Ultimately there's no way to resolve this impasse without knowing the intent behind the rule. It could follow the RaW letter for letter, and casting any spell as a Bonus Action prohibits any other spellcasting except for Cantrips. There really isn't any argument, that is what is written. But is that the intention? The only possible indication that RaW is also RaI is the complete lack of any specific response through Sage Advice. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It is entirely plausible that it's an oversight for this rule to also prohibit Reaction spells. It's also entirely plausible that it is intended. But without clarification on the intent, we can't know the answer. Arguing around and around in circles isn't going to prove anything to anyone.
Ultimately there's no way to resolve this impasse without knowing the intent behind the rule. It could follow the RaW letter for letter, and casting any spell as a Bonus Action prohibits any other spellcasting except for Cantrips. There really isn't any argument, that is what is written. But is that the intention? The only possible indication that RaW is also RaI is the complete lack of any specific response through Sage Advice. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It is entirely plausible that it's an oversight for this rule to also prohibit Reaction spells. It's also entirely plausible that it is intended. But without clarification on the intent, we can't know the answer. Arguing around and around in circles isn't going to prove anything to anyone.
All we are arguing is RAW. You are very correct that RAI is not as clear because Sage Advice never addresses the exact scenario.
Ultimately there's no way to resolve this impasse without knowing the intent behind the rule. It could follow the RaW letter for letter, and casting any spell as a Bonus Action prohibits any other spellcasting except for Cantrips. There really isn't any argument, that is what is written. But is that the intention? The only possible indication that RaW is also RaI is the complete lack of any specific response through Sage Advice. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It is entirely plausible that it's an oversight for this rule to also prohibit Reaction spells. It's also entirely plausible that it is intended. But without clarification on the intent, we can't know the answer. Arguing around and around in circles isn't going to prove anything to anyone.
Just to clarify (and repeat) "To the letter" is any additional spell casting after using a bonus action to cast a levelled spell. It does not mean that casting a leveled spell as a bonus action is itself blocked by a previously cast leveled spell.
This is incorrect, unless the previously cast spell was not during the same turn. It is also not the question the OP posed at the beginning of the thread and adds nothing to the current conversation. It has also already been shown to be false.
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.
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.
This is gettin way off topic from the OP as I figured it would. The 2 camps will never see eye to eye unless they come out with an errata that can clear it up for them. Not gonna try to change anyone’s mind nor am I looking to debate. There are other posts that are pages and pages long that haven’t solved it yet so pretty sure this won’t either. Just letting the OP what the two sides are and he can choose which he feels is correct. Have fun everyone! ROF is the biggest rule
You are of the camp that if you cast a faster than action bonus action spell that it limits you to not being able to cast a reaction spell. Well unless you cast the reaction spell before the bonus action spell or cast the reaction spell immediately after or before your turn but not during. I’m of the camp that says a reaction spell can be cast at any time as long as the trigger is met including on your turn as identified in sage advice by the game designers.
Don't try to cite sage advice, there is no sage advice on this topic, only on the more general topic of reactions.
Literally states you can cast a reaction spell on your turn. Which breaks the economy of one leveled spell on a turn.
"Can you also cast a reaction spell on your turn? You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it.
The sage advice states that you can cast a reaction on your turn, it does not state anything about this overriding the bonus action spell restriction. The sage advice also specifically states that you can cast multiple leveled spells on a turn, as long as none of them are a bonus action.
This is incorrect, unless the previously cast spell was not during the same turn. It is also not the question the OP posed at the beginning of the thread and adds nothing to the current conversation. It has also already been shown to be false.
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.
Again, 'can't cast' does not mean 'can't have cast.' Verb tenses matter. It isn't rocket science. It is English, which is arguably at least as hard or possibly harder than rocket science.
Again, a turn consists of its entirety. That part has to be as simple as tenses.
This is incorrect, unless the previously cast spell was not during the same turn. It is also not the question the OP posed at the beginning of the thread and adds nothing to the current conversation. It has also already been shown to be false.
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.
Again, 'can't cast' does not mean 'can't have cast.' Verb tenses matter. It isn't rocket science. It is English, which is arguably at least as hard or possibly harder than rocket science.
In D&D, it works retroactively. What that means is if you cast a spell that requires a Slot as an action, you can no longer cast a different spell as a bonus action. The one precludes the other, the order does not matter.
