A lot of people seem to have issues with the rules for bonus action spells. Either write them more clearly, or change them (such as 'no more than one leveled spell per turn')
What qualifies as cover? (this came up recently in a thread about whether a blanket was cover). Can you blast through cover?
When do you actually know the position of enemies? The simple version is "always unless they hide", but that tends towards weird enough results that people often don't use it.
I don’t understand the issue with bonus action spells. The wording tells you what you can and cannot do. People honestly might have issue with the action surge spellcaster who breaks what they want to believe the wording should be. The flaw with “one leveled spell per turn” is it doesn’t address the metamagic issue WotC knew could happen with quickened spell. They didn’t want players using quickened spell on cantrips freeing them up to use other metamagics on leveled spells on the same turn. Also “one leveled spell per turn” kills the counterspell their counterspell with your reaction on your turn.
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. So it depends on if the DM believes a blanket is an obstacle. I go by the rule of if I can walk through it then it’s not cover.
Once combat starts you know the location of all enemies you can see unless they are hidden from you.
Whether or not you think people should be confused, the reality is that people are. If they want to restrict metamagic spell plus metamagic cantrip (which is, honestly, not a big deal) they can also add once per turn to metamagic. As for counterspell, I don't think they actually like counterspell wars, or counterspell game play in general. I wouldn't be surprised to see counterspell change dramatically.
The wording is clear. It’s not about whether I think people are confused. Honestly I know you aren’t even confused by it. You just prefer your language. They aren’t limiting metamagics to one per turn, but they are limiting the power of quicken spell plus another metamagic. Also the way they have written automatically works on bonus action spells like misty step, and spiritual weapon. The way you want it requires them to put in more sentences to explain things. Also counterspell has to change because they removed spells from Monster stat blocks. Counterspell might see a buff in hindering the magic action as a whole. But we will see in time. If it’s left alone considering how stat blocks have changed it’s already nerfed.
The wording being clear to you doesn’t mean it’s clear to everyone. There are a lot of people who don’t understand it. I’m basing it on countless posts on these boards, and on personal experiences at the table. I’m not necessarily agreeing with pantagruel’s fix — I haven’t given it any thought one way or another. But the language could use some cleaning up. Beyond that, lots of people don’t even realize there is any such rule. That’s a different problem, but making a rule clear to everyone should be pretty straightforward.
The wording is clear. It’s not about whether I think people are confused. Honestly I know you aren’t even confused by it. You just prefer your language.
I am not confused, but I have seen plenty of posts on these boards that were, and it's not a particularly intuitive rule.
The wording is clear. It’s not about whether I think people are confused. Honestly I know you aren’t even confused by it. You just prefer your language.
I am not confused, but I have seen plenty of posts on these boards that were, and it's not a particularly intuitive rule.
I think for some of these things people read the rules and understood what the rule said but they think they must be missing something because they make no sense. The knowing the location of everyone rule just does not make any sense to people so they think they must be missing something. Some of the skills they read them but then thought well that is weird these skills are virtually useless compared to a similar skill(perception/investigate or athletics/acrobatics)so they think they must be missing something.
The wording being clear to you doesn’t mean it’s clear to everyone. There are a lot of people who don’t understand it.
There are a lot of people who say they don't understand the text in D&D rules...
But the reason they 'don't understand' that text usually isn't that the text itself is unclear, but that those people misread the text, or were told the text says something different than it does, in a way that makes them think it says something they prefer to what it actually says and now refuse to accept the actual text because it doesn't let them do their cool or cheesy thing.
And it can be very hard to tell whether that original mistake was accidental or... You know... Cheating. (Although there are also times when it's blatantly obvious).
And the thing about that is that no amount of rewriting the rules is going to fix that. In fact, acting like the rules need to be rewritten because people keep 'misunderstanding' them to their own benefit just further encourages people who are actively cheating.
There are a lot of people who say they don't understand the text in D&D rules...
