I assume you're referring to the Primal Companion variant feature; specifically the Beast of the Land. That's exclusive to Tasha's, and you should clarify your position.
There's been some healthy debate around the Primal Companion's actions; both how many per turn and how they can take them. Any attempt to grapple requires the Attack action, and the only way to expressly perform that is by ordering it to do so with the ranger's action. The "one in its stat block or some other action" line from Tasha's is, in a word, vague. On D&D Beyond, I think the description for the Extra tab of the character sheet limits it to the "Dash, Disengage, Help, Hide, or Search action." This doesn't match the text in the book, but it's reasonable. And if Attack isn't a viable option, then they cannot grapple with the ranger's bonus action. And there's no official guidance for anything in Tasha's. Ultimately, what is and isn't permitted by the feature can vary wildly from table to table.
I've previously argued that the Primal Companion can take multiple actions per turn because the ranger can issue multiple commands. But not everyone agrees with this assessment. For the side that doesn't think the Primal Companion can act multiple times per turn, it's impossible to command it with the ranger's bonus action and still sacrifice an attack to have it also attack. That's two actions, which the companion does not expressly have. It would require two turns. And in the intervening time, the target can stand up and move away. In fact, if they only have a base 30 feet of movement then they're only stepping back 15 feet. That would shut down the Beast of the Land's Charge trait; which shuts down the ability to knock the target prone.
And even if they do attempt to grapple, the modifier to their ability check is limited to between +4 and +8. Fair odds, I suppose, but not the best. Certainly not reliable.
Any attempt to grapple requires the Attack action, and the only way to expressly perform that is by ordering it to do so with the ranger's action. The "one in its stat block or some other action" line from Tasha's is, in a word, vague. On D&D Beyond, I think the description for the Extra tab of the character sheet limits it to the "Dash, Disengage, Help, Hide, or Search action." This doesn't match the text in the book, but it's reasonable. And if Attack isn't a viable option, then they cannot grapple with the ranger's bonus action. And there's no official guidance for anything in Tasha's. Ultimately, what is and isn't permitted by the feature can vary wildly from table to table.
"That action can be one it its stat block or some other action"... ruling that this doesn't include the attack action because dndbeyond left it out of some list is beyond absurd. Doubly so considering that the attack action is specifically mentioned as something the beast can do.
We're already off-topic, so this is me putting my final two coppers in.
As I stated previously, the clause "some other action" is vague. It could theoretically mean anything. But there are context clues we could use to extrapolate its intention; given the full sentence.
That action can be one in its stat block or some other action.
If Attack were meant to be included, then saying they can use an action in their stat block would be presently pointless. All of those actions are already attacks. For example, when a Beast of the Land attacks via their ranger's bonus action, they aren't taking the Attack action. Rather, they're taking the Maul action. Now, this could be an example of future-proofing. It's possible that future beasts with additional actions will be introduced somewhere down the line. But we have no way to know that, so we cannot assume. Knowing what we do, including Attack in the quoted sentence would be wholly redundant. Meaning, there's no reason to assume it's actually included. It's insulting to think otherwise. And I'd rather not insult people.
It says you can use your bonus action to command it to take an action from its stat block [ie. Maul] or some other action (i.e. dodge, dash, etc. and presumably attack).
It then says that you can also substitute one of your attacks to command it to take the attack action. Hence, it's indisputable that the beast is capable of performing the attack action. And given that the beast can take the attack action, there's absolutely no evidence that the attack action is not a valid choice when choosing to do "some other action" besides Maul (which you yourself point out is distinct from the generic attack action).
Your logic is faulty. You say it's pointless to include Attack as an option when the beast can Maul, but your entire argument is based on Maul and Attack being different. What?
My favourite cantrip is produce flame, it is so versatile as it can be used as a source of light if you do not have darkvision or an attacking spell putting combat and utility into one.
I really like magic stone, especially against attercops, but I really wish it worked somewhat more like shillelagh, where it didn't suck up quite so many bonus actions. I'd like to use cantrips when I'm concentrating on a spell, but if you're concentrating on a flaming sphere or something similar that requires a bonus action to interact, it makes magic stone a lot less attractive.
I really like magic stone, especially against attercops, but I really wish it worked somewhat more like shillelagh, where it didn't suck up quite so many bonus actions. I'd like to use cantrips when I'm concentrating on a spell, but if you're concentrating on a flaming sphere or something similar that requires a bonus action to interact, it makes magic stone a lot less attractive.
Yeah, I wish that it did scale in that you get more rocks at certain levels.