I am not saying that time sequence and causality don't exist in this game; just that in this case, "during that turn" means exactly that. You have to consider the whole timeframe that the phrase refers to, not just the part you wish to.
I'll say it again. To take your view of the rule, you have to not only take a specific, pigeon-holed meaning of one of the words, you have to completely ignore others. That isn't how to read rules. On top of that, this has nothing to do with the OP and is off topic.
It's what we call picking fly shit out of pepper lol.
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. Just makes sense and since the rule only mentions bonus actions and actions I omit reactions from that rule. Otherwise you have weird scenarios like...
Bill the Bard hears a friend scream around the corner, he runs around and sees a wizard slapping his friend. He casts fire bolt, the wizard counterspells, he counters the counterspell and hits the wizard. Now he has a bonus action to cast healing word on his buddy. But if you look at the other camp, you can do it that way unless you come around the corner and cast healing word first and it gets countered you couldn't counter it, but if it was cure wounds you could. Or you can't counterspell his counterspell but then when he goes after you to cast fire bolt on you then you can counterspell as it's not on your turn anymore even though sage advice says you can... Just so many scenarios that would be easily solved if you just did the rule as written that lists only action and bonus action spells. Reactions are their own thing entirely.
Again, the word 'another' means 'an additional.' It does not mean 'only which came prior to this event.' It is stated at the end, too. 'This stuff... then this result' Again, sequential. It can have other meanings but that is why things like sentence order and verb tenses actually do matter. I am pointing out not merely individual words but words in combinations in conjunction with one another, in context.
Those arguing otherwise are essentially arguing 'It is badly phrased and thus they did not mean what it actually says.' But that is RaI, not RaW.
An additional does not mean subsequent or following, it means more than one (the one already described). It also doesn't use the word "then," it only says that during a turn where you cast a bonus action spell, you cannot also cast an action spell that isn't a cantrip. That is to say that they are mutually exclusive. Order doesn't matter when things are mutually exclusive. You are prevented from doing both.
You do point out collections of words, but you keep ignoring words. You cannot make any valid argument on rules that ignores the words of that rule.
Kotath, here is a statement I messaged to another like-minded poster here on DDB, it may have relevance to some.
"WotC themselves have told us the rules were meant to be easily understood so, if you have to make an argument about proper use of punctuation and pronoun placement,etc...maybe they failed in their ability to present a simply understood statement. Yet, people will defend some of these poor examples of rules word for word."
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.
If you can simply and concisely explain how a spell cast before a bonus action spell is not "another spell" or "during the same turn" then I will admit your reading might be valid.
Lunali is correct to point out the version printed in XGtE, though some will point out that only the 3 rulebooks are considered "core". XGtE doesn't change any rules, only clarifies.
Oh. So the first action spell becomes the same spell as the second bonus action spell? Because otherwise the first spell would still be another spell from the second.
“An additional” in no way precludes an additional prior, especially considering the timeframe given, which is the entire turn.
If you can simply and concisely explain how a spell cast before a bonus action spell is not "another spell" or "during the same turn" then I will admit your reading might be valid.
Lunali is correct to point out the version printed in XGtE, though some will point out that only the 3 rulebooks are considered "core". XGtE doesn't change any rules, only clarifies.
I did. You cast one spell, then a second spell using a bonus, but as a result of using the bonus cannot cast another (third) spell during the same turn. It is not that difficult a concept. If you draw two swords and cannot draw another sword during the same turn it does not mean you were retroactively not allowed to draw the second sword. "Another" can be in addition to a group of things. It is not limited to being only in addition to one specific thing.
Now read the clarification on the rule from XGtE:
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.
Kotath, here is a statement I messaged to another like-minded poster here on DDB, it may have relevance to some.
"WotC themselves have told us the rules were meant to be easily understood so, if you have to make an argument about proper use of punctuation and pronoun placement,etc...maybe they failed in their ability to present a simply understood statement. Yet, people will defend some of these poor examples of rules word for word."
The problem is that Wizards also chose to write in a natural language style rather than a technical style, and the reason technical styles exist is because it's hard to be clear and unambiguous with natural language.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ultimately there's no way to resolve this impasse without knowing the intent behind the rule. It could follow the RaW letter for letter, and casting any spell as a Bonus Action prohibits any other spellcasting except for Cantrips. There really isn't any argument, that is what is written. But is that the intention? The only possible indication that RaW is also RaI is the complete lack of any specific response through Sage Advice. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It is entirely plausible that it's an oversight for this rule to also prohibit Reaction spells. It's also entirely plausible that it is intended. But without clarification on the intent, we can't know the answer. Arguing around and around in circles isn't going to prove anything to anyone.
