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

[5ekyu]

But back to my question: "What is the benefit of Bonus Action spells restricting reaction spells and Action Surge spells, and does it make sense?" Everything else in a turn being the same, what is gained by restricting reaction spells and Action Surge spells when the only other spell cast has a casting time of a Bonus Action instead of an Action?

You asked ans so let me try and answer as best i can as to what my response would be, but i *MUST* put it in context.2

What is the benefit of thew rule in the rulebook that has Bonus Action spells restricting other spells at all?"

ANSWER: To the first part, it follows RAW.

Does the rule in the rulebook make sense? That is subjective. it was just a design decision that said "BA spells have this restriction that reaction spells dont and that 1A spells dont.

"What is the benefit of Bonus Action spells restricting reaction spells and Action Surge spells, and does it make sense."


ANSWER: To the first part, it follows RAW.

Does the rule in the rulebook make sense? That is subjective. it was just a design decision that said "BA spells have this restriction that reaction spells dont and that 1A spells dont.

So, the key thing is this AFAICT: The value in following RAW in a given game will vary from "nothing" to "major" depending on the various unique factors of that campaign. In a shared world or shared play type setting - it can be mandatory.

For *MY* games, for decades, I have not given much value at all to "follows RAW". it is worth nothing more than it being easier to get across to the players since it does not need me to add a house rule *sometimes* because sometimes the RAW may require more explantion and spawn more questions than a simpler house rule would. So basically, to my games "follows RAW" has been worth mostly nothing and provides no objective benefit for decades. That is irrespective of system - DND version abc, HERo version 2-6, WOD version I-V or whatever, Shadowruns, traverls aplenty, etc etc etc.

That is not because I necessarily think i know how to design games better than they do (OK not saying i do not think that either) but that simply put i make the system fit my campaign, not the other way around and have complete confidence in my ability to do that to both suit my player's preferences better than someone who does not know them.

HOWEVER: As far as answering a forum question about "what is the rule" or "what does this rule mean" "follows RAW" is to me vitally important - even if you also provide well-identified house rules alongside it.


Now we get into the subjective parts - Does it make sense? What non-objective benefits do the RAW rules provide vs the House rule for say "the BA rule applies to quicken only" or whatever you need to figure out a way to allow more spells to be cast than RAW would allow in some circumstances: Those will all be subjective determinations.

Someone has repeatedly posted here about how a BA spell is listed as quicker. Maybe for that poster there is *no benefit* (objectively or subjectively speaking) from having BA spells impose any limits. Maybe to someone else, the rule as is that restricts reactions, surge actions etc is the right amount of limit. maybe to someone else the middle ground of "only applies for quicken" or "does not apply to surge and reactions" are more "the right amount of restriction."

You might as well be asking how much hot pepper your jambalaya needs or which bed Goldilocks prefers?
One person may think none and all the way up to the nuclear option.

The benefit and sense for a given campaign really boils down to "how much of a limit do you feel is appropriate for BA spells in your games?"

It should be obvious that loosening the restriction will increase the spells that can be cast in some cases. That should be a boon to spellcasters... to various degrees depending on campaign. So, in my mind it would seem obvious that if your spellcasters are having trouble keeping up with the non-caster classes in terms of performance, that might lead one to see loosening the BA spell restrictions as a good idea - loosening the restrictions would then "make sense". In the opposite case, if spellcasters are seen as the top of the chain more often than not, you might not want to give them more spell casting options - loosening the restrictions on BA spells might not "make any sense".

But again, all of that assessment of "does it make sense" and "how much of a benefit" will be highly subjective and vary by campaign.

That is where the beauty of house rules plays out. There have been quite a few suggestions made for house rules here in this thread and likely a million others that can be used.

So for any given GM, if it makes sense to loosen the restriction for caster's in their game, they have a ton of things to choose between even if they don't have preferences of their own to choose from.

But really, for *any* published rule, beyond "follows RAW" there is no objective benefit to any given rule - only subjective benefits based on the particulars of a campaign. it could be subjectively beneficial and make sense to change every class HD to D12 in a given campaign and that change is likely even bigger than the bonus action limit per RAW is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think it is still about simplicity and elegance of the actual written rule. Adding except... except... would make it harder for newer less rule lawyers players for minimal benefit.

Also remember all things happen in the same 6 seconds so it is still going off real fast, you just don't get to do it all in a row without anyone else getting some turn.

Simplicity? Sure. Elegance? Nope. The rule clunks in execution. It's counter intuitive and allows for seemingly paradoxical situations to occur. That's the opposite of elegant. Advantage and disadvantage are elegant. The BA spell casting rule isn't.

