# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  Nerf to reaction spells idea

## Rukelnikov

What if, "the turn after you cast a spell (of lvl 1 or higher ?) as a reaction, you can't cast spells (with your action?) other than cantrips with a cast time of an action."

Similar to the BA limit on spells.

The idea would be to limit the effectiveness of Shield, Absorb Elements, and Silvery Barbs, by indirectly allowing foes to "control" casters by attacking them, since by using spells defensively they would be limited to only cantrips with their action, effectively being controlled.

----------


## Brookshw

> What if, "the turn after you cast a spell (of lvl 1 or higher ?) as a reaction, you can't cast spells (with your action?) other than cantrips with a cast time of an action."
> 
> Similar to the BA limit on spells.
> 
> The idea would be to limit the effectiveness of Shield, Absorb Elements, and Silvery Barbs, by indirectly allowing foes to "control" casters by attacking them, since by using spells defensively they would be limited to only cantrips with their action, effectively being controlled.


Definitely weakens the casters, much closer to a pre 3e state, leaves the tactical decision making to the player on whether the reaction is worth it. No objection.

----------


## Tanarii

It probably needs to be written as "until the end of your next turn ..."

Although that might interact weirdly if you cast a reaction spell in the middle of your current turn.  I think if you cast a leveled spell it would rule out being able to do cast a reaction spell until your current turn ended, and allow it after, but haven't put deep thought into it.

----------


## Mellack

Sounds like it would seriously mess up counterspell.

----------


## Salmon343

That would work, though I'd need clarification on the action type it affects - the brackets makes the meaning subtly different.

Without them I would read it as preventing bonus action casting at all, with them I'd read it as allowing levelled casting with your bonus action (but not with your regular action).

I do wonder if such a nerf is necessary? With only one reaction a round, I don't think reaction spells are honestly that broken - they offer casters tactical complexity out of turn, and there being no catch-all spell means that you already have to consider what spell to cast and whether to cast it at all, in case you need another reaction spell in the round.

Popping Silvery Barbs prevents you Counterspelling, popping Shield prevents that gish from making an opportunity attack Booming Blade. Giving enemies a wide range of abilities (straight attacks, spells, attacks that call for saves, elementally damaging attacks...) would be an alternative way of allowing them to tactically engage spellcasters.

I'm all for restricting stuff when they get too powerful, but the system alone seems like its at a decent power level at the moment. 

Issues would be either non spellcasters lacking in reaction options, or specific spells being overtuned; and could be solved by approaching those issues specifically without nerfing away the rich tactical play it currently provides. Shield could be made to explicitly not stack with normal shields (enchanted or not), Silvery Barbs could be made to work only once per turn on an enemy; for example.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Shield could be made to explicitly not stack with normal shields (enchanted or not)


I think for _shield_, specifically, I'd do two things were I going to make changes.

1. It no longer stacks with physical armor or shields of any kind. Mage armor? Sure. Class features like the dragon sorcerer one that set your AC? Sure. But no donned armor.
2. EKs get Improved Shield (like AT's get improved mage hand). Grants them the shield spell as a free spell known, and when they cast it, the triggering enemy takes X damage (instead of providing the AC boost). 

My general principle is that flat stacking numerical boosts to AC are a bad idea. Especially _big_ ones out of a very low-level slot.

----------


## Bunny Commando

As a DM, I don't like it.
I want my players to use Counterspell so I can throw casters at them, such change could push them to not use it so they won't be forced to cast just a cantrip.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> What if, "the turn after you cast a spell (of lvl 1 or higher ?) as a reaction, you can't cast spells (with your action?) other than cantrips with a cast time of an action."
> 
> Similar to the BA limit on spells.
> 
> The idea would be to limit the effectiveness of Shield, Absorb Elements, and Silvery Barbs, by indirectly allowing foes to "control" casters by attacking them, since by using spells defensively they would be limited to only cantrips with their action, effectively being controlled.


Are reaction spells strong? Yes. 
Are some of them too strong (for their level)? Yes.

