Yes, but according to you all, the attack action only starts when I attack. I see it all over the thread.
You aren't wrong about the point you are trying to make, but when it comes to bonus actions they can either happen whenever or have their timing restricted to some other event occurring first. Those specific rules on bonus action timings are what create the issue being discussed. Bonus actions being granted are a specific that overrides the general essentially.
Yes, but according to you all, the attack action only starts when I attack. I see it all over the thread.
You aren't wrong about the point you are trying to make, but when it comes to bonus actions they can either happen whenever or have their timing restricted to some other event occurring first. Those specific rules on bonus action timings are what create the issue being discussed. Bonus actions being granted are a specific that overrides the general essentially.
Yeah exactly this. Because Bonus Action has wording that explicitly allows you to determine the timing, it muddles the issue. Reactions and Ready have wording that explicitly tell us they occur immediately after their trigger completes. That difference in wording leaves the possibility for a bonus action to occur simultaneous to their trigger condition if that trigger is a non-instantaneous event. The Sage Advice doesn't address this issue directly, and based on how it is worded, indicates they're not aware of the issue in wording... they're answering if you could use the bonus action before the trigger event entirely, before you even take the attack action... which s obviously a no.
That's why knowing when exactly when the attack action begins becomes important. Some folk were saying that the attack action only starts when you roll the attack, and it is posted up in this thread a number of times... but there isn't any text that supports that directly. There is some tangentially related text that's been quoted, but it is being taken out of context. You don't need to make an attack to be taking the attack action. That pet ability is just yet another example of a case where that's true.
My stance is always that the action begins when the player says it does. Because they are able to direct the actions of their character, so their word is law, within the framework of the rules. There is one thing the players control, their character, and in that the DM should never exert their potential for tyranny.
A similar question is when does a character move? In grid using groups they might just assume movement happens when the player moves their figure around the map. In theater of the mind groups, however, the movement happens when the player and the DM have come to a mutual understanding of the player's intent to move and in what way. The movement could act as a trigger for other events, so knowing when it happens is kind of important, but this never comes up because in ever group I've ever seen people default to the movement happening whenever the player simply wills it to be the case.
I see nothing that is different for actions. They happen whenever you choose for them to, within the rules for being eligible to take them. So when a player says they take the attack action, they are now taking the attack action. Rules don't make sense if the player isn't the decider of whether their character is or is not doing a thing.
That's why knowing when exactly when the attack action begins becomes important. Some folk were saying that the attack action only starts when you roll the attack, and it is posted up in this thread a number of times... but there isn't any text that supports that directly.
There is no text that supports taking an action without doing the thing the action describes.
You don't need to make an attack to be taking the attack action. That pet ability is just yet another example of a case where that's true.
This is a straw man. The claim is that "taking the action" and doing the thing the action describes are the same thing. In the case of a Warlock with Pact of the Chain, thing you do is forego one of the attacks you'd normally make and your familiar attacks instead. You have taken the Attack action at precisely the point that you forego your attack and your familiar attacks instead.
My stance is always that the action begins when the player says it does. Because they are able to direct the actions of their character, so their word is law, within the framework of the rules.
None of this is rooted in the rules. The DM always has the final say, not the players. This is established in the Player's Handbook introduction:
How to Play
The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
1. The DM describes the environment.
The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).
2. The players describe what they want to do.
Sometimes one player speaks for the whole party, saying, “We’ll take the east door,” for example. Other times, different adventurers do different things: one adventurer might search a treasure chest while a second examines an esoteric symbol engraved on a wall and a third keeps watch for monsters. The players don’t need to take turns, but the DM listens to every player and decides how to resolve those actions.
Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers’ actions.
Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.
A player's declarations have no meaning until the DM acknowledges them and narrates the result. A player might intend to walk across the room, but end up triggering a trap halfway through.
My stance is always that the action begins when the player says it does.
