I'm sorry to start this up again. I read this in the Player's Handbook...
Your Turn
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. Your speed — sometimes called your walking speed — is noted on your character sheet.
The most common actions you can take are described in the "Actions in Combat" section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action.
The "Movement and Position" section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move.
You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn. If you can't decide what to do on your turn, consider taking the Dodge or Ready action, as described in "Actions in Combat."
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
...I am now in favor of the beast's (either beast) only gets to take one action on it's turn, no matter how the ranger commands it to do so.
Also, if you believe this isn't the case, remember that the level 7 subclass ability would actual be a power nerf for the Tasha's primal companion, as it couldn't attack and use another listed bonus action. You can't just automatically ignore the rule because they already get a bonus action command.
In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.
The action can be some other action. Including the attack action. This wording makes half of the level 7 ability useless. Because they're buffing the ranger. Forcing the ranger to use its action for the beast made the beastmaster essentially useless.
The Maul action on the card is a melee weapon attack. As stated on the card. An attack action uses a melee weapon attack or ranged weapon attack to attack.
Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multiattack action if it has that action.
So I can use my bonus action to take the attack action. As attack action is "some other action". If it didn't specifically exclude it like other abilities.
That attack action is the melee weapon attack maul. Because I used that attack action with my bonus action Bestial fury kicks in. Giving me a second attack.
So yes a ranger can attack 4 times in a turn. But honestly you're more likely to be casting a spell as a bonus action and only attacking 3 times, otherwise you would just be a fighter and action surge for 6 attacks per short rest at level 11.
In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.
The action can be some other action. Including the attack action. This wording makes half of the level 7 ability useless. Because they're buffing the ranger. Forcing the ranger to use its action for the beast made the beastmaster essentially useless.
The Maul action on the card is a melee weapon attack. As stated on the card. An attack action uses a melee weapon attack or ranged weapon attack to attack.
Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multiattack action if it has that action.
So I can use my bonus action to take the attack action. As attack action is "some other action". If it didn't specifically exclude it like other abilities.
That attack action is the melee weapon attack maul. Because I used that attack action with my bonus action Bestial fury kicks in. Giving me a second attack.
So yes a ranger can attack 4 times in a turn. But honestly you're more likely to be casting a spell as a bonus action and only attacking 3 times, otherwise you would just be a fighter and action surge for 6 attacks per short rest at level 11.
Assuming the beast can take multiple actions in one turn, which I think is NOT the case at this point... At level 6 the Tasha's primal beast could attack by replacing one of the ranger's attacks and also use the help action as a bonus action command from the ranger. At level 7 they can no longer do that.
The beast isn't taking multiple actions. They're taking ONE attack action. And like extra attack are given another attack when its made. Not another attack action, just an attack.
The rest of what you said does sound like an unforseen mixup that will probably be errata'd. But it has nothing to do with the beast and ranger attacking twice each.
In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.
The action can be some other action. Including the attack action. This wording makes half of the level 7 ability useless. Because they're buffing the ranger. Forcing the ranger to use its action for the beast made the beastmaster essentially useless.
The Maul action on the card is a melee weapon attack. As stated on the card. An attack action uses a melee weapon attack or ranged weapon attack to attack.
Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multiattack action if it has that action.
So I can use my bonus action to take the attack action. As attack action is "some other action". If it didn't specifically exclude it like other abilities.
That attack action is the melee weapon attack maul. Because I used that attack action with my bonus action Bestial fury kicks in. Giving me a second attack.
So yes a ranger can attack 4 times in a turn. But honestly you're more likely to be casting a spell as a bonus action and only attacking 3 times, otherwise you would just be a fighter and action surge for 6 attacks per short rest at level 11.
The companion attacking isn't the ranger attacking, so I found this post hard to parse. Here's what you can do as an L11 beastmaster ranger, assuming the beastmaster abilities are fixed to apply to the primal companion:
Attack -> actually attack once, convert second attack to beast order, bonus action is free to be an attack (with e.g. crossbow expert or two weapon fighting) or a spell (such as hunter's mark) or something else (such as hiding, if you can hide as a bonus action). Total attacks made: 1-2 by the ranger, 2 by the companion, 3-4 total attacks made by anyone.
Attack -> actually attack twice, bonus action is beast order. That's just 2 attacks for the ranger and 2 for the beast, 4 total made by anyone.
Cast a spell as an action, bonus action beast order -> 2 attacks made by the beast, none by the ranger unless the spell includes an attack, such as thorn whip or booming blade.
I have an L10 beastmaster ranger built right now whose fighting style is intended to incorporate the ability to choose how the beast is ordered: I have crossbow expert and sharpshooter, so I can hand crossbow 3 times if I want the beast to dodge, or I can action attack net + beast order and bonus action attack, or I can action cast a spell and bonus action beast order.
