No limit on spells per turn

[Galithar]

So if I had a DM that waived the "If you cast a spell with a bonus action you can't cast another spell other then a Cantrip" what are some combos that could be done with this?

Some obvious things to me are just playing a sorcerer that can double cast any spell with quicken. Or a Spiritual Weapo/Spirit Guardians cleric then can set up both on turn 1.

What are some other thoughts playground? I'm looking for cool combos and "make your DM cry" combos, if for no other reason then to point them out to him to get him to change his mind (I'm not a fan of the rule change except for some very specific spells that I think are best when cast on the same turn as another, such as Misty Step)

[KillingTime]

Not a combo as such, but being able to cast healing word and still throw an offensive levelled spell with your action would be an extremely powerful action economy.

[Contrast]

One thing to be wary of is the adventuring day - two spells per turn is sweet in the moment but does mean you're also burning spells twice as fast. Careful you don't burn too quick.

As you say sorcs will likely get the most consistent use. Fireball, Fireball is a pretty encounter ending opener a lot of the time.

Spiritual Weapon + concentration spell is good action ecnomy and would help limit the additional spell slot burning and as was mentioned you probably want access to Healing Word to keep the party up while the damage keeps coming.

Also a buff to Misty Step.


Not seeing any huge combos otherwise so if you want to get the absolute most out of it looks like Divine Soul sorc might be the way to go.

Edit - A fighter dip could be entertaining just to allow Fireball, Fireball, Fireball :smallbiggrin:

[MrStabby]

Off the top of my head I think the best use is Order cleric.

Use the level 6 ability to cast hold person as a bonus action then inflict wounds as an action for automatic critical hits for many d10 damage.

I think that with spiritual weapon and healing word clerics get the best of the bonus action spells anyway.


Sure sorcerer is nice, but you have to be pretty high level to be regularly quickening spells and you are going to run down resources very quickly.


Otherwise... hex and scorching ray?

[J-H]

In addition to what was mentioned above, it also enables single round casting of True Strike plus spells with a single high-damage attack roll, such as Disintegrate or Inflict Wounds. Especially when paired with Elven Accuracy, this gives triple advantage and thus a ~15% crit rate.

It will make the other party casters sad and could easily overshadow the melee characters in some fights as well.

[DarknessEternal]

Please try to convince them that this is a game breaking change.

[JackPhoenix]

In addition to what was mentioned above, it also enables single round casting of True Strike plus spells with a single high-damage attack roll, such as Disintegrate or Inflict Wounds. Especially when paired with Elven Accuracy, this gives triple advantage and thus a ~15% crit rate.

It will make the other party casters sad and could easily overshadow the melee characters in some fights as well.

True Strike still only give you advantage on your next turn. And you still need to find a way to cast it as bonus action. And you already can use True Strike followed by quickened Disintegrate/Inflict Wounds, but there's no benefit. TS is that bad.

[kazaryu]

What are some other thoughts playground? I'm looking for cool combos and "make your DM cry" combos, if for no other reason then to point them out to him to get him to change his mind (I'm not a fan of the rule change except for some very specific spells that I think are best when cast on the same turn as another, such as Misty Step)

no. this is entirely the wrong mentality. if you don't like a ruling, thats fine. but to specifically attempt to break the game, with edge cases, just out of pettiness, is....well petty. and unsportsmanlike. respect his ruling and let the game play out. you do not have a right to dictate the rules of the game.

now, if this is a ruling that the rest of the players don't like, thats a different story. but if its just you, then stop being petty and just accept it. its a game, just have fun alongside everyone else.

[Lupine]

no. this is entirely the wrong mentality. if you don't like a ruling, thats fine. but to specifically attempt to break the game, with edge cases, just out of pettiness, is....well petty. and unsportsmanlike. respect his ruling and let the game play out. you do not have a right to dictate the rules of the game.

now, if this is a ruling that the rest of the players don't like, thats a different story. but if its just you, then stop being petty and just accept it. its a game, just have fun alongside everyone else.

