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.
What Beastial Fury Says is a modification of What Primal Companion and Beast Companion Say and do. Which your choosing to ignore to create a condition to do what you want it to do. Your whole Argument about some and Undefined are serving the Same purpose. It's ignoring limiters and Defining Characteristics that follow. Because your deciding that Some isn't explicitly defined. Some in no way means all actions. Even when undefined. And when a Clarifying statement immediately follows that it does Actually remove it from the Purview of Some. Which is giving some Definition that your choosing to ignore in your long attempt to try and educate me about.
I'm not having trouble reading things you have typed. I'm quite aware of what you typed. And what your leaving out and what your trying to redefine or in this case remove definition of to fit your desires.
Being a Weapon attack also does not Make it the Attack Action. Spells can make Weapon attacks but they are not the Attack action. They are fully under the purview of Cast a Spell. Just like Maul Can be an action, might even be able to use it with the Attack Action, Which seems to be the Intended effect but is not actually strictly the RaW effect mind you (but that is a different argument altogether) but that does not in fact make it the Attack Action. Just something that you can do with the Attack action. However. Maul is an action that is in the Stat Block and is an Action that can be taken as a Bonus Action Command as per the Primal Companion RaW.
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.
There are two things wrong with these paragraphs:
Words have meanings. The word "also" does not mean "or." It means "additionally."
Your example is flawed because the DM is the final arbiter on what actions are or are not allowed. They narrate what happens. As we've been telling you, repeatedly, the use of the word "some" means the DM decides what is and isn't allowed. The player can make suggestions, but it's not a blanket permission. If it was intended as blanket permission, it would be written accordingly.
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."
This is completely unnecessary. No one here has ever argued that any of this isn't true. You're just wasting space and time.
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.
"Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks."
The various Primal Companions can all take the Attack action. This isn't in dispute. What you seem to be getting hung up on is that their individual weapon attacks are also distinct actions. The Primal Companion does not need to take the Attack action in order to use these actions. Furthermore, the rules are consistently written to rant expressed permissions. We've been over this. Please excuse the double-negative, but a rule not saying you can't do something is not the same as a rule saying you can do something.
Permission for the Attack action is only expressly given with the ranger's own Attack action, and the ranger must sacrifice one of their own attacks to allow it. If a DM wishes to allow the companion to use their Attack action via the ranger's Bonus Action, that is their prerogative. But it isn't RAW, and the player does not get to demand its use.
I’m getting a little lost on what folks think what does what and how many times.
IMHO, the ranger using its bonus action to command the beast to take the attack action, seeing as that is, some other action other than dodge, is perfectly legal, RAW, or however you want to phrase it.
The beast having more than one action to take on a single turn, no matter what the circumstances, is not within the abilities.
I’m getting a little lost on what folks think what does what and how many times.
IMHO, the ranger using its bonus action to command the beast to take the attack action, seeing as that is, some other action other than dodge, is perfectly legal, RAW, or however you want to phrase it.
The beast having more than one action to take on a single turn, no matter what the circumstances, is not within the abilities.
If the intent was for the ranger to use its bonus action to command the Attack action, the sentences would be worded differently. The phrase, "some other action," could include Attack, but it isn't expressly stated. Alternatively, "some other action," could be simply laying the groundwork for Exceptional Training. In other words, it's vague and left for the DM to decide.
And while creatures are, generally, limited to one action, the ranger is expressly permitted to issue multiple commands to the beast. A special exception to the one action general rule doesn't need to be stated because the beast is already stated to follow the ranger's commands. Note: this was possible with the PHB Beast Master; with both the ranger's Action and Bonus Action commands limited to some combination of Dash, Disengage, and Help.
I’m getting a little lost on what folks think what does what and how many times.
IMHO, the ranger using its bonus action to command the beast to take the attack action, seeing as that is, some other action other than dodge, is perfectly legal, RAW, or however you want to phrase it.