The beast can potentially act twice, once using the ranger's Action and once with the ranger's Bonus Action, because there's no restriction on the number of commands the ranger can issue. This means it's possible for the ranger and beast attack, in tandem, a total of four times; regardless of whether or not the ranger is an archer or they are utilizing Two-Weapon Fighting.
At issue are the limits of the Bonus Action command. "Some other command" is not any and all action, and the final arbiter of what is acceptable is the DM. Personally, Exceptional Training applies in full; which means those three commands (Dash, Disengage, and Help) should not be possible as a Bonus Action until 7th-level.
Likewise, telling us the ranger can command the beast to use an action, "in its stat block," but not Attack means we cannot command it to Attack. This means Bestial Fury isn't compatible with the Bonus Action command. If it were, we would be told as much. Rather, Attack is limited to the ranger's action.
The beast can potentially act twice, once using the ranger's Action and once with the ranger's Bonus Action, because there's no restriction on the number of commands the ranger can issue. This means it's possible for the ranger and beast attack, in tandem, a total of four times; regardless of whether or not the ranger is an archer or they are utilizing Two-Weapon Fighting.
At issue are the limits of the Bonus Action command. "Some other command" is not any and all action, and the final arbiter of what is acceptable is the DM. Personally, Exceptional Training applies in full; which means those three commands (Dash, Disengage, and Help) should not be possible as a Bonus Action until 7th-level.
Likewise, telling us the ranger can command the beast to use an action, "in its stat block," but not Attack means we cannot command it to Attack. This means Bestial Fury isn't compatible with the Bonus Action command. If it were, we would be told as much. Rather, Attack is limited the ranger's action.
There is in no way shape or form anything that limits the actions "some other action" could be. Nor does it state you cannot command it to attack. You're leaving out key words. DND will tell you when you CAN'T do something. Not all he ways you CAN.
If the wording some other action does not explicitly state a restriction, then it includes ALL actions. That'd be like adding an exception to the players actions they can take even though it isn't specified. In fact the word some literally is defined as "used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.". Unspecified, means any action.
Therefore, by the exact wording of the print, you can take ANY action with the bonus action. It does not say you cannot take an attack action. And the wording under the part that states you can also sacrifice one of your attacks to take the attack action, shows that the stat block ability IS in fact an attack action. Or the animal would have no attack actions available.
So by that logic of stat block attack = an attack action, then the ability to use a bonus action to use the beasts stat block action = using a bonus action to use the beasts attack action.
All that matters is exactly what is written on the page. Not what you interpret or assume, but what is written. Until it is erratad.
The beast can potentially act twice, once using the ranger's Action and once with the ranger's Bonus Action, because there's no restriction on the number of commands the ranger can issue.
There is absolutely no rule in the game by which the ranger issuing a command grants the beast any potential to take an additional action. It gets 1 action, period (just like anyone else, so this can be overridden by effects that say so, like Haste). That action will be dodge, unless the beast is ordered otherwise. Ordering the same beast twice on the same turn doesn't do anything meaningful unless you issue the first order and somehow something happens such that you want to change your mind and countermand the previous order.
We are circling back around here. The issue of possible 5 attacks at level 11 is solved by the each creature only gets one action on it's turn. This also solves the level 7 ability as well. They even bold the words take one action.
No matter how the ranger chooses to command the beast, the beast can only ever take one action. And at level 11 the ranger and beast can make a total of 4 attacks if the ranger uses extra attack and commands the beast to attack with a bonus action.
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. Your speed — sometimes called your walking speed — is noted on your character sheet.
The most common actions you can take are described in the "Actions in Combat" section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action.
The "Movement and Position" section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move.
You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn. If you can't decide what to do on your turn, consider taking the Dodge or Ready action, as described in "Actions in Combat."
Actions in Combat
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
The beast can potentially act twice, once using the ranger's Action and once with the ranger's Bonus Action, because there's no restriction on the number of commands the ranger can issue. This means it's possible for the ranger and beast attack, in tandem, a total of four times; regardless of whether or not the ranger is an archer or they are utilizing Two-Weapon Fighting.
At issue are the limits of the Bonus Action command. "Some other command" is not any and all action, and the final arbiter of what is acceptable is the DM. Personally, Exceptional Training applies in full; which means those three commands (Dash, Disengage, and Help) should not be possible as a Bonus Action until 7th-level.
Likewise, telling us the ranger can command the beast to use an action, "in its stat block," but not Attack means we cannot command it to Attack. This means Bestial Fury isn't compatible with the Bonus Action command. If it were, we would be told as much. Rather, Attack is limited the ranger's action.
There is in no way shape or form anything that limits the actions "some other action" could be. Nor does it state you cannot command it to attack. You're leaving out key words. DND will tell you when you CAN'T do something. Not all he ways you CAN.
