Bonus action casting time—RAI is clear, but I think RAW has a dumb trick

[Zaq]

So. PHB pg. 202, describing spells with a casting time listed as a bonus action.


A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken another bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

(Emphasis added.)

Now, let me be perfectly clear: RAI is abundantly obvious. I believe that the clear intention is that you have to spend a bonus action to cast a spell with a casting time of a bonus action. In no way do I think the designers intended anything else.

However, that's not actually what they wrote.

You must spend a bonus action to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken another bonus action. Which means that if you have already taken another bonus action, then it is no longer the case that "you must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell."

So we have a caster who goes to cast Misty Step, which has a casting time of a bonus action. He spends his action doing whatever (but not casting a non-cantrip spell), and then he wants to cast Misty Step. He hasn't already taken a bonus action, so he must use his bonus action to cast Misty Step. Perfectly matches RAI, perfectly matches RAW, everyone goes home happy.

But say that the caster is engaging in, I dunno, TWF, so he uses his action to attack and his bonus action to make an off-hand attack, and then he goes to cast Misty Step. RAI would say that he can't do it, because he doesn't have a bonus action to spend—but the RAW says that since he already took a bonus action this turn, it is no longer the case that he "must use his bonus action," so he just casts Misty Step without an explicit action cost. RAI is very sad about this, but I feel like that's what that sentence means. "You must do A, provided that B is true." Which means that if B is not true, then it is no longer the case that you must do A.

This would have been easily avoided if the RAW said "you may use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn." (Which would actually play nice with the rule on PHB pg. 189 that says that "you can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take," which the rest of the rules seem to have completely forgotten.) But instead of saying that you are allowed to spend a bonus action to cast (and that allowance is negated if you've already spent a bonus action), the rules say that you are required to spend a bonus action to cast (and that requirement is negated if you've already spent a bonus action).

I repeat, RAI is abundantly clear. It seems obvious to me that the designers did not intend for a bonus action casting time to only take a bonus action if you haven't spent a bonus action already. It seems obvious to me that the designers intended for you to have to choose between using your bonus action to cast and using your bonus action to do other things. (And as written, it's not simply free to cast a bonus action spell—you have to take your non-casting bonus action first, so you can't use a bonus-action buff spell and then a bonus action extra attack; you have to do it the other way around.) I wouldn't be super angry at a GM who made a houserule that you can't cast a spell with a casting time of a bonus action if you've already spent a bonus action on something else. But I argue that strictly by the rules as written, there's absolutely nothing stopping an Arcane Trickster from using Cunning Action to Dash and then casting a spell with a listed casting time of a bonus action.

I'm not saying this is good, but I argue that it is what we have written. I'm not saying that it's bad to houserule this away, but I am saying that doing so is in fact a houserule. Thoughts?

[Segev]

I don't think you can jump from "must spend bonus action" to "can cast spell without an action if bonus action already spent." However, you might have a case for being able to cast a bonus action spell with your regular action iff the bonus action had already been consumed. For example, if you were under the effects of expeditious retreat and used your bonus action to dash, you could argue that you now are free to use your regular action for that misty step.

I also agree that this is against fairly clear RAI.

[Douche]

I've always been unclear... can you use a bonus action as an action instead? Like, could I do two bonus actions in one turn?

[Talamare]

The argument here is that English is a broken language?

This shouldn't even create a discussion, but I applaud your attempt.


I've always been unclear... can you use a bonus action as an action instead? Like, could I do two bonus actions in one turn?

No, it very clearly list what Actions you can take. Action's are NOT interchangeable. Also, completely irrelevant to the topic on hand.

[RulesJD]

Your interpretation is not what is clearly written.

It's how you misconstruded the definition and application of the word "must". You believe that if you've already used your bonus action, you magically get to cast a bonus action spell as an untyped action.

Nope.

The correct "interpretation" is that the word "must" restricts your ability to use any other type of action (Action, Reaction, Free, etc) to cast the bonus action spell.

So no, you're wrong regarding the RAW interpretation.

*edit*

In addition to your incorrect logic, you also got the order of operation wrong.

The correct order is "To do A, you must do B, provided that C is true."

When C is false, you are simply unable to do A, which in this case is cast a spell with a casting time of "Bonus Action".

By RAW this prevents the discussion that just happened above, which is whether you can use your Action to cast a Bonus action spell. RAW is clear, due to this sentence, that you cannot.

[DanyBallon]

So. PHB pg. 202, describing spells with a casting time listed as a bonus action.



(Emphasis added.)

Now, let me be perfectly clear: RAI is abundantly obvious. I believe that the clear intention is that you have to spend a bonus action to cast a spell with a casting time of a bonus action. In no way do I think the designers intended anything else.

However, that's not actually what they wrote.

You must spend a bonus action to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken another bonus action. Which means that if you have already taken another bonus action, then it is no longer the case that "you must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell."

So we have a caster who goes to cast Misty Step, which has a casting time of a bonus action. He spends his action doing whatever (but not casting a non-cantrip spell), and then he wants to cast Misty Step. He hasn't already taken a bonus action, so he must use his bonus action to cast Misty Step. Perfectly matches RAI, perfectly matches RAW, everyone goes home happy.

But say that the caster is engaging in, I dunno, TWF, so he uses his action to attack and his bonus action to make an off-hand attack, and then he goes to cast Misty Step. RAI would say that he can't do it, because he doesn't have a bonus action to spend—but the RAW says that since he already took a bonus action this turn, it is no longer the case that he "must use his bonus action," so he just casts Misty Step without an explicit action cost. RAI is very sad about this, but I feel like that's what that sentence means. "You must do A, provided that B is true." Which means that if B is not true, then it is no longer the case that you must do A.

This would have been easily avoided if the RAW said "you may use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn." (Which would actually play nice with the rule on PHB pg. 189 that says that "you can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take," which the rest of the rules seem to have completely forgotten.) But instead of saying that you are allowed to spend a bonus action to cast (and that allowance is negated if you've already spent a bonus action), the rules say that you are required to spend a bonus action to cast (and that requirement is negated if you've already spent a bonus action).

I repeat, RAI is abundantly clear. It seems obvious to me that the designers did not intend for a bonus action casting time to only take a bonus action if you haven't spent a bonus action already. It seems obvious to me that the designers intended for you to have to choose between using your bonus action to cast and using your bonus action to do other things. (And as written, it's not simply free to cast a bonus action spell—you have to take your non-casting bonus action first, so you can't use a bonus-action buff spell and then a bonus action extra attack; you have to do it the other way around.) I wouldn't be super angry at a GM who made a houserule that you can't cast a spell with a casting time of a bonus action if you've already spent a bonus action on something else. But I argue that strictly by the rules as written, there's absolutely nothing stopping an Arcane Trickster from using Cunning Action to Dash and then casting a spell with a listed casting time of a bonus action.

I'm not saying this is good, but I argue that it is what we have written. I'm not saying that it's bad to houserule this away, but I am saying that doing so is in fact a houserule. Thoughts?

Beware some kind of rant follow, excuse me in advance if it may hurt some feelings:

This wouldn't be a problem if people get used to the fact that 5e working more around RAI than about RAW.
Some people needs to throw away their 3.x rules lawyer mindset, and look at 5e as if it was a completly different game.

[JackPhoenix]

Unlike normal Action, you don't have Bonus Action available all the time... only when you can do something that requires BA. IE. casting spell with BA cast time grants you BA for that turn, but as you can have only one BA/turn, if you've already done something else with your BA, you can't cast the spell.


You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don’t have a bonus action to take.

[BurgerBeast]

It looks to me like the OP has this correct.

RulesJD is wrong. RAW the OP is correct. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of the English language and logic.

I would house rule. And it would be a house rule, not RAW.

[KorvinStarmast]

Unlike normal Action, you don't have Bonus Action available all the time... only when you can do something that requires BA. IE. casting spell with BA cast time grants you BA for that turn, but as you can have only one BA/turn, if you've already done something else with your BA, you can't cast the spell.

For the OP, please read this answer by JackPhoenix. Also, for BurgerBeast, RulesJD is correct. The rules on what a bonus action is are clear.