But the reason they 'don't understand' that text usually isn't that the text itself is unclear, but that those people misread the text, or were told the text says something different than it does, in a way that makes them think it says something they prefer to what it actually says and now refuse to accept the actual text because it doesn't let them do their cool or cheesy thing.
It sounds like you're accusing people of lying here; just because a rule might be misread doesn't mean it's not also confusing. In fact, the more confusing a rule is, the more likely it is to be misread and/or misunderstood, and this is one that a lot of people misunderstand or get confused about.
And it's definitely a fundamentally confusing rule, because it only applies to bonus action spells (spells specifically described as being faster than normal) which doesn't make any logical sense, and it's a very strangely worded rule that needs more complicated wording to function both retroactively and proactively (because players can choose the order in which they take their action and bonus action). Even if you read it correctly on the first try (by no means an easy feat) it's easy to get confused about it in practice.
In effect the way the rules are now there is no limit on how many spells you can cast on a turn unless you cast a bonus action spells; it just so happens that you normally can't take more than one action, and can only use reaction spells on the same turn in very specific (possibly unintended) circumstances. But this leads to oddities like Fighter being a popular multiclass for casters thanks to Action Surge and the ability to exploit spell action economy or double cast spells, and for many casting classes it's a lot better than their captstone features.
"One levelled spell per turn" would be a much, much simpler rule that can't possibly cause confusion, and places a clear limit on the power of spellcasters making the game easier to run, and easier to balance.
If Wizards intended for reactions to be usable on the same turn (e.g- counterspelling a counterspell of your original spell, or silvery barbs to force a saving throw re-roll etc.) then they can make a specific exception for reaction spells only (or just counterspell if it's not meant to be general). This will still be a much more sensible way to structure the rule as it sets a clear, unambiguous limit, with a clear exception, requiring a minimum of explanation ("you can cast a levelled reaction spell even if you already cast a levelled spell on the same turn").
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.
A lot of people seem to have issues with the rules for bonus action spells. Either write them more clearly, or change them (such as 'no more than one leveled spell per turn')
What qualifies as cover? (this came up recently in a thread about whether a blanket was cover). Can you blast through cover?
When do you actually know the position of enemies? The simple version is "always unless they hide", but that tends towards weird enough results that people often don't use it.
I don’t understand the issue with bonus action spells. The wording tells you what you can and cannot do. People honestly might have issue with the action surge spellcaster who breaks what they want to believe the wording should be. The flaw with “one leveled spell per turn” is it doesn’t address the metamagic issue WotC knew could happen with quickened spell. They didn’t want players using quickened spell on cantrips freeing them up to use other metamagics on leveled spells on the same turn. Also “one leveled spell per turn” kills the counterspell their counterspell with your reaction on your turn.
Walls, trees, creatures, and other obstacles can provide cover during combat, making a target more difficult to harm. So it depends on if the DM believes a blanket is an obstacle. I go by the rule of if I can walk through it then it’s not cover.
Once combat starts you know the location of all enemies you can see unless they are hidden from you.
Whether or not you think people should be confused, the reality is that people are. If they want to restrict metamagic spell plus metamagic cantrip (which is, honestly, not a big deal) they can also add once per turn to metamagic. As for counterspell, I don't think they actually like counterspell wars, or counterspell game play in general. I wouldn't be surprised to see counterspell change dramatically.
The wording is clear. It’s not about whether I think people are confused. Honestly I know you aren’t even confused by it. You just prefer your language. They aren’t limiting metamagics to one per turn, but they are limiting the power of quicken spell plus another metamagic. Also the way they have written automatically works on bonus action spells like misty step, and spiritual weapon. The way you want it requires them to put in more sentences to explain things. Also counterspell has to change because they removed spells from Monster stat blocks. Counterspell might see a buff in hindering the magic action as a whole. But we will see in time. If it’s left alone considering how stat blocks have changed it’s already nerfed.
