A community for discussion of all things Dungeons and Dragons! This is the catch all community for anything relating to Dungeons and Dragons, though we encourage you to see out our Networked Communities listed below!
/c/DnD Network Communities
Other DnD and related Communities to follow*
DnD/RPG Podcasts
*Please Follow the rules of these individual communities, not all of them are strictly DnD related, but may be of interest to DnD Fans
Rules (Subject to Change)
Format: [Source Name] Article Title
This seems like a good opportunity to get creative with your magic items!
The wizard got ambushed from behind and needs to get out of reach with his Misty step (Bonus Action). Then he turns the tide on his attackers with his Staff of Fireball (Action)!
True, although I feel like requiring proper resource management would encourage the same sort of creativity. Maybe you want to keep that 3rd level spell slot available in case you need a counterspell, or to cast Fly for exploration later on
Which rules about bonus action spells are you referring to?
When you cast a leveled spell using a bonus action, the only other spells you can cast with your action on that turn is a cantrip.
I, personally, think it's confusing and doesn't really add much in the way of balance to the game. Let the wizard burn all his spells twice as fast and be useless for the rest of the adventuring day. If your adventures have meaningful consequences for taking too long clearing a dungeon, it'll work itself out.
I think the rule is worded really badly in a way that makes it more confusing that it needs to be.
As for the rule itself, my table usually hand waves it and lets you cast whatever you want with your bonus action and action, provided you have the slots to do it. We haven't had any issues with that feeling game breaking for us yet.
Yikes; I've got one player who would go straight for a Sorcerer so he could just do Sickening Radiance followed by a quickened Wall of Force to just microwave whatever he wanted.
I feel like this is one of those rules that's only really necessary if you have a player who cheeses it like that. If a player discovers it and uses it in moderation, well, that's less likely to break things. If you have a player who builds their character to exploit it...
I, personally, think this is a totally valid tactic, and wouldn't be upset if a player used it in my game. One of the first things we go over in Session Zero, though, is that your characters, while unusual, are not unique. Any BBEG worth his stuff is capable of scrying on your tactics and hiring a hit squad that can copy or counter your tactics.
If a player started doing this repeatedly and trivialized many encounters, maybe the next group has his own sorcerer that can do that, or knows disintegrate, or can teleport the big stompy guy into the obvious spellcaster's face. Cheese isn't an arms race the players can win.
Yeah I’ve traditionally waived it myself, and both as a player and DM haven’t ever noticed any issues with that. As it stands I see no real reason to enforce it, but I always try to really understand the reason for a rule before I decide to ignore it
Even this isn't exactly correct - that would allow you to cast reaction spells on your turn, but the rules do not.
When you cast a ~~leveled~~ spell using a bonus action, the only other spells you can cast on that turn is a cantrip, with your action.
The difference is you can't cast more leveled spells at all, and you can't cast any spells including cantrips if they don't use an action. That last part doesn't usually matter, unless you have multiple bonus actions, or reaction cantrips (which appeared in the playtest of next edition).
Edited to reduce misinformation, left the wrong in place so corrections make sense
As a testament to how terrible this rule is, not even this is the right one. The rule is, when you cast a spell (including cantrips) with your bonus action you can't cast any other spells except a cantrip with a casting time of one action on the same turn. So casting Shillelagh stops you from casting leveled spells and (although I'm not sure why you would want to) from using your action to start or continue casting a cantrip like Mending, because it has a cast time of 1 minute (Aka 10 actions, aka not one action).
This cements two things for me. The first is that I hate the wording of things in 5e, especially it being called a Bonus Action. I think that specific phrase confuses people.
The second is that this is much easier in Pathfinder 2e. You can cast any spells as long as you have the actions for it using your 3 action turn. Cantrips are usually one action, and greater spells usually range from two to three actions. Simplifies this confusing mess quite easily.
Yeah, the more I play DnD and other games, the less I end up liking 5e's system of action, bonus action, reaction. Systems that just have actions are much more appealing, imo.
I agree on the confusing part.
There's a pretty small set of bonus action spells though, so a lil asterisk reminding players of the limitation would probably be enough to settle it.
There’s a pretty small set of bonus action spells
Quickened Spell is a thing.
Yeah it does make quickened spell way more powerful, and there’s not much love for sorcerer amongst the people I DM for, so I haven’t really seen it in combat.
Dungeon World's Fronts system is awesome. Every time my players take too long, I advance a danger and cackle behind my screen. The players are scared of me.
