Spellcasting rule regarding bonus action spells

[Crimson13]

So I just found out that If you have a spell as a bonus action, be it from Metamagic: Quicken Spell or naturally, that you're only able to cast a cantrip afterword. I think it's ridiculous because I don't see the point in even having bonus action spells if you can't follow up with a combo (Hold Person/Monster and any Str/Dex spells. coming to mind.) or something stronger than a cantrip. All the guides I've read and sites I've browsed never brought up this rule, it feels like they either were ignorant of it, like me, or think it stupid, also like me. It could also be because they thought this was standard knowledge and everyone knew this but I'm angry so it doesn't count.

I've been playing and DM'ing a game while being unaware of this rule and it felt fine to me; unfortunately my DM/player is very okay with this and if he accepts the rule into his game I'm going to have to with mine. Anyone have a counter to this?

[Cybren]

So I just found out that If you have a spell as a bonus action, be it from Metamagic: Quicken Spell or naturally, that you're only able to cast a cantrip afterword. I think it's ridiculous because I don't see the point in even having bonus action spells if you can't follow up with a combo (Hold Person/Monster and any Str/Dex spells. coming to mind.) or something stronger than a cantrip. All the guides I've read and sites I've browsed never brought up this rule, it feels like they either were ignorant of it, like me, or think it stupid, also like me. It could also be because they thought this was standard knowledge and everyone knew this but I'm angry so it doesn't count.

I've been playing and DM'ing a game while being unaware of this rule and it felt fine to me; unfortunately my DM/player is very okay with this and if he accepts the rule into his game I'm going to have to with mine. Anyone have a counter to this?

What? Why does his use of a rule preclude your use of a house rule? Anyway, I think the intention of the rule is to prevent large damage spikes and allow casters to dominate fights regularly, but if you're finding the game plays well without it, I don't see a need to change anything. To be honest, I'm not a fan of it either, but without it you'll have to keep a closer eye on caster balance, and with it it's still great because you have all sorts of uses of your action other than using spell slots to cast spells.

[Crimson13]

I'd have to change it because I'm using his world for my setting and having the same rules keeps things from being contradictory with mechanics and lore and all that.

[Corran]

Rule is fine as is imo. Going around the action economy can be very problematic if combined with high level spells. Even something as simple as two fireballs in the same round will create issues, balance-wise. Powerful combos do exist, regarding how sorcerers can combine their spells with metamagic, this is just not one of them as if it was, it would overshadow everything. And even with that limitation, quicken is one of the best choices for metamagic anyway.

If none at your table minds how op it would be if you allowed quicken without its limitations, then by all means go for it. I would sugggest upping the sp cost though in that case. Perhaps have it burn that many sp as the level of the highest spell you cast during that round (to keep it in line -not really- with how twinned spell works). Still, very powerful imo.

[MeeposFire]

Actually the rule is very weird in implementation. Consider if you cast shillelagh. You would think that if you cast it then you could cast an action leveled spell but you can't you still have to cast a cantirp.

So healing word+cantrip is fine but shillelagh+cure wounds is not despite both being a level one spell and a cantrip.

Also note that the rule prevents you from casting a reaction spell on your turn if you cast a bonus action spell (so no shield on an opportunity attack if you cast healing word).

Lastly this applies if you use action surge. Oddly you could cast cure wounds using your action and your action surge action no problem but if you cast shillelagh then neither your action spell or your action surge action can be cure wounds.


To counteract this issue my houserule is that "In any given turn that you will cast a bonus action spell one of the spells cast in that turn must be a cantrip". This forces you to have one cantrip used but does not specify which one has to be the cantrip and prevents it from interfering with spells I don't think were considered.

[MeeposFire]

So I just found out that If you have a spell as a bonus action, be it from Metamagic: Quicken Spell or naturally, that you're only able to cast a cantrip afterword. I think it's ridiculous because I don't see the point in even having bonus action spells if you can't follow up with a combo (Hold Person/Monster and any Str/Dex spells. coming to mind.) or something stronger than a cantrip. All the guides I've read and sites I've browsed never brought up this rule, it feels like they either were ignorant of it, like me, or think it stupid, also like me. It could also be because they thought this was standard knowledge and everyone knew this but I'm angry so it doesn't count.

