As written it is like Jounichi1983 says, but was that intended, did they forget the level 7 feature, and other actions before level 7?
PHB: 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."
Looking in the stat block for primal companion it says Actions: Maul that would fall under the:
Tashas: "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." Some other action could be anything, athletics, acrobatics, perception, fetch the newspaper and so on. The ranger do not get to command via the bonus action, the companion to take Dash, Disengage, or Help action before level 7 Exceptional Training.
So now we know that monsters have actions options of their own in their stat block, and if the ranger take the bonus action to command the companion, the companion can use its action stated in the stat block, Maul.
Next sentence in Tashas says:
You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action.
Level 1-10 this wont matter for numbers of attacks, either the companion attacks with its action option maul, or/and you command it to take the Attack action, sacrificing one of the rangers attacks.
Level 1-4. Two attacks in total. One from ranger and one from companion, Attack action ranger and bonus action to command companion to use its action option Maul. Or two from companion, sacrifice the one and only attack in the Attack action to command the companion to take the Attack action, and bonus action to command companion to use its action option Maul.
Level 5-10. Three attacks in total, one from ranger and two from companion, or two from ranger and one from companion, as per above, since ranger now have two attacks during its Attack action.
Level 11+. As written. Attack action from ranger, two attacks, bonus action to command companion to use its action option Maul gives three attacks in total.
Attack action from hunter and sacrifice one attack to command companion to take the Attack action and bonus action to command companion to use its action option Maul, gives ranger one attack and companion three attacks (because of Bestial fury).
But this also means that before level 7 you can not command the Primal Companion to take the Dash, Disengage, or Help action on its turn, as these are gained through Exceptional Training at level 7.
That is how it is written, but was it intended to be like this?
Edit: Or is it worse than this, if a creature can only take one action, you cannot reach four attacks, ever. But which classes are able to make four attacks? Or three for that matter?
Either the ranger attack twice during its Attack action and use bonus action to command companion to use its action option Maul gives three attacks in total. Or the ranger attack ones during its Attack action, sacrificing one attack command companion to Take the Attack action, three attacks in total. Freeing up the bonus action for the ranger for the cost of one attack. It is the also in the sentence below that makes me wonder if the companion is allowed two "actions" or not?
You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action.
This is not at all how read it before Jounichi1983 actually pointed out the different rules. :)
Actually ignore the earlier post I made about Maul + Attack x2 making sense. The pet cannot get 3 attacks at all. I don't know why I even thought he could be right about that.
Let's assume his theory is right and Maul/Attack are 2 separate things. You use your bonus action to command the pet to take the Maul action. You now want to sacrifice your attack to let your pet take the attack action. You cannot, because the pet has already used its action with Maul. It gets 1 action, and it's already been spent. If you do the reverse, the same applies. So even if his theories are correct, the pet can never get more than 2 attacks. If he's right, this means the ranger is capped at 1 ranger attack +2 pet attacks = 3 attacks.
He's been wrong from the start, and most likely wrong about almost everything.
As written it is like Jounichi1983 says, but was that intended, did they forget the level 7 feature, and other actions before level 7?
Tashas: "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." Some other action could be anything, athletics, acrobatics, perception, fetch the newspaper and so on. The ranger do not get to command via the bonus action, the companion to take Dash, Disengage, or Help action before level 7 Exceptional Training.
So now we know that monsters have actions options of their own in their stat block, and if the ranger take the bonus action to command the companion, the companion can use its action stated in the stat block, Maul.
You are ignoring 2 key facts.
First, level 7's Exceptional Training was written for the PHB Beast Master, which required the ranger to use a full action to command the pet to take an action. The talent did not, and does not, say the pet cannot take the Dash, Disengage, or Help actions before level 7. Prior to level 7, the PHB version simply required the ranger to use its action to command the pet to Dash, etc. This is why level 7 was actually valuable for the PHB ranger, because what it did do/does is allow you to use your bonus action to issue some commands to the pet, instead of everything requiring the full action.
For reference, here's the PHB verifying what I just said about:
"The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action."
You already quoted Tasha's line yourself. You can compare.
