Mixing
What would the effect be of eliminating the rule preventing other non-cantrip spells on a turn if a bonus-action spell is cast?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The rule on bonus-action spells states:
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
I'm wondering what the effect of removing this rule would be.
dnd-5e spells homebrew house-rules actions
edited 5 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
asked 6 hours ago
Stackstuck
25917
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The rule on bonus-action spells states:
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
I'm wondering what the effect of removing this rule would be.
dnd-5e spells homebrew house-rules actions
edited 5 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
asked 6 hours ago
Stackstuck
25917
1
I don't believe this is a duplicate of the linked question. That question was about combining bonus action cantrips with action leveled spells. This question could be about combining two non cantrip spells, one of which takes a bonus action.
– Gandalfmeansme
6 hours ago
@NautArch it looks pretty clear to me. It's stated in both the title and the body. They're asking about striking the prohibition entirely, which would inherently include the case of casting two noncantrip spells. Given that they straight-up say "multiple non-cantrip spells" in the title, I'm not sure where the confusion comes from.
– Ben Barden
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
The rule on bonus-action spells states:
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
I'm wondering what the effect of removing this rule would be.
dnd-5e spells homebrew house-rules actions
edited 5 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
asked 6 hours ago
Stackstuck
25917
The rule on bonus-action spells states:
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell, provided that you haven't already taken a bonus action this turn. You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.
I'm wondering what the effect of removing this rule would be.
dnd-5e spells homebrew house-rules actions
dnd-5e spells homebrew house-rules actions
edited 5 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
asked 6 hours ago
Stackstuck
25917
edited 5 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
asked 6 hours ago
Stackstuck
25917
edited 5 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
edited 5 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
edited 5 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
17.3k246109
asked 6 hours ago
Stackstuck
25917
asked 6 hours ago
Stackstuck
25917
asked 6 hours ago
Stackstuck
25917
25917
1
I don't believe this is a duplicate of the linked question. That question was about combining bonus action cantrips with action leveled spells. This question could be about combining two non cantrip spells, one of which takes a bonus action.
– Gandalfmeansme
6 hours ago
@NautArch it looks pretty clear to me. It's stated in both the title and the body. They're asking about striking the prohibition entirely, which would inherently include the case of casting two noncantrip spells. Given that they straight-up say "multiple non-cantrip spells" in the title, I'm not sure where the confusion comes from.
– Ben Barden
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
I don't believe this is a duplicate of the linked question. That question was about combining bonus action cantrips with action leveled spells. This question could be about combining two non cantrip spells, one of which takes a bonus action.
– Gandalfmeansme
6 hours ago
@NautArch it looks pretty clear to me. It's stated in both the title and the body. They're asking about striking the prohibition entirely, which would inherently include the case of casting two noncantrip spells. Given that they straight-up say "multiple non-cantrip spells" in the title, I'm not sure where the confusion comes from.
– Ben Barden
4 hours ago
1
1
I don't believe this is a duplicate of the linked question. That question was about combining bonus action cantrips with action leveled spells. This question could be about combining two non cantrip spells, one of which takes a bonus action.
– Gandalfmeansme
6 hours ago
I don't believe this is a duplicate of the linked question. That question was about combining bonus action cantrips with action leveled spells. This question could be about combining two non cantrip spells, one of which takes a bonus action.
– Gandalfmeansme
6 hours ago
@NautArch it looks pretty clear to me. It's stated in both the title and the body. They're asking about striking the prohibition entirely, which would inherently include the case of casting two noncantrip spells. Given that they straight-up say "multiple non-cantrip spells" in the title, I'm not sure where the confusion comes from.
– Ben Barden
4 hours ago
@NautArch it looks pretty clear to me. It's stated in both the title and the body. They're asking about striking the prohibition entirely, which would inherently include the case of casting two noncantrip spells. Given that they straight-up say "multiple non-cantrip spells" in the title, I'm not sure where the confusion comes from.