I've been playing and DM'ing a game while being unaware of this rule and it felt fine to me; unfortunately my DM/player is very okay with this and if he accepts the rule into his game I'm going to have to with mine. Anyone have a counter to this?

If you want to cast two leveled spells in a turn by RAW do not cast a bonus action spell but multiclass fighter and use action surge. Then you can cast two spells a turn once a short rest.

[mgshamster]

Magic be weird. It can do all this wonderful physics-breaking stuff, but follows some odd rules that sometimes don't make sense.

[DeAnno]

More than anything, this rule encourages Warlock/Sorcerer multiclassing a lot. Giving the Sorcerer such an efficient cantrip to use with Quicken really lessens the blow of the restriction. At the same time, without the rule, a full classed Sorcerer using Quicken to cast two high level spells would get an impressive spike that the multiclassed Warlock/Sorcerer would have a lot of trouble matching.

[R.Shackleford]

Magic be weird. It can do all this wonderful physics-breaking stuff, but follows some odd rules that sometimes don't make sense.

No.

Magic is part of that universe's physics, it doesn't break anything within the game's world.

[RickAllison]

My fluff for why the bonus action spells create such problems is that they actually wind the caster. Basically, pushing a spell to be "especially swift" does the magical equivalent of knocking the wind out of the caster. They aren't actually damaged, but they have to recover because magic is not intended to function that quickly. Cantrips are still usable because the caster has enough experience with them to cast them even when winded like that. Action Surge doesn't have the same problems because the backlash is absorbed by the energy surge. If someone attempts to cast a bonus action spell when they cannot, they find they cannot push through the magic like normal.

Admittedly that is my fluff, but I think it fairly well encompasses the mechanics.

[Dalebert]

My tier 3 sorclock will soon gain quicken.

Bonus action: Quickened Fireball 8d6+5
Action: Twinned Firebolt, 3d10+5 x 2 targets to mop up

next round
Bonus action: Twinned Hex
Action: Twinned Firebolt, 3d10+d6+5 x 2 to finish mopping up

[Aaron Underhand]

Also note that the rule prevents you from casting a reaction spell on your turn if you cast a bonus action spell (so no shield on an opportunity attack if you cast healing word).


That isn't a reading of the rules that I've ever seen played. My understanding is that reactions typically take place in another player's turn, and you get you reaction 'refreshed' at the start of your next turn.

From the PHB:
.... A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s. ...

As it is someone else's turn you can cast a reaction spell. Note this is the same as Rogues getting their sneak attack damage in reaction attacks.

That said I have seen a lot of comments about "Counterspelling Counterspell". In this case player A casts a spell, player B's reaction is Counterspell, and player A then reacts with a Counterspell to the Counterspell. I've not seen this in actual play but I would say the consensus on the boards is that this is legal.. I would allow it by 'rule of cool' and because the fluff on reaction spells specifically mentions how quick they are to cast.

[mgshamster]

No.

Magic is part of that universe's physics, it doesn't break anything within the game's world.

Ok.

Magic be weird. It can do all this seemingly physics breaking stuff, but follows some weird rules that sometimes don't make sense.

A lot of arguments about casters vs martials justify the caster side as "because magic." But then as soon as a part of the magic doesn't make sense, people often step in and try to change it so it does make sense. I've never seen someone try to justify this latter portion as "because magic."

If magic can do some great and wonderful things that don't always make sense because it's magic, then magic can also require some annoying things, like the OP's complaint, because it's magic.

[Dalebert]

It seems fairly obvious to me that many rules are made for balance reasons. There's more effort at balance than ever before in this edition and it seems to have paid off. The popularity of the game has exploded. Admittedly, some of that is also probably due to the simplicity compared to previous editions. The thing is, both of those--balance and simplicity--meant accepting a sacrifice in terms of the accurate simulation of reality. So it's very baffling when I see people say "that doesn't make sense" and then proceed to start making house rules that appear to completely disregard balance and/or simplicity for the sake of more accurate simulation of reality.

[Elminster298]

My tier 3 sorclock will soon gain quicken.