Tasha's companion does not require you to use a full action to command it to do anything. The book explicitly says everything requires a bonus action now. Exceptional Training does not apply to Primal Companion (except for attacks being magical) because the mechanic it was created to improve in the PHB version does not apply to it.
Secondly, you're ignoring the key line you, yourself, quoted: That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. Maul is an action in its stat block, yet. But the bolded line specifically says your commands are not limited to actions written in the stat block.
Why are you stuck on “some other action” meaning no other action?
I never said it was "no other action." Actions can be improvised. Other actions explicitly become available later, as WotC often uses "future-proofing" in it's text. You're the ones trying to stretch and invalidate two subclass features into doing things that aren't intended.
Again, if the intent was for the ranger to use their Bonus Action to order it to Attack, the feature would say so. But that language is conspicuously missing. It wouldn't bother saying the companion could use the action in its stat block because Attack would cover that and more. Rather, Attack is given its own sentence. And you guys are conflating the two rather than even try to understand why it was written as it was.
Why are you treating "some" to mean "any and all"?
Actually ignore the earlier post I made about Maul + Attack x2 making sense. The pet cannot get 3 attacks at all. I don't know why I even thought he could be right about that.
Let's assume his theory is right and Maul/Attack are 2 separate things. You use your bonus action to command the pet to take the Maul action. You now want to sacrifice your attack to let your pet take the attack action. You cannot, because the pet has already used its action with Maul. It gets 1 action, and it's already been spent. If you do the reverse, the same applies. So even if his theories are correct, the pet can never get more than 2 attacks. If he's right, this means the ranger is capped at 1 ranger attack +2 pet attacks = 3 attacks.
He's been wrong from the start, and most likely wrong about almost everything.
Two days ago you didn't have the foggiest idea how any of this worked, and today you're still on this kick about how you think I've been wrong about everything. You just latched on to the first person who gave you an answer without ever thinking critically about it. If I had gotten to you first, instead of Bobbybaker, would this even be happening?
SMH
As an NPC, the companion isn't limited in the same way a PC is. What's more, the companions act as an extension of the ranger. Their action economies are inexorably linked. And there's nothing saying the companion's attack is either/or. In fact, the word "also" is used. In other words, "in addition to."
First, my original question was whether Maul = Attack action for the pet or not. The jury is still out on that, definitively. It could go either way. You never answered my question about what stats you use to roll your pet's "Attack" if Maul is actually a separate thing, though.
Secondly, I'm much more sure about how the interactions work now in either case, thanks to having these debates. I didn't latch on to the first person. I have read critically, and analyzed it. My previous 2 responses basically definitively prove things out. Just reread my response to kurtrune above. You know you're wrong, but you've been stuck defending a badly designed class for so long that you're holding onto a schema of things based on an outdated level 7 ability and a misreading of plain text. The PHB clearly states the pet has ALWAYS had Dash, Disengage, Help, and Attack available to it at every level (it's quoted above for you).
Your argument about those things not being available to it until level 7 is incorrect on its face, just on this alone. But now you're trying to take the old talent and force it onto the new version of the class to make it fit.
Also, you yourself kept stressing about Action economy and how things don't get more than 1 action without haste, etc. Explain, then, how you can command the pet with your bonus action to take the Maul action and, then sacrifice an attack to command it to take the Attack action. The pet cannot take 2 actions. It gets 1 action, 1 reaction, some move, and 1 bonus action if it actually had any abilities it could use with a bonus action (it currently doesn't). The action economies are linked insofar as they act on the same turn and the pet follows your commands. You have 2 options for issuing those commands.
That's actually very simple to answer. Maul is its own action. I've been saying that this entire time. By default, NPCs don't have an Attack action. If they want to attack, they use one of the attacks they're given. But those are, explicitly, separate actions. That said, Maul is also a weapon, which means it can be used with the Attack action. I've been saying that, too. It's just that they're also distinct enough that they can, and are, treated differently. To borrow from someone else, they're both rectangles. But only one of them is a square.
The feature Primal Companion gives a way for the NPC to have an Attack action; something it normally cannot do. It doesn't matter too much at 3rd-level, but it does at 11th-level. And regardless of how you go about using Maul (or Binding Strike or Shred), the attack and damage rolls are outlined in the action description. There's no special rule for using a different modifier. You just use it as-is when taking the Attack action.
