The whole S component means one thing. M component means another. and S+M components means something else. along with spell foci etc...
IMO only because of pedants. It seems abundantly clear to me what is intended: if you are holding a spellcasting focus or had a free hand and a component pouch (or other access to the components) you can cast spells with any combination of V/S/M as long as the M doesn't have a gold cost, if the M has a gold cost you must hold that thing in one hand but your other hand can be occupied with something else. If you are silenced you can't cast any spells with V components.
Many tables, like the one I play at, waves this. Some don’t. And the issue comes up enough on these forums that it need’s streamlined.
No you cannot cast a BA turn after casting an action turn.
Citation needed.
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.
No you cannot cast a BA turn after casting an action turn.
Citation needed.
It's been addressed in advice threads and tweets but not stated specifically AFAIK (i.e. it's not specific that you can't cast a bonus action spell after casting a leveled spell). Yet another reason.
Actually, another cleanup, though one I don't expect: rename 'bonus' action ('swift' from 3.5e and 'minor' from 4e are both suitable). New players still think 'bonus' actually means 'bonus' -- so if X grants a bonus action and Y grants a bonus action, you can do both X and Y.
The whole S component means one thing. M component means another. and S+M components means something else. along with spell foci etc...
IMO only because of pedants. It seems abundantly clear to me what is intended: if you are holding a spellcasting focus or had a free hand and a component pouch (or other access to the components) you can cast spells with any combination of V/S/M as long as the M doesn't have a gold cost, if the M has a gold cost you must hold that thing in one hand but your other hand can be occupied with something else. If you are silenced you can't cast any spells with V components.
Many tables, like the one I play at, waves this. Some don’t. And the issue comes up enough on these forums that it need’s streamlined.
And while many tables wave it, it was clarified by the Sage that it was supposed to work like the so called pedants read it. I think its a bad ruling and poorly written but that is the rule, if a spell is just V/S or S you need a free hand and the hand holding your arcane focus does not count as free and you can't make the movements with the hand holding the focus, but if it is S,M/V,S,M you can make S movements with the hand holding the arcane focus. So official tables or people who like playing RAW will likely do it like the so called pedants. And I guess also oddly if you have a material components pouch you win out in 2 ways here, the hand is free and if the spell has a costly component you have the free hand to grab it, where as the focus wins out for certain builds. So what reads like just a cosmetic choice ends up having odd rule interactions which players may not expect.
None of which is intuitive. I can come up with reasons why its so, pure S spells require more specialized movements, S/M spells are more basic movements etc. But on a initial reading that does not come through.
No you cannot cast a BA turn after casting an action turn.
Citation needed.
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.
the bolded says you can’t.
It says you can't cast a non-cantrip Action spell after you cast a Bonus Action spell. It does not state you can not have cast a leveled Action spell during the same turn. The order you take your actions matters in this case, because the restriction only kicks in after you cast a BA spell.
No you cannot cast a BA turn after casting an action turn.
Citation needed.
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.
the bolded says you can’t.
It says you can't cast a non-cantrip Action spell after you cast a Bonus Action spell. It does not state you can not have cast a leveled Action spell during the same turn. The order you take your actions matters in this case, because the restriction only kicks in after you cast a BA spell.
Yet “after” never appears in the BA casting rules. But I understand that some people read it that way. And why I say it needs “cleaning up” in 1D&D.
What the rule does specifically say is you can’t cast another spell in the same turn. No order is specified. Just that you can’t unless it is a 1 action cantrip
The whole S component means one thing. M component means another. and S+M components means something else. along with spell foci etc...
IMO only because of pedants. It seems abundantly clear to me what is intended: if you are holding a spellcasting focus or had a free hand and a component pouch (or other access to the components) you can cast spells with any combination of V/S/M as long as the M doesn't have a gold cost, if the M has a gold cost you must hold that thing in one hand but your other hand can be occupied with something else. If you are silenced you can't cast any spells with V components.
Many tables, like the one I play at, waves this. Some don’t. And the issue comes up enough on these forums that it need’s streamlined.
And while many tables wave it, it was clarified by the Sage that it was supposed to work like the so called pedants read it. I think its a bad ruling and poorly written but that is the rule, if a spell is just V/S or S you need a free hand and the hand holding your arcane focus does not count as free and you can't make the movements with the hand holding the focus, but if it is S,M/V,S,M you can make S movements with the hand holding the arcane focus. So official tables or people who like playing RAW will likely do it like the so called pedants. And I guess also oddly if you have a material components pouch you win out in 2 ways here, the hand is free and if the spell has a costly component you have the free hand to grab it, where as the focus wins out for certain builds. So what reads like just a cosmetic choice ends up having odd rule interactions which players may not expect.
