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

[ezo]

That doesn't really change anything, though. The point they are trying to push is that if the rules don't say, it's automatically a yes.

No, not at all. Now who is putting words in other peoples' posts???

I've said, what half-a-dozen times,--"The rules don't say either way, the DM/group decides"?

 

[Maxperson]

No, not at all. Now who is putting words in other peoples' posts???

I've said, what half-a-dozen times,--"The rules don't say either way, the DM/group decides"?

When I've been saying exactly that since post number 1 on the topic and you've been arguing against me, it heavily implies that you are defaulting to yes. If your position was that the DM/group decides and RAW doesn't allow it, you'd have agreed with me right away.

And even if you are saying that, @ECMO3 has been arguing that since RAW doesn't say, he can do it. That's defaulting to yes.

 

[ezo]

When I've been saying exactly that since post number 1 on the topic and you've been arguing against me, it heavily implies that you are defaulting to yes.

Actually, no, you haven't. Your first post on the topic:

Action surge is not a bonus action. It's like extra attack and you can just do it on your turn. In 5e specific beats general. Movement is specifically allowed in-between attacks. Bonus actions with unspecified timing can specifically be used at any time, which would include in-between attacks. Action surge has no specific exceptions AND provides a new entire action. I would not allow it and the rules do not say it can be done, so it can't be done by RAW.

No mention of the "DM making the decision." You jumped right into a RAW position by citing rules on movement and the timing of bonus actions. Neither of which have any implication on when Action Surge can be used as one is a rule on movement and the other on bonus actions. My arguments have been against you claiming it can't be done RAW because the rules do not say it can be done.

If your position was that the DM/group decides and RAW doesn't allow it, you'd have agreed with me right away.

No, I couldn't agree with you right away, because your claim was "RAW doesn't allow it." My position was RAW doesn't explicitly allow or prohibit it, so it is up to the DM or group. You eventually started including "DM houserule", but it isn't a houserule, it is a RULING. I realize the distinction is minor, and perhaps that was what you actually meant?

Anyway, my position has always been that it is up to the DM/group. And since anything not explicitly denied by the rules, by RAW is permissible since that call is up to the DM (or group, if included in the decision). Your position has been: because it isn't written you can do it, by default RAW is you can't. The "default" isn't that you can't: the default is it is up to the DM (which you came around to...).

Here are my posts:

So, while RAW I see nothing preventing this, and would certainly allow it, (via the RAW of a DM's call)

Sure, just like Action Surge, there is no rule explicitly forbidding breaking up an action to perform another action or bonus action.

Anything not explicitly called out in the rules leaves allowing or not completely up to the DM.

That's my point: it isn't explicitly stated, so by default it is allowed and up to the DM to rule otherwise

All of this simply returns me to my initial position: there is no rule in either direction, so it really is just up to the DM...

And after you entered the discussion, my responses were about it is not allowed or disallowed by RAW simply because it is or isn't written anywhere.

However, no such rule exists in 5E... So such things have to be decided by each DM for themselves. To be clear, there's nothing wrong with your interpretation, either, except when you claim it [not allowing it] is "RAW", which it blatantly isn't.

Of course, neither is there a rule written that an action can be interrupted by another action... which is why arguing either side is RAW is futile, since neither "rule" is actually written anywhere. So, it is just up for each DM/group to decide whether such action "interruptions" make sense to the narrative, are cool, or by whatever criteria they decide to use.

So, until you show me where it is explicitly written you cannot take one action when you take another, there IS NO GENERAL RULE. Such a "RAW" does not exist. As I have said, repeatedly, neither rule is explicitly written so cannot be considered RAW and it us up to each group to run it as they choose.

FOR THE LAST TIME: There is NO rule written in 5E that says either of these two things:

Anything not explicitly defined or prohibited by RAW, is therefore allowed by RAW since the game lets you do anything not strictly prohibited or explicitly defined.

Actually, the RAW is that the DM decides.

So, in summary ( ), you claimed because it wasn't written anywhere in the rules that it is allowed, then RAW it can't be done. But RAW isn't that it can't be done, RAW is that the DM/group decides because it isn't explicity covered in the books either way. If it was explicitly covered, groups that follow that rule would be following RAW, and those which don't would be house-ruling against it.

And even if you are saying that, @ECMO3 has been arguing that since RAW doesn't say, he can do it. That's defaulting to yes.

While I can't speak directly for @ECMO3, I can say in a quick review of his (?) posts that they questioned the RAW implication, only really arguing RAW once you jumped in claiming RAW was because it doesn't say you can do it, you can't.

IIRC, his position was just that he can do it, not that RAW automatically says he can. He began in the OP that he didn't know what the books might say about it. He argued against your claim that RAW was he can't do it, which (hopefully) you understand now is not the case.

RAW doesn't say or imply anything about it either way, the only RAW is that any ruling on this is up to the DM/group to decide, so that it best fits with their style of play. If you can understand and agree with that, then yes, we are in agreement. However, if you continue to insist only that "the rules do not say it can be done, so it can't be done by RAW", then we will continue to disagree.