The Bonus Action command, initially, is to use their default action: Maul, Binding Strike, or Shred. It can also be used for some other actions, but that's between the DM and player. IMO, given how the 7th-level feature remains unaltered, it still applies in its entirety. The Attack action command is for the Attack action. And the only limit on the number of actions the companion can take is the number of commands the ranger can give. Using just the PH, it's possible to command the companion with Exceptional Training and also direct it with your Action in the same turn. That's always been the case. Why are you saying that's not possible now? Did something change, or have you always operated under this false assumption?
And I honestly don't know why you keep saying the optional 3rd-level feature wasn't written with the 7th-level feature in mind. It clearly was with regard to the 11th and 15th-level features. The age isn't something you should be holding against it.
ok. Guys... Let's break this down a bit. Allow me to try my hand at this.
First of all. The Beast Companion from the Primal Companion is in essence a half PC. It's block follows NPC statistic Structure but it's action Economy follows a players. This is an important little distinction we need to see first. This means that The Beast Companion will only ever be doing 1 action that happens to be an attack or 2 attacks as part of one action. This is important because The Primal Companion feature is what the old beast companion feature should have been. Which is to say it's basically the Beast Master Rangers built in bonus action attack feature like some kind of offhand weapon of a different type. It's technically another living creature yes. and there are some advantages to that. But Damage dealing wise and action economy wise this is what it is for the most part and this never really changes no matter what features it picks up. (it's sad that it took the original archetype to level 11 to reach this point however).
Also, don't worry about comparing to multiattack because multiattack isn't in the stat block so it means nothing here and we just need to throw that part away entirely. Now 1 action to attack is very easy. It's the basic structure. The Ranger uses it's bonus action and the Beast will take it's action that happens to be an attack. Whether that action is Maul, Blinding Strike, Or Shred does not matter because each stat block only has one. And No matter what level. Whether it is level 3 or it's level 17. That Bonus Action is going to allow it to take this one action that happens to be an attack. This by now is probably obvious considering the Pet is basically the Rangers bonus action attack anyway.
Beastial Fury does not apply to the Ranger's Bonus action use of this ability ever. Now Some of you are trying to argue it does and some of you are argueing it doesn't. But the reality is that by RaW it doesn't. Why? The rule of Specificity.
The rule of Specificity wins here. You have to take the whole Paragraph into account with this one to understand the RaW because it gives a general effect of allowing to give the beast a lot of types of actions which would normally include the attack action BUT (And this is a really big but) then it immediately follows with a very Specific Way to allow the beast to use the Attack Action that over rides the more general sentence right before it. This is that the Attack Action can only be used by the Beast by the Ranger Sacrificing an Attack when they take the Attack Action which means using the Attack action because of the previous sentence is now unusable.
So we are locked into a binding set of circumstances for the Attack Action to be usable by the beast. This only affects the previous ability of the bonus action to allow the beasts action that happens to be an attack (maul, etc) in a single way. The Beast does not have enough actions to do both. So it either takes the action that happens to be the attack or the conditions are met for the Beast to take the Attack Action which allows it to attack twice with it's attack (maul, shred, or blinding strike). There is no both what so ever. Beastial Fury doesn't change this in any way. It only cares that When the Ranger uses their Attack Action and Sacrifices one Attack then the Beast can take the Attack Action which allows it to give the Beast a second Attack for that Action. Beastial Fury does not care any time the Maul/shred/blinding strike action that just happens to be an attack is made. It does not even care that when it activates that Maul/Shred/Blinding Strike qualify as viable attacks to be made through it. All it cares about is that it's conditions are met and to do that requires the specificity on the attack action in the Primal Companion write up which requires the Ranger to sacrifice an attack to be able to let their pet take the Attack Action.
So Under Normal Circumstances (that can actually be cheesed) Under any Normal Situation the Ranger is going to get a maximum of 3 attacks. Starting at Level 5 Up until level 11 it's the standard 2 Ranger attacks and one Beast attack. Or after level 11 you have the option of making 1 Ranger attack and 2 Beast Attacks, and able to free up the Rangers Bonus action to be freed up (which opens up a few instances of cheese).
