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

[ichabod]

The principles of exception based rule design coupled with the rules as a whole all taken together.

There is no single line, but there doesn’t need to be (see the example of humans and fire resistance above). If this was allowed the rules would say so somewhere - even if it’s just an indirect, you can take an action anytime on your turn.

You're saying there needs to be an exception to a rule, but you can't state the rule that you need an exception to. And I think if you take the rules as a whole, the combat turn is obviously meant to be fluid. You can break up your move, you can break up your action with your move, you can do your bonus action whenever you want to, you can break up actions with reactions, you can do a free object interaction whenever you want to. Nowhere does it state what order things have to happen on your turn. That fluidity is what you need an exception to. And there isn't one.

Humans and fire resistance isn't a good example. There are rules that your features come from your race and your class, and the race has to explicitly grant them (PHB p. 11).

 

[FrogReaver]

You're saying there needs to be an exception to a rule, but you can't state the rule that you need an exception to. And I think if you take the rules as a whole, the combat turn is obviously meant to be fluid. You can break up your move, you can break up your action with your move, you can do your bonus action whenever you want to, you can break up actions with reactions, you can do a free object interaction whenever you want to. Nowhere does it state what order things have to happen on your turn. That fluidity is what you need an exception to. And there isn't one.

I’m saying rules for exception based games can come up as part of the whole games text without an explicit line. That shouldn’t really be controversial.

Humans and fire resistance isn't a good example. There are rules that your features come from your race and your class, and the race has to explicitly grant them (PHB p. 11).

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

 

[James Gasik]

There's an awful lot of things you're allowed to do pretty much whenever. If I'm a Paladin and I crit on my first of two attacks, I can Smite. I can split up my movement during my turn. If I attack and my opponent casts Shield, I can cast Counterspell. The division of your turn into distinct phases (such as 4e's Move/Minor/Standard) was shucked by 5e's design, which was a little difficult for me to get used to when I started playing 5e.

Now we have an ability that can be used at any time desired during one's turn to take an additional action, and some people feel that it needs to be siloed off as something that can't be done until whatever distinct action you're taking is complete.

Just last night in the D&D game I play in, our new Fighter was moving, hit a patch of terrain that he didn't know was difficult terrain, and asked the DM if he could retroactively Dash with his action surge and the DM was like "sure fine, why not?".

Curious about this, I looked online, and instantly found Sage Advice saying that Dash just gives you extra movement on your turn. In fact, if you can Dash as a bonus Action, you're also allowed to "double Dash" to get three times your speed. And from the other comments, like "Standing up devours half your speed. The Dash action has no effect on your speed.", I realized I'd been thinking about Dash all along- that it was an action you had to take before you moved to figure out how much movement you had on a turn, when in reality, it's apparently just a special action to let you move equal to your speed whenever you needed a burst of speed (like 3e's move and move as a standard).

So this really does say, to me, that you can do whatever your character is allowed to do on their turns in any order or whenever desired. If I can take the attack action, make one attack, move, decide to Dash as a bonus action (if I'm say, a Monk) for more move, and then make my other attacks, plus throw in a reaction (say 2024's Deflect Attacks) if needed, saying "no no, you can't also use Action Surge" seems really arbitrary to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's an awful lot of things you're allowed to do pretty much whenever. If I'm a Paladin and I crit on my first of two attacks, I can Smite. I can split up my movement during my turn. If I attack and my opponent casts Shield, I can cast Counterspell. The division of your turn into distinct phases (such as 4e's Move/Minor/Standard) was shucked by 5e's design, which was a little difficult for me to get used to when I started playing 5e.

Now we have an ability that can be used at any time desired during one's turn to take an additional action, and some people feel that it needs to be siloed off as something that can't be done until whatever distinct action you're taking is complete.

Just last night in the D&D game I play in, our new Fighter was moving, hit a patch of terrain that he didn't know was difficult terrain, and asked the DM if he could retroactively Dash with his action surge and the DM was like "sure fine, why not?".