I just make sure there are some consequences, even if it's something like "There are other things that live in this dungeon you're camping in, and they just found the pile of bodies you've left strewn about and have raised the alarm."
I don't like this rule at all. Definitely among one of my least favorite rules in 5e. There are several things wrong with this rule. First, the stated reason why this rule exists is not balance, but it exists to make sure that a spellcasters turn isn't taking too long, by limiting them to only one 'noodly' spell per turn to stop them from flipping through the books trying to find the two perfect spells per turn, rather than just one (cantrips are easier to remember and use, I suppose). Unfortunately it fails at this in my opinion because of reason number two: the placement in the book. The rule is listed under the "bonus action spells" header in the spellcasting section. This is right between the "action spells" and "reaction spells" sections, and both of those just say "You can casts a spell with an action/reaction" and have no real rules. So people basically glance over it and assume there's nothing important there. This means that new players (thepeople who will take a ton of time on their turns if they have to find two spells) don't know this rule exist. The people who do know about this rule don't need it, because they already know what spells they want to use and are much faster at taking their turns (hopefully). Also, the fluff is entierly nonsensical "Because bonus actions spells are espescially swift, you [can't cast other spells on the same turn]", what? Wouldn't it make more sense that swift spells would leave you with more time to cast other spells?
Honestly, it's even worse than that, because once you know the rule it actually causes the game to slow down because of how noodly it is. When you are casting a spell you stop and think "Wait a minute, is this allowed according to the bonus action casting rule?", and then you have to find that out (hopefully not on your turn, but it causes you to have to look up this rule more that you really should have to look up any rule). If I am DMing I really don't care about my players following this rule, but if I am playing I will always follow it to the letter (unless the DM says otherwise, of course), because I have had to look this rule up so many times I can now quote it verbatim from memory.
I think that this rule could be ok, but it needs some changes. First it needs to have it's own section in the rules book "Casting multiple spells in a turn", or something. Don't hide it among stuff people skip over. Second, it should probably be changed to just "Because the casting of spells is a taxing affair, you can not cast more than one spell of first level or higher in the same turn.". This is how most people think the rule works anyway, the fluff makes a ton more sense, it is simple enough that you don't have to look it up constantly, and as a bonus it finally would answer all those people who are very confused about how you can cast counterspell in the middle of casting your other spell (you wouldn't be able to, because that would be two leveled spells in a turn, except it you are counter-counterspelling to save your cantrip, I suppose. But that's a very strange edge case.)
So you actually can cast 2 leveled spells per round, even RAW, because that reaction spell would be on somebody else’s turn. Interestingly the “per turn” distinction also permits the use of sneak attack more than once per round. The limit on it is once per turn, and it’s possible to make a reaction attack that fits the requirements for sneak attack on somebody else’s turn. I was surprised when I read this in the Sage Advice compendium, but it’s because I misremembered sneak attack as being once per round.
Ah, yes, sorry. I mixed up my terminology a bit there, good catch. Every instance of "round" in my comment was supposed to be "turn". I'll edit it. But yes, sneak attack is also once per turn, and not round, which is very odd. It honestly seems like an oversight that just happily caused the balance for the rogue to catch up a bit. Rogue doesn't really have any ways to consistently trigger it, and while it seems like it might be a case of "extra attacks should get the same effects as regular attacks" (if that makes sense to you) then it is extremely odd that the Barbarian's advantage from Reckless Attack doesn't last for the round, only for your own turn. So AoOs don't have the advantage.
Ah ok got it. It definitely trips me up all the time as well haha.
I actually don’t mind the difference for barbarian and rogue because I see it as an additional attack and not an extra attack. So like I think treating the +1 attack from the extra attack feature differently than the use of a resource (reaction) to make an additional attack is fine mechanically. I feel like I could sit down with a player who didn’t like that ruling and give a proper reason for it besides “I’m just following the words on the page”.
I use the rules as is, but I'd love it if there was something less complicated (so adding a clause for spell level is not an option to me). If DnD 5.5 would go for "one spell slot per turn", I'd welcome it, even if it's a slight nerf for casters.
I think the rule as is, is fine. Mercers change to allow up to 2nd level is also fine, but borders the balance scale.
Come to think of it, I could see myself implementing the following house rule: Up to level 8, only cantrips, up to level 14 you can do 1st levels too and after that you can use 2nd levels.