You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
Crystal clear. Basic Rules, p. 69.

Once you've used a bonus action on a turn, you don't get a second bonus action. You have to decide where to use that one bonus action, if one is even available to you. If you have two choices you must make a choice.

Making the TWF choice forecloses any other bonus action on that turn. Or, taking the Misty Step bonus action forecloses the chance to get in that bonus action attack.

[supergoji18]

I think even lawyers would say you're taking a lose interpretation of that statement.

The problem with what you're saying is the spell descriptions themselves. There is no spell that says "casting time, bonus action or no action at all, your choice." They all say either action, bonus action or reaction. If you used your bonus action, you can't cast a spell that requires a bonus action.

[RulesJD]

It looks to me like the OP has this correct.

RulesJD is wrong. RAW the OP is correct. It's not a matter of interpretation. It's a matter of the English language and logic.

I would house rule. And it would be a house rule, not RAW.

Yeah, no, I'm not.

The word "must" is not clarifying that you "must" take the action you wish to do (the "A" in the logic order of operations). It is clarifying what you "must" do (the "B" in the LOO), in order to do A. C is a condition precedent.

You're wrong, the OP is wrong, and I'm right. There is absolutely no reading of RAW that supports your conclusion, so it's not an interpretation. It is simply a failure of reading comprehension skills.

At best, you can rule the comma usage and "provided that" is grammatically imprecise. It is not, however, vague as to interpretation.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think even lawyers would say you're taking a lose interpretation of that statement.

The problem with what you're saying is the spell descriptions themselves. There is no spell that says "casting time, bonus action or no action at all, your choice." They all say either action, bonus action or reaction. If you used your bonus action, you can't cast a spell that requires a bonus action.
Was that a response to the OP, or one of the other replies in the thread? (Guessing OP? )

[Slipperychicken]

I repeat, RAI is abundantly clear.

And that is all we need in this case. We don't want some player to read this and demand his DM give him free bonus actions because some munchkins on the internet said there was a typo.

[Theodoxus]

A similar discussion came up when 5E first emerged, regarding the reaction of a Counterspell. I personally feel that the casting times specifically - though other actions as well - are rather arbitrary.

We already have standing for the action required for one ability to be swapped for another action - take Dash. Everyone can take an action to Dash. But 2nd level Rogues can modify the action to a Bonus Action. They can even still take an action to Dash on top of the Bonus.

It's totally houserule, but I have no problem ruling that a casting time of Bonus or Reaction can be changed to Action. If a metamagic can speed up a spell to a Bonus Action, anyone should be able to slow one down to an Action. It might not come up often, but to me, it's not logical for it to be an absolute.

[Talamare]

It's totally houserule, but I have no problem ruling that a casting time of Bonus or Reaction can be changed to Action. If a metamagic can speed up a spell to a Bonus Action, anyone should be able to slow one down to an Action. It might not come up often, but to me, it's not logical for it to be an absolute.

What are you talking about, actually your signature is appropriate
trollbaiting with just illogical random nonsense

How would you even play with Reactions as a Normal actions?

[Cybren]

What are you talking about, actually your signature is appropriate
trollbaiting with just illogical random nonsense

How would you even play with Reactions as a Normal actions?

Since it lasts the turn, I guess shield could be used like the dodge or disengage actions for when you want to avoid getting hit with reactions and want to waste a spell slot

[BurgerBeast]

For the OP, please read this answer by JackPhoenix. Also, for BurgerBeast, RulesJD is correct. The rules on what a bonus action is are clear.

Nobody is arguing what the rules for a bonus action are. What we're pointing out is that the written explanation says, by accident, that you have to use a bonus action, provided you haven't already used one.


Once you've used a bonus action on a turn, you don't get a second bonus action. You have to decide where to use that one bonus action, if one is even available to you. If you have two choices you must make a choice.

Ans this is the problem. If it only requires you to use a bonus action if you haven't already, then it implies a free casting. Again, nobody thinks this is the intent, but it is clearly what it says.


Making the TWF choice forecloses any other bonus action on that turn. Or, taking the Misty Step bonus action forecloses the chance to get in that bonus action attack.

No one is arguing against this.

[Ruslan]

I don't really have anything to add, except that this (http://xkcd.com/1652/) might be relevant. Otherwise, enjoy your argument, guys.

[JackPhoenix]

As I see it, you must create the BA and then use it to cast the spell. If you've already used your BA in that turn for something else, you can't create another for the spell, and thus you can't cast the spell.

The wording strikes me as a relic of an earlier version of the rules... perhaps it was originally possible to use your normal action to do BA stuff? Similar rules were both in 3.5 (you can turn your standard action into move action) and 4e (you can turn your standard action into move or minor action)

[BurgerBeast]

Yeah, no, I'm not.

Well, we can do this all day. I say you are. You say I am.

The whole construct you made using A, B, and C is not what is at issue. It is, as the OP pointed out, the use of "must" instead of "may."

The condition C is a precedent to a "must," not a "may," so if the precedent is denied, it negates a must, not a may. In other words it makes it so the caster "mustn't" use a bonus action (implication: can do it without one). It does not make it so the caster "may not" use a bonus action (implication: can't do it, which is what is intended).

"You mustn't use a bonus action to..." is a lost different than "You may not use a bonus action to..."

[RickAllison]

And compounding the debate is the fact that the wonderfully flexible English language means both interpretations are correct! While one is the obvious RAI and is less construed, the OP's interpretation is grammatically sound. This is why people often pay lawyers to comb over contracts with fine teeth.

[bid]

If it only requires you to use a bonus action if you haven't already, then it implies a free casting.
It implies no such thing.

Not a single word is said on how you can cast it if your bonus action is gone. At best, it comes down to "find another way", but RAW offers none.

[BurgerBeast]

It implies no such thing.

You must get in an airplane to fly, provided you’re not a bird.

A = fly
B = get in an airplane
C = you’re not a bird

If you are a bird, you just fly, it’s not necessary to get in an airplane. [edit: it's implied that you just fly if you're a bird.]

***

You must spend a bonus action to cast a spell, provided you’ve not used a bonus action already.

A = cast a spell
B = spend a bonus action
C = you’ve not used a bonus action already

If you have spent a bonus action, you just cast a spell, it’s not necessary to spend a bonus action. [edit: it's implied that you just cast a spell if you've used a bonus action already]

[Malifice]

That's some rather tortured twisting of plain English right there.

[weaseldust]

You must get in an airplane to fly, provided you’re not a bird.

A = fly
B = get in an airplane
C = you’re not a bird

If you are a bird, you just fly, it’s not necessary to get in an airplane. [edit: it's implied that you just fly if you're a bird.]

***

You must spend a bonus action to cast a spell, provided you’ve not used a bonus action already.

A = cast a spell
B = spend a bonus action
C = you’ve not used a bonus action already

If you have spent a bonus action, you just cast a spell, it’s not necessary to spend a bonus action. [edit: it's implied that you just cast a spell if you've used a bonus action already]

"You must get in an airplane to fly, provided you have one available" is also acceptable English and you can't infer from it that, if an airplane is not available, you can fly without one.

But even your own example doesn't work. In a world where all birds were flightless but were banned from entering aircraft, "You must get in an airplane to fly, provided you’re not a bird" would still be acceptable, but it wouldn't be true that birds can fly without airplanes. So you can't draw the inference you're trying to draw.

[Theodoxus]

What are you talking about, actually your signature is appropriate
trollbaiting with just illogical random nonsense

How would you even play with Reactions as a Normal actions?

Hmm, let's see. You in the middle of a fight, your initiative is low - poor roll, let's say. You're MC Wizard/Rogue, your party has beat a few opponents low, guy decides to move away from you, risking the OA because he wants to cast/dash/whatever. You take the OA, because sneak is nice. Your turn comes up, only thing lower in the initiative order after you is an automaton that's tossing frost bombs. You're low on HP, can't get out of the way - let's say you're grappled, why not. You'd love to be able to cast Absorb Elements, but lo and behold, you've used your reaction already...

