text of the rule, its placement in the flow of the chapter, the text of any other rule or section describing reactions, etc. It means what it says it means.
With due respect, there are two camps: those who have read the rule as it is written (whether they like it or hate it), and those that don't care what the rule says and are instead just riffing off of "what makes sense"/what they remember about casting more than one spell in a round.
It's not that I want to keep this thread alive by rehashing old ground, but at least once per page the (very short, very straightforward, though strangely hard to remember and arguably crappy) rule should be quoted, lest latecomers to the thread curious about this rule skip to the end and think that it's really as complicated as you all are making it out to be:
Bonus Action
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
There's no exception in that for reactions, either in the text of the rule, its placement in the flow of the chapter, the text of any other rule or section describing reactions, etc. It means what it says it means.
Absolutely correct, you cannot cast another spell except a cantrip with a casting time of one action. No mention of reaction so specific beats general as well as sage advice clearing it up saying the same that yes you can cast a reaction spell. Lol
See, 2 camps. Logically it also makes no sense to not be able to cast a reaction as the OP said.
“specific beats general” normally requires attempting to actually quote some specific language demonstrating an exception. There is no language anywhere in the PHB that says specifically (or even implies) that it operates as an exception to this ironclad rule.
Why do you say that? Everything I've read says that Reactions happen on someone's turn. Not necessarily your turn, but always on someone's turn.
Greenstone, agreed, with the notable caveat of most spell casting times using action/bonus action/reaction when they aren't measured in minutes or hours... the only time you're going to find "Action" or "Reaction" or the like is going to be in Chapter 9 and other description of turns in combat. I think that the use of the terms "action" and "reaction" and the like for casting times for spells outside of combat is a result of unfortunate editing or space constraints, rather than an attempt to paint the action economy as in any way relevant outside of combat (since nowhere else in the PHB is there any indication that it is).
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This better not go on for another 12 pages like that other thread. People, read this post right here and understand that this is an explicit and specific rule. Reactions do NOT and never have been exempt from this rule because this rule overrides it with a very clear exclusion.
I think the rule is explicitly clear and easy to understand. I don’t really care about the realism of it, but to each their own.
Yes, exactly. I only meant in the sense that Reactions are inherently specialized cases for that very reason; they exist outside the scope of the standard combat turn, and it is not logical (from a systems design perspective) for the BA spellcasting rule (as written) to apply to Reaction spells.
I'm not going to get into an argument over whether it's RAW or not... just going to list the reasons why it being RAW is/would be a bad thing.
Action economy balancing revolves around the range of what a character can do on their turn with their Action/Bonus Action/Move, not their Reaction. That is what the BA spellcasting rule is for. Whether the trigger for a Reaction occurs on-or-off your own turn should be irrelevant. If a trigger for a Reaction occurs, and the player/creature hasn't already used their Reaction, they should be allowed to use the ability they have invested in.
I'm sure we've all been in at least one campaign where the DM never let their creatures provoke OAs... even if their players made investments in abilities that are only used for OAs. It's bullshit, right? It's the same for spellcasters never getting to use their Reaction spells.
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.
Well, if they never provoke OAs because they don't do the things that would result in OAs, you've successfully achieved the purpose of OAs (the purpose of OAs is control, not damage). If they just have special abilities that make them immune to OAs, that's arbitrarily preventing people from using their abilities.
There’s a fundamental flaw in logic that undermines your arguments before you even start talking about whether it’s good or bad. The rule follows a VERY CLEAR and concise and sound logical syllogism:
1) If you cast a spell as a bonus action you can NOT cast another spell on your Turn.
2) You can disregard Rule #1 if (and only if) you cast a Cantrip with a Casting Time of 1 Action.
This a logical statement that has no ambiguity whatsoever. There’s no mention of “Action Economy”. There’s no confusion about whose turn it applies to. The exception is a “Cantrip with a Casting Time of 1 Action”, not “Actions can only be used to cast Cantrips”.
You can not avoid Rule #1 unless you meet the *specific* conditions of Rule #2. Rule #2 is the only exception to avoid Rule #1.
So when someone says “I want to Misty Step, then Fire Bolt the enemy”, you go through the flow. Rule #1 and Rule #2 applies, with #2 providing the exception to #1. You are therefore allowed to cast Fire Bolt.
Then their Fire Bolt gets Countered, and they say “I’ll Counterspell the Counterspell!”. Rule #1 applies, and because Counterspell does not meet the conditions of Rule #2, they cannot cast it. Rule #1 is absolute in this regard: “You can NOT cast another spell on your turn”.
"during the same turn" means from front to back
To reason this way, you'd have to argue "during the same turn" means something other than it actually does. During the same turn means the entirety of that turn. If you cast a full action 2nd level spell first on your turn on round three, then because of the sentence "You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." and the fact that you have already cast another spell, you would not be able to cast a bonus action spell because if you did then the "during the same turn" part of the rule could not be fulfilled.
Kotath, I'm all for pinning RAW on the language that was used vs. the language that should have been used, but the language as written is at least neutral as to timing, and reading it to only control if the Bonus Action is the first action taken is just too problematic with too many unforeseen consequences throughout the rest of the core rules. It isn't written "once you have cast a bonus action spell, you can't cast another spell except...", which is what would be needed to clearly make this a forward-only prohibition.