The beast having more than one action to take on a single turn, no matter what the circumstances, is not within the abilities.
If the intent was for the ranger to use its bonus action to command the Attack action, the sentences would be worded differently. The phrase, "some other action," could include Attack, but it isn't expressly stated. Alternatively, "some other action," could be simply laying the groundwork for Exceptional Training. In other words, it's vague and left for the DM to decide.
And while creatures are, generally, limited to one action, the ranger is expressly permitted to issue multiple commands to the beast. A special exception to the one action general rule doesn't need to be stated because the beast is already stated to follow the ranger's commands. Note: this was possible with the PHB Beast Master; with both the ranger's Action and Bonus Action commands limited to some combination of Dash, Disengage, and Help.
Yeah. I hear you. I just disagree on both accounts.
For anyone who found this thread as I did, looking to understand the difference in how the Primal Companion operated vs. the Ranger's Companion for the Beastmaster Archetype, I want to attempt to summarize the interpretations in these few posts. My apologies for necroing such an old thread, but until some more clarification comes out from the devs the debate(s) will rage on.
To get an overview of the situation here are some terms which need to be understood, and some concepts to consider regarding this issue:
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.
Consider: Should the Beastmaster's Companion be regarded as a PC or NPC in terms of action economy? In other words, how many Actions should the beast get? Is it limited to one, as a PC would get, or is it as many as can be issued to it by the Ranger? If the latter, then how many Actions does it get when the Ranger is unable to issue commands to it?
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.
Consider: There are 10 actions listed under the ACTIONS IN COMBAT section, and an additional "Improvise an Action" action. Which of these actions are available to the beast companion, and at which level, depends on how players and their DM interpret some of the more ambiguous text describing the companion.
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.
Consider: Not all Attacks are, or utilize, the Attack Action. A Warlock's Eldritch Blast, for example, uses the Cast a Spell Action in order to make a Ranged Spell Attack. Further, a level 5 Fighter can use the Extra Attack feature to make two Attacks during their turn, but in doing so they are not taking two Attack Actions. Similarly, a level 2 Monk using Flurry of Blows is making two Unarmed Strikes, which are attacks, but said Monk is using a Bonus Action to do so, rather than using three Attack Actions on their turn.
Some abilities trigger when making an Attack (e.g. Stunning Strike), while other abilities trigger when taking the Attack Action, in this case Bestial Fury.
BESTIAL FURY: 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. - PHB, p. 93
Final consideration: Rulings, not rules. This is a shorthand for a sentiment that can be found in the developers' design philosophy for Fifth Edition. That is, the rules set a framework for the game, but ultimately the DM has to decide when and how rules apply. In other words, whatever your take away from this is, it comes down to the DM and their players in their own game to work out how they want the Beastmaster's companion to operate.
With all of that pre-amble out of the way, here is a chart I created to illustrate the basic differences between how the Primal Companion and the Ranger's Companion operate, before interpreting any of the ambiguous text listed in their respective sections:
Legend: Italicized text are direct quotes from the books, text in purple are the ambiguous parts, and the text in green are new features added at the higher levels. If image is blurry, here is a direct link.
So to resolve the ambiguities of the text there have been two proposed interpretations in this thread which most commentors have coalesced around. The first is as follows, put forth by Jounichi1983:
Legend: Italicized text are direct quotes from the books, text in purple are the ambiguous parts, and the text in green are new features added at the higher levels. If image is blurry, here is a direct link.
This interpretation primarily assumes that the Tasha's Beastmaster is only meant to supersede the parts of the PHB's Beastmaster where explicitly stated, meaning that the ambiguous parts of Tasha's text do not expressly grant permissions not granted by the PHB. Supporting this view is the rule/guideline: SPECIFIC BEATS GENERAL. That is, as there is specific text in the PHB about when the Beastmaster's companion is able to perform certain actions at the command of the Ranger, then those are the times when it can do so, and not before.
