D&D (2024) Two Spells, One Turn Confusion Never Dies

[Ruin Explorer]

So, that is what you are good at then? Most encounters won't be so nicely set up for this to work IME.

A lot more than you think will, I would suggest, when you can drop two full-Action spells in turn one. That's the big advantage - turn one is when the enemies are likely to be vastly more grouped, and PCs less in the line of fire. It's your best opportunity for big AOE damage spells, big CC spells, and big area denial spells. You don't have a chance like that after round one. It does encourage casters to find ways to get the best possible initiative, too!

And it doesn't make you worse at anything else. So "that is what you're good at" isn't really a thing - you're also still good at other stuff. And you've made the party as a whole much more powerful, because some fights that would cause significant attrition will now be cakewalks/mop-ups causing very little attrition.

Meh. I see it as more of a wash than anything. You use more of your power to the better of others, or they use a bit more of theirs to your betterment.

My point is specifically that doing this round one is not a wash, because overall the party as a whole comes out so much better off - in an attrition-heavy situation!

Now a low-attrition situation, it's closer to a wash! You gain some advantage, but overall it's probably not changing the end result of the day, or making things a lot less dramatic.

As for 5MWD, I don't do those and encourage other DMs not to do them, either. Rests come when they come, so sometimes it might happen, but when attrition is going to play a role, rests typically aren't possible.

Yeah that's what I was getting - and because of that, the round one Quicken spell becomes a bigger deal, not a smaller one. If you did a lot of 5MWD, yeah, sure this doesn't matter much.

I've never played any BG games, but I know such games rarely play by the rules of the RPGs they mirror.

BG3's rules do in fact closely mirror those of 5E (2024 is in fact closer than 2014 was, as they took some inspiration from some BG3 changes). And what BG3 does change is the change you're proposing - BG3 allows you to cast multiple levelled/slot spells per round. So it's easy to see how very devastating they can be - even though lot of BG3 encounters are intentionally designed to prevent alpha strikes being maximally effective. It's not just double-fireball either, hilarious as that is - other situations like dropping an area denial spell or an AOE snare then dropping further AOE damage or CC can be absolutely brutal.

I just don't agree that it illustrates any sort of real problem to the game.

Depending on how things line up, and whether your players even notice that this is a thing they could do, it might well be no problem, sure! To be clear, I'm not saying "Don't do it!!!", I'm saying "Be aware", esp. if there's a Sorcerer in the party.

For this to become a problem you basically need a player to A) notice that this is possible, B) decide to play a Sorcerer, and C) be tactically-minded enough to realize that Initiative is very important to this and to intentionally boost that, and also D), be playing attrition-heavy, not attrition-light.

The only one of those we know is true for your game is D. It's unlikely A, B, and C will also be true. But I would say if you see someone selecting Sorcerer, Alert, and so on, you might wanna brace for some encounters getting vaped!

 

[mamba]

Cue the 'Level 0'! responders... despite the fact that they are only called that colloquially and not actually as part of the game rules.

or the ‘a cantrip is not a spell’ solution

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Which also makes me wonder... is the new rule how they intended it to work all this time? Were the previous official explanations of the 2014 rule simply to gloss over a poorly written rule?

I'd say definitely not.

The previous rule was fundamentally different - a different approach which lead to different results, and their explanations were consistent and in-line with the (dumb and confusing) way the old rule worked.

It seems like they rethought the rule here, and whilst the output is vaguely similar, it's much more straightforward, and the ways in which you can take advantage of it are clearer.

 

[DEFCON 1]

or the ‘a cantrip is not a spell’ solution

If only, LOL!

If people could do that... treat things as "Not spells"... we'd have a lot more people who'd be perfectly happy with the Ranger because they'd be able to treat it as a "Non-spellcasting class" by just reflavoring all its "spells" as merely just class features. Gaining an extra 10' of movement doesn't HAVE to be a spell (Longstrider), nor does the regaining of hit points HAVE to be Cure Wounds rather than merely a poultice the Ranger makes.

 

[GMMichael]

what level is a cantrip?

Cue the 'Level 0'! responders... despite the fact that they are only called that colloquially and not actually as part of the game rules.

Every spell has a level from 0 to 9, which is indicated in a spell’s description. A spell’s level is an indicator of how powerful it is. Cantrips—simple spells that can be cast almost by rote—are level 0.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Heh... did that actually add that to the 5E24 PHB? Whattdayaknow!

 

[Oofta]

If only, LOL!

If people could do that... treat things as "Not spells"... we'd have a lot more people who'd be perfectly happy with the Ranger because they'd be able to treat it as a "Non-spellcasting class" by just reflavoring all its "spells" as merely just class features. Gaining an extra 10' of movement doesn't HAVE to be a spell (Longstrider), nor does the regaining of hit points HAVE to be Cure Wounds rather than merely a poultice the Ranger makes.

One source to rule them all
One source to find them
One source to bring them all
And in the ruleset bind them;
In the Land of WotC where spells are the power source.

 

[aco175]

I don't even see that as a problem. You Quicken fireball and toss another fireball. Powerful? Certainly! But you also just used two 3rd-level slots AND 3 Sorcery Points...

As a DM, burning through resources like that won't phase me a bit. You'll have your "moment of AWESOME", but might live to regret it later.

It is all fun and games until the DM can do it back to you.

Makes my players think a bit on how the rules should be interpreted.

 

[Piperken]

It also stops a caster from counterspelling a counterspell of their spell.

In the past Sue cast a fireball so Bad Guy Joe cast counterspell. Sue could then counterspell Bad Guy Joe's counterspell.

My goodness, at this rate errata will say:

Please refer to the stacking rules used currently in Magic: the Gathering Extended/Historic tournament play.

 

[ezo]

It is all fun and games until the DM can do it back to you.

Makes my players think a bit on how the rules should be interpreted.

Yep.