All we are arguing is RAW. You are very correct that RAI is not as clear because Sage Advice never addresses the exact scenario.
This is incorrect, unless the previously cast spell was not during the same turn. It is also not the question the OP posed at the beginning of the thread and adds nothing to the current conversation. It has also already been shown to be false.
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.
This is gettin way off topic from the OP as I figured it would. The 2 camps will never see eye to eye unless they come out with an errata that can clear it up for them. Not gonna try to change anyone’s mind nor am I looking to debate. There are other posts that are pages and pages long that haven’t solved it yet so pretty sure this won’t either. Just letting the OP what the two sides are and he can choose which he feels is correct.
Have fun everyone! ROF is the biggest rule
The sage advice states that you can cast a reaction on your turn, it does not state anything about this overriding the bonus action spell restriction. The sage advice also specifically states that you can cast multiple leveled spells on a turn, as long as none of them are a bonus action.
Again, a turn consists of its entirety. That part has to be as simple as tenses.
In D&D, it works retroactively. What that means is if you cast a spell that requires a Slot as an action, you can no longer cast a different spell as a bonus action. The one precludes the other, the order does not matter.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Another can simply mean an other. In fact that is probably a more common usage than "subsequent."
That’s because you are taking tense into account, and they wrote it to be tense agnostic.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I am not saying that time sequence and causality don't exist in this game; just that in this case, "during that turn" means exactly that. You have to consider the whole timeframe that the phrase refers to, not just the part you wish to.
I'll say it again. To take your view of the rule, you have to not only take a specific, pigeon-holed meaning of one of the words, you have to completely ignore others. That isn't how to read rules. On top of that, this has nothing to do with the OP and is off topic.
It's what we call picking fly shit out of pepper lol.
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. Just makes sense and since the rule only mentions bonus actions and actions I omit reactions from that rule. Otherwise you have weird scenarios like...
Bill the Bard hears a friend scream around the corner, he runs around and sees a wizard slapping his friend. He casts fire bolt, the wizard counterspells, he counters the counterspell and hits the wizard. Now he has a bonus action to cast healing word on his buddy. But if you look at the other camp, you can do it that way unless you come around the corner and cast healing word first and it gets countered you couldn't counter it, but if it was cure wounds you could. Or you can't counterspell his counterspell but then when he goes after you to cast fire bolt on you then you can counterspell as it's not on your turn anymore even though sage advice says you can... Just so many scenarios that would be easily solved if you just did the rule as written that lists only action and bonus action spells. Reactions are their own thing entirely.
An additional does not mean subsequent or following, it means more than one (the one already described). It also doesn't use the word "then," it only says that during a turn where you cast a bonus action spell, you cannot also cast an action spell that isn't a cantrip. That is to say that they are mutually exclusive. Order doesn't matter when things are mutually exclusive. You are prevented from doing both.
You do point out collections of words, but you keep ignoring words. You cannot make any valid argument on rules that ignores the words of that rule.
Kotath, here is a statement I messaged to another like-minded poster here on DDB, it may have relevance to some.
"WotC themselves have told us the rules were meant to be easily understood so, if you have to make an argument about proper use of punctuation and pronoun placement,etc...maybe they failed in their ability to present a simply understood statement. Yet, people will defend some of these poor examples of rules word for word."
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:
If you can simply and concisely explain how a spell cast before a bonus action spell is not "another spell" or "during the same turn" then I will admit your reading might be valid.
Lunali is correct to point out the version printed in XGtE, though some will point out that only the 3 rulebooks are considered "core". XGtE doesn't change any rules, only clarifies.
And yet.... you have to convoluted the meaning of words and sentence structure to understand your point of view.
Refer to Wtfdndad said - takes the simplest meaning, not the backwards, around the corner found under the paved cobble meaning.
Oh. So the first action spell becomes the same spell as the second bonus action spell? Because otherwise the first spell would still be another spell from the second.
“An additional” in no way precludes an additional prior, especially considering the timeframe given, which is the entire turn.
Now read the clarification on the rule from XGtE:
The problem is that Wizards also chose to write in a natural language style rather than a technical style, and the reason technical styles exist is because it's hard to be clear and unambiguous with natural language.