The other popular interpretation of these discrepancies, as put forth by Ocellus, is illustrated thus:
Legend: Italicized text are direct quotes from the books, text in purple are the ambiguous parts, and the text in green are new features added at the higher levels. If image is blurry, here is a direct link.
This interpretation primarily assumes an open interpretation of "some other action" in Tasha's, with the Ranger being able to sacrifice one of their attacks being an additional method of commanding the beast to attack. In support of this view is the nature of changes to the game after its release. That is, the printing of Tasha's, errata, Sage Advice, Jeremy Crawford's tweets, all point to the developers missing things or making mistakes sometimes. Thus, it's possible to assume the lack of clarification that the level 3 Tasha's overrides part of the PHB level 7 features was an oversight on their part.
While my summary is not exhaustive of all the issues concerning how a Beastmaster's companion should operate in a game, I hope it provides enough of an overview to help anyone reading decide how they want to approach this in their game. And remember, the DM is the ultimate arbiter on ambiguous rules in a given game, so talk with your DM about how you'd like to play this for your game. Happy adventuring.
Consider: Should the Beastmaster's Companion be regarded as a PC or NPC in terms of action economy? In other words, how many Actions should the beast get? Is it limited to one, as a PC would get, or is it as many as can be issued to it by the Ranger? If the latter, then how many Actions does it get when the Ranger is unable to issue commands to it?
The Companion, whether Primal or Beast, is an NPC which, like every creature in the game, gets 1 action per turn. Being ordered by its Ranger tells it how to use its action - it doesn't generate actions. The companion will take 1 action per turn regardless of how many orders it receives, whether 0, 1, 2, or more. There's no actual ambiguity here - no rule in the game lets companions take more than one action per turn and there absolutely is a rule in the game limiting companions to one action per turn. This rule is in multiple places, but here's one of them. NPCs having the same fundamental action economy as PCs is why, for example, NPCs don't get infinite (or zero) Opportunity Attacks.
Consider: There are 10 actions listed under the ACTIONS IN COMBAT section, and an additional "Improvise an Action" action. Which of these actions are available to the beast companion, and at which level, depends on how players and their DM interpret some of the more ambiguous text describing the companion.
Every possible action is theoretically available to both companions at every level, but if it's a Beast companion, the only orders it will listen to are Attack, Dash, Disengage, and Help, and it will Dodge if not ordered, unless the BM is incapacitated or absent, which will free it up to use any action in the game at its own discretion. Primal Companions can be told to do anything.
Legend: Italicized text are direct quotes from the books, text in purple are the ambiguous parts, and the text in green are new features added at the higher levels. If image is blurry, here is a direct link.
No way is a phb beast companion an npc. The player decides its "focus" aka personally and alignment. Hence, Player character.
Also wotc now has confirmed the existence of "objects" with stat blocks but odd action economy. Unseen servant and an artificer eldrich cannon are examples. Tasha's spirit "could" be as well ....exempting it from creatures general rules.(Probably not but maybe)
I do now lean towards both have normal action economy. (Ranger and both companions have 1action, 1bonus actions and 1 move) there is however different costs for commands. So a level 3 ranger can command a pet to help as an action. But a level 7 ranger can do the same for a bonus action or a action. (not allowed to action command help and bonus action help same turn because both use companions action{phb only?})
The statement the "only orders it will listen to" is popular but contradictory to other established rules like [all 10 actions are available to all creatures] or the precedent that commands exist that take no action from the ranger. Move is one. commanders strike is another. IMO: Hide and search also appear to be free for phb beastmaster. The ba on the companion stat block should also be free.(fasteth, panther ect)
I went to get you a rules source, which is when I discovered that, as is often the case, what we actually have is a mess of rules which are at times self-contradictory and certainly neither explicit nor clear. So I'll just leave these here:
For the record, this means I was wrong in asserting that the Companions are NPCs: because the rules contradict themselves, the term "NPC" has a definition specific to your DM and hence your table, and I can't assume I know how yours will rule. The Companions are creatures and the Beast Companions, at least, are monsters, but the specific term "NPC" is far more involved.