– Ben Barden
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
Sorcerers would become overpowered
Most spells that take a bonus action to cast are relatively minor, like misty step or healing word. They are often utility spells, or spells that enhance a physical attack (like a paladin's smite spells). Most of them wouldn't unbalance play if they were permitted during the same round as another leveled spell.
But whether or not unbalancing bonus action spells exist by default, a sorcerer's Quickened Spell metamagic is highly dependent on the current rules on bonus action spells. Sorcerers can cast Action spells using bonus actions for the cost of 2 sorcery points, which is far more powerful if they could then cast another leveled spell again with their action. This is particularly problematic if you consider the Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass, which can use Warlock spell slots to regain Sorcery points as a short rest resource.
The ability to cast two fireball spells in a single turn multiple times per combat at low levels is game-changingly problematic.
edited 3 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
answered 6 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
2
Specifically, with this change, a sorcerer could be throwing two fireballs in one turn at 5th level - the first level you're able to throw fireballs. Higher-level spellcasters can pull off more threatening feats, but they're higher-level. The increase in spike damage is potentially encounter-breaking. It also encourages a playstyle where the sorcerer burns through their available resources very quickly, and ricochets between utterly dominating encounters and feeling ineffectual.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
1
For that matter, a 13th level eldritch knight could double-fireball using action surge. You could get the action surge fireball earlier with multiclassing, but that's a costly build choice.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
1
Action Surge does allow you to cast fireball twice under the established rules: a second action is different from a bonus action.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
But you're right: it would either involve waiting until a much higher level, or some difficult and costly multiclassing. And in the latter case, double casting fireball could be done very infrequently.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Spellcasters with misty step would become even more slippery
If a spellcaster ends up in melee range, misty step is a cheap, guaranteed option to get out without getting slapped by an attack of opportunity. It's basically a Dash and Disengage in one bonus action (and more, depending on what the teleportation lets you bypass). The only downsides are using a bonus action (if you even have any use for it), the spell slot (2nd level, pretty cheap), and the bonus-action spellcasting restriction.
With the restriction, a spellcaster has many options for what to do about an attacker in melee range, but they all have consequences. Disable/push them with a spell? Might come at a cost of using another spell on another target, and could fail if they make their save. Using misty step is a great option, but again may come at the cost of using an important spell. With the way it is, even a melee attacker that hasn't gotten a chance to attack the spellcaster yet (they dashed up or something) can have a significant impact.
Without the restriction, you could try to disable/push them with a leveled spell, fail, and then misty step away once you see it didn't work. Or you could go ahead and cast your more important spell on your more important target and still avoid taking any damage from the melee attacker.
It basically adds this layer of safety that changes the counterplay between spell casters and melee attackers, and reduces the impact of a melee attacker getting into range of a spellcaster.
edited 2 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
answered 2 hours ago
Frozenstep
113
New contributor
Frozenstep is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
@Sdjz But with the house rule, you aren't limited to shocking grasp. You could use fear, or slow, or evard's black tentacles, or watery sphere, or any number of powerful control spells, which can potentially affect more enemies then just the original melee enemy. With the restriction, you're risking the melee enemy making their save, and now you can't escape without at least taking an opportunity attack (and probably a full attack on the next turn unless you're faster).
– Frozenstep
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
All-out elimination of the limit would be OP, but you don't have to go that far
Other answers illustrate how certain players, e.g. those with misty step and sorcerers that can quicken spells, would be over-powered.
However, one could readily fashion a more moderate table-rule that avoids these drastic consequences. Consider limiting one or both of the spells cast on the turn to 1st level spells, or non-damaging-spells, or spells with the Ritual tag, and/or spells of just one particular school (e.g. Illusion). You should be able to loosen up the RAW without destroying play balance.
In a somewhat similar case, at my table, it has never destroyed play balance to let players take a feat allowing them to use a bonus action to cast any non-damaging cantrip that only creates a sensory effect. While that's not exactly the same option you are proposing, it does suggest that one can grant a bit more freedom in casting without unbalancing the game.
answered 10 mins ago
Valley Lad
874
I'm not really proposing to do it, I just want to know what would happen if it was done.
