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

[guachi]

At no point do any of those answers say "If you cast a bonus action spell on your turn you may also cast a reaction spell on your turn"

In fact, we have multiple instances where the rules and Sage Advice state that if you cast a bonus action spell then the you can cast a cantrip with your action. No where does it state, ever, that if you cast a bonus action spell that you can cast a reaction spell on your turn.

Further, we have the following which has previously been quoted in this very thread:

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

 

[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.

And it would appear that according to Mr. Crawford I am wrong. This is an earlier tweet I just found - he hasn't answered mine yetL

5 Dec 2016
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford if I cast a bonus action spell on my turn, can I then cast "shield" as a reaction on my turn? Does PH 202 prohibit this?
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford
Replying to [MENTION=6690440]..[/MENTION].
Yes.

Naturally, a non-answer, since it was a poorly written tweet with two contradictory questions...

Replying to [MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford [MENTION=6690440]..[/MENTION].
Yes to the first or second question? his questions are contridictory need to know which q, the yes is to
[MENTION=4036]Jeremy[/MENTION]ECrawford Jun 28
The second

--

So I still don't follow this logic, frankly, but that's the rule. So there you go!

PS, between the time I started my post and finished it, I hadn't noticed the similar "non-answer" response from Jeremy that had been posted here as well. Perhaps he's trying to get people to ask well thought-out and well-written questions. But cute answers to rules questions is a bit annoying.

 

[guachi]

The "logic" is that the rules state that if you cast a bonus action spell on your turn that you can only cast a cantrip with a casting time of one action.

That's it. That's the logic. "Because the rules say so." That's all we've been saying. "Because the rules say so."

 

[Caliban]

A) The sneak attack stuff is irrelevant, since this is about a rule that specifically limits spellcasting. It only becomes relevant if you are claiming that reactions are not part of a turn - in which case, the sneak attack stuff proves that claim is incorrect.

B) You are taking two different Sage Advice questions and treating them as if the answer to one applies to the other. That's just plain wrong.

C) I've already quoted Jeremy Crawford explicitly stating how it works. Everyone conveniently ignores that statement, but here it is, yet another time. If you want all the relevant links, go find my original post:

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.

There's even a follow up question referring to the Sage Advice article you are quoting. He says it doesn't change his answer. (Just to show he can still be incredibly vague when it suits him. )

Edit: And I took too long writing this post.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The "logic" is that the rules state that if you cast a bonus action spell on your turn that you can only cast a cantrip with a casting time of one action.

That's it. That's the logic. "Because the rules say so." That's all we've been saying. "Because the rules say so."

OK, and did you read my prior post? Because I think that it shows that it's quite possible for the rules to be interpreted just the way I thought. Because the way the rules are laid out, and the way they are seemingly explained in Sage Advice, a reaction is not (always) "on your turn." Most of the time they are on somebody else's turn.

And from what I can tell, my question to Jeremy is now at least the 4th time he's been asked the question. Combined with some other folks here who feel strongly that that's not what the rules say, I'd say that they don't say so. At least not as clearly as you think. And obviously not as clearly as I think.

Regardless, that's the official rule, so that's the official rule. If Jeremy is reading this thread, I'd recommend they update Sage Advice with the clarification of one of those 3 or 4 or more questions asking the same thing.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

A) The sneak attack stuff is irrelevant, since this is about a rule that specifically limits spellcasting. It only becomes relevant if you are claiming that reactions are not part of a turn - in which case, the sneak attack stuff proves that claim is incorrect.

B) You are taking two different Sage Advice questions and treating them as if the answer to one applies to the other. That's just plain wrong.

C) I've already quoted Jeremy Crawford explicitly stating how it works. Everyone conveniently ignores that statement, but here it is, yet another time. If you want all the relevant links, go find my original post:

There's even a follow up question referring to the Sage Advice article you are quoting. He says it doesn't change his answer. (Just to show he can still be incredibly vague when it suits him. )

Edit: And I took too long writing this post.

And it's the "that turn" part that's wonky in these rules. Because if my reaction occurs in somebody else's turn, then it's no longer "that turn."

The Sneak Attack stuff clarified that a reaction to somebody else's turn is not your turn. If an opportunity attack occurs on somebody else's turn, then casting feather fall after they push you off a cliff does too.

