What are your favorite, mistaken/odd rules?

[stoutstien]

Sleep specifically says it doesn't work against undead AND creatures that are immune to being charmed.

Just saw that. So no sleep but the rest of the conditions are raw legal even if I dont think many DM would allow charming a zombie

[RulesJD]

Favorite mistaken rule? No, but my most hated mistaken rule:

"You can't cast more than one leveled spell per turn."

Yes, you can. The interaction of Bonus Action spells and limitations on spell casting is so, so annoying and hardly anyone ever fully understands it.

[Man_Over_Game]

Favorite mistaken rule? No, but my most hated mistaken rule:

"You can't cast more than one leveled spell per turn."

Yes, you can. The interaction of Bonus Action spells and limitations on spell casting is so, so annoying and hardly anyone ever fully understands it.

I mean, it's not that complicated.

"If you cast a spell with a bonus action, all other spells you cast in the same turn must be cantrips".

[ProsecutorGodot]

Right, the zombie is a different creature entirely. So Hugh's not a zombie, and so there's no impediment to me bringing back Hugh.

You can't target Hugh, he has been replaced by Zombie. The corpse is Zombie, the target is Zombie. Hugh effectively has no body with which to target for the resurrection spells.

Animate Dead turns the target into Zombie, they stop being what they were previously. There are no two ways to interpret this, when you become a monster attached to a monster stat block, you are no longer the creature you were previously.

A dead Zombie is a dead undead. A dead Hugh is a dead humanoid. A dead Hugh, who was turned into a Zombie, is a dead undead.

EDIT: For reference, True Resurrection gives us all the information we need to understand that (A) A corpse retains its creature type and (B) That a corpse recognizes undead and non - undead separately

You touch a creature that has been dead for no longer than 200 years and that died for any reason except old age. If the creature's soul is free and willing, the creature is restored to life with all its hit points.

This spell closes all wounds, neutralizes any poison, cures all diseases, and lifts any curses affecting the creature when it died. The spell replaces damaged or missing organs and limbs. If the creature was undead, it is restored to its non-undead form.

Revivify has no such wording, as such, targeting an undead will raise them as their undead form. The creature you're returning to life is Undead, specifically a Zombie.

[RulesJD]

I mean, it's not that complicated.

"If you cast a spell with a bonus action, all other spells you cast in the same turn must be cantrips".

Oh I agree. But I see it done wrong allllll the time. Even by people that think they know the rule.

For example, I see "I cast Conjure Animals and then Shillelagh" a lot.

[stoutstien]

Oh I agree. But I see it done wrong allllll the time. Even by people that think they know the rule.

For example, I see "I cast Conjure Animals and then Shillelagh" a lot.

But you can cast shield of Faith then toll the dead. I can see why people get hung up on this one. The rule in question could have been presented with more clarity.

[ThePolarBear]

I mean, it's not that complicated.

"If you cast a spell with a bonus action, all other spells you cast in the same turn must be cantrips".

Yeah, it's not complicated.

psst, did they change something or you forgot "with a casting time of an action"?

[RedMage125]

Near as I can tell, the reasonable answer is the correct one: The status of a completely different creature is irrelevant to whether Hugh can be brought back.

But we disagree about which answer is correct.

ProsecutorGodot handled this nicely.

For clarity when we say "the correct answer" we mean the one supported by RAW.

Which is that Hugh cannot be brought back with anything less than True Resurrection once he's been turned into a zombie.

Favorite mistaken rule? No, but my most hated mistaken rule:

"You can't cast more than one leveled spell per turn."

Yes, you can. The interaction of Bonus Action spells and limitations on spell casting is so, so annoying and hardly anyone ever fully understands it.

Last I heard, the devs DID clarify that Action Surge allows one to break this restriction. But that's not in the rules or the errata anywhere, tho...

[Rukelnikov]

Last I heard, the devs DID clarify that Action Surge allows one to break this restriction. But that's not in the rules or the errata anywhere, tho...

I doesn't need to be in an errata since it is in the rules.

Did you cast a spell a BAction? No? Then there's no restriction to apply.

[Man_Over_Game]

Yeah, it's not complicated.

psst, did they change something or you forgot "with a casting time of an action"?

Sure, it's specified as such, but it's rarely worth mentioning, and it only complicates things.