I really like magic stone, especially against attercops, but I really wish it worked somewhat more like shillelagh, where it didn't suck up quite so many bonus actions. I'd like to use cantrips when I'm concentrating on a spell, but if you're concentrating on a flaming sphere or something similar that requires a bonus action to interact, it makes magic stone a lot less attractive.
Yeah, I wish that it did scale in that you get more rocks at certain levels.
I used to think that Produce Flame was the best choice, but having to roll to hit if I attack sucked since my dice hate me... I ended up switching it out for Create Bonfire.... It produces light, auto-hits any in it's area, and can target further than 30'... It also has the benefit of area control (a bonfire in a narrow passageway is fun)
I used to think that Produce Flame was the best choice, but having to roll to hit if I attack sucked since my dice hate me... I ended up switching it out for Create Bonfire.... It produces light, auto-hits any in it's area, and can target further than 30'... It also has the benefit of area control (a bonfire in a narrow passageway is fun)
It also ignited flammable objects in the area so it can work in conjunction with control flames.
I used to think that Produce Flame was the best choice, but having to roll to hit if I attack sucked since my dice hate me... I ended up switching it out for Create Bonfire.... It produces light, auto-hits any in it's area, and can target further than 30'... It also has the benefit of area control (a bonfire in a narrow passageway is fun)
It also ignited flammable objects in the area so it can work in conjunction with control flames.
It's a neat spell that a player uses in the current game I'm in, but the biggest problem with it is that it requires concentration and is therefore incompatible with a large portion of the druid spell list.
It's a neat spell that a player uses in the current game I'm in, but the biggest problem with it is that it requires concentration and is therefore incompatible with a large portion of the druid spell list.
I used to have create bonfire on a tiefling Bard of mine and ended up ditching it for that reason; far too many concentration spells I'd rather be running.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It would be a good candidate for a rewrite allowing you to use it instantaneously to just deal the damage immediately or to hold concentration to leave a persistent effect. It’s too bad that even using it as a one-action damage spell breaks the concentration of another spell.
Though, maybe another saving throw cantrip might be the way to go on a druid, but that is another weakness of the druid spell list. If I recall, the other saving throw cantrips target con and have worse damage (albeit with rider effects).
While I understand the concentration issue, I merely chose to create bonfire for the auto-hit (with dex save) over the to hit roll of produce flame... It also has the extra range on it... Neither cantrip is my "go to" cantrip(s) for attack, those are Shillelagh and Thorn Whip... But the way to get AROUND concentration, since it is a cantrip, is to just keep casting the bonfire every 6 seconds, moving it as I wish and keeping the light up after the attack.... Produce flame would require a to hit for that and the light would go out after it is thrown. Bonus, I could set a bottle of oil or other flammable item on a spot and guarantee it to ignite... fuse from a powder keg on a ship? BOOOM!
I used to think that Produce Flame was the best choice, but having to roll to hit if I attack sucked since my dice hate me... I ended up switching it out for Create Bonfire.... It produces light, auto-hits any in it's area, and can target further than 30'... It also has the benefit of area control (a bonfire in a narrow passageway is fun)
technically, you have to see to cast create bonfire. I tried using it as lighting for my variant human in a darkvison party and realized the flaw. it can only functionally grow existing light not create light.
I assume you're referring to the Primal Companion variant feature; specifically the Beast of the Land. That's exclusive to Tasha's, and you should clarify your position.
There's been some healthy debate around the Primal Companion's actions; both how many per turn and how they can take them. Any attempt to grapple requires the Attack action, and the only way to expressly perform that is by ordering it to do so with the ranger's action. The "one in its stat block or some other action" line from Tasha's is, in a word, vague. On D&D Beyond, I think the description for the Extra tab of the character sheet limits it to the "Dash, Disengage, Help, Hide, or Search action." This doesn't match the text in the book, but it's reasonable. And if Attack isn't a viable option, then they cannot grapple with the ranger's bonus action. And there's no official guidance for anything in Tasha's. Ultimately, what is and isn't permitted by the feature can vary wildly from table to table.
I've previously argued that the Primal Companion can take multiple actions per turn because the ranger can issue multiple commands. But not everyone agrees with this assessment. For the side that doesn't think the Primal Companion can act multiple times per turn, it's impossible to command it with the ranger's bonus action and still sacrifice an attack to have it also attack. That's two actions, which the companion does not expressly have. It would require two turns. And in the intervening time, the target can stand up and move away. In fact, if they only have a base 30 feet of movement then they're only stepping back 15 feet. That would shut down the Beast of the Land's Charge trait; which shuts down the ability to knock the target prone.
