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

[Maxperson]

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.

I agree that it's a bad idea to force rulings over rules. It's pretty clear that they are doing that, though. The same designers wrote fairly detailed and clear rules for both 3e and 4e, but suddenly can't write to save their lives for 5e? I don't think so. While some lack of clarity and/or oversight is to be expected in any edition, the sheer amount in 5e had to be deliberate.

WoTC has a long history of overreaction to complaints about editions and overcompensating in the next one. I think the attempt to force rulings over rules through is another example of that.

 

[pemerton]

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".

The thing is, writing rules that are clear and precise is hard. Legislative drafters have years of technical training, comprehensive guidance manuals, a long tradition to draw upon, and still interpretive questions arise in relation to legislation all the time.

It's not realistic, in my view, to hold WotC to the same sort of standard that we hold legislation to; and so a lack of certainty in the rules is inevitable. In retrospect, those of us posting in this thread can see that Action Surge might be clearer, for us, if it read "On your turn, you can take one additional action, except the Magic action or any action that would let you cast a spell." But (i) that additional disjunctive prohibition now makes it harder for the average player to read and interpret (it's not going to be obvious to them that its rationale is to preclude using Action Surge to use the Ready action to cast a spell), and (ii) that prohibition is now going to interfere with ways of casting a spell that are not meant to be prohibited, like castings that bundle a spell into an Attack action.

Another possibility is to try and make the rules for Ready clearer. But as per my post upthread, this is the third edition where the rules for Ready are - when you try and read them closely - essentially garbled. It's not easy to write a clear rule for how to postpone your action, in an action economy and turn-by-turn-based game. 3E had to introduce the kludge of Partial Actions, and it's still pretty clumsy. 4e has actions that fall under multiple descriptions - Standard, Immediate Reaction, perhaps other, etc - simultaneously. 5e is trying to be less technical in its drafting than 3E and 4e, and so I think it's on surprise that its rules, as written, simply don't solve this problem.

I personally think the answer to the question is pretty straightforward, but that requires stepping back to consider the overall rules logic, and the logic of the fiction that these rules are meant to be expressing. (I used this same methodology to resolve various issues that arose in 4e D&D.) It's true that this probably won't help a newbie DM, but nor will rules that are too complicated for them to parse (and the evidence is that WotC can't right rules to that degree of technical precision in any event).

 

[James Gasik]

I agree that it's a bad idea to force rulings over rules. It's pretty clear that they are doing that, though. The same designers wrote fairly detailed and clear rules for both 3e and 4e, but suddenly can't write to save their lives for 5e? I don't think so. While some lack of clarity and/or oversight is to be expected in any edition, the sheer amount in 5e had to be deliberate.

WoTC has a long history of overreaction to complaints about editions and overcompensating in the next one. I think the attempt to force rulings over rules through is another example of that.

Yeah, I know, I remember a lot of people in the past griping that "WotC took away the DM's authority" and "players are too entitled" back when the rules didn't have the consistency of quicksand. Not that any DM lost their ability to make rulings, mind, but because they had less justification to do so. Especially when making changes could upset the balance of the game, or create a chain reaction when their change impacts other rules down the line.

Just deciding to be too generous or too stingy with treasure could have a serious impact on 3e and 4e games, and for DM's used to AD&D's approach to treasure, this was really annoying. I'm sure some DM's started to think of the game's rules as a "black box" that shouldn't be tampered with, lest disaster occur. And it wasn't like clearer rules didn't still spawn edge cases or bad rules- I'd be lying if I said otherwise! But some of the 5e rules debates I've seen truly take the cake. You can't follow the RAW because it doesn't make sense, but you sometimes can't even tell what the RAI is to even start to make a ruling!

I'm reminded of an argument from a few years back about the Thunder Step spell and everyone was arguing about what the word "immediately" means in the context of the spell and whether or not the caster would be hit by their own spell effect if they didn't teleport far enough away from it.

Does the damage happen the instant I vanish? After the teleport resolves? Both? Some people were reading the spell like a computer program to parse it's effect, others were like "the game doesn't use atomic time, this isn't Magic: the Gathering!". In the end, nothing was resolved, and to this day I have to ask DM's before I even look at the spell just on the off chance I'm playing with some madman who wants to see me blow myself up with my own spell!

 

[James Gasik]

The thing is, writing rules that are clear and precise is hard. Legislative drafters have years of technical training, comprehensive guidance manuals, a long tradition to draw upon, and still interpretive questions arise in relation to legislation all the time.

It's not realistic, in my view, to hold WotC to the same sort of standard that we hold legislation to; and so a lack of certainty in the rules is inevitable. In retrospect, those of us posting in this thread can see that Action Surge might be clearer, for us, if it read "On your turn, you can take one additional action, except the Magic action or any action that would let you cast a spell." But (i) that additional disjunctive prohibition now makes it harder for the average player to read and interpret (it's not going to be obvious to them that its rationale is to preclude using Action Surge to use the Ready action to cast a spell), and (ii) that prohibition is now going to interfere with ways of casting a spell that are not meant to be prohibited, like castings that bundle a spell into an Attack action.