If the wording some other action does not explicitly state a restriction, then it includes ALL actions. That'd be like adding an exception to the players actions they can take even though it isn't specified. In fact the word some literally is defined as "used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.". Unspecified, means any action.
Therefore, by the exact wording of the print, you can take ANY action with the bonus action. It does not say you cannot take an attack action. And the wording under the part that states you can also sacrifice one of your attacks to take the attack action, shows that the stat block ability IS in fact an attack action. Or the animal would have no attack actions available.
So by that logic of stat block attack = an attack action, then the ability to use a bonus action to use the beasts stat block action = using a bonus action to use the beasts attack action.
All that matters is exactly what is written on the page. Not what you interpret or assume, but what is written. Until it is erratad.
That's not entirely accurate. The rules are written in the affirmative. They tell you what you can do, not what you can't. You're not going to find a single rule anywhere in 5th Edition that says you cannot do something.
"Some other action" is vague. We're not given a list of what actions are permissible. The only expressed permission in for the Bonus Action command is the action in the creature's stat block. And, for the record, that action is not the same as the Attack; even if it is an attack.
Actions in Combat
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
Because the feature is vague, it's left up to DM interpretation. That's just how it is. You can argue that all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
I've said how I'd rule on that vagueness. Others are free to be more permissive; even if I disagree. I don't get to tell them how to run their games, and neither do you.
The beast can potentially act twice, once using the ranger's Action and once with the ranger's Bonus Action, because there's no restriction on the number of commands the ranger can issue.
There is absolutely no rule in the game by which the ranger issuing a command grants the beast any potential to take an additional action. It gets 1 action, period (just like anyone else, so this can be overridden by effects that say so, like Haste). That action will be dodge, unless the beast is ordered otherwise. Ordering the same beast twice on the same turn doesn't do anything meaningful unless you issue the first order and somehow something happens such that you want to change your mind and countermand the previous order.
We all know the general rule about creatures only having one action. And we know there is nothing preventing the ranger from issuing commands with both their Action and Bonus Action. That's why I said potentially. Nothing in the feature prevents the commands' or the following-through of those commands.
You're free to impose that restriction at your own table. I don't think you're wrong if you do. But it doesn't change the fact that it's not prohibited. The rules for controlling the primal companion are more specific than the general rule, and so take precedence. And because of that, I don't think anyone is wrong for allowing the two commands per turn.
The beast can potentially act twice, once using the ranger's Action and once with the ranger's Bonus Action, because there's no restriction on the number of commands the ranger can issue. This means it's possible for the ranger and beast attack, in tandem, a total of four times; regardless of whether or not the ranger is an archer or they are utilizing Two-Weapon Fighting.
At issue are the limits of the Bonus Action command. "Some other command" is not any and all action, and the final arbiter of what is acceptable is the DM. Personally, Exceptional Training applies in full; which means those three commands (Dash, Disengage, and Help) should not be possible as a Bonus Action until 7th-level.
Likewise, telling us the ranger can command the beast to use an action, "in its stat block," but not Attack means we cannot command it to Attack. This means Bestial Fury isn't compatible with the Bonus Action command. If it were, we would be told as much. Rather, Attack is limited the ranger's action.
There is in no way shape or form anything that limits the actions "some other action" could be. Nor does it state you cannot command it to attack. You're leaving out key words. DND will tell you when you CAN'T do something. Not all he ways you CAN.
If the wording some other action does not explicitly state a restriction, then it includes ALL actions. That'd be like adding an exception to the players actions they can take even though it isn't specified. In fact the word some literally is defined as "used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.". Unspecified, means any action.
Therefore, by the exact wording of the print, you can take ANY action with the bonus action. It does not say you cannot take an attack action. And the wording under the part that states you can also sacrifice one of your attacks to take the attack action, shows that the stat block ability IS in fact an attack action. Or the animal would have no attack actions available.
So by that logic of stat block attack = an attack action, then the ability to use a bonus action to use the beasts stat block action = using a bonus action to use the beasts attack action.
All that matters is exactly what is written on the page. Not what you interpret or assume, but what is written. Until it is erratad.
That's not entirely accurate. The rules are written in the affirmative. They tell you what you can do, not what you can't. You're not going to find a single rule anywhere in 5th Edition that says you cannot do something.
"Some other action" is vague. We're not given a list of what actions are permissible. The only expressed permission in for the Bonus Action command is the action in the creature's stat block. And, for the record, that action is not the same as the Attack; even if it is an attack.
Actions in Combat
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
Because the feature is vague, it's left up to DM interpretation. That's just how it is. You can argue that all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
I've said how I'd rule on that vagueness. Others are free to be more permissive; even if I disagree. I don't get to tell them how to run their games, and neither do you.
Let it go.
You're 100% wrong though.
If the some other actions didn't apply to the attack action it would state, "some other action OTHER than the attack action". If the rules don't limit an action, any action is available. Some other action isn't vague. You're just for some reason having trouble grasping that it means any action.