Oh, same initiative situation, only this time you're a straight wizard (Harry) and you've been grappled by a giant next to a cliff. You used Shield this round to keep from getting WTFPWN'd by the pesky rogue to your left. You know the giant, who's going right after you, is going to toss you over the cliff like a side of meat... oh drat, you can't cast feather fall!

How about this one... you're facing off against the Red Dragon Sorcerer Clan. There's 5 fire sorcerers all bearing on your party. They get the jump on you, you reactively cast Absorb Elements /whew, that was close. Wait, what's that? there's another one with a wand of magic missiles aiming at your face? And you go right before him? Ah nuts, can't cast shield as an Action. Boo hoo, you just got pelted with Force damage, sucka.

Yeah, I can't imagine... how would you play with reactions as normal actions?

[Captbrannigan]

"You must get in an airplane to fly, provided you have one available" is also acceptable English and you can't infer from it that, if an airplane is not available, you can fly without one.

But even your own example doesn't work. In a world where all birds were flightless but were banned from entering aircraft, "You must get in an airplane to fly, provided you’re not a bird" would still be acceptable, but it wouldn't be true that birds can fly without airplanes. So you can't draw the inference you're trying to draw.
In a world where the name Adolf Hitler corresponds instead to the fellow we think of as Santa Claus, the phrase "We should all be more like Adolf Hitler" is innocuous and a majority of people would probably agree with.

So what? If you don't specify that all birds in your world are flightless, why would any reasonable person think that? If I told you that "bird" was a pejorative for "African American man," would that mean the OP is a racist? Or would it just be an anecdotal remark that has no bearing on the topic?

I just love how you keep rephrasing the statement to fit your meaning. Of course if you rearrange things, and then change the punctuation, you can change the meaning! You can change and, the meaning of course, if things rearrange the punctuation and then change you!

[Serket]

That's not a "trick" though - that's "you run it past your GM and they say no, and then possibly slap you"*.

RAW is not how this game works. RAW is how competitive games between people who are trying to beat each other work.

*Serket does not endorse illegal violence.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ans this is the problem. If it only requires you to use a bonus action if you haven't already, then it implies a free casting. No, it doesn't.

You can't use1 what you ain't got, can't lose what you never had.


(Apolgies to the Allman Brothers for riffing on their lyrics there (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iutwA_dsfxE)).

1spend
From the album Win, Lose, Or Draw(1975)

[Talamare]

Hmm, let's see. You in the middle of a fight, your initiative is low - poor roll, let's say. You're MC Wizard/Rogue, your party has beat a few opponents low, guy decides to move away from you, risking the OA because he wants to cast/dash/whatever. You take the OA, because sneak is nice. Your turn comes up, only thing lower in the initiative order after you is an automaton that's tossing frost bombs. You're low on HP, can't get out of the way - let's say you're grappled, why not. You'd love to be able to cast Absorb Elements, but lo and behold, you've used your reaction already...

Oh, same initiative situation, only this time you're a straight wizard (Harry) and you've been grappled by a giant next to a cliff. You used Shield this round to keep from getting WTFPWN'd by the pesky rogue to your left. You know the giant, who's going right after you, is going to toss you over the cliff like a side of meat... oh drat, you can't cast feather fall!

How about this one... you're facing off against the Red Dragon Sorcerer Clan. There's 5 fire sorcerers all bearing on your party. They get the jump on you, you reactively cast Absorb Elements /whew, that was close. Wait, what's that? there's another one with a wand of magic missiles aiming at your face? And you go right before him? Ah nuts, can't cast shield as an Action. Boo hoo, you just got pelted with Force damage, sucka.

Yeah, I can't imagine... how would you play with reactions as normal actions?

Your turn comes up, you have your Reaction back...

and Yea, if a Giant comes after you forces you to cast Shield to keep you from dying then forces you to cast Feather Fall to keep you from dying, well guess what... You got overwhelmed, you would have died anyways... and if you had a turn inbetween the 2 events happening, then you have you reaction back regardless...

Yea, if 5 Sorcerers rain hell on your party then, you're correct you won't be able to block it all. That's called making a choice...
Again, if you had your turn between the rain, you get your reaction back...

[MeeposFire]

Beware some kind of rant follow, excuse me in advance if it may hurt some feelings:

This wouldn't be a problem if people get used to the fact that 5e working more around RAI than about RAW.
Some people needs to throw away their 3.x rules lawyer mindset, and look at 5e as if it was a completly different game.

At the start of the edition I might agree with you. After the way some of the Sage questions have been answered I do not think we have a case for that anymore. Some have been very particular to the written rules. Of course sometimes he also flat out makes stuff up (such as with magic initiate) but I guess we can say that this edition has been fairly inconsistent on whether it wants to be particular with the wording or not.

Honestly what they SHOULD have done from the start was use this wording to their advantage. If two or more interpretations are legitimately possible give the positive and negatives for both and they could even tell you what the initial idea was and how that Sage would rule it but leave it up to the individual DM to choose (they wold also tell you what way would be official in the adventurers league stuff so the DMs there already know).

Sadly that ship has already left port I think.

[BurgerBeast]

"You must get in an airplane to fly, provided you have one available" is also acceptable English and you can't infer from it that, if an airplane is not available, you can fly without one.

Your example is redundant. Beyond that, it introduced dependencies between the conditions that don't exist in the original example.


But even your own example doesn't work. In a world where all birds were flightless but were banned from entering aircraft, "You must get in an airplane to fly, provided you’re not a bird" would still be acceptable, but it wouldn't be true that birds can fly without airplanes. So you can't draw the inference you're trying to draw.

I think it's fair to say that you know what I meant, so if you prefer to insert "flighted" before birds, you can do that. Let's avoid intellectually dishonest arguments.

[Talamare]

4e was by far the most rule lawyered errata filled version of ALL TIME
The amount of Errata for 4e could create an entire book

You would think that with all that experience they would be able to create a clear and concise 5e

[eastmabl]

You must spend a bonus action to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken another bonus action. Which means that if you have already taken another bonus action, then it is no longer the case that "you must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell."

***

But say that the caster is engaging in, I dunno, TWF, so he uses his action to attack and his bonus action to make an off-hand attack, and then he goes to cast Misty Step. RAI would say that he can't do it, because he doesn't have a bonus action to spend—but the RAW says that since he already took a bonus action this turn, it is no longer the case that he "must use his bonus action," so he just casts Misty Step without an explicit action cost. RAI is very sad about this, but I feel like that's what that sentence means. "You must do A, provided that B is true." Which means that if B is not true, then it is no longer the case that you must do A.

Simply, you're wrong about the RAW. You're honed in on the rules about casting without considering the general rules about bonus actions.

To use a slightly different example:

Step 1. Player, an arcane trickster, uses her bonus action to disengage.

This interacts with the general rule about bonus actions - you only get one of them per turn. "You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available." Basic Rules, p. 69.

In your example, the player has the option of using her cunning actions (dash, disengage or hide) or using misty step. She has elected to disengage. That's her one bonus action.

Step 2. Player wants to cast misty step.

See the above rule about bonus actions. The player had the choice of bonus actions, and she chose the disengage option. She only has one bonus action, so she cannot avail herself of a bonus action.

BUT WAIT! "A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift," right? Wouldn't she be able to cast misty step as an Action, since Actions take much longer and the bonus action is much shorter?

There's a rule for that - "You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action this turn." Basic Rules p. 79.

This rule says that, to cast a spell with casting time of a bonus action, you must use your bonus action. Here, the rules prevent you from tinkering with the action economy for this type of spells.

Let's assume for argument's sake your statement that "'You must do A, provided that B is true'" means that if you can't cast a spell because you used your bonus action, you argue, then you're no longer confined to the bonus action.

This ignores the general rule that you get one bonus action per turn. The arcane trickster has used her bonus action to disengage. You shouldn't read the rule as "provided" as "only on the condition that you haven't used your bonus action;" rather, you should read "provided" as "available only if you haven't otherwise taken your bonus action this turn." It serves as a reminder of the general rule found 10 pages back.

Another argument against this interpretation is that rules don't tell you what to do if your interpretation is actually correct. Is it a free action? Unlikely, since it's not explicitly mentioned in "other actions during combat." Basic Rules, p. 70. Is it a move action, or an Action? Because the rules haven't told you what to do, it seems like you're chasing a non-existent tail in hopes of finding a RAW interpretation for a rule that's not really there.

