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

[TiQuinn]

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

Haha, I’m one of those who miss it! Keep in mind that the bounce effect and the fireball volume aspect were also benefits to the party when used in the right circumstances. But it’s also part of a certain type of game, one that requires due warning to players. Under those conditions, they’re pretty dang fun.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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?

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?​

The freedom of an RPG can never be perfectly be descibed by a set of rules.

At some point you have to accept that people will find loopholes or edge cases.

Same problem with real world legal systems. If there is enough crimibal energy, people will find ways not to pay taxes or to pollute the enviroment.
One can try to close loopholes. The result is usually that the legal text becomes more complex, unnecessarily wordy and will still contain loopholes. Maybe a bit less obvious.

And then, even in real world law, lawyers not always have the same opinion about how certain laws interact.

So if it is impossible in the real world, why do people think it is possible in a d&d ruleset?

Of course some rules seem a bit sloppy. Other rules are indeed vague because it is impossible to make them fool proof (see vision and stealth).

In the end, people should not stop using their common sense when playing d&d.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You know. I think the important part there for this thread is that it very clearly calls out that the spell casting is part of the same action, where Ready Action does not. The spellcasting the happens when you ready a spell to be cast is a different action than Ready, or else they would have specified that it was the same.

 

[Seramus]

I think this is totally within the rules. I gave him a Heroic Inspiration for figuring the workaround and let him do it.

You might have answered this earlier in the thread, but do you believe this is RAI?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You might have answered this earlier in the thread, but do you believe this is RAI?

Yeah. I think a few people argumented that this was an intentional change.

I do not think so. But that was the answer I got from one poster at least...

We will never know what the intent was. I am certain, that the fighter action surge change was intentional to not allow two spells on a turn.
So if one takes this as a base, the most likely conclusion is that the ready workaround is an oversight.

 

[James Gasik]

You know. I think the important part there for this thread is that it very clearly calls out that the spell casting is part of the same action, where Ready Action does not. The spellcasting the happens when you ready a spell to be cast is a different action than Ready, or else they would have specified that it was the same.

Honestly, that line "as part of the same action" just strikes me as damn odd wording.

Why not: "As a Magic Action, you may cast any Cleric spell of 5th-level or lower with a casting time other than a Reaction, without requiring any V, S, or M components"?

 

[Charlaquin]

no, you already cast the spell on your turn, you only release the energy as a reaction. This is why your spell slot is lost even if the trigger never occurs

Right, as per the text of the Ready Action, which are more specific than the general rules for casting spells.

 

[Charlaquin]

there is no exception mentioned that says you use the Ready action to cast this spell.

Other than, you know, the text of the ready action, which specifically says you cast the spell when you use it.

 

[Charlaquin]

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

I am not one of those DMs because I never played during a time when those spells worked that way. But, in those DMs’ defense, that was such a memorable moment in so many games that we still talk about it today. And the point of the game, both in my opinion and in the text of the How to Play section of the PHB, is to have fun and create exciting, memorable stories. Friendly fire might get in the way of the “have fun” part for some players (and if it doesn’t, calculating the volume of a fireball in a confined space will), but it definitely facilitates the “create exciting, memorable stories” part. So there’s tension there, and I can understand why someone might miss the positive aspect, especially with the way that memory tends to downplay negatives.

 

[Charlaquin]

You might have answered this earlier in the thread, but do you believe this is RAI?

I do. Obviously it’s impossible to know for sure unless the designers say, but I think my reading is the most straightforward interpretation, and there are several pretty easy ways to change the wording that would have made it not so.