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

[mamba]

Yes it is. It absolutely is. It is on the table of the games main actions.

yeah, that is where your confusion comes from. It is not a proper action, it is a meta-action / rider on another action, which is why it makes you choose a proper action you actually take. None of the others do that, because they are actual actions…

Ready is just grouped here because it is thematically similar and has nowhere else to go…

Further if it is not a proper action then shouldn't I be able to use another action all the time?

you are using another action all the time, you never use the Ready action (it also does not tell you what it does, unlike the proper actions, instead it tells you to choose one of those and how that action is changed so it becomes a reaction)… the only difference is with the Magic action you use the actual action on your turn and release the spell effect as a reaction while you perform the other actions as a reaction.

This distinction exists so the action is wasted, with all consequences such as losing the spell slot, regardless of whether the trigger occurs.
If you cast the spell as a reaction and the casting never happened, you would still have your slot. So the difference really only exists to ensure that the same thing happens no matter what proper action you chose to perform as a reaction (ie the action and its resources are lost if the trigger does not occur or are triggered as a reaction when it does)

Since 30+ pages have not managed to solve this, I doubt 30 more will either. I have lost interest in repeating the same things over and over, so have fun keeping this going in circles with whoever else still cares, I am out

 

[ECMO3]

You explicitly are Readying the Magic Action dude. There's no other way to read,

No you are not and if you generally ready an action that action does not occur until the trigger happens. So if you ready the Magic action (which you can do) the Magic action takes place when the trigger happens, not when you ready it.

Ready a spell is SPECIFICALLY different than this.

"Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger," You MUST ready the Magic Action in order to take the Magic Action.

This is true for anything other than casting spells. This is true even for the Magic action as long as it is not a spell you are readying.

I am also waiting for the specific language that lets me take 2 actions on a turn as long as one is Ready and one is Magic.

 

[Mort]

It doesn’t change the casting time. You cast it as an Action. The Ready Action.

Casting Time
Most spells require the Magic action to cast, but some spells require a Bonus Action, a Reaction, or 1 minute or more. A spell’s Casting Time entry specifies which of those is required.

You'll note ready action is not listed. This, plus the "as normal" wording really leads me to the interpretation that ready is meant to supplement, not replace. As in ready allows adding concentration and the reaction to cast a spell later, but does not replace the fact that the casting itself is still a magic action.

Is this clear, no, it's very muddy, and I can see your side. But, to me, it's very clearly not RAI, so it's a no go.

 

[Maxperson]

It is in the rules glossary under Ready action. You can look it up there.

Also where does it specifically let you take 2 actions on your turn if one of them is the Magic action. Tell me where this is EXPLICITLY spelled out.

If you insist...

You explicitly are Readying the Magic Action dude. There's no other way to read, "Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger," You MUST ready the Magic Action in order to take the Magic Action.

Now that you are readying the Magic Action per RAW, we have to look at any exceptions, which gives us...

"When you ready a spell, you cast it as normal..."

All normal methods of casting are Magic Action, Bonus Action, and Reaction. The latter two can't be used, so we have only the Magic Action. Next...

"but hold its energy, which you release with your reaction when the trigger occurs."

Since all you have is the energy to a fully cast spell, the spell was fully cast on your turn.

All of that language taken together specifically says, "Use the Magic Action on your turn to cast the spell, but hold the energy until your trigger happens or lose the spell energy."

At no point does it ever explicitly say anything like you are claiming. I get you don't want it to be that way, but you're better off just changing the rules so that you can do it instead of trying to twist things so that there's some sort of exception happening.

It's not like anything will break if you change RAW to allow it.

 

[ECMO3]

yeah, that is where your confusion comes from. It is not a proper action, it is a meta-action / rider on another action

no it is not. The game states it is an action. It states this at least twice.

In the description of ready it states:

"You take the Ready action to wait for a particular circumstance before you act. To do so, you take this action on your turn ..."

It does not say you take this action rider or this action fill in or this meta-action. it says you take THIS ACTION meaning Ready is an action.