End of discussion. I've shown you that the wording for some means unspecified. Unspecified means any action, because no action is specified. So some other action by the English language means any action available. The attack action is some other action. By pure definition of the word.
If the stat block action is NOT an attack action, then the pet actually has no action it can take with the attack action. An attack action is an action that makes a melee or ranged weapon attack. The actions in the stat blocks all state "melee weapon attack".
"The most Common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged Attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks."
Maul is a melee attack. Pure and simple. As per the PHB. THESE are the facts.
Facts are, you can use a bonus action to perform ANY beast action. You can make a melee attack action using Maul. Therefore the Ranger can make 2 attacks using their action, and 2 beast attacks using their bonus action. Unless you have actual RAW rules to refute this, you're completely arguing out of opinion.
Of course anyone is free to change the rules as they'd like and enjoy. But it doesn't change RAW.
You won't find a single rule in any 5th Edition sourcebook that's written in the prohibitive. I dare you to go and find one; proving me wrong.
Maul, Binding Strike, and Shred are all melee weapon attacks, and so they can be used with the Attack. I never disputed this, and I don't know why you think I'm arguing otherwise. But they are also their own, distinct, action. There's a reason why they're placed under "Actions" and not "Attacks" on the stat block. Likewise, if a creature has Multiattack, that is also its own action. It's not Attack with Extra Attack.
The precise commands that can be issued with the Bonus Action are vague. "Some other action" isn't prohibitive, and I've already said why that's the case, but it also isn't permissive. It is not expressed permission for any and all possible actions. So, what is and isn't covered by the command is left for the DM to adjudicate; because that's the DM's job. The only thing that is expressly allowed by the Bonus Action command is the action(s) in a creature's stat block. In the three stat blocks in Tasha's, these just happen to all be weapon attacks. (This is also an example of future-proofing, as future books may add new primal beasts with new options.) But there is a distinct, mechanical difference between, say, the Maul action and the Attack. The latter of those, by the way, is only expressly permitted during the ranger's own Attack action.
If the Bonus Action command were truly capable of any action, then it negates half the benefit of the 7th-level feature, Exceptional Training. That would be...unfortunate. A DM who wishes to keep that intact would, summarily, limit what the Bonus Action command can do initially. They may even limit "some other action" to be an improvised action. I don't think they're wrong for doing so. Like it or not, that's a vaguely worded phrase.
D&D is a game built on exceptions. You don't have to look any further than the two paragraphs on Specific Beats General to find examples of how that works. I base my interpretation of the action economy on this principle. The ranger is permitted to issue multiple commands, and I view the companion's ability to follow these multiple commands as an exception to the general rule on actions. When you're DM, you're free to rule otherwise at your table. But you don't get to tell someone else they're wrong for allowing it; because it can be supported by the text.
The beast can potentially act twice, once using the ranger's Action and once with the ranger's Bonus Action, because there's no restriction on the number of commands the ranger can issue. This means it's possible for the ranger and beast attack, in tandem, a total of four times; regardless of whether or not the ranger is an archer or they are utilizing Two-Weapon Fighting.
At issue are the limits of the Bonus Action command. "Some other command" is not any and all action, and the final arbiter of what is acceptable is the DM. Personally, Exceptional Training applies in full; which means those three commands (Dash, Disengage, and Help) should not be possible as a Bonus Action until 7th-level.
Likewise, telling us the ranger can command the beast to use an action, "in its stat block," but not Attack means we cannot command it to Attack. This means Bestial Fury isn't compatible with the Bonus Action command. If it were, we would be told as much. Rather, Attack is limited the ranger's action.
There is in no way shape or form anything that limits the actions "some other action" could be. Nor does it state you cannot command it to attack. You're leaving out key words. DND will tell you when you CAN'T do something. Not all he ways you CAN.
If the wording some other action does not explicitly state a restriction, then it includes ALL actions. That'd be like adding an exception to the players actions they can take even though it isn't specified. In fact the word some literally is defined as "used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.". Unspecified, means any action.
Therefore, by the exact wording of the print, you can take ANY action with the bonus action. It does not say you cannot take an attack action. And the wording under the part that states you can also sacrifice one of your attacks to take the attack action, shows that the stat block ability IS in fact an attack action. Or the animal would have no attack actions available.
So by that logic of stat block attack = an attack action, then the ability to use a bonus action to use the beasts stat block action = using a bonus action to use the beasts attack action.
All that matters is exactly what is written on the page. Not what you interpret or assume, but what is written. Until it is erratad.
That's not entirely accurate. The rules are written in the affirmative. They tell you what you can do, not what you can't. You're not going to find a single rule anywhere in 5th Edition that says you cannot do something.
"Some other action" is vague. We're not given a list of what actions are permissible. The only expressed permission in for the Bonus Action command is the action in the creature's stat block. And, for the record, that action is not the same as the Attack; even if it is an attack.