Fine. But that implies that the character is now really doing the action. You can't simultaneously claim that the character is taking the action but hasn't done anything to make that action happen. They are either doing the thing or they're not, and any rules that depend on them doing that thing kick in when everyone agrees the character is now doing the thing.
I like to think of the Schrodinger's box thought experiment when interpreting this, hence my stance. Basically the idea being claimed you are attacking but haven't actually attacked is like being in a superposition where you have both used the attack action and haven't, because there was no resolution or observable effects of the action itself. To me, being in a quasi-state of taking the attack action and not is not sufficient enough to be granted the bonus action because you've both taken the attack action and haven't, so until the action is fully realized you are equally not taking an action and taking one.
I haven't been following this thread very carefully, but how has it reached the "Quantum Mechanics" stage in only nine pages? O.o
Some people are arguing that the phrase "if you take the attack action" means you only have to declare you are taking it, rather than completing it and using the fact it isn't a past tense verb. The other side is arguing that if you don't actually resolve the action, then "if you take the attack action" is false...
The thought experiment is a pretty apt way to think about the problem imo, and why I think that unless you choose what sub-action to take (shove, attack, grapple), and actually resolve that sub-action, then you haven't taken the attack action but rather declared intent to do so which is not the same.
The RAW of Shield Master's shove feature has been fully analyzed, and is as follows:
If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
You have not taken the Attack until you have actually made your attack.
You have not made your attack until you have actually resolved rolling for the attack
If you have multiple attacks per Attack action you have not completed the Attack action until you have actually resolved rolling for all your attacks, or by resolving at minimum one attack and choosing to forfeit any remaining attacks.
The bonus action shove cannot be inserted between multiple attacks in a single Attack action.
The trigger that allows you to take the bonus action shove is having taken the Attack action itself; not the individual attack, whether you hit, score a critical hit, etc.
As above, you must finish resolving all attacks in your Attack action, or by resolving one attack and choosing to forfeit the rest.
All of this is wrong. You are inserting the word taken where the rules as written use the word take. This is not RAW. You have to change word tense to make your interpretation true. I bolded where you changed word tense to force your interpretation to be true.
The trigger is present tense, and the effect is future tense; if X happens, then Y can happen. When we focus on the effect as the present tense, the trigger is implicitly past tense; I want Y to happen, but did X happen? This does not change the order of events in any way, nor any of the conditional requirements.
I would like to take a second to compare Two Weapon fighting with Shield Master. I'll bold the important distinction.
Two-Weapon Fighting:
When you take the Attack action and Attack with a light melee weapon that you’re holding in one hand, you can use a Bonus Action to Attack with a different light melee weapon that you’re holding in the other hand. You don’t add your ability modifier to the damage of the bonus Attack, unless that modifier is negative.
Shield Master:
If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield.
Two-weapon fighting explicitly requires that you have actually made the attack. Shield master does not. Shield Master requires that you take the action.
They both explicitly require that you have actually made an attack. You must still take the actual Attack action (things like Booming Blade or Reaction attacks do not qualify), and that requires an attack roll be resolved. What you have bolded is both the secondary prerequisite (a Light one-handed weapon in each hand) and the specifictrigger that indicates the timing of the bonus action. Two-weapon fighting allows for the bonus action to be taken immediately after having made one qualifying attack. Shield Master does not.
There is NO general written rule in 5e that allows you to insert Bonus Actions between attacks, or between any other component, in an Attack action or other Actions in Combat. There are only specific rules which allow specific things to happen at specific times. The idea of Bonus Actions being "order agnostic" is actually a gross mischaracterization of how Bonus Actions function. By default, you have NO bonus action unless you have a feature that grants one. You have free choice of when to use a bonus action only if the bonus action itself has no contextual prerequisites/triggers.
Breaking Up Your Move is a specific rule allowing movement between attacks in a single action.
Great Weapon Master has a specific rule allowing a bonus action melee weapon attack, on your turn (i.e. it cannot trigger off of a Reaction unless the Reaction also happens on your turn), when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one. This trigger allows for the bonus action attack to be taken immediately.
