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.)
"That's what the rules say. I mean, I'd never rule that way in my games because that's silly and unfun, but that's what the rules say."
I can't believe it took this long.
Separately, Lyxen, I'm curious about something you posted: "That would be a very specific case of wanting so badly to cast a spiritual weapon that one is prepared to waste a counterspell to counterspell aimed at the spiritual weapon. I don't see that as very likely..."
Would you feel the same way if you substituted "healing word to save an unconscious ally" for "spiritual weapon"? No malice, just curious.
Furthermore, the classes combinations able to use both counterspell and healing word is pretty limited anyway, I'm pretty sure you need a very specific build to do this.
Counterspell is probably one of the top contenders for Magical Secrets, and Bards can already cast Healing Word, so it's probably not as rare as you'd think.
As for a specific build, Counterspell is a top-tier choice for Magical Secrets, a Redemption Paladin has it always prepared and heck, a regular ol' Divine Soul Sorcerer could do this, for example.
I think you'd agree that an intelligent enemy might urgently counterspell the guy who's been healing and reviving his compatriots after putting the barbarian down for the third time.
I notice that there are four questions and zero answers in your reply, with a whatabout cherry on top. I will answer all four of yours.
Yes, that is the number of combinations presented and they are very common.
He doesn't need to know you're casting healing word specifically, he's intelligent and sees that you've been healing allies, and no, I wouldn't suppose he's counterspelling everything.
Players can be creative or not, and if they figure boring-but-effective-to-help-a-party-member-survive is their best option, I'm not there to stop them.
No, not that I can remember, and the frequency of this situation occurring doesn't have any bearing on what I asked.
"That's what the rules say. I mean, I'd never rule that way in my games because that's silly and unfun, but that's what the rules say."
I can't believe it took this long.
you have to know how the rules work, and understand how to apply them, before you start breaking them. Otherwise, you are acting in ignorance of what the broken rule might do. allowing counterspell to defend a bonus action is, IMO both fair and unlikely to have a huge impact on the overall game, but being able to cast, say, a 9th level hellish rebuke the same turn as a bonus action spell is a different story, most likely, especially given the damage scaling of the “correct” option (a cantrip)
RAF governs a lot at my table, and if it means bending the rules a bit for a cool moment I’ll do it, but I also try to make sure I know what is supposed to happen per RAW first so I can set limits on and rule-bending my players try and/or that I might allow, but if i didn’t know how the rule is supposed to work, I could be opening up a game breaking scenario
So he wouldn't do it on your first or even your second casting, right ?
As presumed in the hypothetical wherein he saw the caster heal, no, he has not counterspelled some healing.
Why do you expect the opposition to be clever and allow the players to be stupid and boring ?
I don't? Some enemies are clever and some aren't. In the scenario I presented the enemy is intelligent. And seriously, why would I allow players to be stupid and boring? Come on.
So if it never happens, why do you care about the way I would play it ?
I cared about how you would play it because the example bonus action spell was spiritual weapon and not healing word. I'm a curious guy. It made me curious if you'd feel the same way, at your table with your players. If they can't counterspell a counterspell against spiritual weapon, the immediate consequence is that they're not doing some bonus action damage and retain the 3rd level slot. The immediate consequence of disallowing counter-conterspell of healing word may be a life-or-death situation for the PC. You've answered my question now and I appreciate it.
you have to know how the rules work, and understand how to apply them, before you start breaking them. Otherwise, you are acting in ignorance of what the broken rule might do. allowing counterspell to defend a bonus action is, IMO both fair and unlikely to have a huge impact on the overall game, but being able to cast, say, a 9th level hellish rebuke the same turn as a bonus action spell is a different story, most likely, especially given the damage scaling of the “correct” option (a cantrip)
RAF governs a lot at my table, and if it means bending the rules a bit for a cool moment I’ll do it, but I also try to make sure I know what is supposed to happen per RAW first so I can set limits on and rule-bending my players try and/or that I might allow, but if i didn’t know how the rule is supposed to work, I could be opening up a game breaking scenario
I mean yes, I do understand what this discussion is, and I appreciate your further explanation. Just seems odd that that sentiment wasn't out there earlier. Would've squashed a number of frustrating offshoots.
