What I got for it is you cannot cast a reaction spell if you cast a bonus action spell as part of the same turn, correct?
Yes, which is the argument most of us have been defending for 7 pages now.
JCs tweet shows RAI matches the plain language of the bonus action spell rule, that bonus action spells preclude casting any (and it really means any) other spell that turn, except for the cantrip with a casting time of one action
Yes, well for the people who aren’t listening to you, maybe they’ll listen to JC. That’s why I posted it. Ok I’m for real unsubscribing to this now holy 7&-/($
I wasn't suggesting to ignore spell slots, just that you also need them to cast Bonus Action spells so they don't add anything to settling whether one rule should be used and another ignored.
Even the ruling by JC doesn't answer the question it just says to use the Bonus Action rule over the Reaction one.
There is no actual 'incorrect' way to play the game, just different interpretations of rules.
And this is not even that as I've stated I understand and use the Bonus Action rule... I also understand and use the Reaction rule.
The question still remains why one rule over the other... no matter if it's the Reaction rule or the Bonus Action rule?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
I wasn't suggesting to ignore spell slots, just that you also need them to cast Bonus Action spells so they don't add anything to settling whether one rule should be used and another ignored.
Even the ruling by JC doesn't answer the question it just says to use the Bonus Action rule over the Reaction one.
There is no actual 'incorrect' way to play the game, just different interpretations of rules.
And this is not even that as I've stated I understand and use the Bonus Action rule... I also understand and use the Reaction rule.
The question still remains why one rule over the other... no matter if it's the Reaction rule or the Bonus Action rule?
At this point, I'm convinced you're simply trolling, and not actually debating in good faith.
As black and white as the Bonus Action rule is... the Reaction rule is not, but that doesn't make it any less valid.
JC and the other designers probably thought the Reaction rule would be used mostly on other turns, as it often is. But it can be used on your own turn if the triggers occur on your own turn.
Any, most, and maybe even all Reaction spells can be cast on your turn if the trigger occurs on your turn (as it says under the Reaction rule), but obviously not all at once as you only have 1 reaction a round. You have to choose when to cast a Reaction spell. The individual triggers under each reaction spell is different but the rule says whenever one is met you can cast it.
There is nothing under the Reaction rule that says, or even hints that you can't. And nothing that says check the Bonus Action rule.
Just like there is nothing under the Bonus Action rule that says check the Reaction rule or any other rules to see if you can proceed.
When these 2 rules were being created, I don't think even the designers foresaw the rare circumstances that they would be in conflict.
Some posters on this thread have already said this comes up so few times in their games that it has seldom, or never, been a problem.
I agree with that, I have almost never seen this occur in a game so it's never really been an issue.
On those rare times when it does, each DM is free to adjudicate it however they see fit.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
Yeah guy, you’re just trolling at this point. Your “concerns” have been addressed so many times by so many people, and you just keep flat-out ignoring all of it. If you would actually point out the problems you see in the reasoning, there’s maybe a chance someone could clarify it for you, but then you may have to admit that you’re wrong, which explains why you just keep repeating the same debunked line over and over and refusing to engage in conversation with the people who very specifically show you where the rules address the exact questions you keep claiming are unanswerable.
As black and white as the Bonus Action rule is... the Reaction rule is not, but that doesn't make it any less valid.
JC and the other designers probably thought the Reaction rule would be used mostly on other turns, as it often is. But it can be used on your own turn if the triggers occur on your own turn.
Any, most, and maybe even all Reaction spells can be cast on your turn if the trigger occurs on your turn (as it says under the Reaction rule), but obviously not all at once as you only have 1 reaction a round. You have to choose when to cast a Reaction spell. The individual triggers under each reaction spell is different but the rule says whenever one is met you can cast it.
There is nothing under the Reaction rule that says, or even hints that you can't. And nothing that says check the Bonus Action rule.
Just like there is nothing under the Bonus Action rule that says check the Reaction rule or any other rules to see if you can proceed.
When these 2 rules were being created, I don't think even the designers foresaw the rare circumstances that they would be in conflict.
Some posters on this thread have already said this comes up so few times in their games that it has seldom, or never, been a problem.
