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

[Retros_x]

I think its wild that people still discuss this RAI. Its clearly stated in action surge that it is not intented to use magic. This whole reaction thing clearly is not in good faith and tries to circumvent that - but as multiple people pointed out: Even the ready-action phrasing is not clearly supporting a spell cast without restrictions.

All together its clear to me RAI and debatable RAW this is not a valid turn.

I get flashbacks from the stealth discussion. Finding exploits is one thing, but then trying to claim that this exploit is the actual RAI... why? Its ok, you can do at your table whatever you want, why do you want to persuade other people on the internet that this ruling is not against the intented rules interpretation?

If this would be possible, if this disadvantage of potentially wasting your action of a ready action balances everything out, they would written this in the description! They would've written something like: If you ready a spell, you cast it without using a magic action! Instead all the wordings in ready action, in spell casting, in action surge are at best ambigious and at worst quite clear.

The reason why they wrote "cast it as normal" because writing "cast it only when you not have cast another spell with casting time action" would be redundant, because these are already the normal spellcasting rules for spells with casting time of an action!

(also just in general, the disadvantage of potentially wasting your action and spell slot is already balanced out, there is no need to make it stronger. The advantage is: you can do an action outside of turn order! That is the whole reason player want to ready an action. Its a typical risk / reward situation, you risk waste of resources but gain a timing advantage)

 

[Teemu]

I said this before, but maybe you missed it; I don’t consider “that creature moves a muscle” to be a perceptible trigger. It’s too subtle. Though, it may be a moot point if it’s perceptible or not, since you take the Reaction after the trigger, if one did consider it perceptible, I would argue you still can’t take the Reaction to release the spell until after whatever action or movement the monster was moving their muscle as part of has been completed.

Well, it falls to DM discretion whether it’s a valid trigger or not. Though blinking eyes twice seems like a risky trigger to pick to me, since there’s no way to guarantee you don’t get attacked and potentially lose concentration before it happens.

Yes, I agree! That, to me, is a point in favor of the interpretation that being able to cast a spell with the Ready Action but not the Magic action is RAI.

Indeed, it prohibits using the Magic Action to do any of those things, and does not prohibit using the Ready Action to do those things. Since doing so carries additional restrictions that using the Magic Action does not, I am quite comfortable in reasoning that this is not a loophole to avoid an intended restriction, but in fact a different, inherently more restricted behavior that is intentionally not prohibited.

Wait, why wouldn’t you lose the charges if the trigger doesn’t happen? Spending the charges is part of “casting a spell normally” when casting from a magic item, so as I understand it, this must be done when you take the Ready Action and ready to use a magic item.

You don’t need to concentrate to maintain the duration of a spell cast from a magic item. You do need to concentrate to hold onto a spell cast with the Ready Action. These are two different things.

There are absolutely downsides. It requires concentration until the trigger occurs, and it requires a Reaction in addition to the Action you took to ready it. Exactly like when casting the spell with a Spellcasting class feature.

No no, there are many many magic items in 2024 5e that have charges or uses that do not replicate or cast spells. Instead simply activating them requires the Magic action. Because they don't cast spells, you don't need to "cast the spell normally" if you Ready their activation. You don't lose the charges or uses if the trigger doesn't happen because they don't cast spells at all. This is the issue.

Now, I agree that the trigger is up to the DM, but it's incredibly vague, and if you already are very permissible with the Ready action w/ regards to Action Surge, why would you be a huge stickler about what exactly can be a trigger? Especially when it's worded in a very permissible manner?

"I Ready X to trigger when PC 2 [who goes next in initiative] blinks twice." PC 2 starts their turn, blinks twice. Trigger happens. This is a valid way to use Ready in 5e. "I Ready X to trigger when Enemy 1 takes one step." Again, valid. There's no requirement for it to be "uses movement". It can be anything that's perceivable, it doesn't have to abide by strict rules terms.

 

[Teemu]

See, now we are actually, genuinely, running into the case that the DMG quote everyone busts out when someone else reads the rules in a way they disagree with was actually written to cover. This is what a bad-faith reading of the rules in an attempt to break them looks like.

Think of like this:

Why would anyone Ready a spell with the trigger "I see the enemy" or any other super easy to trigger event? You wouldn't, because you don't gain anything. In fact, you lose more by doing that! You lose your valuable Reaction for the round.

But technically it's possible, and it's possible because there's no point in restricting the Ready trigger more than that because it's not "exploitable" through super easy triggers. No one has reason to use these super obvious triggers because you don't gain anything. It's better to just use your Action to cast the spell on your turn.

But, now we have the Action Surge and Ready to cast a spell. Suddenly you do gain by "exploiting" a super easy trigger. Because normally Action Surge prohibits spells (or Magic action), but by abusing the very permissible Ready action trigger rules, you're able to go above and beyond what Action Surge normally allows, simply by spending your Reaction and being a bit clever with the trigger -- and again, the rules don't place strict definitions on the trigger because normally you cannot exploit them!

 

[Charlaquin]

No. I was making a point. Making a point is not bad faith.

Making a point by trying to argue for an interpretation you don’t actually agree with, for the purpose of rhetoric. That’s what a bad faith argument is.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think you can use Action Surge to Cast a Spell, even if the Cast a Spell is part of a Ready action. Action Surge doesn't limit the action type based on the sequence in the round, it's an absolute restriction. Mind you, I don't care for the change, or lots of related issues, but I think it's a clear read.

Cast a Spell isn’t an Action defined by the 2024 rules

 

[Charlaquin]

I think its wild that people still discuss this RAI. Its clearly stated in action surge that it is not intented to use magic.

No such thing is stated, it’s stated that you can’t use the Magic Action, which the Ready Action is not.

This whole reaction thing clearly is not in good faith and tries to circumvent that - but as multiple people pointed out: Even the ready-action phrasing is not clearly supporting a spell cast without restrictions.

All together its clear to me RAI and debatable RAW this is not a valid turn.

I get flashbacks from the stealth discussion. Finding exploits is one thing, but then trying to claim that this exploit is the actual RAI... why? Its ok, you can do at your table whatever you want, why do you want to persuade other people on the internet that this ruling is not against the intented rules interpretation?

I genuinely believe it is both clearly worded and intended. In this case and the stealth case. If you don’t agree, that’s fine, but it’s pretty insulting to act like the interpretation I arrived at from a straightforward reading of the rules could only possibly be an attempt to exploit a loophole.

If this would be possible, if this disadvantage of potentially wasting your action of a ready action balances everything out, they would written this in the description! They would've written something like: If you ready a spell, you cast it without using a magic action! Instead all the wordings in ready action, in spell casting, in action surge are at best ambigious and at worst quite clear.

In 2024? The rules that seem to be actively crusading against wordcount? Nah, they don’t waste a drop of ink if they don’t have to.

The reason why they wrote "cast it as normal" because writing "cast it only when you not have cast another spell with casting time action" would be redundant, because these are already the normal spellcasting rules for spells with casting time of an action!

“As normal” refers to following the normal rules for the spell you’re casting. Those are different depending on the source you cast it from.

(also just in general, the disadvantage of potentially wasting your action and spell slot is already balanced out, there is no need to make it stronger. The advantage is: you can do an action outside of turn order! That is the whole reason player want to ready an action. Its a typical risk / reward situation, you risk waste of resources but gain a timing advantage)

Yes. Outside the turn order. You know when Action Surge happens? Inside the turn order. Taking actions outside their normal timing is the entire point of the Ready Action. That’s part of why I believe this interaction to be intentional - it’s completely in line with what the Ready Action is designed to do.