There's no way of casting a spell with a bonus action again, as you can't ever have 2 Bonus Actions. Casting a spell as a Reaction is unlikely, but even then, there are no cantrips that you could cast with a Reaction (not without some weird War Caster shenanigans). So the only spells you'd realistically be able to cast, when limited to Cantrips, are spells cast with your Action anyway.

The full thing is "You can’t cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action", but it doesn't need to go into that much of detail. It'd be like saying "You can't use the Extra Attack feature if you didn't take the Attack action, you don't have a valid target within reach of your weapon, if you don't have greater than 0 HP, if you are paralyzed, or if you are incapacitated", because most of those things are pretty much covered in other parts of the book.

[ThePolarBear]

...

I hope you can believe me if i say that i'm not trying to pick on you. I just believe that the devil is in the details and i'm more than guilty on messing up on things myself.

Sure, it's specified as such, but it's rarely worth mentioning, and it only complicates things.

It doesn't really complicate them THAT much, if at all. And makes the rule complete and makes it possible to "correctly" adjudicate even the unlikely cases. I believe that one of the reasons why that particular rule is mistaken so much is that it is not recited in full "because it's rarely worth mentioning", and so only what is considered "relevant" is passed on, and then "unlikely" situations happen, "mistakes" are propagated unknowingly and so on.

[...]it doesn't need to go into that much of detail. It'd be like saying "You can't use the Extra Attack feature if you didn't take the Attack action, you don't have a valid target within reach of your weapon, if you don't have greater than 0 HP, if you are paralyzed, or if you are incapacitated", because most of those things are pretty much covered in other parts of the book.

So, it isn't really the same? The rule is a single one that isn't covered anywhere else in the book, not an interaction with other rules.
A more relevant and appropriate example would be answering to "Why can't i benefit from Extra Attack?" with "You didn't take the Attack Action", forgetting that It also wasn't their turn. It's a single rule that is not mentioned anywhere else and it was relevant. Sure, the action type is sufficient to prevent the benefit. As an explanation however it might leave room to misunderstandings and it really doesn't cost that much to be a little bit more... complete in this cases.

[Man_Over_Game]

I hope you can believe me if i say that i'm not trying to pick on you. I just believe that the devil is in the details and i'm more than guilty on messing up on things myself.

HAH! No worries, friend. Pick on me all you want, you won't hurt my feelings. I like it when people challenge my opinion. It means I can challenge them right back! And I like a challenge.

It doesn't really complicate them THAT much, if at all. And makes the rule complete and makes it possible to "correctly" adjudicate even the unlikely cases. I believe that one of the reasons why that particular rule is mistaken so much is that it is not recited in full "because it's rarely worth mentioning", and so only what is considered "relevant" is passed on, and then "unlikely" situations happen, "mistakes" are propagated unknowingly and so on.



So, it isn't really the same? The rule is a single one that isn't covered anywhere else in the book, not an interaction with other rules.
A more relevant and appropriate example would be answering to "Why can't i benefit from Extra Attack?" with "You didn't take the Attack Action", forgetting that It also wasn't their turn. It's a single rule that is not mentioned anywhere else and it was relevant. Sure, the action type is sufficient to prevent the benefit. As an explanation however it might leave room to misunderstandings and it really doesn't cost that much to be a little bit more... complete in this cases

You're absolutely right, they aren't exactly the same. There are a slight number of differences between the simplified "If you cast a spell as a bonus action, all other spells you cast in the turn must be cantrips" and the official word on the rules. So my prior example of "Extra Attack" isn't too applicable. I mostly added it as an example of "Too much information can be confusing and excessive".

But there are two things that are important to mention, in the case of the precise vs. simplified version of the Bonus Action casting:
1. The difference between the two (which is mostly limited to casting a spell as a reaction, which you can't do using the official rules) is so nearly impossible and niche that the one time it's relevant, it won't break anything. It'd be akin to a Sorcerer Quickening a spell, running away, and attempting to cast Shield on the triggered Opportunity Attack.

• Would a DM realistically say "No"?
• Would it be too game-changing if the DM said "Yes"?

It's also worth mentioning that, while simplifying does create a gap that requires DM interpretation, this is a much smaller gap than other sections of the game's rules (like rulings regarding stealth, vision, hearing, and illusions).