Actions in Combat
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.
When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
Because the feature is vague, it's left up to DM interpretation. That's just how it is. You can argue that all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
I've said how I'd rule on that vagueness. Others are free to be more permissive; even if I disagree. I don't get to tell them how to run their games, and neither do you.
Let it go.
You're 100% wrong though.
If the some other actions didn't apply to the attack action it would state, "some other action OTHER than the attack action". If the rules don't limit an action, any action is available. Some other action isn't vague. You're just for some reason having trouble grasping that it means any action.
End of discussion. I've shown you that the wording for some means unspecified. Unspecified means any action, because no action is specified. So some other action by the English language means any action available. The attack action is some other action. By pure definition of the word.
If the stat block action is NOT an attack action, then the pet actually has no action it can take with the attack action. An attack action is an action that makes a melee or ranged weapon attack. The actions in the stat blocks all state "melee weapon attack".
"The most Common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged Attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks."
Maul is a melee attack. Pure and simple. As per the PHB. THESE are the facts.
Facts are, you can use a bonus action to perform ANY beast action. You can make a melee attack action using Maul. Therefore the Ranger can make 2 attacks using their action, and 2 beast attacks using their bonus action. Unless you have actual RAW rules to refute this, you're completely arguing out of opinion.
Of course anyone is free to change the rules as they'd like and enjoy. But it doesn't change RAW.
Here's the Thing. The Rule for Primal Beast Actually does State Some other Action besides the attack action in the way it is written. Just not in the way your wanting it to be.
Because here is the undeniable situation about how both Beast Companion and Primal Companion are written. They call out the Attack action in specificity in how it's used. This specificity even over-rides the statement right before it that says some other action.
In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.
This is the entire paragraph. I want you to note something very specific here. It states that with a Bonus Action you can have it take a stat-block action or some other action.
Then in it's very next sentence it makes a rule of specificity over that saying that If you sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Rangers Attack Action you can make the Beast take the Attack Action. This particular sentence is written in a form of "in addition to the previous statement" format to make a rule specifically about the Attack Action only.
Also Some other Action is by it's own phrase limiting. It is somewhat open in that limitation but it is limiting. It is not Any. It is not All. It is Some. The Reason that it is Some is because The statement setting the rule about using Bonus Action Commands is setting itself up and knows full well that it is going to be over-ridden by a more specific rule in the following sentence. This is important to understand when it comes to the Action Economy of the Beast Master Ranger.
So while the language is not quite what you want. It does actually make limits on it. It does call out the Attack Action as being special and different from the other bonus action commands and it does make a clarification that means "some action" that you all are stressing about and trying to make as broad as possible to the point of redefining some to mean any or all does not apply. Some is some. Not Any. Not All. Just Some. The Attack Action Specificity over Rides and Clarifies the Attack Action in much the same way as saying "except the Attack action" on some. Because it essentially is that but in different wording to provide more context.
Now jounichi and I disagree about the bonus action commands functions of the level 7 ability. It's not made entirely useless with the change to Primal Companion. It just gives certain things early in my opinion. The counting as magical damage part doesn't apply until 7 either way. He prefer's to forgo these abilities until 7 to make it line up with the beast companion (which the beast side really needs all of it in my opinion.) Take the level 7 ability how you will.
Edit: Also. Your entire argument about the Maul Action is nonsense. It does not matter if Maul is a melee attack. It is not the Attack Action. It does not magically give you two attacks from the Bonus Action. Nothing Does.
The Level 11 power is explicit on when the Beast gets multiple Attacks. Beastial Fury States quite clearly that when you sacrifice an attack from the Rangers Attack action then the Beast gets to use Two Attacks or the multi-attack action if it has it. Before that point there is no way to get two attacks because For starters Primal Beasts never get the Multi attack action. And Secondly it states the only time that two of it's attacks can be made and that's during the Rangers Attack action. Also, Just for Clarity of the Record, The Multi-attack action is only in question with Beast Companions and Beast Companions can never use Bonus Actions to Attack.
So all this BS about making two attacks on the bonus Action are completely impossible because Beastial Fury is not and does not work like a PC's Extra attack feature. It has it's own restrictions that are very specific that your blatantly ignoring that are actually written in that overly plain text language your saying should be used around the words "some action".
It says also. "You can ALSO sacrifice one of your attacks to have your beast take the attack action."
So you can do it as a bonus action OR also do it by sacrificing one of your attacks. This doesn't add prohibitive speech to the first instance of some other action. I also explained farther up the EXACT DEFINITION of the word some. It as "undefined". If I tell you, you can pick some number. An undefined number. What numbers can you NOT pick? There aren't any. It's open to any number you can think of. Just like, some other action, is open to any action not currently listed (the phrase other) that is still considered an action in DND.
