What? Of course it must be a single Magic action! That's literally what the casting time is telling you. There's no "minimum" here. It's the exact amount needed, no more, no less
Then I am sure you will have no trouble locating the rule that actually says that.
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.
Required does not mean it cannot be more. If I tell you that, as a shopkeeper, you are required to pay me $100 for an item, do you think that means you are unable to pay me more? Businesses are required to pay a minimum wage, but of course they are free to pay more. Often, people are required to have a certain level of insurance, but again, they can purchase more than the requirement.
A requirement is a minimum, at least in most cases.
. . .Please show me the rule allowing you to take multiple Magic actions to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 Action
There is no prohibition stating you cannot take multiple Magic actions over multiple turns to cast a spell with a casting time of 1 Action (unless you are aware of one but are not disclosing it)
Required in general usage refers to a minimum.
There is nothing in the wording to indicate that this usage is an exception to that general usage.
It very much appears that you have made an assumption that is not, in fact, supported. There is nothing wrong with that. I have done the same thing many times in the past.
If you really are sure that it is suppose to work that way then you will need to find something that disproves at least one of those three statements. There may be other paths as well, but those are what I can think of and, in all honesty, I do not see anything that contradicts them (if I did then I wouldn't be maintaining this position).
In a rules context, the most applicable definition of "require" is "to impose a compulsion or command on", as in the sentence "The law requires that you have proof of auto insurance in the vehicle at all times". The law doesn't care what other types of insurance you might have proof of in the glovebox too. It's irrelevant
If a spell requires you to use a certain Material component in a casting, can you add other stuff on top of that for flavor? Sure, knock yourself out. Mechanically though, using more components changes nothing about the effect of the spell
Here though, we're not talking about flavor. You're trying to exceed the requirements of the spell for mechanical gain. You're essentially arguing is that if a fireball requires bat guano to do 8d6 fire damage, then using double the guano should do double the damage. Which is... well, good luck trying that argument on your DM
A spell with a casting time of 1 action requires 1 action to cast. No more, no less, because that's what the rules tell us it takes. You've offered absolutely nothing from the rules to suggest otherwise
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Wait, we're arguing that spells can take longer because the rules don't say they can't? The rules tell what you can do, they don't tell every exclusion because they don't have to. If the rules don't give the option to use more time, then the requirement is an exact one.
To use the payment analogy: If an item costs $70, that's a requirement. I can pay $100, but the price is fixed, so now they are required to pay me $30 in addition to the item.
To argue otherwise would be comparing magic to a bartering system, and you'd need to point to exactly where in the rules it says you can treat it that way.
As for the stance that Circle Magic isn't casting a spell: It's a little roundabout wording, but "initiating casting" is the same as casting a spell in plain English terms. I see no reason Metamagic couldn't be used to enhance spells. And other class features could apply as well: Tempest Cleric's ability to maximize damage dice and Evoker's Sculpt Spells are examples off the top of my head. This isn't a one-sided thing where Sorcerer gets all the toys, though they may have a little more to play with only because they get so many generic spell modifying options.
That said, since the primary caster is the one deciding the spell and expending all resources, secondary casters can't use said abilities when they're only contributors.
In a rules context, the most applicable definition of "require" is "to impose a compulsion or command on", as in the sentence "The law requires that you have proof of auto insurance in the vehicle at all times". The law doesn't care what other proof of insurance you might have in the glovebox too. It's irrelevant
Correct. They don't care what you have as long as you have the requirement.
They also don't forbid you from taking more.
That is pretty much the textbook example of showing that 'requirement' is nearly synonymous with 'minimum'.
If a spell requires you to use a certain Material component in a casting, can you add other stuff on top of that for flavor? Sure, knock yourself out. Mechanically though, using more components changes nothing about the effect of the spell
Ah! So you do recognize that the requirements are a minimum and that you can exceed them. Good. We've got that out of the way.
Here though, we're not talking about flavor. You're trying to exceed the requirements of the spell for mechanical gain. You're essentially arguing is that if a fireball requires bat guano to do 8d6 fire damage, then using double the guano should do double the damage. Which is... well, good luck trying that argument on your DM
Except that's not what I'm essentially arguing. I have said absolutely nothing about taking extra actions to cast having any effect what so ever in terms of damage, range, duration, or anything else. That statement is a strawman.
What I am arguing is that a separate mechanic, which dictates effects that can alter the spell, is capable of being used because the current mechanic doesn't actually prevent it.
A spell with a casting time requires 1 action to cast. No more, no less, because that's what the rules tell us it takes. You've offered absolutely nothing from the rules to suggest otherwise
No. The rules don't tell us that. They say it takes 1 Action to cast, no less. There is nothing I can find that says no more, and there doesn't seem to be anything you can find that says that. You just don't want it to work that way.
You might not like that the current mechanic doesn't prevent it, and I absolutely get that. If you were my DM I would even happily accept your ruling that it doesn't work that way. I wouldn't argue that it is because of your ability to make houserules. I would recognize that, as the DM, it is your job to interpret and arbitrate the rules and that while your interpretation might be different from mine it does not seem like it is wildly erroneous or being made in bad faith.
However, trying to say that it is clearly RAW that you cannot spend multiple Actions casting a spell where the required Casting Time is 1 action just doesn't seem to currently be supported. Your interpretation? Sure. I can absolutely see how you get from here to there, but you have provided nothing to make me believe my interpretation is wrong. Your position on English is extraordinarily shaky (again, it is possible for Requirement to be used in the capacity of 'no more, no less', but that is the minority of cases and typically when used that way it is explicitly explained that it is being used in such a way) and you have provided zero rules that support your case.
Again, feel free to prove me wrong. Show me where the rules says you cannot do that. I thought, briefly, I had spotted something that forbid it involving Readying Spells and the fact that you can only hold that Readied action for 1 turn, but I realized that while the situations are similar there are also significant differences (primarily the ability to release the spell as a Reaction).
. . .To use the payment analogy: If an item costs $70, that's a requirement. I can pay $100, but the price is fixed, so now they are required to pay me $30 in addition to the item. . .
That is not paying $100. That is giving them $100 and expecting $30 in change, which is paying them $70.
Trust me. You go into the vast majority of stores in the world, give them $100 and tell them to keep the change (in essence paying $100 for a $70 item) they will absolutely be happy to do so.
Yes, the price is fixed. It is the minimum you have to pay. The requirement is that you pay that much. It still doesn't prevent you from paying more.
To make it even a little less abstract, you go to a nice American restaurant. Your bill at the end of the night comes to $100. You are required to pay $100, but you are expected to pay even more as a tip to the staff.
Pay $100, get up and leave, and people might give you dirty looks, but no one will call the police because you paid what you were required to, even if that wasn't what you were expected to.
At the end of the day, in general usage, required defines a minimum condition.
As is currently written, a spell with a casting time of 1 round could still take 5 minutes to cast, simply because the 'final secondary caster' does not take the required action to contribute to the spell until that point. Under the RAW the secondary casters do not need to maintain Concentration or even take additional Magic Actions.
This comment seems to be the origin of one of this thread's ongoing discussions. I believe that this statement is probably incorrect for all of the reasons that the other posters have already stated.
But the more relevant point here is that even if your idea about casting time requirements is technically correct, you still cannot do the thing that you are trying to do here because the rules for Circle Magic explicitly prohibit it:
A secondary caster can take this action only while within 30 feet of you and before the start of your next turn.
As for the stance that Circle Magic isn't casting a spell: It's a little roundabout wording, but "initiating casting" is the same as casting a spell in plain English terms.
Let me try one more example and then I'll probably just agree to disagree on this point.
Suppose I turn on the oven to initiate cooking the turkey. Then, my spouse sets the timer. Then, my son puts the turkey into the oven. Then, my daughter removes the turkey from the oven when the timer expires.
Later on, at the dinner table, someone asks me: "Did you cook the turkey"?
If I had to respond to that as a "yes" or "no" question, then my answer would be: "No".