2. While the official version isn't THAT much more complicated, it IS more complicated. The damage caused by chaos actually grows exponentially by the amount of chaos in the system. You could, for example, drive 70 MPH on the freeway. You could also deal with screaming kids in your house. You would NOT feel comfortable dealing with screaming kids while driving 70 MPH on the freeway, as both the consequence and the threat increases dramatically than with dealing with each problem separately. Anyone who's ever played Faster Than Light (the video game) knows exactly what I'm talking about: Two problems separately is much easier to deal with than two problems together.

The real question is, is the benefit of keeping it precise worth the amount of confusion it's bringing? I'd say No, as it continually brings up questions and debates on the topic.

For some real-life examples of what I mean, here are a number of RPG.SE questions on the topic:

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...a-single-round
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...edirect=1&lq=1
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...edirect=1&lq=1
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...edirect=1&lq=1
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...edirect=1&lq=1
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...edirect=1&lq=1
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...edirect=1&lq=1
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...a-cantrip?rq=1
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questi...ell-first?rq=1

Keep in mind that RPG.SE is regularly moderated by the entire populace (every person's a mod, of varying levels tied to their level of contributions) to ensure that questions don't have duplicates, yet there's almost a dozen on the same topic. Coming from a regular of the RPG.SE community, I can honestly say that it's extremely irregular for that to happen.

[Keravath]

....

Last I heard, the devs DID clarify that Action Surge allows one to break this restriction. But that's not in the rules or the errata anywhere, tho...

Nope. Action surge allows you to take a second action. This could allow you to cast two leveled spells in the turn if each is cast using an action and you do NOT cast a bonus action spell.

However, if you cast a spell as a bonus action then even with action surge BOTH of those actions are still limited to cantrips.

[ThePolarBear]

I mostly added it as an example of "Too much information can be confusing and excessive".

I agree. I also believe that a good and thorough and clear explanation is sufficient to clear confusion. Propagating a mistake also causes confusion. Confusion for confusion, better be complete and clear and try to avoid it at all.

But there are two things that are important to mention, in the case of the precise vs. simplified version of the Bonus Action casting:
1. The difference between the two (which is mostly limited to casting a spell as a reaction, which you can't do using the official rules)

Variant doesn't mean "not official", however (for Warcaster).

Would a DM realistically say "No"? Would it be too game-changing if the DM said "Yes"?

How does it help to choose to prevent an informed choice that is that DM's choice to make? It's not your decision to make on how to run their game. (wee, what an important sounding argument!)
I mean, can you exclude that a DM wouldn't say no?

2.Two problems separately is much easier to deal with than two problems together.

That's why, at least in my experience and knowledge, one of the first things you are tought on how to handle problems is how to make so that you are equipped with the means to parse the situation and isolate each single issue, so you can deal with each of them individually. In the example of the car, you would focus on driving safely (which would mean to slow down, solving part of the problem) so that the pressure is lifted, and you can find a way to stop to deal with the kids without having to drive. I know, "ideally", which isn't always how thing CAN go.

The real question is, is the benefit of keeping it precise worth the amount of confusion it's bringing?

Is the hassle of explaining things a bit more thoroughly worth the amount of confusion you are preventing by preventing misconceptions to spread?

...
*looks at the world right now*
...

It's an uphill battle either way. We really can't have the cake and eat it too ;D

[Chronos]

Quoth RedMage125:

ProsecutorGodot handled this nicely.

For clarity when we say "the correct answer" we mean the one supported by RAW.

Yes, exactly. And I disagree that there's anything in the RAW that prevents Raise Dead from bringing back Hugh the humanoid.

As for Revivify on an undead, the spell says that it returns the creature to life. Undead aren't alive. If you somehow killed Hugh, turned his corpse into a zombie, and then destroyed the zombie, all within the 1-minute limit of Revivify, the only thing the spell could possibly do would be to bring back Hugh the humanoid, because bringing back the zombie wouldn't be returning the creature to life, it'd be returning the creature to undeath. On the other hand, if you kill Hugh, bring him back as a zombie, wait around for more than a minute, and then destroy the zombie, and cast Revivify right after the zombie is destroyed, the Revivify spell would fail, because it's been more than a minute since death: Death was what happened before the zombification, and what happened to the zombie wasn't death, because it was already dead.

