D&D 5E (2024) Using Action Surge to cast spells in 2024

[Maxperson]

We will not agree on this… I understand that your interpretation is not nonsensical given the written text, I just disagree with it.

It is nonsensical. There's absolutely no sense in writing "cast as normal" if it's referring to the Ready Action. You just write that the spell is cast during your turn and the energy is held until the trigger happens. "As normal" never plays into it, because there's no reason for it to be there.

You only put "cast as normal" in if it's referring to the Magic Action, because that differentiation is what would necessitate language like that.

 

[kermit4karate]

It is nonsensical. There's absolutely no sense in writing "cast as normal" if it's referring to the Ready Action. You just write that the spell is cast during your turn and the energy is held until the trigger happens. "As normal" never plays into it, because there's no reason for it to be there.

You only put "cast as normal" in if it's referring to the Magic Action, because that differentiation is what would necessitate language like that.

I think the real travesty happened when D&D introduced the concept of different action types (3rd edition, I think?).

Horrible idea, IMO. Back when it was just rounds, even ignoring segments, which I never used, gameplay was MUCH quicker and easier for everyone at the table to digest.

Not every change is a progressive evolution. Some are simply bad/unnecessary ideas.

 

[mamba]

It is nonsensical. There's absolutely no sense in writing "cast as normal" if it's referring to the Ready Action. You just write that the spell is cast during your turn and the energy is held until the trigger happens. "As normal" never plays into it, because there's no reason for it to be there.

alright, not contradicted by the text then.

I would have preferred them to say 'use the Magic action' rather than 'cast as normal', makes the whole thing clear and the issue go away..

 

[Charlaquin]

it’s putting the text for how to do it in one place instead of repeating much of it under the other actions, and they placed that summary where it thematically belongs

Assuming for the sake of argument that your interpretation is the intended one, and Ready is not meant to be an Action itself, then I would argue it absolutely does not thematically belong with the Actions. It should have a seprate “Readying an Action” heading, and say something like “rather than using an Action on your turn, you can Ready to use one as a Reaction in response to a later trigger,” and then go on with basically the same text as the Action.

All other actions do things, this one tells you how to do the thing at a different time, it is a different category, and that is why it tells you to pick one of the other actions as the one you actually perform in its text

Each action works differently than the other Actions. That they function in unique ways doesn’t change the fact that they are all actions.

We will not agree on this… I understand that your interpretation is not nonsensical given the written text, I just disagree with it.

Fair enough. I’m just not going to jibe with any interpretation that says this thing that the rules call an Action is secretly some other non-Action thing.

 

[Maxperson]

alright, not contradicted by the text then.

I would have preferred them to say 'use the Magic action' rather than 'cast as normal', makes the whole thing clear and the issue go away..

Yes, but that would be contrary to the apparent 5e philosophy of, "Why be clear when we can be vague and encourage our mantra of rulings over rules."

I think a lot of the controversy of the edition is deliberate on the part of WotC.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

According to the rules they are different. Action Surge allows any action except the Magic Action. Casting the spell on your turn uses the Magic Action, thus is prevented. Taking the Ready Action to concentrate on a spell, then using your Reaction to cast the spell does not the Magic Action, and technically is allowed.

It's a gray enough area that I could easily see some DMs ruling that it's outside their interpretation of Rules As Intended, even if it is within Rules As Written. Personally I don't see a problem with it - you are giving up your Reaction and your Concentration, so you are still taking a somewhat hefty penalty.

Question: isn’t a reaction that cast magic also Magic Action?

 

[kermit4karate]

Yes, but that would be contrary to the apparent 5e philosophy of, "Why be clear when we can be vague and encourage our mantra of rulings over rules."

I think a lot of the controversy of the edition is deliberate on the part of WotC.

YES! Sound familiar? The US Constitution is a pamphlet for a reason -- because it was never intended to be the definitive rulebook or source of record for everything. Was always meant to be interpreted by different people and ammended.*

* Not passing good/bad judgment; just pointing out that vagueness is often the intent.

 

[Charlaquin]

alright, not contradicted by the text then.

I would have preferred them to say 'use the Magic action' rather than 'cast as normal', makes the whole thing clear and the issue go away..

It would. If that was the intent. It may not have been. I don’t believe it was.

 

[Charlaquin]

Question: isn’t a reaction that cast magic also Magic Action?

You’re on page 23 of a thread arguing about whether or not it is. So, let’s go with “unclear.”

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It doesn’t say the Magic Action happens as normal, it says you cast the spell as normal. Casting the spell is part of the effect of the Ready Action when used to ready a spell, just as casting a spell is part of the effect of the Magic Action when used to cast a spell.

Being technically correct is the best kind of correct.

While this is a fun exercise, the DMG page about interpreting rules should be used here:

Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group’s fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light.

While this is a little bit of lazy design in some places, I still appreciate this paragraph.

This is what I will show the player if they try to circumvent a restriction in a rules lawyering way.

We might get to a different agreement after the session. We might allow certain cases where the rule of fun might allow this (I still think it makes more sense to have a table agreement in general how the ready action should be used -> perceivable trigger/how much do the enemies know about the trigger).

But trying to argument like: "but you only take the magic action when the trigger occurs, when the wording of the paragraph about casting spells clearly indicates you start casting immediately and only decide when the trigger occurs if you release the spell or let it go" ia clearly not argumenting in good faith.