– Stackstuck
7 mins ago
I haven't actually watched much Critical Role, but I believe they do (or did, at least) allow this as a house rule, eventually requiring a feat for it. See the "Spelldriver" feat I quote from the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting in this answer: "Through intense focus, training, and dedication, you’ve harnessed the techniques of rapid spellcasting. You are no longer limited to only one non-cantrip spell per turn. However, should you cast two or more spells in a single turn, only one of them can be of 3rd level or higher."
– V2Blast
32 secs ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
9
down vote
Sorcerers would become overpowered
Most spells that take a bonus action to cast are relatively minor, like misty step or healing word. They are often utility spells, or spells that enhance a physical attack (like a paladin's smite spells). Most of them wouldn't unbalance play if they were permitted during the same round as another leveled spell.
But whether or not unbalancing bonus action spells exist by default, a sorcerer's Quickened Spell metamagic is highly dependent on the current rules on bonus action spells. Sorcerers can cast Action spells using bonus actions for the cost of 2 sorcery points, which is far more powerful if they could then cast another leveled spell again with their action. This is particularly problematic if you consider the Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass, which can use Warlock spell slots to regain Sorcery points as a short rest resource.
The ability to cast two fireball spells in a single turn multiple times per combat at low levels is game-changingly problematic.
edited 3 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
answered 6 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
2
Specifically, with this change, a sorcerer could be throwing two fireballs in one turn at 5th level - the first level you're able to throw fireballs. Higher-level spellcasters can pull off more threatening feats, but they're higher-level. The increase in spike damage is potentially encounter-breaking. It also encourages a playstyle where the sorcerer burns through their available resources very quickly, and ricochets between utterly dominating encounters and feeling ineffectual.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
1
For that matter, a 13th level eldritch knight could double-fireball using action surge. You could get the action surge fireball earlier with multiclassing, but that's a costly build choice.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
1
Action Surge does allow you to cast fireball twice under the established rules: a second action is different from a bonus action.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
But you're right: it would either involve waiting until a much higher level, or some difficult and costly multiclassing. And in the latter case, double casting fireball could be done very infrequently.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
Sorcerers would become overpowered
Most spells that take a bonus action to cast are relatively minor, like misty step or healing word. They are often utility spells, or spells that enhance a physical attack (like a paladin's smite spells). Most of them wouldn't unbalance play if they were permitted during the same round as another leveled spell.
But whether or not unbalancing bonus action spells exist by default, a sorcerer's Quickened Spell metamagic is highly dependent on the current rules on bonus action spells. Sorcerers can cast Action spells using bonus actions for the cost of 2 sorcery points, which is far more powerful if they could then cast another leveled spell again with their action. This is particularly problematic if you consider the Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass, which can use Warlock spell slots to regain Sorcery points as a short rest resource.
The ability to cast two fireball spells in a single turn multiple times per combat at low levels is game-changingly problematic.
edited 3 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
answered 6 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
2
Specifically, with this change, a sorcerer could be throwing two fireballs in one turn at 5th level - the first level you're able to throw fireballs. Higher-level spellcasters can pull off more threatening feats, but they're higher-level. The increase in spike damage is potentially encounter-breaking. It also encourages a playstyle where the sorcerer burns through their available resources very quickly, and ricochets between utterly dominating encounters and feeling ineffectual.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
1
For that matter, a 13th level eldritch knight could double-fireball using action surge. You could get the action surge fireball earlier with multiclassing, but that's a costly build choice.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
1
Action Surge does allow you to cast fireball twice under the established rules: a second action is different from a bonus action.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
But you're right: it would either involve waiting until a much higher level, or some difficult and costly multiclassing. And in the latter case, double casting fireball could be done very infrequently.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
9
down vote
up vote
9
down vote
Sorcerers would become overpowered
Most spells that take a bonus action to cast are relatively minor, like misty step or healing word. They are often utility spells, or spells that enhance a physical attack (like a paladin's smite spells). Most of them wouldn't unbalance play if they were permitted during the same round as another leveled spell.
