Bonus Action Casting and Using Magic Items

[RSP]

So if you cast a BA spell on your turn, can you then “cast a spell” during your Action, if that Action comes from the Use a Magic Item Action rather than the Cast a Spell Action?

[Mikal]

So if you cast a BA spell on your turn, can you then “cast a spell” during your Action, if that Action comes from the Use a Magic Item Action rather than the Cast a Spell Action?

You're not casting a spell with the item, you're using an item, so you can cast a spell with bonus action and then use the item for a full spell.

Just like if you had Action Surge, you can cast two spells as long as you don't use a Bonus Action spell, otherwise the two actions require a cantrip for each.

[JackPhoenix]

You're not casting a spell with the item, you're using an item, so you can cast a spell with bonus action and then use the item for a full spell.

Unless you're using an item that allows you to cast a spell. Then you're still casting a spell as your action.

[Mellack]

As Jack said, it depends on the item. Some say that you cast a spell. Of course, if it is a cantrip, then you are still fine. You would have to read the details for the specific magic item.

[RSP]

For instance, the Wand of Fireballs states: “While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its Charges to cast the Fireball spell (save DC 15) from it.”

So, using this language, it seems to me that this item requires a special (unnamed) Action to use, which isn’t the Cast a Spell Action, though I don’t know if that matters as the language here specifically states “to cast”, so I’m assuming the answer is “no”, but I was curious if there was any other rulings (outside of what’s in the PHB).

Thanks for the responses!

[stoutstien]

It's definitely one of those cases where wording can be tricky. Generally if the item uses the word 'cast' it is considered casting the spells for the purpose of rule interaction such as casting multiple spells in a turn or rage restrictions.
Then you have items that emulate spell effects but are not casting like artificer spell storing item, some potions, and the odd magical item. These could be used the same turn as a bonus action spell and are usually immune to counterspell but can still be affected by dispel and antimagic zone.

Then you have the items that have similar effects to spell but aren't specifically a spell such as potion of water breathing. These can also be used during the same turn as a bonus action spell and YMMV on how dispel/ antimagic works with them.

[Mikal]

Unless you're using an item that allows you to cast a spell. Then you're still casting a spell as your action.

No. The ITEM casts the spell. You use the wand. It's a difference, but it's there and are separate items.

Just like how familiars can use an action to use items that can cast spells (that don't require attunement), or abilities that do the same, like in the UA Book Wizard subclass or an artificers spell storing item ability.

If you were casting the spell, then the familiar could do neither, and they would be using their own spellcasting modifier vs. the items.

[Mellack]

No. The ITEM casts the spell. You use the wand. It's a difference, but it's there and are separate items.

Just like how familiars can use an action to use items that can cast spells (that don't require attunement), or abilities that do the same, like in the UA Book Wizard subclass or an artificers spell storing item ability.

If you were casting the spell, then the familiar could do neither, and they would be using their own spellcasting modifier vs. the items.

I don't believe that is true. According to sage advice, spells from items can be couterspelled. "Forgive me if you have answered this before but does the counterspell work against wands? And the like? --- Counterspell targets a creature casting a spell, no matter the source of the spell (the creature, an item, etc.). #DnD https://twitter.com/agamemnon5174/status/792410729500569600"
Since counterspell requires that the creature be casting "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.", that means it must be the creature casting, not the item.

[RSP]

No. The ITEM casts the spell. You use the wand. It's a difference, but it's there and are separate items.

Just like how familiars can use an action to use items that can cast spells (that don't require attunement), or abilities that do the same, like in the UA Book Wizard subclass or an artificers spell storing item ability.

If you were casting the spell, then the familiar could do neither, and they would be using their own spellcasting modifier vs. the items.

Can you quote any sources you’re using for this?

(Side note: note sure why you think familiars can’t, say, use a Ring of Spell Storing, without having a certain viewpoint on the items. The only restrictions on their actions is they cannot attack - which, interestingly, may restrict them from spells that require an attack roll, but this is getting off subject).

[Mikal]

Can you quote any sources you’re using for this?

(Side note: note sure why you think familiars can’t, say, use a Ring of Spell Storing, without having a certain viewpoint on the items. The only restrictions on their actions is they cannot attack - which, interestingly, may restrict them from spells that require an attack roll, but this is getting off subject).

Ring of spell storing is also an example.

I mean, for sources, it's just the PHB and DMG based on the items that exist, what it takes to use them, and the different actions that exist.