That said, whenever I read a thread that basically boils down to, 'Characters need to be nerfed because they can burn resources too fast' I wonder how many encounters the OP is having in an average adventuring day.  There is supposed to be a limiting factor (6-8 encounters/ LR) built into the game where players shouldn't be able to spam reaction spells and action spells in every combat.  Wizards exceptional due to Arcane Recovery, but for the most part the solution to the problem already exists.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Are reaction spells strong? Yes. 
> Are some of them too strong (for their level)? Yes.
> 
> That said, whenever I read a thread that basically boils down to, 'Characters need to be nerfed because they can burn resources too fast' I wonder how many encounters the OP is having in an average adventuring day.  There is supposed to be a limiting factor (6-8 encounters/ LR) built into the game where players shouldn't be able to spam reaction spells and action spells in every combat.  Wizards exceptional due to Arcane Recovery, but for the most part the solution to the problem already exists.


Except that even at 6-8 3-round encounters per long rest...by level 11 or so a wizard can cast more than one leveled spell every single round _and still have leftovers_. And it only gets worse from there.

And "6-8 encounters" _isn't actually a balancing criteria_. It's a post-hoc report of what _playtest_ parties _usually_ could do before needing to withdraw, padded a bit. And that playtest part is important--these were _not_ the kind of highly-optimized parties where reaction spells and such actually make a huge difference. /peeve.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> Except that even at 6-8 3-round encounters per long rest...by level 11 or so a wizard can cast more than one leveled spell every single round _and still have leftovers_. And it only gets worse from there.
> 
> And "6-8 encounters" _isn't actually a balancing criteria_. It's a post-hoc report of what _playtest_ parties _usually_ could do before needing to withdraw, padded a bit. And that playtest part is important--these were _not_ the kind of highly-optimized parties where reaction spells and such actually make a huge difference. /peeve.


You'll note on my earlier post I noted Wizards as an exception; honestly between Arcane Recovery and Ritual Casting... well that's a different thread.  I also mentioned that some of these spells are strong (for their level); if SB needed to be upcast to the level of the spell impacted then it would be more expensive and difficult to recover the slot by the means available.
You mention optimizing, and there has no doubt been a fair degree of power creep with newer options.  Fey Touched = 2 more good spells/ day.  Clerics can now turn unused CDs into more spells.  The list goes on, and I'm not totally unsympathetic to the OP, but I remain unconvinced that too few encounters isn't a broad issue, and that the 'solution' presented is a particularly good one.

----------


## Tanarii

> Except that even at 6-8 3-round encounters per long rest...by level 11 or so a wizard can cast more than one leveled spell every single round _and still have leftovers_. And it only gets worse from there.


16 spells from level 1-5, +1 at level 11, 13, 15, 17, 19.  Yes they can throw almost 1 per round over 3 Deadly to 6 Medium fights (what the DMG table _actually_ says) at level 11, but almost half of them are level 1-2 spells, to the point they're better off casting a cantrip at level 11 instead.  

And that's assuming they stop at that few combats before LR.  IMC it was usually somewhere between an extra 1/3-2/3 of an adventuring day. And of course they only had that many slots at the very top of Tier 2.

Cantrip + Shield has its place when that's your one leveled spell for the round at higher levels when the one spell is a 1st or possibly even 2nd level spell.  Counterspell has a fairly significant cost, that's one less fireball you're throwing in a round.

(Shield bonus stacking with medium or heavy armors for non-EKs is a different matter.)

----------


## Saelethil

> I think for _shield_, specifically, I'd do two things were I going to make changes.
> 
> 1. It no longer stacks with physical armor or shields of any kind. Mage armor? Sure. Class features like the dragon sorcerer one that set your AC? Sure. But no donned armor.
> 2. EKs get Improved Shield (like AT's get improved mage hand). Grants them the shield spell as a free spell known, and when they cast it, the triggering enemy takes X damage (instead of providing the AC boost). 
> 
> My general principle is that flat stacking numerical boosts to AC are a bad idea. Especially _big_ ones out of a very low-level slot.


Or
1) Shield spell cannot raise AC above 18
2) Give Eldritch Knights the War Magic wizardss Arcane Deflection feature

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Or
> 1) Shield spell cannot raise AC above 18
> 2) Give Eldritch Knights the War Magic wizardss Arcane Deflection feature


I thought about that. But if I were going to nerf it that far, I'd just change _shield_ entirely to not do anything with AC. Because frankly, AC-modifying spells cause issues. I'd probably go with something like renaming it "Retributive Shield" or something, making it a counterpart to Absorb Elements. You get resistance to the damage and the attacker takes the same amount of damage back (or maybe some scaling amount based on spell level). Keep the magic missile immunity or make it reflect it back at the caster. That also solves the weird a-causal nature of the current implementation (turning the hit that triggered it into a miss), although that's a tiny annoyance.