I agree with that, I have almost never seen this occur in a game so it's never really been an issue.
On those rare times when it does, each DM is free to adjudicate it however they see fit.
First of all, The bonus action rule is literally right above the reaction rule. Literally the previous sentence of text. And if you are planning or have cast a bonus action spell, you should be consulting that rule without being asked to.
Second, nothing in the reaction rule tells you to check the spell slots rule, or the general reactions rule, or the spells known rule, or any other rule that bears on reaction spells, and some of those are in different chapters. You are arbitrarily setting a higher standard for the bonus action rule compared to those.
thirdly, assuming every rule cross referenced every other rule that might interact with it in some way, the books would be 5 times longer than they are now, and practically impossible to read
finally, the designers assume a basic familiarity with written English (or barring that, the language of a translation, if any). One of those is understanding which rules are permissive (you “can” or “may” do a thing, with or without conditions) and which are imperative (you “must”, “shall”, “cannot”, “may not”, with or without exceptions). Imperative rules outweigh permissive rules because permissive rules give options or a choice (do this or that, or do or don’t do this), while imperative rules give no choice. The reaction rule is a permissive rule with conditions (you “can” cast a reaction spell if you meet the trigger). The bonus action rule is an imperative rule with exceptions (you “cannot” cast another spell that turn unless it meets certain criteria). So the bonus action rule outweighs the reaction rule when the two come into play at the same time
As to the first point, no matter where other rules are located when looking up a rule you usually look up that rule not others. If I want to know when i can cast reaction spells I look up reaction rules, not bonus action rules. (If I want to know something about the fighter's extra attacks rule I don't look up warlock invocations).
As to the second point, I am setting the same standards for all rules, just look up and follow those rules. Even if they are in other chapters or even books.
As to the third point, every rule doesn't cross reference every other rule. Some rules that apply to certain things are spread out all over though (like the rules surrounding hiding and things related to hiding, such as game mechanics, they are in several different chapters).
Finally, I don't know that using certain words make bonus action spells or reaction spells imperative or permissive. I think both types of spells are equally relevant to be cast when they can be cast.
Since this is hardly ever going to come up in an actual game, it' going to fall on each DM to rule how they see fit.
In any games where I DM if a player cast a Bonus Action spell they will only be able to cast an Action cantrip. This will be more than carved in stone it will be carved in iron. Not a wish spell or the decrees of the gods will be able to change this.
But each and every single time a Reaction spell can be cast on the same turn I will allow it. I just can't abide the entire party falling to their deaths when a caster can simply use feather fall to save everyone. But let me know how much fun everyone had in your games after a TPK in these rare instances.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A rightful place awaits you in the Realms Above, in the Land of the Great Light. Come in peace, and live beneath the sun again, where trees and flowers grow."
— The message of Eilistraee to all decent drow.
"Run thy sword across my chains, Silver Lady, that I may join your dance.”
As to the first point, no matter where other rules are located when looking up a rule you usually look up that rule not others. If I want to know when i can cast reaction spells I look up reaction rules, not bonus action rules. (If I want to know something about the fighter's extra attacks rule I don't look up warlock invocations).
As to the second point, I am setting the same standards for all rules, just look up and follow those rules. Even if they are in other chapters or even books.
As to the third point, every rule doesn't cross reference every other rule. Some rules that apply to certain things are spread out all over though (like the rules surrounding hiding and things related to hiding, such as game mechanics, they are in several different chapters).
Finally, I don't know that using certain words make bonus action spells or reaction spells imperative or permissive. I think both types of spells are equally relevant to be cast when they can be cast.
Since this is hardly ever going to come up in an actual game, it' going to fall on each DM to rule how they see fit.
In any games where I DM if a player cast a Bonus Action spell they will only be able to cast an Action cantrip. This will be more than carved in stone it will be carved in iron. Not a wish spell or the decrees of the gods will be able to change this.
But each and every single time a Reaction spell can be cast on the same turn I will allow it. I just can't abide the entire party falling to their deaths when a caster can simply use feather fall to save everyone. But let me know how much fun everyone had in your games after a TPK in these rare instances.
