How do you feel about the rules regarding bonus action spells, and why?
How do you feel about the rules regarding bonus action spells, and why?
I’m feeling a bit torn myself. I understand the thinking behind the vanilla rules; it helps balance out some of the spellcasters’ power, especially at higher levels. But my understanding of balance in 5e is that it’s to balance the players against each other, to avoid having 1 or 2 players be so clearly better at so much that it naturally pulls the limelight away from the rest of the party and causes people to lose interest their own character.
I think totally unrestricted spellcasting carries the potential for imbalance, but doesn’t guarantee that outcome, and if I’m not making my spellcasters manage their resources then I’m doing something wrong. Something like Matt Mercer’s house rule “spells of 2nd level or lower” would also be a good compromise because it allows the utility of things like Misty Step, or for a Gish to summon a shadow blade etc.
What do y’all do at your tables, and why?
This seems like a good opportunity to get creative with your magic items!
The wizard got ambushed from behind and needs to get out of reach with his Misty step (Bonus Action). Then he turns the tide on his attackers with his Staff of Fireball (Action)!
True, although I feel like requiring proper resource management would encourage the same sort of creativity. Maybe you want to keep that 3rd level spell slot available in case you need a counterspell, or to cast Fly for exploration later on
Which rules about bonus action spells are you referring to?
When you cast a leveled spell using a bonus action, the only other spells you can cast with your action on that turn is a cantrip.
I, personally, think it's confusing and doesn't really add much in the way of balance to the game. Let the wizard burn all his spells twice as fast and be useless for the rest of the adventuring day. If your adventures have meaningful consequences for taking too long clearing a dungeon, it'll work itself out.
I think the rule is worded really badly in a way that makes it more confusing that it needs to be.
As for the rule itself, my table usually hand waves it and lets you cast whatever you want with your bonus action and action, provided you have the slots to do it. We haven't had any issues with that feeling game breaking for us yet.
Even this isn't exactly correct - that would allow you to cast reaction spells on your turn, but the rules do not.
When you cast a
leveledspell using a bonus action, the only other spells you can cast on that turn is a cantrip, with your action.The difference is you can't cast more leveled spells at all, and you can't cast any spells including cantrips if they don't use an action. That last part doesn't usually matter, unless you have multiple bonus actions, or reaction cantrips (which appeared in the playtest of next edition).
Edited to reduce misinformation, left the wrong in place so corrections make sense
I don't like this rule at all. Definitely among one of my least favorite rules in 5e. There are several things wrong with this rule. First, the stated reason why this rule exists is not balance, but it exists to make sure that a spellcasters turn isn't taking too long, by limiting them to only one 'noodly' spell per turn to stop them from flipping through the books trying to find the two perfect spells per turn, rather than just one (cantrips are easier to remember and use, I suppose). Unfortunately it fails at this in my opinion because of reason number two: the placement in the book. The rule is listed under the "bonus action spells" header in the spellcasting section. This is right between the "action spells" and "reaction spells" sections, and both of those just say "You can casts a spell with an action/reaction" and have no real rules. So people basically glance over it and assume there's nothing important there. This means that new players (thepeople who will take a ton of time on their turns if they have to find two spells) don't know this rule exist. The people who do know about this rule don't need it, because they already know what spells they want to use and are much faster at taking their turns (hopefully). Also, the fluff is entierly nonsensical "Because bonus actions spells are espescially swift, you [can't cast other spells on the same turn]", what? Wouldn't it make more sense that swift spells would leave you with more time to cast other spells?
Honestly, it's even worse than that, because once you know the rule it actually causes the game to slow down because of how noodly it is. When you are casting a spell you stop and think "Wait a minute, is this allowed according to the bonus action casting rule?", and then you have to find that out (hopefully not on your turn, but it causes you to have to look up this rule more that you really should have to look up any rule). If I am DMing I really don't care about my players following this rule, but if I am playing I will always follow it to the letter (unless the DM says otherwise, of course), because I have had to look this rule up so many times I can now quote it verbatim from memory.
I think that this rule could be ok, but it needs some changes. First it needs to have it's own section in the rules book "Casting multiple spells in a turn", or something. Don't hide it among stuff people skip over. Second, it should probably be changed to just "Because the casting of spells is a taxing affair, you can not cast more than one spell of first level or higher in the same turn.". This is how most people think the rule works anyway, the fluff makes a ton more sense, it is simple enough that you don't have to look it up constantly, and as a bonus it finally would answer all those people who are very confused about how you can cast counterspell in the middle of casting your other spell (you wouldn't be able to, because that would be two leveled spells in a turn, except it you are counter-counterspelling to save your cantrip, I suppose. But that's a very strange edge case.)
So you actually can cast 2 leveled spells per round, even RAW, because that reaction spell would be on somebody else’s turn. Interestingly the “per turn” distinction also permits the use of sneak attack more than once per round. The limit on it is once per turn, and it’s possible to make a reaction attack that fits the requirements for sneak attack on somebody else’s turn. I was surprised when I read this in the Sage Advice compendium, but it’s because I misremembered sneak attack as being once per round.
Ah, yes, sorry. I mixed up my terminology a bit there, good catch. Every instance of "round" in my comment was supposed to be "turn". I'll edit it. But yes, sneak attack is also once per turn, and not round, which is very odd. It honestly seems like an oversight that just happily caused the balance for the rogue to catch up a bit. Rogue doesn't really have any ways to consistently trigger it, and while it seems like it might be a case of "extra attacks should get the same effects as regular attacks" (if that makes sense to you) then it is extremely odd that the Barbarian's advantage from Reckless Attack doesn't last for the round, only for your own turn. So AoOs don't have the advantage.
I use the rules as is, but I'd love it if there was something less complicated (so adding a clause for spell level is not an option to me). If DnD 5.5 would go for "one spell slot per turn", I'd welcome it, even if it's a slight nerf for casters.
I think the rule as is, is fine. Mercers change to allow up to 2nd level is also fine, but borders the balance scale.
Come to think of it, I could see myself implementing the following house rule: Up to level 8, only cantrips, up to level 14 you can do 1st levels too and after that you can use 2nd levels.