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

[CapnZapp]

Too late...

You do realize that can easily be read as referring to not being able to cast a bonus action spell if you've cast a spell as an action and not talking about reaction casting, yeah?

No I definitely do not realize that. The question specifically refers to Featherfall, that definitely involves "reaction casting".

Also, weren't you just talking about how you thought Crawford was glaringly wrong in a sage advice response about crossbow expert in your crossbow expert thread? Appeal to authority is significantly weakened when you dismiss the authority you're citing when it's convenient for you to do so.

You seriously want to go there? Okay, so your strongest argument now is that the Tweet link is brought to you by me, as opposed to any other poster? You are seriously arguing that the Sage Advice link is of less value (invalid even) depending on who gives you the link?

Also, you are referring to me talking in a houserule thread of mine.

This is not about your way of running the game being inferior. This is about you not admitting you are running a houserule.

When I dislike the RAW, do I start claiming my interpretation is the true way and everyone else is wrong?

No, I start a homebrew thread. So should you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yes! The sheep has been successfully shorn of his fleece!

I didn't give you permission to shave my sheep.

 

[Yardiff]

I sent this email question through WotC Sage Advice link. Lets see whether the answer is any clearer.

Question:
If you cast a bonus action spell you are then limited to casting a cantrip with a casting time of 1-action. Does this mean that you CAN NOT cast a reaction spell during that turn?

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry, can't, because a reaction can occur outside of a turn. If I ready a move to jump through a complex trap that cycles on initiative count 20, that's not happening on someone's turn.

Reactions happen when their triggers happen, and this can even be during someone's (or your own) turn.


I disagree, and far more respectfully that you seem able to, that the evidence is so stacked. We have two unclear statements from Crawford and a number of other sage advice articles that don't add any more clarity to the situation. The rules present themselves in a way that you can read them either way. I advocate for my way with detailed and polite responses. You dismissively accuse others of trolling while pointing to the unclear sage advice and declaring victory. You may be right, but you haven't done yourself any favors with your bombastic and antagonistic interaction here. Calling for us to civilly cede the argument to you despite all of this is pretty hypocritical of you, at this point.

No, you don't get to bundle together a lot of stuff. You don't get to shift the goalposts.

We are not discussing traps. We are not discussing vaguely unclear statements "and a number of other sage advice articles".

Please read the supplied tweet. I ask you to argue exactly what's so unclear about it.

Saying it doesn't revolve around "reaction casting" when that's the most clear aspect of it doesn't cut it.

At some point even you must realize how little you have that is actually talking in your favor. If all you can point to is one out of four interpretations of "interrupt" you have... very little. Other "arguments" are not really arguments. For instance, the sentiment "it's absurd how this rule would deny spellcasters but not fighters their reaction". That's arguing why the RAW is bad and should be changed (and we don't disagree), not whether it's RAW or not!

In short, you need to stop denying our arguments. You must supply more of your own. Otherwise you need to draw the conclusion it is overwhelmingly unlikely you are right.

Or that you want to be right, badly enough to make you ignore some of the evidence.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, you don't get to bundle together a lot of stuff. You don't get to shift the goalposts.

We are not discussing traps. We are not discussing vaguely unclear statements "and a number of other sage advice articles".

I am sorry the trap example isn't convenient for your argument, but there's little I can do about that. Reactions can occur when it's not someone's turn.

As for a number of sage advice articles, they're referenced here in this thread. Are you saying that we can only discuss things that you lay out for us to discuss? Very well, I agree, with the caveat that I can as well. You may only refer to me and my arguments as "The Most Illuminated and Correct One and His Marvellously Convincing Arguments!!!" The three exclamation points are non-negotiable, but I'm not sold on all of the honorifics if you have better ideas.

Please read the supplied tweet. I ask you to argue exactly what's so unclear about it.

I already did. You quoted that post. Did you forget what I said? I'd repost it, but I believe that making someone go get their own answers when their right there is the best way of having them learn. I don't want to limit you by making it too easy.