The player decides its "focus" aka personally and alignment.
Beast Companions have the alignment the DM gives them (which can be the one in their statblock - typically Unaligned - but doesn't have to be). Primal Companions have no rules at all for handling alignment and your DM will have to fabricate them from whole cloth.
Also wotc now has confirmed the existence of "objects" with stat blocks but odd action economy. Unseen servant and an artificer eldrich cannon are examples. Tasha's spirit "could" be as well ....exempting it from creatures general rules.(Probably not but maybe)
Objects have no action economy. An Eldritch Cannon can't take any actions at all, just as an Echo Knight Echo or a table can't. All creatures have the same action economy, including Tasha's summoned spirits. I gave one example of this rule, but it's repeated multiple times in multiple sources. That's why you can't just buy a chicken in town and have it attack an infinite number of times in one turn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
What Beastial Fury Says is a modification of What Primal Companion and Beast Companion Say and do. Which your choosing to ignore to create a condition to do what you want it to do. Your whole Argument about some and Undefined are serving the Same purpose. It's ignoring limiters and Defining Characteristics that follow. Because your deciding that Some isn't explicitly defined. Some in no way means all actions. Even when undefined. And when a Clarifying statement immediately follows that it does Actually remove it from the Purview of Some. Which is giving some Definition that your choosing to ignore in your long attempt to try and educate me about.
I'm not having trouble reading things you have typed. I'm quite aware of what you typed. And what your leaving out and what your trying to redefine or in this case remove definition of to fit your desires.
Being a Weapon attack also does not Make it the Attack Action. Spells can make Weapon attacks but they are not the Attack action. They are fully under the purview of Cast a Spell. Just like Maul Can be an action, might even be able to use it with the Attack Action, Which seems to be the Intended effect but is not actually strictly the RaW effect mind you (but that is a different argument altogether) but that does not in fact make it the Attack Action. Just something that you can do with the Attack action. However. Maul is an action that is in the Stat Block and is an Action that can be taken as a Bonus Action Command as per the Primal Companion RaW.
There are two things wrong with these paragraphs:
This is completely unnecessary. No one here has ever argued that any of this isn't true. You're just wasting space and time.
"Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks."
The various Primal Companions can all take the Attack action. This isn't in dispute. What you seem to be getting hung up on is that their individual weapon attacks are also distinct actions. The Primal Companion does not need to take the Attack action in order to use these actions. Furthermore, the rules are consistently written to rant expressed permissions. We've been over this. Please excuse the double-negative, but a rule not saying you can't do something is not the same as a rule saying you can do something.
Permission for the Attack action is only expressly given with the ranger's own Attack action, and the ranger must sacrifice one of their own attacks to allow it. If a DM wishes to allow the companion to use their Attack action via the ranger's Bonus Action, that is their prerogative. But it isn't RAW, and the player does not get to demand its use.
I’m getting a little lost on what folks think what does what and how many times.
IMHO, the ranger using its bonus action to command the beast to take the attack action, seeing as that is, some other action other than dodge, is perfectly legal, RAW, or however you want to phrase it.
The beast having more than one action to take on a single turn, no matter what the circumstances, is not within the abilities.
If the intent was for the ranger to use its bonus action to command the Attack action, the sentences would be worded differently. The phrase, "some other action," could include Attack, but it isn't expressly stated. Alternatively, "some other action," could be simply laying the groundwork for Exceptional Training. In other words, it's vague and left for the DM to decide.