Nowhere, anywhere in the 2024 rules does it state or imply that Ready is not an action.

, which is why it makes you choose a proper action you actually take.

It does not make you choose a "proper action" and neither of the two examples it gives are what you are calling "proper actions" either. Ready lets you act in response to the trigger. It does allow you to chose what you are calling "proper action" but also allows movement and Readying a spell or things that are not actions at all.

Ready is just grouped here because it is thematically similar and has nowhere else to go…

No it is not. Ready is an action. If you believe this please provide anything supporting this position.

 

[ECMO3]

If you insist...

You explicitly are Readying the Magic Action dude. There's no other way to read, "Then, you choose the action you will take in response to that trigger," You MUST ready the Magic Action in order to take the Magic Action.

This is a logical falacy. If I choose the Magic action in response to a trigger, and trigger has not happened, then the action can not happen, but I do still cast the spell.

I don't even have to use my reaction for the Ready action. So if I ready a spell and then cast it and then I use my reaction for something else the magic action would never be used at all (not on turn, not off turn) .... so I would have cast a spell without using the Magic action. OMG!

It is clear if I have to use the Magic action to cast the spell and I have to cast it on my turn as the description says then I need to use two actions on my turn. I would like the specific verbiage that allows me to use two actions on my turn.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a logical falacy. If I choose the Magic action in response to a trigger, and trigger has not happened, then the action can not happen, but I do still cast the spell.

So first, there's no fallacy there at all. Even if you disagree with the logic, it's a sound argument. Second, you are ignoring specific beats general which the later quotes very clearly engage.

If you have to ignore part of the rule to be correct, you aren't correct.

I don't even have to use my reaction for the Ready action. So if I ready a spell and then cast it and then I use my reaction for something else the magic action would never be used at all (not on turn, not off turn) .... so I would have cast a spell without using the Magic action. OMG!

It covers that too!!!! You lose the spell! OMG!

 

[pemerton]

You must cast it as normal except for what is changed in the description of Ready a spell.

It is not "normal" to hold the energy until released, it is not "normal" to concentrate on a spell that does not require concentration, and it is not "normal" to cast a spell on your turn using the Ready action. You must cast it as normal except for those things which are explicitly different.

To me, this seems to be an over-reification of the action economy and turn-by-turn framework.

To me, it makes more sense to assume that casting a spell always involves conjuring up and then releasing its energy. But in the typical case, where the caster has already identified their target and is ready to affect them, this all happens more-or-less immediately; whereas if the caster is waiting for their target to (say) come into view, or (say) to pick something up, or etc, then they have to hold the energy for longer before releasing it - and, in the game's action economy and turn-by-turn framework, this is reflected by (i) use of the Ready action to then deploy the spell effect as a Reaction, and (ii) applying the Concentration rules in the meantime, until the spell effect is deployed.

There is explicit language which defines how you use the Ready action (not the Magic action) to cast the spell on your turn.

it is specifically the Ready action, not the Magic action that you use when you ready a spell.

It doesn’t change the casting time. You cast it as an Action. The Ready Action.

The rules for Casting Times don't mention the Ready Action as a possible casting time. Rather, they say that

Most spells require the Magic action to cast, but some spells require a Bonus Action, a Reaction, or 1 minute or more. A spell’s Casting Time entry specifies which of those is required.​

The rules do state how to use the Ready action to cast a spell, but they don't expressly state that this does not involve the Magic action. (Perhaps it involves both; just as using a Timeless Locket in 4e involves a Minor Action and a Standard Action; and, if done as a readied action, would also involve an Immediate Reaction.)

So what is the better ruling? To interpolate in the Ready action even though it's not mentioned? Or to recognise that the Ready action is, in 5e (as in the earlier editions the included it) a device for managing the timing of actions within the game's framework for an action economy and turn-by-turn resolution, which is not spelled out with perfect technical precision and requires recognising that some actions will fall under multiple labels, as per the fact that the action performed when the trigger occurs is described both as an action and as a reaction.