What is an attack action? If I take the attack action with my beast, by sacrificing one of my attacks, what do I roll? I also explained this part. When choosing to take the attack action you pick a melee weapon or ranged weapon attack to use. If Maul is stated as a MELEE WEAPON ATTACK. I can choose to use it when making an attack action. Just like my longsword is a melee weapon attack, and I can choose to use it as my attack action. Look at your character sheets on dndbeyond. Your attacks are under attacks AND under actions. They are not different.
And Beastial fury says nothing of the sort.
"Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multiattack action if it has that action."
That's what it says. Completely, 100% what it says. And since the bonus action DOES NOT SAY YOU CAN'T USE IT TO MAKE AN ATTACK ACTION, you have commanded your pet to take the attack action. Trigger successful. Second attack is allowed.
I'm using caps because you seem to have a hard time reading things I've already typed.
I'm sorry to start this up again. I read this in the Player's Handbook...
...and this as well...
...I am now in favor of the beast's (either beast) only gets to take one action on it's turn, no matter how the ranger commands it to do so.
Also, if you believe this isn't the case, remember that the level 7 subclass ability would actual be a power nerf for the Tasha's primal companion, as it couldn't attack and use another listed bonus action. You can't just automatically ignore the rule because they already get a bonus action command.
I've never seen someone be so wrong, but double down so hard.
So you think this subclass should eventually have 4 attacks, and be able to make two actions every turn from level 3?
The level 7 ability either applies to the Tasha's beast master in full, or none of the level 7, 11, or 15 level abilities apply at all.
Wouldnt the question be, how would you run it? It is an rpg, there are dragons and magic after all. :)
Why wouldn't it?
In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.
The action can be some other action. Including the attack action. This wording makes half of the level 7 ability useless. Because they're buffing the ranger. Forcing the ranger to use its action for the beast made the beastmaster essentially useless.
The Maul action on the card is a melee weapon attack. As stated on the card. An attack action uses a melee weapon attack or ranged weapon attack to attack.
Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multiattack action if it has that action.
So I can use my bonus action to take the attack action. As attack action is "some other action". If it didn't specifically exclude it like other abilities.
That attack action is the melee weapon attack maul. Because I used that attack action with my bonus action Bestial fury kicks in. Giving me a second attack.
So yes a ranger can attack 4 times in a turn. But honestly you're more likely to be casting a spell as a bonus action and only attacking 3 times, otherwise you would just be a fighter and action surge for 6 attacks per short rest at level 11.
Assuming the beast can take multiple actions in one turn, which I think is NOT the case at this point... At level 6 the Tasha's primal beast could attack by replacing one of the ranger's attacks and also use the help action as a bonus action command from the ranger. At level 7 they can no longer do that.
The beast isn't taking multiple actions. They're taking ONE attack action. And like extra attack are given another attack when its made. Not another attack action, just an attack.
The rest of what you said does sound like an unforseen mixup that will probably be errata'd. But it has nothing to do with the beast and ranger attacking twice each.
The companion attacking isn't the ranger attacking, so I found this post hard to parse. Here's what you can do as an L11 beastmaster ranger, assuming the beastmaster abilities are fixed to apply to the primal companion:
I have an L10 beastmaster ranger built right now whose fighting style is intended to incorporate the ability to choose how the beast is ordered: I have crossbow expert and sharpshooter, so I can hand crossbow 3 times if I want the beast to dodge, or I can action attack net + beast order and bonus action attack, or I can action cast a spell and bonus action beast order.
The beast can potentially act twice, once using the ranger's Action and once with the ranger's Bonus Action, because there's no restriction on the number of commands the ranger can issue. This means it's possible for the ranger and beast attack, in tandem, a total of four times; regardless of whether or not the ranger is an archer or they are utilizing Two-Weapon Fighting.
At issue are the limits of the Bonus Action command. "Some other command" is not any and all action, and the final arbiter of what is acceptable is the DM. Personally, Exceptional Training applies in full; which means those three commands (Dash, Disengage, and Help) should not be possible as a Bonus Action until 7th-level.
Likewise, telling us the ranger can command the beast to use an action, "in its stat block," but not Attack means we cannot command it to Attack. This means Bestial Fury isn't compatible with the Bonus Action command. If it were, we would be told as much. Rather, Attack is limited to the ranger's action.
There is in no way shape or form anything that limits the actions "some other action" could be. Nor does it state you cannot command it to attack. You're leaving out key words. DND will tell you when you CAN'T do something. Not all he ways you CAN.
If the wording some other action does not explicitly state a restriction, then it includes ALL actions. That'd be like adding an exception to the players actions they can take even though it isn't specified. In fact the word some literally is defined as "used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified.". Unspecified, means any action.