And it doesn't need 'except...except'. It just needs to be written to say: "If you cast a BA spell, if you choose to cast a spell as an action on your turn you may only cast a cantrip." This prevents the double fireball from sorcerers every turn (a laudable goal) but doesn't break reaction spells.

 

[Rossbert]

It could also be as I previously suggested that they never got that specific because it never came up. It seems very possible in play testing that they never had a situation come up where someone wanted to cast a bonus action spell and either get in a counterspell duel, or provoked an attack of opportunity or chose to move off a cliff.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It could also be as I previously suggested that they never got that specific because it never came up. It seems very possible in play testing that they never had a situation come up where someone wanted to cast a bonus action spell and either get in a counterspell duel, or provoked an attack of opportunity or chose to move off a cliff.

Oh, I believe this to be true -- it's only when in wide circulation that this comes up. It's never come up at my table, either. That doesn't, however, change the fact that the rule clunks, hard.

 

[Rossbert]

I wouldn't say that. If you cast a bonus action your other spells this turn can only be cantrips (I don't have the book on hand) is pretty simple and clear if you come at it not realizing someone might use a reaction on their own turn. It is concise and covers the situations that probably came up as intended.

From a flavor standpoint it means if you throw out extra power in a turn there is a limit to what your body/power/whatever can channel in so much time. Unless you are extra tough and trained like say a super fast fighter...(which I suspect they did not expect as much fighter 2 dipping)

 

[Ovinomancer]

I wouldn't say that. If you cast a bonus action your other spells this turn can only be cantrips (I don't have the book on hand) is pretty simple and clear if you come at it not realizing someone might use a reaction on their own turn. It is concise and covers the situations that probably came up as intended.

No one argued it wasn't clear -- it's very clear. It is, however, clunky because it creates conditions that are hard to rationalize that could be corrected with a slight grammar change. It's easy to understand how it was missed, but that doesn't mean it isn't clunky. And by clunky, I mean that's the sound the rule makes when you actually run into the 'can't cast a reaction' bit.

From a flavor standpoint it means if you throw out extra power in a turn there is a limit to what your body/power/whatever can channel in so much time. Unless you are extra tough and trained like say a super fast fighter...(which I suspect they did not expect as much fighter 2 dipping)

BA spells aren't extra power. Only sorcerer metamagic might suggest that, and that's only a subset of BA spellcasting. There's no indication anywhere (again, with the exception of sorcerer, and that's arguable) that it takes more effort or more power to cast a BA spell.

And they included the EK as a subclass, which can easily cast 2 fireballs a round with action surge, so that's a pretty strong oversight if indeed it is an oversight. I don't believe it is. Instead, as discussed, I think the BA spell restriction is to prevent a quickened fireball followed by a different metamagiced fireball (example isn't exhaustive). The corner case under discussion never came up in playtesting (or was resolved at the table and not reported) and so was missed. The nerds here, discussing rules minutia on the internet 3+ years post launch, have, however, noticed the issue. And it clunks. Is it a huge deal? probably not, but it's a good practice to note when rules actually function poorly, even if well intended, merely to keep discussion useful. This rule has an interaction that clunks. I understand why. Because of these two things, I can fix it so it works for me. That's the best outcome of any messageboard discussion of D&D rules you can have -- understanding and a path forward.

 

[Tormyr]

You asked ans so let me try and answer as best i can as to what my response would be, but i *MUST* put it in context.2

What is the benefit of thew rule in the rulebook that has Bonus Action spells restricting other spells at all?"

ANSWER: To the first part, it follows RAW.

Does the rule in the rulebook make sense? That is subjective. it was just a design decision that said "BA spells have this restriction that reaction spells dont and that 1A spells dont.

"What is the benefit of Bonus Action spells restricting reaction spells and Action Surge spells, and does it make sense."


ANSWER: To the first part, it follows RAW.

Does the rule in the rulebook make sense? That is subjective. it was just a design decision that said "BA spells have this restriction that reaction spells dont and that 1A spells dont.

So, the key thing is this AFAICT: The value in following RAW in a given game will vary from "nothing" to "major" depending on the various unique factors of that campaign. In a shared world or shared play type setting - it can be mandatory.