I follow RAW on this and I don’t care what spells are being countered or not. I think it’s healthy for the table if a PC perma-dies every once in a while. Keeps the others on their toes.
I'm not sure, I was under the impression that you would allow it for someone to save the life of a barbarian who has already fallen three times by using the same spell over and over.
I meant to stress that I would *allow*, rather than disallow, players to do stupid and boring things generally. I'd be even more inclined to stay away from taking away a player's autonomy.
I used spiritual weapon because that was the example given to me previously by another contributor, that's all.
I understand, and wasn't concerned with who introduced the example.
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.)
Allowed during your Turn (no Action Surge)
"(None)" means doing something other than Cast a Spell.
Allowed during your Turn (Action Surge)
Disallowed
Anything not in the list above.
That's the AD&Deist thing I've ever seen.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
If you do mange to roll a Bonus Action/35 or above, you can sneak in a reaction spell. Bonus Action/00 and you can do an action spell beyond cantrips!
I know, I love it.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
"That's what the rules say. I mean, I'd never rule that way in my games because that's silly and unfun, but that's what the rules say."
I can't believe it took this long.
Separately, Lyxen, I'm curious about something you posted: "That would be a very specific case of wanting so badly to cast a spiritual weapon that one is prepared to waste a counterspell to counterspell aimed at the spiritual weapon. I don't see that as very likely..."
Would you feel the same way if you substituted "healing word to save an unconscious ally" for "spiritual weapon"? No malice, just curious.
Counterspell is probably one of the top contenders for Magical Secrets, and Bards can already cast Healing Word, so it's probably not as rare as you'd think.
I understand you were discussing RAW.
As for a specific build, Counterspell is a top-tier choice for Magical Secrets, a Redemption Paladin has it always prepared and heck, a regular ol' Divine Soul Sorcerer could do this, for example.
I think you'd agree that an intelligent enemy might urgently counterspell the guy who's been healing and reviving his compatriots after putting the barbarian down for the third time.
Never mind the Redemption Paladin - Healing Word is not on the Paladin spell list, so they won't get it without a fairly common multiclass.
I notice that there are four questions and zero answers in your reply, with a whatabout cherry on top. I will answer all four of yours.
you have to know how the rules work, and understand how to apply them, before you start breaking them. Otherwise, you are acting in ignorance of what the broken rule might do. allowing counterspell to defend a bonus action is, IMO both fair and unlikely to have a huge impact on the overall game, but being able to cast, say, a 9th level hellish rebuke the same turn as a bonus action spell is a different story, most likely, especially given the damage scaling of the “correct” option (a cantrip)
RAF governs a lot at my table, and if it means bending the rules a bit for a cool moment I’ll do it, but I also try to make sure I know what is supposed to happen per RAW first so I can set limits on and rule-bending my players try and/or that I might allow, but if i didn’t know how the rule is supposed to work, I could be opening up a game breaking scenario
As presumed in the hypothetical wherein he saw the caster heal, no, he has not counterspelled some healing.
I don't? Some enemies are clever and some aren't. In the scenario I presented the enemy is intelligent. And seriously, why would I allow players to be stupid and boring? Come on.
I cared about how you would play it because the example bonus action spell was spiritual weapon and not healing word. I'm a curious guy. It made me curious if you'd feel the same way, at your table with your players. If they can't counterspell a counterspell against spiritual weapon, the immediate consequence is that they're not doing some bonus action damage and retain the 3rd level slot. The immediate consequence of disallowing counter-conterspell of healing word may be a life-or-death situation for the PC. You've answered my question now and I appreciate it.
I mean yes, I do understand what this discussion is, and I appreciate your further explanation. Just seems odd that that sentiment wasn't out there earlier. Would've squashed a number of frustrating offshoots.
I follow RAW on this and I don’t care what spells are being countered or not. I think it’s healthy for the table if a PC perma-dies every once in a while. Keeps the others on their toes.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Thanks for that. Just for clarity's sake:
I meant to stress that I would *allow*, rather than disallow, players to do stupid and boring things generally. I'd be even more inclined to stay away from taking away a player's autonomy.
I understand, and wasn't concerned with who introduced the example.
If I knew how to do pajama striping on this forum I would have done the table in the orange style of AD&D books. :-)