A lot of rules in 5E suck because of unclear or inconsistent wording. This isn't one of them, it's very clearly written on paper, it just sucks because it was designed to suck and is logically counter intuitive.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
That's the bit you have wrong. Reactions are not outside the scope of the turn — they happen during a turn.
[PHB, Chapter 9: Combat, The Order of Combat, Your Turn] Emphasis mine.
What has the goal of this thread actually become? Originally, it was about whether the rule should be rewritten. Are you/we now trying to understand what the intended purpose is and work with that? If so, I would guess the following:
Looking at the Sage Advice Compendium, you can only deduce that the rule is written in relation to a specific action. Even though bonus actions are separate entities from actions, the Sage Advice implies that casting a bonus action spell limits your related/first action for that turn. I know it is not stated in the PHB, but this is what it says in the Sage Advice and so that overrules/extends some of its specific use cases. Secondly, if you may cast another non-cantrip spell in the same turn using Action Surge, then the same applies for using a reaction to cast another spell I would say. It would be inconsistent not to.
The purpose of the rule? To me it suggests that casting a spell as a bonus action is so straining on your energy and/or concentration that during your action you can only cast a cantrip. Being allowed to squeeze in another action using Action Surge , i.e. granting yourself additional energy/concentration, is outside of the (intended) ruling.
As to rewriting the rule: many rules aren't perfect. It would be good if they updated this rule seeing it is not consistent with the Sage Advice. Will this be done any time soon? Probably not, so I would always stick to RAW + all other official sources, where the latter overrides the former if it is more recent.
You are making an analogy with filling a colloquialism about filling a stomach; not a rule about dinner. Sure the verb is present tense, but the phrase choice "during the same turn" makes the particular present time frame for the tense of the verb the entire turn. It isn't too hard to understand. During your turn means from its beginning to its end; that special little phrase has meaning. The rule is nothing like your tortured analogy.
Your reading is a bad way to read English. If I cannot cast a particular spell during my turn, then why does the order matter? If I cast a 2nd level spell, then how is it possible to fulfill the rule "cannot cast a spell during the same turn..." by casting a bonus action spell? It would still be during that same turn, correct?
Why are we slicing and dicing this again... ugh. You’re arguing that you can cast Fireball as an action, then Counterspell, then Quickened Fireball... but if you accidentally cast Quickened Fireball first you can’t cast Fireball or Counterspell? Is that really the pedantic pie you want to serve?
You really want to try to argue "another" means "subsequent" and has some hidden temporal component? If you're going to argue about the meanings of words, please get them right. To take your reading, you have to use a very specific definition of some of the terms and completely ignore others. When you have to ignore part of the text of the rule to interpret it, that is where I start to think you might be off track.
It is pretty obvious how the wording works, and your arguments are falling on deaf ears. If you want to imply that the order of casting makes some difference in the time frame of "during your turn," go ahead in your home games. That is certainly not how the text is written, though. If you can tell me that somehow the order of casting spells makes them occur on different turns, then I'll agree with you.
The rule is something like "If you have pie, you cannot have cake on the same day." This is essentially an exclusive or expressed probably as succinctly as possible in English. It doesn't matter if you have pie or cake first, you can't have the other that day.
While I agree the wording should mean what you say it should, I'm pretty certain that is not what was actually the intent of the rule creator. LOL.
And I detect there's an obvious error noone saw it before. To draw a sword, ONE must have seen the shape of a sword before ( or at least remember the measures of it ), because if you draw a sword and you don't know what is a sword nore you have a clear idea what type of sword you want, then the SPELL it goes away.
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
Above is the perfect example of taking something's wording too literally and completely missing intent. I can only hope this was intentional. God help us all.
This has been discussed at length and there are 2 camps basically. Those that say a bonus action deletes any other spell no matter what during your turn save a cantrip and those who say reaction spells don’t apply to that interpretation. I’m of the latter as the spell rules are specifically commenting on using an action and nothing stated about reaction spells. Even though the sage advice does say you can cast a reaction on your turn, there are those that say nope which doesn’t make sense to me, but oh well.
If you cast a spell, such as healing word, with a bonus action, you can cast another spell with your action, but that other spell must be a cantrip. Keep in mind that this particular limit is specific to spells that use a bonus action.
No statement of reaction spells but still some want to read into it and limit that. Not sure why but they can interpret things that way if they like even if it’s not listed anywhere.
With due respect, there are two camps: those who have read the rule as it is written (whether they like it or hate it), and those that don't care what the rule says and are instead just riffing off of "what makes sense"/what they remember about casting more than one spell in a round.
It's not that I want to keep this thread alive by rehashing old ground, but at least once per page the (very short, very straightforward, though strangely hard to remember and arguably crappy) rule should be quoted, lest latecomers to the thread curious about this rule skip to the end and think that it's really as complicated as you all are making it out to be:
There's no exception in that for reactions, either in the text of the rule, its placement in the flow of the chapter, the text of any other rule or section describing reactions, etc. It means what it says it means.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Absolutely correct, you cannot cast another spell except a cantrip with a casting time of one action.
No mention of reaction so specific beats general as well as sage advice clearing it up saying the same that yes you can cast a reaction spell. Lol
See, 2 camps. Logically it also makes no sense to not be able to cast a reaction as the OP said.
“specific beats general” normally requires attempting to actually quote some specific language demonstrating an exception. There is no language anywhere in the PHB that says specifically (or even implies) that it operates as an exception to this ironclad rule.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.