[Gtdead]

Just like half the phb, this section is badly written.

This isn't even a rule, it's just a reminder.

Even the rule that prohibits the use of a second spell in the same turn is badly written.
The rule says that you can't cast another spell in the same turn, which by itself is very clear, but since it's under the "bonus action" section, one can assume that you can't cast another spell if you already have cast a bonus action spell. If you cast a normal action spell, then you can cast a bonus action spell without any problems. Which is what I thought when I read it the first time.

Which makes sense since you can use action surge to cast 2 spells anyway.

[DeAnno]

Amusing, and a good catch. At least this incidence of 5e's notoriously imprecise language doesn't have any negative effects on real play.

[jprepo1]

Both RAW and RAI are clear that what the OP and Burgerbast are trying to say is untrue, just poor reading comprehension.

[RulesJD]

Well, we can do this all day. I say you are. You say I am.

The whole construct you made using A, B, and C is not what is at issue. It is, as the OP pointed out, the use of "must" instead of "may."

The condition C is a precedent to a "must," not a "may," so if the precedent is denied, it negates a must, not a may. In other words it makes it so the caster "mustn't" use a bonus action (implication: can do it without one). It does not make it so the caster "may not" use a bonus action (implication: can't do it, which is what is intended).

"You mustn't use a bonus action to..." is a lost different than "You may not use a bonus action to..."

Sweet jesus please tell me you aren't in a job or any position of, well, anything that requires you to display even a modicum of reading comprehension and logical reasoning skills.

IF "may" had been used THEN you would be facing a problem. May is a conditional term that imparts there is another choice to be made. You may do something, or you may do something else. "Must" has no such value in the English language. You must do something, or you must do something else is a false statement. It isn't vague, it isn't imprecise. It is just wrong, like you and the OP are.

IF "may" had been used, then you could interpret the fact that you "may" cast a bonus action spell with another type of Action. Because the wording is Must, you will always return to the statement that to cast a spell with a casting time of Bonus Action, you must use your bonus action. Literally nothing else matters in the rule because you will keep returning to that statement because it is the RAW for what you must do in order to cast a bonus action spell. There is ZERO RAW support, in the english language or otherwise, that there is an implied "may" conditional for taking some sort of other free or untyped action.

I can already tell you are so happy with your perceived loophole that your logical reasoning centers are failing to see just how wrong you are. I see it all the time when someone attaches themselves to an idea that they think should deserve praise for how smart it makes them appear, only to fail to recognize when they are wrong.

Was going to just tear apart your laughably wrong example, but Weaseldust already took care that.

[Rhaegar]

Any player who tried to use the minutia of the wording of something to argue against what was obviously intended by an ability I would shut down in a second. It seems that a lot of people have trouble seeing the forest through the trees.

And assuming what the OP does is RAW requires you to ignore a half dozen other rules in the process. One badly written spell doesn't negate other rules. And when rules appear to be in conflict you should be ruling based on what is intended or makes sense.

[BurgerBeast]

(1) I don't think players are supposed to be able to cast spells for free (i.e. without spending an action). I stated form the start (and so did the OP) that I wouldn't allow it. (2) The only thing being debated here is the meaning of the sentence.

[edit: My initial argument was a poor one and I concede that. I am using a different argument here, and I think it is a better one. Initially I was trying to address the arguments of other posters, and I gave a poor counterargument.]


Sweet jesus please tell me you aren't in a job or any position of, well, anything that requires you to display even a modicum of reading comprehension and logical reasoning skills.

I am, and I do. I have studied both. We can leave the ad hominem aside, champ.


IF "may" had been used THEN you would be facing a problem.

You're mistaken, here.


May is a conditional term that imparts there is another choice to be made. You may do something, or you may do something else.

This is true but it is not what is important here. What is important here is the difference between "You may not" and "It is not the case that you may."


"Must" has no such value in the English language. You must do something, or you must do something else is a false statement.

Good. But we're talking about the negation and to what it applies. We're talking about the difference between "You must not" and "It is not the case that you must."


It isn't vague, it isn't imprecise.

Both true. Which is why you are precisely incorrect. But again, we don't need to do this.


It is just wrong, like you and the OP are.

Take: "You must use a bonus action to cast the spell" and negate it.

1. You must use a bonus action to cast the spell. [two affirmations: must and use]

2. You must not use a bonus action to cast the spell. [must is denied]

3. You must use not a bonus action to cast the spell. [use is denied]

4. It is not the case that you must use a bonus action to cast the spell. [the combination is denied]

You are claiming that the denial of the precedent leads to 2. I am claiming that the denial of the precedent leads to 4. They are different. The grammar supports my claim.


IF "may" had been used, then you could interpret the fact that you "may" cast a bonus action spell with another type of Action. Because the wording is Must, you will always return to the statement that to cast a spell with a casting time of Bonus Action, you must use your bonus action.

This reasoning is faulty. We're not interpreting the affirmation. We're interpreting what happens when the precedent is false and the affirmation is denied.

I'll try another example:

Example: you must enter the store to buy an item, provided you're not already in the store.

Your way:

I am already in the store --> precedent negated --> must negated --> I must not enter the store if I wish to buy the item.

My way:

I am already in the store --> precedent negated --> combination negated --> It is not the case that I must enter the store if I wish to buy the item.

My way seems to be the intended interpretation. Can you show me where I'm wrong?

With proper context:

Your way:

I already used my bonus action --> precedent negated --> must negated --> I must not use my bonus action to cast the spell.

My way:

I already used my bonus action --> precedent negated --> combination negated --> It is not the case that I must use my bonus action to cast the spell.


I can already tell you are so happy with your perceived loophole that your logical reasoning centers are failing to see just how wrong you are. I see it all the time when someone attaches themselves to an idea that they think should deserve praise for how smart it makes them appear, only to fail to recognize when they are wrong.

No, you can't tell anything about my emotional state by reading an online forum post. Sorry, you lose this one.


Was going to just tear apart your laughably wrong example, but Weaseldust already took care that.

Feel free.

[bid]

My way seems to be the intended interpretation. Can you show me where I'm wrong?
"Provided" is an IF statement:
- use_bonus_to_cast PROVIDED NOT bonus_action_used

This is semantically equivalent to:
- bonus_action_used PROVIDED NOT use_bonus_to_cast

You can also write it as an OR statement:
- use_bonus_to_cast OR bonus_action_used

You cannot conclude anything else. As soon as either element is TRUE, the statement yields no further information.


Your interpretation is that of an IF-AND-ONLY-IF statement. Trying to apply it here is as wrong as dividing by zero to get 0 = 1.

[BurgerBeast]

This is the most clear and comprehensive explanation I can give:

IF (NOT you have taken your bonus action) THEN (IF you cast the spell THEN you use your bonus action)

IF (NOT A) THEN (IF B THEN C)

NOT A --> (B-->C)



A
B
C
NOT A
B-->C
NOT A-->(B-->C)


T
T
T
F
T
T


T
T
F
F
F
T


T
F
T
F
T
T


T
F
F
F
T
T


F
T
T
T
T
T


F
T
F
T
F
F


F
F
T
T
T
T


F
F
F
T
T
T



The important line is line 2. In line 2, it says that the whole statement holds true if you have taken your bonus action AND you cast the spell AND you do NOT use your bonus action. This is sufficient to prove my and the OP’s case, assuming you accept the statement. What follows is my justification for the statement, but first a few notes.

Note 1: Lines 1 and 3 are ignored or excluded because they have both A and C being true.

Note 2: Line 6 is the only line that falsifies the sentence, and this makes sense because it points out exactly what the OP pointed out: if you have not used your bonus action, then you must use it to cast the spell.

Justification for the statement:

1. You must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken another bonus action this turn.

2. (You must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell), provided that (NOT you have already taken another bonus action this turn).

3. (IF You cast the spell THEN you use your bonus action on your turn), provided that (NOT you have already taken another bonus action this turn).

