D&D 5E Please help me with the “one spell cast per round” rule

[Tormyr]

Are there edge cases that are really awkward? Absolutely. But I think the alternative to achieve the limitation on crazy spell chains that they wanted would probably have been more awkward and clunky and probably not worth it given the general rarity of using reactions on your own turn.

Do you have an example of a crazy spell chain that would be allowed if the bonus action restriction was changed to only limiting your first action to being a cantrip?

Separately, if reactions on your turn are so rare (and can be life saving), why restrict them?

 

[Mistwell]

"B o n u s A c t io n
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."

"R e a c t io n s
Some spells can be cast as reactions. These spells take a fraction of a second to bring about and are cast in response to some event. If a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when
you can do so."

If you're going to copy and paste from an illegally downloaded document, maybe at least spend the small amount of extra time to fix the format so it's not so obvious?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

You are right, I can always change it and have done so in my game, but that does not mean that my interpretation is more correct. I have gotten into several long, very valuable (to me), conversations over the years on this message board, and in the threads I hold most valuable, my opinion was changed. Other times my opinion was not changed, but I still got to hear the various alternate points of view.

The point for me is not "to win." Rather, I want to learn and refine my knowledge and understanding of the mechanics of the game. In this case I have specifically asked for an explanation as to why changing the casting time on a spell when everything else in the turn is the same should exclude reactions or nerf action surge spells. In the last paragraph I mentioned that just saying, "you can always house rule it," does not really help.

I don't think anyone here can provide a satisfactory explanation for that, because it doesn't make much sense. It is an arbitrary rule, that exists for game balance reasons only. Only the designers at WotC can tell you what they were thinking when they wrote the rule that way.

 

[Rossbert]

Do you have an example of a crazy spell chain that would be allowed if the bonus action restriction was changed to only limiting your first action to being a cantrip?

Separately, if reactions on your turn are so rare (and can be life saving), why restrict them?

To me both of those fall into avoid it being more awkward and clunky than necessary. Since casting 3 spells in one turn require either a specific subclass (Eldritch Knight? Don't have a book on hand) or a fairly unusual situation (wanting to cast shield or feather fall on your turn, are there other reaction spells you can cast on your turn? I haven't done a deep dive on spells, skimmed then read closely ones I wanted). Given that you pretty much have to work to get the situation they may have decided not to deal with it to not confuse readers who maybe thrown by the more complicated exception based phrasing.

It looks like a situation where a rare case in the fantasy world logic was sacrificed for an easier more concise rule.

Alternately, it could be that during play testing it never came up.

 

[Tormyr]

To me both of those fall into avoid it being more awkward and clunky than necessary. Since casting 3 spells in one turn require either a specific subclass (Eldritch Knight? Don't have a book on hand) or a fairly unusual situation (wanting to cast shield or feather fall on your turn, are there other reaction spells you can cast on your turn? I haven't done a deep dive on spells, skimmed then read closely ones I wanted). Given that you pretty much have to work to get the situation they may have decided not to deal with it to not confuse readers who maybe thrown by the more complicated exception based phrasing.

It looks like a situation where a rare case in the fantasy world logic was sacrificed for an easier more concise rule.

Alternately, it could be that during play testing it never came up.

For reference, the reaction spells in the SRD are:
*counterspell - cast a spell, opponent uses counterspell, original uses counterspell to stop it; or, someone casts a readied action or reaction spell using their reaction, which the original creature stops with counterspell
*feather fall - escaping off a cliff or being knocked off by another creature's reaction
*shield - avoiding an attack from another creature's reaction
*hellish rebuke - retaliating to another creature's reaction attack.

Three of those have especially good chances of being life-saving in the correct time.

While it may not have come up in testing, they have really doubled down on the Sage Advice interpretation.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For reference, the reaction spells in the SRD are:
*counterspell - cast a spell, opponent uses counterspell, original uses counterspell to stop it; or, someone casts a readied action or reaction spell using their reaction, which the original creature stops with counterspell
*feather fall - escaping off a cliff or being knocked off by another creature's reaction
*shield - avoiding an attack from another creature's reaction
*hellish rebuke - retaliating to another creature's reaction attack.

Three of those have especially good chances of being life-saving in the correct time.

While it may not have come up in testing, they have really doubled down on the Sage Advice interpretation.

To be fair to Sage Advice, that forum is to respond to what the rules say, not make changes or recognize bad rules. Crawford usually is careful to respond with exactly what the rules say or were intended to say, good and bad. That channel isn't used to change rules or offer mea culpas on rules that might not work out as well as planned.