Therefore, by the exact wording of the print, you can take ANY action with the bonus action. It does not say you cannot take an attack action. And the wording under the part that states you can also sacrifice one of your attacks to take the attack action, shows that the stat block ability IS in fact an attack action. Or the animal would have no attack actions available.
So by that logic of stat block attack = an attack action, then the ability to use a bonus action to use the beasts stat block action = using a bonus action to use the beasts attack action.
All that matters is exactly what is written on the page. Not what you interpret or assume, but what is written. Until it is erratad.
There is absolutely no rule in the game by which the ranger issuing a command grants the beast any potential to take an additional action. It gets 1 action, period (just like anyone else, so this can be overridden by effects that say so, like Haste). That action will be dodge, unless the beast is ordered otherwise. Ordering the same beast twice on the same turn doesn't do anything meaningful unless you issue the first order and somehow something happens such that you want to change your mind and countermand the previous order.
We are circling back around here. The issue of possible 5 attacks at level 11 is solved by the each creature only gets one action on it's turn. This also solves the level 7 ability as well. They even bold the words take one action.
No matter how the ranger chooses to command the beast, the beast can only ever take one action. And at level 11 the ranger and beast can make a total of 4 attacks if the ranger uses extra attack and commands the beast to attack with a bonus action.
That's not entirely accurate. The rules are written in the affirmative. They tell you what you can do, not what you can't. You're not going to find a single rule anywhere in 5th Edition that says you cannot do something.
"Some other action" is vague. We're not given a list of what actions are permissible. The only expressed permission in for the Bonus Action command is the action in the creature's stat block. And, for the record, that action is not the same as the Attack; even if it is an attack.
Because the feature is vague, it's left up to DM interpretation. That's just how it is. You can argue that all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
I've said how I'd rule on that vagueness. Others are free to be more permissive; even if I disagree. I don't get to tell them how to run their games, and neither do you.
Let it go.
We all know the general rule about creatures only having one action. And we know there is nothing preventing the ranger from issuing commands with both their Action and Bonus Action. That's why I said potentially. Nothing in the feature prevents the commands' or the following-through of those commands.
You're free to impose that restriction at your own table. I don't think you're wrong if you do. But it doesn't change the fact that it's not prohibited. The rules for controlling the primal companion are more specific than the general rule, and so take precedence. And because of that, I don't think anyone is wrong for allowing the two commands per turn.
You're 100% wrong though.
If the some other actions didn't apply to the attack action it would state, "some other action OTHER than the attack action". If the rules don't limit an action, any action is available. Some other action isn't vague. You're just for some reason having trouble grasping that it means any action.
End of discussion. I've shown you that the wording for some means unspecified. Unspecified means any action, because no action is specified. So some other action by the English language means any action available. The attack action is some other action. By pure definition of the word.
If the stat block action is NOT an attack action, then the pet actually has no action it can take with the attack action. An attack action is an action that makes a melee or ranged weapon attack. The actions in the stat blocks all state "melee weapon attack".
"The most Common action to take in combat is the Attack action, whether you are swinging a sword, firing an arrow from a bow, or brawling with your fists. With this action, you make one melee or ranged Attack. See the “Making an Attack” section for the rules that govern attacks."
Maul is a melee attack. Pure and simple. As per the PHB. THESE are the facts.
Facts are, you can use a bonus action to perform ANY beast action. You can make a melee attack action using Maul. Therefore the Ranger can make 2 attacks using their action, and 2 beast attacks using their bonus action. Unless you have actual RAW rules to refute this, you're completely arguing out of opinion.
Of course anyone is free to change the rules as they'd like and enjoy. But it doesn't change RAW.
You won't find a single rule in any 5th Edition sourcebook that's written in the prohibitive. I dare you to go and find one; proving me wrong.
Maul, Binding Strike, and Shred are all melee weapon attacks, and so they can be used with the Attack. I never disputed this, and I don't know why you think I'm arguing otherwise. But they are also their own, distinct, action. There's a reason why they're placed under "Actions" and not "Attacks" on the stat block. Likewise, if a creature has Multiattack, that is also its own action. It's not Attack with Extra Attack.
The precise commands that can be issued with the Bonus Action are vague. "Some other action" isn't prohibitive, and I've already said why that's the case, but it also isn't permissive. It is not expressed permission for any and all possible actions. So, what is and isn't covered by the command is left for the DM to adjudicate; because that's the DM's job. The only thing that is expressly allowed by the Bonus Action command is the action(s) in a creature's stat block. In the three stat blocks in Tasha's, these just happen to all be weapon attacks. (This is also an example of future-proofing, as future books may add new primal beasts with new options.) But there is a distinct, mechanical difference between, say, the Maul action and the Attack. The latter of those, by the way, is only expressly permitted during the ranger's own Attack action.
