D&D 5E Can I use action surge in the middle of another action (between attacks when attacking with extra attack)?

[ECMO3]

Yes. Of course you can infer. What cannot happen is for your inference to be RAW. What you infer is your ruling or house rule, not RAW.

Ok then it can't be RAW that you "can't do it" either, as you have previously stated, because you need to make an inference to come to the conclusion that it can't be done RAW

The logic you use here is not flawed, but if it is true then it is NOT RAW that you can use action surge in the middle of your attack action and it is also NOT RAW that you can't use action surge in the middle of your attack action.

Essentially there is no RAW concerning this question.

 

[Rystefn]

I miss when the DMG said that you should kick rules lawyers out of your games. "By RAW, elves can't drink milk, because it's not anywhere written explicitly in the rules that they can. That's what the W means. Written. If it doesn't say you can, then you can't." That's not what anyone ever actually means when they use the phrase "rules as written" unless they're deliberately twisting things beyond all reason to try to pull some kind of exploit or to try to win an argument on the internet.

 

[ECMO3]

I can take an additional action, not before the first action and not in the middle of it.

I don't think the order matters and I certainly don't think you need to take the action surge action after the other action. Why can't you use action surge first ... or even only?

There is no rule that you need to use up all the actions you get on your turn and plenty of time PCs don't take actions at all. You normally get a bonus action, an action, a move and an object interaction on every turn unless there is a condition or effect that disallows that. Just because you have all of these available does not mean you have to use them. Action surge merely gives an additional action in addition to the one you already have.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok then it can't be RAW that you "can't do it" either, as you have previously stated, because you need to make an inference to come to the conclusion that it can't be done RAW

Once again, if it's not written the default state is that you cannot do it. Otherwise I could have my fighter fart neutron stars and think entire species into atoms. After all, RAW doesn't say I can't do those things, either.

The logic you use here is not flawed, but if it is true then it is NOT RAW that you can use action surge in the middle of your attack action and it is also NOT RAW that you can't use action surge in the middle of your attack action.

It doesn't matter. The default state is that things that aren't written are a no. Otherwise my character could do billions, trillions or more probably, things that the game doesn't say he can't do.

Essentially there is no RAW concerning this question.

Which is why it requires a house rule to engage. If the written rules don't explicitly allow or disallow something, it takes a house rule to allow it.

 

[Maxperson]

I miss when the DMG said that you should kick rules lawyers out of your games. "By RAW, elves can't drink milk, because it's not anywhere written explicitly in the rules that they can. That's what the W means. Written. If it doesn't say you can, then you can't." That's not what anyone ever actually means when they use the phrase "rules as written" unless they're deliberately twisting things beyond all reason to try to pull some kind of exploit or to try to win an argument on the internet.

So then since you think that since the rules don't say you can or can't use an action in the middle of another action that you CAN use it, you also think that my fighter can fart out nuclear missiles and neutron stars since the rules don't say I can or can't do those things? Because that's where your logic leads. Everything not allowed or disallowed by the rules is allowed. It would be hypocritical to hold the position that some of those things are allowed, but others are not allowed.

 

[aco175]

This is the part that bothers me about this line of thinking. This is not anywhere in the rules. Why do you have to first take an action?

I kind of see it like counting. You cannot get to two unless you get to one first. You can't get to an additional action until you get to an action.

To be fair, I see the other way of thinking and would likely let the PC do more things to make playing cool. I just see that the intent, not RAW so please stop with pointing to the rule argument, by having all the exceptions with movement clause and the feats and powers mentioned along the line is that there is a reason why they list these exceptions. So, there is an intended rule.

This only affects fighters, until it doesn't. The OP has a race ability to let them cast dispel magic but a multiclass mage can do the same. It is no longer a fighter ability so the fighter sucks argument has less hold on my emotions. If anything it is a boost to casters at that point where people just take the two levels of fighter to get it to use on spells.

 

[ezo]

The rules as written concerned:

• Taking the Attack action allows to make one weapon attack.
• Extra Attack allows you to attack twice instead of once when you take the Attack action.
• Action Surge allows you to take an additional action on your turn.

How does taking the Attack action to make an attack, using Action Surge to cast a spell, and using Extra Attack to make a second attack when you've taken the Attack action, violate any of the rules concerned?

Nothing anywhere in these rules indicate any intent that one action must be completed before another can be taken.

Any inferences about a "general rule" due to Breaking Up Your Move or how bonus action timing works has nothing to do with the above.

There is no RAW that allows the OP to do what they did, nor is there any RAW that says they can't. This is not a matter of RAW. As far as RAW is concerned, the above three rules are adhered to in either manner: an action can take place while performing another action or an action must be resolved completely before another action can take place.

The only thing that matters is the context of the narrative. Does it make sense that a Drow Fighter could do something like making an attack, casting an innate dispel magic, and then finish their attacks? IMO it certainly does, but that is just my opinion. It is not a matter of RAW or not RAW.

The only issue concerning RAW is does the sequence violate any of the rules actually involved? Again, no, it doesn't.

 

[Irlo]

So then since you think that since the rules don't say you can or can't use an action in the middle of another action that you CAN use it, you also think that my fighter can fart out nuclear missiles and neutron stars since the rules don't say I can or can't do those things? Because that's where your logic leads. Everything not allowed or disallowed by the rules is allowed. It would be hypocritical to hold the position that some of those things are allowed, but others are not allowed.

No, those really aren't comparable and that's not where the logic leads. The rules DO say you can take an additional action on your turn, with no stated restrictions on when during your turn that action takes place.

I would like to hear how you answer this question, posed earlier in the thread:

Tell me, according to the rules, without any inference on your part, when exactly during your turn (in relation to the attack action) can you take the additional action granted by action surge?

 

[Stalker0]

So the Crux of the debate is this:

Is an action a “container”? Is it meant to be a singular unit of game activity that is (other than for specific exceptions) indivisible? Or is divisibility an innate feature of actions?

On the one hand, the rules do not state either way. However, the rules do call out specific cases of divisibility (movement, bonus actions), which could imply the action is an indivisible unit at base, and these are the exceptions that are called out

 

[billd91]

I don't think the order matters and I certainly don't think you need to take the action surge action after the other action. Why can't you use action surge first ... or even only?

Because if you just took the action surge, what's distinguishing it from taking your action instead? Taking an action is taking an action. You get that every turn (barring conditions preventing you from doing so) without having to deploy short rest resources. Why would anyone choose to burn their short rest resource when they don't have to?

No, the action surge must come after the action is taken or it isn't an additional action. The question is whether or not that first action must be effectively completed before using the action surge or whether the action surge could interrupt the first action. In situations where the fighter has only one attack (before level 5), it's academic. Taking that action and attacking completes the action. Same with most other actions like disengage, hide, or dodge. The action pays for those benefits which may continue throughout the fighter's current turn or to the start of the next.
The only real corner case I can see is in taking multiple attacks because the fighter is reacting to something discovered or provoked by the first attack (or second if the fighter has 3 attacks, etc).