Two-Weapon Fighting has a specific rule allowing a bonus action offhand melee weapon attack immediately upon making a qualified attack (hit or miss).
Shield Master has a specific rule allowing a bonus action shove after the Attack action. The trigger is the action itself, not the individual attack(s) that the action is comprised of.
Cunning Action has a specific rule allowing Dash, Disengage, or Hide as a bonus action. There is no prerequisite or trigger, so this feature can be used at any point (on your turn) before or after an Action. It can also be used at any point (on your turn) if you choose not to take an Action. It cannot ever be inserted between attacks in a single action because there is no trigger stating that it can.
Healing Word is a bonus action spell. It has no specific prerequisites or triggers, and follows the general rule for bonus action spells. This spell can be used at any point (on your turn) before or after an Action. It can also be used at any point (on your turn) if you choose not to take an Action. It cannot ever be inserted between attacks in a single action because there is no trigger stating that it can.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
There is NO general written rule in 5e that allows you to insert Bonus Actions between attacks, or between any other component, in an Attack action or other Actions in Combat.
There is no general rule that says you can't either. As a practical matter, allowing a player to move between attacks but not do things like transfer their Hunter's Mark to the next target or use the Way of Shadow monk's Shadow Step is silly.
There is NO general written rule in 5e that allows you to insert Bonus Actions between attacks, or between any other component, in an Attack action or other Actions in Combat.
There is no general rule that says you can't either. As a practical matter, allowing a player to move between attacks but not do things like transfer their Hunter's Mark to the next target or use the Way of Shadow monk's Shadow Step is silly.
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
You choose a creature you can see within range and mystically mark it as your quarry. Until the spell ends, you deal an extra 1d6 damage to the target whenever you hit it with a weapon attack, and you have advantage on any Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Survival) check you make to find it. If the target drops to 0 hit points before this spell ends, you can use a bonus action on a subsequent turn of yours to mark a new creature.
Specific.
For what it's worth, I agree that the way they have handled bonus action structure is... not great. The rules are clear, but they are not concise, nor are they all located in the same sections of source books. The whole thing is quite sloppy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
There already is: "You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take."
No, there isn't. The second sentence stands in opposition to the one that came before it. The alternative to not having a bonus action is that you do have one, because a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you do. You can replace "when" with "if" in that first sentence and the meaning would be exactly the same. The "when" is not referring to timing within your turn. I don't see any other way to interpret those two sentences together, and we know that's how it's intended to be read.
The matter of timing is addressed later on:
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
If the text you were quoting were talking about timing, 2/3rds of this sentence would be redundant because it'd just be restating something that was said just two sentences ago.
Even if your reading were correct, you still haven't cited anything that prevents you from inserting a bonus action in the middle of the Attack action. As long as you're taking the bonus action from Hunter's mark on a future turn, you're complying with the timing requirement. "On a subsequent turn of yours" doesn't say anything about when during the turn you're allowed or not allowed to take it.
But again, the real problem here is Extra Attack. It's not bonus actions or Shield Master. If Extra Attack were better designed, the questions of "when are you done with the action?" and "can you insert a bonus action into an action?" wouldn't even come up because the Attack action would just involve 1 attack. Even Jeremy agrees on that point.
"You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take."
This simply addresses the fact that there are no bonus actions by default, not the timing. I.e., there is no logical need for a general rule regarding bonus actions to be explicitly printed because there are no bonus actions except by the specific rules which govern them individually. Is there a practical need for a general rule to be explicit here? Yeah, I wholeheartedly think it would be a good idea.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
This is the timing. You and I are on the same page. Unlike most of the other bonus actions we've looked at, Hunter's Mark has a distinction between the timing of the trigger and the timing of the bonus action. The spell is worded the way it is since the trigger can occur on another creature's turn (you don't have to be the one that drops the target), but the subsequent bonus action could not possibly be taken until your turn comes up again anyway (only reactions can be done off-turn).