If the Bonus Action command were truly capable of any action, then it negates half the benefit of the 7th-level feature, Exceptional Training. That would be...unfortunate. A DM who wishes to keep that intact would, summarily, limit what the Bonus Action command can do initially. They may even limit "some other action" to be an improvised action. I don't think they're wrong for doing so. Like it or not, that's a vaguely worded phrase.
D&D is a game built on exceptions. You don't have to look any further than the two paragraphs on Specific Beats General to find examples of how that works. I base my interpretation of the action economy on this principle. The ranger is permitted to issue multiple commands, and I view the companion's ability to follow these multiple commands as an exception to the general rule on actions. When you're DM, you're free to rule otherwise at your table. But you don't get to tell someone else they're wrong for allowing it; because it can be supported by the text.
Here's the Thing. The Rule for Primal Beast Actually does State Some other Action besides the attack action in the way it is written. Just not in the way your wanting it to be.
Because here is the undeniable situation about how both Beast Companion and Primal Companion are written. They call out the Attack action in specificity in how it's used. This specificity even over-rides the statement right before it that says some other action.
This is the entire paragraph. I want you to note something very specific here. It states that with a Bonus Action you can have it take a stat-block action or some other action.
Then in it's very next sentence it makes a rule of specificity over that saying that If you sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Rangers Attack Action you can make the Beast take the Attack Action. This particular sentence is written in a form of "in addition to the previous statement" format to make a rule specifically about the Attack Action only.
Also Some other Action is by it's own phrase limiting. It is somewhat open in that limitation but it is limiting. It is not Any. It is not All. It is Some. The Reason that it is Some is because The statement setting the rule about using Bonus Action Commands is setting itself up and knows full well that it is going to be over-ridden by a more specific rule in the following sentence. This is important to understand when it comes to the Action Economy of the Beast Master Ranger.
So while the language is not quite what you want. It does actually make limits on it. It does call out the Attack Action as being special and different from the other bonus action commands and it does make a clarification that means "some action" that you all are stressing about and trying to make as broad as possible to the point of redefining some to mean any or all does not apply. Some is some. Not Any. Not All. Just Some. The Attack Action Specificity over Rides and Clarifies the Attack Action in much the same way as saying "except the Attack action" on some. Because it essentially is that but in different wording to provide more context.
Now jounichi and I disagree about the bonus action commands functions of the level 7 ability. It's not made entirely useless with the change to Primal Companion. It just gives certain things early in my opinion. The counting as magical damage part doesn't apply until 7 either way. He prefer's to forgo these abilities until 7 to make it line up with the beast companion (which the beast side really needs all of it in my opinion.) Take the level 7 ability how you will.
Edit: Also. Your entire argument about the Maul Action is nonsense. It does not matter if Maul is a melee attack. It is not the Attack Action. It does not magically give you two attacks from the Bonus Action. Nothing Does.
The Level 11 power is explicit on when the Beast gets multiple Attacks. Beastial Fury States quite clearly that when you sacrifice an attack from the Rangers Attack action then the Beast gets to use Two Attacks or the multi-attack action if it has it. Before that point there is no way to get two attacks because For starters Primal Beasts never get the Multi attack action. And Secondly it states the only time that two of it's attacks can be made and that's during the Rangers Attack action. Also, Just for Clarity of the Record, The Multi-attack action is only in question with Beast Companions and Beast Companions can never use Bonus Actions to Attack.
So all this BS about making two attacks on the bonus Action are completely impossible because Beastial Fury is not and does not work like a PC's Extra attack feature. It has it's own restrictions that are very specific that your blatantly ignoring that are actually written in that overly plain text language your saying should be used around the words "some action".
It says also. "You can ALSO sacrifice one of your attacks to have your beast take the attack action."
So you can do it as a bonus action OR also do it by sacrificing one of your attacks. This doesn't add prohibitive speech to the first instance of some other action. I also explained farther up the EXACT DEFINITION of the word some. It as "undefined". If I tell you, you can pick some number. An undefined number. What numbers can you NOT pick? There aren't any. It's open to any number you can think of. Just like, some other action, is open to any action not currently listed (the phrase other) that is still considered an action in DND.
What is an attack action? If I take the attack action with my beast, by sacrificing one of my attacks, what do I roll? I also explained this part. When choosing to take the attack action you pick a melee weapon or ranged weapon attack to use. If Maul is stated as a MELEE WEAPON ATTACK. I can choose to use it when making an attack action. Just like my longsword is a melee weapon attack, and I can choose to use it as my attack action. Look at your character sheets on dndbeyond. Your attacks are under attacks AND under actions. They are not different.
And Beastial fury says nothing of the sort.
"Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multiattack action if it has that action."
That's what it says. Completely, 100% what it says. And since the bonus action DOES NOT SAY YOU CAN'T USE IT TO MAKE AN ATTACK ACTION, you have commanded your pet to take the attack action. Trigger successful. Second attack is allowed.
I'm using caps because you seem to have a hard time reading things I've already typed.