D&D 5E Casting multiple spells with bonus spells and the order they are cast.

[Caliban]

Since the conditions for reaction spells are much more specific than the general bonus+cantrip, then here specific trumps general

That specific rule (reaction spells are cast in response to a specific trigger which can occur on your turn or someone else's) doesn't state that it trumps the other specific rule (when you cast a bonus action spell, the only other spells you can cast on your turn are cantrips).

So which one is more specific? Let's look at what they let you do:

Reaction spells can specifically be cast on your turn your someone else's turn. (There is no such thing as "not part of a turn". Everything happens on someone's turn.)
Bonus action spells specifically limit you to cantrips on your turn.

Neither is really more specific than the other. One allows you to cast in response to a trigger, the other limits the types of spells you can cast.

Both rules are in effect: You can only cast a reaction spell after casting a bonus action spell if the reaction spell is a cantrip.

 

[JonnyP71]

Needless to say, I disagree with your opinion here.

And it's all these are here, whatever all our protestations may be - mere opinions. As the rules do not state clearly either way.

With RAW unclear, I believe RAI is my own interpretation, therefore I'll use it this way... as do all the DMs I game with.

 

[Caliban]

Needless to say, I disagree with your opinion here.

And it's all these are here, whatever all our protestations may be - mere opinions. As the rules do not state clearly either way.

With RAW unclear, I believe RAI is my own interpretation, therefore I'll use it this way... as do all the DMs I game with.

Except the rules are clear. It's your understanding of them that is not.

 

[Caliban]

Not that I actually expect this to settle anything:

https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/06/10/bonus-action-spell-reaction-spell/

Question: Does casting a bonus action spell still allow you to cast a normal spell then still get a reaction spell?

Reply: Casting a bonus action spell means no other spells that turn but a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action. ​

 

[JonnyP71]

They clearly aren't clear, but to me, their intention is... to preclude the 'double fireball'.

They state that a character can only cast a cantrip on the same turn they cast a spell as a bonus action. That's in no doubt.

But.. when their turn ends, and someone else's starts? The rules regarding multiple spells say nothing about 'until your next turn begins', and many other actions/spell effects have this clearly stated.

Plus, we can then come back to the disagreement over what is more specific, a reaction with specified triggers, or a rule regarding multiple spells on a player's turn...

RAW is clear as mud.

(edit your recent post refers to that turn, NOT the initiative sequence - a series of separate combatant's turns)

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Stop disseminating misleading info!

That question ONLY affirms you can cast a reaction on your turn, as opposed to not being able to use a reaction on your turn.

It definitely does not confirm your warped belief that you can use your reaction on your turn (to cast a non-cantrip spell) even if you also use your bonus action to cast a spell.

The two questions are separate.

You are arguing in bad faith, distorting facts to suit your agenda. Stop it, and accept that your view is not the accepted answer.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

No I am not saying you can use a reaction on your turn and I’m not arguing in bad faith. Nor do so know what sort of agenda you think I might have.

Read the section on whether a rogue can use Sneak Attack more than once per round then the two answers on casting a spell on a bonus action and then the answer on casting a spell as a reaction.

It makes no sense to me to say you can cast fireball then shield, but not spiritual weapon then shield.

To me it seems quite clear based on how they’ve explained things that your reaction is not affected by what you do with your bonus action and action.

I can’t easily copy and paste them because I’m on my phone, and I was a bit confused myself in the past until they clarified the Sneak Attack relationship to reactions.

 

[Caliban]

They clearly aren't clear, but to me, their intention is... to preclude the 'double fireball'.

Nah, if you take 2 fighter levels, you can use Action Surge to do a double fireball, once per short rest.

They state that a character can only cast a cantrip on the same turn they cast a spell as a bonus action. That's in no doubt.

Exactly. An Counterspell is not a cantrip. Therefore.... You can't cast it on your turn if you have already cast a bonus action spell.

But.. when their turn ends, and someone else's starts? The rules regarding multiple spells say nothing about 'until your next turn begins', and many other actions/spell effects have this clearly stated.

It's not stated, therefore it doesn't apply. The limitation ends when your turn ends.

You can cast Counterspell on someone else's turn all you want, even if you cast a bonus action spell on your turn. It's only when trying to cast it on your turn that you might run into the limitation imposed by casting a bonus action spell.

Plus, we can then come back to the disagreement over what is more specific, a reaction with specified triggers, or a rule regarding multiple spells on a player's turn...

RAW is clear as mud.

It's really not. It's just inconvenient.

 

[Helldritch]

The use of the word "interrupt" is natural in this meaning. It means that whatever a creature is doing on its turn is paused to let the reaction happen, still on the creature's turn.

If the rule was that reactions take place outside turns, not on anyone's turn, this would have been addressed by the rule.

You are basing your entire argument on a single word which doesn't even have to be interpreted strangely or uncommonly to support the established norm. You claim your interpretation of the "interrupt" usage is clear, conveniently ignoring that another interpretation is equally clear.

Apart from that you have nothing.

While the established reading is established exactly because every other rule falls into place if reactions are part of turns.

Your interpretation simply isn't likely given the lack of supporting rules or even wordings/phrasings.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

interrupt
[verb in-tuh-ruhpt; noun in-tuh-ruhpt]

Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object)
1.
to cause or make a break in the continuity or uniformity of (a course, process, condition, etc.).
2.
to break off or cause to cease, as in the middle of something:
He interrupted his work to answer the bell.
3.
to stop (a person) in the midst of doing or saying something, especially by an interjected remark:
May I interrupt you to comment on your last remark?
verb (used without object)
4.
to cause a break or discontinuance; interfere with action or speech, especially by interjecting a remark:
Please don't interrupt.

Ok, beside my little "trolling" remark (which was the only one I might add. So please do not generalize as I was just serving you the same medicine that you're giving us.), The definition of Interrupt we need is the second one. Break off or cease... Ouch for your interpretation of the word interrupt. If the turn has ceased, then you can indeed use your reaction. The last definition (#4) that could help you, is reserved mainly for speech/discussion. It could be used for debate and other things related but that is not the case that we have for the rule that is concerning us here.

More over, the rule even goes on to state that the creature's turn will resume after completion of the reaction. Because if it was not mentionned, then interpretation would be that the creature's turn would be ended (interrupted) and that is not the effect that is desired. It was necessary to mention this, otherwise, one reaction would end the turn of any one. Pretty much something that we do not want to see.

Whatever you may think, my knowledge of english is quite ok.

 

[Caliban]

Great, so we all agree that the authors are using definition 4, right?

4. to cause a break or discontinuance; interfere with action or speech...

glad that's been cleared up. (I too can cherry pick the definition most beneficial to my argument. )

 

[Caliban]

(edit your recent post refers to that turn, NOT the initiative sequence - a series of separate combatant's turns)

Exactly. The bonus action spell limitation only applies to your turn. Not to other creature's turns. You are free to cast reaction spells once your turn has ended, if you cast a bonus action spell on your turn.

If you are talking about everyone's turns before you start over again - that is is a Round. The bonus spell limitation only applies to your turn, not the entire round.