After an almost deadly encounter that my party deftly avoided (we dumb luck lied our way out of trouble), the DM showed me what could've happened had we fought the monster (in this case a spellcasting Stone Giant). He also pointed out at the monster was able to "cast detect thoughts at will, to which I replied, "well sure, but that's an Action."
To which he replied, "No, it's not listed under his Actions. He can do that as a free action"
To which I replied, "Because those are his listed combat Actions. The at will clause is just to indicate that it doesn't use up a spell slot."
He didn't seem convinced. Am I right? Is he right? Is the answer somewhere in the middle?
You are 100% correct. "Casting" a spell is defined in chapter 10, and as indicated in there, the time needed is listed in the spell description. 5e doesn't let monsters ignore spellcasting requirements, as part of spell like abilities or anything like that, part of why only creatures with hands have spells, as far as I'm aware. Casting Detect Thoughts takes 1 action, and has verbal, somatic, and material components. That means you'd be able to see him making gestures while holding a piece of copper wire and saying arcane phrases, and upon him doing so, detect magic lasts for up to 1 minute before he'd have to do it again.
Certainly your DM is welcome to run things as he sees fit, but that's how it works by RAW. The "at will" entry works just like it would for a Warlock or anyone else with an at will ability- you can do it an unlimited number of times, but must still meet the requirements to do it at all in order to do it. That means having the needed components (if any), being able to move (if somatic components are needed) and being able to speak (if verbal components are needed), in addition to spending the amount of time listed under casting time in the description.
The phrase "at will" isn't explicitly defined in the rulebooks but it's clear the meaning is simply that the spell or ability has no maximum number of uses. It's used this way in the rules for cantrips:
Cantrips
A cantrip is a spell that can be cast at will, without using a spell slot and without being prepared in advance. Repeated practice has fixed the spell in the caster's mind and infused the caster with the magic needed to produce the effect over and over. A cantrip's spell level is 0.
Spellcasting and Innate Spellcasting are always listed under a monster's traits, but the monster still has to follow all the rules of spellcasting just like a player does.
It's pretty easy to show him he's wrong by example: many monsters and NPCs have damage-dealing cantrips, and if "at will" meant "no action needed", those monsters would be able to cast the same cantrip an infinite number of times until all their enemies are dead.
If after all this your DM remains unconvinced, just find an abusable at-will player ability (which shouldn't be too hard) then show your DM why at-will doesn't mean what he or she thinks it does by abusing that ability.
I have always, for as many editions as the concept of innate spells have existed, simply ruled that a monster must use an action to "cast" or "activate", but I have never made the monster or what have you go through the requirements required by casting. The MM even states that monsters that can cast spells the "standard way" or non-innately follow all the regular rules, like say a Drow Mage. The Drow mage can cast his innate spells by using an action, no special requirements, and poof he is levitating. If he wants to cast Cloud Kill from his spell list he acts just like any other member of the Wizard class and needs VSM and is quite obvious about casting. I do not think these are house rules, or even RAI, just how the game is played.
I have always, for as many editions as the concept of innate spells have existed, simply ruled that a monster must use an action to "cast" or "activate", but I have never made the monster or what have you go through the requirements required by casting. The MM even states that monsters that can cast spells the "standard way" or non-innately follow all the regular rules, like say a Drow Mage. The Drow mage can cast his innate spells by using an action, no special requirements, and poof he is levitating. If he wants to cast Cloud Kill from his spell list he acts just like any other member of the Wizard class and needs VSM and is quite obvious about casting. I do not think these are house rules, or even RAI, just how the game is played.
I'm not sure you are interpreting this correctly. Using your specific example of a Drow Mage, it specifically states that the mage doesn't require material components. By virtue of that inclusion, it's logical to assume if it casts Levitate, it would have to employ the verbal and somatic components. I also found this when doing a quick search of innate spellcasting:
A monster with the innate ability to cast spells has the Innate Spellcasting special trait. Unless noted otherwise, an innate spell of 1st level or higher is always cast at its lowest possible level and can't be cast at a higher level. If a monster has a cantrip where its level matters and no level is given, use the monster's challenge rating.
An innate spell can have special rules or restrictions. For example, a drow mage can innately cast the levitate spell, but the spell has a "self only" restriction, which means that the spell affects only the drow mage.