Also it's important to note that There is no natural way to turn a bonus action Attack into two attacks. But there are a very very small handful of ways to get two attacks during your bonus action but both of them are more special uses of your Bonus Action that are distinct from Bonus Action attack. Literally the only two that I can think of Are Flurry of Blows which Flurry of Blows is it's own bonus action that just happens to allow 2 attacks, and Swift Quiver which is a special Bonus Action allowed by the spell where you take technically the Swift Quiver Bonus Action to take two ammunition based attacks. Both of which are seperate, distinct from, and do not work with Bonus Action Attack for various obvious reasons. Something to note about Swift Quiver is that it's also in a very very small group of Bonus Actions that allow you to make an Attack of some kind that does not require to make you take the attack action first (one of the only others belonging to the Berserker Barbarian).
The beast's actions are only limited by how many commands the ranger can issue it. There was nothing preventing the ranger from issuing commands with both their Action and Bonus Action before Tasha's, and there's nothing limiting it now.
The beast's actions are only limited by how many commands the ranger can issue it. There was nothing preventing the ranger from issuing commands with both their Action and Bonus Action before Tasha's, and there's nothing limiting it now.
there actually is. The way the Primal Companion section is written up limits it. It states exactly how many actions it has available to it.
The beast's actions are only limited by how many commands the ranger can issue it. There was nothing preventing the ranger from issuing commands with both their Action and Bonus Action before Tasha's, and there's nothing limiting it now.
At least I understand where you are coming from now.
The beast's actions are only limited by how many commands the ranger can issue it. There was nothing preventing the ranger from issuing commands with both their Action and Bonus Action before Tasha's, and there's nothing limiting it now.
there actually is. The way the Primal Companion section is written up limits it. It states exactly how many actions it has available to it.
What's the limit, because there's nothing in my book that says it can only take one action. Again, that's never been the case before.
“some other action” has to be limited because the book doesn’t explain specific actions. A limitation imposed by lack of info by your interpretation.
And...
the primal companion gets multiple actions because the book doesn’t say it only gets one action like every other creature? A rather large buff you’ve given based on lack of specific information.
“some other action” has to be limited because the book doesn’t explain specific actions. A limitation imposed by lack of info by your interpretation.
And...
the primal companion gets multiple actions because the book doesn’t say it only gets one action like every other creature? A rather large buff you’ve given based on lack of specific information.
seems inconsistent.
Nothing inconsistent about it. The companion's actions have always been limited by the number of commands the ranger could give it. That hasn't changed since the PH was first published over 6 years ago. A vanilla Beast Master has always been able to order their companion around with both their Action and Bonus Action; once it becomes available.
And "some other action", while nebulous, is not all-encompassing. It's the DM, not the player, who gets the final say. And the 7th-level feature, Exceptional Training, remains unaltered by new text. This means it still applies in its entirety. If the Primal Companion feature was intended to act as some form of errata, it would say so. If there was intended to be another alternate feature to replace Exceptional Training, we would see it published alongside Primal Companion. But no such thing exists. The very idea that the writing staff ignored the rest of the subclass, that they didn't stop to consider how Primal Companion would interact with the rest of it, is ludicrous.
You're essentially accusing the book team of incompetence to justify your own interpretation of the text. Eleven total designers worked on this book. Two of them also served as editors, along with three others. How arrogant do you have to be?
So we are locked into a binding set of circumstances for the Attack Action to be usable by the beast. This only affects the previous ability of the bonus action to allow the beasts action that happens to be an attack (maul, etc) in a single way. The Beast does not have enough actions to do both. So it either takes the action thathappens to be the attack or the conditions are met for the Beast to take the Attack Action which allows it to attack twice with it's attack (maul, shred, or blinding strike).
You're even saying yourself that the beast can be commanded to take the Attack Action with the ranger's bonus action, but then you said it isn't the Attack action. Don't step over your own argument. The beast making an attack on its turn is taking the attack action. If the beast takes the attack action, Bestial Fury is triggered.
"Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks..."
