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: 7318875" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>Tormyr </p><p></p><p>Ok so you seem to keep flipping around terms.</p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>But to your specific points.</p><p></p><p>"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." </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>So if beefing up casters is a good thing for a campaign then going from the simple rule:</p><p></p><p>"You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action."</p><p></p><p>to a slightly more complex rule:</p><p></p><p>"You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action or a reaction."</p><p></p><p>or a more complex rule:</p><p></p><p>"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."</p><p></p><p>or even just deciding that increasing caster power **AND** simplicity has even more VALUE by changing the restriction to:</p><p></p><p>"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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>The GOOD or BAD of those changes will be determined by how well they help the campaign or fit the expectations of the campaign.</p><p></p><p>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.)</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Sounds great.</p><p></p><p>hope it works out for you.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I wonder if indeed that is a partial reason for the additional limitation on spells.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Two-weapon-fighting: lose the off-hand shield Ac benefit or two handed weapon option. </p><p>barbarian rage - very small limit on numbers per day</p><p>inspiration die - limited by cha bonus basically</p><p>wild shape gets to bonus actions later on and has very few uses.</p><p>warrior's second wind limited in uses as well.</p><p>etc</p><p>etc</p><p>etc</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7318875, member: 6919838"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Please help me with the “one spell cast per round” rule
Top