Duration/Existence of Spell-like/Supernatural Abilities in 5e?

So last session this happened:

A stone statue in dungeon, which looked like a petrified person, was converted back via major restoration. Unfortunately, said person immediately transformed into a major demon, which let go a roar and started attacking the group. We ageed on normal initiative, as we were kind of ready for something, and the demon had to also convert into his form first.

Now, I don't know what demon it is, but it this on it's own initiative (after sucking up two attacks by two of our party who were quicker on ini):
1. It cast some sort of illusion which made three other versions of itself appear (some variant of mirror image perhaps)
2. It summoned 4 lesser demons on top

For dramatic effect this was pretty cool (and I understand DM can do DM fiat, basta), but is it also rules conform?

We then stopped the game as time was up, so now I have time to question the DMs actions, before we play next week

DM says summon was not a spell but some sort of spell-like effect, therefore not subject to the limitation that restricts casting to one spell and one cantrip per round.

A couple of things I'm curious to clarify (beyond just the immediate action economy as played by our DM):

1. I thought the old 3.5E concept of Extraordinary, Spell-like, or Supernatural abilities has become obsolete in 5E, no? When googling, i noticed some vestiges of spell-like abilities e.g. in Medusa's Gaze, which cannot be counterspelled, but that's it. The casting itself still takes time, doesn't it?
2. So if spell like abilities are still around in some form are they not subject to time restrictions just as normal spells?
3. Finally, in the concrete situation, can the Demon do all that?

Thx for input!

I'll answer your questions in reverse order.

3. Yes, because monsters can have custom abilities that do whatever the DM wants. The monster could have a single ability that says, "As an action, the mega-demon casts mirror image on itself, and summons 4 mini-demons that appear within 30 feet of it."

5E follows a principle of "exception-based design" which means that specific rules provide "exceptions" which override general rules. Many monsters have very specific and weird abilities like this.

2. 5E does not use the term "spell-like ability" the way 3E/3.5 did. But... "Innate Spellcasting" is kind of the same thing, conceptually.

A monster can have Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting or both. Spellcasting follows the same rules as PCs -- unless the monster's stat block says otherwise. Innate Spellcasting generally follows the same rules as PCs -- they are still "spells" that are "cast," but typically without components or spell slots (usually it will say "3/day" or something similar, instead of using a spell slot). The dark elf and tiefling PC races have a variation of Innate Spellcasting (it is not called that, but it works the same way) as do some classes, like warlock Invocations.

In both cases, a "spell" is being "cast" so it follows the general rules of spellcasting, which would preclude casting a spell as a bonus action and then another spell (of 1st level or higher) as a regular action. BUT, the monster's stat block could always contain an exception.

This is ONLY for a monster's Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting traits -- a monster can have many other magical or special abilities that aren't spells (see the next point).

1. 5E does not use the terms "supernatural ability" and "extraordinary ability" the way 3E/3.5 did. But... many monster abilities are kind of the same thing, conceptually.

There are many, many monster special abilities that are magical or "not natural," but are not Spellcasting nor Innate Spellcasting. These don't follow the rules for spells at all, unless it says the magic words "cast" and "spell" or the name of a specific spell, like "casts mirror image."

Your example of the medusa's gaze is a good one: petrification is clearly not natural, but it's not a spell at all; the rules for it never say "casts" or mention any spell. (There IS a spell, flesh to stone, that petrifies people, but it works very differently than the medusa's gaze.) So you can't cancel the gaze with counterspell, for example.

Demons, in particular, can have a Summon Demon ability, which is most definitely not a spell. This means the demon could, without any special rules exceptions, cast a Quickened mirror image as a bonus action, and then use its Summon Demon ability on the same turn. Again, not a spell, so you can't counterspell it.

It is unclear in the rules whether a monster's special ability is even "magical" or not. Many monsters have abilities that are clearly not natural, but not magical either. For example, a dragon's breath weapon, or even a dragon's ability to fly, are unrealistic but not magical. A ghost or vampire are clearly not things that can happen in the real world (at least according to science) but most people would not consider them to be "magical," just part of the D&D world's fantasy physics. (I tend to think of these things as "supernatural" but that is just me; supernatural is not a game term in 5E. If you want, you could think of the dragon's breath weapon as "supernatural" and its flight as "extraordinary," but again, those are not how the 5E rules address them.)

It's up to the DM whether a monster ability is magical or not. I decide by looking for the word "magic" or any synonym. For example, the Summon Demon ability clearly says it's a "magical summoning," so yeah, that's magic. The medusa's gaze also mentions a "curse" which I take to be a type of magic.

77IM said:

I'll answer your questions in reverse order.