But whether or not unbalancing bonus action spells exist by default, a sorcerer's Quickened Spell metamagic is highly dependent on the current rules on bonus action spells. Sorcerers can cast Action spells using bonus actions for the cost of 2 sorcery points, which is far more powerful if they could then cast another leveled spell again with their action. This is particularly problematic if you consider the Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass, which can use Warlock spell slots to regain Sorcery points as a short rest resource.
The ability to cast two fireball spells in a single turn multiple times per combat at low levels is game-changingly problematic.
edited 3 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
answered 6 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
Sorcerers would become overpowered
Most spells that take a bonus action to cast are relatively minor, like misty step or healing word. They are often utility spells, or spells that enhance a physical attack (like a paladin's smite spells). Most of them wouldn't unbalance play if they were permitted during the same round as another leveled spell.
But whether or not unbalancing bonus action spells exist by default, a sorcerer's Quickened Spell metamagic is highly dependent on the current rules on bonus action spells. Sorcerers can cast Action spells using bonus actions for the cost of 2 sorcery points, which is far more powerful if they could then cast another leveled spell again with their action. This is particularly problematic if you consider the Sorcerer/Warlock multiclass, which can use Warlock spell slots to regain Sorcery points as a short rest resource.
The ability to cast two fireball spells in a single turn multiple times per combat at low levels is game-changingly problematic.
edited 3 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
answered 6 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
edited 3 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
edited 3 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
edited 3 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
17.3k246109
answered 6 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
answered 6 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
answered 6 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
14.9k25396
2
Specifically, with this change, a sorcerer could be throwing two fireballs in one turn at 5th level - the first level you're able to throw fireballs. Higher-level spellcasters can pull off more threatening feats, but they're higher-level. The increase in spike damage is potentially encounter-breaking. It also encourages a playstyle where the sorcerer burns through their available resources very quickly, and ricochets between utterly dominating encounters and feeling ineffectual.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
1
For that matter, a 13th level eldritch knight could double-fireball using action surge. You could get the action surge fireball earlier with multiclassing, but that's a costly build choice.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
1
Action Surge does allow you to cast fireball twice under the established rules: a second action is different from a bonus action.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
But you're right: it would either involve waiting until a much higher level, or some difficult and costly multiclassing. And in the latter case, double casting fireball could be done very infrequently.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2
Specifically, with this change, a sorcerer could be throwing two fireballs in one turn at 5th level - the first level you're able to throw fireballs. Higher-level spellcasters can pull off more threatening feats, but they're higher-level. The increase in spike damage is potentially encounter-breaking. It also encourages a playstyle where the sorcerer burns through their available resources very quickly, and ricochets between utterly dominating encounters and feeling ineffectual.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
1
For that matter, a 13th level eldritch knight could double-fireball using action surge. You could get the action surge fireball earlier with multiclassing, but that's a costly build choice.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
1
Action Surge does allow you to cast fireball twice under the established rules: a second action is different from a bonus action.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
But you're right: it would either involve waiting until a much higher level, or some difficult and costly multiclassing. And in the latter case, double casting fireball could be done very infrequently.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
2
2
Specifically, with this change, a sorcerer could be throwing two fireballs in one turn at 5th level - the first level you're able to throw fireballs. Higher-level spellcasters can pull off more threatening feats, but they're higher-level. The increase in spike damage is potentially encounter-breaking. It also encourages a playstyle where the sorcerer burns through their available resources very quickly, and ricochets between utterly dominating encounters and feeling ineffectual.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
Specifically, with this change, a sorcerer could be throwing two fireballs in one turn at 5th level - the first level you're able to throw fireballs. Higher-level spellcasters can pull off more threatening feats, but they're higher-level. The increase in spike damage is potentially encounter-breaking. It also encourages a playstyle where the sorcerer burns through their available resources very quickly, and ricochets between utterly dominating encounters and feeling ineffectual.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
1
1
For that matter, a 13th level eldritch knight could double-fireball using action surge. You could get the action surge fireball earlier with multiclassing, but that's a costly build choice.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
For that matter, a 13th level eldritch knight could double-fireball using action surge. You could get the action surge fireball earlier with multiclassing, but that's a costly build choice.