Even if your reading were correct, you still haven't cited anything that prevents you from inserting a bonus action in the middle of the Attack action. As long as you're taking the bonus action from Hunter's mark on a future turn, you're complying with the timing requirement. "On a subsequent turn of yours" doesn't say anything about when during the turn you're allowed or not allowed to take it.
But again, the real problem here is Extra Attack. It's not bonus actions or Shield Master. If Extra Attack were better designed, the questions of "when are you done with the action?" and "can you insert a bonus action into an action?" wouldn't even come up because the Attack action would just involve 1 attack. Even Jeremy agrees on that point.
I agree 95%. Extra Attack is a commonality among bonus action features that are "contentious", but it's not like the issue arose in a vacuum. Extra Attack mucks things up because of the restrictions imposed by bonus actions, not the other way around. If Extra Attack were designed better (and I 100% agree it should be redesigned), that would remove the need for every bonus action ability/feature/spell to have its own individually detailed description of trigger & timing, so that's the best feasible place to start for sure.
The ideal solution (opinion) would be to both redesign Extra Attack and have a concise rules entry on bonus actions: either they are truly "order agnostic", or they aren't. There is no point in saying you can choose when to take the bonus action if the majority of bonus actions in existence have specific restrictions on usage. It would be more accurate to say that (as it currently works):
Unless the bonus action has no specified timing, the bonus action occurs according to the specified description, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
If Extra Attack were designed better (and I 100% agree it should be redesigned), that would remove the need for every bonus action ability/feature/spell to have its own individually detailed description of trigger & timing, so that's the best feasible place to start for sure.
All of those bonus actions have timing restrictions by design. Redesigning Extra Attack wouldn't change that, because that's precisely how the developers want them to work. Fixing Extra Attack just makes it a lot simpler for bonus actions to interact with the Attack action. Two-Weapon Fighting, Shield Master and the likes are actually super simple to resolve before Extra Attack.
While I do think the arguments are strong, I would also add that these are interpretations of RAW and not actual RAW. The perspectives of Jeremy Crawford, while tremendously valuable and insightful, are not the rules themselves. (Unfortunately, Crawford erroneously refers to interpretations as RAW fairly consistently.)
If the goal is to make RAW the prohibition on pre-attack Shield Master shove, then I actually recommend an errata which codifies what it is to "take an action" or further solidify and constrain the Attack action. I feel like that will close many more interpretive avenues, and it is to where I currently refer when I rule for my players that an action irreversibly declared is an action taken.
FWIW I wouldn't be in favor of such a measure as I prefer rulesets that allow interpretation and creativity for all parties as opposed to prohibitive ones--it also allows analytical conversations such as these.
That's one of the things that makes D&D so enjoyable!
The trigger is present tense, and the effect is future tense; if X happens, then Y can happen. When we focus on the effect as the present tense, the trigger is implicitly past tense; I want Y to happen, but did X happen? This does not change the order of events in any way, nor any of the conditional requirements.
You have not given any rationale for X and Y to not both be occurring simultaneously.
If you take a cab ride to work in the morning, you can read a book on the ride there.
These examples I continue to provide should be all you need to see that you're incorrect about the verb tense usage and how they can be interpreted. There is nothing preventing the Y to happen while the X is happening. Y must simply happen after X has at least begun to happen.
You cannot read a book on the ride there before you take a cab ride to work. Obviously. So you must at least have started the cab ride, to begin reading the book on the ride there. But you don't need to have finished the cab ride to work, either, to read the book on the way there.
Two-weapon fighting explicitly requires that you have actually made the attack. Shield master does not. Shield Master requires that you take the action.
They both explicitly require that you have actually made an attack. You must still take the actual Attack action (things like Booming Blade or Reaction attacks do not qualify), and that requires an attack roll be resolved.
