A Question on Action Surge

[Stormthroe]

Good Morrow Playgrounders,

I have a question for you. I noticed in my most recent game, playing a War cleric/fighter multiclassed at Cleric 3/Fighter 2, that in the wording for Action Surge you are able to take both another action AND another bonus action on the turn it is dropped. I ruled with the DM and he allowed me to use that rule during the turn, which resulted in a hilariously overkilled group of scarecrows from the resulting four Silvered Maul attacks, two base attacks + 2 War Priest attacks on the bonus actions ruling that Action Surge gives another action and bonus action.

I couldn't find an errata, but is this how you folks rule on Action Surge?

[Ninja_Prawn]

My ruling: "absolutely not." Action Surge gives you an action. One action. Nothing else. No extra bonus action, no extra movement, no extra object interaction (though you can trade a full action for one). I can see why people might feel otherwise, but to my eyes, the text is clear. You gain an action on top of the action and (potential) bonus action that you already had.

[DragonBaneDM]

Yeah dude, it says on top of your normal actions. You get one action.

[Dalebert]

Actions and bonus actions are distinctly different things so definitely not. It only gives you an action. Now, I've always understood your free object interaction (like drawing a sword) to be part of your action so that one might be a little more ambiguous. Maybe the text clarifies it and my understanding is wrong.

[Gwendol]

There should be no ambiguity here, which is probably why you didn't find any errata text about this. Action surge gives you an extra action.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

There should be no ambiguity here, which is probably why you didn't find any errata text about this. Action surge gives you an extra action.

This right here.

The only way it lets you have another bonus action is if you adds words to the ability.

It doesn't say turn, it doesn't say action and bonus action, and it doesn't say a lot of other things people think it says.

The ability is broken when you multiclass with it, there is no reason to further power it up.

[DanyBallon]

Text says you get an aditionnal action on top of your normal action and reminds you that you can still take a bonus action (remember that you don't automatically get a bonus action every turn) if you haven't already took one this turn.

[Stormthroe]

I'm away from book at the moment, but we were looking and it does say bonus action in the text. I'll have to read it upon closer inspection once I'm home, but I'll bring it up with the DM anyways prior to this week's game just to clear it up. It was just a very weird wording.

^ninja'd
That may be what we had interpreted wrong.

[Dalebert]

I assume people misunderstand this because they haven't fully grokked how the actions system works in 5e. If anything it's more straight-forward than previous editions but this is another case, I believe, of people just assuming things from previous editions and having difficulty letting go and embracing a completely revamped way of doing things. If you read up on actions in the PHB, there will be no ambiguity.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I'm away from book at the moment, but we were looking and it does say bonus action in the text. I'll have to read it upon closer inspection once I'm home, but I'll bring it up with the DM anyways prior to this week's game just to clear it up. It was just a very weird wording.

No. It uses plain english and does not use weird wording. Only when you skim it would it have weird wording.

+×÷%+×÷%
Action Surge
Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action.

Once you use this feature, you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again. Starting at 17th level, you can use it twice before a rest, but only once on the same turn.
+×÷%+×=%

Bolded by me.

[Zejety]

I suppose you can read it like

On your turn, you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action.
instead of the intended

On your turn, you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action.

But it is a bit of a stretch.

[Stormthroe]

We had read it the first way, it was just a general question one of the players brought up as I'd originally meant to just take an additional attack and he mentioned it. Our DM just kinda shrugged and said if that was it, then that was it. No rifts or anything, just an inquiry.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I suppose you can read it like

instead of the intended


But it is a bit of a stretch.

If you skim the text I'm sure it's possible, but if you read it then not likely.

I feel like there is a cent-i-pad joke in there somewhere.

[Dalebert]

Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action on top of your regular action and a possible bonus action.


Oh... The meaning is quite clear to me however, let me throw some parens in there and see if this helps.

On your turn, you can take one additional action on top of (your regular action and a possible bonus action.)

I suspect what you're subconsciously doing is messing up the grammar a bit along the lines of--

On your turn, you can take one additional action (on top of your regular action) and a possible bonus action.

Even there, it's still not saying that at all. "a possible bonus action" is still one possible bonus action. Again, you might not even get that one bonus action unless you have something to do with it like two-handed fighting or a bonus action spell or something. "Additional" clearly only applies to "action".

On your turn you can take
1) An additional action
2) Your regular action
3) Possibly a bonus action in some cases

Total: 2 actions and 1 bonus action

[coredump]

We had read it the first way, it was just a general question one of the players brought up as I'd originally meant to just take an additional attack and he mentioned it. Our DM just kinda shrugged and said if that was it, then that was it. No rifts or anything, just an inquiry.

Despite the reaction here.....yours was a common misunderstanding. It is fairly easy to group the phrases incorrectly.

But the upshot is.....no additional Bonus Action

[Stormthroe]

@coredump

I've grown used to such reactions on the interweb, not a problem :smallbiggrin:

I'll let the DM and the player who chimed it in there know. All will be well with the world and the neckbeards can be appeased. Thanks guys!