– Ben Barden
5 hours ago
1
1
Action Surge does allow you to cast fireball twice under the established rules: a second action is different from a bonus action.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
Action Surge does allow you to cast fireball twice under the established rules: a second action is different from a bonus action.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
But you're right: it would either involve waiting until a much higher level, or some difficult and costly multiclassing. And in the latter case, double casting fireball could be done very infrequently.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
But you're right: it would either involve waiting until a much higher level, or some difficult and costly multiclassing. And in the latter case, double casting fireball could be done very infrequently.
– Gandalfmeansme
5 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Spellcasters with misty step would become even more slippery
If a spellcaster ends up in melee range, misty step is a cheap, guaranteed option to get out without getting slapped by an attack of opportunity. It's basically a Dash and Disengage in one bonus action (and more, depending on what the teleportation lets you bypass). The only downsides are using a bonus action (if you even have any use for it), the spell slot (2nd level, pretty cheap), and the bonus-action spellcasting restriction.
With the restriction, a spellcaster has many options for what to do about an attacker in melee range, but they all have consequences. Disable/push them with a spell? Might come at a cost of using another spell on another target, and could fail if they make their save. Using misty step is a great option, but again may come at the cost of using an important spell. With the way it is, even a melee attacker that hasn't gotten a chance to attack the spellcaster yet (they dashed up or something) can have a significant impact.
Without the restriction, you could try to disable/push them with a leveled spell, fail, and then misty step away once you see it didn't work. Or you could go ahead and cast your more important spell on your more important target and still avoid taking any damage from the melee attacker.
It basically adds this layer of safety that changes the counterplay between spell casters and melee attackers, and reduces the impact of a melee attacker getting into range of a spellcaster.
edited 2 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
answered 2 hours ago
Frozenstep
113
New contributor
Frozenstep is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
@Sdjz But with the house rule, you aren't limited to shocking grasp. You could use fear, or slow, or evard's black tentacles, or watery sphere, or any number of powerful control spells, which can potentially affect more enemies then just the original melee enemy. With the restriction, you're risking the melee enemy making their save, and now you can't escape without at least taking an opportunity attack (and probably a full attack on the next turn unless you're faster).
– Frozenstep
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Spellcasters with misty step would become even more slippery
If a spellcaster ends up in melee range, misty step is a cheap, guaranteed option to get out without getting slapped by an attack of opportunity. It's basically a Dash and Disengage in one bonus action (and more, depending on what the teleportation lets you bypass). The only downsides are using a bonus action (if you even have any use for it), the spell slot (2nd level, pretty cheap), and the bonus-action spellcasting restriction.
With the restriction, a spellcaster has many options for what to do about an attacker in melee range, but they all have consequences. Disable/push them with a spell? Might come at a cost of using another spell on another target, and could fail if they make their save. Using misty step is a great option, but again may come at the cost of using an important spell. With the way it is, even a melee attacker that hasn't gotten a chance to attack the spellcaster yet (they dashed up or something) can have a significant impact.
Without the restriction, you could try to disable/push them with a leveled spell, fail, and then misty step away once you see it didn't work. Or you could go ahead and cast your more important spell on your more important target and still avoid taking any damage from the melee attacker.
It basically adds this layer of safety that changes the counterplay between spell casters and melee attackers, and reduces the impact of a melee attacker getting into range of a spellcaster.
edited 2 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
answered 2 hours ago
Frozenstep
113
New contributor
Frozenstep is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
@Sdjz But with the house rule, you aren't limited to shocking grasp. You could use fear, or slow, or evard's black tentacles, or watery sphere, or any number of powerful control spells, which can potentially affect more enemies then just the original melee enemy. With the restriction, you're risking the melee enemy making their save, and now you can't escape without at least taking an opportunity attack (and probably a full attack on the next turn unless you're faster).