 

[Maxperson]

Actually, no, you haven't. Your first post on the topic:

No mention of the "DM making the decision." You jumped right into a RAW position by citing rules on movement and the timing of bonus actions. Neither of which have any implication on when Action Surge can be used as one is a rule on movement and the other on bonus actions. My arguments have been against you claiming it can't be done RAW because the rules do not say it can be done.

So first, it's not a rule on movement. It's a rule on extra attack involving movement. The rule on combat movement is that you can move before your attack OR after your attack. Second, by saying it's not allowed or cannot be done by RAW automatically includes RAW is silent on the topic and that the DM has to make a ruling. The DM has to make rulings any time the rules are silent on something the player wants to try.

Did I explicitly spell it out? No. I didn't have to, because it's part of what I said.

No, I couldn't agree with you right away, because your claim was "RAW doesn't allow it." My position was RAW doesn't explicitly allow or prohibit it, so it is up to the DM or group. You eventually started including "DM houserule", but it isn't a houserule, it is a RULING. I realize the distinction is minor, and perhaps that was what you actually meant?

And you agree that RAW doesn't allow it. Again, after explaining this to you at LEAST 5 times now, you are still trying(and I have to assume deliberately) to conflate "RAW does not allow" with "RAW disallows." The former means that there is no RAW saying that you can do it. The latter means RAW explicitly denies.

Why are you deliberately misconstruing my position after being told several times what the words mean?

Anyway, my position has always been that it is up to the DM/group. And since anything not explicitly denied by the rules, by RAW is permissible since that call is up to the DM (or group, if included in the decision). Your position has been: because it isn't written you can do it, by default RAW is you can't. The "default" isn't that you can't: the default is it is up to the DM (which you came around to...).

I changed that a long time ago from can't to maybe, because from the very beginning I have been saying that the DM has to decide.

If RAW is silent on something, it's permissible by the DM/group only and non-permissible by the DM/group only simultaneously until the DM makes the ruling. In other words, it's a maybe.

And after you entered the discussion, my responses were about it is not allowed or disallowed by RAW simply because it is or isn't written anywhere.

Not once did I ever say it was disallowed by RAW. Not once.

So, in summary ( ), you claimed because it wasn't written anywhere in the rules that it is allowed, then RAW it can't be done. But RAW isn't that it can't be done, RAW is that the DM/group decides because it isn't explicity covered in the books either way. If it was explicitly covered, groups that follow that rule would be following RAW, and those which don't would be house-ruling against it.

Yet another conflation! By RAW it cannot be done, because you cannot show in the Rules As Written that it can be done. If you cannot show an explicit rule allowing it, then it cannot by the written rules be done. I'll repeat for the 7th time, "RAW does not allow" is not the same as "RAW disallows."

STOP conflating them.

IIRC, his position was just that he can do it, not that RAW automatically says he can. He began in the OP that he didn't know what the books might say about it. He argued against your claim that RAW was he can't do it, which (hopefully) you understand now is not the case.

And yet another conflation! I've never once argued that RAW says he can't do it. Not once and you can't quote an instance of my saying that.

Do you seriously fail to understand the very distinct difference between "Not allowed by RAW" and "Disallowed by RAW?" Or are you just deliberately misconstruing my position?

RAW Allows = Written rule allowing it to be done.
RAW Does Not Allow = No written rule allowing or disallowing it to be done.
RAW Disallows = Written rule denying the ability to do it.

 

[ezo]

So first, it's not a rule on movement. It's a rule on extra attack involving movement. The rule on combat movement is that you can move before your attack OR after your attack.

Boy, you really just don't get it and refuse to see the facts, don't you?

Under the Movement and Position rules. It is a rule about movement before/after your actions (not just attacking). The section on attacks is simply explaining how, IF you have more than one attack, you can break up your move further. They purposefully included this so people would understand if you have Extra Attack or Multiattack, you can move between individual attacks, you are not limited to move, attack-attack, move. Without this special rule on movement, you would be limited to moving, making all your attacks, and then maybe moving again.

Second, by saying it's not allowed or cannot be done by RAW automatically includes RAW is silent on the topic and that the DM has to make a ruling. The DM has to make rulings any time the rules are silent on something the player wants to try.

I know that, but you posted (especially initially) like YOU didn't believe it.

Did I explicitly spell it out? No. I didn't have to, because it's part of what I said.

No, you didn't say it at all, and I quoted you on that. Maybe you said it later, but not in your earlier posts...

And you agree that RAW doesn't allow it. Again, after explaining this to you at LEAST 5 times now, you are still trying(and I have to assume deliberately) to conflate "RAW does not allow" with "RAW disallows." The former means that there is no RAW saying that you can do it. The latter means RAW explicitly denies.

It is silent on the issue either way, and thus the only RAW is the DM/group makes that ruling. You know that, so how many times do I have to tell you that?

I am not conflating anything. "RAW does not allow" means it does not have a RULE saying you can. RAW disallows says it is, BY RULE, prohibited unless a specific feature allows it. For example, humans have no flying speed, and so cannot fly, unless the gain a flying speed via a spell or magic item or other feature. I really think you do not understand that difference.