Taking an attack action does not require an attack roll to have been resolved. That is categorically false. It has been well established already numerous times in this very thread.
There is NO general written rule in 5e that allows you to insert Bonus Actions between attacks, or between any other component, in an Attack action or other Actions in Combat. There are only specific rules which allow specific things to happen at specific times. The idea of Bonus Actions being "order agnostic" is actually a gross mischaracterization of how Bonus Actions function. By default, you have NO bonus action unless you have a feature that grants one. You have free choice of when to use a bonus action only if the bonus action itself has no contextual prerequisites/triggers.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn. <----- Rules Text. Click your handy links mate, it says it right there. As soon as the trigger is satisfied, you have full choice when to use it.
If that trigger is a present tense verb, then the trigger has been satisfied as soon as that verb is ongoing. If I am taking the attack action, presently, I could also be using my bonus action to shove, presently. And since the text of bonus actions gives me the choice on its timing, I'd then simply choose to resolve the bonus action I am taking before the attack action I am taking.
Shield Master has a specific rule allowing a bonus action shove after the Attack action. The trigger is the action itself, not the individual attack(s) that the action is comprised of.
Oh man, here you go changing tenses again to force your narrative. Shield Master says nothing about needing to complete the Attack Action. You must simply have started the Attack Action. We agree that the trigger is the Action, here. But you keep changing the tense to past tense, when it isn't past tense but is instead a present tense trigger.
So Shield Master's specific rule is that it allows the bonus action while you take an attack action.
Healing Word is a bonus action spell. It has no specific prerequisites or triggers, and follows the general rule for bonus action spells. This spell can be used at any point (on your turn) before or after an Action. It can also be used at any point (on your turn) if you choose not to take an Action. It cannot ever be inserted between attacks in a single action because there is no trigger stating that it can.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn. <--- again, rules text. You can, of course, choose to Healing Word between attacks because you choose when to use the bonus action on your turn.
Before you say there somehow isn't a "when" between those two attacks... If you can insert 30 feet of movement in between two attacks, there is, for sure, some amount of time between them. If there is time between them, there is a when between them.
This interpretation of yours doesn't make any sense man.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I got quotes!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Only, I never attacked. So I couldn’t have taken it.
That reasoning was somewhere in here, no?
Not arguing it this way, just wanted to interrupt the flow ;)
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
Because you instead chose to do the thing that Pact of the Chain says you can do when you take the Attack action.
Yes, but according to you all, the attack action only starts when I attack. I see it all over the thread.
Extended Signature! Yay! https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/off-topic/adohands-kitchen/3153-extended-signature-thread?page=2#c21
Haven’t used this account in forever. Still a big fan of crawling claws.
Obviously we were talking about the default Attack action and Extra Attack, not other class features.
You aren't wrong about the point you are trying to make, but when it comes to bonus actions they can either happen whenever or have their timing restricted to some other event occurring first. Those specific rules on bonus action timings are what create the issue being discussed. Bonus actions being granted are a specific that overrides the general essentially.
Yeah exactly this. Because Bonus Action has wording that explicitly allows you to determine the timing, it muddles the issue. Reactions and Ready have wording that explicitly tell us they occur immediately after their trigger completes. That difference in wording leaves the possibility for a bonus action to occur simultaneous to their trigger condition if that trigger is a non-instantaneous event. The Sage Advice doesn't address this issue directly, and based on how it is worded, indicates they're not aware of the issue in wording... they're answering if you could use the bonus action before the trigger event entirely, before you even take the attack action... which s obviously a no.
That's why knowing when exactly when the attack action begins becomes important. Some folk were saying that the attack action only starts when you roll the attack, and it is posted up in this thread a number of times... but there isn't any text that supports that directly. There is some tangentially related text that's been quoted, but it is being taken out of context. You don't need to make an attack to be taking the attack action. That pet ability is just yet another example of a case where that's true.
