D&D 5E Bonus action spell and reaction on your same turn

[Lyxen]

I recommend ignoring the RAW on this. While not getting to use a Hellish Rebuke when you otherwise could is a pretty low stakes reaction spell situation, not getting to use a Feather Fall or Absorb Elements when needed, because of a rules technicality that does not seem to really be part of design intent, seems like a pretty harsh adherence to rules that usually won't make your game more fun or serve any particular purpose.

I understand your point of view, it's just that, in general, being close to the RAW makes the game simpler, you don't have to maintain (as we did during 3e) pages of house rules.

Moreover, it still forces the character to make choices about his reaction, which I think is good too. And to top it off, this is a case that really should be very rare indeed, using a defensive reaction spell on your turn.

But, as many contributors mention, it's not really a problem of balance and it's easy to allow.

And even if you hate the ability of a character to counterspell a counterspell of their spell, embracing a rule that allows it for an action spell but not a bonus action spell does not solve the "problem", it just makes it needlessly confusing.

I honestly don't find it confusing, the rule is pretty clear, it's mostly people wanting to argue without reading all the rules, and a simple google search gives you lots of correct answers instantly.

Allowing Ready (Spell) + BA spell probably has a ton, but that can easily be left out.

It's not exactly the same thing anyway, the "Ready (Spell)" is actually a full casting of the spell during your turn, just holding the charge after that. Unless you had another specific case in mind ?

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I honestly don't find it confusing, the rule is pretty clear, it's mostly people wanting to argue without reading all the rules, and a simple google search gives you lots of correct answers instantly.

The rule is not terribly confusing... in a theoretical discourse on the rules between people consulting the text. This is not what most people's play or relationship with the rules looks like. In my experience most experienced players have internalized some sort of practical understanding of the bonus action casting rule in the normal context of its interaction with the action. I would anticipate when and how they can use the reaction spells, which only rarely interact with this rule, not being a readily easy connection to make in many players minds. Your mileage may vary.

I think "people wanting to argue without reading all the rules" is a rather harsh way to characterize the perfectly normal and sensible behavior of arguing based on one's own understanding of something, rather than re-reading the rules and/or making a research project out of every question.

 

[Lyxen]

The rule is not terribly confusing... in a theoretical discourse on the rules between people consulting the text. This is not what most people's play or relationship with the rules looks like. In my experience most experienced players have internalized some sort of practical understanding of the bonus action casting rule in the normal context of its interaction with the action. I would anticipate when and how they can use the reaction spells, which only rarely interact with this rule, not being a readily easy connection to make in many players minds. Your mileage may vary.

You know what, I completely agree with you here, the main problem for me is that this area of the rules is probably one of the most complex one in terms of interplay of various rules.

I'm a huge supporter of playing the game without having read all the rules, and let the DM's rulings explain what happens, so this is my standard way of playing.

But when a player asks the kind of question here, it immediately becomes a really technical question which, for once, happens to have an answer directly in the rules. So if you want to play by ear, go ahead with my blessing. But if you really want to be technical about the answer, then you need to read all the technical rules.

And, for once, although the trend of 5e is (thankfully, in my opinion) not a technical one, any small amount of work would provide you rapidly with an unambiguous answer, that's all I'm saying.

I think "people wanting to argue without reading all the rules" is a rather harsh way to characterize the perfectly normal and sensible behavior of arguing based on one's own understanding of something, rather than re-reading the rules and/or making a research project out of every question.

My apologies, it's just that this question is usually asked along the lines of "my DM said that I could not" or "my player insisted that". The only thing that I'm saying is that the rules are not needless confusing on that topic. They are just, because there are a few of them applying to that case, not exactly next to each other, which is normal. But if you think that this is needlessly confusing, what should we then say about 3e, which was 10 times as complex, and even more spread around in terms of organisation.

The one thing that I agree with is that this is a rare case in the rules (there are a few like that, but not that many compared to previous editions) where it's fairly technical and you need to bring together information from various sections to get the answer, so it's indeed more technical than most of 5e.

 

[jgsugden]

How I handle something like this: "RAW, this is not possible. However, you're a hero. You can make a split decision here - if you don't decide to go for it, you're deciding not to cast hellish rebuke. You'll make an arcana roll. DC 18. If you fail, the hex spell concentration is lost - or possible worse things could happen. Quickly - do you try?"

 

[billd91]

The rule is not terribly confusing... in a theoretical discourse on the rules between people consulting the text. This is not what most people's play or relationship with the rules looks like. In my experience most experienced players have internalized some sort of practical understanding of the bonus action casting rule in the normal context of its interaction with the action. I would anticipate when and how they can use the reaction spells, which only rarely interact with this rule, not being a readily easy connection to make in many players minds. Your mileage may vary.