For *MY* games, for decades, I have not given much value at all to "follows RAW". it is worth nothing more than it being easier to get across to the players since it does not need me to add a house rule *sometimes* because sometimes the RAW may require more explantion and spawn more questions than a simpler house rule would. So basically, to my games "follows RAW" has been worth mostly nothing and provides no objective benefit for decades. That is irrespective of system - DND version abc, HERo version 2-6, WOD version I-V or whatever, Shadowruns, traverls aplenty, etc etc etc.

That is not because I necessarily think i know how to design games better than they do (OK not saying i do not think that either) but that simply put i make the system fit my campaign, not the other way around and have complete confidence in my ability to do that to both suit my player's preferences better than someone who does not know them.

HOWEVER: As far as answering a forum question about "what is the rule" or "what does this rule mean" "follows RAW" is to me vitally important - even if you also provide well-identified house rules alongside it.


Now we get into the subjective parts - Does it make sense? What non-objective benefits do the RAW rules provide vs the House rule for say "the BA rule applies to quicken only" or whatever you need to figure out a way to allow more spells to be cast than RAW would allow in some circumstances: Those will all be subjective determinations.

Someone has repeatedly posted here about how a BA spell is listed as quicker. Maybe for that poster there is *no benefit* (objectively or subjectively speaking) from having BA spells impose any limits. Maybe to someone else, the rule as is that restricts reactions, surge actions etc is the right amount of limit. maybe to someone else the middle ground of "only applies for quicken" or "does not apply to surge and reactions" are more "the right amount of restriction."

You might as well be asking how much hot pepper your jambalaya needs or which bed Goldilocks prefers?
One person may think none and all the way up to the nuclear option.

The benefit and sense for a given campaign really boils down to "how much of a limit do you feel is appropriate for BA spells in your games?"

It should be obvious that loosening the restriction will increase the spells that can be cast in some cases. That should be a boon to spellcasters... to various degrees depending on campaign. So, in my mind it would seem obvious that if your spellcasters are having trouble keeping up with the non-caster classes in terms of performance, that might lead one to see loosening the BA spell restrictions as a good idea - loosening the restrictions would then "make sense". In the opposite case, if spellcasters are seen as the top of the chain more often than not, you might not want to give them more spell casting options - loosening the restrictions on BA spells might not "make any sense".

But again, all of that assessment of "does it make sense" and "how much of a benefit" will be highly subjective and vary by campaign.

That is where the beauty of house rules plays out. There have been quite a few suggestions made for house rules here in this thread and likely a million others that can be used.

So for any given GM, if it makes sense to loosen the restriction for caster's in their game, they have a ton of things to choose between even if they don't have preferences of their own to choose from.

But really, for *any* published rule, beyond "follows RAW" there is no objective benefit to any given rule - only subjective benefits based on the particulars of a campaign. it could be subjectively beneficial and make sense to change every class HD to D12 in a given campaign and that change is likely even bigger than the bonus action limit per RAW is.

Well, when I asked what the value of this particular RAW was, I was hoping for an answer other than, "because it follows RAW." Nonetheless, thank you for taking the time to talk with me about your thoughts on it.

 

[5ekyu]

Well, when I asked what the value of this particular RAW was, I was hoping for an answer other than, "because it follows RAW." Nonetheless, thank you for taking the time to talk with me about your thoughts on it.

Well, the key is as i indicated there is NO OBJECTIVE VALUE in any RAW. Not one. there is no objective value is getting to move 30' in a round as a human or dash using an action as opposed to a reaction or fighters getting an action surge at 5th instead of 7th...

There are RESULTS of rules, not VALUE in rules because the value for one campaign may be widely different.

That was where we got into the comparisons.

the RESULT of the RAW is it limits the power gains by casting BA spells by imposing a restriction set on you for the turn you cast them, (As i described earlier.)

If a Gm finds that result weakens casters so much that they are under-performing, it would make sense to loosen those restrictions - maybe excluding reactions, maybe excluding reactions and also only limiting one action, maybe by removing the rule altogether.

The fact that there is no OBJECTIVE value for this rule is no different than it is for any other RAW... its not a knock on the rule, its not a sign of flaw... its just a simple fact - the VALUE of any rule is subjective and dependent on the campaign.

In this case it serves to limit casting options when using BA spells. Whether that is a plus, a minus or a wash - thats up to the Gm and players to decide for their games.

if you are expecting a different kind of answer and you have some universal or objective basis for determining value of a rule without reference to a given campaign, i am all for hearing what that is.