My stance is always that the action begins when the player says it does. Because they are able to direct the actions of their character, so their word is law, within the framework of the rules. There is one thing the players control, their character, and in that the DM should never exert their potential for tyranny.
A similar question is when does a character move? In grid using groups they might just assume movement happens when the player moves their figure around the map. In theater of the mind groups, however, the movement happens when the player and the DM have come to a mutual understanding of the player's intent to move and in what way. The movement could act as a trigger for other events, so knowing when it happens is kind of important, but this never comes up because in ever group I've ever seen people default to the movement happening whenever the player simply wills it to be the case.
I see nothing that is different for actions. They happen whenever you choose for them to, within the rules for being eligible to take them. So when a player says they take the attack action, they are now taking the attack action. Rules don't make sense if the player isn't the decider of whether their character is or is not doing a thing.
I got quotes!
Yeah, this triggering even is When you take. The allowable action is to forgo an attack.
According to some interpretation of the rules here... you must:
1. Make an attack by taking the attack action.
2. Be unable to forgo the attack you just made.
3. Be unable to ever activate this ability.
I got quotes!
There is no text that supports taking an action without doing the thing the action describes.
This is a straw man. The claim is that "taking the action" and doing the thing the action describes are the same thing. In the case of a Warlock with Pact of the Chain, thing you do is forego one of the attacks you'd normally make and your familiar attacks instead. You have taken the Attack action at precisely the point that you forego your attack and your familiar attacks instead.
None of this is rooted in the rules. The DM always has the final say, not the players. This is established in the Player's Handbook introduction:
A player's declarations have no meaning until the DM acknowledges them and narrates the result. A player might intend to walk across the room, but end up triggering a trap halfway through.
Fine. But that implies that the character is now really doing the action. You can't simultaneously claim that the character is taking the action but hasn't done anything to make that action happen. They are either doing the thing or they're not, and any rules that depend on them doing that thing kick in when everyone agrees the character is now doing the thing.
I like to think of the Schrodinger's box thought experiment when interpreting this, hence my stance. Basically the idea being claimed you are attacking but haven't actually attacked is like being in a superposition where you have both used the attack action and haven't, because there was no resolution or observable effects of the action itself. To me, being in a quasi-state of taking the attack action and not is not sufficient enough to be granted the bonus action because you've both taken the attack action and haven't, so until the action is fully realized you are equally not taking an action and taking one.
I haven't been following this thread very carefully, but how has it reached the "Quantum Mechanics" stage in only nine pages? O.o
Some people are arguing that the phrase "if you take the attack action" means you only have to declare you are taking it, rather than completing it and using the fact it isn't a past tense verb. The other side is arguing that if you don't actually resolve the action, then "if you take the attack action" is false...
The thought experiment is a pretty apt way to think about the problem imo, and why I think that unless you choose what sub-action to take (shove, attack, grapple), and actually resolve that sub-action, then you haven't taken the attack action but rather declared intent to do so which is not the same.
No, it's not. I am not inserting anything. The line "If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield." is the direct quotation of the feat (RAW). Everything following that line is not an interpretation of the RAW, it is analytical explanation of the RAW.
The trigger is present tense, and the effect is future tense; if X happens, then Y can happen. When we focus on the effect as the present tense, the trigger is implicitly past tense; I want Y to happen, but did X happen? This does not change the order of events in any way, nor any of the conditional requirements.
You are correct on this point, but you are applying the distinction incorrectly:
They both explicitly require that you have actually made an attack. You must still take the actual Attack action (things like Booming Blade or Reaction attacks do not qualify), and that requires an attack roll be resolved. What you have bolded is both the secondary prerequisite (a Light one-handed weapon in each hand) and the specific trigger that indicates the timing of the bonus action. Two-weapon fighting allows for the bonus action to be taken immediately after having made one qualifying attack. Shield Master does not.