Yep, you’re trolling...I’m done, best of luck to you
Yeah guy, you’re just trolling at this point. Your “concerns” have been addressed so many times by so many people, and you just keep flat-out ignoring all of it. If you would actually point out the problems you see in the reasoning, there’s maybe a chance someone could clarify it for you, but then you may have to admit that you’re wrong, which explains why you just keep repeating the same debunked line over and over and refusing to engage in conversation with the people who very specifically show you where the rules address the exact questions you keep claiming are unanswerable.
It't not just that they're selectively ignoring contrary arguments, it's also that their base argument is so jaw-droppingly absurd ("two rules, if considered in a vacuum, and if we ignore their context, indicate different outcomes for a specific action, so there's a contradiction which must be fixed"). It's absurd enough that they even dismissed others when using the same logic to conclude that when you cast a spell as a Reaction, you don't need, and don't expend, spell slots. So, yeah, when you dismiss offhand an argument that uses the same exact logic as yours does, when your argument requires suspension of so much common sense and logic, and when you refuse to acknowledge any argument and/or evidence that damages your argument... I dunno what else to call it: it's trolling.
As to the first point, no matter where other rules are located when looking up a rule you usually look up that rule not others. If I want to know when i can cast reaction spells I look up reaction rules, not bonus action rules. (If I want to know something about the fighter's extra attacks rule I don't look up warlock invocations).
As to the second point, I am setting the same standards for all rules, just look up and follow those rules. Even if they are in other chapters or even books.
As to the third point, every rule doesn't cross reference every other rule. Some rules that apply to certain things are spread out all over though (like the rules surrounding hiding and things related to hiding, such as game mechanics, they are in several different chapters).
Finally, I don't know that using certain words make bonus action spells or reaction spells imperative or permissive. I think both types of spells are equally relevant to be cast when they can be cast.
Since this is hardly ever going to come up in an actual game, it' going to fall on each DM to rule how they see fit.
In any games where I DM if a player cast a Bonus Action spell they will only be able to cast an Action cantrip. This will be more than carved in stone it will be carved in iron. Not a wish spell or the decrees of the gods will be able to change this.
But each and every single time a Reaction spell can be cast on the same turn I will allow it. I just can't abide the entire party falling to their deaths when a caster can simply use feather fall to save everyone. But let me know how much fun everyone had in your games after a TPK in these rare instances.
Why does the reaction rule not reference the bonus action rule? Because it has no bearing on the bonus action rule, at least no more than casting a leveled spell with an action.
The only time that the bonus action spell rules come into play is when a bonus action spell is cast. If you are casting a spell with a bonus action during your turn and have to look up the rules for it, then you will do so when you cast the bonus action spell.
If you are a Divine Soul Sorcerer and you want to cast Healing Word, then you'll notice that there is a limitation on any other spell cast that turn being a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. If you've already cast a leveled spell that turn, say Fireball or Counterspell, then you can't cast Healing Word. If you haven't, then you consider if you want to cast Healing Word in case you want to do something else. If you decide to cast Healing Word, then you are saying that you want to be limited to casting a cantrip with your action as far as spellcasting goes for the rest of the turn.
Pro tip time!
Since reaction spells only happen in response to something else, don't cast your bonus action spell until you are ready to stop doing things that will trigger reactions. Get your movement taken care of so that you won't trigger OAs that you may wish to cast Shield or Hellish Rebuke on. If you want to Soul Cage a creature on your turn, don't attack it with a bonus action spell. Once you are down to the moment where you are ready to cast that Misty Step or Healing Word or whatever, then you'll know that the consequences are going to be limited. An enemy is going to Counterspell your cantrip? Sweet, they used a spell slot and their reaction to counter your action. You don't have to worry about triggers to save yourself or whatever on other turns because you'll be able to cast Feather Fall on the next creature's turn. As long as you don't do anything that can trigger that fall on your turn before you cast a bonus action spell, you'll be fine. If your party is being dragged into the air by a Dragon, don't cast Spiritual Weapon to try to kill it.