[Chronos]

Oh, on the subject of bonus action spells: There's a very good reason why the rules allow a bonus action for a regular spell and a regular action for a cantrip, but do not allow a regular action for a regular spell and a bonus action for a cantrip. Suppose that a sorcerer wants to cast both a Fireball and a Firebolt in the same round. They can do that, by quickening one of them. But the cost to quicken a spell depends on the level of the spell. They wanted to make sure that the sorcerer had to pay the price to quicken a 3rd-level spell, not just the price to quicken a cantrip.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes, exactly. And I disagree that there's anything in the RAW that prevents Raise Dead from bringing back Hugh the humanoid.

As for Revivify on an undead, the spell says that it returns the creature to life. Undead aren't alive. If you somehow killed Hugh, turned his corpse into a zombie, and then destroyed the zombie, all within the 1-minute limit of Revivify, the only thing the spell could possibly do would be to bring back Hugh the humanoid, because bringing back the zombie wouldn't be returning the creature to life, it'd be returning the creature to undeath. On the other hand, if you kill Hugh, bring him back as a zombie, wait around for more than a minute, and then destroy the zombie, and cast Revivify right after the zombie is destroyed, the Revivify spell would fail, because it's been more than a minute since death: Death was what happened before the zombification, and what happened to the zombie wasn't death, because it was already dead.

A creature that has hit points is alive. Undead are living creatures as far as these spells are concerned. A creature that drops to 0 hit points dies. All of this is described in the Damage and Healing section of Chapter 9 of the PHB.

Monsters and Death
Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws.

The mechanics don't care what your creature type is, if you have hit points (even while unconscious at 0) you are considered alive.

The plain and simple RAW is that if Hugh is killed and raised as an undead through one of the 3 effects (that I could find) that can create an undead in less than a minute: Danse Macabre, Finger of Death and Death Tyrant Cone, then Hugh becomes a Zombie. The stats for a Zombie are found in the monster manual. The creature you kill thereafter is a Zombie, not Hugh. There is no more Hugh, that is the corpse of a Zombie. You can't revive that corpse with Raise Dead or Resurrection on account of it being an Undead and you can't get Hugh back using Revivify on account of the creature you're targeting that has died recently was not Hugh, but a Zombie.

It is no longer Hugh's corpse, it is a Zombie's corpse. The only spell capable of targeting that corpse and recognizing that it was at some point Hugh is True Resurrection because of it's clause of returning undead creatures to their non-undead form.

[Phhase]

Crawford once ruled that the corpse was still considered to have the undead creature type, making the spell fail. He also ruled that if you cast revivify on a zombie, the creature returns as a zombie.

Thaaaat smacks of bullsh!t to me. Undead are animated by negative energy. "Killing" an undead de-animates it. What's an undead that isn't animated? It's the former creature's corpse, a bit worse for wear. Besides, clerical healing spells (Necromancy or no), for the most part, use positive energy, which is baneful to undead, so how is it possible to effectively re-create a zombie with revivify?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Thaaaat smacks of bullsh!t to me. Undead are animated by negative energy. "Killing" an undead de-animates it. What's an undead that isn't animated? It's the former creature's corpse, a bit worse for wear. Besides, clerical healing spells (Necromancy or no), for the most part, use positive energy, which is baneful to undead, so how is it possible to effectively re-create a zombie with revivify?

If spells are meant to not affect or be harmful to undead, they say so. They're given "a semblance of life" through necromantic energy. Zombies are living creatures as far as the game is concerned, it's their Undead creature type that excludes some spells from affecting them.

[Phhase]

If spells are meant to not affect or be harmful to undead, they say so.

Wait...what the hell!? (Furiously googling) No way! Did 5e REALLY remove positive and negative energy as magical concepts? Why!? That was one of it's things! I mean, I GUESS I can see removing the "Convert any spell into healing or damage on the fly" thing for balance, but to abolish the ancient rule of Revive Kills Zombie??

And honestly, that explanation just sounds like a bad/spiteful DM's rules-lawyering excuse for keeping your character dead rather than anything that belongs in RAW (and yes, know it is RAW, I just think it sounds more like a bad technicality than anything deliberate and intentful).

[Millstone85]

Did 5e REALLY remove positive and negative energy as magical concepts?

Lore-wise, it is still there.

Like a dome above the other planes, the Positive Plane is the source of radiant energy and the raw life force that suffuses all living beings, from the puny to the sublime. Its dark reflection is the Negative Plane, the source of necrotic energy that destroys the living and animates the undead.

But it is not reflected in the game mechanics.