There is NO general written rule in 5e that allows you to insert Bonus Actions between attacks, or between any other component, in an Attack action or other Actions in Combat. There are only specific rules which allow specific things to happen at specific times. The idea of Bonus Actions being "order agnostic" is actually a gross mischaracterization of how Bonus Actions function. By default, you have NO bonus action unless you have a feature that grants one. You have free choice of when to use a bonus action only if the bonus action itself has no contextual prerequisites/triggers.
Breaking Up Your Move is a specific rule allowing movement between attacks in a single action.
Great Weapon Master has a specific rule allowing a bonus action melee weapon attack, on your turn (i.e. it cannot trigger off of a Reaction unless the Reaction also happens on your turn), when you score a critical hit with a melee weapon or reduce a creature to 0 hit points with one. This trigger allows for the bonus action attack to be taken immediately.
Two-Weapon Fighting has a specific rule allowing a bonus action offhand melee weapon attack immediately upon making a qualified attack (hit or miss).
Shield Master has a specific rule allowing a bonus action shove after the Attack action. The trigger is the action itself, not the individual attack(s) that the action is comprised of.
Cunning Action has a specific rule allowing Dash, Disengage, or Hide as a bonus action. There is no prerequisite or trigger, so this feature can be used at any point (on your turn) before or after an Action. It can also be used at any point (on your turn) if you choose not to take an Action. It cannot ever be inserted between attacks in a single action because there is no trigger stating that it can.
Healing Word is a bonus action spell. It has no specific prerequisites or triggers, and follows the general rule for bonus action spells. This spell can be used at any point (on your turn) before or after an Action. It can also be used at any point (on your turn) if you choose not to take an Action. It cannot ever be inserted between attacks in a single action because there is no trigger stating that it can.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
At this point, it just reads like arguing for the sake of arguing.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
There is no general rule that says you can't either. As a practical matter, allowing a player to move between attacks but not do things like transfer their Hunter's Mark to the next target or use the Way of Shadow monk's Shadow Step is silly.
There already is:
Hunter's Mark:
Specific.
For what it's worth, I agree that the way they have handled bonus action structure is... not great. The rules are clear, but they are not concise, nor are they all located in the same sections of source books. The whole thing is quite sloppy.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
No, there isn't. The second sentence stands in opposition to the one that came before it. The alternative to not having a bonus action is that you do have one, because a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you do. You can replace "when" with "if" in that first sentence and the meaning would be exactly the same. The "when" is not referring to timing within your turn. I don't see any other way to interpret those two sentences together, and we know that's how it's intended to be read.
The matter of timing is addressed later on:
If the text you were quoting were talking about timing, 2/3rds of this sentence would be redundant because it'd just be restating something that was said just two sentences ago.
Even if your reading were correct, you still haven't cited anything that prevents you from inserting a bonus action in the middle of the Attack action. As long as you're taking the bonus action from Hunter's mark on a future turn, you're complying with the timing requirement. "On a subsequent turn of yours" doesn't say anything about when during the turn you're allowed or not allowed to take it.
But again, the real problem here is Extra Attack. It's not bonus actions or Shield Master. If Extra Attack were better designed, the questions of "when are you done with the action?" and "can you insert a bonus action into an action?" wouldn't even come up because the Attack action would just involve 1 attack. Even Jeremy agrees on that point.
I don't disagree with any of that.
This simply addresses the fact that there are no bonus actions by default, not the timing. I.e., there is no logical need for a general rule regarding bonus actions to be explicitly printed because there are no bonus actions except by the specific rules which govern them individually. Is there a practical need for a general rule to be explicit here? Yeah, I wholeheartedly think it would be a good idea.
This is the timing. You and I are on the same page. Unlike most of the other bonus actions we've looked at, Hunter's Mark has a distinction between the timing of the trigger and the timing of the bonus action. The spell is worded the way it is since the trigger can occur on another creature's turn (you don't have to be the one that drops the target), but the subsequent bonus action could not possibly be taken until your turn comes up again anyway (only reactions can be done off-turn).
