D&D 5E Please help me with the “one spell cast per round” rule

[5ekyu]

Following up on my previous point about maybe there being a reason for BA spells to get special restrictions that affect the whole turn.

Just a quick look

5th level cleric has available to prepare the following BA spells
Healing word
Mass healing word
Spiritual weapon
sanctuary
shield of faith (concentration)

Now, it seems that said cleric could cast BA spell pretty much every turn as long as they have slots left available (assumes a combat situation)


Compare to fighters at 5th level BA options
Second wind has one use.
TWF might be an option if he sacrificed the Ac from shield or the damage from 2H weapons.

Now, sure the fighter has two attacks per action but then the clerics cantrips like sacred flame and the ones out of XGtE gain their extra dice of damage there too.

Now this is without delving into the various sub-class options but my hunch is that the utility of BA spells and how frequently they can be employed will be a lot better for the full casters than the BA elements are for the other non-caster class in more cases than not.

So, maybe making BA spells extra limited - impacting your entire turn - is not some oversight but rather a recognition that the spell casters will be more able to get more out of their BA when it matters than other classes will overall *if* there was not a major hit to the overall turn output/potential/flexibility.

maybe, the ability to *counterspell* healing ward without having to worry about the caster of healing ward also counterspelling your counterspell is a way to make healing word not just simply a better option most of the time than cure wounds? (Seems to me a number of folks have commented on the healing word trumps cure light a bit- wonder if the vulnerability to counterspell was a thing in their games?)

Obviously, counterspelling is a broader topic than healing word vs cure light... but it does beg the question of "do i want to use my BA spell if it locks out my counterspell during the turn?

not sure, but it is something maybe worth considering.

I might start tracking how many BA my PCs end up using during fights for a while to see if casters even with the restrictions end up using more than the others on average. if so, that would definitely not push me towards loosening that simple restriction on turns when you cast BA spells!

 

[Tormyr]

Tormyr

Ok so you seem to keep flipping around terms.

We had VALUE asked for, then i started to discuss RESULTS and now we have a rather vague reference to BAD which seems to mean "something i dont like."

So, again, this seems to be just a series of subjective preferences which therefore cannot be right or wrong. That is what house rules are for, crafting the rules at your table to suit your play group preferences.

But to your specific points.

"The limitation of a cantrip with a BA spell is about power. Since this combination can be used every turn as long as there are spell slots, this is limited."

Absolutely, you cannot use reactions spells and you cannot use non-cantrip 1A spells - that puts a noticable limit onto turns when a caster chooses to accept those limits to cast a BA spell. No question to me - that is about power of casters to get more and more spells off in their turn.

So, that gets back to if one thinks casters are under-performing, changing this rule to loosen those restrictions may be a good choice - maybe you would call it a GOOD rule then or a GOOD VALUE.

So if beefing up casters is a good thing for a campaign then going from the simple rule:

"You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."

to a slightly more complex rule:

"You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action or a reaction."

or a more complex rule:

"You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.or a reaction or a 1A spell cast using action surge or some other way to gain extra actions."

or even just deciding that increasing caster power **AND** simplicity has even more VALUE by changing the restriction to:

"casting spells with BA has no impact on casting spells with other actions or reactions on your turn at all." (Which would actually be easier by just deleting the text since this is basically saying there is no limit.

Now of course, as you say ACTION SURGE itself is a rather limited resource but of course reactions can occur every turn in theory so... the decisions on how many of these other spell options should be opened up to work alongside BA spells is up to the Gm and how much they feel caster's need the power boost.

The GOOD or BAD of those changes will be determined by how well they help the campaign or fit the expectations of the campaign.

But then we have the other games, where casters are somehow holding their own or even over-performing the non-caster classes. In those oddball campaigns, the idea of upping the caster capabilities by using any of the more complicated rules to loosen the restrictions currently in the RAW might well be seen as BAD (putting too much power where its not needed) or even DOUBLE BAD (the unwanted power-up and a more complex rule.)

Its OBVIOUS you think the rule is too limiting in its current form, you do not like the results ir provides and it **seems** like you want to go just shy of the whole hog (simple) removal of the BA spell limit and feel instead going with the most complicated rule allowing not only reactions but also (perhaps) the action surge spells too to be allowed to bypass the current restriction.

Thats great! I hope that up-tick brings casters in your game to the levels of playability you think they should be - just like you think action surge should this and reactions should that. I doubt the added complexity of the rule will make all that much difference, and my bet is if you did not think so as well you might be leaning another direction.

Sounds great.

hope it works out for you.

For myself, i would not be so inclined to move to the more complicated multiple exception rule but then in my games the spell casters are not having problems hanging in there and keeping up with the non-casters. The casters tend to use BA spells when needed, accept the limitations and sometimes that means they know they are limiting their own options - denying themselves a reaction chance ON THEIR TURN and risking the chance that that will bite them before their turn ends. They are somehow managing to hold their own even under that restriction. i suspect it is because the whole BA spell restriction is one in their control - they are never forced to cast a BA. casting a BA spell each turn is not some automatic thing they aim for but rather is an option they avail themselves of when they feel it is appropriate.

I wonder if indeed that is a partial reason for the additional limitation on spells.

Consider - the general rule for all the other BA in the game is "you cannot just choose a BA but have to have it enabled." A significant number of non-spell BA seem to almost be like "circumstantial reactions" able to be done sometimes and not others or to have significantrestrictions or penalties on their use.

Two-weapon-fighting: lose the off-hand shield Ac benefit or two handed weapon option.
barbarian rage - very small limit on numbers per day
inspiration die - limited by cha bonus basically
wild shape gets to bonus actions later on and has very few uses.
warrior's second wind limited in uses as well.
etc
etc
etc

So part of me wonders if part of the reason they slapped such a simple but significant restriction on BA spells was that they saw that with the growing numbers of slots available and the growing number of BA spells gained as you level up, some of the full casters would be more powerfu;l if they could routinely get a BA spell and a 1a Spell (even a cantrip) and a reaction always available as long as their slots held out. it certainly does help their NOVA potential to have all three of those at the start of the big fights - especially with metamagic.

But that is just me musing, pondering and considering the RESULTS of loosening the current rule to allow casters more options and more ways to get more spells of in more circumstances.

Like i said, in my games, i have not yet hit the "casters need help" hurdle that some campaigns may have hit, so, that is a good part of why my VALUES and preferences may be different than others.

This is not about casters needing help. This is about a faster spell, less powerful spell causing a double whammy by further restricting options on a spellcaster's turn --- something that I think does not need to be there.

The rule does not have to be more complicated:
...If you also use your Action to cast a spell, it must be a cantrip.

It is shorter and allows reaction spells, and Sage Advice can clarify that Action Surge allows any spell with a casting time of one action.

I already said that I use this as a house rule. I know that I can do that. Asking the same question slightly differently, "Are there any scenarios where this does not make sense or the BA rule restriction on reaction spells and Action Surge spells actually provides a benefit to the players, DM, or game?" I keep on asking because I am looking for that scenario that has me reconsider the house rule. As I said before, I am in these long threads for learning, not for arguing or "winning". What I am looking for are scenarios where that restriction is necessary or useful, which is why I keep asking the same question.