4. IF (NOT you have already taken another bonus action this turn) THEN (IF You cast the spell THEN you use your bonus action on your turn).

5. IF (NOT A) THEN (IF B THEN C), where A = you have…, B = you cast…, and C = you use…

[bid]

This is the most clear and comprehensive explanation I can give:

IF (NOT you have taken your bonus action) THEN (IF you cast the spell THEN you use your bonus action)

IF (NOT A) THEN (IF B THEN C)

NOT A --> (B-->C)



A
B
C
NOT A
B-->C
NOT A-->(B-->C)


T
T
T
F
T
T


T
T
F
F
F
T



The important line is line 2. In line 2, it says that the whole statement holds true if you have taken your bonus action AND you cast the spell AND you do NOT use your bonus action. This is sufficient to prove my and the OP’s case, assuming you accept the statement. What follows is my justification for the statement, but first a few notes.

Note 1: Lines 1 and 3 are ignored or excluded because they have both A and C being true.

Ok, here's your mistake. You've excluded the lines that do not fit your conclusion. Line 1 TTT is just as valid a result as line 2 TTF.

Line 1 TTT can be summarized as: "I can only cast if I have 2 bonus actions."
Line 2 TTF can be summarized as: "I can cast without a second bonus action."


Since they are mutually exclusive, only one of them can be TRUE. Without another statement to discriminate between those 2 results, the conclusion remains undecided.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

On the one hand, I'm a bit embarrassed at the shameless ad hominem some posters want to throw around for the sake of defending a supposedly literal reading of the rules that doesn't even affect a table.

On the other hand, it seems to me this whole trick rests on the oft-refuted 3.5 petard, "The rules don't say I can't." The RAW describes what you can do. In other words, for your character to do something by RAW, it has to be written that you can do it. Where there is a hole in the rules, what you can do is up to the DM*.

So, to look at the rule, the statement "When you have already taken a bonus action, it is not true that you must use a bonus action to cast a bonus action spell" is technically correct. However, there is no text stating what one must or can actually do to cast a bonus action spell in this specific circumstance. And you must (heh) have such text to be able to cast the spell at all, by RAW.

*Yes, this means that every little detail not covered in the rules is technically a ruling and/or a house rule. This has always been true. Harken back to 3.5, where posters half-jokingly argued that there is no rule stating you can't take actions while dead. This is technically true. This is because the designers assumed the DM and players could figure that part out on their own, using the definition of "dead." 5e has simply taken that logic and applied it to more cases, including those where the RAI is abundantly clear.

[Zalabim]

This is the most clear and comprehensive explanation I can give:

IF (NOT you have taken your bonus action) THEN (IF you cast the spell THEN you use your bonus action)



I see your problem here. You have it backwards. You spend the action to cast the spell. So:

IF (NOT you have taken your bonus action) THEN (IF you use your bonus action THEN you cast the spell).

The other problem is that there is no alternative. The rules in the book typically tell you what you can do. If the must use a bonus action case fails because you've already taken a bonus action this turn, then you'd have to show some other rule that allows the spell to be cast.

[djreynolds]

I don't think you can jump from "must spend bonus action" to "can cast spell without an action if bonus action already spent." However, you might have a case for being able to cast a bonus action spell with your regular action iff the bonus action had already been consumed. For example, if you were under the effects of expeditious retreat and used your bonus action to dash, you could argue that you now are free to use your regular action for that misty step.

I also agree that this is against fairly clear RAI.

I'm running away from the dragon, I will use my bonus action to dash to the ravine. I will cast misty step to cross the ravine instead of using my action.-- this might be "illegal"

Or I could use my action to dash and then use my bonus action to cast misty step. same thing --- but might be "legal"

But both do the same thing

Whichever ruling will at least allow me to die on the other side of the ravine, because I forgot dragons can fly.

I mean could a wizard cast shield preemptively, I'm using my reaction at the beginning of my turn to cast shield because 4 rogues have wands? Either way it only lasts the round

[BurgerBeast]

"Provided" is an IF statement:

This is correct. The rest of what you have written is not.


- use_bonus_to_cast PROVIDED NOT bonus_action_used

This is semantically equivalent to:
- bonus_action_used PROVIDED NOT use_bonus_to_cast

No, this is not true. Logical implication does not work both ways. This is basic logic. See the truth table of logical implication and/ modus ponens and modus tollens. Also, semantics has nothing to do with it. We use logic to avoid semantics.


You can also write it as an OR statement:
- use_bonus_to_cast OR bonus_action_used

No, logical OR is not the same as logical implication. This is basic logic. See the truth tables. Also note that XOR and OR are different.


You cannot conclude anything else. As soon as either element is TRUE, the statement yields no further information.

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken here. The IF...THEN is not a computer programming loop, it's a boolean variable. It always returns either TRUE or FALSE. This appears to be your misconception.


Your interpretation is that of an IF-AND-ONLY-IF statement. Trying to apply it here is as wrong as dividing by zero to get 0 = 1.

No, it isn't. An IF and ONLY IF is again different. This is basic logic. Any introductory course will show you how to construct a truth table and the differences between these things will be self-evident upon viewing the tables.

[BurgerBeast]

Ok, here's your mistake. You've excluded the lines that do not fit your conclusion. Line 1 TTT is just as valid a result as line 2 TTF.

No, our understanding excludes them. The OP and I are arguing specifically that line 2 is a possibility. Our argument does not say anything about lines 1-5 or 7-8 (except for the OP's oblique comments about 6).


Line 1 TTT can be summarized as: "I can only cast if I have 2 bonus actions."

No, it can't. Line one can be summarized as: The statement is not violated IF you have taken your bonus action AND you cast the spell AND you use your bonus action. But it is irrelevant because (1) Nobody is arguing about it because (2) we all agree that it is not possible.


Line 2 TTF can be summarized as: "I can cast without a second bonus action."

No it can't, but that is a consequence of it.


Since they are mutually exclusive, only one of them can be TRUE. Without another statement to discriminate between those 2 results, the conclusion remains undecided.

Nobody is arguing about whether they are true. We are arguing that line 2 is not a violation of the larger statement.

[BurgerBeast]

I see your problem here. You have it backwards. You spend the action to cast the spell. So:

IF (NOT you have taken your bonus action) THEN (IF you use your bonus action THEN you cast the spell).


If you construct the truth table for "You must use a bonus action to cast the spell," you'll see that my interpretation works and yours doesn't.

A = use a bonus action
B = cast a spell



A
B
You must A to B


T
T
T


T
F
T


F
T
F


F
F
T



Note that column 3 is the same as B->A, not A->B, therefore my interpretation is correct and yours is incorrect.

Explanation of column 3: the statement "you must A to B" is violated only if B is true and A is false.

[RagnaroksChosen]

I wonder if the issue is the word "Provided" rather then the use of truth tables.

I am not great at grammar in any way but upon googling "Provided" the definition that came up in google (again probably not great but)



on the condition or understanding that.
"cutting corners was acceptable, provided that you could get away with it"
synonyms: if, on condition that, providing (that), provided that, presuming (that), assuming (that), on the assumption that, as long as, given (that), with the provision/proviso that, with/on the understanding that, contingent on
"we'll take care of the horses, provided we can stay at your house while you're gone"

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=provided


The way I read the sentence in question is that you must use your bonus action if you have not already used it. By Raw I think you can cast a bonus action spell even if you have already used your action. But I can still cast this spell. The next sentence prevents people from casting as many spells as they have spell slots.


Edit:

Also It makes more sense if we substitute the provided that with an If as per the synonyms above.
"You must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, if you haven't already taken another bonus action this turn."

[BurgerBeast]

I wonder if the issue is the word "Provided" rather then the use of truth tables...

...Also It makes more sense if we substitute the provided that with an If as per the synonyms above.

"You must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, if you haven't already taken another bonus action this turn."

This is exactly what I did. Since in logic, the IF usually precedes the THEN, I just switched the order, which does nothing to the meaning.

(You must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell) IF (you haven't already taken another bonus action this turn)

is logical equivalent to

IF (you haven't already taken another bonus action this turn) THEN (You must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell)

and this is the basis of my point.

[Vogonjeltz]

However, that's not actually what they wrote.