[RSP]

Ring of spell storing is also an example.

I mean, for sources, it's just the PHB and DMG based on the items that exist, what it takes to use them, and the different actions that exist.

RoSS states “While wearing this ring, you can cast any spell stored in it.” That, to me at least, is pretty clear it’s the wearer casting the spell.

Edit: I’d imagine for it to be the item casting the spell, that sentence would read: “While wearing this ring, You can use it to cast any spell stored in it.” Bolded mine for emphasis on the change to the RAW.

[JackPhoenix]

No. The ITEM casts the spell. You use the wand. It's a difference, but it's there and are separate items.

The item doesn't cast anything. The user does, even though the item gives him the ability. There are wands you "use" without casting a spell .... Wand of Paralysis, for example.... but most of them allow *you* to cast a spell (though most magic items remove the need for components for the spell you're casting, so there's that at least).


Just like how familiars can use an action to use items that can cast spells (that don't require attunement), or abilities that do the same, like in the UA Book Wizard subclass or an artificers spell storing item ability.

If you were casting the spell, then the familiar could do neither, and they would be using their own spellcasting modifier vs. the items.

Why not? Nothing stops a familiar from casting spells. They can't attack, so that limits their options somewhat, but spellcasting in itself is fine. And it doesn't matter to Spell-storing item either, as that has a different wording, and allows you to "produce" the effect of the spell from the item, rather than casting a spell.


I don't believe that is true. According to sage advice, spells from items can be couterspelled. "Forgive me if you have answered this before but does the counterspell work against wands? And the like? --- Counterspell targets a creature casting a spell, no matter the source of the spell (the creature, an item, etc.). #DnD https://twitter.com/agamemnon5174/status/792410729500569600"
Since counterspell requires that the creature be casting "You attempt to interrupt a creature in the process of casting a spell.", that means it must be the creature casting, not the item.

They can't, actually, as casting a spell from an item (usually) removes the VSM components of the spell, preventing Counterspelling (you can't see a creature casting a spell if it doesn't have any component).


Ring of spell storing is also an example.

I mean, for sources, it's just the PHB and DMG based on the items that exist, what it takes to use them, and the different actions that exist.

Here's some actual quoted source proving otherwise:


Some magic items allow the user to cast a spell from the item, often by expending charges from it. The spell is cast at the lowest possible spell and caster level, doesn't expend any of the user's spell slots, and requires no components unless the item's description says otherwise. The spell uses its normal casting time, range, and duration, and the user of the item must concentrate if the spell requires concentration. Certain items make exceptions to these rules, changing the casting time, duration, or other parts of a spell.

Many items, such as potions, bypass the casting of the spell and confer the spell's effects. Such an item still uses the spell's duration unless the item's description says otherwise.

A magic item, such as certain staffs, may require you to use your own spellcasting ability when you cast a spell from the item. If you have more than one spellcasting ability, you choose which one to use with the item. If you don't have a spellcasting ability - perhaps you're a rogue with the Use Magic Device feature - your spellcasting ability modifier is +0 for the item, and your proficiency bonus does apply.

[Mikal]

RoSS states “While wearing this ring, you can cast any spell stored in it.” That, to me at least, is pretty clear it’s the wearer casting the spell.

My apologies. You're right. This item specifically states the WEARER casts the spell, though with the ability/slot/etc of the person who placed it into the ring.

So in this case, since it's as if you were casting the spell when using the ring, but is using an item action, it's an edge case that would require DM ruling. Of course, that's the only item I see that specifically states " but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell. " so, unless another item or ability use that or similar wording, then it'd be a clear cut case of use an item, not cast a spell.

[RSP]

My apologies. You're right. This item specifically states the WEARER casts the spell, though with the ability/slot/etc of the person who placed it into the ring.

So in this case, since it's as if you were casting the spell when using the ring, but is using an item action, it's an edge case that would require DM ruling. Of course, that's the only item I see that specifically states " but is otherwise treated as if you cast the spell. " so, unless another item or ability use that or similar wording, then it'd be a clear cut case of use an item, not cast a spell.

Even with the other items, like the Wand of Fireballs, it appears the character is casting the spells.

From WoF: “While holding it, you can use an action to expend 1 or more of its Charges to cast the Fireball spell (save DC 15) from it. For 1 charge, you cast the 3rd-level version of the spell.”

The first sentence may be open to interpretation, but the second one clearly states “you cast” (that is the character holding the wand).