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

[S'mon]

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

They give explicit permission to move attack move. I don't see how that indicates that you do need something explicit to act in the middle of another action. Move is not an action in 5e. AFAICT the implication is much more that you can split stuff up however you like.

 

[Blue]

They give explicit permission to move attack move. I don't see how that indicates that you do need something explicit to act in the middle of another action. Move is not an action in 5e. AFAICT the implication is much more that you can split stuff up however you like.

"Hey, this grants explicit permission"

"That's implies much more that nothing else requires explicit permission!"

Sorry, I don't follow your logic.

 

[James Gasik]

Ok so...

Attack Move Attack is ok.
Attack Move oh wait I need more movement bonus Action Dash Attack is ok.
But Attack Move oh wait I need more movement Action Surge Dash Attack would not be ok?

 

[ichabod]

Care to cite which rule from PHB 11 you have in mind?

Care to cite which rule says you can't break up an action?

Right. I don’t think there’s any disagreement about this being problematic to allow - just in whether RAW allows.

In that case I would have to say RAW is not clear. The key point is can an action be broken up by another action or not, and there is nothing in the rules clarifying that either way. And as others have pointed out, that's because it is a very unlikely scenario that the designers probably never even thought about.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't like the idea that a specific example means that there's a general rule. If a rule isn't stated in the text, it isn't a rule as written, though you might call it a rule as intended.

Therefore, in this case RAW is silent. The dm makes a call, based on how they feel.

In this case, I would say yes, because I can't come up with a good reason to say no. But that's my own perameter for these things, you might have different criteria.

P.S. as a related question (and this isn't meant as some kind of gotcha Im just genuinely interested in what your ruling would be based on your previous posts) what would you say if someone wanted to action surge mid chain lightning? After the initial hit but before the secondary bolts.

I probably would, whether the extra Action came form Action Surge or haste. I'd also allow the caster to move between bolts (if they have the movement for it.)

 

[billd91]

Ok so...

Attack Move Attack is ok.
Attack Move oh wait I need more movement bonus Action Dash Attack is ok.
But Attack Move oh wait I need more movement Action Surge Dash Attack would not be ok?

The main problem is the action surge can be ANY action, not just dash. A couple of classes can dash as a bonus action to emphasize the class's combat style so that kind of thing in their combat is expected. But the action surge is a lot more flexible, powerful, and significant. For example, the dispel magic might seem kind of cool, but it could theoretically be any 1 action spell. Evard's black tentacle, bless, dimension door, invisibility, harm, dominate person, etc. It just seem a bit... much... to enable a fighter (or more likely fighter multi class) to adjust mid-action with another equivalent action to add some kind of benefit to their 2nd+ attack in a round based on some reaction to or observation from their first attack.
I'm not sure there's a specific mind-boggling synergy that would happen using an action surge to interrupt an action. But the broad flexibility of the action leaves that door open.

 

[Guest 7037866]

There is also no rule stating that’s humans don’t get resistance to fire. Guess that’s entirely up to the DM as well…

I don’t like how your principles lead to absurd interpretations.

LOL, please STOP, just STOP! You are making me LAUGH SO HARD!!!

Seriously, this response is just ridiculous. There IS a rule explicitly stating what racial traits are, and who gets what. Please don't waste my time further.

I did manage to track down which particular line likely led me to thinking that way. "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" seems to indicate to me that it's intended that you complete your action before doing other things. But again, this is mostly pedantic argument because it is a gray area.

I can see how you might think this, but again this is about movement and actions, not about actions and (bonus) actions. It might indicatate that to you, but that isn't what it actually says concerning actions and actions. The section on Breaking Up Your Move says you can move, take your action, and move again. You don't have to move and then act, or act and then move (you can of course!), which is more what your quote (bolded) would indicate.

I also think its simply more likely that the designers simply never considered the rules application of taking another action mid action because 99% of the time it will never come up. You never have to worry about "can someone take another action mid fireball?" because fireball isn't broken up into discrete parts. Other then Multi-attack and a few odd spells like chain lightning most actions don't have multiple steps to resolve them where in someone could do something else.