IMO There is precisely two spells that make the BA spell rule confusing: Shillelagh and Magic Stone, since they are the only cantrips that are bonus actions which makes it confusing that a cleric can cast Spiritual Weapon + Toll the Dead but a Duid can't cast Entangle and Shillelagh.
And it's definitely a fundamentally confusing rule, because it only applies to bonus action spells (spells specifically described as being faster than normal) which doesn't make any logical sense, and it's a very strangely worded rule that needs more complicated wording to function both retroactively and proactively (because players can choose the order in which they take their action and bonus action). Even if you read it correctly on the first try (by no means an easy feat) it's easy to get confused about it in practice.
To paraphrase Ain_Undos' earlier reply to Pantagruel:
You're not confused, you just don't like what it says.
And it's definitely a fundamentally confusing rule, because it only applies to bonus action spells (spells specifically described as being faster than normal) which doesn't make any logical sense, and it's a very strangely worded rule that needs more complicated wording to function both retroactively and proactively (because players can choose the order in which they take their action and bonus action). Even if you read it correctly on the first try (by no means an easy feat) it's easy to get confused about it in practice.
To paraphrase Ain_Undos' earlier reply to Pantagruel:
You're not confused, you just don't like what it says.
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.
The wording being clear to you doesn’t mean it’s clear to everyone. There are a lot of people who don’t understand it. I’m basing it on countless posts on these boards, and on personal experiences at the table. I’m not necessarily agreeing with pantagruel’s fix — I haven’t given it any thought one way or another. But the language could use some cleaning up. Beyond that, lots of people don’t even realize there is any such rule. That’s a different problem, but making a rule clear to everyone should be pretty straightforward.
The wording is quite clear and will be posted toward the end of this since it’s a basic rule. I think you are hitting a nail on the head of people not realizing it is a rule. Many players use whatever rule their DM tells them and thus the “one leveled spell per turn” rule pops up even thought that’s not the actual 5e rule.
IMO There is precisely two spells that make the BA spell rule confusing: Shillelagh and Magic Stone, since they are the only cantrips that are bonus actions which makes it confusing that a cleric can cast Spiritual Weapon + Toll the Dead but a Duid can't cast Entangle and Shillelagh.
They don’t make it confusing. It says you can’t do it. It never attempts to explain why you can’t. It just tells you that you can’t.
Separately those cantrips are designed for you to use them and use an attack action on the same turn. They are an exception to normal 5e cantrip. If you aren’t going o make a weapon attack that round you could just cast entangle and be done.
And it's definitely a fundamentally confusing rule, because it only applies to bonus action spells (spells specifically described as being faster than normal) which doesn't make any logical sense, and it's a very strangely worded rule that needs more complicated wording to function both retroactively and proactively (because players can choose the order in which they take their action and bonus action). Even if you read it correctly on the first try (by no means an easy feat) it's easy to get confused about it in practice.
To paraphrase Ain_Undos' earlier reply to Pantagruel:
You're not confused, you just don't like what it says.
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.
It’s hard to not assume people are arguing in bad faith when they have the same access to the rules as you and they claim something is confusing and you can clearly see it is not. You are left in a situation were you either assume they are as smart or smarter than yourself and arguing in bad faith or they have reading comprehension problems. As a person of average American intelligence I assume most people in our hobby are my equals or superiors in general intelligence and reading comprehension. Here is part of the Casing a spell basic rule for all to review:
Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.
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.
Can someone explain what is confusing about that 3 sentence paragraph about bonus action casting?
See it isn't a problem of understanding the RAW, it is understanding the logic of the rule. Many people don't memorize rules word for word, but put those rules into a mental framework to understand the overall principles and logic of a game. The way the rule is written is perfectly clear, but the rule doesn't make logical sense which is why people can't remember it. It's like how it is easier to remember a mnemonic for something than the thing itself even though the mnemonic is usually longer than the original.