Saying it doesn't revolve around "reaction casting" when that's the most clear aspect of it doesn't cut it.

Yes, it was very clear that if you cast a spell on your turn using your action and you can cast feather fall as a reaction on the same turn. I agree, that was the most clear part of it, indeed!

At some point even you must realize how little you have that is actually talking in your favor. If all you can point to is one out of four interpretations of "interrupt" you have... very little. Other "arguments" are not really arguments. For instance, the sentiment "it's absurd how this rule would deny spellcasters but not fighters their reaction". That's arguing why the RAW is bad and should be changed (and we don't disagree), not whether it's RAW or not!

Well, I haven't used any of the definitions of interrupt in any of my arguments as I don't think that was needed or helpful. However, I thank you for again showing us what a real strawman argument looks like with this example. Bravo, sirrah! That you continued the good work in quoting someone else's argument that I didn't make is just above and beyond! I don't even have points for that kind of work, but if I did, they'd be high. HIGH.

In short, you need to stop denying our arguments. You must supply more of your own. Otherwise you need to draw the conclusion it is overwhelmingly unlikely you are right.

Or that you want to be right, badly enough to make you ignore some of the evidence.

Heh, that's really funny! That I haven't made multiple arguments, from multiple directions, throughout the thread and that it's me yelling 'nuh-uh' over and over and over and over... gosh, you must be exhausted from all of that. Or, at least, I imagine you are. I'd be exhausted. It's hard work yelling 'nuh-uh' over and over and over and over and then accusing others of doing it. Hard. Work.

 

[Caliban]

All I can say is that reactions always occur on someone's ​(or even something's turn). Your turn or another creature's turn, (or even a traps turn) but it is always on a turn. That's spelled out in the rules.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

It's perfectly allowable, as has been already said - the reaction is considered to be outside of your actual turn.
…
It's not part of anyone's turn.

Apart from that not being my reading of the English, I don't think that interpretation is correct because it disallows Sneak Attack during Attacks of Opportunity, something multiple sources have said is allowed.

 

[guachi]

Your reaction can take place at any point during the entire initiative sequence, therefore it is outside of your turn.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise. Your reaction can be used on your turn or someone else's turn. Nothing can occur outside of something's turn (at least in combat, when we are using turns). Everything either occurs on your turn or someone else's turn. Since "any point during the entire initiative sequence" includes, at some point, your turn then it's entirely possible for a reaction to occur not-outside your turn.

Unless you wish to believe (and I assume it's what you're arguing) that "on your turn" is grammatically different than "during your turn" or "inside your turn" or whatever amount of preposition abuse you wish to go through.

 

[guachi]

And at the very start of this I said - "It is possible (without action surge) to cast 3 spells per initiative sequence. An action (cantrip), a bonus action, and a reaction (eg shield or counterspell). The reaction spell can happen at any time, during anyone's turn, as long as the trigger conditions are met."

To which you replied I was wrong... note I said initiative sequence (ie round), not turn.

It is wrong. You can't cast that reaction spell on your turn as casting a bonus action spell on your turn precludes you casting a reaction spell on your turn.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

OK, I'm sure this will come across as an attempt to "win."

That is not the case.

This is just to explain my thinking. Why I read the rule in this way. If I'm wrong, I'm OK with that. This discussion is one that makes me think (and research) the rules, which is really the sort of thing I'm looking for in these discussions. To make me think. And then decide how we'll adjudicate it in our game.

I've also asked Jeremy Crawford directly, so we'll see if he replies. Again, if he says I'm reading the rules wrong, that's fine. It seems that there is some confusion (meaning different people read the rules differently), and it will probably benefit others to have clarification from him.

Also, I've truncated some of the original text from the PHB and Sage Advice. It's not to pick and choose, just to save space. I think I pulled the relevant text, but if I missed something, just let me know.

Anyway, I think they rules say you can cast a spell as a bonus action (such as misty step), then a cantrip (fire bolt) as an action, and then a spell as a reaction (counterspell).

