Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Please help me with the “one spell cast per round” rule
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7318749" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>Well, the key is as i indicated there is NO OBJECTIVE VALUE in any RAW. Not one. there is no objective value is getting to move 30' in a round as a human or dash using an action as opposed to a reaction or fighters getting an action surge at 5th instead of 7th...</p><p></p><p>There are RESULTS of rules, not VALUE in rules because the value for one campaign may be widely different.</p><p></p><p>That was where we got into the comparisons.</p><p></p><p>the RESULT of the RAW is it limits the power gains by casting BA spells by imposing a restriction set on you for the turn you cast them, (As i described earlier.) </p><p></p><p>If a Gm finds that result weakens casters so much that they are under-performing, it would make sense to loosen those restrictions - maybe excluding reactions, maybe excluding reactions and also only limiting one action, maybe by removing the rule altogether. </p><p></p><p>The fact that there is no OBJECTIVE value for this rule is no different than it is for any other RAW... its not a knock on the rule, its not a sign of flaw... its just a simple fact - the VALUE of any rule is subjective and dependent on the campaign. </p><p></p><p>In this case it serves to limit casting options when using BA spells. Whether that is a plus, a minus or a wash - thats up to the Gm and players to decide for their games.</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>if you are expecting a different kind of answer and you have some universal or objective basis for determining value of a rule without reference to a given campaign, i am all for hearing what that is.</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p></p><p>But it is starting to feel like you are implying that if there cannot be shown an objective value to having BA limited, or having BA limited this way or that way then the rule is somehow not good, inadequate or whatever. maybe i am wrong about that, but it seems like the insistance on getting an answer other than "it is RAW" is leading you somewhere in that neighborhood.</p><p></p><p><strong>i mean, can you provide an objective VALUE for having any additional limits from BA spells as opposed to letting them, like the other spells, not get in the way of other spells? What is objectively better about a house rule that says "bonus spells do not provide any restrictions on other spells in the turn - they work just like actions and reactions." </strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p>it increases the power of spellcasters so... maybe that is good and maybe that is bad - depends on campaign, doesn't it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7318749, member: 6919838"] Well, the key is as i indicated there is NO OBJECTIVE VALUE in any RAW. Not one. there is no objective value is getting to move 30' in a round as a human or dash using an action as opposed to a reaction or fighters getting an action surge at 5th instead of 7th... There are RESULTS of rules, not VALUE in rules because the value for one campaign may be widely different. That was where we got into the comparisons. the RESULT of the RAW is it limits the power gains by casting BA spells by imposing a restriction set on you for the turn you cast them, (As i described earlier.) If a Gm finds that result weakens casters so much that they are under-performing, it would make sense to loosen those restrictions - maybe excluding reactions, maybe excluding reactions and also only limiting one action, maybe by removing the rule altogether. The fact that there is no OBJECTIVE value for this rule is no different than it is for any other RAW... its not a knock on the rule, its not a sign of flaw... its just a simple fact - the VALUE of any rule is subjective and dependent on the campaign. In this case it serves to limit casting options when using BA spells. Whether that is a plus, a minus or a wash - thats up to the Gm and players to decide for their games. [B] if you are expecting a different kind of answer and you have some universal or objective basis for determining value of a rule without reference to a given campaign, i am all for hearing what that is. [/B] But it is starting to feel like you are implying that if there cannot be shown an objective value to having BA limited, or having BA limited this way or that way then the rule is somehow not good, inadequate or whatever. maybe i am wrong about that, but it seems like the insistance on getting an answer other than "it is RAW" is leading you somewhere in that neighborhood. [B]i mean, can you provide an objective VALUE for having any additional limits from BA spells as opposed to letting them, like the other spells, not get in the way of other spells? What is objectively better about a house rule that says "bonus spells do not provide any restrictions on other spells in the turn - they work just like actions and reactions." [/B] it increases the power of spellcasters so... maybe that is good and maybe that is bad - depends on campaign, doesn't it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Please help me with the “one spell cast per round” rule
Top