It doesn't matter whether you use your bonus action to command it, or sacrifice a ranger attack to command it. The beast takes the Attack Action, and that's it. I went ahead and checked with several respected and/or popular D&D channel and website, and they all agree on reading the rules this way: You can Ranger attack twice, then use bonus action to command pet to attack, which is can do twice at level 11. Alternatively, you can ranger attack and then sacrifice a ranger attack to let the pet attack (twice at 11), thereby freeing up the use of the ranger's bonus action.
The wording of sacrificing an attack to command the pet to take the Attack Action isn't limiting the clause before it at all. It's not saying you can't use your bonus action to command an attack. Tasha's explicitly says you can use bonus actions to command the pet to take standard actions, of which Attack is one. The wording of the sacrifice attack line is self-contained, only limiting itself, saying you can only sacrifice an attack to command the pet to Attack. You cannot sacrifice an attack to command the pet to do something besides Attack. THAT's the limitation it's imparting.
Here, I'll even provide a couple links to get you started. Treantmonk is a known stickler for rules, and he also explains things in pretty good detail.
I don’t know about the arrogance, but I do know that the first section gives direction on primal companion action use without specifying exactly what the action can be. And you go in the direction of limiting it.
the second section gives you a description of how to make use of that primal companion action in regard to the players action economy. With no information supporting this creature getting additional actions at all, and you add to it.
.
first section, unclear guidelines is a nerf for you.
second section gives debatably vague info, you buff it buy giving an action.
inconsistent.
a feature giving versatility of choice on how to make use of an action is not the same as a feature giving an additional action. The wording in no way replicates action surge or haste, which off the top of my head are the only ways to recieve another action on a turn.
to support this, think about similar features that give players the ability to command creatures to act, like the voice of authority feature or the battlemaster commanding strike. Both of those features give another creature the ability to make a reaction attack after they are used. If the chosen targets have already used their reaction, they do not suddenly receive another reaction simply because they are commanded to do so.
I’m not accusing the WOTC team of anything. But since you brought it up I think their stance is to minimize the errata’d they have to do. Every printing probably costs a substantial amount of money, and they have already done quite a few. Some of which I didn’t know happened since I have an older PHB and this has lead to several mistakes on my end admittedly. I think the decision came down to time, money, and ultimately then deciding that feature overlap was acceptable even though it doesn’t read well.
I submitted a link to this thread and a summary of its various arguments to Sage Advice. No idea if they'll actually ever pay attention to it, but maybe we'll eventually get an official answer so we can all shut up. XD
I’ve been ignored every single time I’ve asked a question or brought up a critique except for one example. When the feats for tashas came out for play testing way back when, I read through and noticed a discrepancy with the telekinetic feat, like many others. The feat expanded the mage hand spells “range” but its spell description limited the mage hand existence to 30 feet specifically without actually referencing the spells range. Dan Dillon responded to me immediately on Twitter the day the arcana came out. And then it never changed and made it all the way to printing. In that scenario I will say that they made a mistake. There’s no arrogance in that.
people make mistakes. I do. You do. The design team does. It’s a large project every time they finish one of these books. I’m not questioning their professionalism or quality. But as a counterpoint, I’m pretty sure every book they’ve released so far has had an errata, so yea people can make mistakes. It’s honestly people like us in this thread that help make those differences. It’s not something I prioritize, I just enjoy having thoughtful discussions with people. People I disagree with provide excellent counterpoints usually and at least open me up to different perspectives that I hadn’t considered before.
You keep using that word, "inconsistent." I don't think it means what you think it means. But, for the sake of argument, we'll go over that paragraph again, line by line.
In combat, the beast acts during your turn.
This tells us the beast doesn't get a turn of its own. It doesn't roll initiative, and it lays the groundwork for the action economy of both the ranger and beast being intertwined.
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.
And it's not totally helpless. If left to its own devices, it will take efforts to protect itself.
That action can be one in its stat block or some other action.
So this tells us two things, both of which should be obvious. It uses the action in its stat block, which means it's an action. In terms of a normal action economy, it has the same weight as any other action; including player actions. Maul, from the Beast of the Land, is just as weighty as any other action listed in the PH or Basic Rules.