You must spend a bonus action to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken another bonus action. Which means that if you have already taken another bonus action, then it is no longer the case that "you must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell."

The first clause makes it clear that you can't use an action or reaction to cast the spell, only a bonus action. The second clause is to make clear it isn't letting you use a second bonus action on the same turn.

If the sentence stated that you could use another action instead if the bonus action were already used, it would say that, but it doesn't say that.


This wouldn't be a problem if people get used to the fact that 5e working more around RAI than about RAW.
Some people needs to throw away their 3.x rules lawyer mindset, and look at 5e as if it was a completly different game.

I don't think it's rules lawyering per se that is the problem. There's nothing wrong with parsing ability phrasing to determine effect, that's reading comprehension.

The problem is that Zaq inserted nonexistent words and incorrect meanings to reach for a particular conclusion.

Using that reasoning could equally well have led to: This ability only expressly requires it to be a bonus action, ergo if I can't use a bonus action, then I can use it as a reaction, or no action at all.

Similarly: If I'm paralyzed and incapable of action, I must be able to use all my actions as reactions!

[bid]

No, this is not true. Logical implication does not work both ways. This is basic logic. See the truth table of logical implication and/ modus ponens and modus tollens. Also, semantics has nothing to do with it. We use logic to avoid semantics.

No, logical OR is not the same as logical implication. This is basic logic. See the truth tables. Also note that XOR and OR are different.
Logic 101, failed.
- A OR B
- NOT A -> B
- NOT B -> A
All 3 statements are strictly equivalent and share the same truth table.

[bid]

No, our understanding excludes them. The OP and I are arguing specifically that line 2 is a possibility. Our argument does not say anything about lines 1-5 or 7-8 (except for the OP's oblique comments about 6).
You cannot exclude line 1. It is a valid result that can be understood as "you cannot cast a bonus spell if you've already taken a bonus action."

If you are arguing that line 2 is AN interpretation of the statement, that is correct. As long as you do not argue that line 2 is THE interpretation. Which of line 1 and line 2 is THE interpretation remains undecided.

[MaxWilson]

While we're on the subject of dumb munchkin rule interpretations that might be legal, it's worth noting that you could potentially cast a bonus action spell and use your action to Ready the Cast A Spell action for another spell as soon as anything happens.

It's unclear to me whether this is RAI or RAW (because the Ready rules don't forbid you from readying Cast A Spell but they do have special rules for readying a spell--thanks WotC editors for the clarity of your writing) but as a DM I think I'd be likely to allow it since it's increasing the action cost to also eat your reaction, and it makes sense thematically. I'd have to think it over but I'd probably wind up approving it.

[BurgerBeast]

The first clause makes it clear that you can't use an action or reaction to cast the spell, only a bonus action. The second clause is to make clear it isn't letting you use a second bonus action on the same turn.

This is what the writer intended to write. We all agree with what was intended. He or she made a mistake and wrote something else (I contend) or he or she wrote it just fine (you and others contend).


If the sentence stated that you could use another action instead if the bonus action were already used, it would say that, but it doesn't say that.

Nobody is saying that it implies it either. We're saying it implies that you can do it for free. Again, I must emphasize that no one thinks you are supposed to be able to do it for free. But we think the sentence implies it, so we think the sentence is a mistake. That's all.


I don't think it's rules lawyering per se that is the problem. There's nothing wrong with parsing ability phrasing to determine effect, that's reading comprehension.

Agreed.


The problem is that Zaq inserted nonexistent words and incorrect meanings to reach for a particular conclusion.

No, he didn't. I have addressed this.


Using that reasoning could equally well have led to: This ability only expressly requires it to be a bonus action, ergo if I can't use a bonus action, then I can use it as a reaction, or no action at all.

No, it couldn’t. Your example is not the same. What you wrote is clearly a contradiction of the meaning of the word “expressly.” There is no similarity.


Similarly: If I'm paralyzed and incapable of action, I must be able to use all my actions as reactions!

Also no. They are different.


Logic 101, failed.
- A OR B
- NOT A -> B
- NOT B -> A
All 3 statements are strictly equivalent and share the same truth table.

Except we were;t talking about not A -> B nor not B -> A. We were talking about A -> B and B -> A. Nice try.


You cannot exclude line 1. It is a valid result that can be understood as "you cannot cast a bonus spell if you've already taken a bonus action."

You can. You do. It’s normal practice. I’m sorry but the number and quality of mistakes you’ve made in your logic are so extreme that I don’t really know how to address you any more. A quick google search is all it takes to learn about truth tables, yet you emphatically claim that you’re right.


If you are arguing that line 2 is AN interpretation of the statement, that is correct. As long as you do not argue that line 2 is THE interpretation. Which of line 1 and line 2 is THE interpretation remains undecided.

No, you're not getting it. I'm not picking and choosing which lines apply. All of the lines apply. The whole truth table, taken in it's entirety, is the correct interpretation of the statement. The reason we don't consider (or include lines 1 and 3) is because they are not contentious. They neither affirm or deny either side. The line that is being contended is Line 2. Line 2 is sufficient to prove my claim on it's own.


While we're on the subject of dumb munchkin rule interpretations that might be legal, it's worth noting that you could potentially cast a bonus action spell and use your action to Ready the Cast A Spell action for another spell as soon as anything happens.

To be clear, no one thinks it’s legal. We all agree that it’s wrong. I (and the OP) think it’s a mistake. Others think it’s fine.

As for your example, yes there are plenty of weird situations that rise when you cast bonus action spells or quickened spells. It becomes even weirder that you can use action surge to cast two regular action spells in a round, but you can't cast a bonus action spell and a (non-cantrip) regular action spell in a round.

[Ewhit]

Page 189 says you can only take 1 bonus action on your turn
Page 195 says TWF using secondary weapon is a bonus action
Any spell with bonus action follows same rule eg misty step bonus action

[bid]

Except we were;t talking about not A -> B nor not B -> A. We were talking about A -> B and B -> A. Nice try.
Oh god...


"Provided" is an IF statement:
- use_bonus_to_cast PROVIDED NOT bonus_action_used

This is semantically equivalent to:
- bonus_action_used PROVIDED NOT use_bonus_to_cast

You can also write it as an OR statement:
- use_bonus_to_cast OR bonus_action_used



Logic 101, failed.
- A OR B
- NOT A -> B
- NOT B -> A
All 3 statements are strictly equivalent and share the same truth table.


Please use facts, not fantasies.

[Vogonjeltz]

This is what the writer intended to write. We all agree with what was intended. He or she made a mistake and wrote something else (I contend) or he or she wrote it just fine (you and others contend).

That is what the authors did write. Unless you can quote the language stating that no action is required, it's a dead letter issue.


Nobody is saying that it implies it either. We're saying it implies that you can do it for free. Again, I must emphasize that no one thinks you are supposed to be able to do it for free. But we think the sentence implies it, so we think the sentence is a mistake. That's all.

Nowhere does it say that a spell can be cast with no cost, nor is it implied.


No, he didn't. I have addressed this.

Yes he did. He made the (false) claim that the sentence allowed the character to cast the spell with no action provided they had already used a bonus action. The spell does not say that, the rules on casting bonus action spells do not say that.


No, it couldn’t. Your example is not the same. What you wrote is clearly a contradiction of the meaning of the word “expressly.” There is no similarity.

The rule makes it clear in no uncertain terms that a bonus action is required to cast the spell, that is the meaning of expressly. The example is functionally identical.


Also no. They are different.

Not if Zaq's post is to be believed, they would be quite the same.

[Sir cryosin]

Beware some kind of rant follow, excuse me in advance if it may hurt some feelings:

This wouldn't be a problem if people get used to the fact that 5e working more around RAI than about RAW.
Some people needs to throw away their 3.x rules lawyer mindset, and look at 5e as if it was a completly different game.

Thank you I have been thinking the same thing ever since I stared playing 5e. 5e is my first rpg tabletop my group has other players coming from other editions. I took to the rules easily and understand most but some of the other players had trouble and kept refuning to other editions rules. Which had me confused because things made perfect since to me but they keep interpret them wrong.