And it's definitely a fundamentally confusing rule, because it only applies to bonus action spells (spells specifically described as being faster than normal) which doesn't make any logical sense, and it's a very strangely worded rule that needs more complicated wording to function both retroactively and proactively (because players can choose the order in which they take their action and bonus action). Even if you read it correctly on the first try (by no means an easy feat) it's easy to get confused about it in practice.
To paraphrase Ain_Undos' earlier reply to Pantagruel:
You're not confused, you just don't like what it says.
Again, it's entirely possible for a rule to be more than one thing; a rule can be disliked both for what it does (or doesn't do) and for being confusing. And it's 100% a confusing rule because of the way it's structured, the way that it works, and the unclear intention of what it's actually supposed to achieve.
I'm not sure why you're so utterly determined to defend a shoddy rule; the simple fact is that there are far clearer, more elegant and more practical alternatives that would serve the same purpose (to limit the potential for multiple levelled turns in a single turn).
It's a poor rule, and poor rules need replacing/refining/updating, and that's exactly what this thread is supposed to be about.
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.
And it's definitely a fundamentally confusing rule, because it only applies to bonus action spells (spells specifically described as being faster than normal) which doesn't make any logical sense, and it's a very strangely worded rule that needs more complicated wording to function both retroactively and proactively (because players can choose the order in which they take their action and bonus action). Even if you read it correctly on the first try (by no means an easy feat) it's easy to get confused about it in practice.
To paraphrase Ain_Undos' earlier reply to Pantagruel:
You're not confused, you just don't like what it says.
Again, instead of accusing people of lying, it's entirely possible for a rule to both more than one of disliked, misread and confusing. It's a confusing rule because the way it's structured, the way it works, and the actual intention of what it's supposed to achieve are all confusing.
Not sure why you're so utterly determined to defend an indefensible rule; the simple fact is that there are far clearer, more elegant and more practical alternatives that would serve the same purpose (limit the potential for multiple levelled turns in a single turn). It's a bad rule, and bad rules need replacing.
It's not confusing in it's wording though. It is three sentences that clearly and specifically lay out the rule:
IF any spell is cast with a bonus action THEN no other spells can be cast except a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
The intention is clearly to limit the power of spellcasters, by preventing them from casting multiple powerful spells on the same turn.
The "confusing" aspect is not in the clarity of the rule. It is a perfectly clear and straight forward rule. The problem people have with the rule is that it feels unfair not that the rule is confusing. It is perfectly clear that under this rule, if you cast Flaming Sphere + Fire bolt you cannot cast Counterspell on that turn, but if you cast Fireball then you can cast Counterspell on that turn, this seems 'unfair' since Flaming Sphere + Fire bolt are less powerful than Fireball, but it isn't unclear.
The intention is clearly to limit the power of spellcasters, by preventing them from casting multiple powerful spells on the same turn.
Which is precisely what that rule doesn't do, as shown by Fighter multiclassing for Action Surge being a thing.
The "confusing" aspect is not in the clarity of the rule. It is a perfectly clear and straight forward rule. The problem people have with the rule is that it feels unfair not that the rule is confusing. It is perfectly clear that under this rule, if you cast Flaming Sphere + Fire bolt you cannot cast Counterspell on that turn, but if you cast Fireball then you can cast Counterspell on that turn, this seems 'unfair' since Flaming Sphere + Fire bolt are less powerful than Fireball, but it isn't unclear.
I never said the rule was unclear, I said it's confusing; it's confusing because it doesn't actually do what it's supposedly for, it doesn't make logical sense (why is it the spells specifically described as being faster to cast that are limited and not the "slow" action spells?), and you yourself literally just said it doesn't improve balance which is what the rule is meant to do.
This makes it entirely understandable why it confuses people in practice, or why they don't remember it, because it's a bizarrely inconsistent and dysfunctional rule, that people want to see changed – that being the entire point of the thread which those attempting to redefine the meaning of "confusing" seem to be confused by. 😝
Is it a short rule? Yes. Is it a good rule? No. Ergo, it's fair game for people to want changed, which is all that matters to this thread.
