this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
52 points (94.8% liked)

Dungeons and Dragons

11055 readers
337 users here now

A community for discussion of all things Dungeons and Dragons! This is the catch all community for anything relating to Dungeons and Dragons, though we encourage you to see out our Networked Communities listed below!

/c/DnD Network Communities

Other DnD and related Communities to follow*

DnD/RPG Podcasts

*Please Follow the rules of these individual communities, not all of them are strictly DnD related, but may be of interest to DnD Fans

Rules (Subject to Change)

Format: [Source Name] Article Title

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Brunbrun6766
owenfromcanada
52
How do you feel about the rules regarding bonus action spells, and why? (lemm.ee)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/dnd
26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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 ~~leveled~~ spell 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

[–] Nikko882 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As a testament to how terrible this rule is, not even this is the right one. The rule is, when you cast a spell (including cantrips) with your bonus action you can't cast any other spells except a cantrip with a casting time of one action on the same turn. So casting Shillelagh stops you from casting leveled spells and (although I'm not sure why you would want to) from using your action to start or continue casting a cantrip like Mending, because it has a cast time of 1 minute (Aka 10 actions, aka not one action).

[–] caseofthematts 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This cements two things for me. The first is that I hate the wording of things in 5e, especially it being called a Bonus Action. I think that specific phrase confuses people.

The second is that this is much easier in Pathfinder 2e. You can cast any spells as long as you have the actions for it using your 3 action turn. Cantrips are usually one action, and greater spells usually range from two to three actions. Simplifies this confusing mess quite easily.

[–] Nikko882 4 points 1 year ago

Yeah, the more I play DnD and other games, the less I end up liking 5e's system of action, bonus action, reaction. Systems that just have actions are much more appealing, imo.