If you really need to leave the presence of several enemies, consider Disengage instead of Misty Step. If you are in a position where you need to cast Misty Step to get away and you might get Counterspelled, you have been making some bad decisions that cornered you.
Keep in mind that if you are the 4th person out of 7 on the initiative count, then you can use your reaction on the 3rd person's count and then have the reaction available again on your count and use that reaction sometime before the end of the round if you need to do so. It's not 1 reaction per round, it's one reaction between the start of your turns. Further, if you cast a bonus action spell on your initiative count 4 and preventing you from using your reaction to cast a spell on count 4 (just like any other non cantrip with a casting time of 1 action, meaning no Mending for an artificer to try to heal their Steel Defender after casting Healing Word), you can still use your reaction to cast Counterspell, Feather Fall, Shield or whatever from count 5 during this round until the end of count 3 the next round. You don't have to wait until your next turn to cast a reaction spell.
Wow, this has gone on several tangents... that stuff about not needing spell slots for reactions, casting leveled spells and bonus action spells in the same turn, etc..? yeah, wow, no.
The only point I was trying to make is that I don't think the spellcasting restrictions involving a bonus action have any bearing on how someone may use their reaction when an applicable trigger occurs, even if it's on their own turn. As before, I fully comprehend the rule as written, and the conclusion being drawn from it. I do not agree with the interpretation of what is written, but I am in the minority, so it is what it is...
I understand the intent behind action/bonus action spellcasting limitation. It serves to prevent a caster from double-nuking, and as an artificially-induced bottleneck for a caster "ramping up" like the common combo of Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon (or any other combo of A/BA spells) taking two rounds to get up to speed. That serves a clear systemic balancing purpose. Not being able to use your reaction--in a moment it was designed for--serves no such purpose in my mind, and is counter-intuitive for the role of reactions in the system.
I would never tell a player at my table that they cannot ever use Counterspell to prevent their own casting of Spiritual Weapon from being interrupted. That's absurd.
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.
Wow, this has gone on several tangents... that stuff about not needing spell slots for reactions, casting leveled spells and bonus action spells in the same turn, etc..? yeah, wow, no.
The only point I was trying to make is that I don't think the spellcasting restrictions involving a bonus action have any bearing on how someone may use their reaction when an applicable trigger occurs, even if it's on their own turn. As before, I fully comprehend the rule as written, and the conclusion being drawn from it. I do not agree with the interpretation of what is written, but I am in the minority, so it is what it is...
I understand the intent behind action/bonus action spellcasting limitation. It serves to prevent a caster from double-nuking, and as an artificially-induced bottleneck for a caster "ramping up" like the common combo of Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon (or any other combo of A/BA spells) taking two rounds to get up to speed. That serves a clear systemic balancing purpose. Not being able to use your reaction--in a moment it was designed for--serves no such purpose in my mind, and is counter-intuitive for the role of reactions in the system.
I would never tell a player at my table that they cannot ever use Counterspell to prevent their own casting of Spiritual Weapon from being interrupted. That's absurd.
It's certainly been a fun discussion (except for a few troll-ish type posts that seem to ignore reason and plain english), and of course you are free to rule as you want per your last sentence, but the Reaction/Bonus action RAW and RAI (nearest link to a JC tweet establishing that is in post #149) has been established. Its a rare chance it will ever come up in a game (counterspell being the most likely as you illustrate, followed by shield to block an AoO), but unless they errata or change the text for bonus action spells, the RAW and RAI prohibit the two in the same turn.
Honestly, all said and done, and despite my arguing over 7 pages here, I'd probably bend the rule for Counterspell as a specific exception as well (it really doesn't seem fair when you can do the same thing on an action spell and its RAW), but probably not for any other reaction spell. I like to think i'm a much nicer DM in real life than I probably come off as in the forums
I am only now able to return to this thread. Busy in RL.
I see that Jeremy Crawford has provided his opinion, and places the Bonus Action Spell rule above Reactions. OK, I yield and will concede.
However, I have to say that this ruling is unreasonable to enforce. If I'm the DM, there's no way I'm going to memorize what spells are bonus action and what spells are full actions, for the sole purpose of policing whether a reaction can be used (or if already used, if a spell bonus action spell can be cast). I'm not going to bog down my combat any further, period.