----------


## Saelethil

> I thought about that. But if I were going to nerf it that far, I'd just change _shield_ entirely to not do anything with AC. Because frankly, AC-modifying spells cause issues. I'd probably go with something like renaming it "Retributive Shield" or something, making it a counterpart to Absorb Elements. You get resistance to the damage and the attacker takes the same amount of damage back (or maybe some scaling amount based on spell level). Keep the magic missile immunity or make it reflect it back at the caster. That also solves the weird a-causal nature of the current implementation (turning the hit that triggered it into a miss), although that's a tiny annoyance.


That would work too. And 18 might be too harsh. If the cap was 20 then a 14 Dex wizard with Mage Armor up would still get the full +5. Then increasing your base AC frees up your reaction and saves a few spell slots instead of giving an absurd AC.

----------


## Kane0

I've been running with a simplified 'once you cast a levelled spell, you cant cast another levelled spell on the same turn' and its been fine for my group for years at this point. Its way easier to explain to players than the existing BA spell rule and really only affects outliers.

----------


## Psyren

> Except that even at 6-8 3-round encounters per long rest...by level 11 or so a wizard can cast more than one leveled spell every single round _and still have leftovers_. And it only gets worse from there.
> 
> And "6-8 encounters" _isn't actually a balancing criteria_. It's a post-hoc report of what _playtest_ parties _usually_ could do before needing to withdraw, padded a bit. And that playtest part is important--these were _not_ the kind of highly-optimized parties where reaction spells and such actually make a huge difference. /peeve.


I agree with you that 6-8 isn't a criterion, however I don't think it was really meant to be one either. I view it more as a starting point that a DM can shoot for while gauging their group's optimization level and staying power, and then adjust accordingly for the table's overall fun. By the time a DM is running for a level 11 party they should have enough of a handle on things to be able to start making some adjustments.




> You'll note on my earlier post I noted Wizards as an exception; honestly between Arcane Recovery and Ritual Casting... well that's a different thread.  I also mentioned that some of these spells are strong (for their level); if SB needed to be upcast to the level of the spell impacted then it would be more expensive and difficult to recover the slot by the means available.
> You mention optimizing, and there has no doubt been a fair degree of power creep with newer options.  Fey Touched = 2 more good spells/ day.  Clerics can now turn unused CDs into more spells.  The list goes on, and I'm not totally unsympathetic to the OP, but I remain unconvinced that too few encounters isn't a broad issue, and that the 'solution' presented is a particularly good one.


I'll add to this that the 6-8 encounters includes non-combat ones, so things like exploration and social challenges are included in the tally. It's also referencing "medium" encounters, so if your group is sufficiently optimized, upping the difficulty is a way to achieve the desired result (taxing the party resources such that a LR becomes attractive if not outright needed) without needing this many. And if all else fails, a single long rest can go across multiple sessions if need be.

----------


## Segev

I see several posters have their own theories on this, but to the OP: What is the problem you're trying to solve with this house rule?

----------


## animorte

> That said, whenever I read a thread that basically boils down to, 'Characters need to be nerfed because they can burn resources too fast' I wonder how many encounters the OP is having in an average adventuring day.


Definitely this. Also what kind of encounters are you having? How creative are you getting with these encounters. If its always a race to zero HP, theres your first concern.




> I'll add to this that the 6-8 encounters includes non-combat ones, so things like exploration and social challenges are included in the tally.


Its a shame this is so easily forgotten.

----------


## BRC

> I see several posters have their own theories on this, but to the OP: What is the problem you're trying to solve with this house rule?


I'm not OP, but I've had similar thoughts in the past.

Specifically around Counterspell (I don't mind Shield, Feather fall, ect as much). 

I dislike/am bad at running the sort of meatgrinder rest-light game that makes spell slots work as a limitation on the system, and Counterspell specifically is such a powerful spell that it's almost always correct to use it. By casting Counterspell, you're spending a 3rd level spell slot and your reaction to block an enemy's action+ a spell (Probably 3rd level or higher).  

And this goes both ways, if my enemy casters have Counterspell, it makes very little sense for them to NOT counter the PC's all the time, but counterspelling a PC is usually just feelbad. An enemy caster rarely does more than one combat a rest, so draining their spell slots isn't super useful, and counterspelling a PC often just means "your turn this round was useless". 