– Frozenstep
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Spellcasters with misty step would become even more slippery
If a spellcaster ends up in melee range, misty step is a cheap, guaranteed option to get out without getting slapped by an attack of opportunity. It's basically a Dash and Disengage in one bonus action (and more, depending on what the teleportation lets you bypass). The only downsides are using a bonus action (if you even have any use for it), the spell slot (2nd level, pretty cheap), and the bonus-action spellcasting restriction.
With the restriction, a spellcaster has many options for what to do about an attacker in melee range, but they all have consequences. Disable/push them with a spell? Might come at a cost of using another spell on another target, and could fail if they make their save. Using misty step is a great option, but again may come at the cost of using an important spell. With the way it is, even a melee attacker that hasn't gotten a chance to attack the spellcaster yet (they dashed up or something) can have a significant impact.
Without the restriction, you could try to disable/push them with a leveled spell, fail, and then misty step away once you see it didn't work. Or you could go ahead and cast your more important spell on your more important target and still avoid taking any damage from the melee attacker.
It basically adds this layer of safety that changes the counterplay between spell casters and melee attackers, and reduces the impact of a melee attacker getting into range of a spellcaster.
edited 2 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
answered 2 hours ago
Frozenstep
113
New contributor
Frozenstep is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Spellcasters with misty step would become even more slippery
If a spellcaster ends up in melee range, misty step is a cheap, guaranteed option to get out without getting slapped by an attack of opportunity. It's basically a Dash and Disengage in one bonus action (and more, depending on what the teleportation lets you bypass). The only downsides are using a bonus action (if you even have any use for it), the spell slot (2nd level, pretty cheap), and the bonus-action spellcasting restriction.
With the restriction, a spellcaster has many options for what to do about an attacker in melee range, but they all have consequences. Disable/push them with a spell? Might come at a cost of using another spell on another target, and could fail if they make their save. Using misty step is a great option, but again may come at the cost of using an important spell. With the way it is, even a melee attacker that hasn't gotten a chance to attack the spellcaster yet (they dashed up or something) can have a significant impact.
Without the restriction, you could try to disable/push them with a leveled spell, fail, and then misty step away once you see it didn't work. Or you could go ahead and cast your more important spell on your more important target and still avoid taking any damage from the melee attacker.
It basically adds this layer of safety that changes the counterplay between spell casters and melee attackers, and reduces the impact of a melee attacker getting into range of a spellcaster.
edited 2 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
answered 2 hours ago
Frozenstep
113
New contributor
Frozenstep is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 2 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
edited 2 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
edited 2 mins ago
V2Blast
17.3k246109
17.3k246109
answered 2 hours ago
Frozenstep
113
New contributor
Frozenstep is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 2 hours ago
Frozenstep
113
answered 2 hours ago
Frozenstep
113
113
New contributor
Frozenstep is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Frozenstep is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Frozenstep is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
@Sdjz But with the house rule, you aren't limited to shocking grasp. You could use fear, or slow, or evard's black tentacles, or watery sphere, or any number of powerful control spells, which can potentially affect more enemies then just the original melee enemy. With the restriction, you're risking the melee enemy making their save, and now you can't escape without at least taking an opportunity attack (and probably a full attack on the next turn unless you're faster).
– Frozenstep
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
1
@Sdjz But with the house rule, you aren't limited to shocking grasp. You could use fear, or slow, or evard's black tentacles, or watery sphere, or any number of powerful control spells, which can potentially affect more enemies then just the original melee enemy. With the restriction, you're risking the melee enemy making their save, and now you can't escape without at least taking an opportunity attack (and probably a full attack on the next turn unless you're faster).
– Frozenstep
1 hour ago
1
1
@Sdjz But with the house rule, you aren't limited to shocking grasp. You could use fear, or slow, or evard's black tentacles, or watery sphere, or any number of powerful control spells, which can potentially affect more enemies then just the original melee enemy. With the restriction, you're risking the melee enemy making their save, and now you can't escape without at least taking an opportunity attack (and probably a full attack on the next turn unless you're faster).