This wasn't always my thought, but based off of several answers in Sage Advice, I now believe this is the case. Why?

To start with the simple, here are the Sage Advice questions:
Is there a limit to the number of spells you can cast on your turn?
"No, no set amount, but if you cast a spell as a bonus action, you can cast another spell with your action, but it must be a cantrip."
Can you also cast a reaction spell on your turn?
"You sure can!"

That sequence is really enough for me.

So let's go back and see if that makes sense:
PHB 202: "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."

OK, so what's a turn?

PHB pg 189 under the heading "Your Turn: On your turn you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action.

There is a subheading called: "Bonus Actions" on the same page where it says, "...you can only take one bonus action on your turn..." among other things.

Reactions, on the other hand, are in a separate section, that is, they are not a subheading of "Your Turn." Reactions say, "...which can occur on your turn or on someone else's."

But since reactions are not a subsection of Your Turn, my assumption is that they aren't a part of your turn.

So we'll check Sage Advice. First, this is what opened my eyes about how a reaction works a bit differently, and how important the term Turn is, and it was one of many that also reiterated that the terms they use are used for a specific reason.

Can a rogue use Sneak Attack more than once per round? "Yes, but no more than once per turn. In combat, a round comprises the turns of the combatants (see the Player’s Handbook, p. 189). Many features in the game, such
as Extra Attack, specify that they work only on your turn. The Sneak Attack description specifes that you can use the feature once per turn, but it’s not limited to your turn. The feature also doesn’t limit the number of times you can use it in a round.
This rule is relevant because you sometimes get a chance to use Sneak Attack on someone else’s turn. The most common way for this to happen is when a foe provokes an opportunity attack from you. If the requirements for Sneak Attack are met, your opportunity attack can benefit from that feature. Similarly, a fighter could use Commander’s Strike to grant you an attack on the ghter’s turn, and if the attack qualites, it can use Sneak Attack. Both of those options rely on your reaction, so you could do only one of them in a round.
Because of getting only one reaction per round, you’re unlikely to use Sneak Attack more than twice in a round: once with your action and once with your reaction."

This was an "aha!" moment for me. It hadn't occurred to me that you could get a second Sneak Attack due to your reaction. This post from some time ago was the one that identified that a "turn" was different than a "round."

Then there are the specific questions about casting time:
Is there a limit on the number of spells you can cast on your turn? "There’s no rule that says you can cast only X number of spells on your turn, but there are some practical limits. The main limiting factor is your action. Most spells require an action to cast, and unless you use a feature like the fighter’s Action Surge, you have only one action on your turn.
If you cast a spell, such as healing word, with a bonus action, you can cast another spell with your action, but that other spell must be a cantrip. Keep in mind that this particular limit is specific to spells that use a bonus action. For instance, if you cast a second spell using Action Surge, you aren’t limited to casting a cantrip with it."

So this question is specifically about casting on your turn. In addition, it only talks about actions and bonus actions. Again, based on the PHB definition and the clarification on Sneak Attack in Sage Advice, this makes sense, since a reaction is not part of your turn. At least the way I understand it.

The second question is about bonus actions, but doesn't apply directly to this question.

The third question is:
Can you also 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 has counterspell prepared, so he uses his reaction to cast it and break his foe’s counterspell before it can stop fireball."

Note how that third question is worded - "Can you also...?" Throughout the Sage Advice document, there are several instances where one question leads into the next. That is, each question sequentially is expanding upon similar questions in the same section, if there are similar questions. Now I realize the example doesn't include a bonus action. Personally I see that as an oversight. They could have clarified it fully with the answer to that question, but they didn't. So I can see how the rule is still somewhat ambiguous.

So back to the start which is how I read that section in Sage Advice:
Is there a limit to the number of spells you can cast on your turn?
"No, no set amount, but if you cast a spell as a bonus action, you can cast another spell with your action, but it must be a cantrip."
Can you also cast a reaction spell on your turn?
"You sure can!"