Bonus action: fireball 8d6+5
Action: Twinned firebolt, 3d10+5 x 2 targets to mop up

next round
Bonus action: twinned hex
Action: Twinned firebold, 3d10+d6+5 x 2 to finish mopping up

You can not use two metamagics on the same spell with the exception of empowered spell. So you could not both quicken and twin The same spell.

[Dalebert]

You can not use two metamagics on the same spell with the exception of empowered spell. So you could not both quicken and twin The same spell.

Yes, I'm aware of that. It's not happening in the examples given. I will edit my entry a bit for clarity due to the confusion though.

[Elminster298]

Yes, I'm aware of that. It's not happening in the examples given. I will edit my entry a bit for clarity due to the confusion though.

Ah, I see now. I simply mathed action economy wrong. Its been a long couple days...

[RickAllison]

That isn't a reading of the rules that I've ever seen played. My understanding is that reactions typically take place in another player's turn, and you get you reaction 'refreshed' at the start of your next turn.

From the PHB:
.... A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s. ...

As it is someone else's turn you can cast a reaction spell. Note this is the same as Rogues getting their sneak attack damage in reaction attacks.

That said I have seen a lot of comments about "Counterspelling Counterspell". In this case player A casts a spell, player B's reaction is Counterspell, and player A then reacts with a Counterspell to the Counterspell. I've not seen this in actual play but I would say the consensus on the boards is that this is legal.. I would allow it by 'rule of cool' and because the fluff on reaction spells specifically mentions how quick they are to cast.

The rule on the bonus action spells with reactions is that it only prevents them if they are on your turn. So while Counterspelling a Counterspell won't work, you can still use Counterspell once it isn't your turn.

[mgshamster]

The rule on the bonus action spells with reactions is that it only prevents them if they are on your turn. So while Counterspelling a Counterspell won't work, you can still use Counterspell once it isn't your turn.

I can't seem to find this rule. A little help?

Edit: Nevermind. I see it.

Under Bonus Actions for Casting a Spell, it says if you cast a spell with a casting time of a bonus action, you can't cast another spell unless it is a 1 Action Cantrip. That includes reactions - those aren't 1 Action Cantrips, so you can't cast then in your turn if you have already cast a bonus action spell.

[Elminster298]

The rule on the bonus action spells with reactions is that it only prevents them if they are on your turn. So while Counterspelling a Counterspell won't work, you can still use Counterspell once it isn't your turn.

RAW a reaction spell can not be substituted for a bonus spell so counterspelling a counterspell could not happen. As much as I would be tempted to "rule of cool" allow this, I would not allow it because you are still actively casting the first spell when the enemy counterspell goes off. So either you continue casting your primary spell and accept the counterspell or you interupt your own spell to cast counterspell which would cause your primary spell to fail.

[Corran]

RAW a reaction spell can not be substituted for a bonus spell so counterspelling a counterspell could not happen. As much as I would be tempted to "rule of cool" allow this, I would not allow it because you are still actively casting the first spell when the enemy counterspell goes off. So either you continue casting your primary spell and accept the counterspell or you interupt your own spell to cast counterspell which would cause your primary spell to fail.
Counterspelling a counterspell on your turn is actually a thing you can do. That's the RAI and RAW of it, and it has been clarified (perhaps someone else can provide a quote). This is also the reason as to why counterspell does not require verbal components. Ofc I understand your line of thought, and this is why I personally rule that you can only do that if you have both your hands free so that you will be able to accomodate both the somatic component of the spell you were casting in the first place (assuming there exist) and the somatic components of counterspell. Ofc, this last thing can cause a lot of debate, so let me just say once again that this is how I personay think it works. Counterspelling a counterspell is generally accepted as RAW and RAI though.

[RickAllison]

RAW a reaction spell can not be substituted for a bonus spell so counterspelling a counterspell could not happen. As much as I would be tempted to "rule of cool" allow this, I would not allow it because you are still actively casting the first spell when the enemy counterspell goes off. So either you continue casting your primary spell and accept the counterspell or you interupt your own spell to cast counterspell which would cause your primary spell to fail.