That said, I agree with you that this is a bad rule, and should be changed pretty much exactly how you've suggested.

 

[ClaytonCross]

thanks for the research and i am not all that surprised. it is not unlike to the way they treat sneak attacks "turn" limitation - it applies for the turn regardless of how other things can add more attack options but shift into someone else's turn and its a new ballgame.

i agree that the BA spel restriction seems an odd duck and i would have handled it by making sure no broken BA spells and 1A spell combos got into place, but it seems they wanted the BA spells to be very restrictive - almost an "overloading" thing.

As a GM if i really disliked that rule, i might consider allowing you to cast any BA spell as a 1A spell to provide an option for say using healing word as a baseline cure and still keep your reaction spells available on your turn. and keep action surge spells unlimited.

that way you eliminate some of the oddball combos without essentially making quicken even more powerful. (it really feels to me like the BA restriction was aimed at quicken spells more than the usual BA spells.)

I think the easiest thing to do is restrict the quicken meta magic to a cantrip or any other non-spell casting action.

 

[Mistwell]

Who is ArmandoDoval and why do you guys think he's officially speaking for WOTC?

 

[ClaytonCross]

Who is ArmandoDoval and why do you guys think he's officially speaking for WOTC?

No idea but all he did was find quotes from Jeremy Crawford that I could not. Since Jeremy Crawford is lead designer of the game I am find with ArmandoDoval's superior research to find previous posts that answered my two questions. For some reason every time I post to sageadice its ArmadoDoval with quote and no direct reply, so I wonder if he works for them but has no official reply authority. I have also, noticed sometimes the quote I get back is close but doesn't really answer my specific question. In this case on this thread though, the answers he found were spot on.

 

[5ekyu]

Unfortunately, the only reference to time that we get is that a bonus action spell takes the same amount of time as any other bonus action, but, ignoring the fact that there is no reference to ticks and no reference as to whether these are good or correct values, and that there is no reference to how long an action is, this is okay:

Bonus action: Dash 6 ticks
Action: Meteor Swarm 10 ticks
Reaction: Shield
Total: 16 ticks + Reaction

but not this:

Bonus action: Healing Word 8 ticks
Action: Dash 8 ticks
Reaction: Shield
Total: 16 ticks + Reaction

So with two turns that take the same amount of an imaginary unit of time, restricting reactions still does not fit. The thing is, these ticks are made up, and they might be able to be adjusted in some way that makes the combination of bonus action spell with other stuff take longer. However, it is a made-up explanation which does not answer why this works:

Bonus action: Dash
Action: Meteor Swarm
Reaction: Shield

but not this:

Bonus action: Healing Word
Action: Dash
Reaction: Shield

Someone can call meteors from the sky, run, and shield themselves but not heal someone at a distance, run, and shield themselves. They can even heal someone more by touching them (cure wounds), run, and shield themselves. The only difference is that one of these uses a spell with a casting time of a bonus action. The misty step vs dimension door is another great example. I can teleport much farther (or the same distance!) with dimension door and still be able to use a reaction.

So, using what is actually in the books (and play experience by the rules), is there actually a good reason to exclude reactions from a turn that had a bonus action spell (or vice versa)?

Additionally, is there a good reason why an eldritch knight can cast 2 fireballs using Action Surge but cannot cast misty step and then a fireball with Action Surge?

Well again yes the ticks was just a fabrication to try and show different ways of seeing how they have placed additional restrictions on BA spells as not inexplicable - a way of them saying its six pounds of action in a five pound bonus sack.

Why is Misty Step "more restricted" than fireball? because that is how they chose to represent that limitation.

Like i have said, i would myself have no problem allowing you to cast Misty as a 1A and then surge fireball using your bonus action up for grabs for non-spell use and your reactions free. You used an example where dash is being used presumably by a character who can dash as a bonus action - and such a character can **still** dash as a normal action as well as using it as a bonus action - a flexibility blocked from BA casting time spells for some reason i myself do not understand.

I do not think anybody is arguing how good the rule is or that it is anything but an odd and quirky restriction with definite inconsistencies in what it allows and what it disallows.

But, what at least seems to be true about it is it seems this latest "confirmation" keeps to what the restriction says in the books, that casting a bonus action limits what spell can be cast on your turn to a 1 action cantrip as opposed to what some others had been ruling which was that action surge ended that restriction by giving you an additional action still on your same turn.

This latest bit is also consistent with how sneak attack works. The extra action from surge does not somehow lift the "in your turn" limit for sneak.