[BurgerBeast]

Please use facts, not fantasies.

Please use the facts about what I say, not what you say.

You said:


Logic 101, failed.
- A OR B
- NOT A -> B
- NOT B -> A
All 3 statements are strictly equivalent and share the same truth table.

As if it is a refutation of:


No, this is not true. Logical implication does not work both ways. This is basic logic. See the truth table of logical implication and/ modus ponens and modus tollens. Also, semantics has nothing to do with it. We use logic to avoid semantics.

No, logical OR is not the same as logical implication. This is basic logic. See the truth tables. Also note that XOR and OR are different.

Which it is not. You were not responding to what I said at all. Everything in what I said above is true, and nothing in what you say above makes it untrue. Nor did it at the time of posting, despite your ridiculous claim that it was "failed Logic." What is, however, failed logic at best, and intellectual dishonesty if worse, is when you try to equate what I said to what you said.

[edit: I see now that in one of my earlier replies I was refuting you and I was incorrect. But it is obvious from my reply that I simply misread what you wrote, not seeing the NOT preceding each of the antecedents. So I was incorrect to say you were wrong, but none of what I said in the rest of my refutation was incorrect (i.e. that logical implication does not go both ways nor is it equivalent to logical OR). It's not the crux of my case, anyway. My case remains and is still not refuted.]

[bid]

I see now that in one of my earlier replies I was refuting you and I was incorrect. But it is obvious from my reply that I simply misread what you wrote, not seeing the NOT preceding each of the antecedents.
Good. Apology accepted.

[BurgerBeast]

Good. Apology accepted.

I can play this childish game, too:

You said:


Your interpretation is that of an IF-AND-ONLY-IF statement. Trying to apply it here is as wrong as dividing by zero to get 0 = 1.

Logic 101. Failed.

You said:


Ok, here's your mistake. You've excluded the lines that do not fit your conclusion. Line 1 TTT is just as valid a result as line 2 TTF.

Logic 101. Failed.

You said:


Line 1 TTT can be summarized as: "I can only cast if I have 2 bonus actions."
Line 2 TTF can be summarized as: "I can cast without a second bonus action."

Logic 101. Failed.

I said:


No, this is not true. Logical implication does not work both ways. This is basic logic. See the truth table of logical implication and/ modus ponens and modus tollens. Also, semantics has nothing to do with it. We use logic to avoid semantics.

No, logical OR is not the same as logical implication. This is basic logic. See the truth tables. Also note that XOR and OR are different.

You said:


Logic 101, failed.
- A OR B
- NOT A -> B
- NOT B -> A
All 3 statements are strictly equivalent and share the same truth table.

Logic 101. Failed.

You said:


You cannot exclude line 1. It is a valid result that can be understood as "you cannot cast a bonus spell if you've already taken a bonus action."

Logic 101. Failed.

You said:


If you are arguing that line 2 is AN interpretation of the statement, that is correct. As long as you do not argue that line 2 is THE interpretation. Which of line 1 and line 2 is THE interpretation remains undecided.

Apology accepted.

But I’d rather just get to the bottom of this. My stance has been all along that:

1. The intention of the sentence is: You may use a bonus action to cast a bonus-action spell on your turn if and only if you have not already used your bonus action this turn.
2. The sentence actually says something different, because it contains at least one correct unintended interpretation

I can be refuted in a few ways:

1. You can show that I’ve got the intention of the sentence wrong
2. You can show that the sentence actuall says exactly the same thing as You may use a bonus action to cast a bonus-action spell on your turn if and only if you have not already used your bonus action this turn.
3. You can show that altough it doesn’t say the same thing, the unintended interpretation is in fact not a correctinterpretation

It seems that most of the refutations thus far have been of the third variety, but in my view they have drawn on information beyond the sentence itself.

[TheRedTemplar]

Look I'm probably butting in here and I might be out of line in saying this, but this all honestly comes down to the DM and any DM who would seriously allow you to do this is a moron. All this is is Munchkining, and it's a rather lame attempt at in to be honest. No sane DM would seriously allow any player to break the action economy like this. And honestly, it all comes down to what the DM would allow at the table, regardless of player attempts to break the system. Can we just stop this petty argument already?

[RickAllison]

Look I'm probably butting in here and I might be out of line in saying this, but this all honestly comes down to the DM and any DM who would seriously allow you to do this is a moron. All this is is Munchkining, and it's a rather lame attempt at in to be honest. No sane DM would seriously allow any player to break the action economy like this. And honestly, it all comes down to what the DM would allow at the table, regardless of player attempts to break the system. Can we just stop this petty argument already?

I disagree with you. While this argument is probably getting out of hand munchkin-y arguments like these are (as the OP suggested) valid readings that do act against the spirit of the rules. The point of these threads is so we can find where the issues are so in errata they can make the small changes to address these problems. We put up with the arguments now so that future unprepared DMs have fixed PHBs that resolve these arguments.

[soldersbushwack]

Look I'm probably butting in here and I might be out of line in saying this, but this all honestly comes down to the DM and any DM who would seriously allow you to do this is a moron. All this is is Munchkining, and it's a rather lame attempt at in to be honest. No sane DM would seriously allow any player to break the action economy like this. And honestly, it all comes down to what the DM would allow at the table, regardless of player attempts to break the system. Can we just stop this petty argument already?

This isn't munchkinry. Everybody here already knows what the RAI was. We're just complaining about how the rules are badly written and should have had more effort put into them. Which isn't to say 5th edition is bad. 5th edition has many good qualities. But clear and well written rules are not one of those qualities.

[CNagy]

This isn't munchkinry. Everybody here already knows what the RAI was. We're just complaining about how the rules are badly written and should have had more effort put into them. Which isn't to say 5th edition is bad. 5th edition has many good qualities. But clear and well written rules are not one of those qualities.

Except this isn't a case of the rule being badly written, this is a case of the rule expecting you to read it in context with all of the other rules. The spell's casting time is absolute barring any specific rule that changes it. You can argue the use of the words "must" and "provided" create a situation where there is no specific answer as to what is used to cast a Bonus Action spell if a bonus action has already been used, but the lack of a specific ruling means you default to the general ruling--which is the spell's casting time of Bonus Action. So then you look at Bonus Action spell rules, argue that the use of the words "must" and "provided" create a situation where there is no specific answer, but the lack of a specific ruling means you are right back to the general ruling. Holy Alderson recursion, Bat Man. It may not be the most elegantly written ruleset, but in this case alternate interpretation of the rules does not produce a viable result that forces you to go to RAI to determine the outcome. RAW produces one option that works, and one option that makes the universe spin its wheels in place.

So basically, if you tried to argue this in play, I'd rule that your wizard has a seizure having chanced upon a strange quirk in metamagical theory, and that seizure persists until you go ahead and let it go.

[KorvinStarmast]

Except this isn't a case of the rule being badly written, this is a case of the rule expecting you to read it in context with all of the other rules. Cherry Picking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking) is not uncommon in rhetoric, but when examined with any rigor it shows up as a failed argument.

This thread has provided much fruity goodness for a pie filling.

[BurgerBeast]

Except this isn't a case of the rule being badly written...

I don't see how you can argue that.


(From the PHB): A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken another bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

1. A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift.

This is badly written. Especially swift compared to what? It is a bonus-action spell. What does it mean for a bonus-action spell to be especially swift?

Correction: A bonus action spell requires a bonus action to cast. Done and done. No confusion.

2. You must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken another bonus action this turn.

Correction: You must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken another bonus action this turn. This is already said in the previous corrected sentence.

3. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.

Good sentence. No correction. It might appear to be unnecessary but is, in fact, necessary because it clarifies that the same rule that applies to full action spells applies also to bonus action spells.

[edit: it might need a small correction if we accept that Action Surge can be used to cast a second 1-action spell in a turn. Then it might have to be changed from ...a cantrip... to ...cantrips... or whatever the correct rule is.]


...this is a case of the rule expecting you to read it in context with all of the other rules.