True. I agree it is an issue which the designers overlooked. It has come up numerous times, such as Shield Master, which the designers have flip-flopped on. First is was you have to complete the Attack action before you can bonus action shove. Then it became you have to take the Attack action, allowing you to bonus action shove after just one attack, and finish attacking after the shove.

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...

P.S. as a related question (and this isn't meant as some kind of gotcha Im just genuinely interested in what your ruling would be based on your previous posts) what would you say if someone wanted to action surge mid chain lightning? After the initial hit but before the secondary bolts.

No worries. I feel your posts are in good faith and I wouldn't see this as a "gotcha" anyway.

My ruling would be "no" simply because the spell (like eldritch blast above) is instantaneous. I wouldn't allow someone to move between the separate rays of eldritch blast, either. The section on Moving Between Attacks is about "weapon" attacks, not spell attacks.

Now, its interesting, JC has stated the rays in EB were meant to be completed consecutively. So, if you hit a target and kill it, the next blast isn't wasted and can target a different foe. Chain Lightning allows you to pick up to to three targets after the first, and all targets are hit instantly. There is literally no time to Action Surge for another action before the spell is resolved.

The Attack action isn't instantaneous IMO. Sure, nothing says it "isn't", and nothing says it "is", so DMs and Players get to run things in whatever way makes the most sense to them.

I probably would, whether the extra Action came form Action Surge or haste. I'd also allow the caster to move between bolts (if they have the movement for it.)

And here is a perfect response in the other direction from mine. Totally valid and if I played with such a DM it wouldn't bother me at all.

As you know from my (I believe) first post, not every situation or scenario is covered in the rules. Logical use of the time permitted in the game, use of features, spells, etc. break up that time in a way which just has to make sense (and FUN!) to those who play. That's all.

 

[James Gasik]

The main problem is the action surge can be ANY action, not just dash. A couple of classes can dash as a bonus action to emphasize the class's combat style so that kind of thing in their combat is expected. But the action surge is a lot more flexible, powerful, and significant. For example, the dispel magic might seem kind of cool, but it could theoretically be any 1 action spell. Evard's black tentacle, bless, dimension door, invisibility, harm, dominate person, etc. It just seem a bit... much... to enable a fighter (or more likely fighter multi class) to adjust mid-action with another equivalent action to add some kind of benefit to their 2nd+ attack in a round based on some reaction to or observation from their first attack.
I'm not sure there's a specific mind-boggling synergy that would happen using an action surge to interrupt an action. But the broad flexibility of the action leaves that door open.

That magic actions are problematic with Action Surge is known- while legal in 2014, it seems that they will no longer be legal in 2024, so it can be seen as an exploit.

But I'm not so sure that it's problematic to use other kinds of actions. For example, let us suppose a foe has a reaction to turn invisible and become hidden upon being struck. If you have a second attack, you now have to forfeit that attack or find something else to hit.

If, however, a Fighter player wished to Action Surge to take a Search Action to try and find their foe to get that second swing in, do you still think that seems to be a bit too much? Or say you get disarmed somehow and want to draw a new weapon- do we say you lose all other attacks if you try to do so? Or are we ok with using the "free" Use an Object but not an Action Surge Use an Object?

I just find this odd that the Fighter's Extra Attack is "locked in", not allowing them to adjust for changing situations in combat, save for exceptions like bonus action attacks, reactions, or movement.

Also, to use your own words:

A couple of classes can dash as a bonus action to emphasize the class's combat style so that kind of thing in their combat is expected.

Isn't the Fighter's ability to use Action Surge emphasizing their combat style of their class as well? Isn't this the kind of thing expected in their combats?

 

[FrogReaver]

They give explicit permission to move attack move. I don't see how that indicates that you do need something explicit to act in the middle of another action. Move is not an action in 5e. AFAICT the implication is much more that you can split stuff up however you like.

And yet, every single one of the split ups you bring up have explicit rules granting the ability to do them. Well except for nesting actions…

 

[FrogReaver]

LOL, please STOP, just STOP! You are making me LAUGH SO HARD!!!

Seriously, this response is just ridiculous. There IS a rule explicitly stating what racial traits are, and who gets what. Please don't waste my time further.

Then this shouldn’t be hard - Where is the rule that says humans don’t get fire resistance?