But it is starting to feel like you are implying that if there cannot be shown an objective value to having BA limited, or having BA limited this way or that way then the rule is somehow not good, inadequate or whatever. maybe i am wrong about that, but it seems like the insistance on getting an answer other than "it is RAW" is leading you somewhere in that neighborhood.

i mean, can you provide an objective VALUE for having any additional limits from BA spells as opposed to letting them, like the other spells, not get in the way of other spells? What is objectively better about a house rule that says "bonus spells do not provide any restrictions on other spells in the turn - they work just like actions and reactions."

it increases the power of spellcasters so... maybe that is good and maybe that is bad - depends on campaign, doesn't it.

 

[Tormyr]

Well, the key is as i indicated there is NO OBJECTIVE VALUE in any RAW. Not one. there is no objective value is getting to move 30' in a round as a human or dash using an action as opposed to a reaction or fighters getting an action surge at 5th instead of 7th...

There are RESULTS of rules, not VALUE in rules because the value for one campaign may be widely different.

That was where we got into the comparisons.

the RESULT of the RAW is it limits the power gains by casting BA spells by imposing a restriction set on you for the turn you cast them, (As i described earlier.)

If a Gm finds that result weakens casters so much that they are under-performing, it would make sense to loosen those restrictions - maybe excluding reactions, maybe excluding reactions and also only limiting one action, maybe by removing the rule altogether.

The fact that there is no OBJECTIVE value for this rule is no different than it is for any other RAW... its not a knock on the rule, its not a sign of flaw... its just a simple fact - the VALUE of any rule is subjective and dependent on the campaign.

In this case it serves to limit casting options when using BA spells. Whether that is a plus, a minus or a wash - thats up to the Gm and players to decide for their games.

if you are expecting a different kind of answer and you have some universal or objective basis for determining value of a rule without reference to a given campaign, i am all for hearing what that is.


But it is starting to feel like you are implying that if there cannot be shown an objective value to having BA limited, or having BA limited this way or that way then the rule is somehow not good, inadequate or whatever. maybe i am wrong about that, but it seems like the insistance on getting an answer other than "it is RAW" is leading you somewhere in that neighborhood.

i mean, can you provide an objective VALUE for having any additional limits from BA spells as opposed to letting them, like the other spells, not get in the way of other spells? What is objectively better about a house rule that says "bonus spells do not provide any restrictions on other spells in the turn - they work just like actions and reactions."

it increases the power of spellcasters so... maybe that is good and maybe that is bad - depends on campaign, doesn't it.

Rules, or parts of rules can be bad. The value of finding the bad rules is they can be changed with house rules, errata, or a new version of the game. Sometimes, like in this case, only part of the rule or its interaction with other rules is bad.

I have tried consistently through the thread to say the restriction of the BA spell rule with reaction spells and Action Surge spells is bad and limit the discussion to that narrow window. My main reason has been that keeping everything else the same in a turn but switching the spell's casting time from the slower Action to the faster Bonus Action should not make it more difficult to use reaction spells or Action Surge spells. My apologies if I was not clear on that. I am not interested in this thread in debating whether there should be no limitation around BA spells, the value of rules in general, or anything else. I would like to stay on the point that I brought up: whether this rule was written correctly or could be improved.

The limitation of a cantrip with a BA spell is about power. Since this combination can be used every turn as long as there are spell slots, this is limited.

Action Surge should always be able to cast a full action spell. Because it is available only once (maybe twice) per short rest, it is not limited. This is evidenced by an eldritch knight being able to cast fireball twice or a 20th-level full spellcaster with 2 levels of fighter being able to cast a 9th and 8th level spell. Changing the casting time of one of the spells used from the slower action to the faster bonus action should not stop the second spell from being an action.

Changing the casting time of the spell used from the slower action to the faster bonus action should not stop a spellcaster from using a reaction spell. Therefore, reaction spells should be outside the limitation.

Examples include:

1. A sorcerer using Quicken to change a spell to a bonus action and not being able to cast shield to stop an opportunity attack.
2. An Arcane Trickster using Dash and dimension door can use counterspell to stop an enemy's counterspell but cannot if they instead use Dash and misty step.
3. An Eldritch Knight being able to use Action Surge to cast fireball twice vs not being able to use Action Surge to cast any BA spell and fireball

There are countless other combinations of action and bonus action spells, but I used these to minimize the differences in a turn. There is no good reason for any of these limitations to exist, and no one has given any examples of why the BA spell restrictions on reaction spells and Action Surge spells are beneficial to players, the DM, or the game. I have said the rule as written is a bad rule because it arbitrarily limits the spellcasters for no good reason. It causes them to do less with shorter spells, and that does not make sense, regardless of campaign setting.

 

[5ekyu]

Tormyr

Ok so you seem to keep flipping around terms.