– Frozenstep
1 hour ago
@Sdjz But with the house rule, you aren't limited to shocking grasp. You could use fear, or slow, or evard's black tentacles, or watery sphere, or any number of powerful control spells, which can potentially affect more enemies then just the original melee enemy. With the restriction, you're risking the melee enemy making their save, and now you can't escape without at least taking an opportunity attack (and probably a full attack on the next turn unless you're faster).
– Frozenstep
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
All-out elimination of the limit would be OP, but you don't have to go that far
Other answers illustrate how certain players, e.g. those with misty step and sorcerers that can quicken spells, would be over-powered.
However, one could readily fashion a more moderate table-rule that avoids these drastic consequences. Consider limiting one or both of the spells cast on the turn to 1st level spells, or non-damaging-spells, or spells with the Ritual tag, and/or spells of just one particular school (e.g. Illusion). You should be able to loosen up the RAW without destroying play balance.
In a somewhat similar case, at my table, it has never destroyed play balance to let players take a feat allowing them to use a bonus action to cast any non-damaging cantrip that only creates a sensory effect. While that's not exactly the same option you are proposing, it does suggest that one can grant a bit more freedom in casting without unbalancing the game.
answered 10 mins ago
Valley Lad
874
I'm not really proposing to do it, I just want to know what would happen if it was done.
– Stackstuck
7 mins ago
I haven't actually watched much Critical Role, but I believe they do (or did, at least) allow this as a house rule, eventually requiring a feat for it. See the "Spelldriver" feat I quote from the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting in this answer: "Through intense focus, training, and dedication, you’ve harnessed the techniques of rapid spellcasting. You are no longer limited to only one non-cantrip spell per turn. However, should you cast two or more spells in a single turn, only one of them can be of 3rd level or higher."
– V2Blast
32 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
All-out elimination of the limit would be OP, but you don't have to go that far
Other answers illustrate how certain players, e.g. those with misty step and sorcerers that can quicken spells, would be over-powered.
However, one could readily fashion a more moderate table-rule that avoids these drastic consequences. Consider limiting one or both of the spells cast on the turn to 1st level spells, or non-damaging-spells, or spells with the Ritual tag, and/or spells of just one particular school (e.g. Illusion). You should be able to loosen up the RAW without destroying play balance.
In a somewhat similar case, at my table, it has never destroyed play balance to let players take a feat allowing them to use a bonus action to cast any non-damaging cantrip that only creates a sensory effect. While that's not exactly the same option you are proposing, it does suggest that one can grant a bit more freedom in casting without unbalancing the game.
answered 10 mins ago
Valley Lad
874
I'm not really proposing to do it, I just want to know what would happen if it was done.
– Stackstuck
7 mins ago
I haven't actually watched much Critical Role, but I believe they do (or did, at least) allow this as a house rule, eventually requiring a feat for it. See the "Spelldriver" feat I quote from the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting in this answer: "Through intense focus, training, and dedication, you’ve harnessed the techniques of rapid spellcasting. You are no longer limited to only one non-cantrip spell per turn. However, should you cast two or more spells in a single turn, only one of them can be of 3rd level or higher."
– V2Blast
32 secs ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
All-out elimination of the limit would be OP, but you don't have to go that far
Other answers illustrate how certain players, e.g. those with misty step and sorcerers that can quicken spells, would be over-powered.
However, one could readily fashion a more moderate table-rule that avoids these drastic consequences. Consider limiting one or both of the spells cast on the turn to 1st level spells, or non-damaging-spells, or spells with the Ritual tag, and/or spells of just one particular school (e.g. Illusion). You should be able to loosen up the RAW without destroying play balance.