The second thing is that it tells us other actions are possible. We're not given concrete examples, and while such examples would be helpful we don't need them. On page 4 of the same book, you'll find Ten Rules to Remember. The very first rule is The DM Adjudicates the Rules. As ambiguous as that "some other action" might be, the book is clear on how it should be handled. And, when in doubt, actions can always be improvised.
And while this may be skipping ahead a bit, I feel it's worth mentioning. In the context of Exceptional Training, there is a clear design intent. The nebulous nature of this sentence starts to give way as specificities are added. In other words, the RAI is that you can't order the beast to Dash, Disengage, or Help as a Bonus Action until 7th-level. And I think I've made a good case for the RAW, as well. After all, specific beats general. Or as Tasha's puts it, Exceptions Supersede General Rules. That's rule number 2 of 10, also found on page 4.
As to your claim that I think this is some kind of nerf, it's not. I've said as much before. The ability to take actions as a Bonus Action is a solid buff this early on for the beast. The vanilla Beast Companion feature simply didn't allow for it.
You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action.
This is key. Again, two things are going on here. First, the word "also" does not mean "or" or "alternatively." It means "in addition to." The ranger can command the beast both with their Bonus Action and their Action. Remember, the beast acts on the ranger's turn. It takes its cues, if any, from the ranger. This is quintessential, "Yes, and." Nothing is prohibiting the ranger from ordering the beast twice in one turn.
The second is that, here, the Attack action is specifically called out. This would not be necessary if it was intended to be included in the previous sentence. They could have saved themselves some ink, otherwise. But this means there's something special about the ranger taking the Attack action. It is distinct from ordering the beast to use an action in its stat block; even if that action happens to be an attack. They are not interchangeable.
Skipping ahead again, this means the Bonus Action command to attack cannot trigger Bestial Fury. And I'm not giving the ranger and beast anything they couldn't do before Tasha's. There was nothing before which prevented the ranger from commanding their beast as a Bonus Action and attacking in unison with their Action; aside from having to wait to get that Bonus Action, of course.
If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.
And this gives the beast some much-needed autonomy, should anything befall the ranger.
Your continued, intentional misreading of plain text makes it obvious as to why you referred to your journalism and "professional writing" experience in the past tense. That aside, you're still inventing your own rules based on the wording of a level 7 ability that was not written with Tasha's version even in mind.
Take a minute. Think about what you're saying. Tasha's Primal Companion uses a ranger's bonus actions to command it. By staying stuck on this PHB version, you're saying the beast can literally do nothing through the ranger's bonus action until level 7, except for the singular option in its stat block? Despite the very same sentence in the NEW rules allowing for actions from outside the stat block? It cannot Dash, Disengage, Help, or Attack? It doesn't even have access to any of these actions until level 7, despite getting the ability to be commanded through bonus actions at level 3?
Tasha's says beast commands are all issued through bonus actions now. Tasha's does not allow for issuing a beast a command using the Ranger's regular action. Regular Actions and Bonus Actions are not interchangeable when the rules specify an ability must use one or the other.
Bonus actions and the attack sacrifice are the only mechanics that allow for commanding the pet now. Therefore, according to your logic, the ranger cannot command the pet to use any of the basic actions listed above, despite the companion always having had access to those actions from level 3 in the past, and despite basically every single other controllable pet in the game having access to all of those basic actions. Your reading is just simply wrong.
PHB Beast Master used full actions to command the pet, which is why the level 7 ranger ability was useful. It was written for the PHB Beast Master! The PHB pet version always had each of these actions available to it at every level. They didn't just suddenly gain them at level 7. It was just that the manner of their use changed. But you're saying the designers took them all away for levels 3-6 for Tasha's pet? For what reason? For balance? Come on, man. It was an oversight, at best. At worst, they were too lazy to change the wording on the old talent to balance it for both versions.
You're forcing your old, beloved class onto the new, improved version. You're looking like the cranky old man who can't accept change. Leave everything about that trash of a class/subclass in the past.
In any case, I'm done here. Even if your arguments weren't paper thin, I've established that pretty much everyone of note disagrees with your reading of the rules. It's easy enough to Google/Youtube. I very much doubt you're the genius savant who is right in their niche belief in the faces of experts and others who make their livings doing this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I actually agree with Jounichi1983.
As written it is like Jounichi1983 says, but was that intended, did they forget the level 7 feature, and other actions before level 7?
