D&D 5E Casting multiple spells with bonus spells and the order they are cast.

[DEFCON 1]

If I'm trying to run it get somewhere to do an important thing quickly, denying mobility is a pretty big win for the other side. I can think of a few recent fights where misty step was pivotal to the fight for the players. A counterspell would have been bad for them there.

And it's because of this rare scenario that you are going to spend all kinds of time seussing out the "correct" methodology on action, bonus action, and reaction spells so that things are exactly proper as per the WotC-written and WotC-intended rules? Hey... if that floats your boat, go nuts. Personally... I find that sort of worrying to be a waste of my time and my brainpower having to remember all that crap.

If a wizard needs to get across a chasm that fast and tries to Misty Step it and it gets countered? Well, dems the breaks of adventuring. Luckily for him of course is that he probably has another 2nd level slot next round to try it again. Same is less likely to be said of the enemy caster. And even if he does... those two counterspells removed the possibility of 50+ points of fireball damage being rained down upon them in those two rounds. So again... not exactly a loss there in the long run.

 

[Ovinomancer]

And it's because of this rare scenario that you are going to spend all kinds of time seussing out the "correct" methodology on action, bonus action, and reaction spells so that things are exactly proper as per the WotC-written and WotC-intended rules? Hey... if that floats your boat, go nuts. Personally... I find that sort of worrying to be a waste of my time and my brainpower having to remember all that crap.

If a wizard needs to get across a chasm that fast and tries to Misty Step it and it gets countered? Well, dems the breaks of adventuring. Luckily for him of course is that he probably has another 2nd level slot next round to try it again. Same is less likely to be said of the enemy caster. And even if he does... those two counterspells removed the possibility of 50+ points of fireball damage being rained down upon them in those two rounds. So again... not exactly a loss there in the long run.

No, I don't worry much about it in game. However, I find rules discussion to sometimes be entertaining on their own, so I engage in them. It helps me understand the game at a better kennel so when I do make rulings, I understand better the impact better and can make the minimum changes necessary.

If discussing the rules bothers you, though, I don't mind that, either.

 

[JesterOC]

It seems clear that this sentence is the source of the trouble.

"You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." SRD 5.1 pg 101

Because of how it is worded you can't cast healing word and counterspell. Which is just plain ... odd ... lacking verisimilitude .. weird?

For my table if this ever comes up, we will treat it as if it was worded like this

Houserule:
"You can’t use an action to cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."

 

[Ovinomancer]

It seems clear that this sentence is the source of the trouble.

"You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action." SRD 5.1 pg 101

Because of how it is worded you can't cast healing word and counterspell. Which is just plain ... odd ... lacking verisimilitude .. weird?

For my table if this ever comes up, we will treat it as if it was worded like this

Houserule:
"You can’t use an action to cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."

Counterspell wouldn't have been cast during your turn, it would be cast during your reaction which happens to interrupt your turn.

 

[JesterOC]

Counterspell wouldn't have been cast during your turn, it would be cast during your reaction which happens to interrupt your turn.

When you use counter spell on your opponents turn. It is still their turn. When you use it on your turn, it is still your turn.

 

[Ovinomancer]

When you use counter spell on your opponents turn. It is still their turn. When you use it on your turn, it is still your turn.

The reaction isn't your turn either way.

When did you go? On your turn. Specific exception: reaction, which goes on its trigger and isn't part of your turn. Out interrupts whoever's turn it is, resolves, and then returns to whoever's turn it is.

Bonus action cast restricts only affect things that happen on your turn. Reactions aren't on your turn, they interrupt it.

 

[Cognomen's Cassowary]

"A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s" (70). Emphasis added.

Emphasis added again. Still don't see any ambiguity.

 

[JesterOC]

The reaction isn't your turn either way.

When did you go? On your turn. Specific exception: reaction, which goes on its trigger and isn't part of your turn. Out interrupts whoever's turn it is, resolves, and then returns to whoever's turn it is.

Bonus action cast restricts only affect things that happen on your turn. Reactions aren't on your turn, they interrupt it.

The rules clearly state your reactions take place on either your turn or another's. There is no reaction turn.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The rules clearly state your reactions take place on either your turn or another's. There is no reaction turn.

Okay, then which part of your turn is your reaction? When the rules tell me what I can do on my turn, what do they say about my reaction?

They don't, because your reaction is not part of your turn, even if it happens on it. The restriction on casting from the.bonus action casting rule applies only to your turn and the things you do on your turn. A reaction isn't part of your turn, it interrupts it, so those restrictions don't apply.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Emphasis added again. Still don't see any ambiguity.

Me, either, and yet we disagree. Perhaps you should consider that your repeated statement is part of my argument as well and what that might mean about the pervasiveness thereof?