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.
There's someone on the Rules board who created a flowchart for handling bonus action spellcasting, because explaining it came up so many times. That's a pretty consistent sign that a rule has clarity problems. No, for purposes of this thread "confusing" doesn't mean "rule I dislike", it means "rule people frequently get wrong or can't figure out how to apply".
The intention is clearly to limit the power of spellcasters, by preventing them from casting multiple powerful spells on the same turn.
It doesn't even do that. It stops you from casting a Action spell that isn't a cantrip after you cast a Bonus Action spell. You can still cast a Action spell first, then a Bonus Action spell. AFAIK, you can cast a Action spell, Action Surge, cast another Action spell, cast a Reaction spell (if triggered), then cast a Bonus Action spell, with all of them being whatever level of spell slots you have available. As long as the BA spell is the last casting of the turn, the rule doesn't stop anyone from doing anything.
I understand how the BA spellcasting works. I've read enough on these forums to know what it does. But the vast majority of players are not on these or other forums. So it can be confusing. Partially because the way it is written it puts the BA cast first then you can only cast a cantrip that is 1 Action cast. Similar to watching Nerd Immersion on the Paladin UA where he read that if you Divine Smite you can't cast a spell. But initially interpreted it as if you cast the spell first, you are ok, because the rule says you can't do this then that. Just like the BA casting rules. It's not how it is intended to work, but it is written in a BA spell--->1 Action leveled spell doesn't work, but it can be read as 1 Action leveled spell--->BA spell, ok.
It's poor wording, imo. Once you get it, it makes sense. But on a first read, or if you are not a D&D forum regular, it can be confusing or misinterpreted. Hence all the questions on these forums that crop up over and over about BA spellcasting.
Edit: Or see Jaeken's post above.
On another topic for cleaning things up. How about spell components and what needs to be in hand, what needs a free hand, when do you not need the free hand. The whole S component means one thing. M component means another. and S+M components means something else. along with spell foci etc...
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.
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.
That may well be what's intended. It's not what they actually wrote, and is thus a prime candidate for cleanup.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The wording is clear. It’s not about whether I think people are confused. Honestly I know you aren’t even confused by it. You just prefer your language. They aren’t limiting metamagics to one per turn, but they are limiting the power of quicken spell plus another metamagic. Also the way they have written automatically works on bonus action spells like misty step, and spiritual weapon. The way you want it requires them to put in more sentences to explain things. Also counterspell has to change because they removed spells from Monster stat blocks. Counterspell might see a buff in hindering the magic action as a whole. But we will see in time. If it’s left alone considering how stat blocks have changed it’s already nerfed.
The wording being clear to you doesn’t mean it’s clear to everyone. There are a lot of people who don’t understand it. I’m basing it on countless posts on these boards, and on personal experiences at the table. I’m not necessarily agreeing with pantagruel’s fix — I haven’t given it any thought one way or another. But the language could use some cleaning up.
Beyond that, lots of people don’t even realize there is any such rule. That’s a different problem, but making a rule clear to everyone should be pretty straightforward.
I am not confused, but I have seen plenty of posts on these boards that were, and it's not a particularly intuitive rule.
I think for some of these things people read the rules and understood what the rule said but they think they must be missing something because they make no sense. The knowing the location of everyone rule just does not make any sense to people so they think they must be missing something. Some of the skills they read them but then thought well that is weird these skills are virtually useless compared to a similar skill(perception/investigate or athletics/acrobatics)so they think they must be missing something.
There are a lot of people who say they don't understand the text in D&D rules...
But the reason they 'don't understand' that text usually isn't that the text itself is unclear, but that those people misread the text, or were told the text says something different than it does, in a way that makes them think it says something they prefer to what it actually says and now refuse to accept the actual text because it doesn't let them do their cool or cheesy thing.