The Counterspell is not substituting a bonus action spell, it is just using a reaction on your turn (same as if you ran off a cliff and cast Featherfall to avoid damage). Also, it is only a somatic component so a mage could certainly be casting with their traditional method and use a free hand to shut up the Counterspell user so there really is no reason why it should interrupt the spellcasting.

[Elminster298]

Counterspelling a counterspell on your turn is actually a thing you can do. That's the RAI and RAW of it, and it has been clarified (perhaps someone else can provide a quote). This is also the reason as to why counterspell does not require verbal components. Ofc I understand your line of thought, and this is why I personally rule that you can only do that if you have both your hands free so that you will be able to accomodate both the somatic component of the spell you were casting in the first place (assuming there exist) and the somatic components of counterspell. Ofc, this last thing can cause a lot of debate, so let me just say once again that this is how I personay think it works. Counterspelling a counterspell is generally accepted as RAW and RAI though.

I see where Sage Advice has tackled this question and both Chris Perkins and Mike Mearls have said you can counterspell a counterspell but I can't find one where they address the action economy of it. I could absolutely see: I cast spell->enemy casts counterspell->ally counterspells enemy counterspell. That makes perfect sense in all possible ways. It just doesn't seem to make sense for you to be able to cast a second spell while you are actively casting a spell. Even with only a somatic component you still need to expend the spell energy and 5th ed goes to great lengths to limit this as much as possible with restricting action/bonus action spells to cantrip+bonus action spell and quicken/twinned metamagic. I guess barring a more detailed clarification from WotC I will change my judgement to allow it...mostly because I agree that it is a very cool use and doesn't greatly break anything.

[Corran]

It just doesn't seem to make sense for you to be able to cast a second spell while you are actively casting a spell. Even with only a somatic component you still need to expend the spell energy and 5th ed goes to great lengths to limit this as much as possible with restricting action/bonus action spells to cantrip+bonus action spell and quicken/twinned metamagic. I guess barring a more detailed clarification from WotC I will change my judgement to allow it...mostly because I agree that it is a very cool use and doesn't greatly break anything.
Oh, I see what you mean. Having RickAllison's justification (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?497475-Spellcasting-rule-regarding-bonus-action-spells&p=21101504#post21101504) in mind, I would just rationalize this by saying that reaction spells are so brief and so ''easy'' to cast on the fly (since you are using a reaction, as opposed to an action or a bonus action), that this is why they dont follow the same rules as bonus action spells and spellcasting. I do get your reasoning though, and in all honestly I think the difference between counterspelling a counterspell while casting another spell and quickening a spell while again casting another spell, has more to do with balance reasons, meaning that the first occurs only situationaly while the second can be done on a regular basis and thus would require some limitation of sorts. Perhaps the rule of cool is involved to some extent too.

[Dalebert]

Crawford went with Rule of Cool too I guess with the whole Counterspelling Counterspell while casting. It seems impossible to cast a spell in the middle of casting another spell. It doesn't actually violate the rules on casting another spell with a bonus action spell if someone is Countering a spell you cast with an action and you haven't cast a spell with a bonus action, i.e. most cases. Remember that the restriction is on spells cast with bonus action spells. There is no restriction on casting two spells in the same turn via any other case, e.g. reaction spells or two spells cast with Action Surge.

Here's a less ambiguous case. Another caster holds his action to cast Hold Person when you move. You use your reaction on your turn while moving to counter his Hold Person. After moving, you cast a non-cantrip spell with your action. At no point did you cast a bonus action spell so the rule hasn't been violated.

[MeeposFire]

That isn't a reading of the rules that I've ever seen played. My understanding is that reactions typically take place in another player's turn, and you get you reaction 'refreshed' at the start of your next turn.

From the PHB:
.... A reaction is an instant response to a trigger of some kind, which can occur on your turn or on someone else’s. ...

As it is someone else's turn you can cast a reaction spell. Note this is the same as Rogues getting their sneak attack damage in reaction attacks.

