D&D 5E Spellcasting Monsters, Spell Slotlessness, Bonus Actions, and Intent

[the Jester]

Looking over the new Monster Manual, I have noticed that a lot of monsters have both spellcasting as an action and some spellcasting options as a bonus action.

Given that monsters don't use spell slots, is the intent that a (f'rexample) cultist fanatic is able to cast spiritual weapon (as a bonus action) and hold person (as an action) on the same turn?

The Spellcasting section at the start of the book doesn't say anything on the subject. It seems clear that, RAW, the answer is yes; but is that really the intent? Should the answer be yes, or should it be no?

 

[GreatestHonor]

Seems like another disconnect between RAW and RAI. RAI, I would assume NPCs are supposed to run like PCs, and only can cast either using their action or bonus action, but other monsters can cast spells using both.

 

[Li Shenron]

Is the rule about being limited to casting one (non-cantrip) spell per turn still in 5.5? Because I would say that such rule applies to monsters as well.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Is the rule about being limited to casting one (non-cantrip) spell per turn still in 5.5? Because I would say that such rule applies to monsters as well.

The rule in 5.5 is that you can only cast one spell with a spell slot per turn, which as written has no impact on monsters that cast without using slots.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

We see discussions about the limits of DM power on this forum routinely. And to the dismay of some, it has been repeatedly stated by WotC that the DM can change or alter the rules on a whim for the benefit of the game. This rule is no different. A DM can have a bad guy cast fireball as an action and again as a bonus action, and they are well within their power to do so.

WotC does something really clever, where they put many of these rules in the PHB, and not in the monster manual. I feel like they do this as a subtle hint that they only apply to the players. But maybe that's a bit tin-foil hat of me.

So the simple answer is no. Monsters can do whatever the DM wishs, and the rules that bind players have no bearing on those abilities. And that's all assuming the monster even uses spell slots, which they don't have to.

 

[Chaltab]

As @Sorcerers Apprentice said, the rule in 5.24 is that you can only cast one spell with a spell slot each turn. Even PCs can cast a bonus action spiritual weapon and then a fireball if they can cast one or both of them without using spell slots.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

We see discussions about the limits of DM power on this forum routinely. And to the dismay of some, it has been repeatedly stated by WotC that the DM can change or alter the rules on a whim for the benefit of the game. This rule is no different. A DM can have a bad guy cast fireball as an action and again as a bonus action, and they are well within their power to do so.

The DM can even have the bad guy cast a Fireball that does twice as much damage as normal, basically combining the damage of two actions into one. And then have the bad guy cast it again as a bonus action. And then once more as a reaction, because why not?

WotC's new edition can be as player-friendly as they like, but the DM will never run out of dragons...

 

[Remathilis]

Looking over the new Monster Manual, I have noticed that a lot of monsters have both spellcasting as an action and some spellcasting options as a bonus action.

Given that monsters don't use spell slots, is the intent that a (f'rexample) cultist fanatic is able to cast spiritual weapon (as a bonus action) and hold person (as an action) on the same turn?

The Spellcasting section at the start of the book doesn't say anything on the subject. It seems clear that, RAW, the answer is yes; but is that really the intent? Should the answer be yes, or should it be no?

It might not have been intended, but I don't think it's a problem regardless. Caster-based monsters usually have a terrible action economy, so doing both in one round might make up for that.

 

[Li Shenron]

Was this change done in 5.5 PHB or before (e.g. Tasha)?

 

[Shadowdweller00]

Even if it's allowed under the rules, it's a terrible idea to do so since the players cannot. Having the monsters operate under clearly different standards tends to lead to bad outcomes in my 30+ year gaming experience. Essentially the practice undermines the sense of trust and perception of fairness between players and DM.

Regardless of whether monster are created under the same restrictions that the PCs are (e g. different stat caps or unbalanced personal abilities).