[ProsecutorGodot]

And honestly, that explanation just sounds like a bad/spiteful DM's rules-lawyering excuse for keeping your character dead rather than anything that belongs in RAW (and yes, know it is RAW, I just think it sounds more like a bad technicality than anything deliberate and intentful).

I don't really agree, I think that even fluff wise, being turned into an undead is quite a big deal. The process involved is often very deliberate and almost exclusively done by evil creatures. It damns the body to undeath and makes restoring true life to those remains difficult by any means other than the highest tiers of magic or divine intervention.

It's also not that easy to become an undead in a scenario that would raise flags of a DM purposefully doing so to keep your character out of the game. As mentioned previously, very few effects that raise a corpse as an undead do so in under 1 minute. More often than not there is time to intervene where you can prevent an ally from becoming undead.

Some exceptions include Danse Macabre which is a Xanathar's Guide spell that strays from the basic rules animating spells shared trait of delayed animation (1 minute casting time or start of next turn) and Death Tyrants, which is an incredibly uncommon creature with a high CR. Just about every effect I can find typically leaves a window open where you can salvage the body before it is made undead.

[Tanarii]

The question of what happens when you fight an undead creature, make it fully dead, and then cast resurrection on it.

Crawford once ruled that the corpse was still considered to have the undead creature type, making the spell fail. He also ruled that if you cast revivify on a zombie, the creature returns as a zombie.

Zombies aren't alive, so Crawford is wrong. Revivify returns a dead subject to life. The only life an undead-ified and rekilled body has ever had is the original life.

Since it has no restriction on being used on undead, strictly interpreting the rule as written, Revivify absolutely brings back an undead that is raised and killed in less than a minute back to its original life.

Even Raise Dead & Ressurection, the RAI of the RAW is debatable. Once you kill an undead, is it still an undead? I know the Crawford ruling, but that's not necessarily the logical one. The way it's written it can easily be viewed as intending to apply only to undead moving around, that undead are only undead while they are currently active.

[Aprender]

Not that anyone is going to change their opinion, but...

Anything that can be done to Undead Hugh can be done to zombie732. Anything that can't be done to zombie732 can't be done to Undead Hugh. They are the same creature as far as the game goes. (zombie732 used to be somebody too).

With that said, talk to your DM and figure out what works for your table.

[ThePolarBear]

Crawford once ruled that the corpse was still considered to have the undead creature type

To my knowledge this isn't true. What he ruled is that the creature that died had the undead type, thus making the corpse one of an undead, not one of a humanoid. Do you have a link?

[RulesJD]

Oh, on the subject of bonus action spells: There's a very good reason why the rules allow a bonus action for a regular spell and a regular action for a cantrip, but do not allow a regular action for a regular spell and a bonus action for a cantrip. Suppose that a sorcerer wants to cast both a Fireball and a Firebolt in the same round. They can do that, by quickening one of them. But the cost to quicken a spell depends on the level of the spell. They wanted to make sure that the sorcerer had to pay the price to quicken a 3rd-level spell, not just the price to quicken a cantrip.

Honestly if that's the reason for the rule restriction, I would heavily favor getting rid of Quicken and then removing the Bonus Action spell restriction. It just leads to so many headaches for DMs/Players.

[RedMage125]

Nope. Action surge allows you to take a second action. This could allow you to cast two leveled spells in the turn if each is cast using an action and you do NOT cast a bonus action spell.

However, if you cast a spell as a bonus action then even with action surge BOTH of those actions are still limited to cantrips.

Huh...what's to stop Bob the Ftr 2/Sor 8 from casting Fireball, using Action Surge, casting another Fireball, and then using Quicken to cast another spell as a bonus action? I mean, technically, the limitation is "If you cast a spell a bonus action..." then limits all other spells that follow that, right?

Yes, exactly. And I disagree that there's anything in the RAW that prevents Raise Dead from bringing back Hugh the humanoid.

Not even the words "This spell can't return an undead creature to life"?

A great deal of your argument has been hinging on the point that an undead creature is not "alive". You also like to specify that the Zombie is still Hugh, right? So, if ZombieHugh was "killed/destroyed/de-animated", that means Hugh was an undead creature at some point, yes? He then "can't be returned to life" with Raise Dead. As per the spell.