And god forbid I end up with a rules lawyer at my table, with another player that is less versed in the intricacies of the rules. "Yes, he could counter counterspell because his spell was a full action, and no you can't counter counterspell because your spell is a bonus action. Yes, I know it doesn't make sense, that bonus action spells are supposed to be 'quicker' than full action spells, but that's how the game designer ruled. Sorry..."
I am only now able to return to this thread. Busy in RL.
I see that Jeremy Crawford has provided his opinion, and places the Bonus Action Spell rule above Reactions. OK, I yield and will concede.
However, I have to say that this ruling is unreasonable to enforce. If I'm the DM, there's no way I'm going to memorize what spells are bonus action and what spells are full actions, for the sole purpose of policing whether a reaction can be used (or if already used, if a spell bonus action spell can be cast). I'm not going to bog down my combat any further, period.
And god forbid I end up with a rules lawyer at my table, with another player that is less versed in the intricacies of the rules. "Yes, he could counter counterspell because his spell was a full action, and no you can't counter counterspell because your spell is a bonus action. Yes, I know it doesn't make sense, that bonus action spells are supposed to be 'quicker' than full action spells, but that's how the game designer ruled. Sorry..."
I'll stick to my houserule.
I was always under the impression that Reaction and Bonus Action Spells were supposed to be harder to use since they require the same amount of Magic (spell slot) but you have to rush the casting.
I am only now able to return to this thread. Busy in RL.
I see that Jeremy Crawford has provided his opinion, and places the Bonus Action Spell rule above Reactions. OK, I yield and will concede.
However, I have to say that this ruling is unreasonable to enforce. If I'm the DM, there's no way I'm going to memorize what spells are bonus action and what spells are full actions, for the sole purpose of policing whether a reaction can be used (or if already used, if a spell bonus action spell can be cast). I'm not going to bog down my combat any further, period.
And god forbid I end up with a rules lawyer at my table, with another player that is less versed in the intricacies of the rules. "Yes, he could counter counterspell because his spell was a full action, and no you can't counter counterspell because your spell is a bonus action. Yes, I know it doesn't make sense, that bonus action spells are supposed to be 'quicker' than full action spells, but that's how the game designer ruled. Sorry..."
I'll stick to my houserule.
Um... What?!
You don't have to memorize which spells use regular Actions or Bonus Actions "for the sole purpose" of knowing whether spell which uses a Reaction can be used... you need to know whether it uses an Action or a Bonus Action to know whether it can be cast, and when. The caster attacked with their staff, and now wants to use a spell... will you allow it? Dunno, depends on whether it uses an Action or a Bonus Action. You can either memorize all that, or look it up when it becomes relevant. You know, like we've all been doing all this time.
Now, if you decide to allow spells using Reactions on turns where the caster has already cast a spell using their Bonus Action, because that makes more sense to you, or because you think it'll be more fun for everybody involved, or for some similar reason... great! Do so! But don't claim it's because it's unreasonable to enforce: it's no more unreasonable to enforce than not allowing Action spells to be cast on turns where the caster cast a Bonus Action spell.
I would never tell a player at my table that they cannot ever use Counterspell to prevent their own casting of Spiritual Weapon from being interrupted. That's absurd.
I agree, and in my games, casting a Bonus Action spell does not preclude you from casting a Reaction spell that same turn. Nevertheless, that's what the rules say, so the way I run my games is a house rule, not RAW. (I understand, and appreciate, your arguments regarding why RAW permits casting a Reaction spell in the same turn a Bonus Action spell was cast. I disagree with the argument, but I just wanted to point out I don't think you're trolling; my earlier comments were meant for someone else.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What I got for it is you cannot cast a reaction spell if you cast a bonus action spell as part of the same turn, correct?
thats basically what this whole discussion is about is it not?
Yes, which is the argument most of us have been defending for 7 pages now.