Adding the "Cantrip only" clause to counterspell both makes it more of a tactical choice to use, and means that the players get something in exchange for getting counterspelled themselves. 

(My best experience with Counterpsell was a Witch Hunter enemy statblock I whipped up that had exactly one spell slot that could be used to cast Counterspell or Dispel Magic, plus some other anti-magic reactions. The PC's knew this, so when a Witch Hunter countered one of them, it was still a strategic gain for them since that Witch Hunter couldn't Counterspell again that combat)

----------


## Psyren

I think modifying reaction spells as a whole like this wouldn't be effective. It would be one more instance of unintuitive cognitive load on playgroups, who already are known to have trouble with the BA/A spell rule (it _constantly_ shows up on "rules everyone gets wrong!" lists, especially on non-tabletop focused sites), they would then have to keep track of this one too. Only this version would be even more of a burden during play, because now you're asking those players and DMs to track a leveled spell limitation across multiple turns rather than just the character's own. Never mind the fact that we're getting even more reaction spells in 1DnD (Guidance and Resistance at a minimum), and we'd also need to worry about how this interacts with Readied spells etc. And it would give monsters that have non-spell counters even more of an advantage.

I would say if anything needs to be modified, it's the spells themselves. OP didn't mention Counterspell so I'll hold off on that one, but for the other three:

Personally I think Absorb Elements is fine as-is, no change needed. I would even consider putting it in core, and the melee rider is fine too. For Shield, I think nerfing it to +3 or not letting it stack with actual armor or shields could be reasonable changes. Silvery Barbs meanwhile is just undercosted - it would still be taken by a lot of people even if it were a 2nd or 3rd level spell, and raising it would also make it harder to grab via feat or dip.

----------


## Segev

I suppose one issue I have with "nerf reaction spells" and then specifically listing _counterspell_ and _shield_ as both being "must-cast" spells is that...it seems to forget that you only have one reaction per round. Is the enemy caster truly only casting on turns when nobody is attacking the wizard? IT seems to me that most casters would have the wits to tell their allies to target the guy who's countering his spells so he can actually get some through.

----------


## Rukelnikov

Thanks for the replies, regarding the "issue this rule is attempting to fix", it'd be 2 things at once.

On one hand, reactions spells are pretty stong and make casters pretty durable, which, I think, should be their weakness. Yes, this is less of an issue in long combat days, but I find they need to be unreasonably long (for the kind of games my table  generally likes at least) by T3 onwards, and I get the impression its not just our table that has this opinion on 20+ combat round days.

On the other hand, there aren't many counterplays that can be done preemptively against casters, you can disrupt their concentration AFTER they cast a concentration spell but in many cases that's too late, you can try to limit their targeting capabilities by blocking sight with spells like fog cloud, but that requires casting spells of your own, for non-casters, aside from guessing what spells the enemy spellcasters have prepared and trying to position in a way that makes it akward for them to target said spells, there's not much to be done.

This rule would allow fighter type creatures to have a preemptive action they can leverage against a caster, if they are pressured enough with damage that they need to spend a reaction to mitigate it, then they've traded their next action for it. So non-casters would be able to take measures against casters, the casters would still get the choice of taking damage to preserve their leveled spells next round, and the frailty of the casters would be brought back a bit.

----------


## Psyren

Got it, I understand what you're going for. But again, I think the cognitive load issues _("hey Jim, you used a reaction spell four turns ago right?" "No, I think that was Sue.")_ and the way this makes Readied spells twice as costly (you burn your action to Ready, the reaction to cast, and then you just lost your next action too) make the cure a bit harsher than the disease here.

What I would probably solve instead is the inability for martials to disrupt spellcasting in 5e. Just bring back two rules from 3.5:

1) Casting in melee provokes1 
2) Taking damage while casting forces a concentration check

And with those two in place, suddenly martials have a way to interfere with casters and positioning them matters a lot more again.