But, as I said before, I leave open the possibility that someone else could reasonably come to a different conclusion. It boils down to this: What exactly does "cooking the turkey" mean? If it means that I performed the activity that caused the transition of the state of the turkey from being an uncooked turkey into a turkey that has been cooked, then no, I definitely did not cook it. The activity that I did perform definitely does not result in such a transition. If instead the phrase is actually referring to whether or not I was cooking the turkey at any moment, then it might be a bit different. If the turkey took 4 hours to cook and I cooked the turkey for 5 seconds before handing off the responsibility to someone else while perhaps continuing to oversee and supervise the entire process, then sure, at some point along the way I was "cooking the turkey". But those are two very different meanings of the phrase.
To me, when we refer to a spellcaster that is "casting a spell", that individual performs the activity that transitions the state of the world from one in which the spell was prepared into one in which the spell has been cast. If instead all that I did was touch my spellcasting focus but someone else spoke the magic words and someone else wagged their finger and someone else contributed their spell slot and so on and the question is, did I cast the spell? No. I didn't cast any spell. I just touched my spellcasting focus. Did I "initiate" or "contribute" to "the casting of" a spell? Possibly. But that's a different question which refers to a different activity.
It occurs to me that, at an absolute minimum, Circle Magic has to be capable of extending casting time to be of any real use.
The reason is because it can be used on spells that have a casting time of 1 Action.
If that casting time was utterly and completely inviolate there would almost no way for the secondary casters to join. The primary caster would take his Magic action, action is over, maximum casting time has been reached, spell must now be cast.
Yes, there does exist the possibility of secondary casters using a readied action, but that would now be an absolute requirement, and if that were the case one would imagine they would make that clear in the rules for Circle Casting.
Arguments can be made that an Action casting time can be extended to a full Round, but that is not explicitly said. Arguments can be made that the extension of casting time is a special circumstance that only occurs with Circle Casting, but again, that is not explicitly said.
However, it is unequivocal that Action, Turn, and Round all mean different amounts of time and the rules seem to fairly clearly imply that Circle Casting does not require all the secondary casters to move on that one single Action.
In a rules context, the most applicable definition of "require" is "to impose a compulsion or command on", as in the sentence "The law requires that you have proof of auto insurance in the vehicle at all times". The law doesn't care what other proof of insurance you might have in the glovebox too. It's irrelevant
Correct. They don't care what you have as long as you have the requirement.
They also don't forbid you from taking more.
That is pretty much the textbook example of showing that 'requirement' is nearly synonymous with 'minimum'.
It's not. At all. There's no 'minimum' here. Either you have the thing, or you don't. Concepts like 'minimum' are meaningless and irrelevant to this discussion
Except that's not what I'm essentially arguing. I have said absolutely nothing about taking extra actions to cast having any effect what so ever in terms of damage, range, duration, or anything else
You are arguing for extra actions to get extra benefits from secondary casters who don't get the contributions in within the 1 action time limit
I have no interest in pursuing this any further. If you can't even acknowledge that the rules for spellcasting are something a little more strict than a general guideline, there's no meaningful conversation possible here
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It occurs to me that, at an absolute minimum, Circle Magic has to be capable of extending casting time to be of any real use.
The reason is because it can be used on spells that have a casting time of 1 Action.
If that casting time was utterly and completely inviolate there would almost no way for the secondary casters to join. The primary caster would take his Magic action, action is over, maximum casting time has been reached, spell must now be cast.
Keep in mind "1 Action" means about six seconds in game time. Mechanically we handle turns sequentially, but in the reality of the game, the primary caster's Magic action is happening within the exact same six-second window as the secondary casters' Magic actions
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
In a rules context, the most applicable definition of "require" is "to impose a compulsion or command on", as in the sentence "The law requires that you have proof of auto insurance in the vehicle at all times". The law doesn't care what other proof of insurance you might have in the glovebox too. It's irrelevant
Correct. They don't care what you have as long as you have the requirement.
They also don't forbid you from taking more.
That is pretty much the textbook example of showing that 'requirement' is nearly synonymous with 'minimum'.
A spell with a casting time requires 1 action to cast. No more, no less, because that's what the rules tell us it takes. You've offered absolutely nothing from the rules to suggest otherwise
No. The rules don't tell us that. They say it takes 1 Action to cast, no less. There is nothing I can find that says no more, and there doesn't seem to be anything you can find that says that. You just don't want it to work that way.
You might not like that the current mechanic doesn't prevent it, and I absolutely get that. If you were my DM I would even happily accept your ruling that it doesn't work that way. I wouldn't argue that it is because of your ability to make houserules. I would recognize that, as the DM, it is your job to interpret and arbitrate the rules and that while your interpretation might be different from mine it does not seem like it is wildly erroneous or being made in bad faith.
However, trying to say that it is clearly RAW that you cannot spend multiple Actions casting a spell where the required Casting Time is 1 action just doesn't seem to currently be supported. Your interpretation? Sure. I can absolutely see how you get from here to there, but you have provided nothing to make me believe my interpretation is wrong. Your position on English is extraordinarily shaky (again, it is possible for Requirement to be used in the capacity of 'no more, no less', but that is the minority of cases and typically when used that way it is explicitly explained that it is being used in such a way) and you have provided zero rules that support your case.
Again, feel free to prove me wrong. Show me where the rules says you cannot do that. I thought, briefly, I had spotted something that forbid it involving Readying Spells and the fact that you can only hold that Readied action for 1 turn, but I realized that while the situations are similar there are also significant differences (primarily the ability to release the spell as a Reaction).
Magic [Action]
When you take the Magic action, you cast a spell that has a casting time of an action or use a feature or magic item that requires a Magic action to be activated.
If you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 minute or longer, you must take the Magic action on each turn of that casting, and you must maintain Concentration while you do so. If your Concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot. See also “Concentration.”
The entry for the Magic action pretty firmly states that you cast a spell with a casting time of an action with it, and doesn't give a way to cast such spells with a longer casting time. The line below, about casting times of 1 minute or longer, don't apply to spells with a casting time of 1 action because the casting time is a trait of the spell, rather than that line applying to any spell that takes that long for any reason. (Ritual spells actually offer a specific way to extend the casting time of spells, but they also clearly state that the casting time is extended; this modifies the spell itself.)
EDIT: Came back to reiterate why I wrote all this out. It's been clearly stated above that the rules tell you what you can do, and that "filling in the blanks" just because the game doesn't say you can't do something isn't a valid interpretation of the rules. Since the rules don't say you can cast spells for longer than they say they take, that's not a valid option. That's all there really is to it.
If a spell requires you to use a certain Material component in a casting, can you add other stuff on top of that for flavor? Sure, knock yourself out. Mechanically though, using more components changes nothing about the effect of the spell
Ah! So you do recognize that the requirements are a minimum and that you can exceed them. Good. We've got that out of the way.
This argument feels like the analogy of playing Chess with a pigeon. They very clearly stated that, for flavor, a player could add to what they're doing. But there's nothing mechanically changed by that. Trying to argue that you 'won' that disagreement based on that is as ridiculous as trying to 'win' an argument by trying to push for mechanical changes based on the Personalizing Spells section of TCoE.
As for the stance that Circle Magic isn't casting a spell: It's a little roundabout wording, but "initiating casting" is the same as casting a spell in plain English terms.
Let me try one more example and then I'll probably just agree to disagree on this point.
Suppose I turn on the oven to initiate cooking the turkey. Then, my spouse sets the timer. Then, my son puts the turkey into the oven. Then, my daughter removes the turkey from the oven when the timer expires.
Later on, at the dinner table, someone asks me: "Did you cook the turkey"?
If I had to respond to that as a "yes" or "no" question, then my answer would be: "No".
But, as I said before, I leave open the possibility that someone else could reasonably come to a different conclusion. It boils down to this: What exactly does "cooking the turkey" mean? If it means that I performed the activity that caused the transition of the state of the turkey from being an uncooked turkey into a turkey that has been cooked, then no, I definitely did not cook it. The activity that I did perform definitely does not result in such a transition. If instead the phrase is actually referring to whether or not I was cooking the turkey at any moment, then it might be a bit different. If the turkey took 4 hours to cook and I cooked the turkey for 5 seconds before handing off the responsibility to someone else while perhaps continuing to oversee and supervise the entire process, then sure, at some point along the way I was "cooking the turkey". But those are two very different meanings of the phrase.
