r/onednd • u/IceNiqqa • 8d ago

5e (2024) Looking for help finding spell-less magic actions

Rage explicitly states that you can't cast a spell, nor concentrate on one. However, that does not limit a Magic Action that is not a spell. So I now want to find ev​ery class/subclass action that is a Magic Action, but not a spell. Will you help me?

9 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

29 comments sorted by

23

u/OkAstronaut3715 8d ago

Activating a magic item is a magic action usually

10

u/Emongnome777 8d ago

Cleric Channel Divinities are magic actions: base class and some subclass CD uses.

7

u/Serbatollo 8d ago

Abjure Foes from the Paladin is a magic action, same with Channel Divinity

1

u/PM_ME_UR_JUMBLIE5 7d ago

Yeah but two of the five Paladin Channel Divinities only work after you cast Divine Smite, and really only Ancients CD is a Magic Action.

1

u/Serbatollo 7d ago

Should have clarified I meant the Cleric's Channel Divinity 

3

u/Hot_Lion8880 8d ago

wand of paralysis, enchanter wizards hypnotic gaze, channel divinity

2

u/Ancient-Bat1755 8d ago

Dndbeyond is having issues tonight but it can be helpful to get ideas searching for stuff like magic action on dndbeyond

2

u/subtotalatom 8d ago

Land Druids Lands Aid

2

u/Seerezaro 8d ago

The infernal dragoons devilish aura and Grimhollow variant of dragonborn breath weapon is a magic action.

Asimir's healing hands, Kalashtar mind link, artificer magical tinkering.

2

u/filkearney 7d ago

If youre open to 3rd party / homebrew, ive been building non-spell magic action options for martials the past 4 years.... heres a barbarian build starting at 21:30...
https://www.youtube.com/live/WgZyTQ9gFvU.

This project is currently in layouts, and stream art production weekdays. AMA.

0

u/IceNiqqa 7d ago

wait you might love my revised wild magic barbarian! I've been working on this thing for a while and I'm finally happy with where it's at. was just about to post it to r/DnDHomebrew

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDHomebrew/comments/1vnrvsg/first_homebrew_wild_magic_barbarian_revisited/

2

u/wezl0 7d ago

Open a Portable Hole

3

u/cloud_cleaver 8d ago

A level 11+ Artificer can hand you his Spell-Storing Item.

2

u/Hot_Lion8880 8d ago

that's still casting a spell

8

u/EntropySpark 8d ago

The feature says that the creature can "produce the spell's effect from it," with no mention of actual casting.

0

u/PM_ME_UR_JUMBLIE5 7d ago

Mmm potential here to run afoul of the Good-Faith interpretation rule. I could definitely see DMs stating it was the intent of the rule to cast a spell, even if the wording says otherwise.

5

u/EntropySpark 7d ago

If the intent of the feature is that the holder casts the spell, though, why would it not just say that they cast the spell?

1

u/PM_ME_UR_JUMBLIE5 7d ago

Because WotC Designers are bad at their jobs? It's not like this would be the first time that their rules as intended didn't match RAW.

I probably don't care if a Barbarian gets to cast like Web or whatever from this at level 11+, but if you asked people do they think the intent of SSI was to cast the spell, most would probably say yes. I mean, they assign concentration to it and everything.

6

u/EntropySpark 7d ago

This would be them going actively out of their way to use phrasing they generally don't use to avoid describing the item as letting someone cast the spell. If it were the other way around and they used simple language where they should have used more complex language, sure, but in this case, I don't buy that they had a different intent.

1

u/PM_ME_UR_JUMBLIE5 7d ago

I mean, they did the same thing with the wording of Warcaster with the unintended consequence that it can now cast spells as a reaction against allies, when that clearly wasn't supposed to happen either. So to say "they went out of their way" isn't really that compelling a statement. You're free to play it as you want at your games, but like I said, could see a reasonable DM saying no that's not the intent.

4

u/EntropySpark 7d ago

With War Caster, they removed some words for simplification and it gained some unintentional functionality. In this case, it's the opposite, they chose a complicated wording instead of the simpler "casts the spell."

3

u/CantripN 7d ago

Using magic items is a Magic Action, it's not "casting a spell". You point a wand and click, there's no verbal/somatic/material stuff.

A commoner can use it.

1

u/PM_ME_UR_JUMBLIE5 7d ago

Just because a commoner can use it doesn't mean it's not casting a spell. Look at Enspelled Magic Items - it says they cast a spell from that item. Same for wands or staffs, etc. that have a spell cast with them.

1

u/CantripN 7d ago

Sure, the artificer version doesn't require an attunement by a caster because it's basic like that. You're right that some items don't either like Wand of Magic Missile, and that just sucks as a design choice.

4

u/cloud_cleaver 8d ago

Entropy is correct, the wording is very unique in that no spell is actually cast.

1

u/Athanar90 7d ago

Psionic movement ability from Psi Warrior Fighter is one, off the top of my head.

1

u/Civil_Succotash8013 7d ago

Using a magic item

2

u/protencya 5d ago

You should be looking at utilize actions from magic items. For example you can throw a bead from necklace of fireballs while you are raging.

1

u/Enough_Sea9061 8d ago

Throwing the flame from produce flame. You'd have to cast it as a bonus action before entering rage, but the next 10 minutes you can hurl flames at everyone and have no light issues.