In a somewhat similar case, at my table, it has never destroyed play balance to let players take a feat allowing them to use a bonus action to cast any non-damaging cantrip that only creates a sensory effect. While that's not exactly the same option you are proposing, it does suggest that one can grant a bit more freedom in casting without unbalancing the game.
answered 10 mins ago
Valley Lad
874
All-out elimination of the limit would be OP, but you don't have to go that far
Other answers illustrate how certain players, e.g. those with misty step and sorcerers that can quicken spells, would be over-powered.
However, one could readily fashion a more moderate table-rule that avoids these drastic consequences. Consider limiting one or both of the spells cast on the turn to 1st level spells, or non-damaging-spells, or spells with the Ritual tag, and/or spells of just one particular school (e.g. Illusion). You should be able to loosen up the RAW without destroying play balance.
In a somewhat similar case, at my table, it has never destroyed play balance to let players take a feat allowing them to use a bonus action to cast any non-damaging cantrip that only creates a sensory effect. While that's not exactly the same option you are proposing, it does suggest that one can grant a bit more freedom in casting without unbalancing the game.
answered 10 mins ago
Valley Lad
874
answered 10 mins ago
Valley Lad
874
answered 10 mins ago
Valley Lad
874
answered 10 mins ago
Valley Lad
874
874
I'm not really proposing to do it, I just want to know what would happen if it was done.
– Stackstuck
7 mins ago
I haven't actually watched much Critical Role, but I believe they do (or did, at least) allow this as a house rule, eventually requiring a feat for it. See the "Spelldriver" feat I quote from the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting in this answer: "Through intense focus, training, and dedication, you’ve harnessed the techniques of rapid spellcasting. You are no longer limited to only one non-cantrip spell per turn. However, should you cast two or more spells in a single turn, only one of them can be of 3rd level or higher."
– V2Blast
32 secs ago
add a comment |Â
I'm not really proposing to do it, I just want to know what would happen if it was done.
– Stackstuck
7 mins ago
I haven't actually watched much Critical Role, but I believe they do (or did, at least) allow this as a house rule, eventually requiring a feat for it. See the "Spelldriver" feat I quote from the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting in this answer: "Through intense focus, training, and dedication, you’ve harnessed the techniques of rapid spellcasting. You are no longer limited to only one non-cantrip spell per turn. However, should you cast two or more spells in a single turn, only one of them can be of 3rd level or higher."
– V2Blast
32 secs ago
I'm not really proposing to do it, I just want to know what would happen if it was done.
– Stackstuck
7 mins ago
I'm not really proposing to do it, I just want to know what would happen if it was done.
– Stackstuck
7 mins ago
I haven't actually watched much Critical Role, but I believe they do (or did, at least) allow this as a house rule, eventually requiring a feat for it. See the "Spelldriver" feat I quote from the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting in this answer: "Through intense focus, training, and dedication, you’ve harnessed the techniques of rapid spellcasting. You are no longer limited to only one non-cantrip spell per turn. However, should you cast two or more spells in a single turn, only one of them can be of 3rd level or higher."
– V2Blast
32 secs ago
I haven't actually watched much Critical Role, but I believe they do (or did, at least) allow this as a house rule, eventually requiring a feat for it. See the "Spelldriver" feat I quote from the Tal'Dorei Campaign Setting in this answer: "Through intense focus, training, and dedication, you’ve harnessed the techniques of rapid spellcasting. You are no longer limited to only one non-cantrip spell per turn. However, should you cast two or more spells in a single turn, only one of them can be of 3rd level or higher."
– V2Blast
32 secs ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f134338%2fwhat-would-the-effect-be-of-eliminating-the-rule-preventing-other-non-cantrip-sp%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
I don't believe this is a duplicate of the linked question. That question was about combining bonus action cantrips with action leveled spells. This question could be about combining two non cantrip spells, one of which takes a bonus action.
– Gandalfmeansme
6 hours ago
@NautArch it looks pretty clear to me. It's stated in both the title and the body. They're asking about striking the prohibition entirely, which would inherently include the case of casting two noncantrip spells. Given that they straight-up say "multiple non-cantrip spells" in the title, I'm not sure where the confusion comes from.
– Ben Barden
4 hours ago