Resurrection says: "You touch a dead creature that has been dead for no more than a century, that didn't die of old age, and that isn't undead." The way English breaks down is that we have a subject (you), a verb (touch) and a direct object (a dead creature) with some qualifiers. That means all of the qualifiers apply to the direct object of the sentence. So you should be able to parse each of those qualifiers as immediately following that direct object. "A dead creature that didn't die of old age" and "A dead creature that isn't undead". So, since we're specifying a dead creature, we know we're not discussing a currently animate zombie, right? A zombie is not "a dead creature", it is "an undead creature made from the corpse of a dead creature". So when you defeat the zombie, it is dead, right?

Even by your asserion that the corpse continues to be Hugh, you cannot deny that it is now the corpse of ZombieHugh. And Resurrection specifically cannot bring "a dead creature that is undead" back to life.

And if 7th-level Resurrection can't, why would we assume that 5th level Raise Dead can? Even if you argue that Raise Dead is unclear, Resurrection is not.

See, when we talk about "what is correct by RAW", we mean "using only what the text says, not applying reasoning, or some kind of interpretation". It's sometimes an anal-retentive, and pedantic focus on minutae of details in the words, but that's what a lot of "RAW discussions" are. Raise Dead "cannot return an undead creature to life". Hugh was, at one point, a zombie, right? Hugh cannot be returned to life. Resurrection says that the dead creature that we can target with the spell "isn't undead", in order for the spell to work. Is the dead creature we are targetting with this spell undead? If Yes, no Resurrection for Hugh. Seriously, you kill a bunch of random zombies in a dungeon, the bodies that are left are the bodies of zombies, right? Same for Hugh. the fact that you knew him when he was alive doesn't make the spell work differently.

So...here's the interesting bit. Revivify does not have any such caveat. So we must assume the Hugh was turned into a zombie by Danse Macabre, or some other spell with a casting time of less than a minute. Assuming you can drop ZombieHugh and get a Revivify spell on him within one minute of his original, mortal death, I see no reason by RAW why Revivify could not return him to life. And that's just doing the same anal-retentive, detail-oriented, pedantic reading of the RAW that makes Raise Dead and Resurrection not work.

Especially if we acknowledge that True Resurrection can bring Hugh back (by virtue of having no caveats about undead one way or the other), then Revivify does as well. I know what Sage Advice said, but that's not rules until it becomes errata.

So it may seem odd that a 3rd level spell can do what a 5th and 7th level spell cannot, but those spells do not have the time limit of Revivify. So, here's where I'd like to add some interpretation and my opinion on the matter. If anyone recalls the 3.5e Spell Compendium, Revivify in that edition had to be cast within one round of the target's death. If 3eHugh was killed on initiative count 16, the Cleric had until the next initiative count 16 to get to him and cast it. The benefit was no loss of level for Hugh. The idea behind it was that the soul was basically returned to the body before it had a chance to full leave, thus no sense of shock or disorientation, or however they justified the level loss in 3e. Maybe souls take longer to leave the body in 5e.

Oh, on the subject of bonus action spells: There's a very good reason why the rules allow a bonus action for a regular spell and a regular action for a cantrip, but do not allow a regular action for a regular spell and a bonus action for a cantrip. Suppose that a sorcerer wants to cast both a Fireball and a Firebolt in the same round. They can do that, by quickening one of them. But the cost to quicken a spell depends on the level of the spell. They wanted to make sure that the sorcerer had to pay the price to quicken a 3rd-level spell, not just the price to quicken a cantrip.

Was there errata that I missed that nerfed Quicken Spell? My PHB says the cost is 2 Sorcery Points to Quicken any spell that normally has a casting time of 1 action. Nothing about the level of the spell affecting the cost at all. Near as I can tell, Twinned Spell is the only Metamagic option affected by the level of the spell.

EDIT: Realized I parsed my verbage incorrectly

[RulesJD]

Huh...what's to stop Bob the Ftr 2/Sor 8 from casting Fireball, using Action Surge, casting another Fireball, and then using Quicken to cast another spell as a bonus action? I mean, technically, the limitation is "If you cast a spell a bonus action..." then limits all other spells that follow that, right?


*snip*

Nope. What would happen is:

Bob casts Fireball -> Action Surge -> Fireball. He can't quicken cast anything, at all. Not even a cantrip. Because then he would have violated the rule. Again, why this is my most hated, misunderstood rule.

[Brookshw]

And Resurrection specifically cannot bring "a dead creature that is not undead" back to life.

If this text exists somewhere I want to know where

[Rukelnikov]

Vampires

/laughs maniacally