D&D (2024) Two Spells, One Turn Confusion Never Dies

[pnewman]

A caster can no longer 'Counterspell', with a spell slot, the 'Counterspell' that targets their leveled spell cast with a spell slot, since they would then be using two spell slots per turn.

A character who casts a spell with a slot and then falls into a pit trap on their movement can no longer cast 'Feather Fall' to stop the falling damage, as that would be two spell slots per turn. An almost identical character with the Magic Initiate Feat can cast 'Feather Fall' if that is what they picked as their daily slotless Level one spell.

 

[Retros_x]

A caster can no longer 'Counterspell', with a spell slot, the 'Counterspell' that targets their leveled spell cast with a spell slot, since they would then be using two spell slots per turn.

A character who casts a spell with a slot and then falls into a pit trap on their movement can no longer cast 'Feather Fall' to stop the falling damage, as that would be two spell slots per turn. An almost identical character with the Magic Initiate Feat can cast 'Feather Fall' if that is what they picked as their daily slotless Level one spell.

Good observation. Especially the first case happened a few times in my games. We'll see how players play like it, I personally don't mind too much. Happened not very often and I dislike counterspell anyway, having not a counter-chain doesnt worry me.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes they took something that was confusing and made it even more confusing.

I don't think it is confusing, personally. I think it's pretty straightforward, certainly far more straightforward than the previous, genuinely confusing/vexing rules here.

It is however kind of annoying from a certain perspective, and something you can obviously work around with wands etc., whilst creating some odd edge cases like Feather Fall as pointed out by @pnewman above. Getting rid of Counter-counterspelling is a good thing, frankly.

I'd overall consider this change to be a positive one and one that makes the game easier to understand, not harder.

 

[Oofta]

The DM decided to ignore it in one of our games .... which really boosts caster power.

Another option is to just make it easier - one leveled spell per turn.

That's going to be my house rule as well, at least as far as casting spells from items such as wands or scrolls is concerned. Hasn't come up yet for spells that you get to cast once daily or similar.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The Counterspell and Feather Fall cases... casting spells using a Reaction off-turn rather than on turn with an Action/Bonus action is one of those times where I as a player or as a DM will not care about the rules as written and just play it as common sense.

The whole point of these rules was always just to stop players from casting two Fireballs in a single turn-- using whatever power-gaming rules shenannagins they came up with in order to try. So long as caster players just don't try to power-game like that... I'm never going to have a stick up my rear about this stuff.

 

[el-remmen]

Yeah. I don’t see it as confusing. I see it as one of the few rules from ‘24 I plan to adopt.

 

[Oofta]

The Counterspell and Feather Fall cases... casting spells using a Reaction off-turn rather than on turn with an Action/Bonus action is one of those times where I as a player or as a DM will not care about the rules as written and just play it as common sense.

The whole point of these rules was always just to stop players from casting two Fireballs in a single turn-- using whatever power-gaming rules shenannagins they came up with in order to try. So long as caster players just don't try to power-game like that... I'm never going to have a stick up my rear about this stuff.

It also stops a caster from counterspelling a counterspell of their spell.

In the past Sue cast a fireball so Bad Guy Joe cast counterspell. Sue could then counterspell Bad Guy Joe's counterspell.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It also stops a caster from counterspelling a counterspell of their spell.

In the past Sue cast a fireball so Bad Guy Joe cast counterspell. Sue could then counterspell Bad Guy Joe's counterspell.

Considering I never had players actually counterspell (let along counterspelling a counterspell), it's still nothing I'm going to worry about.

And honestly... I'm just going to treat Reactions as I always have, which is not a part of a PC's "turn" but a separate window-- thereby not falling within the "two big spells a round" thing. Again... to me the whole point of the rules was merely just to stop power-gamer players from using their turns in the initiative order to spam massive attack spells to nova the enemy and thus making the non-caster characters superfluous. So me getting nitpicky about counterspells or other non-attack effects due to "the rules" is not worth my time worrying about.

 

[TwoSix]

Agh, two conflicting preferences!

I do dislike counter-counterspelling. But, I hate explaining to new people that they can't cast bless and cure wounds on the same turn, because that feels like something a bonus action spell should allow you to do.

I'm leaning towards just house-ruling counterspell to not be able to counter counterspell. A specific interaction, like shield and magic missile.

 

[ezo]

The whole thing is ridiculous IMO. You have an action, bonus action, and reaction (and movement of course). If someone wants to cast a bonus action spell AND an action spell in the same turn--burning through spell slots--let them. Need a reaction on the same turn? Go for it.

Honestly, these "rules" seem to be trying to solve problems that don't really exist. I mean, what bonus action spell/ action spell combo is game-breaking enough to warrant this in the first place??