And as I pointed out, the "Reaction" section is not a subsection of "Your Turn," it's a new section.

So I wasn't "conveniently ignoring it" I was actively disagreeing based on my interpretation of what the rules appear to say about how a reaction relates to your turn.

 

[Harzel]

I see I have arrived late and @Ilbranteloth has found a definitive tweet from Crawford. Nevertheless, I will add this, let us say, for completeness.

I'll try again.

Reactions are not part of your turn, even if they hasten during your turn. We can tell because the rules provide what you can do on your turn and reactions aren't part of it (you get a move, and action, and maybe a bonus action). Reactions are a special action that can happen anytime - during your turn, during someone else's turn, whenever it's trigger happens. So far, so good.

Here's the bit that I'm saying. The restriction on casting due to bonus action casting is a specific rule that trumps the general rule of what you do on your turn. That's the extent of the exception: only what you can do with your turn is affected. Therefore, even though your reaction may trigger during your turn and occur on it, outs not part of your turn (it's a special action outside of what you can do on your turn), and so restrictions on what you can do on your turn do not apply to it.

To sum up, the bonus cast restrictions only apply to the set of things you can do on your turn. A reaction is not part of your turn, though it may happen during it. Reactions are therefore not affected by restrictions on what you can do during your turn.

To quote a famous author, "Shame, you were almost there."​

Note that throughout the above, you ascribe to the reaction the very attribute in nearly identical words, that the restriction rule uses to describe its scope.

You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip...

Your argument reads as if you thought the rule said, "as part of the same turn", but it doesn't - it says "during the same turn".

 

[Caliban]

And it's the "that turn" part that's wonky in these rules. Because if my reaction occurs in somebody else's turn, then it's no longer "that turn."

The Sneak Attack stuff clarified that a reaction to somebody else's turn is not your turn. If an opportunity attack occurs on somebody else's turn, then casting feather fall after they push you off a cliff does too.

And as I pointed out, the "Reaction" section is not a subsection of "Your Turn," it's a new section.

So I wasn't "conveniently ignoring it" I was actively disagreeing based on my interpretation of what the rules appear to say about how a reaction relates to your turn.

The sneak attack rules clarified that a reaction on someone else's turn is not your turn. Not "to". "on".

And of course if someone pushes you off a cliff on their turn, then you are casting feather fall on their turn. But that's not the question Crawford was responding to in his tweet.

 

[CapnZapp]

The sneak attack rules clarified that a reaction on someone else's turn is not your turn. Not "to". "on".

And of course if someone pushes you off a cliff on their turn, then you are casting feather fall on their turn. But that's not the question Crawford was responding to in his tweet.

Yes.

Again, which is most likely?

That the rules thought it completely obvious that reactions are exceptions to things happening on turns to a degree it never mentions or explains the rule even once, and that each device tweet just happens to always have an alternative explanation...

...or that three guys on the Net initially misread a rule that truthfully IS wonky, but then couldn't admit their error and instead refuses to listen to reason, desperately misinterpreting Sage Advice and ignoring pretty obvious hints.

Not to mention they show the telltale signs: a focus on denying evidence rather than support for their own position.

This I leave up to each reader to decide.

But tell me this. If you have "cleave" (the part of GWM where you gain a bonus attack if you drop a foe) and you kill a goblin as a reaction on your turn, do you get your bonus attack?

By the conspiracy reading, the answer would be no, which is ridiculous.

That is:

Bob the Barbarian says "I'll chop anything I see, then walk around the corner". He readies an attack, then moves.

When he rounds the corner there's a goblin - his readied action triggers! He attacks! He hits! He kills the goblin!

Now, Bob doesn't get to "cleave" because he didn't drop the foe on his turn, since reactions aren't part of a turn.

Huh?

Just another nail in the coffin: when a desperate read of the rules to avoid an undesirable rules effect leads to absurd effects elsewhere.

The conclusion is clear - a reaction is always part of a turn (somebody's turn). If that turn happens to be your own turn, the rule against casting non-cantrip spells when you have cast a bonus action spell prevents you from casting a reaction spell (unless that reaction spell is a cantrip, which I believe there are none in the game).

Zapp

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Yardiff]

Always gotta be someone who will say "Told you so, you should have just listened to me because I was right."