None of which is intuitive. I can come up with reasons why its so, pure S spells require more specialized movements, S/M spells are more basic movements etc. But on a initial reading that does not come through.
This is also a good example of where having a exception, even one that seems entirely beneficial, can come back to bite you. It would be a lot simpler to state "You need a hand for M, you need a hand for S, they can not be the same hand. Yes, this makes thrikreen OP." It would make casters less flexible in general, but it's a whole lot clearer, and preemptively handles the War Caster with M/S spells issue.
No you cannot cast a BA turn after casting an action turn.
Citation needed.
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.
the bolded says you can’t.
It says you can't cast a non-cantrip Action spell after you cast a Bonus Action spell. It does not state you can not have cast a leveled Action spell during the same turn. The order you take your actions matters in this case, because the restriction only kicks in after you cast a BA spell.
Yet “after” never appears in the BA casting rules. But I understand that some people read it that way. And why I say it needs “cleaning up” in 1D&D.
What the rule does specifically say is you can’t cast another spell in the same turn. No order is specified. Just that you can’t unless it is a 1 action cantrip
No order needs to be specified because the rule doesn't come into effect until after a BA spell has been cast during the current turn. Nothing in the rule references any activity prior to casting the BA spell. Nothing prevents you from casting a BA spell before the first one. Assuming you have the resources required, you can cast a million leveled Action or Reaction spells in a turn. Then you cast a BA spell, the rule comes into effect, & you can only cast cantrip spells with a casting time of 1 Action.
Assuming anyone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith is something to avoid. Yes, sometimes people are arguing in bad faith, but many people legitimately disagree.
You know how I know it's bad faith?
Because each and every person who has claimed the rule is 'confusing' in this thread up to this point has said something along the lines of 'Oh, no, I understand it, but a lot of people say they're confused'.
But then if you press them on it enough, they do what you just did at the end of this quote here and forget that they were trying to claim that the rule is confusing and confirm that it's a rule they disagree with.
Um...
Playtesters are not generally average players -- they tend to be people who have played a lot and thought a lot about the game.
Assuming anyone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith is something to avoid. Yes, sometimes people are arguing in bad faith, but many people legitimately disagree.
You know how I know it's bad faith?
Because each and every person who has claimed the rule is 'confusing' in this thread up to this point has said something along the lines of 'Oh, no, I understand it, but a lot of people say they're confused'.
But then if you press them on it enough, they do what you just did at the end of this quote here and forget that they were trying to claim that the rule is confusing and confirm that it's a rule they disagree with.
Panta didn't state what was being disagreed with. "Many people legitimately disagree that this rule isn't confusing." is a reasonable interpretation.
That said, it's relatively easy to show that some rules are particularly badly written, simply by the number of posts by new users asking how said rule works. It's not the same question as saying you think a rule is bad, and asking how do experienced tables change the rule.
Discussion of whether the rules on levelled spellcasting limits is as off topic on page 3 as it was on page 1; all it has succeeded in doing is proving that it is overwhelmingly necessary that this rule is changed for OneD&D, which is what this thread is supposed to be about (suggesting rules that need changing/clarifying/updating in OneD&D). Can we please just drop this entirely irrelevant off-topic non-discussion?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
So, I am thinking they need to clarify the rules of magic.
And then fix the spells that break them.
magic has rules in every system that has any practical plot value in all of the assorted actual and possible inspirations. The original stuff drawn from Dying Earth (and how funny is it that past fantasy magic came from a source novel set in a future long from now) had pretty strict and critical rules for what a spell can do, how magic works, and why it works that way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
What I’m seeing isn’t people confused, but people refusing to accept it says you cannot.
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 as an action first you cannot then cast a bonus action spell. It’s still the same turn. The order in which you cast the spell does not change which turn you are casting them in. So it’s not confusing, it is intelligent people arguing in bad faith.
What I’m seeing isn’t people confused, but people refusing to accept it says you cannot.
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 as an action first you cannot then cast a bonus action spell. It’s still the same turn. The order in which you cast the spell does not change which turn you are casting them in. So it’s not confusing, it is intelligent people arguing in bad faith.
