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

[jgsugden]

As others point out, there is no rule against it. Some would argue that implies there is a rule against it due to the movement statement. That is easily argued as either implying there is a rule, or as a reminder that you can do things between attacks in a multi-attack.

When I encounter a situation where I do not know how the rules should handle it, I consider the following:

1.) Do I think I can find the rule in 30 seconds? If so, look for up to ~30 seconds. If not, make a call.
2.) Have I set up precedent before that I remember? If so, use it (unless I've discovered a rule that says I was wrong). If not, make a call.
3.) Do I feel there is a logical, reasonable and expected outcome? If so, use it.
4.) Do I feel there is an answer that makes the story better? If so, use it.
5.) Do I feel there is an answer that is more fun for the players? If so, use it.
6.) Flip a coin, roll a die, go with gut.

Here, if I did not already have a rule and did not think it a well settled rule, I'd say the answer to Q3 is no, but the answer to Q4 (and Q5) would be yes - so I would allow it. In the future, if an enemy wanted to use an action surge type ability to drop a spell between attacks against the PCs, we'd stop the analysis at Q2 and say yes.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

After a little googling, I guess it would work.

My question would be - you really want to burn a 3rd level spell to take a +5AC off for one round instead of getting in a total of four attacks?

For an eldritch knight to have a 3rd level slot, they'll be a minimum of level 13. That reeeeally doesn't seem to be an optimal use of things at that level to me, but... I guess you do you.

 

[ECMO3]

So, while RAW I see nothing preventing this, and would certainly allow it, off-hand I would highly suspect you would be better off using Action Surge simply to make additional attacks, without costing you a valuable 3rd-level spell slot. Perhaps the exception would be if your dispel magic also helped allies attacking the same target?

Yeah so a couple points; the DM has learned from players (like my EK) "abusing" shield and stacking it with a very high AC. If an enemy is casting shield with this DM, it is usually going to put their AC well above 20 or they are running shield and also getting disadvantage for something.

Also it is not just my attacks, since he uses a reaction with me, it takes down shield for everyone's attacks.

 

[ezo]

Yeah so a couple points; the DM has learned from players (like my EK) "abusing" shield and stacking it with a very high AC. If an enemy is casting shield with this DM, it is usually going to put their AC well above 20 or they are running shield and also getting disadvantage for something.

Also it is not just my attacks, since he uses a reaction with me, it takes down shield for everyone's attacks.

Sure, like I said it is only "better" if the increased AC is probably around 24 or better with shield, or if you are making it easier for allies.

Otherwise, simply taking more attacks via Action Surge is better.

 

[ECMO3]

After a little googling, I guess it would work.

My question would be - you really want to burn a 3rd level spell to take a +5AC off for one round instead of getting in a total of four attacks?

For an eldritch knight to have a 3rd level slot, they'll be a minimum of level 13. That reeeeally doesn't seem to be an optimal use of things at that level to me, but... I guess you do you.

The PC is a Drow and got Dispel Magic through the Drow High Magic feat at level 6. So it would be the free cast of the day that I would use right now. Down the road I will have 3rd level slots I will use with it though (the DM allows use of racial spells with spell slots).

Also relevant to this discussion, the Character has an 8 Intelligence (and a 18 Charisma), so her EK spells are all defensive spells without a save and there are not many great 3rd level spells to use this with.

 

[Blue]

The rules do not say that anywhere, AFAICT. You can rule it that way if you like OFC. I think Eldritch Knights would be sad though if they could not attack - misty step - attack.

The rules do not explicitly allow or disallow interrupting an Action, so lack on either side carries no weight as an argument. I would go along with your |then the DM must make a ruling" except there is clear evidence in the Move action I quoted that you do need something explicit to act in the middle of another action, and a complete lack of evidence the other way show designer intent clearly.

So while a DM can make a ruling, the way the rules expect it to be is clear. There is evidence you can't interrupt without a special rule, and no evidence the other way.

 

[ichabod]

The rules do not explicitly allow or disallow interrupting an Action, so lack on either side carries no weight as an argument. I would go along with your |then the DM must make a ruling" except there is clear evidence in the Move action I quoted that you do need something explicit to act in the middle of another action, and a complete lack of evidence the other way show designer intent clearly.

So while a DM can make a ruling, the way the rules expect it to be is clear. There is evidence you can't interrupt without a special rule, and no evidence the other way.

I don't really see the need for something explicit on the page you referenced. It's not really talking about breaking up an action, it's talking about breaking up movement (PHB p.190):

If you take an action that includes more than one weapon attack, you can break up your movement even further by moving between those attacks. For example, a fighter who can make two attacks with the Extra Attack feature and who has a speed of 25 feet could move 10 feet, make an attack, move 15 feet, and then attack again.

That doesn't say to me that without an explicit rule I can't do things between attacks. It says to me that you can do movement between attacks, so it seems reasonable that you could do other things between attacks. Furthermore, I don't see anything in the rules for action surge, the attack action, or extra attack that indicates that indicates the attack action is somehow atomic and cannot be broken up.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

The PC is a Drow and got Dispel Magic through the Drow High Magic feat at level 6. So it would be the free cast of the day that I would use right now. Down the road I will have 3rd level slots I will use with it though (the DM allows use of racial spells with spell slots).

Also relevant to this discussion, the Character has an 8 Intelligence (and a 20 Charisma), so her EK spells are all defensive spells without a save and there are not many great 3rd level spells to use this with.

Makes more sense. I see both sides of the argument. I'm not sure what level you are, but you're apparently at least level 6.

So, you're taking one attack, and he Shields. Dispel Magic is an Action to cast, so you're NOT taking the Extra Attack and instead using Action Surge to drop the spell? Dispel isn't a reaction, so you're not using it in the middle of your action.

So I'm guessing it's: Attack - Attack - Shield (in some combination). Action Surge. Dispel? Because of the way Extra Attack is written - you get an extra attack when the Attack action is taken. Now that I look at it, there isn't a pause. Attack is an action, whether you take it as Attack or Extra Attack - you're deciding if you're rolling one attack or two as a Action.

Of course, you've already said your DM is changing how racial spells work so it really doesn't matter what gets discussed here anyway

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I don't really need for something explicit on the page you referenced. It's not really talking about breaking up an action, it's talking about breaking up movement (PHB p.190):

That doesn't say to me that without an explicit rule I can't do things between attacks. It says to me that you can do movement between attacks, so it seems reasonable that you could do other things between attacks. Furthermore, I don't see anything in the rules for action surge, the attack action, or extra attack that indicates that indicates the attack action is somehow atomic and cannot be broken up.

But Attack is an action. Extra Attack isn't just two attacks, it's two attacks as one Action.

It's the same reason it matters what order you cast bonus spells in. If you cast a Bonus Action spell, the ONLY spell you can cast after than is a cantrip with a 1 Action cast time.

 

[ichabod]

But Attack is an action. Extra Attack isn't just two attacks, it's two attacks as one Action.

So? We know things can happen between those attacks. Movement can happen, reactions can happen. I'm saying that I don't see where it says other things can't happen between those attacks.

It's the same reason it matters what order you cast bonus spells in. If you cast a Bonus Action spell, the ONLY spell you can cast after than is a cantrip with a 1 Action cast time.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the question at hand. Bonus action spells aren't about doing things in the middle of other actions, they're about one action limiting what other actions can be taken after the first action is complete.