Another possibility is to try and make the rules for Ready clearer. But as per my post upthread, this is the third edition where the rules for Ready are - when you try and read them closely - essentially garbled. It's not easy to write a clear rule for how to postpone your action, in an action economy and turn-by-turn-based game. 3E had to introduce the kludge of Partial Actions, and it's still pretty clumsy. 4e has actions that fall under multiple descriptions - Standard, Immediate Reaction, perhaps other, etc - simultaneously. 5e is trying to be less technical in its drafting than 3E and 4e, and so I think it's on surprise that its rules, as written, simply don't solve this problem.

I personally think the answer to the question is pretty straightforward, but that requires stepping back to consider the overall rules logic, and the logic of the fiction that these rules are meant to be expressing. (I used this same methodology to resolve various issues that arose in 4e D&D.) It's true that this probably won't help a newbie DM, but nor will rules that are too complicated for them to parse (and the evidence is that WotC can't right rules to that degree of technical precision in any event).

And again, if you're an experienced DM, you can probably make these intent calls. But not every DM is going to be able to read between the lines or understand the "unwritten rules" of the game.

I mean, every game needs to have, before even rule zero, a rule minus one: the rules aren't meant to be annoying to use. Don't let the rules get in the way of fun. If you have to spend more than a minute or two to figure out how something is supposed to work, we messed up, err on the side of everyone's enjoyment. I'm not arguing against that point.

What bothers me is when you're spending 50+ dollars for each game book, and the books are full of pretty art and the framework of a game, but is as reliable as Windows ME! If I'm running a game, I have a ton of stuff on my plate as it is, getting hung up on trying to figure out if the game is even running as intended in the background is not something I want to put up with. Nor should anyone else!

 

[Maxperson]

Does the damage happen the instant I vanish? After the teleport resolves? Both? Some people were reading the spell like a computer program to parse it's effect, others were like "the game doesn't use atomic time, this isn't Magic: the Gathering!". In the end, nothing was resolved, and to this day I have to ask DM's before I even look at the spell just on the off chance I'm playing with some madman who wants to see me blow myself up with my own spell!

LOL Yeah. Even if for no other reason, spellcasters don't typically design suicidal spells, so it should have been ruled safe for the caster.

 

[James Gasik]

LOL Yeah. Even if for no other reason, spellcasters don't typically design suicidal spells, so it should have been ruled safe for the caster.

I think there's a small percentage of DM's who miss bouncing lightning bolts and fireballs immolating friendlies on a regular basis, lol.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

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

Yeah. But as so often, relevant parts are ignored if they don't support one's own argumentation...

The ready rule indeed states that you start casting the spell immediately and not when the trigger happens. You just release the spell you have just cast at a later time.

 

[pemerton]

And again, if you're an experienced DM, you can probably make these intent calls. But not every DM is going to be able to read between the lines or understand the "unwritten rules" of the game.

I mean, every game needs to have, before even rule zero, a rule minus one: the rules aren't meant to be annoying to use. Don't let the rules get in the way of fun. If you have to spend more than a minute or two to figure out how something is supposed to work, we messed up, err on the side of everyone's enjoyment. I'm not arguing against that point.

What bothers me is when you're spending 50+ dollars for each game book, and the books are full of pretty art and the framework of a game, but is as reliable as Windows ME! If I'm running a game, I have a ton of stuff on my plate as it is, getting hung up on trying to figure out if the game is even running as intended in the background is not something I want to put up with. Nor should anyone else!

As I've posted, I'm not that familiar with D&D 5e. But I think you're probably exaggerating the issues with its rules a little bit.

 

[James Gasik]

As I've posted, I'm not that familiar with D&D 5e. But I think you're probably exaggerating the issues with its rules a little bit.

Here's a few things that have been problems since 2014 and have yet to be resolved (or were made worse):

Phantasmal Force: as written there is no logical reason a creature would take the action to study the illusion and break out of the spell due to the line “While affected by the spell, the target treats the phantasm as if it were real and rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with it.”

Find Traps: doesn't actually find traps in a useful way.

Mounts in combat: hot mess of rules, even though Paladins now have a level 5 feature ensuring they will definitely be casting Find Steed.

Using a weapon and shield as a divine caster: the interaction of having a focus in your hand and when you can use that hand for somatic components. As a paladin with a shield with a holy symbol (emblem on it). V,S,M spells can be cast while holding the focus even with the other hand holding a melee weapon, but V,S spells cannot.

Obscurement: shooting at enemies you can't see due to heavy obscurement results in a straight roll instead of disadvantage on the attack.

Spells with confusing language: Nondetection wasn't even touched. Neither was Planar Binding. Disintegrate says you can target a wall of force, but it also says you can only target things you can see and a wall of force is invisible.

Improvised thrown weapons: The rules around improvised thrown weapons regarding what ability scores can be used when using them are as vague as they were in 2014.