That said I have seen a lot of comments about "Counterspelling Counterspell". In this case player A casts a spell, player B's reaction is Counterspell, and player A then reacts with a Counterspell to the Counterspell. I've not seen this in actual play but I would say the consensus on the boards is that this is legal.. I would allow it by 'rule of cool' and because the fluff on reaction spells specifically mentions how quick they are to cast.

TO give another example let us say you cast shillelagh and a firebolt on your turn and then move away from your enemy and he gets an opportunity attack on you. If you think he is going to hit you might use a shield spell but in this case you cannot since the shield spell is a reaction spell and you would be casting it on your turn (most reactions are off your turn but they can come up on your turn) so you would just have to eat the attack. If you did not cast that bonus action spell then you could cast shield (and if you used my version of the rule then you could as well).

[Aaron Underhand]

TO give another example let us say you cast shillelagh and a firebolt on your turn and then move away from your enemy and he gets an opportunity attack on you. If you think he is going to hit you might use a shield spell but in this case you cannot since the shield spell is a reaction spell and you would be casting it on your turn (most reactions are off your turn but they can come up on your turn) so you would just have to eat the attack. If you did not cast that bonus action spell then you could cast shield (and if you used my version of the rule then you could as well).

Thanks for the added example, I've expanded to:


Case 1: I cast (say) Acid Splash as a cantrip then move and provoke, and reaction cast Shield against the AoO
Case 2: I cast (say) Sleep as an action then move and provoke, and reaction cast Shield against the AoO
Case 3 I Bonus Cast (say) Shillelagh as a cantrip, then move and provoke, and reaction cast Shield against the AoO
Case 4: I Bonus Cast Healing Word, then move and provoke, and reaction cast Shield against the AoO
Case 5: I cast (say) Acid Splash as a cantrip, Bonus Cast (say) Shillelagh as a cantrip, then move and provoke, and reaction cast Shield against the AoO
Case 6: I cast (say) Acid Splash as a cantrip, Bonus Cast Healing Word, then move and provoke, and reaction cast Shield against the AoO

My personal ruling would be all these are legal for the following reasons:

1 RAW and RAI - (my interpretation - see above posts and text below)
2 Rule of Cool
3 Simplicity/Playability - I'd certainly want some of the above to work - I can imagine problems in record keeping/remembering/suspension of disbelief and speed of play if you try to make some legal and others not.

RAW - I personally interpret a reaction which is taken *in reaction to another's reaction* as not part of your turn - this formalizes the counterspelling a counterspell argument.

I am playing a Bard/Wizard MC at present, and I've asked the DM in that game his ruling as 1,2 4 and 6 could all conceivably happen next session!

[Traginous]

Actually the rule is very weird in implementation. Consider if you cast shillelagh. You would think that if you cast it then you could cast an action leveled spell but you can't you still have to cast a cantirp.

So healing word+cantrip is fine but shillelagh+cure wounds is not despite both being a level one spell and a cantrip.

Also note that the rule prevents you from casting a reaction spell on your turn if you cast a bonus action spell (so no shield on an opportunity attack if you cast healing word).

Lastly this applies if you use action surge. Oddly you could cast cure wounds using your action and your action surge action no problem but if you cast shillelagh then neither your action spell or your action surge action can be cure wounds.


To counteract this issue my houserule is that "In any given turn that you will cast a bonus action spell one of the spells cast in that turn must be a cantrip". This forces you to have one cantrip used but does not specify which one has to be the cantrip and prevents it from interfering with spells I don't think were considered.
My understanding is that the restriction on casting a only being able to cast a cantrip is after casting a Spell as a bonus action. Shillelagh is a cantrip and I would there for consider it to be completely admissible as per RAW to cast shillelagh and then any normal spell as your action. That said it is my opinion that any spell that is a bonus action by default would be fair game for having a normal spell cast as an action on the same turn, IE: Healing word + Bless or Misty step + magic missile. The reason I think this should be acceptable is because to my knowledge there really are not any bonus action spells that do damage, they are mostly utility or healing word. The intent from my point of view is to prevent abuse of the quicken metamagic to cast multiple high damage spells per round, for multiple rounds/encounters.

[Zalabim]

This time, the rule slowing down quickened spells is not aimed squarely at nerfing sorcerers. It applies to everyone, and is intended to apply to everyone.