A perfectly standard way of understanding that phrasing is that the condition of "cannot cast another spell" comes into existence at the time the bonus action spell is cast. It's been clarified in various places that the intent is retroactive, but as written it's unclear -- which means it's the sort of thing that should be worded better. You could achieve the intent of the existing rules in a way that's not subject to dispute by wording it as
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 cannot cast both a bonus action spell and another spell in the same turn, unless the other spell is a cantrip with a casting time of one action.
The main reason to actually change the rule, rather than reword it, is just that the existing rule is weird and counterintuitive.
What I’m seeing isn’t people confused, but people refusing to accept it says you cannot.
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 as an action first you cannot then cast a bonus action spell. It’s still the same turn. The order in which you cast the spell does not change which turn you are casting them in. So it’s not confusing, it is intelligent people arguing in bad faith.
A perfectly standard way of understanding that phrasing is that the condition of "cannot cast another spell" comes into existence at the time the bonus action spell is cast. It's been clarified in various places that the intent is retroactive, but as written it's unclear -- which means it's the sort of thing that should be worded better. You could achieve the intent of the existing rules in a way that's not subject to dispute by wording it as
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 cannot cast both a bonus action spell and another spell in the same turn, unless the other spell is a cantrip with a casting time of one action.
The main reason to actually change the rule, rather than reword it, is just that the existing rule is weird and counterintuitive.
I can’t argue how intuitive something feels as that would be different for every player. My argument is that the rule is clear in its current form as it is written. I have two children. If I told them they can’t have cake for dessert tonight and they decided to have cake for “pre-dinner” instead they would understand why they were in trouble when I found out. They would understand that they were arguing in bad faith when they attempt to justify their decision. Much like every player who says you can cast a leveled spell first and then a bonus action leveled spell would completely understand they are arguing in bad faith and yet proceed to do so anyway.
What I’m seeing isn’t people confused, but people refusing to accept it says you cannot.
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 as an action first you cannot then cast a bonus action spell. It’s still the same turn. The order in which you cast the spell does not change which turn you are casting them in. So it’s not confusing, it is intelligent people arguing in bad faith.
A perfectly standard way of understanding that phrasing is that the condition of "cannot cast another spell" comes into existence at the time the bonus action spell is cast. It's been clarified in various places that the intent is retroactive, but as written it's unclear -- which means it's the sort of thing that should be worded better. You could achieve the intent of the existing rules in a way that's not subject to dispute by wording it as
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 cannot cast both a bonus action spell and another spell in the same turn, unless the other spell is a cantrip with a casting time of one action.
The main reason to actually change the rule, rather than reword it, is just that the existing rule is weird and counterintuitive.
I can’t argue how intuitive something feels as that would be different for every player. My argument is that the rule is clear in its current form as it is written. I have two children. If I told them they can’t have cake for dessert tonight and they decided to have cake for “pre-dinner” instead they would understand why they were in trouble when I found out. They would understand that they were arguing in bad faith when they attempt to justify their decision. Much like every player who says you can cast a leveled spell first and then a bonus action leveled spell would completely understand they are arguing in bad faith and yet proceed to do so anyway.
The very fact that we are having this argument/discussion about this rule just proves that it needs cleaning up. If it was so clear then no one would be discussing it.
And rules that need cleaning up is the point of this thread
Here's another thought: Should One D&D just get rid of Electrum? I have never received a single piece of electrum in any game I've ever played... I've never seen someone collect electrum in any actual play video or podcast... any time I've played an adventure that gave out Electrum I just converted it to gold for the sake of my players.
The very fact that we are having this argument/discussion about this rule just proves that it needs cleaning up. If it was so clear then no one would be discussing it.
And rules that need cleaning up is the point of this thread
I would agree with this if it wasn't for the fact that the 'confusion' in this instance hinges on the idea that the conditions for casting a spell as a bonus action only come into effect after spell is cast...
Personally, I feel like this would only be a reasonable 'confusion' (rather than the result of someone simply skimming the rules and coming away with the wrong impression based on wishful thinking) if that was something that was at all possible for Bonus Actions in general... Which is not the case.
The general rules for bonus actions say that if a bonus action has conditions for when it can be used and those conditions are not met, you can't use that bonus action and that if the condition for being able to use a specific bonus action doesn't specify a time, you can use the bonus action at any time during your turn before the action, but if you take the bonus action you have to use the action that allowed you to take it during the turn.