The encounter day: classes are still balanced under the assumpton of 6-8 encounters per long rest with at least 2 short rests per long rest even if the recommendation was removed from the new DMG.

Stealth: has entire threads devoted to the fact that you still can't sneak up on someone to stab them in combat. Go look up a Stealth thread to find some of the most arcane and ridiculous conclusions ever reached by gamers due to a lack of clarity- I had someone actually tell me the following: being invisible doesn't actually prevent people from seeing you.

Stunned: this might have been fixed, but the printed PHB did not prevent stunned creatures from moving.

Divine Intervention: ok, here's the text, I want you to really pay attention here.

You can call on your deity or pantheon to intervene on your behalf. As a Magic action, choose any Cleric spell of level 5 or lower that doesn’t require a Reaction to cast. As part of the same action, you cast that spell without expending a spell slot or needing Material components. You can’t use this feature again until you finish a Long Rest.

Did you see it? Any spell that doesn't require a reaction. What does this not say? That the spell casting time has to be 1 action. Enter Hallow.

I could go on, but I mean, isn't that enough?

 

[pemerton]

Here's a few things that have been problems since 2014 and have yet to be resolved (or were made worse):

<snip>

I could go on, but I mean, isn't that enough?

Are these any worse than in other editions?

Even 4e, which was at the tighter end, had some uncertainties in its rules (eg what happens when a character becomes dazed partway through their turn? My group first ran it that a character got to keep their full action economy from the start of their turn, but then - after a bit more play experience - by consensus changed our approach, so that a character who became dazed after having already taken at least one action was forced to end their turn).

AD&D was rife with uncertainties. Was 3E immune?

Phantasmal Force: as written there is no logical reason a creature would take the action to study the illusion and break out of the spell due to the line “While affected by the spell, the target treats the phantasm as if it were real and rationalizes any illogical outcomes from interacting with it.”

Find Traps: doesn't actually find traps in a useful way.

Mounts in combat: hot mess of rules, even though Paladins now have a level 5 feature ensuring they will definitely be casting Find Steed.

Using a weapon and shield as a divine caster: the interaction of having a focus in your hand and when you can use that hand for somatic components. As a paladin with a shield with a holy symbol (emblem on it). V,S,M spells can be cast while holding the focus even with the other hand holding a melee weapon, but V,S spells cannot.

Obscurement: shooting at enemies you can't see due to heavy obscurement results in a straight roll instead of disadvantage on the attack.

Spells with confusing language: Nondetection wasn't even touched. Neither was Planar Binding. Disintegrate says you can target a wall of force, but it also says you can only target things you can see and a wall of force is invisible.

Improvised thrown weapons: The rules around improvised thrown weapons regarding what ability scores can be used when using them are as vague as they were in 2014.

The encounter day: classes are still balanced under the assumpton of 6-8 encounters per long rest with at least 2 short rests per long rest even if the recommendation was removed from the new DMG.

Stealth: has entire threads devoted to the fact that you still can't sneak up on someone to stab them in combat. Go look up a Stealth thread to find some of the most arcane and ridiculous conclusions ever reached by gamers due to a lack of clarity- I had someone actually tell me the following: being invisible doesn't actually prevent people from seeing you.

Stunned: this might have been fixed, but the printed PHB did not prevent stunned creatures from moving.

Divine Intervention: ok, here's the text, I want you to really pay attention here.

You can call on your deity or pantheon to intervene on your behalf. As a Magic action, choose any Cleric spell of level 5 or lower that doesn’t require a Reaction to cast. As part of the same action, you cast that spell without expending a spell slot or needing Material components. You can’t use this feature again until you finish a Long Rest.

Did you see it? Any spell that doesn't require a reaction. What does this not say? That the spell casting time has to be 1 action. Enter Hallow.

I'm not going to try and analyse all of these. The stealth issue is well-known, and the Stunned one seems like an obvious error. But here are thoughts on a few of the others:

*Heavy obscurement: "A Heavily Obscured area—such as an area with Darkness, heavy fog, or dense foliage—is opaque. You have the Blinded condition (see the Rules Glossary) when trying to see something there." The blinded condition causes disadvantage on attacks; so if a character is blinded when trying to see something in a heavily obscured area, it would seem to follow that they would suffer disadvantage (the conditional language "when trying to see something there" seems intended to signal the conditionality of the disadvantage on attacks).

*The whole hand-shield-spell thing is a ridiculous consequence of sticking to the legacy of VSM components.

*Divine Intervention: the rules text seems clear enough - it's a bonus 5th level spell slot once per long rest, that doesn't require material components and has a 1 Action casting time. It seems pretty clear that it's meant to encompass Raise Dead (among other spells; in fact the Basic Rules on DnD Beyond don't seem to have any 1 Reaction cleric spells). Is the concern with Hallow that it breaks the game to bring Hallow into play in that fashion? Or just that it's silly, and tends to render the 24 hour casting time pointless?​