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

[Xetheral]

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.

I entirely agree that the usage of the word "target" is contextual in 5e. But if that's the point @NotAYakk is making, then I misunderstood it. I read @NotAYakk as arguing that "target" in 5e consistently means what one would expect it to mean outside of 5e (i.e. using natural language than a defined term), which I agree in the context of a spell in a TTRPG would be "anything affected by the spell". I simply don't see that consistency in usage and instead agree with you that the meaning in 5e is contextual.

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.

Ok, maybe I am misunderstanding you. I agree they aren't using formal language for "target" in the context of Fireball, but I don't see any way they are using the "natural language" definition you proposed (and with which I agree).

If you are instead using the term "natural language" to mean the definition changes with the context, rather than that the word consistently means "something affected by the spell", then we are in agreement on everything except the terminology we're using to discuss the terminology.

I interpret "natural language" in the context of 5e as meaning that the designers tried to rely on words having their ordinary meanings outside of 5e, rather than using 5e-specific definitions. This is, of course, tricky, since many words' ordinary meanings could be applied to the specialized, made-up concepts in a TTRPG in multiple ways. (For example, the ordinary meaning of "target" could arguably be "what a spell is aimed at" rather than "what is affected by the spell".) I would therefore expect good rules text written in "natural language" to have consistent usage of ordinary terms wherever there might otherwise be ambiguity, just like any other professional document that uses ordinary terms in a specialized context.

If instead, when saying that they used "natural language" the designers meant that they deliberately didn't worry about introducing ambiguity via inconsistent word usage, I would argue that "unprofessional" would be a more apt description than "natural language".

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I entirely agree that the usage of the word "target" is contextual in 5e. But if that's the point @NotAYakk is making, then I misunderstood it. I read @NotAYakk as arguing that "target" in 5e consistently means what one would expect it to mean outside of 5e (i.e. using natural language than a defined term), which I agree in the context of a spell in a TTRPG would be "anything affected by the spell". I simply don't see that consistency in usage and instead agree with you that the meaning in 5e is contextual.


Ok, maybe I am misunderstanding you. I agree they aren't using formal language for "target" in the context of Fireball, but I don't see any way they are using the "natural language" definition you proposed (and with which I agree).

If you are instead using the term "natural language" to mean the definition changes with the context, rather than that the word consistently means "something affected by the spell", then we are in agreement on everything except the terminology we're using to discuss the terminology.

I interpret "natural language" in the context of 5e as meaning that the designers tried to rely on words having their ordinary meanings outside of 5e, rather than using 5e-specific definitions. This is, of course, tricky, since many words' ordinary meanings could be applied to the specialized, made-up concepts in a TTRPG in multiple ways. (For example, the ordinary meaning of "target" could arguably be "what a spell is aimed at" rather than "what is affected by the spell".) I would therefore expect good rules text written in "natural language" to have consistent usage of ordinary terms wherever there might otherwise be ambiguity, just like any other professional document that uses ordinary terms in a specialized context.

If instead, when saying that they used "natural language" the designers meant that they deliberately didn't worry about introducing ambiguity via inconsistent word usage, I would argue that "unprofessional" would be a more apt description than "natural language".

They only use "natural language" when they aren't using jargon. And one only knows when that is if they are very familiar with the errata, Sage Advice, or online discussions referencing such.

This, of course, isn't an ideal situation.

 

[rgoodbb]

I totally misinterpreted the Bonus action spell rule.

Every now and then I learn something new about D&D and it makes me smile.

 

[TheSword]

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

There isn’t a general rule. You can cast multiple leveled spells on your turn provided one wasn’t a bonus action.

so you can't use both an action spell and a bonus action spell. Does this apply for reaction spells too?

If you have cast a bonus action spell (of any kind) you can use a reaction after your turn has ended but not during (so no shield against an AOO you provoked)

RAW reaction spells can be cast on your turn if the trigger happens - example you start falling on your turn and cast feather fall or you back out of melee without disengaging and cast shield when the opponent attacks you. These are allowed according to RAW.