A monster's innate spells can't be swapped out with other spells. If a monster's innate spells don't require attack rolls, no attack bonus is given for them.
Nowhere do they say that the spellcaster ignores components, so the general rules of spellcasting still stand. Of course, specific monsters can make exceptions, and monsters with psionics usually do.
Nice, but what about monsters like Dragons (innate spellcasting variant) versus the Sphinx (which counts as a spell caster of level). Each makes a note that they no not require material components, but to think that a Sphinx has to use Somatic gestures with it's paws and a Dragon has similar hinderances is kind of silly.
There's no rules for what the somatic components for a spell actually are, or even whether every spellcasting class or monster makes the same gestures, so make of that what you will. Maybe they don't use their paws.
Nice, but what about monsters like Dragons (innate spellcasting variant) versus the Sphinx (which counts as a spell caster of level). Each makes a note that they no not require material components, but to think that a Sphinx has to use Somatic gestures with it's paws and a Dragon has similar hinderances is kind of silly.
I would chalk this up to the same kind of philosophy as copying a mages spell book: each caster has their own methodology so no two casters are alike.
I would chalk this up to the same kind of philosophy as copying a mages spell book: each caster has their own methodology so no two casters are alike.
At the very least, the particulars do seem to vary by class. The optional rule for identifying spells in Xanathar's Guide to Everything gives advantage on the Arcana check if the spell is being cast using your own class.
It's likely that all wizards perform the components the same way, they just have different ways of writing down spells.
I have always, for as many editions as the concept of innate spells have existed, simply ruled that a monster must use an action to "cast" or "activate", but I have never made the monster or what have you go through the requirements required by casting. The MM even states that monsters that can cast spells the "standard way" or non-innately follow all the regular rules, like say a Drow Mage. The Drow mage can cast his innate spells by using an action, no special requirements, and poof he is levitating. If he wants to cast Cloud Kill from his spell list he acts just like any other member of the Wizard class and needs VSM and is quite obvious about casting. I do not think these are house rules, or even RAI, just how the game is played.
Unless you can find a quote from the book which supports that, it is indeed a house rule. Which is fine, I just want to be clear on that. InquisitiveCoder already indicated why, but I want to double down by referencing what a Somatic Component actually is, for spells which require them:
Spellcasting gestures might include a forceful gesticulation or an intricate set of gestures. If a spell requires a somatic component, the caster must have free use of at least one hand to perform these gestures.
As you indicated, a Sphinx specifically indicates it has no material component required, which means that such an exclusion requires specific mention. If it was assumed that all requirements were waived for monstrous or innate casters, 1) It would be mentioned in the book somewhere, and 2) That would obviate the need for a specific exclusion like the one you reference. So yeah, you can find it weird that a Sphinx would be wildly gesticulating with its paws to cast spells, but it's also weird that creatures with wildly different vocal cords are capable of producing sounds of a "specific pitch and resonance", or that you need a clump of bat guano to weave the fabric of reality into a fireball. It's magic. If you don't like the rules as prescribed certainly it's within your rights to alter them. That however is indeed a houserule, and not "just how the game is played", within 5e, sorry.
Shadow Monk 3rd can silence spell effect at will but ki are burned. No V, S components. Does that take an action? I would think not. I would think it can be done amungst an attack i.e. silence an ambush on suprised guard.
Starting when you choose this tradition at 3rd level, you can use your ki to duplicate the effects of certain spells. As an action, you can spend 2 ki points to cast darkness, darkvision, pass without trace, or silence, without providing material components. Additionally, you gain the minor illusion cantrip if you don’t already know it.
Shadow Monk 3rd can silence spell effect at will but ki are burned. No V, S components. Does that take an action? I would think not. I would think it can be done amungst an attack i.e. silence an ambush on suprised guard.
Yes it requies an acrion.
Shadow Arts: As an action, you can spend 2 ki points to cast Darkness, Darkvision, Pass Without Trace, or Silence, without providing material components.
Also, as can be seen in the quotes of the Shadow Arts subclass feature, there is only an exception made for Material spell components. If the spell you are casting with Shadow Arts has Verbal and/or Somatic component (Silence has both) you still need to provide those components.
This is usually trivial for a monk to satisfy but something to be aware of.