To me, when we refer to a spellcaster that is "casting a spell", that individual performs the activity that transitions the state of the world from one in which the spell was prepared into one in which the spell has been cast. If instead all that I did was touch my spellcasting focus but someone else spoke the magic words and someone else wagged their finger and someone else contributed their spell slot and so on and the question is, did I cast the spell? No. I didn't cast any spell. I just touched my spellcasting focus. Did I "initiate" or "contribute" to "the casting of" a spell? Possibly. But that's a different question which refers to a different activity.
I can actually get what you're going for here. The problem is this: One caster is performing every single step required to cast the spell. Any contributions from secondary casters are no more than an empowering feature. So I'd accept the argument that your analogy is correct for every secondary caster to be excluded when it comes to determining who cast the spell, but when all components, concentration, spell effects, and decisions come from the primary caster, yeah, they cooked that turkey. Also, the title of the process:
Casting a Circle Spell
I'd say that's proof enough that the spell is being cast, and that Initiating (which is a subcategory below this line and part of the category) is just a step in the casting process.
I'm going to give an off-the-wall example here to compare the process to: Alchemy, as portrayed in Fullmetal Alchemist.
The way their alchemy works is described. There are three steps: Comprehension, Deconstruction, and Reconstruction. They have to understand the makeup of what they're transmuting, then deconstruct the matter into its base components, then reconstruct the matter into the new form they desire.
I'd say magic in general in D&D compares to this process almost too well: The primary caster has to understand the spell and how to utilize the components properly. They then initialize the spell, going through all the components and utilizing them properly. They finally release the spell, creating the desired effect. All of this takes a little bit of time; usually an action (or about 6 seconds, give or take to make way for bonus actions and movement).
Circle Magic simply interrupts the process between Initialize and Release to inject an extra step, but it's ultimately the same process.
I'd say that's proof enough that the spell is being cast, and that Initiating (which is a subcategory below this line and part of the category) is just a step in the casting process.
Hmm, this seems to support my interpretation of how it works. Yes, the overall process is the process of "casting a circle spell" which has many prerequisites. At the end of the process the spell is definitely cast. No question about that. But who cast it?
To me, it seems like the authors have tried really hard to describe the process as one in which the group has cast the spell through their combined efforts, and they did this by taking actions that are not equivalent to the 2014 "Cast a Spell" action. It's some other kind of brand-new action.
For Athanar90:
How do you reconcile the particular wording that is used in the clarification for Counterspell?
If a Reaction would trigger when a creature casts a spell—such as the Reaction taken to cast Counterspell—it also triggers when you take this action to initiate a Circle spell.
To me, this statement appears to be incredibly carefully worded for a particular reason.
It occurs to me that, at an absolute minimum, Circle Magic has to be capable of extending casting time to be of any real use.
The reason is because it can be used on spells that have a casting time of 1 Action.
If that casting time was utterly and completely inviolate there would almost no way for the secondary casters to join. The primary caster would take his Magic action, action is over, maximum casting time has been reached, spell must now be cast.
Keep in mind "1 Action" means about six seconds in game time. Mechanically we handle turns sequentially, but in the reality of the game, the primary caster's Magic action is happening within the exact same six-second window as the secondary casters' Magic actions
Do other people get to take Actions (not Reactions) when someone casts a Fireball, without Circle Magic, before it goes off? In not, then by your position, they get no Actions to function as secondary casters (which kind of defeats the point).
Otherwise, all you are doing is insisting that it works as written (and that it 'as written' means something specific) except when it doesn't.
That is perfectly acceptable for houserules, but not for a discussion about the core rules.
If you want to insist that the Casting Time for a spell mandates when it goes off, that it can't voluntarily be extended, and that Circle Magic does nothing to extend it then a spell with a Casting Time of 1 Action takes exactly 1 Action and goes off after that Action is completed, just like it would every other time you normally cast it, and Circle Casting these spells is pretty much impractical.
Sure, you can play some sophistries and say things like 'well, they really are only using 1 Action to cast it. They just aren't releasing for two turns after the secondary casters contribute,' but that very same argument can now be applied to longer periods of time. Sure, it only took 1 Action to cast. They just didn't release it for 3 rounds.
It occurs to me that, at an absolute minimum, Circle Magic has to be capable of extending casting time to be of any real use.
The reason is because it can be used on spells that have a casting time of 1 Action.
If that casting time was utterly and completely inviolate there would almost no way for the secondary casters to join. The primary caster would take his Magic action, action is over, maximum casting time has been reached, spell must now be cast.
Yes, there does exist the possibility of secondary casters using a readied action, but that would now be an absolute requirement, and if that were the case one would imagine they would make that clear in the rules for Circle Casting.
Arguments can be made that an Action casting time can be extended to a full Round, but that is not explicitly said. Arguments can be made that the extension of casting time is a special circumstance that only occurs with Circle Casting, but again, that is not explicitly said.
However, it is unequivocal that Action, Turn, and Round all mean different amounts of time and the rules seem to fairly clearly imply that Circle Casting does not require all the secondary casters to move on that one single Action.
From the PHB:
The game also includes elements—class features, feats, weapon properties, spells, magic items, monster abilities, and the like—that sometimes contradict a general rule. When an exception and a general rule disagree, the exception wins.
From Circle Magic:
You take a Magic action to initiate casting a Circle spell. When you do so, choose which Circle casting option (see "Circle Casting Options" below) you’re using for this casting; you must also meet any of the other requirements described in that option’s text. Until the Circle spell’s casting is complete (see below), you must maintain Concentration on the spell.
If the spell has a casting time of an action, the Circle spell’s effects occur immediately after the final secondary caster takes the required action to contribute to the spell. You decide which secondary caster is the final one.
Circle Magic creates an exception for the casting time, and bases the way the exception works around which casting time option you're using (1 action / 1 minute or more). That doesn't validate any other exceptions that aren't explicitly written into the rules. If you don't see the rules listed above as an exception to the rules about the casting time... Well, that's on you.
I'd say that's proof enough that the spell is being cast, and that Initiating (which is a subcategory below this line and part of the category) is just a step in the casting process.
Hmm, this seems to support my interpretation of how it works. Yes, the overall process is the process of "casting a circle spell" which has many prerequisites. At the end of the process the spell is definitely cast. No question about that. But who cast it?
To me, it seems like the authors have tried really hard to describe the process as one in which the group has cast the spell through their combined efforts, and they did this by taking actions that are not equivalent to the 2014 "Cast a Spell" action. It's some other kind of brand-new action.
For Athanar90:
How do you reconcile the particular wording that is used in the clarification for Counterspell?
If a Reaction would trigger when a creature casts a spell—such as the Reaction taken to cast Counterspell—it also triggers when you take this action to initiate a Circle spell.
To me, this statement appears to be incredibly carefully worded for a particular reason.
This actually fits into my analogy, funny enough! So, in what I've put forth, the steps of casting a spell: Knowing the spell, providing components, and releasing the spell are all satisfied by the same individual. To compare to your analogy, the same person turned on the oven, put the turkey into the oven, and removed the turkey when the time expired. The secondary caster(s) set the timer, but the timer wasn't a necessary step in cooking the turkey, it was an additional step that contributed to the process. The rules don't have a way for different people to perform those steps, but all the steps to cook the turkey/cast the spell are from one person; Circle Magic doesn't modify that. It only adds an additional step to the process.
As for the Counterspell timing, normal casting doesn't cover the timing for Counterspell, not really, when we break the steps down; however, since Counterspell is interrupting the casting of the spell and preventing it from resolving its effects, we can infer that the step in the breakdown where Counterspell applies is the one where we provide components.
As an aside, using the Ready action to cast a spell works the same as described in Circle Magic:
When you Ready a spell, you cast it as normal (expending any resources used to cast it) but hold its energy, which you release with your Reaction when the trigger occurs.
