D&D 5E Can I cast a reaction spell and an action/BA spell on my turn.

[Dausuul]

This one is odd no?

You're not targeting the "target" you're targeting a point in space (with fireball).

The "target" wording on fireball is pretty obviously an oversight (as I noted in an edit, most AoE spells do not use it). However, there has been no errata, and reading the spell strictly as written, it does target creatures.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I know there is a general rule about only casting one spell on a players turn,

As noted above, no, there isn't any such rule. You can cast many spells in a round (for example by multiclassing to fighter and using Action Surge).

The only rule is combining bonus action spells and other spells.

Did you cast a bonus action spell?
Yes: All other spell this round must be cantrips with a casting time of 1 Action. This means no Reaction spells.
No: There are no restrictions on spells.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fireball says targets instead of creatures because it can damage objects. Most other AoE spells can’t, so they say creatures, but the rules still consider those creatures targets of the spell.

 

[Xetheral]

Fireball says targets instead of creatures because it can damage objects. Most other AoE spells can’t, so they say creatures, but the rules still consider those creatures targets of the spell.

I don't think that's quite right. Based on the wording of Fireball, only creatures are targets (and thus take damage from the spell). Fireball can ignite objects, but it never refers to them as targets.

Specifically, the spell only requires "creatures" to make saving throws, and then only deals damage to "targets" that succeeded or failed their saving throw. Objects aren't mentioned until the next paragraph, and then only in the context of ignition, rather than damage.

 

[NotAYakk]

In 5e, target is a natural language thing.

Saying something is a target is not how something becomes a target.

A target is something effected by a spell, that is all.

(This isn't 3e or MTG)

 

[billd91]

I don't think that's quite right. Based on the wording of Fireball, only creatures are targets (and thus take damage from the spell). Fireball can ignite objects, but it never refers to them as targets.

Specifically, the spell only requires "creatures" to make saving throws, and then only deals damage to "targets" that succeeded or failed their saving throw. Objects aren't mentioned until the next paragraph, and then only in the context of ignition, rather than damage.

Strictly speaking - maybe not. Object damage and destruction isn't up in the players' faces in the PH, it's relegated to the DMG and up for DM consideration when it's important. If the adventurers are exploring some old, dry wooden houses or a delicate ice cavern, a DM is well within their rights to have a fireball inflict damage on the surrounding area. The spell description in the PH is written with the default situation that it won't really matter, save for unattended things that might be combustible.

 

[Xetheral]

In 5e, target is a natural language thing.

Saying something is a target is not how something becomes a target.

A target is something effected by a spell, that is all.

(This isn't 3e or MTG)

While that's sometimes true, it isn't true in every situation and every context. Sometimes the designers use "target" in very specific ways.

Continuing the Fireball example, if you rule that objects are targets because they are affected by the spell, you create a contradiction. This is because, by the spell's text, all targets take full damage if they fail their saving throw, and half damage if they succeed their saving throw. But the language of the spell only permits creatures to make a saving throw, so objects can't succeed or fail, and thus can't take damage, which contradicts the statement in the spell that targets do take damage. Ergo, in the context of Fireball, objects are both affected by the spell and simultaneously can't be targets of the spell.

 

[jmartkdr2]

While that's sometimes true, it isn't true in every situation and every context. Sometimes the designers use "target" in very specific ways.

Continuing the Fireball example, if you rule that objects are targets because they are affected by the spell, you create a contradiction. This is because, by the spell's text, all targets take full damage if they fail their saving throw, and half damage if they succeed their saving throw. But the language of the spell only permits creatures to make a saving throw, so objects can't succeed or fail, and thus can't take damage, which contradicts the statement in the spell that targets do take damage. Ergo, in the context of Fireball, objects are both affected by the spell and simultaneously can't be targets of the spell.

I think @NotAYakk 's point is: "target" isn't a defined term in the rules of 5e. It means what it seems to mean in the specific context you're reading it. There's no rule, in any book, that tells you how to figure out the targets of a spell, unless the spell's own description is specific in itself.

So for the fireball example: no rule tells you what a fireball targets. Only what it affects, which isn't quite the same thing. So you can rule it any way you want, and that ruling wouldn't need to apply to any other spell or even other uses of the same spell.

 

[NotAYakk]

While that's sometimes true, it isn't true in every situation and every context. Sometimes the designers use "target" in very specific ways.

Continuing the Fireball example, if you rule that objects are targets because they are affected by the spell, you create a contradiction. This is because, by the spell's text, all targets take full damage if they fail their saving throw, and half damage if they succeed their saving throw. But the language of the spell only permits creatures to make a saving throw, so objects can't succeed or fail, and thus can't take damage, which contradicts the statement in the spell that targets do take damage. Ergo, in the context of Fireball, objects are both affected by the spell and simultaneously can't be targets of the spell.

Or, they aren't using formal language there, and the rules about targets and saving throws apply to those targets who get saving throws, and not to targets that don't.

Again, natural language.

Here, they might be using "target" to refer to those who get a saving throw.

But if there is (say) an artificer artillerist cannon, it has saving throws, and it makes more sense to give it one than use the objects rules. Or you could instead have it light on fire if and only if flammable. Either way works. Players would only know which one would happen if their PC experimented in my opinion, or did an arcana check to see if they remembered someone else experimenting similarly.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think that's quite right. Based on the wording of Fireball, only creatures are targets (and thus take damage from the spell). Fireball can ignite objects, but it never refers to them as targets.

Specifically, the spell only requires "creatures" to make saving throws, and then only deals damage to "targets" that succeeded or failed their saving throw. Objects aren't mentioned until the next paragraph, and then only in the context of ignition, rather than damage.

You’re correct, I misremembered the wording of fireball.