JCs tweet shows RAI matches the plain language of the bonus action spell rule, that bonus action spells preclude casting any (and it really means any) other spell that turn, except for the cantrip with a casting time of one action
Yes, well for the people who aren’t listening to you, maybe they’ll listen to JC. That’s why I posted it. Ok I’m for real unsubscribing to this now holy 7&-/($
I wasn't suggesting to ignore spell slots, just that you also need them to cast Bonus Action spells so they don't add anything to settling whether one rule should be used and another ignored.
Even the ruling by JC doesn't answer the question it just says to use the Bonus Action rule over the Reaction one.
There is no actual 'incorrect' way to play the game, just different interpretations of rules.
And this is not even that as I've stated I understand and use the Bonus Action rule... I also understand and use the Reaction rule.
The question still remains why one rule over the other... no matter if it's the Reaction rule or the Bonus Action rule?
At this point, I'm convinced you're simply trolling, and not actually debating in good faith.
Why couldn't this have been posted on page 1 of this topic? ;-)
That would have made it too easy. Just like Inigo Montoya, we had to start left-handed.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
As black and white as the Bonus Action rule is... the Reaction rule is not, but that doesn't make it any less valid.
JC and the other designers probably thought the Reaction rule would be used mostly on other turns, as it often is. But it can be used on your own turn if the triggers occur on your own turn.
Any, most, and maybe even all Reaction spells can be cast on your turn if the trigger occurs on your turn (as it says under the Reaction rule), but obviously not all at once as you only have 1 reaction a round. You have to choose when to cast a Reaction spell. The individual triggers under each reaction spell is different but the rule says whenever one is met you can cast it.
There is nothing under the Reaction rule that says, or even hints that you can't. And nothing that says check the Bonus Action rule.
Just like there is nothing under the Bonus Action rule that says check the Reaction rule or any other rules to see if you can proceed.
When these 2 rules were being created, I don't think even the designers foresaw the rare circumstances that they would be in conflict.
Some posters on this thread have already said this comes up so few times in their games that it has seldom, or never, been a problem.
I agree with that, I have almost never seen this occur in a game so it's never really been an issue.
On those rare times when it does, each DM is free to adjudicate it however they see fit.
Yeah guy, you’re just trolling at this point. Your “concerns” have been addressed so many times by so many people, and you just keep flat-out ignoring all of it. If you would actually point out the problems you see in the reasoning, there’s maybe a chance someone could clarify it for you, but then you may have to admit that you’re wrong, which explains why you just keep repeating the same debunked line over and over and refusing to engage in conversation with the people who very specifically show you where the rules address the exact questions you keep claiming are unanswerable.
First of all, The bonus action rule is literally right above the reaction rule. Literally the previous sentence of text. And if you are planning or have cast a bonus action spell, you should be consulting that rule without being asked to.
Second, nothing in the reaction rule tells you to check the spell slots rule, or the general reactions rule, or the spells known rule, or any other rule that bears on reaction spells, and some of those are in different chapters. You are arbitrarily setting a higher standard for the bonus action rule compared to those.
thirdly, assuming every rule cross referenced every other rule that might interact with it in some way, the books would be 5 times longer than they are now, and practically impossible to read
finally, the designers assume a basic familiarity with written English (or barring that, the language of a translation, if any). One of those is understanding which rules are permissive (you “can” or “may” do a thing, with or without conditions) and which are imperative (you “must”, “shall”, “cannot”, “may not”, with or without exceptions). Imperative rules outweigh permissive rules because permissive rules give options or a choice (do this or that, or do or don’t do this), while imperative rules give no choice. The reaction rule is a permissive rule with conditions (you “can” cast a reaction spell if you meet the trigger). The bonus action rule is an imperative rule with exceptions (you “cannot” cast another spell that turn unless it meets certain criteria). So the bonus action rule outweighs the reaction rule when the two come into play at the same time
As to the first point, no matter where other rules are located when looking up a rule you usually look up that rule not others. If I want to know when i can cast reaction spells I look up reaction rules, not bonus action rules. (If I want to know something about the fighter's extra attacks rule I don't look up warlock invocations).
As to the second point, I am setting the same standards for all rules, just look up and follow those rules. Even if they are in other chapters or even books.
