Houseruling a more elegant spellcasting rule

[Kane0]

Branching off from this thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?646803-Double-Spells), I'm considering a houserule to modify how the current rules work regarding spellcasting. This will be a blanket rule concerning all spellcasting, replacing the rule on page 202 of the PHB under Casting a Spell.

Potential options under consideration:
A) You can only cast one levelled (non cantrip) spell per turn
B) You can only expend one spell slot per turn
C) Both of the above, you can cast only one levelled spell or expend one spell slot per turn

Which option would you be happiest with, and why? What are the edge cases to consider, and what other concerns would you have if presented this at your table?

Any combination of spells using action and bonus action would be legal under options A, B and C as long as one of those two spells is a cantrip.

Under all these options you cannot cast a reaction spell during your turn as well as a levelled spell, such as casting Fireball then Counterspell or Silvery Barbs on your same turn.

Under option B you can cast two levelled spells if one does not expend a spell slot, such as casting a spell using Ki, Sorcery Points, magic items or without expending spell slots (eg Spells obtained via Race, Feats, some Invocations, Wizard spell mastery, etc)

Under options B and C some functions that are fueled by spell slots but are not casting spells are also affected, such as artillerist artificer cannons and paladin divine smites.

[Selion]

What about "each turn the sum of levels of spell you cast cannot exceed the maximum slot you have"?
Also, I don't know if its intended, with your wording you are preventing action surge/spell caster multiclasses, which is IMHO not unbalanced (2 levels of spell progression are a fair price for the advantage of 2spells per turn once per short rest, especially considering you are still limited to one concentration spell)

[Mastikator]

Edge cases?


I'd like for Eldritch Knights to be able to cast spell, action surge => cast spell again. However I wouldn't mind if that was a special thing directly connected to that subclass.
I don't think Sorcerer's should be able to cast spell then quicken cast spell, I'd much rather open the floodgates on twin spell IMO because at least then it's the same spell twinned rather than any two spells.
I think blocking paladins from smiting twice on a turn is a mistake

[Jakinbandw]

I'd like for Eldritch Knights to be able to cast spell, action surge => cast spell again. However I wouldn't mind if that was a special thing directly connected to that subclass.

They can. The rule isnt that you can't cast two leveled spells, it's that if you cast a bonus action spell you can't cast a leveled spell with your main action. Thus an eldritch knight can cast 2 main action spells.

[Jervis]

Personally I think leveled spell per turn (unless you dip Eldritch knight 3 for action surge and a feature that gives an exception) is better since it allows for smite. If you want to nerf smite to lock it to 1/turn and mutually exclusive to smite spells then that’s an option but i’m personally against it. This does make silvery barbs bad outside of a caster heavy party but that spell is still really good, so eh.

[Kane0]

I'm happy for fighter action surge to be an exception to the proposed rule, making it a tagalong feature to EKs at level 3 makes sense but also carries some drawbacks for multiclassers and races with casting that might want to action surge for it

[Jervis]

I'm happy for fighter action surge to be an exception to the proposed rule, making it a tagalong feature to EKs at level 3 makes sense but also carries some drawbacks for multiclassers and races with casting that might want to action surge for it

TBH action surge is mega strong as a level 2 dip. Extending it to a 3 level dip for casters and making it exclusive to EK also locks out some other options. As for racial casting I think making those exempt from the 1/turn rule for spells is a good idea. They’re fairly limited use unless you use slots, in which case one of the proposed rule changes would make that count as a normal casting anyway

[Kane0]

TBH action surge is mega strong as a level 2 dip. Extending it to a 3 level dip for casters and making it exclusive to EK also locks out some other options. As for racial casting I think making those exempt from the 1/turn rule for spells is a good idea. They’re fairly limited use unless you use slots, in which case one of the proposed rule changes would make that count as a normal casting anyway

What about casting gained from feats, or specifically the race specific feats that add casting?

[Jervis]

What about casting gained from feats, or specifically the race specific feats that add casting?

Specifically I was referring to the rules that you can only use one slot per turn, in which case casting a spell without a slot is something you could do in the Sam turn as casting a normal spell.

For my money the way I would word the rule is “You can only cast one spell using a spell slot in a turn. Features which cast spells without expending a spell slot, such as certain racial features, as well as features which expend a spell slot without casting a spell, such as a Paladin’s Smite ability, are unaffected by this rule”

This would stop you from using silvery barbs on a creature that just passed its save against your spell or counter spelling another counterspell, it’s up to the reader to determine if that’s a good or bad thing. If you determine it is then just add “spells with a casting time of 1 reaction are exempt from this rule” clause. Also note that the “using a spell slot” wording allows BA cantrips, well the two that exist, to work without issue

[Kane0]

For my money the way I would word the rule is “You can only cast one spell using a spell slot in a turn."

This would stop you from using silvery barbs on a creature that just passed its save against your spell or counter spelling another counterspell, it’s up to the reader to determine if that’s a good or bad thing.

That sounds like a fine rule and wording.

And yes, that was one intent of doing this.

[Jervis]

That sounds like a fine rule and wording.

And yes, that was one intent of doing this.

Thanks. For my money I don’t think silvery barbs is broken but it is very good. Making is so you need two casters throwing spells at something to benefit improves the spell into reasonable territory IMO and makes it more teamwork focused, which the spell was meant to be.

Also as an aside counterspell is questionable in terms of design. This change would stop counterspell wars which is good. That said it’s the sort of spell I don’t know should even exist, especially now that wizards is reducing the presence of proper spellcasting on enemies. Yes it’s still good but it’s being reduced in usefulness a bit, mostly because enemies tend to not have counterspell in a lot of recent stat blocks and instead have a ability you can’t use it on so counter spelling counterspells isn’t as useful a tactic.

[Kane0]

Also as an aside counterspell is questionable in terms of design. This change would stop counterspell wars which is good. That said it’s the sort of spell I don’t know should even exist, especially now that wizards is reducing the presence of proper spellcasting on enemies. Yes it’s still good but it’s being reduced in usefulness a bit, mostly because enemies tend to not have counterspell in a lot of recent stat blocks and instead have a ability you can’t use it on so counter spelling counterspells isn’t as useful a tactic


Yes a slightly different concern, my first thought without pondering on it much perhaps change counterspell to work on all actions that make a spell attack, force a sace against a spell DC or is/replicates a spell, making the check by default unless its spell vs spell and your counterspell is cast at a higher level. Bonus action and reaction magic doesnt gove you enough time to employ a counterspell attempt.