After an almost deadly encounter that my party deftly avoided (we dumb luck lied our way out of trouble), the DM showed me what could've happened had we fought the monster (in this case a spellcasting Stone Giant). He also pointed out at the monster was able to "cast detect thoughts at will, to which I replied, "well sure, but that's an Action."
To which he replied, "No, it's not listed under his Actions. He can do that as a free action"
To which I replied, "Because those are his listed combat Actions. The at will clause is just to indicate that it doesn't use up a spell slot."
He didn't seem convinced. Am I right? Is he right? Is the answer somewhere in the middle?
You are 100% correct. "Casting" a spell is defined in chapter 10, and as indicated in there, the time needed is listed in the spell description. 5e doesn't let monsters ignore spellcasting requirements, as part of spell like abilities or anything like that, part of why only creatures with hands have spells, as far as I'm aware. Casting Detect Thoughts takes 1 action, and has verbal, somatic, and material components. That means you'd be able to see him making gestures while holding a piece of copper wire and saying arcane phrases, and upon him doing so, detect magic lasts for up to 1 minute before he'd have to do it again.
Certainly your DM is welcome to run things as he sees fit, but that's how it works by RAW. The "at will" entry works just like it would for a Warlock or anyone else with an at will ability- you can do it an unlimited number of times, but must still meet the requirements to do it at all in order to do it. That means having the needed components (if any), being able to move (if somatic components are needed) and being able to speak (if verbal components are needed), in addition to spending the amount of time listed under casting time in the description.
The phrase "at will" isn't explicitly defined in the rulebooks but it's clear the meaning is simply that the spell or ability has no maximum number of uses. It's used this way in the rules for cantrips:
Spellcasting and Innate Spellcasting are always listed under a monster's traits, but the monster still has to follow all the rules of spellcasting just like a player does.
It's pretty easy to show him he's wrong by example: many monsters and NPCs have damage-dealing cantrips, and if "at will" meant "no action needed", those monsters would be able to cast the same cantrip an infinite number of times until all their enemies are dead.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
If after all this your DM remains unconvinced, just find an abusable at-will player ability (which shouldn't be too hard) then show your DM why at-will doesn't mean what he or she thinks it does by abusing that ability.
He has seen the light. Amen. 😂
I have always, for as many editions as the concept of innate spells have existed, simply ruled that a monster must use an action to "cast" or "activate", but I have never made the monster or what have you go through the requirements required by casting. The MM even states that monsters that can cast spells the "standard way" or non-innately follow all the regular rules, like say a Drow Mage. The Drow mage can cast his innate spells by using an action, no special requirements, and poof he is levitating. If he wants to cast Cloud Kill from his spell list he acts just like any other member of the Wizard class and needs VSM and is quite obvious about casting. I do not think these are house rules, or even RAI, just how the game is played.
Jeremy Crawford has confirmed this via Twitter:
These are the rules for Innate Spellcasting:
Nowhere do they say that the spellcaster ignores components, so the general rules of spellcasting still stand. Of course, specific monsters can make exceptions, and monsters with psionics usually do.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Nice, but what about monsters like Dragons (innate spellcasting variant) versus the Sphinx (which counts as a spell caster of level). Each makes a note that they no not require material components, but to think that a Sphinx has to use Somatic gestures with it's paws and a Dragon has similar hinderances is kind of silly.
There's no rules for what the somatic components for a spell actually are, or even whether every spellcasting class or monster makes the same gestures, so make of that what you will. Maybe they don't use their paws.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
The Forum Infestation (TM)
Shadow Monk 3rd can silence spell effect at will but ki are burned. No V, S components. Does that take an action? I would think not. I would think it can be done amungst an attack i.e. silence an ambush on suprised guard.
Shadow Arts
Starting when you choose this tradition at 3rd level, you can use your ki to duplicate the effects of certain spells. As an action, you can spend 2 ki points to cast darkness, darkvision, pass without trace, or silence, without providing material components. Additionally, you gain the minor illusion cantrip if you don’t already know it.
It requires an action as described in its info.
Yes it requies an acrion.
Unless an effect specifically changes the casting time of a spell, it still uses whatever is listed in the description.
Also, as can be seen in the quotes of the Shadow Arts subclass feature, there is only an exception made for Material spell components. If the spell you are casting with Shadow Arts has Verbal and/or Somatic component (Silence has both) you still need to provide those components.
This is usually trivial for a monk to satisfy but something to be aware of.