As to the third point, every rule doesn't cross reference every other rule. Some rules that apply to certain things are spread out all over though (like the rules surrounding hiding and things related to hiding, such as game mechanics, they are in several different chapters).
Finally, I don't know that using certain words make bonus action spells or reaction spells imperative or permissive. I think both types of spells are equally relevant to be cast when they can be cast.
Since this is hardly ever going to come up in an actual game, it' going to fall on each DM to rule how they see fit.
In any games where I DM if a player cast a Bonus Action spell they will only be able to cast an Action cantrip. This will be more than carved in stone it will be carved in iron. Not a wish spell or the decrees of the gods will be able to change this.
But each and every single time a Reaction spell can be cast on the same turn I will allow it. I just can't abide the entire party falling to their deaths when a caster can simply use feather fall to save everyone. But let me know how much fun everyone had in your games after a TPK in these rare instances.
Yep, you’re trolling...I’m done, best of luck to you
It't not just that they're selectively ignoring contrary arguments, it's also that their base argument is so jaw-droppingly absurd ("two rules, if considered in a vacuum, and if we ignore their context, indicate different outcomes for a specific action, so there's a contradiction which must be fixed"). It's absurd enough that they even dismissed others when using the same logic to conclude that when you cast a spell as a Reaction, you don't need, and don't expend, spell slots. So, yeah, when you dismiss offhand an argument that uses the same exact logic as yours does, when your argument requires suspension of so much common sense and logic, and when you refuse to acknowledge any argument and/or evidence that damages your argument... I dunno what else to call it: it's trolling.
Why does the reaction rule not reference the bonus action rule? Because it has no bearing on the bonus action rule, at least no more than casting a leveled spell with an action.
The only time that the bonus action spell rules come into play is when a bonus action spell is cast. If you are casting a spell with a bonus action during your turn and have to look up the rules for it, then you will do so when you cast the bonus action spell.
If you are a Divine Soul Sorcerer and you want to cast Healing Word, then you'll notice that there is a limitation on any other spell cast that turn being a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. If you've already cast a leveled spell that turn, say Fireball or Counterspell, then you can't cast Healing Word. If you haven't, then you consider if you want to cast Healing Word in case you want to do something else. If you decide to cast Healing Word, then you are saying that you want to be limited to casting a cantrip with your action as far as spellcasting goes for the rest of the turn.
Pro tip time!
Since reaction spells only happen in response to something else, don't cast your bonus action spell until you are ready to stop doing things that will trigger reactions. Get your movement taken care of so that you won't trigger OAs that you may wish to cast Shield or Hellish Rebuke on. If you want to Soul Cage a creature on your turn, don't attack it with a bonus action spell. Once you are down to the moment where you are ready to cast that Misty Step or Healing Word or whatever, then you'll know that the consequences are going to be limited. An enemy is going to Counterspell your cantrip? Sweet, they used a spell slot and their reaction to counter your action. You don't have to worry about triggers to save yourself or whatever on other turns because you'll be able to cast Feather Fall on the next creature's turn. As long as you don't do anything that can trigger that fall on your turn before you cast a bonus action spell, you'll be fine. If your party is being dragged into the air by a Dragon, don't cast Spiritual Weapon to try to kill it.
If you really need to leave the presence of several enemies, consider Disengage instead of Misty Step. If you are in a position where you need to cast Misty Step to get away and you might get Counterspelled, you have been making some bad decisions that cornered you.
Keep in mind that if you are the 4th person out of 7 on the initiative count, then you can use your reaction on the 3rd person's count and then have the reaction available again on your count and use that reaction sometime before the end of the round if you need to do so. It's not 1 reaction per round, it's one reaction between the start of your turns. Further, if you cast a bonus action spell on your initiative count 4 and preventing you from using your reaction to cast a spell on count 4 (just like any other non cantrip with a casting time of 1 action, meaning no Mending for an artificer to try to heal their Steel Defender after casting Healing Word), you can still use your reaction to cast Counterspell, Feather Fall, Shield or whatever from count 5 during this round until the end of count 3 the next round. You don't have to wait until your next turn to cast a reaction spell.