I disagree. The player will be having fun with a hilariously broken build, and the dm should (hopefully) learn never to do this again. It's not petty to prove to the DM that his ruling is wrong, and even stupid, as long as you don't do that in game. Even in popular sports, there is generally the option to challenge a ruling. and that takes place in game.

As a DM, I think it is fully up to the DM to consider what effect their houserule will have, and truly think about it's implication. If the player thinks that a ruling allows a large hole in the game, it is the responsibility of the player to point out this option to the DM. If the DM chooses the rule anyway, then it is up to the player to exploit that hole to the greatest ability that they can.

Think of it like the skyrim "fortify alchemy, fortify enchanting" exploit.

[NaughtyTiger]

I disagree. The player will be having fun with a hilariously broken build, and the dm should (hopefully) learn never to do this again. It's not petty to prove to the DM that his ruling is wrong, and even stupid, as long as you don't do that in game. Even in popular sports, there is generally the option to challenge a ruling. and that takes place in game.

As a DM, I think it is fully up to the DM to consider what effect their houserule will have, and truly think about it's implication. If the player thinks that a ruling allows a large hole in the game, it is the responsibility of the player to point out this option to the DM. If the DM chooses the rule anyway, then it is up to the player to exploit that hole to the greatest ability that they can.

Think of it like the skyrim "fortify alchemy, fortify enchanting" exploit.

this is why we can't have nice things.

[MrStabby]

I think the context was not to break the game but instead to argue the rule should not be used as doing so would cause problems and to use proffered builds as evidence to support that.

Providing a list of ways in which a ruleing is bad is not evil. Specifically doing it in session zero before the game begins, as it sounds like the OP is looking to do, seems to be exactly the right thing to do.

If there is a proposed house rule at your table that will cause you to enjoy a game less should you speak about it? 90% of issues with DMs on this site seem to stem from a lack of communication. If you are going to object, is it not best to bring evidence and examples?

[Kurt Kurageous]

Noncasters need more help.

Why stop with breaking one rule? Why not go for ignoring concentration limits and concentration saves? That would be more game breaking and produce more (cringe) "make your DM cry" combos.

And while you are at it, help out those martials. Who needs attuning limitations? Bring back the walking magic shop that was AD&D.

IMHO.

[MaxWilson]

I disagree. The player will be having fun with a hilariously broken build, and the dm should (hopefully) learn never to do this again.

IMO the player is less likely to have fun with the hilariously broken build than to feel dirty and possibly also bored. As soon as the broken rule goes away, so does the whole PC build concept, and even if it doesn't it just makes the game too easy.

If the player thought they were likely to have fun with the broken build they probably wouldn't have started this thread in the first place, they'd just be double-casting Fireballs or whatever.

@OP, a first-level Cleric or Artificer dip on a wizard offers some interesting bonus action spells (Sanctuary, Shield of Faith) which are normally hard for full casters to use well because they compete with "real" spells. Paladins also have some nice bonus action spells too (Wrathful Smite, Compelled Duel). But really the obvious ploy here is to just get Quicken Spell metamagic.

[Barny]

IMO the player is less likely to have fun with the hilariously broken build than to feel dirty and possibly also bored. As soon as the broken rule goes away, so does the whole PC build concept, and even if it doesn't it just makes the game too easy.

If the player thought they were likely to have fun with the broken build they probably wouldn't have started this thread in the first place, they'd just be double-casting Fireballs or whatever.

@OP, a first-level Cleric or Artificer dip on a wizard offers some interesting bonus action spells (Sanctuary, Shield of Faith) which are normally hard for full casters to use well because they compete with "real" spells. Paladins also have some nice bonus action spells too (Wrathful Smite, Compelled Duel). But really the obvious ploy here is to just get Quicken Spell metamagic.