Yes.

What happens if you already used a spell on your turn?For example expanding on the two cases above - I misty step into the air and grapple a flying imp, as we both plummet to the ground can I cast feather fall .... or I cast vampiric touch and then back out of combat and want to use shield to avoid taking a hit.

Is this allowed?

Misty step is a bonus action so no you can’t cast featherfall in your turn.

If you cast Vampiric touch as your action then provoke as you move away you can use shield. Because vampiric touch wasn’t a bonus action spell. If you quickened it then it would stop you casting casting shield against an AOO but not stop you casting it in someone else’a turn like the monsters.

 

[Dekaen Pyruzhine]

Right, since they're on the same turn, you run into the restriction.

But are they? If he makes his move and action to grapple the imp, that's his turn, but during the fall, is the imp not making a STR DC to break the grapple? Or is the imp not taking its turn? It would seem that Feather Fall is totally viable because the imp would be taking its turn during the fall, so that would render the reaction of Feather Fall valid. Would it be wrong to allow for it?

 

[Oofta]

Bit of thread necromancy here, but this is covered in sage advice. The answer is that yes you can.

Can you cast a reaction spell on your turn?​

You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball.​

 

[Dausuul]

But are they? If he makes his move and action to grapple the imp, that's his turn, but during the fall, is the imp not making a STR DC to break the grapple? Or is the imp not taking its turn? It would seem that Feather Fall is totally viable because the imp would be taking its turn during the fall, so that would render the reaction of Feather Fall valid. Would it be wrong to allow for it?

There's nothing in the flying rules that says you wait until your turn to fall. As soon as you stop being able to fly, down you go, no matter whose turn it is. The fall takes place on the caster's turn, so feather fall is prohibited.

Strictly speaking, in fact, it's debatable that "misty step into the air and grapple the imp" is a valid strategy. There is a strong case that you yourself fall before you even get a chance to attempt a grapple. However, that's no fun, so I'd go with the more liberal interpretation.

Bit of thread necromancy here, but this is covered in sage advice. The answer is that yes you can.

Can you cast a reaction spell on your turn?​

You sure can! Here’s a common way for it to happen: Cornelius the wizard is casting fireball on his turn, and his foe casts counterspell on him. Cornelius also has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball.​

As a general matter, yes, this is true. But the OP's question was whether you can do it on the same turn that you cast a bonus action spell. And the answer to that one is a pretty clear "no," unless the reaction is a cantrip.

I really hope they fix the bonus action spell rule in 1D&D.

 

[Oofta]

...
As a general matter, yes, this is true. But the OP's question was whether you can do it on the same turn that you cast a bonus action spell. And the answer to that one is a pretty clear "no," unless the reaction is a cantrip.

I really hope they fix the bonus action spell rule in 1D&D.

I see said the blind man. Misunderstood. However, I would still rule the same - the bonus action + cantrip is a limitation on power that makes sense (even if I don't think it's necessary) but using a reaction on your turn IMHO is an exception to the general rule so I'd still allow it.

 

[Mort]

I really hope they fix the bonus action spell rule in 1D&D.

In what way?

I like the fact that the designers put some thought into not letting casters stomp on the action economy.

 

[Dausuul]

In what way?

I like the fact that the designers put some thought into not letting casters stomp on the action economy.

In the way that it confuses the hell out of everybody, as demonstrated in this thread.

A quick fix would be to change it to "You can only cast one non-reaction, non-cantrip spell per turn." That would be easier to understand, though still a bit of an annoying gotcha.

However, my preferred solution would be get rid of the general rule, then think about the scenarios where bonus action spellcasting can be abused, and tackle them individually. For instance, Quicken Spell is an obvious danger -- the ability to lob two fireballs in a turn is pretty busted. On the other hand, I don't really see a problem with misty step and fireball in the same turn. So it's Quicken Spell that needs to be rewritten or eliminated.