3. Yes, because monsters can have custom abilities that do whatever the DM wants. The monster could have a single ability that says, "As an action, the mega-demon casts mirror image on itself, and summons 4 mini-demons that appear within 30 feet of it."

5E follows a principle of "exception-based design" which means that specific rules provide "exceptions" which override general rules. Many monsters have very specific and weird abilities like this.

2. A monster can have Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting or both. Spellcasting follows the same rules as PCs -- unless the monster's stat block says otherwise. Innate Spellcasting generally follows the same rules as PCs -- they are still "spells" that are "cast," but typically without components or spell slots (usually it will say "3/day" or something similar, instead of using a spell slot).

In both cases, a "spell" is being "cast" so it follows the general rules of spellcasting, which would preclude casting a spell as a bonus action and then another spell (of 1st level or higher) as a regular action. BUT, the monster's stat block could always contain an exception.

This is ONLY for a monster's Spellcasting or Innate Spellcasting traits -- a monster can have many other magical or special abilities that aren't spells (see the next point).

1. There are many, many monster special abilities that are magical or "not natural," but are not Spellcasting nor Innate Spellcasting. These don't follow the rules for spells at all, unless it says the magic words "cast" and "spell" or the name of a specific spell, like "casts mirror image."

Your example of the medusa's gaze is a good one: petrification is clearly not natural, but it's not a spell at all; the rules for it never say "casts" or mention any spell. (There IS a spell, flesh to stone, that petrifies people, but it works very differently than the medusa's gaze.) So you can't cancel the gaze with counterspell, for example.

Demons, in particular, can have a Summon Demon ability, which is most definitely not a spell. This means the demon could, without any special rules exceptions, cast a Quickened mirror image as a bonus action, and then use its Summon Demon ability on the same turn. Again, not a spell, so you can't counterspell it.

It is unclear in the rules whether a monster's special ability is even "magical" or not. Many monsters have abilities that are clearly not natural, but not magical either. For example, a dragon's breath weapon, or even a dragon's ability to fly, are unrealistic but not magical. A ghost or vampire are clearly not things that can happen in the real world (at least according to science) but most people would not consider them to be "magical," just part of the D&D world's fantasy physics. (I tend to think of these things as "supernatural" but that is just me; supernatural is not a game term in 5E.)

It's up to the DM whether a monster ability is magical or not. I decide by looking for the word "magic" or any synonym. For example, the Summon Demon ability clearly says it's a "magical summoning," so yeah, that's magic. The medusa's gaze also mentions a "curse" which I take to be a type of magic.

Click to expand...

/thread

Stalker0 said:

/thread

Click to expand...

Help! I've fallen off the edge of the thread and I can't get up!


(And yeah, that was a perfect answer)

It may also be listed as a Legendary creature by the DM, and you may also be in a Legendary lair, either of which throws some of those rules out the window.

I think was one of the greatest things that 4e did was disconnect monster/NPC rules from PC rules. That doesn't mean that foes are complete DM fiat, but just that they are not bound by the same exact rules that PCs are. Some of that carried over into 5e. Sure, it would be kind of off-putting if an NPC arch-mage was constantly busting out multiple spells a round (or worse multiple concentration spells), but things like demons and such, it makes much more sense.

@77IM, Thank you for the very good and exhaustive reply! Thx for clarifying some of the rules also.

I think what it comes down to, and it's something @Gadget also alludes to in his point, which is well made and understood, namely that there is a fine line between DM fiat and creative application of the rules with all its exceptions by a DM. My view it that every time I see a clearly identifiable DM fiat, it breaks the purity of the game, or call it the theatre of the mind, a bit - like when the actor in a play is speaking to the audience directly.

I hear and generally agree with what hs been said above from a mechanical perspective, but from a narrator perspective, I would reserve rule breaking to the mightiest of bosses, that are individual NPCs or monsters, that stand out from the rule books because they have been created individually. I find it more difficult to accept the same when it's a standard rule book monster but modified in a way that breaks "fundamental" rules of the game... Rules that usually all MM monsters or NPCs adhere to...

Just my 2 cents.

I mostly look at the stat blocks and see if something is in the actions line or abilities line. Some overlap, like spells, so it may be a bit confusing. Generally it may say "Using your action" or such when listed under abilities. Under actions I think that it uses your action.

Also a lot of creatures have “multi attack” that allows them to do action x AND action y, when neither are actually “attacks”. Multi attack also sometimes allow bonus actions.

Here's how it could be something straight out of a 5e manual:

It has a Legendary Action that allows it to cast a spell from its Innate Spellcasting trait. The summoning is its normal action. The Legendary action was taken at the end of the turn of the character that acted directly before it (Legendary Actions always take place at the end of other creature's turns), thus appearing that it did both on "its turn".