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

[Clint_L]

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.

Is it that busted, though? Everyone knows a sorcerer can do that combination, and yet folks still aren't rushing out to make sorcerers...

 

[James Gasik]

I think the bonus action spell rule is counter-intuitive. If you have an extra action, ala Action Surge, casting two leveled spells is fine. If you use a reaction and an action, two leveled spells is fine. If you cast a bonus action spell, sorry, nothing but a cantrip for you.

And why is that? Cantrips don't take less time to cast than leveled spells, it's still an action, no matter how you cut it.

It's never been clear what this was actually trying to prevent. Outside of maybe the Sorcerer, who has to pay a resource to do it, most bonus action spells aren't fantastic anyways. What's really the issue with casting lightning bolt and misty step in the same turn anyways?

You end up burning two spell slots to do it, same as casting lightning bolt and shield in the same turn.

It's not like there's some strange restriction on bonus action attacks, just spells. If they were really worried about action economy, the rule would be "no more than one leveled spell per turn", but that's not the rule, and they seem perfectly fine with Spell + Reaction.

 

[James Gasik]

Is it that busted, though? Everyone knows a sorcerer can do that combination, and yet folks still aren't rushing out to make sorcerers...

That's because thanks to the rule, Quicken Spell is effectively "spend a bunch of points to cast a cantrip this turn".

 

[Dausuul]

Is it that busted, though? Everyone knows a sorcerer can do that combination, and yet folks still aren't rushing out to make sorcerers...

Sorcerers can't do that combination, and the bonus action rule is why. I'm saying that if they get rid of the bonus action rule, there would need to be some other constraint to prevent this.

Offhand, the only way I know of to throw two fireballs in a turn is to dip two levels in fighter for Action Surge. Two levels in a noncaster class is a much more substantial price than one of a sorcerer's metamagic picks.

 

[James Gasik]

Just going to say though, since a Sorcerer can already effectively "double" some spells thanks to Twinned Spell, I don't really see a problem with "double fireball" if the bonus action spell rule were changed, though the price for Quicken Spell would have to go up to reflect that. Or the price of Twinned Spell could come down, that'd be nice. What's wrong with being able to outperform a Wizard a few times per day?

 

[Mort]

Just going to say though, since a Sorcerer can already effectively "double" some spells thanks to Twinned Spell, I don't really see a problem with "double fireball" if the bonus action spell rule were changed, though the price for Quicken Spell would have to go up to reflect that. Or the price of Twinned Spell could come down, that'd be nice. What's wrong with being able to outperform a Wizard a few times per day?

I'm torn - I DO think that sorcerers lag behind wizards in terms of performance (in general) so certainly don't have a problem beefing up the class. BUT, I also remember 3e haste - which this proposal could effectively mimic and have absolutely no desire to go back to it!

 

[jmartkdr2]

That's because thanks to the rule, Quicken Spell is effectively "spend a bunch of points to cast a cantrip this turn".

Okay, here’s a rewrite:

For (2+ spell’s level) sorcery points, you can cast a 1-action spell as a bonus action. Cantrips count as level zero for this ability.

You want to double fireball? Spend all five of your sorcery points.

Or if you really don’t want double fireballs: the metamagic is now just “quicken cantrip”

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Okay, here’s a rewrite:

For (2+ spell’s level) sorcery points, you can cast a 1-action spell as a bonus action. Cantrips count as level zero for this ability.

You want to double fireball? Spend all five of your sorcery points.

Or if you really don’t want double fireballs: the metamagic is now just “quicken cantrip”

I like this idea. On the surface it seems relatively balanced with the othe metamagics. The write-up will have to clarify that it breaks the normal rule, but I'm considering adopting something along these lines. Quicken Spell has always seemed a little underwhelming.

I was thinking maybe Quicken works better when used with a wand, but then I realized that wands still count as casting a spell, so no help there (in addition to magic items not being something you can assume you will have). And since a sorcerer rarely has anything more useful to do with their action than cast a spell, it does mean the feature is really just good for quickening cantrips.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm torn - I DO think that sorcerers lag behind wizards in terms of performance (in general) so certainly don't have a problem beefing up the class. BUT, I also remember 3e haste - which this proposal could effectively mimic and have absolutely no desire to go back to it!

Well one difference is that 3e haste had a duration, so you could twin cast all combat.