Well, I agree there will be some op builds to deal with tons of AOE dmg in 1st encounter. But spell slots are limited, and their OP combos are bascially consuming their spell slot and power in later fights.

I would say if the DM will plan only 1 or 2 encounters per rest, then it might significantly affect the game. But if the dm is smart enough to plan multiple encounters, or enemies have multiple waves of reinforcements, and enemies trying to interrupt long/short rests, then I don't see this change will break the game at all.

[sithlordnergal]

So if I had a DM that waived the "If you cast a spell with a bonus action you can't cast another spell other then a Cantrip" what are some combos that could be done with this?

Some obvious things to me are just playing a sorcerer that can double cast any spell with quicken. Or a Spiritual Weapo/Spirit Guardians cleric then can set up both on turn 1.

What are some other thoughts playground? I'm looking for cool combos and "make your DM cry" combos, if for no other reason then to point them out to him to get him to change his mind (I'm not a fan of the rule change except for some very specific spells that I think are best when cast on the same turn as another, such as Misty Step)

Well...first why are you against a buff?

That said, its actually not as broken as you think. You can already do this to a slightly smaller degree as a Fighter/Wizard. Action surge allows you to cast two spells that are an action in the same round once every Short Rest, and it doesn't really seem to break much

[MaxWilson]

Well, I agree there will be some op builds to deal with tons of AOE dmg in 1st encounter. But spell slots are limited, and their OP combos are bascially consuming their spell slot and power in later fights.

But are they? You can hold your double-Fireballs for moments when they will be decisive, against large mobs, and rely on Agonizing Repelling Blast for encounters against small groups or single big bruisers.

Just because you have extreme nova capability doesn't mean you have to use it extravagantly.


I would say if the DM will plan only 1 or 2 encounters per rest, then it might significantly affect the game. But if the dm is smart enough to plan multiple encounters, or enemies have multiple waves of reinforcements, and enemies trying to interrupt long/short rests, then I don't see this change will break the game at all.

It might not break the game but it sure will make encounters with large mobs easier.

[Galithar]

To answer some people's concerns I am not trying to "win" against the DM or to simply "prove a point". I'm actively trying to protect the enjoyment of my fellow players.

I am one of 7 players and am likely the best optimizer in the group. I have natural inclination towards the mechanical aspects of the game and enjoy pushing them to their limits. However, in actual play I prefer to fit in with the power level of the party, so I optimize a concept rather then a build. What I mean by that is instead of making the "I do the most damage and roll the best skill checks" type character I prefer to be a control Wizard, where I am the best at giving my team tactical advantages or my most recent was to optimize a Grappler. Which I'm sure most will agree that Grappling can be powerful, but it's basically never going to be OP there just isn't enough you can do with it, but that character can wrestle most Dragons (Enlarge/Reduce) to the ground.

However, we have another player who is only slightly behind me in optimization abilities that DOES want to be the "look at me I kill all the things come along sidekicks" type character. Many people have complained about his behavior and how it detracts from their fun. (I have removed this same person from the group I DM because of this). I am simply looking to point out to my DM the things that THIS player is likely to try and explain (before session 0) how I believe this will negatively impact his players experience. I myself am likely going to continue playing my Single class Divination Wizard (who will enjoy being able to Misty Step and throw up a Wall of Force) or switch to my Grappler build, who likely will be unaffected because he only uses like 2 combat spells and they are both action cast buffs for his own Grappling abilities.

[Greywander]

Perhaps as a compromise you might propose something like the following:

You may cast more than one spell on your turn as long as their spell levels add up to less than or equal to half your caster level.

For example, a 12th level caster could cast any combination of spells that add up to 6th level, such as just a 6th level spell, 5th + 1st level spells, 4th + 2nd, or two 3rd level spells. Until 20th level (where you can cast 9th + 1st), they can't cast their highest level spells with another spell, but they can cast two lower level spells on the same turn.

Remember that by default you always round down, unless otherwise specified.