And while creatures are, generally, limited to one action, the ranger is expressly permitted to issue multiple commands to the beast. A special exception to the one action general rule doesn't need to be stated because the beast is already stated to follow the ranger's commands. Note: this was possible with the PHB Beast Master; with both the ranger's Action and Bonus Action commands limited to some combination of Dash, Disengage, and Help.
Yeah. I hear you. I just disagree on both accounts.
For anyone who found this thread as I did, looking to understand the difference in how the Primal Companion operated vs. the Ranger's Companion for the Beastmaster Archetype, I want to attempt to summarize the interpretations in these few posts. My apologies for necroing such an old thread, but until some more clarification comes out from the devs the debate(s) will rage on.
To get an overview of the situation here are some terms which need to be understood, and some concepts to consider regarding this issue:
Consider: Should the Beastmaster's Companion be regarded as a PC or NPC in terms of action economy? In other words, how many Actions should the beast get? Is it limited to one, as a PC would get, or is it as many as can be issued to it by the Ranger? If the latter, then how many Actions does it get when the Ranger is unable to issue commands to it?
Consider: There are 10 actions listed under the ACTIONS IN COMBAT section, and an additional "Improvise an Action" action. Which of these actions are available to the beast companion, and at which level, depends on how players and their DM interpret some of the more ambiguous text describing the companion.
Consider: Not all Attacks are, or utilize, the Attack Action. A Warlock's Eldritch Blast, for example, uses the Cast a Spell Action in order to make a Ranged Spell Attack. Further, a level 5 Fighter can use the Extra Attack feature to make two Attacks during their turn, but in doing so they are not taking two Attack Actions. Similarly, a level 2 Monk using Flurry of Blows is making two Unarmed Strikes, which are attacks, but said Monk is using a Bonus Action to do so, rather than using three Attack Actions on their turn.
Some abilities trigger when making an Attack (e.g. Stunning Strike), while other abilities trigger when taking the Attack Action, in this case Bestial Fury.
Final consideration: Rulings, not rules. This is a shorthand for a sentiment that can be found in the developers' design philosophy for Fifth Edition. That is, the rules set a framework for the game, but ultimately the DM has to decide when and how rules apply. In other words, whatever your take away from this is, it comes down to the DM and their players in their own game to work out how they want the Beastmaster's companion to operate.
With all of that pre-amble out of the way, here is a chart I created to illustrate the basic differences between how the Primal Companion and the Ranger's Companion operate, before interpreting any of the ambiguous text listed in their respective sections:
Legend: Italicized text are direct quotes from the books, text in purple are the ambiguous parts, and the text in green are new features added at the higher levels. If image is blurry, here is a direct link.
So to resolve the ambiguities of the text there have been two proposed interpretations in this thread which most commentors have coalesced around. The first is as follows, put forth by Jounichi1983:
Legend: Italicized text are direct quotes from the books, text in purple are the ambiguous parts, and the text in green are new features added at the higher levels. If image is blurry, here is a direct link.
This interpretation primarily assumes that the Tasha's Beastmaster is only meant to supersede the parts of the PHB's Beastmaster where explicitly stated, meaning that the ambiguous parts of Tasha's text do not expressly grant permissions not granted by the PHB. Supporting this view is the rule/guideline: SPECIFIC BEATS GENERAL. That is, as there is specific text in the PHB about when the Beastmaster's companion is able to perform certain actions at the command of the Ranger, then those are the times when it can do so, and not before.
The other popular interpretation of these discrepancies, as put forth by Ocellus, is illustrated thus:
Legend: Italicized text are direct quotes from the books, text in purple are the ambiguous parts, and the text in green are new features added at the higher levels. If image is blurry, here is a direct link.
This interpretation primarily assumes an open interpretation of "some other action" in Tasha's, with the Ranger being able to sacrifice one of their attacks being an additional method of commanding the beast to attack. In support of this view is the nature of changes to the game after its release. That is, the printing of Tasha's, errata, Sage Advice, Jeremy Crawford's tweets, all point to the developers missing things or making mistakes sometimes. Thus, it's possible to assume the lack of clarification that the level 3 Tasha's overrides part of the PHB level 7 features was an oversight on their part.