I don't think the rules here are precise enough to yield an answer by way of detailed parsing. It is necessary to stand back and try to work out which ruling best fits with the logic of the rules, including - in my view - the way they relate to the fiction. I think this speaks in favour of the conclusion that Action Surge cannot be used to ready a spell; others might disagree, but I think that disagreement will be persuasive only if articulated by reference to overall rules and fictional logic. Not on a strained reading of rules that requires treating some parts with extreme technical fidelity while simply ignoring the way this requires departing from technical fidelity to other parts.

 

[pemerton]

It is not a proper action, it is a meta-action / rider on another action, which is why it makes you choose a proper action you actually take. None of the others do that, because they are actual actions…

Ready is just grouped here because it is thematically similar and has nowhere else to go…

Casting Time
Most spells require the Magic action to cast, but some spells require a Bonus Action, a Reaction, or 1 minute or more. A spell’s Casting Time entry specifies which of those is required.

You'll note ready action is not listed. This, plus the "as normal" wording really leads me to the interpretation that ready is meant to supplement, not replace. As in ready allows adding concentration and the reaction to cast a spell later, but does not replace the fact that the casting itself is still a magic action.

Is this clear, no, it's very muddy

Right. Ready is characterised as an action to give it a place in the rules for taking turns and taking actions on turns. But it is also a gloss/rider/supplement - it qualifies another action, which is the one that (typically) is taken when the trigger occurs or that (if a spell is readied) is taken on the character's turn but in an atypical manner (ie casting the spell but holding its energy until the trigger occurs). When this other action - the one that Ready qualifies - is taken, does it cease to be an Attack action, an instance of the Magic action, etc? To me, concluding that it does seems likely to lead to confusion and further rules breakage. It seems much more straightforward to say that it retains that character even though it also is Readied.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah. As I mentioned upthread, a lot of this vagueness is in my opinion deliberate to force rulings over rules.

View attachment 417701

Forcing "rulings over rules" is really a bad idea. I mean, it's true that every group is going to play the game that's best for them (we hope!). But by saying "hey people, we don't expect anyone to play this game as written, so our books are more like guidelines than rules you should take seriously" makes one wonder why you're paying so much money for a "How to game design for Dummies" set of books! But worse, it's just going to turn any attempt to discuss the game into a veritable Tower of Babel scenario- nobody is speaking the same language anymore! There's no excuse for having rules as written be inscrutable or just poorly written! Worse, it's not even like the intent of some rules are even remotely clear, so even if you wanted to make a ruling, you have no idea of knowing if the one you make is the right one! I just hate how the game seems to be written with the idea of "oh, you've DM'd before, you know what you're doing". I can assure you, there's a lot of people picking up the game for the first time who have no idea what they're doing, and the fact that YouTube videos about D&D exist is not an excuse for not having guard rails or explaining things!

Especially since many of those YouTube videos are based on someone else's interpretation of the rules. I've recently seen a spat of short form content on YouTube where you're told "hey, here's this exploitative and absolutely rules as written thing you can do" where the interpretation is really dubious. So the player sees that, comes to the table with it, and the novice DM doesn't know which way is up- the talking head guy sounds like he knows how things work, so who do I trust?

You might say "well obviously, your gut", but let's be honest- many DM's make off the cuff rulings that are way too conservative because their understanding of the game is being challenged.

I remember threads from even late in 3.5 with arguments about stuff in the PHB where they simply refused to believe the rules they were reading (Sneak Attack being a great example of something that was woefully misunderstood, with people trying to say you couldn't use it with a greatsword, couldn't sneak attack more than once, tried to apply AD&D backstab restrictions on it, or felt it was "too powerful" because look at all those dice he's rolling! All while Clericzilla and Druidzilla are running rampant, Wizards are inventing infinite money and wish exploits in their sleep, and the Barbarian just took a few options from 3-4 different books and now he's charging for hundreds of points of damage each turn!).

TLDR: the ability of a DM to "rule zero" the game into shape does not excuse making a game that is less than fully baked. The better someone understands the situation, the better they can make rulings if they feel the need.