Why are you deliberately misconstruing my position after being told several times what the words mean?

I changed that a long time ago from can't to maybe, because from the very beginning I have been saying that the DM has to decide.

If RAW is silent on something, it's permissible by the DM/group only and non-permissible by the DM/group only simultaneously until the DM makes the ruling. In other words, it's a maybe.

Not once did I ever say it was disallowed by RAW. Not once.

I am not.
You changed (at some point), but you never said that "from the very beginning". I quoted your post afterall and you don't say anything of the kind.
Yeah, I know it's a maybe... I've been saying that all along--you weren't, and yes eventually saw the light and changed your position.
I never said you did say it was "disallowed by RAW". Not once.

Yet another conflation! By RAW it cannot be done, because you cannot show in the Rules As Written that it can be done. If you cannot show an explicit rule allowing it, then it cannot by the written rules be done. I'll repeat for the 7th time, "RAW does not allow" is not the same as "RAW disallows."

STOP conflating them.

Yeah, as I said, I'm not. I just explained the difference between the two. If you want to get off that, I'd appreciate it.

And yet another conflation! I've never once argued that RAW says he can't do it. Not once and you can't quote an instance of my saying that.

Seriously? Ok...

I would not allow it and the rules do not say it can be done, so it can't be done by RAW.

Man, it's in your very first post! Which, again I post earlier in the post you replied to. It is RIGHT there!!!

Do you seriously fail to understand the very distinct difference between "Not allowed by RAW" and "Disallowed by RAW?" Or are you just deliberately misconstruing my position?

RAW Allows = Written rule allowing it to be done.
RAW Does Not Allow = No written rule allowing or disallowing it to be done.
RAW Disallows = Written rule denying the ability to do it.

Your initital position was either wrong, or at best incomplete and misleading as to your intent. You defended it again and again, and without really acknowledging repeated attempts to demonstrate your oversight or mistake. I was not minsconstruing it, I was just using precisely what you wrote.

So, yeah, I'm done with you on this. I've got a game-day to go enjoy.

 

[Maxperson]

Boy, you really just don't get it and refuse to see the facts, don't you?

View attachment 345804

Under the Movement and Position rules. It is a rule about movement before/after your actions (not just attacking). The section on attacks is simply explaining how, IF you have more than one attack, you can break up your move further. They purposefully included this so people would understand if you have Extra Attack or Multiattack, you can move between individual attacks, you are not limited to move, attack-attack, move. Without this special rule on movement, you would be limited to moving, making all your attacks, and then maybe moving again.

Looks like you missed.

"On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed-sometimes called..."

You cannot move during your action. Oh, wait. There's a specific rule dealing ONLY with the attack action that will allow you to move during it.

They put it in the movement area, but it deals ONLY with the attack action. Viewing rules in a white room without considering the other rules they interact with isn't helpful to you. That is not a movement only rule. It's a movement rule dealing explicitly with a single action, so it is also a rule about that action.

I am not conflating anything. "RAW does not allow" means it does not have a RULE saying you can. RAW disallows says it is, BY RULE, prohibited unless a specific feature allows it. For example, humans have no flying speed, and so cannot fly, unless the gain a flying speed via a spell or magic item or other feature. I really think you do not understand that difference.

Since I have from the beginning, and yes what I said in that first quote has it built in, said that RAW does not allow.

You stepped in to argue a figment of your imagination, not any position of mine.

You changed (at some point), but you never said that "from the very beginning". I quoted your post afterall and you don't say anything of the kind.

"and the rules do not say it can be done, so it can't be done by RAW." includes the DM has to decide, since anything RAW doesn't cover is a rulings over rules moment. It's built in. What's so hard about that for you to understand?

 

[ezo]

You stepped in to argue a figment of your imagination, not any position of mine.

Done with you. Get it?

 

[Maxperson]

Done with you. Get it?

Yep. I have a personal policy, though. If someone gives me a detailed response and then at the very end says they are done, I will respond one last time to their detailed response and then let it drop with them. It's really tacky to try to get in a big last word and THEN bow out. If you want there not to be a last response by me, just say you want to be done without a detailed response in the post and I will drop it immediately.

 

[ezo]

Yep. I have a personal policy, though. If someone gives me a detailed response and then at the very end says they are done, I will respond one last time to their detailed response and then let it drop with them. It's really tacky to try to get in a big last word and THEN bow out. If you want there not to be a last response by me, just say you want to be done without a detailed response in the post and I will drop it immediately.

Cool. No issues. The "debate" (?) has been... well, engaging.

 

[ECMO3]

When I've been saying exactly that since post number 1 on the topic and you've been arguing against me, it heavily implies that you are defaulting to yes. If your position was that the DM/group decides and RAW doesn't allow it, you'd have agreed with me right away.

Stating the group/DM decides is not the same as saying that RAW does not allow it. You have been saying the last multiple times on this thread.

And even if you are saying that, @ECMO3 has been arguing that since RAW doesn't say, he can do it. That's defaulting to yes.

That is absolutely, 100% not what I said. I am who posted the original question on this thread because I wanted opinions.