[Dimolyth]

This right here.
The ability is broken when you multiclass with it, there is no reason to further power it up.

This is not that horrible broken. Spellcaster will still suffer - one non-cantrip spell per turn. Rogues and Paladins will suffer from lack of Sneak Attack and Smite progression. There could exist some crazy combinations (warlockX+fighter2+sorcerer3) for blasting a dozen of Eldritch Blasts per round... but is that is relevant optimization for one round per short rest?

Action Surge is solid and cool option. Not "broken" and "overpowered", but still.

And yes, AS grants only one additional action. That`s all.

[joaber]

This is not that horrible broken. Spellcaster will still suffer - one non-cantrip spell per turn. Rogues and Paladins will suffer from lack of Sneak Attack and Smite progression. There could exist some crazy combinations (warlockX+fighter2+sorcerer3) for blasting a dozen of Eldritch Blasts per round... but is that is relevant optimization for one round per short rest?

Action Surge is solid and cool option. Not "broken" and "overpowered", but still.

And yes, AS grants only one additional action. That`s all.

In fact, RAW, you can use action surge to cast a second spell in your turn. Still not broken, you need to burn two levels as fighter to do that (only one time per short rest).

[Foxhound438]

the neckbeards can be appeased.

your blatant lie here will not go unpunished, neckbeards will be angry at you until the end of time

on a serious note though it's not the worst thing i've seen people fudge action surge up with. One time we started a campaign at L5, the fighter was dual wielding and swung 4 times every turn (he thought extra attack gave him two bonus swings)... and if that wasn't bad enough, action surged and swung EIGHT TIMES ...

another time someone was adding temporary hp procs together... you'd figure if you chose the only class that gets the option of the only subclass that gives THP at level one without burning spell slots or taking a feat, you would read up on the mechanic... literally could have read the THP rule once and not made that mistake.

So no, it's not a hugely rare mistake to think that act surge gives a bonus action too, since with an assumed comma or two it would.

[JackPhoenix]

I suppose you can read it like

instead of the intended


But it is a bit of a stretch.

Not really...some languages use a different sentence structure from English, if the reader have such native language, he may easily read it the wrong way. That needs a less familiarity with English, though.

[Arkhios]

Not really...some languages use a different sentence structure from English, if the reader have such native language, he may easily read it the wrong way. That needs a less familiarity with English, though.

This. Folks from non-english-speaking-nations may even write english wrong, mirroring their own native language into it subconsciously. (As I do from time to time). Punctuation is so subtle thing to get wrong. For example, I'm reasonably learned in english, but still I'm making mistakes. I admit that sometimes when reading the rules or other english texts, I may subconsciously imagine there was a comma, where in truth wasn't. It's not all that uncommon.

[Zejety]

Not really...some languages use a different sentence structure from English, if the reader have such native language, he may easily read it the wrong way. That needs a less familiarity with English, though.

Yeah, that came off more dismissive than I meant to. Sorry if I offended anybody.

[coredump]

Even to native English speakers, it's an easy misunderstanding.

[Vogonjeltz]

Even to native English speakers, it's an easy misunderstanding.

I wouldn't go that far, the sentence as written does, after all, have only one meaning.

If anything this could serve as a moment to reflect on the problems inherent to careless action, instead of simply deflecting criticism and externalizing to protect ones ego.

[coredump]

I wouldn't go that far, the sentence as written does, after all, have only one meaning.

If anything this could serve as a moment to reflect on the problems inherent to careless action, instead of simply deflecting criticism and externalizing to protect ones ego.

Perhaps this could serve as a moment to reflect on what causes someone to be pompous and condescending.....instead of simply being helpful.

You have lept to an erroneous conclusion, I am not trying to protect my ego; there is no need.

And despite your personal opinion that this passage is easy to understand, there have been numerous threads, here and elsewhere, specifically about the confusion caused by that passage.

And yes.... There is a second possible reading of that passage, it is possible that AS could give a second action and a potential Bonus Action. It would be a bit clumsily written, but it is certainly feasible, and not much more clumsy than the current phrasing.

[HoarsHalberd]

Perhaps this could serve as a moment to reflect on what causes someone to be pompous and condescending.....instead of simply being helpful.

You have lept to an erroneous conclusion, I am not trying to protect my ego; there is no need.

And despite your personal opinion that this passage is easy to understand, there have been numerous threads, here and elsewhere, specifically about the confusion caused by that passage.

And yes.... There is a second possible reading of that passage, it is possible that AS could give a second action and a potential Bonus Action. It would be a bit clumsily written, but it is certainly feasible, and not much more clumsy than the current phrasing.

There are infinite possible readings to any sentence. However there is only one correct reading of that sentence by proper grammar. It is in no way clumsily worded. There are numerous cases in the PHB where clumsy wording was used, that's what the errata was for. But there is no way of reading that sentence correctly that leads to the conclusion you can get a second bonus action. I myself made that mistake when I was doing some calculations for fighter DPR late at night. But the issue was with my reading and not with the sentence structure.