Mixing
What would the effect of striking the prohibition on multiple non-cantrip spells in a turn if one's cast with a bonus action be?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
...as per title, I'm wondering what the effect of striking the prohibition (removing it) on spells being cast on the same turn as a spell that takes a bonus action would be.
dnd-5e spells homebrew house-rules actions
edited 5 hours ago
Slagmoth
16k14290
asked 5 hours ago
Stackstuck
25116
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
...as per title, I'm wondering what the effect of striking the prohibition (removing it) on spells being cast on the same turn as a spell that takes a bonus action would be.
dnd-5e spells homebrew house-rules actions
edited 5 hours ago
Slagmoth
16k14290
asked 5 hours ago
Stackstuck
25116
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
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
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
...as per title, I'm wondering what the effect of striking the prohibition (removing it) on spells being cast on the same turn as a spell that takes a bonus action would be.
dnd-5e spells homebrew house-rules actions
edited 5 hours ago
Slagmoth
16k14290
asked 5 hours ago
Stackstuck
25116
...as per title, I'm wondering what the effect of striking the prohibition (removing it) on spells being cast on the same turn as a spell that takes a bonus action would be.
dnd-5e spells homebrew house-rules actions
dnd-5e spells homebrew house-rules actions
edited 5 hours ago
Slagmoth
16k14290
asked 5 hours ago
Stackstuck
25116
edited 5 hours ago
Slagmoth
16k14290
asked 5 hours ago
Stackstuck
25116
edited 5 hours ago
Slagmoth
16k14290
edited 5 hours ago
Slagmoth
16k14290
edited 5 hours ago
Slagmoth
16k14290
16k14290
asked 5 hours ago
Stackstuck
25116
asked 5 hours ago
Stackstuck
25116
asked 5 hours ago
Stackstuck
25116
25116
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
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
3 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
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
3 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
4 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
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
3 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
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
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.
answered 4 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
1
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
3 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
3 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
3 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
3 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 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 against 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 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.
answered 55 mins 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
12 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
7
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.
answered 4 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
1
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
3 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
3 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
3 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
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
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.
answered 4 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
1
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
3 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
3 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
3 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
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
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.
answered 4 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.
answered 4 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
edited 3 hours ago
answered 4 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
answered 4 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
answered 4 hours ago
Gandalfmeansme
14.9k25396
14.9k25396
1
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
3 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
3 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
3 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
3 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1
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
3 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
3 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
3 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
3 hours ago
1
1
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
3 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
3 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
3 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
3 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
3 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
3 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
3 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
3 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 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 against 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 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.
answered 55 mins 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
12 mins 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 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 against 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 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.
answered 55 mins 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
12 mins 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 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 against 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 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.
answered 55 mins 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 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 against 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 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.
answered 55 mins 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 48 mins ago
answered 55 mins 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 55 mins ago
Frozenstep
113
answered 55 mins 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
12 mins 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
12 mins 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
12 mins 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
12 mins 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-of-striking-the-prohibition-on-multiple-non-cantrip-spells%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
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
3 hours ago