The actual casting of the spell is a separate step to the release of the spell when analyzed through this lens.
So when it comes to Counterspell, I'd posit that the note doesn't actually hold any significance for action spells and instead acts as a clarification, though for spells that take 1 minute or longer, it effectively serves as an exception to the rules. As a DM, I might allow Counterspell to hit a Circle spell that hasn't completed casting.
When you take the Magic action, you cast a spell that has a casting time of an action or use a feature or magic item that requires a Magic action to be activated.
If you cast a spell that has a casting time of 1 minute or longer, you must take the Magic action on each turn of that casting, and you must maintain Concentration while you do so. If your Concentration is broken, the spell fails, but you don’t expend a spell slot. See also “Concentration.”
The entry for the Magic action pretty firmly states that you cast a spell with a casting time of an action with it, and doesn't give a way to cast such spells with a longer casting time. The line below, about casting times of 1 minute or longer, don't apply to spells with a casting time of 1 action because the casting time is a trait of the spell, rather than that line applying to any spell that takes that long for any reason. (Ritual spells actually offer a specific way to extend the casting time of spells, but they also clearly state that the casting time is extended; this modifies the spell itself.)
Ok. Now THIS is the first thing anyone has been able to show that possibly can be interpreted as 'you can't extend the casting to multiple actions'. Well done, and I do not mean that sarcastically. I really have been wondering if there was something I was overlooking that could reasonably be interpreted to say there was a limit, and this very much seems to say that.
Unfortunately, we are now trying to square the circle with the fact that the spell being cast through Circle Magic didn't immediately go off before the secondary casters could join. There are a couple of ways I can see to do that (Circle Magic is a feature and so the primary caster has not 'cast a spell that has a casting time of an action' but has instead used 'a feature . . . that requires a Magic action to be activated'. Alternately, specific versus general could be considered with the specific of Circle Casting overriding the general of Magic Action).
Sadly, those solutions seem to lead back to the issue of nothing forbidding the primary caster from holding the spell for multiple rounds. Circle Casting is allowing the spell's release to somehow be delayed (otherwise the spell goes off before the secondary casters can contribute) and does not appear to impose any restrictions as to how long that is.
However, the rule you pointed out does provide an extremely valid argument against someone being able to take multiple turns to cast a 1 Action spell when they are not Circle Casting.
No, Counterspell cares that the triggering creature is casting with components. It says so right in the reaction trigger in 2024: "Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components." It must be the creature you see and are using as the trigger for the spell that is casting with components. If the creature they see is not casting with components, that creature is not a valid trigger. (And circle magic is quite specific: the primary caster supplies all components.)
You even concede that it is the casting with components that is key in your first sentence. Well, the reaction specifies the triggering creature you see must be casting with components.
The primary and secondary casters are creatures presumably and they are casting a spell and that spell is being cast with components. Therefore, the casters (plural) of the spell are valid targets. The reaction never specifies that the creature must be the creature providing the components for the spell being cast with components. It was never an issue until Circle casting. The placement of "with VSM components" is imprecise and multiple interpretations are valid in the context of multiple spellcasters.
Now, suppose that this is a special type of phone bill that can only be paid if three different individuals each contribute a portion of the payment. None of those three individuals are allowed to actually make any payment until everyone else is on board and has also pledged their payment. This month, I go first. I "initiate" the process by scheduling my portion of the payment to be made at some future moment that will occur immediately as soon as the other two individuals have also pledged their contribution. Again, this is not an activity where I am actually transferring any money -- I am just scheduling a future transfer. As soon as everyone involved has contributed their pledge, the "pay the bill" activity then commences automatically. Paying the bill was a group effort. No one individual made the payment -- none were even allowed to make the payment. Instead, everyone involved conducted a different activity -- "initiating" or "contributing to" the prerequisites that were necessary to pay the bill and eventually the bill was paid as soon as all of the prerequisites were met.
Elminster has started a new Kickstarter spell... would you like to back this casting? Basically, Circle spells are crowdfunded spellcasting and fail if they don't meet their goal?
So now we have the stances that:
Circle spells are not being cast by anyone per se
Circle spells are cast by only the primary caster
Circle spells are cast by the primary and secondary casters
I will point out that a Circle Magic is described as a technique where multiple spellcasters work together to cast spells... However, this isn't necessary rules text.
Let me try one more example and then I'll probably just agree to disagree on this point.
Suppose I turn on the oven to initiate cooking the turkey. Then, my spouse sets the timer. Then, my son puts the turkey into the oven. Then, my daughter removes the turkey from the oven when the timer expires.
Later on, at the dinner table, someone asks me: "Did you cook the turkey"?
If I had to respond to that as a "yes" or "no" question, then my answer would be: "No".
But, as I said before, I leave open the possibility that someone else could reasonably come to a different conclusion. It boils down to this: What exactly does "cooking the turkey" mean? If it means that I performed the activity that caused the transition of the state of the turkey from being an uncooked turkey into a turkey that has been cooked, then no, I definitely did not cook it. The activity that I did perform definitely does not result in such a transition. If instead the phrase is actually referring to whether or not I was cooking the turkey at any moment, then it might be a bit different. If the turkey took 4 hours to cook and I cooked the turkey for 5 seconds before handing off the responsibility to someone else while perhaps continuing to oversee and supervise the entire process, then sure, at some point along the way I was "cooking the turkey". But those are two very different meanings of the phrase.
This actually fits into my analogy, funny enough! So, in what I've put forth, the steps of casting a spell: Knowing the spell, providing components, and releasing the spell are all satisfied by the same individual. To compare to your analogy, the same person turned on the oven, put the turkey into the oven, and removed the turkey when the time expired. The secondary caster(s) set the timer, but the timer wasn't a necessary step in cooking the turkey, it was an additional step that contributed to the process. The rules don't have a way for different people to perform those steps, but all the steps to cook the turkey/cast the spell are from one person; Circle Magic doesn't modify that. It only adds an additional step to the process.
It's really weird that you responded to up2ng's example but didn't quote it and completely rearranged it.
In up2ng's example, one person started the process but was not the same person who put the turkey into the oven or took it out.
A more thorough example is what if my spouse seasons the turkey, I put it in the oven, and my child takes it out when the timer goes off. Who cooked the turkey? No one person cooked it. If it's my recipe, I brought the seasoning and the turkey, still no one person cooked it. up2ng's example is a good one for this purpose. I was thinking about a car (Initiating running a car but the car is the one running) or a rowing team (one person may initiate the rowing but the team rows) but I think the turkey works better and is seasonal for some to boot.
I am still going to sit in the everyone casts the Circle spell circle but I agree with the validity of up2ng's interpretation.
As an aside, using the Ready action to cast a spell works the same as described in Circle Magic:
When you Ready a spell, you cast it as normal (expending any resources used to cast it) but hold its energy, which you release with your Reaction when the trigger occurs.
The actual casting of the spell is a separate step to the release of the spell when analyzed through this lens.
Although not exactly what we were just discussing, I did briefly touch on this much earlier in the thread. As a matter of fact, the overall process when you Ready a spell is quite a bit different than what happens with Circle Magic. The most obvious difference is that when you Ready a spell, the spell slot is lost if the spell is not successfully cast. So, in that case the spell was actually cast. Then, after it is cast the effect is then held / delayed until some future event might trigger its release. In the case of Circle Magic, there are Magic actions that are taken that do NOT result in the casting of the spell. The spell is not actually cast in Circle Magic until all of the casters have taken their Magic actions:
Completing the Casting <-----
If the spell has a casting time of an action, the Circle spell’s effects occur immediately after the final secondary caster takes the required action to contribute to the spell.
In this way, the mechanics for casting a Circle Spell actually have a lot more in common with the general rules for casting a spell with a "longer casting time" (such as a Ritual Spell) than a Readied spell.
As for the Counterspell timing, normal casting doesn't cover the timing for Counterspell, not really, when we break the steps down; however, since Counterspell is interrupting the casting of the spell and preventing it from resolving its effects, we can infer that the step in the breakdown where Counterspell applies is the one where we provide components.
