How do you feel about the rules regarding bonus action spells, and why?
How do you feel about the rules regarding bonus action spells, and why?
I’m feeling a bit torn myself. I understand the thinking behind the vanilla rules; it helps balance out some of the spellcasters’ power, especially at higher levels. But my understanding of balance in 5e is that it’s to balance the players against each other, to avoid having 1 or 2 players be so clearly better at so much that it naturally pulls the limelight away from the rest of the party and causes people to lose interest their own character.
I think totally unrestricted spellcasting carries the potential for imbalance, but doesn’t guarantee that outcome, and if I’m not making my spellcasters manage their resources then I’m doing something wrong. Something like Matt Mercer’s house rule “spells of 2nd level or lower” would also be a good compromise because it allows the utility of things like Misty Step, or for a Gish to summon a shadow blade etc.
What do y’all do at your tables, and why?
You're viewing a single thread.
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.)
@Nikko882 @DonnieDarkmode I agree, it should be more clearly and prominently stated. I also missed it the first time and then needed some time to grasp it well. But I don't think its only about simplicity and quickness. There might come out lots of nasty and munchkenizer spell combos out there without this rule.
Honestly, as far as I've seen most spells aren't an issue. Only sorcerer quickened spell really makes it an issue, but that's mainly an issue with quickened spell rather than anything else.
I also believe Jeremy Crawford or someone has mentioned that balance wasn't the concern when the role was put in place. I'm not able to look for the source right now, but I think Treantmonk had it in a video about this rule.
@Nikko882 I don't know, the quite simple option of throwing two fireballs in a row seems to me quite heavy. With quickened, haste or whatever. Although it took me a while to grasp it, I think limiting spells is a good thing.
Haste already says you can't use the action it grants to cast a spell. If quickened spell had a similar thing ("If you quicken a spell you can't casts another leveled spell on the same turn." or something) it definitely wouldn't be an issue.
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”.