The condition for casting a spell as a bonus action is that you can only do it if you cast no other spells except a cantrip that takes 1 action during that turn. That's a pretty clear condition and it specifies a 'during', not an 'after. The only way that someone would be confused about this is if they either don't understand how bonus actions work in general (in which case it's not this rule that needs to be clarified) or if they somehow got it into their head that bonus actions work differently for spells than they do for literally any other use of a bonus action (which, let's be honest, is something that probably didn't come from the rulebook).
Keep in mind that I don't particularly care about the specific rule we're talking about here. What I care about is making it clear that the existence of a lot of confusion surrounding a rule is not always the result of the rule being badly written, nor automatically proof that it's badly written. A lot of rules have confusion surrounding them among new players because more experienced players who disagree with the way a rule works tell them it works differently from how it actually does.
tl;dr Pointing to the number of threads asking for clarification on certain rules isn't an indication that the rule is written in a confusing way when a significant number of those threads run along the lines of "An experienced player in my group says the rule works like 'x', but when I read the actual text, my understanding is that it works like 'y', who's right?" or "My old group did 'x', but my new group does 'y', what does the actual text of the rule say?"
Here's another thought: Should One D&D just get rid of Electrum? I have never received a single piece of electrum in any game I've ever played... I've never seen someone collect electrum in any actual play video or podcast... any time I've played an adventure that gave out Electrum I just converted it to gold for the sake of my players.
I’m pretty sure they give out electric at some point in Lost Mines of Phandelver. I’m also pretty sure I did the same and converted it to gp. I wouldn’t be upset to see ep go. Probably they could get by with just gp and sp. But I doubt they’ll mess with it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Citation needed.
Many tables, like the one I play at, waves this. Some don’t. And the issue comes up enough on these forums that it need’s streamlined.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
the bolded says you can’t.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
It's been addressed in advice threads and tweets but not stated specifically AFAIK (i.e. it's not specific that you can't cast a bonus action spell after casting a leveled spell). Yet another reason.
Actually, another cleanup, though one I don't expect: rename 'bonus' action ('swift' from 3.5e and 'minor' from 4e are both suitable). New players still think 'bonus' actually means 'bonus' -- so if X grants a bonus action and Y grants a bonus action, you can do both X and Y.
And while many tables wave it, it was clarified by the Sage that it was supposed to work like the so called pedants read it. I think its a bad ruling and poorly written but that is the rule, if a spell is just V/S or S you need a free hand and the hand holding your arcane focus does not count as free and you can't make the movements with the hand holding the focus, but if it is S,M/V,S,M you can make S movements with the hand holding the arcane focus. So official tables or people who like playing RAW will likely do it like the so called pedants. And I guess also oddly if you have a material components pouch you win out in 2 ways here, the hand is free and if the spell has a costly component you have the free hand to grab it, where as the focus wins out for certain builds. So what reads like just a cosmetic choice ends up having odd rule interactions which players may not expect.
None of which is intuitive. I can come up with reasons why its so, pure S spells require more specialized movements, S/M spells are more basic movements etc. But on a initial reading that does not come through.
It says you can't cast a non-cantrip Action spell after you cast a Bonus Action spell. It does not state you can not have cast a leveled Action spell during the same turn. The order you take your actions matters in this case, because the restriction only kicks in after you cast a BA spell.
Yet “after” never appears in the BA casting rules. But I understand that some people read it that way. And why I say it needs “cleaning up” in 1D&D.
What the rule does specifically say is you can’t cast another spell in the same turn. No order is specified. Just that you can’t unless it is a 1 action cantrip
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
This is also a good example of where having a exception, even one that seems entirely beneficial, can come back to bite you. It would be a lot simpler to state "You need a hand for M, you need a hand for S, they can not be the same hand. Yes, this makes thrikreen OP." It would make casters less flexible in general, but it's a whole lot clearer, and preemptively handles the War Caster with M/S spells issue.
No order needs to be specified because the rule doesn't come into effect until after a BA spell has been cast during the current turn. Nothing in the rule references any activity prior to casting the BA spell. Nothing prevents you from casting a BA spell before the first one. Assuming you have the resources required, you can cast a million leveled Action or Reaction spells in a turn. Then you cast a BA spell, the rule comes into effect, & you can only cast cantrip spells with a casting time of 1 Action.
Um...
Panta didn't state what was being disagreed with. "Many people legitimately disagree that this rule isn't confusing." is a reasonable interpretation.
That said, it's relatively easy to show that some rules are particularly badly written, simply by the number of posts by new users asking how said rule works. It's not the same question as saying you think a rule is bad, and asking how do experienced tables change the rule.