1: Assuming the spellcast is detectable, i.e. has at least one component. Also, you can exclude touch spells from this rule like Starfinder does, as those spells are designed to be used in melee; this actually keeps things simple as there won't be any need for "holding the charge" type rules that still trip people up to this day.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> Thanks for the replies, regarding the "issue this rule is attempting to fix", it'd be 2 things at once.
> 
> On one hand, reactions spells are pretty stong and make casters pretty durable, which, I think, should be their weakness. Yes, this is less of an issue in long combat days, but I find they need to be unreasonably long (for the kind of games my table  generally likes at least) by T3 onwards, and I get the impression its not just our table that has this opinion on 20+ combat round days.
> 
> On the other hand, there aren't many counterplays that can be done preemptively against casters, you can disrupt their concentration AFTER they cast a concentration spell but in many cases that's too late, you can try to limit their targeting capabilities by blocking sight with spells like fog cloud, but that requires casting spells of your own, for non-casters, aside from guessing what spells the enemy spellcasters have prepared and trying to position in a way that makes it akward for them to target said spells, there's not much to be done.
> 
> This rule would allow fighter type creatures to have a preemptive action they can leverage against a caster, if they are pressured enough with damage that they need to spend a reaction to mitigate it, then they've traded their next action for it. So non-casters would be able to take measures against casters, the casters would still get the choice of taking damage to preserve their leveled spells next round, and the frailty of the casters would be brought back a bit.


I get it.  Though, I'm coming back to a battle we had the other night while I was DMing an early tier 3 group.  I had 2 baddies using the Mage stat block (slightly buffed) along with some mooks, a Fire Giant, and a couple of other melee types with 100 or so hp.  The party mostly won initiative and targeted the 2 mages, who used their reactions to reduce the pain, and then were still able to deliver leveled spells.  With the proposed rule these to 9th level casters would have had to make the choice between being possibly reduced to 0 hp in the first round or limiting offence to cantrips.  If they survived round 1, remaining rounds would surely have been cantrips only.

I think the proposed rule is overkill.  Counterspell, Absorb Elements, and Feather Fall are fine.  Personally, I just think Shield and SB are overtuned.  Nerfing or nixing these seems like a better option to me.  SB is easy; if someone thought it was a good use of an action and 4th level slot to cast Banishment, then it's fair to spend a 4th level slot and a reaction to have another go.  Heck, the second time they get the benefit of awarding advantage to someone, so it's still better.  Otherwise just ban the thing; 5e worked for years without it.  Shield: there have been a lot of suggested nerfs; just pick one. 
Casters, particularly the d6 hp ones, are supposed to be good at spells.  And, yes by tier 3 they have a lot of spells and can occasionally cast more than 1 per round even with a fair number of encounters.  Eliminating that seems to go against core design of the game. I'd be pretty annoyed if we had character deaths over falling off a cliff, flying mount, or whatever because the caster with Feather Fall had gone earlier in the initiative and already cast a spell.

----------


## Salmon343

> Got it, I understand what you're going for. But again, I think the cognitive load issues _("hey Jim, you used a reaction spell four turns ago right?" "No, I think that was Sue.")_ and the way this makes Readied spells twice as costly (you burn your action to Ready, the reaction to cast, and then you just lost your next action too) make the cure a bit harsher than the disease here.
> 
> What I would probably solve instead is the inability for martials to disrupt spellcasting in 5e. Just bring back two rules from 3.5:
> 
> 1) Casting in melee provokes1 
> 2) Taking damage while casting forces a concentration check
> 
> And with those two in place, suddenly martials have a way to interfere with casters and positioning them matters a lot more again.
> 
> 1: Assuming the spellcast is detectable, i.e. has at least one component. Also, you can exclude touch spells from this rule like Starfinder does, as those spells are designed to be used in melee; this actually keeps things simple as there won't be any need for "holding the charge" type rules that still trip people up to this day.


Was thinking something similar, bringing back 3.5 provoking and concentration checks just fixes it. I'd probably allow reaction spells to not provoke, and make the DC fairly high (maybe 10+half damage?). 

Now casters in melee have to decide between provoking opportunity and risking losing the spell, or disengaging and casting a bonus action spell, which tends to be weaker.

----------


## Rukelnikov

I hadn't thought about what this means for the enemies, and that's a very good point, enemies with abilities like spells but that aren't spells would remain close to their current strength, while those that are full casters would be severely hampered.

Yeah, it's probably better to just use 3.5s attacks of opportunity for spellcasting.

----------


## Kane0

> What I would probably solve instead is the inability for martials to disrupt spellcasting in 5e. Just bring back two rules from 3.5:
> 
> 1) Casting in melee provokes1 
> 2) Taking damage while casting forces a concentration check


I've been doing this for so long I literally forgot that it's not a stock rule.

----------