Moreover, if you do look at the rules, it's not hard to come away with the impression that the casting of a reaction spell is an exception to the general rule of only being able to cast a cantrip in the same round as you cast a bonus spell.

 

[Lyxen]

Moreover, if you do look at the rules, it's not hard to come away with the impression that the casting of a reaction spell is an exception to the general rule of only being able to cast a cantrip in the same round as you cast a bonus spell.

I was wondering why you were saying this, and I found something, let me know if it was it or if you had something else in mind.

Reactions are not completely clear about whose turn it is that they happen in: "When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction."

When you take a reaction during someone else's turn, it's not his turn any longer, it has interrupted and resumes after the reaction is finished.

But what happens when it's your turn, apparently, the above does not affect your own turn, so is it another exception ?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's not exactly the same thing anyway, the "Ready (Spell)" is actually a full casting of the spell during your turn, just holding the charge after that. Unless you had another specific case in mind ?

Right, I noted that because ready had come up before.

 

[billd91]

I was wondering why you were saying this, and I found something, let me know if it was it or if you had something else in mind.

Reactions are not completely clear about whose turn it is that they happen in: "When you take a reaction, you can't take another one until the start of your next turn. If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn, that creature can continue its turn right after the reaction."

When you take a reaction during someone else's turn, it's not his turn any longer, it has interrupted and resumes after the reaction is finished.

But what happens when it's your turn, apparently, the above does not affect your own turn, so is it another exception ?

One thing about reactions is they have their own accounting pool in the action economy that otherwise doesn't seem to interact with the regular action economy. You get one and only one, you can take it during your own turn if something triggers it, and it refreshes at the start of your own turn. And you're right, even if used as an interrupt of another character, that character gets to resume their turn as normal (assuming, of course, that the reaction didn't somehow prevent that). Presumably, the same would apply if the caster interrupted their own turn with a reaction (most likely in response to an opponent's reaction).

Moreover, there's the rule that if a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so - with no reference to the immediately preceding rule about the casting of Bonus Action spells. You could pretty easily interpret that as being either in accord with the Bonus Action spells rule since it didn't explicitly identify it as an exception, or as an exception itself because it didn't refer to the Bonus Action rule as a caveat potentially limiting the trigger conditions (ie not only having an available reaction, but also having spell-casting capacity for your own round).

And then there's the comparison of outcomes. There's a number of ways that a reaction spell can be triggered by an opponent right before the caster's action - allowing them to get off 3 spells in rapid succession legally. Is it really a big deal to let one of those spells be cast as a reaction during the caster's turn?

So yeah, I understand the Sage Advice ruling, but I can sure see the alternative argument as well.

 

[Lyxen]

One thing about reactions is they have their own accounting pool in the action economy that otherwise doesn't seem to interact with the regular action economy. You get one and only one, you can take it during your own turn if something triggers it, and it refreshes at the start of your own turn.

It usually is not a problem as reactions are pretty rare and limited in effect, except maybe for the ready spell, but as that one replaces the standard spell casting and has a lot of limitations, it's not too bad, I think, in terms of action economy.

And you're right, even if used as an interrupt of another character, that character gets to resume their turn as normal (assuming, of course, that the reaction didn't somehow prevent that). Presumably, the same would apply if the caster interrupted their own turn with a reaction (most likely in response to an opponent's reaction).

RAW, I don't think it would, seeing the specific words ("If the reaction interrupts another creature's turn,"), but I agree that this adds another exception.

Moreover, there's the rule that if a spell can be cast as a reaction, the spell description tells you exactly when you can do so - with no reference to the immediately preceding rule about the casting of Bonus Action spells. You could pretty easily interpret that as being either in accord with the Bonus Action spells rule since it didn't explicitly identify it as an exception, or as an exception itself because it didn't refer to the Bonus Action rule as a caveat potentially limiting the trigger conditions (ie not only having an available reaction, but also having spell-casting capacity for your own round).

I agree that specific beats general, it's just that for me, it's only when there is a conflict, and adding another restriction does not create a conflict in itself.

And then there's the comparison of outcomes. There's a number of ways that a reaction spell can be triggered by an opponent right before the caster's action - allowing them to get off 3 spells in rapid succession legally. Is it really a big deal to let one of those spells be cast as a reaction during the caster's turn?

Logically no, I agree, but we have to be careful about the "just before", which does not mean much as we know that in the game world the actions of everyone overlap, it's just the resolution that is sequenced.

So yeah, I understand the Sage Advice ruling, but I can sure see the alternative argument as well.

RAW, I think it's pretty clear, but as noted by a lot of people here, it's not that dangerous to rule differently, and the game world logic is not terribly affected anyway.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The more I think about examples the more firm I get in my stance, here. It is not unbalanced to allow reaction spells on top of other spells in the same turn.