I wasn't really asking about an interpretation about the timing of Counterspell. I was trying to point out the very particular wording that was used in describing the Magic action that triggers the Counterspell:
If a Reaction would trigger when a creature casts a spell—such as the Reaction taken to cast Counterspell—it also triggers when you take this action to initiate a Circle spell.
If we break down the grammar of the above sentence, we can see that the Magic action to initiate a Circle spell can trigger a Reaction taken to cast Counterspell. This Reaction ALSO triggers when a creature casts a spell.
That wording is very important. It's NOT saying that Counterspell is also triggered by this Magic action because it is the same as a creature casting a spell. On the contrary, it is saying that the Magic action to initiate a Circle spell is NOT the same as a creature casting a spell. From that starting point, the rule is explicitly declaring that any reaction that is triggered when a creature casts a spell IS ALSO triggered by this [totally different] Magic action that is used to initiate a Circle spell.
This text is telling us that a creature who takes the Magic action to initiate a Circle spell is not actually casting a spell. This is part of the reason why I am interpreting the overall process to work in the manner which I described above where no individual spellcaster is actually casting the Circle spell for the purposes of interaction with features which trigger "when you cast a spell".
Unfortunately, we are now trying to square the circle with the fact that the spell being cast through Circle Magic didn't immediately go off before the secondary casters could join. There are a couple of ways I can see to do that (Circle Magic is a feature and so the primary caster has not 'cast a spell that has a casting time of an action' but has instead used 'a feature . . . that requires a Magic action to be activated'. Alternately, specific versus general could be considered with the specific of Circle Casting overriding the general of Magic Action).
Sadly, those solutions seem to lead back to the issue of nothing forbidding the primary caster from holding the spell for multiple rounds. Circle Casting is allowing the spell's release to somehow be delayed (otherwise the spell goes off before the secondary casters can contribute) and does not appear to impose any restrictions as to how long that is.
However, the rule you pointed out does provide an extremely valid argument against someone being able to take multiple turns to cast a 1 Action spell when they are not Circle Casting.
The post I made above yours explains why it doesn't go off immediately, but to reiterate (because it's possible you hadn't refreshed the page recently enough to see my post before you sent yours): The Circle Magic rule creates an exception. That exception ONLY applies to the use of Circle Magic and cannot be treated as a way to extend casting time as a general rule, because rules only cover the scope they specify.
As for "nothing forbidding the primary caster from holding the spell for multiple rounds":
After you initiate the spell, each secondary caster takes the Magic action to contribute to the spell. A secondary caster can take this action only while within 30 feet of you and before the start of your next turn.
If the spell has a casting time of an action, the Circle spell’s effects occur immediately after the final secondary caster takes the required action to contribute to the spell. You decide which secondary caster is the final one.
If a Circle spell fails, nothing happens. You don’t expend a spell slot, and any Material components aren’t consumed. To cast the spell again, you must start over.
This combination of lines tells us the order of events:
-Primary caster starts the Circle spell -Between this point in time and the start of your next turn, any number of casters can contribute to the Circle spell -When each one contributes, you have the opportunity to release the spell -If you miss your window and secondary casters can no longer contribute, you move to the Circle spell failure line
I will concede one small fact: A miniscule amount of reading between the lines is required here. Technically it doesn't say the spell automatically fizzles beyond that time. However, since there's no way to release the spell's magic, there's also zero reason to maintain it. Any reasonable reading would be that the spell fizzles at such a time.
No, Counterspell cares that the triggering creature is casting with components. It says so right in the reaction trigger in 2024: "Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components." It must be the creature you see and are using as the trigger for the spell that is casting with components. If the creature they see is not casting with components, that creature is not a valid trigger. (And circle magic is quite specific: the primary caster supplies all components.)
You even concede that it is the casting with components that is key in your first sentence. Well, the reaction specifies the triggering creature you see must be casting with components.
The primary and secondary casters are creatures presumably and they are casting a spell and that spell is being cast with components. Therefore, the casters (plural) of the spell are valid targets. The reaction never specifies that the creature must be the creature providing the components for the spell being cast with components. It was never an issue until Circle casting. The placement of "with VSM components" is imprecise and multiple interpretations are valid in the context of multiple spellcasters.
It's something I've pointed out before: Counterspell's ability to be cast at all is dependent on seeing components in use. If you don't see components in use, you don't see a person casting a spell. So even if we agree that everyone involved is considered to be casting the spell, you don't see the spell being cast, and the secondary casters aren't valid targets for Counterspell no matter what.
It's really weird that you responded to up2ng's example but didn't quote it and completely rearranged it.
In up2ng's example, one person started the process but was not the same person who put the turkey into the oven or took it out.
A more thorough example is what if my spouse seasons the turkey, I put it in the oven, and my child takes it out when the timer goes off. Who cooked the turkey? No one person cooked it. If it's my recipe, I brought the seasoning and the turkey, still no one person cooked it. up2ng's example is a good one for this purpose. I was thinking about a car (Initiating running a car but the car is the one running) or a rowing team (one person may initiate the rowing but the team rows) but I think the turkey works better and is seasonal for some to boot.
I am still going to sit in the everyone casts the Circle spell circle but I agree with the validity of up2ng's interpretation.
up2ng's example held the same issue yours did: All of the steps involved in actually cooking the turkey are being performed by the same person in spellcasting. The turkey analogy is inherently flawed in its presentation in that the various steps are different components of the casting step and can't be performed by different people here. Therefore, it's simply invalid. My comparison to their analogy was an attempt to reframe it in context of how it actually works compared to Circle casting: That turning the oven on, putting the turkey in, and taking it out are all analogous to knowing the spell, using the components, and releasing the spell, respectively.
That wording is very important. It's NOT saying that Counterspell is also triggered by this Magic action because it is the same as a creature casting a spell. On the contrary, it is saying that the Magic action to initiate a Circle spell is NOT the same as a creature casting a spell. From that starting point, the rule is explicitly declaring that any reaction that is triggered when a creature casts a spell IS ALSO triggered by this [totally different] Magic action that is used to initiate a Circle spell.
This text is telling us that a creature who takes the Magic action to initiate a Circle spell is not actually casting a spell. This is part of the reason why I am interpreting the overall process to work in the manner which I described above where no individual spellcaster is actually casting the Circle spell for the purposes of interaction with features which trigger "when you cast a spell".
I'm afraid that, if "Casting a Circle Spell" and "To cast the spell again" don't tip you off that you're actually casting a spell, we're going to always be at an impasse. No amount of semantics will be able to convince me that this isn't casting a spell, both RAW and RAI.
After you initiate the spell, each secondary caster takes the Magic action to contribute to the spell. A secondary caster can take this action only while within 30 feet of you and before the start of your next turn.
So this whole 'let's extend the spell past 1 action Because Reasons' thing was already covered
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue) Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
No, Counterspell cares that the triggering creature is casting with components. It says so right in the reaction trigger in 2024: "Reaction, which you take when you see a creature within 60 feet of yourself casting a spell with Verbal, Somatic, or Material components." It must be the creature you see and are using as the trigger for the spell that is casting with components. If the creature they see is not casting with components, that creature is not a valid trigger. (And circle magic is quite specific: the primary caster supplies all components.)
You even concede that it is the casting with components that is key in your first sentence. Well, the reaction specifies the triggering creature you see must be casting with components.
The primary and secondary casters are creatures presumably and they are casting a spell and that spell is being cast with components. Therefore, the casters (plural) of the spell are valid targets. The reaction never specifies that the creature must be the creature providing the components for the spell being cast with components. It was never an issue until Circle casting. The placement of "with VSM components" is imprecise and multiple interpretations are valid in the context of multiple spellcasters.
It's something I've pointed out before: Counterspell's ability to be cast at all is dependent on seeing components in use. If you don't see components in use, you don't see a person casting a spell. So even if we agree that everyone involved is considered to be casting the spell, you don't see the spell being cast, and the secondary casters aren't valid targets for Counterspell no matter what.