Curious about this, I looked online, and instantly found Sage Advice saying that Dash just gives you extra movement on your turn. In fact, if you can Dash as a bonus Action, you're also allowed to "double Dash" to get three times your speed. And from the other comments, like "Standing up devours half your speed. The Dash action has no effect on your speed.", I realized I'd been thinking about Dash all along- that it was an action you had to take before you moved to figure out how much movement you had on a turn, when in reality, it's apparently just a special action to let you move equal to your speed whenever you needed a burst of speed (like 3e's move and move as a standard).

So this really does say, to me, that you can do whatever your character is allowed to do on their turns in any order or whenever desired. If I can take the attack action, make one attack, move, decide to Dash as a bonus action (if I'm say, a Monk) for more move, and then make my other attacks, plus throw in a reaction (say 2024's Deflect Attacks) if needed, saying "no no, you can't also use Action Surge" seems really arbitrary to me.

It really cannot be stressed enough that all those things you are allowed to do that you mention are explicitly allowed to be done in the game text. Moving between attacks - explicitly in the rules. Moving before and after your action - explicitly in the rules. Using your reaction to counterspell - explicitly in the rules. Using your action/bonus action to dash for extra movement - explicitly in the rules.

 

[billd91]

So this really does say, to me, that you can do whatever your character is allowed to do on their turns in any order or whenever desired. If I can take the attack action, make one attack, move, decide to Dash as a bonus action (if I'm say, a Monk) for more move, and then make my other attacks, plus throw in a reaction (say 2024's Deflect Attacks) if needed, saying "no no, you can't also use Action Surge" seems really arbitrary to me.

One difference to consider is that with the monk example here, the action is being broken up by other things - movement, bonus action, reaction - NOT by another action. The ability to take 2 actions in the same round is, as far as I can remember, unique to the fighter.

I've been giving it some thought and I'm inclined to generally NOT allow it. I'm looking at other things that might be done as actions between a fighter's attacks given by their regular action in the round. Here are some thoughts:

Attack - seems like it wouldn't be a big deal, but then taking them sequentially wouldn't be a big deal either so kind of a wash
Cast a Spell - the case in question with the OP
Dash - can be done with a bonus action, so maybe not a problem?
Disengage - could be done with a bonus action by certain characters (fighter/rogues), but if a main action, kind of steps on the mobile feat's territory
Hide - could be a real problem if the fighter is using ranged attacks and is in hide-appropriate terrain. Shoot, hide, scoot a little, pop-up and shoot again with advantage? That seems a bit sus to me. Again, doable with a fighter/rogue with bonus actions, but that's a fair premium to pay to do that and should a fighter be able to do it too even if it does burn a short rest resource?

 

[Stormonu]

None of the actions listed above sound anywhere near gamebreaking to me, especially with this being something that the fighter is going to pull off once in a given combat (and maybe once a day, at that). I think the last one with Hide is something that a Battlemaster can do with the right maneuver as is.

 

[FrogReaver]

None of the actions listed above sound anywhere near gamebreaking to me, especially with this being something that the fighter is going to pull off once in a given combat (and maybe once a day, at that). I think the last one with Hide is something that a Battlemaster can do with the right maneuver as is.

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

 

[Stormonu]

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

Well, for me Rule of Cool trumps RAW. I’m beyond my 3E days of Rules Lawyering things to death.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, for me Rule of Cool trumps RAW. I’m beyond my 3E days of Rules Lawyering things to death.

Mine too. But what is RAW is still a valid question IMO.

 

[p_johnston]

That's my point: it isn't explicitly stated, so by default it is allowed and up to the DM to rule otherwise. Which, is an entirely valid ruling as well, and if it "seems reasonable" to you, would be fine of course.

If the 5E designers wanted it to be intended, they would have easily added: "Once an action is begun, it must be completed before any other action can be taken." This would prevent bonus actions during actions, etc. The obvious exceptions (specific over general) would be attacking and taking reactions.

So, my question was what reference made you think this way? And the answer is "None." Again, perfectly valid, and going with your gut is what most of 5E is about.

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 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.

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.