And even if they do attempt to grapple, the modifier to their ability check is limited to between +4 and +8. Fair odds, I suppose, but not the best. Certainly not reliable.
"That action can be one it its stat block or some other action"... ruling that this doesn't include the attack action because dndbeyond left it out of some list is beyond absurd. Doubly so considering that the attack action is specifically mentioned as something the beast can do.
We're already off-topic, so this is me putting my final two coppers in.
As I stated previously, the clause "some other action" is vague. It could theoretically mean anything. But there are context clues we could use to extrapolate its intention; given the full sentence.
If Attack were meant to be included, then saying they can use an action in their stat block would be presently pointless. All of those actions are already attacks. For example, when a Beast of the Land attacks via their ranger's bonus action, they aren't taking the Attack action. Rather, they're taking the Maul action. Now, this could be an example of future-proofing. It's possible that future beasts with additional actions will be introduced somewhere down the line. But we have no way to know that, so we cannot assume. Knowing what we do, including Attack in the quoted sentence would be wholly redundant. Meaning, there's no reason to assume it's actually included. It's insulting to think otherwise. And I'd rather not insult people.
It says you can use your bonus action to command it to take an action from its stat block [ie. Maul] or some other action (i.e. dodge, dash, etc. and presumably attack).
It then says that you can also substitute one of your attacks to command it to take the attack action. Hence, it's indisputable that the beast is capable of performing the attack action. And given that the beast can take the attack action, there's absolutely no evidence that the attack action is not a valid choice when choosing to do "some other action" besides Maul (which you yourself point out is distinct from the generic attack action).
Your logic is faulty. You say it's pointless to include Attack as an option when the beast can Maul, but your entire argument is based on Maul and Attack being different. What?
Hey guy, guys let's all take a breath. It's clear to anyone.
That I am the most prettiest one here.
My favorite cantrip is definitely Magic Stone. There's nothing I find funnier than my beloved halfling chucking magic rocks at critter's heads.
My favourite cantrip is produce flame, it is so versatile as it can be used as a source of light if you do not have darkvision or an attacking spell putting combat and utility into one.
My favorite is either Primal savagery, produce flame, or magic stone. I voted for magic stone because it's the only one on the poll
I really like magic stone, especially against attercops, but I really wish it worked somewhat more like shillelagh, where it didn't suck up quite so many bonus actions. I'd like to use cantrips when I'm concentrating on a spell, but if you're concentrating on a flaming sphere or something similar that requires a bonus action to interact, it makes magic stone a lot less attractive.
Yeah, I wish that it did scale in that you get more rocks at certain levels.
Or The damage per rock could increase.
I used to think that Produce Flame was the best choice, but having to roll to hit if I attack sucked since my dice hate me... I ended up switching it out for Create Bonfire.... It produces light, auto-hits any in it's area, and can target further than 30'... It also has the benefit of area control (a bonfire in a narrow passageway is fun)
It also ignited flammable objects in the area so it can work in conjunction with control flames.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
It's a neat spell that a player uses in the current game I'm in, but the biggest problem with it is that it requires concentration and is therefore incompatible with a large portion of the druid spell list.
I used to have create bonfire on a tiefling Bard of mine and ended up ditching it for that reason; far too many concentration spells I'd rather be running.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
It would be a good candidate for a rewrite allowing you to use it instantaneously to just deal the damage immediately or to hold concentration to leave a persistent effect. It’s too bad that even using it as a one-action damage spell breaks the concentration of another spell.
Though, maybe another saving throw cantrip might be the way to go on a druid, but that is another weakness of the druid spell list. If I recall, the other saving throw cantrips target con and have worse damage (albeit with rider effects).
While I understand the concentration issue, I merely chose to create bonfire for the auto-hit (with dex save) over the to hit roll of produce flame... It also has the extra range on it... Neither cantrip is my "go to" cantrip(s) for attack, those are Shillelagh and Thorn Whip... But the way to get AROUND concentration, since it is a cantrip, is to just keep casting the bonfire every 6 seconds, moving it as I wish and keeping the light up after the attack.... Produce flame would require a to hit for that and the light would go out after it is thrown. Bonus, I could set a bottle of oil or other flammable item on a spot and guarantee it to ignite... fuse from a powder keg on a ship? BOOOM!
Thorn Whip makes a really good held action.
The mayhem you can cause with 60 seconds, a torch and Control Flames is pretty nuts.
technically, you have to see to cast create bonfire. I tried using it as lighting for my variant human in a darkvison party and realized the flaw. it can only functionally grow existing light not create light.
You can just cast Create Bonfire again to move it.