Counterspell's ability to be cast requires seeing a creature casting a spell and for the spell to be cast with spell components. RAW does not require that any particular spell caster provide the spell components except that pre Circle Magic, there was only one caster to consider. Now that Circle Magic allows for multiple casters, Counterspell and Circle Magic never specify which of the spell's casters are valid or invalid targets.
It's really weird that you responded to up2ng's example but didn't quote it and completely rearranged it.
In up2ng's example, one person started the process but was not the same person who put the turkey into the oven or took it out.
A more thorough example is what if my spouse seasons the turkey, I put it in the oven, and my child takes it out when the timer goes off. Who cooked the turkey? No one person cooked it. If it's my recipe, I brought the seasoning and the turkey, still no one person cooked it. up2ng's example is a good one for this purpose. I was thinking about a car (Initiating running a car but the car is the one running) or a rowing team (one person may initiate the rowing but the team rows) but I think the turkey works better and is seasonal for some to boot.
I am still going to sit in the everyone casts the Circle spell circle but I agree with the validity of up2ng's interpretation.
up2ng's example held the same issue yours did: All of the steps involved in actually cooking the turkey are being performed by the same person in spellcasting. The turkey analogy is inherently flawed in its presentation in that the various steps are different components of the casting step and can't be performed by different people here. Therefore, it's simply invalid. My comparison to their analogy was an attempt to reframe it in context of how it actually works compared to Circle casting: That turning the oven on, putting the turkey in, and taking it out are all analogous to knowing the spell, using the components, and releasing the spell, respectively.
Except that "using the components" isn't a step of casting the spell and releasing the spell is your fabrication, not RAW. The primary caster "has the spell prepared" (It's my recipe) "provides the [material] components" (I brought the seasoning and the turkey) but seasoning, cooking, and removing the turkey are all part of casting the spell and Circle Magic is "a technique by which many spellcasters working together could cast spells..."
Your injection of concepts are not RAW and any argument based on them is inherently invalid whether the end result happens to be correct or incorrect.
After you initiate the spell, each secondary caster takes the Magic action to contribute to the spell. A secondary caster can take this action only while within 30 feet of you and before the start of your next turn.
So this whole 'let's extend the spell past 1 action Because Reasons' thing was already covered
Yeah, it's been pointed out a few times in the thread but it is easy to get lost with all the conversations. You quoted it first. I mentioned it here. You mentioned it again here. Me again. up2ng mentioned it here. And Athanar90 mentioned it here. (Technically, Athanar90 and I also discussed related concepts when I posted my Sage Advice wish list.) I think that pretty much constitutes a consensus. Unless you were being sarcastic ... :)
Then I am sure you will have no trouble locating the rule that actually says that.
Required does not mean it cannot be more. If I tell you that, as a shopkeeper, you are required to pay me $100 for an item, do you think that means you are unable to pay me more? Businesses are required to pay a minimum wage, but of course they are free to pay more. Often, people are required to have a certain level of insurance, but again, they can purchase more than the requirement.
A requirement is a minimum, at least in most cases.
It very much appears that you have made an assumption that is not, in fact, supported. There is nothing wrong with that. I have done the same thing many times in the past.
If you really are sure that it is suppose to work that way then you will need to find something that disproves at least one of those three statements. There may be other paths as well, but those are what I can think of and, in all honesty, I do not see anything that contradicts them (if I did then I wouldn't be maintaining this position).
Yes actually, mechanically it means exactly that
In a rules context, the most applicable definition of "require" is "to impose a compulsion or command on", as in the sentence "The law requires that you have proof of auto insurance in the vehicle at all times". The law doesn't care what other types of insurance you might have proof of in the glovebox too. It's irrelevant
If a spell requires you to use a certain Material component in a casting, can you add other stuff on top of that for flavor? Sure, knock yourself out. Mechanically though, using more components changes nothing about the effect of the spell
Here though, we're not talking about flavor. You're trying to exceed the requirements of the spell for mechanical gain. You're essentially arguing is that if a fireball requires bat guano to do 8d6 fire damage, then using double the guano should do double the damage. Which is... well, good luck trying that argument on your DM
A spell with a casting time of 1 action requires 1 action to cast. No more, no less, because that's what the rules tell us it takes. You've offered absolutely nothing from the rules to suggest otherwise
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Wait, we're arguing that spells can take longer because the rules don't say they can't? The rules tell what you can do, they don't tell every exclusion because they don't have to. If the rules don't give the option to use more time, then the requirement is an exact one.
To use the payment analogy: If an item costs $70, that's a requirement. I can pay $100, but the price is fixed, so now they are required to pay me $30 in addition to the item.
To argue otherwise would be comparing magic to a bartering system, and you'd need to point to exactly where in the rules it says you can treat it that way.
As for the stance that Circle Magic isn't casting a spell: It's a little roundabout wording, but "initiating casting" is the same as casting a spell in plain English terms. I see no reason Metamagic couldn't be used to enhance spells. And other class features could apply as well: Tempest Cleric's ability to maximize damage dice and Evoker's Sculpt Spells are examples off the top of my head. This isn't a one-sided thing where Sorcerer gets all the toys, though they may have a little more to play with only because they get so many generic spell modifying options.
That said, since the primary caster is the one deciding the spell and expending all resources, secondary casters can't use said abilities when they're only contributors.
Correct. They don't care what you have as long as you have the requirement.
They also don't forbid you from taking more.
That is pretty much the textbook example of showing that 'requirement' is nearly synonymous with 'minimum'.
Ah! So you do recognize that the requirements are a minimum and that you can exceed them. Good. We've got that out of the way.
Except that's not what I'm essentially arguing. I have said absolutely nothing about taking extra actions to cast having any effect what so ever in terms of damage, range, duration, or anything else. That statement is a strawman.
What I am arguing is that a separate mechanic, which dictates effects that can alter the spell, is capable of being used because the current mechanic doesn't actually prevent it.
No. The rules don't tell us that. They say it takes 1 Action to cast, no less. There is nothing I can find that says no more, and there doesn't seem to be anything you can find that says that. You just don't want it to work that way.
You might not like that the current mechanic doesn't prevent it, and I absolutely get that. If you were my DM I would even happily accept your ruling that it doesn't work that way. I wouldn't argue that it is because of your ability to make houserules. I would recognize that, as the DM, it is your job to interpret and arbitrate the rules and that while your interpretation might be different from mine it does not seem like it is wildly erroneous or being made in bad faith.
However, trying to say that it is clearly RAW that you cannot spend multiple Actions casting a spell where the required Casting Time is 1 action just doesn't seem to currently be supported. Your interpretation? Sure. I can absolutely see how you get from here to there, but you have provided nothing to make me believe my interpretation is wrong. Your position on English is extraordinarily shaky (again, it is possible for Requirement to be used in the capacity of 'no more, no less', but that is the minority of cases and typically when used that way it is explicitly explained that it is being used in such a way) and you have provided zero rules that support your case.
Again, feel free to prove me wrong. Show me where the rules says you cannot do that. I thought, briefly, I had spotted something that forbid it involving Readying Spells and the fact that you can only hold that Readied action for 1 turn, but I realized that while the situations are similar there are also significant differences (primarily the ability to release the spell as a Reaction).
That is not paying $100. That is giving them $100 and expecting $30 in change, which is paying them $70.
Trust me. You go into the vast majority of stores in the world, give them $100 and tell them to keep the change (in essence paying $100 for a $70 item) they will absolutely be happy to do so.
Yes, the price is fixed. It is the minimum you have to pay. The requirement is that you pay that much. It still doesn't prevent you from paying more.
To make it even a little less abstract, you go to a nice American restaurant. Your bill at the end of the night comes to $100. You are required to pay $100, but you are expected to pay even more as a tip to the staff.
Pay $100, get up and leave, and people might give you dirty looks, but no one will call the police because you paid what you were required to, even if that wasn't what you were expected to.
At the end of the day, in general usage, required defines a minimum condition.
This comment seems to be the origin of one of this thread's ongoing discussions. I believe that this statement is probably incorrect for all of the reasons that the other posters have already stated.
But the more relevant point here is that even if your idea about casting time requirements is technically correct, you still cannot do the thing that you are trying to do here because the rules for Circle Magic explicitly prohibit it:
Let me try one more example and then I'll probably just agree to disagree on this point.