Discussion of whether the rules on levelled spellcasting limits is as off topic on page 3 as it was on page 1; all it has succeeded in doing is proving that it is overwhelmingly necessary that this rule is changed for OneD&D, which is what this thread is supposed to be about (suggesting rules that need changing/clarifying/updating in OneD&D). Can we please just drop this entirely irrelevant off-topic non-discussion?
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
So, I am thinking they need to clarify the rules of magic.
And then fix the spells that break them.
magic has rules in every system that has any practical plot value in all of the assorted actual and possible inspirations. The original stuff drawn from Dying Earth (and how funny is it that past fantasy magic came from a source novel set in a future long from now) had pretty strict and critical rules for what a spell can do, how magic works, and why it works that way.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
What I’m seeing isn’t people confused, but people refusing to accept it says you cannot.
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 as an action first you cannot then cast a bonus action spell. It’s still the same turn. The order in which you cast the spell does not change which turn you are casting them in. So it’s not confusing, it is intelligent people arguing in bad faith.
A perfectly standard way of understanding that phrasing is that the condition of "cannot cast another spell" comes into existence at the time the bonus action spell is cast. It's been clarified in various places that the intent is retroactive, but as written it's unclear -- which means it's the sort of thing that should be worded better. You could achieve the intent of the existing rules in a way that's not subject to dispute by wording it as
The main reason to actually change the rule, rather than reword it, is just that the existing rule is weird and counterintuitive.
I can’t argue how intuitive something feels as that would be different for every player. My argument is that the rule is clear in its current form as it is written. I have two children. If I told them they can’t have cake for dessert tonight and they decided to have cake for “pre-dinner” instead they would understand why they were in trouble when I found out. They would understand that they were arguing in bad faith when they attempt to justify their decision. Much like every player who says you can cast a leveled spell first and then a bonus action leveled spell would completely understand they are arguing in bad faith and yet proceed to do so anyway.
The very fact that we are having this argument/discussion about this rule just proves that it needs cleaning up. If it was so clear then no one would be discussing it.
And rules that need cleaning up is the point of this thread
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Here's another thought: Should One D&D just get rid of Electrum? I have never received a single piece of electrum in any game I've ever played... I've never seen someone collect electrum in any actual play video or podcast... any time I've played an adventure that gave out Electrum I just converted it to gold for the sake of my players.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I would agree with this if it wasn't for the fact that the 'confusion' in this instance hinges on the idea that the conditions for casting a spell as a bonus action only come into effect after spell is cast...
Personally, I feel like this would only be a reasonable 'confusion' (rather than the result of someone simply skimming the rules and coming away with the wrong impression based on wishful thinking) if that was something that was at all possible for Bonus Actions in general... Which is not the case.
The general rules for bonus actions say that if a bonus action has conditions for when it can be used and those conditions are not met, you can't use that bonus action and that if the condition for being able to use a specific bonus action doesn't specify a time, you can use the bonus action at any time during your turn before the action, but if you take the bonus action you have to use the action that allowed you to take it during the turn.
The condition for casting a spell as a bonus action is that you can only do it if you cast no other spells except a cantrip that takes 1 action during that turn. That's a pretty clear condition and it specifies a 'during', not an 'after. The only way that someone would be confused about this is if they either don't understand how bonus actions work in general (in which case it's not this rule that needs to be clarified) or if they somehow got it into their head that bonus actions work differently for spells than they do for literally any other use of a bonus action (which, let's be honest, is something that probably didn't come from the rulebook).
Keep in mind that I don't particularly care about the specific rule we're talking about here. What I care about is making it clear that the existence of a lot of confusion surrounding a rule is not always the result of the rule being badly written, nor automatically proof that it's badly written. A lot of rules have confusion surrounding them among new players because more experienced players who disagree with the way a rule works tell them it works differently from how it actually does.
tl;dr Pointing to the number of threads asking for clarification on certain rules isn't an indication that the rule is written in a confusing way when a significant number of those threads run along the lines of "An experienced player in my group says the rule works like 'x', but when I read the actual text, my understanding is that it works like 'y', who's right?" or "My old group did 'x', but my new group does 'y', what does the actual text of the rule say?"
I’m pretty sure they give out electric at some point in Lost Mines of Phandelver. I’m also pretty sure I did the same and converted it to gp. I wouldn’t be upset to see ep go. Probably they could get by with just gp and sp. But I doubt they’ll mess with it.