That's just it! If it was, none of the issues I've shown above would be a problem. If the writers expected you to read it in context, they wouldn't need to say "especially swift," because, in fact, a bonus action spell is not especially swift when compared to other bonus actions. They wouldn't need the added confusion in sentence 2 that sparked this debate, because it ought to be implied that this rule happens in the context of all other rules governing bonus actions. Which begs the question: why did they say it?


The spell's casting time is absolute barring any specific rule that changes it. You can argue the use of the words "must" and "provided" create a situation where there is no specific answer as to what is used to cast a Bonus Action spell if a bonus action has already been used, but the lack of a specific ruling means you default to the general ruling--which is the spell's casting time of Bonus Action. So then you look at Bonus Action spell rules, argue that the use of the words "must" and "provided" create a situation where there is no specific answer, but the lack of a specific ruling means you are right back to the general ruling. Holy Alderson recursion, Bat Man. It may not be the most elegantly written ruleset, but in this case alternate interpretation of the rules does not produce a viable result that forces you to go to RAI to determine the outcome. RAW produces one option that works, and one option that makes the universe spin its wheels in place.

Again, why not just keep it simple and write it well, then. Why add in "especially swift" and all of the "provided that" nonsense that is already established in a previous, more general, rule. If you try to answer the why, and you assume the writers are intelligent, then you have to wonder what their reason was.


So basically, if you tried to argue this in play, I'd rule that your wizard has a seizure having chanced upon a strange quirk in metamagical theory, and that seizure persists until you go ahead and let it go.

Well you have the right to let an idiot cause you to disrespect your own game in that way. I wouldn't. I'd just tell him that he can't do it. If he argued, I'd tell him to accept it or leave.

[JackPhoenix]

1. A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift.

This is badly written. Especially swift compared to what? It is a bonus-action spell. What does it mean for a bonus-action spell to be especially swift?

Compared to normal Action (or longer) casting time spells. It means that the BA presents a smalle part of the overall turn than Action. Alternatively, it's fluff. Nothing wrong with that.

[BurgerBeast]

Compared to normal Action (or longer) casting time spells. It means that the BA presents a smalle part of the overall turn than Action.

Yes, we all know that. And it has already been written in the description about actions. It's redundant at best, it suggest an alternative meaning at worst (via "especially"). This is a component of bad writing. Don't take my word for though. See Orwell's Politics and the English Language.


Alternatively, it's fluff. Nothing wrong with that.

Unless you care about good writing. See Orwell, above.

[Goodberry]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, and I don't care enough to read all the posts, but you missed one thing, OP. The line starts with the words, "A spell cast with a bonus action." Therefore, the rule in question applies not to spells that list their casting times as 1 Bonus Action, but to spells that you actually used a bonus action to cast. Hence, your loophole in fact only allows you to cast the spell without an action if you already cast it with a bonus action. :P

Again, this is all nonsense theoretical logic, but as Bureaucrat #1 said on Futurama, "You are technically correct. The best kind of correct."

By the way, even if your loophole worked you still wouldn't get to cast the spell for free. The default in 5e is that anything you do costs a standard action, unless otherwise stated.

[YCombinator]

This is not even RAW. You're taking one paragraph out of context and not obeying the other rules of the PHB. Particularly page 189. RAW is very clear that "you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action." Later saying that "You can take only one bonus action on your turn."

Saying you "must use a bonus action, if you have one", is perfectly valid English. It does leave unstated whether you can perform an action if you don't have a bonus action. But that is already stated in the stuff I quoted above.

If I say, "I can teach you English if you'd like." or "There's beer in the fridge if you'd like one." does that mean that I am incapable of teaching you English if you don't want me to? Or that, perhaps, if you don't want a beer right now, then it has suddenly vanished?

[Segev]

If I say, "I can teach you English if you'd like." or "There's beer in the fridge if you'd like one." does that mean that I am incapable of teaching you English if you don't want me to? Or that, perhaps, if you don't want a beer right now, then it has suddenly vanished?

I've occasionally posited a character in a super-hero setting that had something akin to the Power Cosmic...which he used exclusively for being the ultimate butler. If he made a statement like that, it would be literal. The beer is there iff you want it. As is whatever other beverage you might want. In fact, he's already handing it to you as you think to ask for it.

[Talya]

Personally, I'm torn between irritation that some people here are ignoring the exact denotations of the English language that mean the loophole in the OP is real and does exist, and the visceral reaction I would have toward a player who tried to use that loophole.

[KorvinStarmast]

Personally, I'm torn between irritation that some people here are ignoring the exact denotations of the English language that mean the loophole in the OP is real and does exist, and the visceral reaction I would have toward a player who tried to use that loophole.
When one reads all of the related rules for spell casting, the loophole fades away.

I for one agree with the points made, by many in this conversation, that the writing has some quality issues. (For what WoTC charges for their books, I am even more disappointed).

That doesn't change what is clear when one reads all of the related rules governing actions and spell casting.

[YCombinator]

Personally, I'm torn between irritation that some people here are ignoring the exact denotations of the English language that mean the loophole in the OP is real and does exist, and the visceral reaction I would have toward a player who tried to use that loophole.

The loophole does not really exist. The original post is taking one sentence that specifies a positive case but does not bother to specify the negative case out of the context in which the negative case is very clearly specified. The rules, roughly paraphrased, are this:

1) On your turn, you may move up to your speed, perform an action, and if you have a bonus action you can do that.
2) To case a bonus action spell, you must you a bonus action if you have one.

If you don't have a bonus action, what then? Rule 2 doesn't say! OMG, guess we'll have to abide by rule 1.

[YCombinator]

Except this isn't a case of the rule being badly written, this is a case of the rule expecting you to read it in context with all of the other rules.

This and nothing but this. This is what I've been saying too.

[BurgerBeast]

Personally, I'm torn between irritation that some people here are ignoring the exact denotations of the English language that mean the loophole in the OP is real and does exist, and the visceral reaction I would have toward a player who tried to use that loophole.

I totally get this. Because I have the same reaction. Nobody has ever said anything different. The only issue here is the whether the loophole exists.


This and nothing but this. This is what I've been saying too.

Except that this point only strengthens the other side. If it's true that the rule is meant to be interpreted within the context of all the other rules, and it says:


(1) A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift.

Then you have a problem. Because within the context of all the other rules, a spell cast with a bonus action is not especially swift. It's exactly as fast as it ought to be, according to the other rules in the PHB: one bonus action.


You must use your bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken another bonus action this turn.

If this sentence is meant to be read in the context of all other rules, then this sentence is entirely unnecessary. It's already been determined that we're talking about a spell cast with a bonus action, so there's no need to state that you must use a bonus action. The other rules state that. There's also no reason to state that you can;t do it if you've already used a bonus action. The other rules already state that, too.

So, if you are supposed to read this description in the context of all the other rules in the PHB, it makes even less sense. If the writers assumed you would interpret in the context of the other rules, then why did the re-state the very rules that they thought you would use to provide context, anyway?

[bid]

Then you have a problem. Because within the context of all the other rules, a spell cast with a bonus action is not especially swift. It's exactly as fast as it ought to be, according to the other rules in the PHB: one bonus action.
Cognitive dissonance.


Compared to normal Action (or longer) casting time spells. It means that the BA presents a smalle part of the overall turn than Action. Alternatively, it's fluff. Nothing wrong with that.

[BurgerBeast]

Cognitive dissonance.


Compared to normal Action (or longer) casting time spells. It means that the BA presents a smalle part of the overall turn than Action. Alternatively, it's fluff. Nothing wrong with that.

Again, this is precisely my point. If it's necessary to say this, it can only be because it's assumed you are not reading this in the context of all the other rules.

So, since the writers decided to include it, this suggests either (a) unnecessary redundancy, or [via reductio ad absurdum] (b) that the initial assumption is untrue and the writers didn't assume that we are reading this in the context of the other rules.

Give the writers the benefit of the doubt (i.e they don't introduce unnecessary redundancy) and you have to conclude that didn't assume we would read this in the context of the other rules.

This lends more credibility to the loophole argument. It doesn't refute it.

[Note: I'm not going so far as to say that the writers specifically override the other rules, but they position the idea pretty high in the realm of probability.]

[edit: I should also point out that you've misused the phrase "cognitive dissonance"]