And it can be very hard to tell whether that original mistake was accidental or... You know... Cheating. (Although there are also times when it's blatantly obvious).
And the thing about that is that no amount of rewriting the rules is going to fix that. In fact, acting like the rules need to be rewritten because people keep 'misunderstanding' them to their own benefit just further encourages people who are actively cheating.
It sounds like you're accusing people of lying here; just because a rule might be misread doesn't mean it's not also confusing. In fact, the more confusing a rule is, the more likely it is to be misread and/or misunderstood, and this is one that a lot of people misunderstand or get confused about.
And it's definitely a fundamentally confusing rule, because it only applies to bonus action spells (spells specifically described as being faster than normal) which doesn't make any logical sense, and it's a very strangely worded rule that needs more complicated wording to function both retroactively and proactively (because players can choose the order in which they take their action and bonus action). Even if you read it correctly on the first try (by no means an easy feat) it's easy to get confused about it in practice.
In effect the way the rules are now there is no limit on how many spells you can cast on a turn unless you cast a bonus action spells; it just so happens that you normally can't take more than one action, and can only use reaction spells on the same turn in very specific (possibly unintended) circumstances. But this leads to oddities like Fighter being a popular multiclass for casters thanks to Action Surge and the ability to exploit spell action economy or double cast spells, and for many casting classes it's a lot better than their captstone features.
"One levelled spell per turn" would be a much, much simpler rule that can't possibly cause confusion, and places a clear limit on the power of spellcasters making the game easier to run, and easier to balance.
If Wizards intended for reactions to be usable on the same turn (e.g- counterspelling a counterspell of your original spell, or silvery barbs to force a saving throw re-roll etc.) then they can make a specific exception for reaction spells only (or just counterspell if it's not meant to be general). This will still be a much more sensible way to structure the rule as it sets a clear, unambiguous limit, with a clear exception, requiring a minimum of explanation ("you can cast a levelled reaction spell even if you already cast a levelled spell on the same turn").
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.
IMO There is precisely two spells that make the BA spell rule confusing: Shillelagh and Magic Stone, since they are the only cantrips that are bonus actions which makes it confusing that a cleric can cast Spiritual Weapon + Toll the Dead but a Duid can't cast Entangle and Shillelagh.
To paraphrase Ain_Undos' earlier reply to Pantagruel:
You're not confused, you just don't like what it says.
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.
The wording is quite clear and will be posted toward the end of this since it’s a basic rule. I think you are hitting a nail on the head of people not realizing it is a rule. Many players use whatever rule their DM tells them and thus the “one leveled spell per turn” rule pops up even thought that’s not the actual 5e rule.
They don’t make it confusing. It says you can’t do it. It never attempts to explain why you can’t. It just tells you that you can’t.
Separately those cantrips are designed for you to use them and use an attack action on the same turn. They are an exception to normal 5e cantrip. If you aren’t going o make a weapon attack that round you could just cast entangle and be done.
It’s hard to not assume people are arguing in bad faith when they have the same access to the rules as you and they claim something is confusing and you can clearly see it is not. You are left in a situation were you either assume they are as smart or smarter than yourself and arguing in bad faith or they have reading comprehension problems. As a person of average American intelligence I assume most people in our hobby are my equals or superiors in general intelligence and reading comprehension. Here is part of the Casing a spell basic rule for all to review:
Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.
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.
Can someone explain what is confusing about that 3 sentence paragraph about bonus action casting?
See it isn't a problem of understanding the RAW, it is understanding the logic of the rule. Many people don't memorize rules word for word, but put those rules into a mental framework to understand the overall principles and logic of a game. The way the rule is written is perfectly clear, but the rule doesn't make logical sense which is why people can't remember it. It's like how it is easier to remember a mnemonic for something than the thing itself even though the mnemonic is usually longer than the original.