Go back to page 5. I did.
No general rule; you can't interrupt unless the trigger specifically allows it.
RAW you must complete the entire action. RAI you must complete MINIMUM one attack.
I agree 95%. Extra Attack is a commonality among bonus action features that are "contentious", but it's not like the issue arose in a vacuum. Extra Attack mucks things up because of the restrictions imposed by bonus actions, not the other way around. If Extra Attack were designed better (and I 100% agree it should be redesigned), that would remove the need for every bonus action ability/feature/spell to have its own individually detailed description of trigger & timing, so that's the best feasible place to start for sure.
The ideal solution (opinion) would be to both redesign Extra Attack and have a concise rules entry on bonus actions: either they are truly "order agnostic", or they aren't. There is no point in saying you can choose when to take the bonus action if the majority of bonus actions in existence have specific restrictions on usage. It would be more accurate to say that (as it currently works):
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
That only applies to bonus actions with triggers. It's not a general rule of bonus actions.
All of those bonus actions have timing restrictions by design. Redesigning Extra Attack wouldn't change that, because that's precisely how the developers want them to work. Fixing Extra Attack just makes it a lot simpler for bonus actions to interact with the Attack action. Two-Weapon Fighting, Shield Master and the likes are actually super simple to resolve before Extra Attack.
While I do think the arguments are strong, I would also add that these are interpretations of RAW and not actual RAW. The perspectives of Jeremy Crawford, while tremendously valuable and insightful, are not the rules themselves. (Unfortunately, Crawford erroneously refers to interpretations as RAW fairly consistently.)
If the goal is to make RAW the prohibition on pre-attack Shield Master shove, then I actually recommend an errata which codifies what it is to "take an action" or further solidify and constrain the Attack action. I feel like that will close many more interpretive avenues, and it is to where I currently refer when I rule for my players that an action irreversibly declared is an action taken.
FWIW I wouldn't be in favor of such a measure as I prefer rulesets that allow interpretation and creativity for all parties as opposed to prohibitive ones--it also allows analytical conversations such as these.
That's one of the things that makes D&D so enjoyable!
You have not given any rationale for X and Y to not both be occurring simultaneously.
If you take a cab ride to work in the morning, you can read a book on the ride there.
These examples I continue to provide should be all you need to see that you're incorrect about the verb tense usage and how they can be interpreted. There is nothing preventing the Y to happen while the X is happening. Y must simply happen after X has at least begun to happen.
You cannot read a book on the ride there before you take a cab ride to work. Obviously. So you must at least have started the cab ride, to begin reading the book on the ride there. But you don't need to have finished the cab ride to work, either, to read the book on the way there.
Taking an attack action does not require an attack roll to have been resolved. That is categorically false. It has been well established already numerous times in this very thread.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn. <----- Rules Text. Click your handy links mate, it says it right there. As soon as the trigger is satisfied, you have full choice when to use it.
If that trigger is a present tense verb, then the trigger has been satisfied as soon as that verb is ongoing. If I am taking the attack action, presently, I could also be using my bonus action to shove, presently. And since the text of bonus actions gives me the choice on its timing, I'd then simply choose to resolve the bonus action I am taking before the attack action I am taking.
Oh man, here you go changing tenses again to force your narrative. Shield Master says nothing about needing to complete the Attack Action. You must simply have started the Attack Action. We agree that the trigger is the Action, here. But you keep changing the tense to past tense, when it isn't past tense but is instead a present tense trigger.
So Shield Master's specific rule is that it allows the bonus action while you take an attack action.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn. <--- again, rules text. You can, of course, choose to Healing Word between attacks because you choose when to use the bonus action on your turn.
Before you say there somehow isn't a "when" between those two attacks... If you can insert 30 feet of movement in between two attacks, there is, for sure, some amount of time between them. If there is time between them, there is a when between them.
This interpretation of yours doesn't make any sense man.
I got quotes!