Suppose I turn on the oven to initiate cooking the turkey. Then, my spouse sets the timer. Then, my son puts the turkey into the oven. Then, my daughter removes the turkey from the oven when the timer expires.
Later on, at the dinner table, someone asks me: "Did you cook the turkey"?
If I had to respond to that as a "yes" or "no" question, then my answer would be: "No".
But, as I said before, I leave open the possibility that someone else could reasonably come to a different conclusion. It boils down to this: What exactly does "cooking the turkey" mean? If it means that I performed the activity that caused the transition of the state of the turkey from being an uncooked turkey into a turkey that has been cooked, then no, I definitely did not cook it. The activity that I did perform definitely does not result in such a transition. If instead the phrase is actually referring to whether or not I was cooking the turkey at any moment, then it might be a bit different. If the turkey took 4 hours to cook and I cooked the turkey for 5 seconds before handing off the responsibility to someone else while perhaps continuing to oversee and supervise the entire process, then sure, at some point along the way I was "cooking the turkey". But those are two very different meanings of the phrase.
To me, when we refer to a spellcaster that is "casting a spell", that individual performs the activity that transitions the state of the world from one in which the spell was prepared into one in which the spell has been cast. If instead all that I did was touch my spellcasting focus but someone else spoke the magic words and someone else wagged their finger and someone else contributed their spell slot and so on and the question is, did I cast the spell? No. I didn't cast any spell. I just touched my spellcasting focus. Did I "initiate" or "contribute" to "the casting of" a spell? Possibly. But that's a different question which refers to a different activity.
It occurs to me that, at an absolute minimum, Circle Magic has to be capable of extending casting time to be of any real use.
The reason is because it can be used on spells that have a casting time of 1 Action.
If that casting time was utterly and completely inviolate there would almost no way for the secondary casters to join. The primary caster would take his Magic action, action is over, maximum casting time has been reached, spell must now be cast.
Yes, there does exist the possibility of secondary casters using a readied action, but that would now be an absolute requirement, and if that were the case one would imagine they would make that clear in the rules for Circle Casting.
Arguments can be made that an Action casting time can be extended to a full Round, but that is not explicitly said. Arguments can be made that the extension of casting time is a special circumstance that only occurs with Circle Casting, but again, that is not explicitly said.
However, it is unequivocal that Action, Turn, and Round all mean different amounts of time and the rules seem to fairly clearly imply that Circle Casting does not require all the secondary casters to move on that one single Action.
It's not. At all. There's no 'minimum' here. Either you have the thing, or you don't. Concepts like 'minimum' are meaningless and irrelevant to this discussion
You are arguing for extra actions to get extra benefits from secondary casters who don't get the contributions in within the 1 action time limit
I have no interest in pursuing this any further. If you can't even acknowledge that the rules for spellcasting are something a little more strict than a general guideline, there's no meaningful conversation possible here
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Incorrect
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The entry for the Magic action pretty firmly states that you cast a spell with a casting time of an action with it, and doesn't give a way to cast such spells with a longer casting time. The line below, about casting times of 1 minute or longer, don't apply to spells with a casting time of 1 action because the casting time is a trait of the spell, rather than that line applying to any spell that takes that long for any reason. (Ritual spells actually offer a specific way to extend the casting time of spells, but they also clearly state that the casting time is extended; this modifies the spell itself.)
EDIT: Came back to reiterate why I wrote all this out. It's been clearly stated above that the rules tell you what you can do, and that "filling in the blanks" just because the game doesn't say you can't do something isn't a valid interpretation of the rules. Since the rules don't say you can cast spells for longer than they say they take, that's not a valid option. That's all there really is to it.
This argument feels like the analogy of playing Chess with a pigeon. They very clearly stated that, for flavor, a player could add to what they're doing. But there's nothing mechanically changed by that. Trying to argue that you 'won' that disagreement based on that is as ridiculous as trying to 'win' an argument by trying to push for mechanical changes based on the Personalizing Spells section of TCoE.
I can actually get what you're going for here. The problem is this: One caster is performing every single step required to cast the spell. Any contributions from secondary casters are no more than an empowering feature. So I'd accept the argument that your analogy is correct for every secondary caster to be excluded when it comes to determining who cast the spell, but when all components, concentration, spell effects, and decisions come from the primary caster, yeah, they cooked that turkey. Also, the title of the process:
I'd say that's proof enough that the spell is being cast, and that Initiating (which is a subcategory below this line and part of the category) is just a step in the casting process.
I'm going to give an off-the-wall example here to compare the process to: Alchemy, as portrayed in Fullmetal Alchemist.
The way their alchemy works is described. There are three steps: Comprehension, Deconstruction, and Reconstruction. They have to understand the makeup of what they're transmuting, then deconstruct the matter into its base components, then reconstruct the matter into the new form they desire.
I'd say magic in general in D&D compares to this process almost too well: The primary caster has to understand the spell and how to utilize the components properly. They then initialize the spell, going through all the components and utilizing them properly. They finally release the spell, creating the desired effect. All of this takes a little bit of time; usually an action (or about 6 seconds, give or take to make way for bonus actions and movement).
Circle Magic simply interrupts the process between Initialize and Release to inject an extra step, but it's ultimately the same process.
Hmm, this seems to support my interpretation of how it works. Yes, the overall process is the process of "casting a circle spell" which has many prerequisites. At the end of the process the spell is definitely cast. No question about that. But who cast it?
To me, it seems like the authors have tried really hard to describe the process as one in which the group has cast the spell through their combined efforts, and they did this by taking actions that are not equivalent to the 2014 "Cast a Spell" action. It's some other kind of brand-new action.
For Athanar90:
How do you reconcile the particular wording that is used in the clarification for Counterspell?
To me, this statement appears to be incredibly carefully worded for a particular reason.
Do other people get to take Actions (not Reactions) when someone casts a Fireball, without Circle Magic, before it goes off? In not, then by your position, they get no Actions to function as secondary casters (which kind of defeats the point).
Otherwise, all you are doing is insisting that it works as written (and that it 'as written' means something specific) except when it doesn't.
That is perfectly acceptable for houserules, but not for a discussion about the core rules.
If you want to insist that the Casting Time for a spell mandates when it goes off, that it can't voluntarily be extended, and that Circle Magic does nothing to extend it then a spell with a Casting Time of 1 Action takes exactly 1 Action and goes off after that Action is completed, just like it would every other time you normally cast it, and Circle Casting these spells is pretty much impractical.
Sure, you can play some sophistries and say things like 'well, they really are only using 1 Action to cast it. They just aren't releasing for two turns after the secondary casters contribute,' but that very same argument can now be applied to longer periods of time. Sure, it only took 1 Action to cast. They just didn't release it for 3 rounds.
Circle Magic creates an exception for the casting time, and bases the way the exception works around which casting time option you're using (1 action / 1 minute or more). That doesn't validate any other exceptions that aren't explicitly written into the rules. If you don't see the rules listed above as an exception to the rules about the casting time... Well, that's on you.
This actually fits into my analogy, funny enough! So, in what I've put forth, the steps of casting a spell: Knowing the spell, providing components, and releasing the spell are all satisfied by the same individual. To compare to your analogy, the same person turned on the oven, put the turkey into the oven, and removed the turkey when the time expired. The secondary caster(s) set the timer, but the timer wasn't a necessary step in cooking the turkey, it was an additional step that contributed to the process. The rules don't have a way for different people to perform those steps, but all the steps to cook the turkey/cast the spell are from one person; Circle Magic doesn't modify that. It only adds an additional step to the process.
As for the Counterspell timing, normal casting doesn't cover the timing for Counterspell, not really, when we break the steps down; however, since Counterspell is interrupting the casting of the spell and preventing it from resolving its effects, we can infer that the step in the breakdown where Counterspell applies is the one where we provide components.
As an aside, using the Ready action to cast a spell works the same as described in Circle Magic:
The actual casting of the spell is a separate step to the release of the spell when analyzed through this lens.