While my summary is not exhaustive of all the issues concerning how a Beastmaster's companion should operate in a game, I hope it provides enough of an overview to help anyone reading decide how they want to approach this in their game. And remember, the DM is the ultimate arbiter on ambiguous rules in a given game, so talk with your DM about how you'd like to play this for your game. Happy adventuring.
The Companion, whether Primal or Beast, is an NPC which, like every creature in the game, gets 1 action per turn. Being ordered by its Ranger tells it how to use its action - it doesn't generate actions. The companion will take 1 action per turn regardless of how many orders it receives, whether 0, 1, 2, or more. There's no actual ambiguity here - no rule in the game lets companions take more than one action per turn and there absolutely is a rule in the game limiting companions to one action per turn. This rule is in multiple places, but here's one of them. NPCs having the same fundamental action economy as PCs is why, for example, NPCs don't get infinite (or zero) Opportunity Attacks.
Every possible action is theoretically available to both companions at every level, but if it's a Beast companion, the only orders it will listen to are Attack, Dash, Disengage, and Help, and it will Dodge if not ordered, unless the BM is incapacitated or absent, which will free it up to use any action in the game at its own discretion. Primal Companions can be told to do anything.
No way is a phb beast companion an npc. The player decides its "focus" aka personally and alignment. Hence, Player character.
Also wotc now has confirmed the existence of "objects" with stat blocks but odd action economy. Unseen servant and an artificer eldrich cannon are examples. Tasha's spirit "could" be as well ....exempting it from creatures general rules.(Probably not but maybe)
I do now lean towards both have normal action economy. (Ranger and both companions have 1action, 1bonus actions and 1 move) there is however different costs for commands. So a level 3 ranger can command a pet to help as an action. But a level 7 ranger can do the same for a bonus action or a action. (not allowed to action command help and bonus action help same turn because both use companions action{phb only?})
The statement the "only orders it will listen to" is popular but contradictory to other established rules like [all 10 actions are available to all creatures] or the precedent that commands exist that take no action from the ranger. Move is one. commanders strike is another. IMO: Hide and search also appear to be free for phb beastmaster. The ba on the companion stat block should also be free.(fasteth, panther ect)
I went to get you a rules source, which is when I discovered that, as is often the case, what we actually have is a mess of rules which are at times self-contradictory and certainly neither explicit nor clear. So I'll just leave these here:
According to at least one rule in the DMG, a PHB Beast Companion is an NPC while the Ranger is absent or incapacitated, but otherwise it is not an NPC. That's because NPC is defined as "controlled by the DM" in the cited reference; any character controlled by a player - including a character provided by a spell! - is by definition not an NPC.
According to at least one rule in the PHB, a PHB Beast Companion is an NPC. That's because NPC is defined as "any creature which is not an adventurer" and "adventurer" is partially defined as being created by a player, and a Beast Companion is created by the DM but typically controlled by a player.
For the record, this means I was wrong in asserting that the Companions are NPCs: because the rules contradict themselves, the term "NPC" has a definition specific to your DM and hence your table, and I can't assume I know how yours will rule. The Companions are creatures and the Beast Companions, at least, are monsters, but the specific term "NPC" is far more involved.
Beast Companions have the alignment the DM gives them (which can be the one in their statblock - typically Unaligned - but doesn't have to be). Primal Companions have no rules at all for handling alignment and your DM will have to fabricate them from whole cloth.
Objects have no action economy. An Eldritch Cannon can't take any actions at all, just as an Echo Knight Echo or a table can't. All creatures have the same action economy, including Tasha's summoned spirits. I gave one example of this rule, but it's repeated multiple times in multiple sources. That's why you can't just buy a chicken in town and have it attack an infinite number of times in one turn.