Again, it's entirely possible for a rule to be more than one thing; a rule can be disliked both for what it does (or doesn't do) and for being confusing. And it's 100% a confusing rule because of the way it's structured, the way that it works, and the unclear intention of what it's actually supposed to achieve.
I'm not sure why you're so utterly determined to defend a shoddy rule; the simple fact is that there are far clearer, more elegant and more practical alternatives that would serve the same purpose (to limit the potential for multiple levelled turns in a single turn).
It's a poor rule, and poor rules need replacing/refining/updating, and that's exactly what this thread is supposed to be about.
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.
It's not confusing in it's wording though. It is three sentences that clearly and specifically lay out the rule:
The intention is clearly to limit the power of spellcasters, by preventing them from casting multiple powerful spells on the same turn.
The "confusing" aspect is not in the clarity of the rule. It is a perfectly clear and straight forward rule. The problem people have with the rule is that it feels unfair not that the rule is confusing. It is perfectly clear that under this rule, if you cast Flaming Sphere + Fire bolt you cannot cast Counterspell on that turn, but if you cast Fireball then you can cast Counterspell on that turn, this seems 'unfair' since Flaming Sphere + Fire bolt are less powerful than Fireball, but it isn't unclear.
Which is precisely what that rule doesn't do, as shown by Fighter multiclassing for Action Surge being a thing.
I never said the rule was unclear, I said it's confusing; it's confusing because it doesn't actually do what it's supposedly for, it doesn't make logical sense (why is it the spells specifically described as being faster to cast that are limited and not the "slow" action spells?), and you yourself literally just said it doesn't improve balance which is what the rule is meant to do.
This makes it entirely understandable why it confuses people in practice, or why they don't remember it, because it's a bizarrely inconsistent and dysfunctional rule, that people want to see changed – that being the entire point of the thread which those attempting to redefine the meaning of "confusing" seem to be confused by. 😝
Is it a short rule? Yes. Is it a good rule? No. Ergo, it's fair game for people to want changed, which is all that matters to this thread.
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.
There's someone on the Rules board who created a flowchart for handling bonus action spellcasting, because explaining it came up so many times. That's a pretty consistent sign that a rule has clarity problems. No, for purposes of this thread "confusing" doesn't mean "rule I dislike", it means "rule people frequently get wrong or can't figure out how to apply".
It doesn't even do that. It stops you from casting a Action spell that isn't a cantrip after you cast a Bonus Action spell. You can still cast a Action spell first, then a Bonus Action spell. AFAIK, you can cast a Action spell, Action Surge, cast another Action spell, cast a Reaction spell (if triggered), then cast a Bonus Action spell, with all of them being whatever level of spell slots you have available. As long as the BA spell is the last casting of the turn, the rule doesn't stop anyone from doing anything.
No you cannot cast a BA turn after casting an action turn.
I understand how the BA spellcasting works. I've read enough on these forums to know what it does. But the vast majority of players are not on these or other forums. So it can be confusing. Partially because the way it is written it puts the BA cast first then you can only cast a cantrip that is 1 Action cast. Similar to watching Nerd Immersion on the Paladin UA where he read that if you Divine Smite you can't cast a spell. But initially interpreted it as if you cast the spell first, you are ok, because the rule says you can't do this then that. Just like the BA casting rules. It's not how it is intended to work, but it is written in a BA spell--->1 Action leveled spell doesn't work, but it can be read as 1 Action leveled spell--->BA spell, ok.
It's poor wording, imo. Once you get it, it makes sense. But on a first read, or if you are not a D&D forum regular, it can be confusing or misinterpreted. Hence all the questions on these forums that crop up over and over about BA spellcasting.
Edit: Or see Jaeken's post above.
On another topic for cleaning things up. How about spell components and what needs to be in hand, what needs a free hand, when do you not need the free hand. The whole S component means one thing. M component means another. and S+M components means something else. along with spell foci etc...
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
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.
That may well be what's intended. It's not what they actually wrote, and is thus a prime candidate for cleanup.