We had VALUE asked for, then i started to discuss RESULTS and now we have a rather vague reference to BAD which seems to mean "something i dont like."

So, again, this seems to be just a series of subjective preferences which therefore cannot be right or wrong. That is what house rules are for, crafting the rules at your table to suit your play group preferences.

But to your specific points.

"The limitation of a cantrip with a BA spell is about power. Since this combination can be used every turn as long as there are spell slots, this is limited."

Absolutely, you cannot use reactions spells and you cannot use non-cantrip 1A spells - that puts a noticable limit onto turns when a caster chooses to accept those limits to cast a BA spell. No question to me - that is about power of casters to get more and more spells off in their turn.

So, that gets back to if one thinks casters are under-performing, changing this rule to loosen those restrictions may be a good choice - maybe you would call it a GOOD rule then or a GOOD VALUE.

So if beefing up casters is a good thing for a campaign then going from the simple rule:

"You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."

to a slightly more complex rule:

"You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action or a reaction."

or a more complex rule:

"You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.or a reaction or a 1A spell cast using action surge or some other way to gain extra actions."

or even just deciding that increasing caster power **AND** simplicity has even more VALUE by changing the restriction to:

"casting spells with BA has no impact on casting spells with other actions or reactions on your turn at all." (Which would actually be easier by just deleting the text since this is basically saying there is no limit.

Now of course, as you say ACTION SURGE itself is a rather limited resource but of course reactions can occur every turn in theory so... the decisions on how many of these other spell options should be opened up to work alongside BA spells is up to the Gm and how much they feel caster's need the power boost.

The GOOD or BAD of those changes will be determined by how well they help the campaign or fit the expectations of the campaign.

But then we have the other games, where casters are somehow holding their own or even over-performing the non-caster classes. In those oddball campaigns, the idea of upping the caster capabilities by using any of the more complicated rules to loosen the restrictions currently in the RAW might well be seen as BAD (putting too much power where its not needed) or even DOUBLE BAD (the unwanted power-up and a more complex rule.)

Its OBVIOUS you think the rule is too limiting in its current form, you do not like the results ir provides and it **seems** like you want to go just shy of the whole hog (simple) removal of the BA spell limit and feel instead going with the most complicated rule allowing not only reactions but also (perhaps) the action surge spells too to be allowed to bypass the current restriction.

Thats great! I hope that up-tick brings casters in your game to the levels of playability you think they should be - just like you think action surge should this and reactions should that. I doubt the added complexity of the rule will make all that much difference, and my bet is if you did not think so as well you might be leaning another direction.

Sounds great.

hope it works out for you.

For myself, i would not be so inclined to move to the more complicated multiple exception rule but then in my games the spell casters are not having problems hanging in there and keeping up with the non-casters. The casters tend to use BA spells when needed, accept the limitations and sometimes that means they know they are limiting their own options - denying themselves a reaction chance ON THEIR TURN and risking the chance that that will bite them before their turn ends. They are somehow managing to hold their own even under that restriction. i suspect it is because the whole BA spell restriction is one in their control - they are never forced to cast a BA. casting a BA spell each turn is not some automatic thing they aim for but rather is an option they avail themselves of when they feel it is appropriate.

I wonder if indeed that is a partial reason for the additional limitation on spells.

Consider - the general rule for all the other BA in the game is "you cannot just choose a BA but have to have it enabled." A significant number of non-spell BA seem to almost be like "circumstantial reactions" able to be done sometimes and not others or to have significantrestrictions or penalties on their use.

Two-weapon-fighting: lose the off-hand shield Ac benefit or two handed weapon option.
barbarian rage - very small limit on numbers per day
inspiration die - limited by cha bonus basically
wild shape gets to bonus actions later on and has very few uses.
warrior's second wind limited in uses as well.
etc
etc
etc

So part of me wonders if part of the reason they slapped such a simple but significant restriction on BA spells was that they saw that with the growing numbers of slots available and the growing number of BA spells gained as you level up, some of the full casters would be more powerfu;l if they could routinely get a BA spell and a 1a Spell (even a cantrip) and a reaction always available as long as their slots held out. it certainly does help their NOVA potential to have all three of those at the start of the big fights - especially with metamagic.

But that is just me musing, pondering and considering the RESULTS of loosening the current rule to allow casters more options and more ways to get more spells of in more circumstances.

Like i said, in my games, i have not yet hit the "casters need help" hurdle that some campaigns may have hit, so, that is a good part of why my VALUES and preferences may be different than others.