So is it official now? Counterspelling

[Yunru]

Have you encountered any issues as a result of that? If not, I might do the same thing.

The Sorcerer cackles like mad every cpmbat, but other than that no.

 

[guachi]

The somatic component for counterspell is a raised middle finger, right?

I swear I read that somewhere.

 

[Yunru]

The somatic component for counterspell is a raised middle finger, right?

I swear I read that somewhere.

That is the unofficially accepted gesture, yes.

 

[Lanefan]

Stupid illogical rule in 2016 Sage Advice, stupid illogical rule now.

Whoever designed this played too many blue decks in MtG.

 

[TheSword]

It has been pretty well established that rules that restrict actions on your turn don’t apply to reactions on other turns (read sneak attack ruling on AOO as opposed to restriction on 1 per turn)

You absolutely can use a Bonus spell, a cantrip and then a reaction spell on your round as supported by the RAW and sage advice to confirm RAI.

Your turn is not the same as a round.

 

[S'mon]

You absolutely can use a Bonus spell, a cantrip and then a reaction spell on your round as supported by the RAW and sage advice to confirm RAI.

Your turn is not the same as a round.

Yes but the point made upthread was that you can't do all three on your own turn, as part of counterspelling a counterspell.

 

[TheSword]

It’s done as a reaction. The reaction doesn’t count as part of your turn.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Personally, on bonus actions I go with what I think is the balance intent: you can’t use your action to cast a regular spell, and then cast a bonus action spell too. Regular action gets downgraded to cantrip-only in that case.

I disregard anything beyond that. So if you Action Surge there is no limit on your surged spell; there is no limit on reaction spells, etc. Because I don’t think those are what the ‘Action or (Bonus Action + Cantrip)’ rule was intended to address. Just a ridiculous consequence of the way it was phrased.

 

[AriochQ]

It’s done as a reaction. The reaction doesn’t count as part of your turn.

Citation? I have heard people make that claim, but I don't recall ever seeing it from an official source.

The PHB states "A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else's."

That seems pretty black and white to me.

EDIT: You could interpret the portion after the comma in the PHB quote as referring to the trigger, rather than the reaction. I think that is an incorrect and somewhat convoluted way to parse that sentence. They don't really need to specify when the trigger can occur, it is far more relevant to specify when the reaction may occur.

 

[TheSword]

Are you suggesting that a reaction on your own turn uses a different amount effort to a reaction in someone else’s turn?

That is illogical.