So when it comes to Counterspell, I'd posit that the note doesn't actually hold any significance for action spells and instead acts as a clarification, though for spells that take 1 minute or longer, it effectively serves as an exception to the rules. As a DM, I might allow Counterspell to hit a Circle spell that hasn't completed casting.
Ok. Now THIS is the first thing anyone has been able to show that possibly can be interpreted as 'you can't extend the casting to multiple actions'. Well done, and I do not mean that sarcastically. I really have been wondering if there was something I was overlooking that could reasonably be interpreted to say there was a limit, and this very much seems to say that.
Unfortunately, we are now trying to square the circle with the fact that the spell being cast through Circle Magic didn't immediately go off before the secondary casters could join. There are a couple of ways I can see to do that (Circle Magic is a feature and so the primary caster has not 'cast a spell that has a casting time of an action' but has instead used 'a feature . . . that requires a Magic action to be activated'. Alternately, specific versus general could be considered with the specific of Circle Casting overriding the general of Magic Action).
Sadly, those solutions seem to lead back to the issue of nothing forbidding the primary caster from holding the spell for multiple rounds. Circle Casting is allowing the spell's release to somehow be delayed (otherwise the spell goes off before the secondary casters can contribute) and does not appear to impose any restrictions as to how long that is.
However, the rule you pointed out does provide an extremely valid argument against someone being able to take multiple turns to cast a 1 Action spell when they are not Circle Casting.
The primary and secondary casters are creatures presumably and they are casting a spell and that spell is being cast with components. Therefore, the casters (plural) of the spell are valid targets. The reaction never specifies that the creature must be the creature providing the components for the spell being cast with components. It was never an issue until Circle casting. The placement of "with VSM components" is imprecise and multiple interpretations are valid in the context of multiple spellcasters.
Elminster has started a new Kickstarter spell... would you like to back this casting? Basically, Circle spells are crowdfunded spellcasting and fail if they don't meet their goal?
So now we have the stances that:
I will point out that a Circle Magic is described as a technique where multiple spellcasters work together to cast spells... However, this isn't necessary rules text.
It's really weird that you responded to up2ng's example but didn't quote it and completely rearranged it.
In up2ng's example, one person started the process but was not the same person who put the turkey into the oven or took it out.
A more thorough example is what if my spouse seasons the turkey, I put it in the oven, and my child takes it out when the timer goes off. Who cooked the turkey? No one person cooked it. If it's my recipe, I brought the seasoning and the turkey, still no one person cooked it. up2ng's example is a good one for this purpose. I was thinking about a car (Initiating running a car but the car is the one running) or a rowing team (one person may initiate the rowing but the team rows) but I think the turkey works better and is seasonal for some to boot.
I am still going to sit in the everyone casts the Circle spell circle but I agree with the validity of up2ng's interpretation.
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.
Although not exactly what we were just discussing, I did briefly touch on this much earlier in the thread. As a matter of fact, the overall process when you Ready a spell is quite a bit different than what happens with Circle Magic. The most obvious difference is that when you Ready a spell, the spell slot is lost if the spell is not successfully cast. So, in that case the spell was actually cast. Then, after it is cast the effect is then held / delayed until some future event might trigger its release. In the case of Circle Magic, there are Magic actions that are taken that do NOT result in the casting of the spell. The spell is not actually cast in Circle Magic until all of the casters have taken their Magic actions:
In this way, the mechanics for casting a Circle Spell actually have a lot more in common with the general rules for casting a spell with a "longer casting time" (such as a Ritual Spell) than a Readied spell.
But anyway, back to what we were discussing:
I wasn't really asking about an interpretation about the timing of Counterspell. I was trying to point out the very particular wording that was used in describing the Magic action that triggers the Counterspell:
If we break down the grammar of the above sentence, we can see that the Magic action to initiate a Circle spell can trigger a Reaction taken to cast Counterspell. This Reaction ALSO triggers when a creature casts a spell.
That wording is very important. It's NOT saying that Counterspell is also triggered by this Magic action because it is the same as a creature casting a spell. On the contrary, it is saying that the Magic action to initiate a Circle spell is NOT the same as a creature casting a spell. From that starting point, the rule is explicitly declaring that any reaction that is triggered when a creature casts a spell IS ALSO triggered by this [totally different] Magic action that is used to initiate a Circle spell.
This text is telling us that a creature who takes the Magic action to initiate a Circle spell is not actually casting a spell. This is part of the reason why I am interpreting the overall process to work in the manner which I described above where no individual spellcaster is actually casting the Circle spell for the purposes of interaction with features which trigger "when you cast a spell".
The post I made above yours explains why it doesn't go off immediately, but to reiterate (because it's possible you hadn't refreshed the page recently enough to see my post before you sent yours): The Circle Magic rule creates an exception. That exception ONLY applies to the use of Circle Magic and cannot be treated as a way to extend casting time as a general rule, because rules only cover the scope they specify.
As for "nothing forbidding the primary caster from holding the spell for multiple rounds":
This combination of lines tells us the order of events:
-Primary caster starts the Circle spell
-Between this point in time and the start of your next turn, any number of casters can contribute to the Circle spell
-When each one contributes, you have the opportunity to release the spell
-If you miss your window and secondary casters can no longer contribute, you move to the Circle spell failure line
I will concede one small fact: A miniscule amount of reading between the lines is required here. Technically it doesn't say the spell automatically fizzles beyond that time. However, since there's no way to release the spell's magic, there's also zero reason to maintain it. Any reasonable reading would be that the spell fizzles at such a time.
It's something I've pointed out before: Counterspell's ability to be cast at all is dependent on seeing components in use. If you don't see components in use, you don't see a person casting a spell. So even if we agree that everyone involved is considered to be casting the spell, you don't see the spell being cast, and the secondary casters aren't valid targets for Counterspell no matter what.
up2ng's example held the same issue yours did: All of the steps involved in actually cooking the turkey are being performed by the same person in spellcasting. The turkey analogy is inherently flawed in its presentation in that the various steps are different components of the casting step and can't be performed by different people here. Therefore, it's simply invalid. My comparison to their analogy was an attempt to reframe it in context of how it actually works compared to Circle casting: That turning the oven on, putting the turkey in, and taking it out are all analogous to knowing the spell, using the components, and releasing the spell, respectively.
I'm afraid that, if "Casting a Circle Spell" and "To cast the spell again" don't tip you off that you're actually casting a spell, we're going to always be at an impasse. No amount of semantics will be able to convince me that this isn't casting a spell, both RAW and RAI.
LOL. This entire time I was missing that line
So this whole 'let's extend the spell past 1 action Because Reasons' thing was already covered
Active characters:
Edoumiaond Willegume "Eddie" Podslee, Vegetanian scholar (College of Spirits bard)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator (Assassin rogue)
Peter "the Pied Piper" Hausler, human con artist/remover of vermin (Circle of the Shepherd druid)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Counterspell's ability to be cast requires seeing a creature casting a spell and for the spell to be cast with spell components. RAW does not require that any particular spell caster provide the spell components except that pre Circle Magic, there was only one caster to consider. Now that Circle Magic allows for multiple casters, Counterspell and Circle Magic never specify which of the spell's casters are valid or invalid targets.
Except that "using the components" isn't a step of casting the spell and releasing the spell is your fabrication, not RAW. The primary caster "has the spell prepared" (It's my recipe) "provides the [material] components" (I brought the seasoning and the turkey) but seasoning, cooking, and removing the turkey are all part of casting the spell and Circle Magic is "a technique by which many spellcasters working together could cast spells..."
Your injection of concepts are not RAW and any argument based on them is inherently invalid whether the end result happens to be correct or incorrect.
Yeah, it's been pointed out a few times in the thread but it is easy to get lost with all the conversations. You quoted it first. I mentioned it here. You mentioned it again here. Me again. up2ng mentioned it here. And Athanar90 mentioned it here. (Technically, Athanar90 and I also discussed related concepts when I posted my Sage Advice wish list.) I think that pretty much constitutes a consensus. Unless you were being sarcastic ... :)
How to add Tooltips.
My houserulings.