Wow, this has gone on several tangents... that stuff about not needing spell slots for reactions, casting leveled spells and bonus action spells in the same turn, etc..? yeah, wow, no.
The only point I was trying to make is that I don't think the spellcasting restrictions involving a bonus action have any bearing on how someone may use their reaction when an applicable trigger occurs, even if it's on their own turn. As before, I fully comprehend the rule as written, and the conclusion being drawn from it. I do not agree with the interpretation of what is written, but I am in the minority, so it is what it is...
I understand the intent behind action/bonus action spellcasting limitation. It serves to prevent a caster from double-nuking, and as an artificially-induced bottleneck for a caster "ramping up" like the common combo of Spirit Guardians and Spiritual Weapon (or any other combo of A/BA spells) taking two rounds to get up to speed. That serves a clear systemic balancing purpose. Not being able to use your reaction--in a moment it was designed for--serves no such purpose in my mind, and is counter-intuitive for the role of reactions in the system.
I would never tell a player at my table that they cannot ever use Counterspell to prevent their own casting of Spiritual Weapon from being interrupted. That's absurd.
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.
It's certainly been a fun discussion (except for a few troll-ish type posts that seem to ignore reason and plain english), and of course you are free to rule as you want per your last sentence, but the Reaction/Bonus action RAW and RAI (nearest link to a JC tweet establishing that is in post #149) has been established. Its a rare chance it will ever come up in a game (counterspell being the most likely as you illustrate, followed by shield to block an AoO), but unless they errata or change the text for bonus action spells, the RAW and RAI prohibit the two in the same turn.
Honestly, all said and done, and despite my arguing over 7 pages here, I'd probably bend the rule for Counterspell as a specific exception as well (it really doesn't seem fair when you can do the same thing on an action spell and its RAW), but probably not for any other reaction spell. I like to think i'm a much nicer DM in real life than I probably come off as in the forums
I am only now able to return to this thread. Busy in RL.
I see that Jeremy Crawford has provided his opinion, and places the Bonus Action Spell rule above Reactions. OK, I yield and will concede.
However, I have to say that this ruling is unreasonable to enforce. If I'm the DM, there's no way I'm going to memorize what spells are bonus action and what spells are full actions, for the sole purpose of policing whether a reaction can be used (or if already used, if a spell bonus action spell can be cast). I'm not going to bog down my combat any further, period.
And god forbid I end up with a rules lawyer at my table, with another player that is less versed in the intricacies of the rules. "Yes, he could counter counterspell because his spell was a full action, and no you can't counter counterspell because your spell is a bonus action. Yes, I know it doesn't make sense, that bonus action spells are supposed to be 'quicker' than full action spells, but that's how the game designer ruled. Sorry..."
I'll stick to my houserule.
I was always under the impression that Reaction and Bonus Action Spells were supposed to be harder to use since they require the same amount of Magic (spell slot) but you have to rush the casting.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Um... What?!
You don't have to memorize which spells use regular Actions or Bonus Actions "for the sole purpose" of knowing whether spell which uses a Reaction can be used... you need to know whether it uses an Action or a Bonus Action to know whether it can be cast, and when. The caster attacked with their staff, and now wants to use a spell... will you allow it? Dunno, depends on whether it uses an Action or a Bonus Action. You can either memorize all that, or look it up when it becomes relevant. You know, like we've all been doing all this time.
Now, if you decide to allow spells using Reactions on turns where the caster has already cast a spell using their Bonus Action, because that makes more sense to you, or because you think it'll be more fun for everybody involved, or for some similar reason... great! Do so! But don't claim it's because it's unreasonable to enforce: it's no more unreasonable to enforce than not allowing Action spells to be cast on turns where the caster cast a Bonus Action spell.
I agree, and in my games, casting a Bonus Action spell does not preclude you from casting a Reaction spell that same turn. Nevertheless, that's what the rules say, so the way I run my games is a house rule, not RAW. (I understand, and appreciate, your arguments regarding why RAW permits casting a Reaction spell in the same turn a Bonus Action spell was cast. I disagree with the argument, but I just wanted to point out I don't think you're trolling; my earlier comments were meant for someone else.)