PHB: 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."
Looking in the stat block for primal companion it says Actions: Maul that would fall under the:
Tashas: "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." Some other action could be anything, athletics, acrobatics, perception, fetch the newspaper and so on. The ranger do not get to command via the bonus action, the companion to take Dash, Disengage, or Help action before level 7 Exceptional Training.
So now we know that monsters have actions options of their own in their stat block, and if the ranger take the bonus action to command the companion, the companion can use its action stated in the stat block, Maul.
Next sentence in Tashas says:
You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action.
Level 1-10 this wont matter for numbers of attacks, either the companion attacks with its action option maul, or/and you command it to take the Attack action, sacrificing one of the rangers attacks.
Level 1-4. Two attacks in total. One from ranger and one from companion, Attack action ranger and bonus action to command companion to use its action option Maul. Or two from companion, sacrifice the one and only attack in the Attack action to command the companion to take the Attack action, and bonus action to command companion to use its action option Maul.
Level 5-10. Three attacks in total, one from ranger and two from companion, or two from ranger and one from companion, as per above, since ranger now have two attacks during its Attack action.
Level 11+. As written. Attack action from ranger, two attacks, bonus action to command companion to use its action option Maul gives three attacks in total.
Attack action from hunter and sacrifice one attack to command companion to take the Attack action and bonus action to command companion to use its action option Maul, gives ranger one attack and companion three attacks (because of Bestial fury).
But this also means that before level 7 you can not command the Primal Companion to take the Dash, Disengage, or Help action on its turn, as these are gained through Exceptional Training at level 7.
That is how it is written, but was it intended to be like this?
Edit: Or is it worse than this, if a creature can only take one action, you cannot reach four attacks, ever. But which classes are able to make four attacks? Or three for that matter?
Either the ranger attack twice during its Attack action and use bonus action to command companion to use its action option Maul gives three attacks in total. Or the ranger attack ones during its Attack action, sacrificing one attack command companion to Take the Attack action, three attacks in total. Freeing up the bonus action for the ranger for the cost of one attack. It is the also in the sentence below that makes me wonder if the companion is allowed two "actions" or not?
You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action.
This is not at all how read it before Jounichi1983 actually pointed out the different rules. :)
Intended? Who knows?
Actually ignore the earlier post I made about Maul + Attack x2 making sense. The pet cannot get 3 attacks at all. I don't know why I even thought he could be right about that.
Let's assume his theory is right and Maul/Attack are 2 separate things. You use your bonus action to command the pet to take the Maul action. You now want to sacrifice your attack to let your pet take the attack action. You cannot, because the pet has already used its action with Maul. It gets 1 action, and it's already been spent. If you do the reverse, the same applies. So even if his theories are correct, the pet can never get more than 2 attacks. If he's right, this means the ranger is capped at 1 ranger attack +2 pet attacks = 3 attacks.
He's been wrong from the start, and most likely wrong about almost everything.
You are ignoring 2 key facts.
First, level 7's Exceptional Training was written for the PHB Beast Master, which required the ranger to use a full action to command the pet to take an action. The talent did not, and does not, say the pet cannot take the Dash, Disengage, or Help actions before level 7. Prior to level 7, the PHB version simply required the ranger to use its action to command the pet to Dash, etc. This is why level 7 was actually valuable for the PHB ranger, because what it did do/does is allow you to use your bonus action to issue some commands to the pet, instead of everything requiring the full action.
For reference, here's the PHB verifying what I just said about:
"The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action."
You already quoted Tasha's line yourself. You can compare.
Tasha's companion does not require you to use a full action to command it to do anything. The book explicitly says everything requires a bonus action now. Exceptional Training does not apply to Primal Companion (except for attacks being magical) because the mechanic it was created to improve in the PHB version does not apply to it.
Secondly, you're ignoring the key line you, yourself, quoted: That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. Maul is an action in its stat block, yet. But the bolded line specifically says your commands are not limited to actions written in the stat block.
I never said it was "no other action." Actions can be improvised. Other actions explicitly become available later, as WotC often uses "future-proofing" in it's text. You're the ones trying to stretch and invalidate two subclass features into doing things that aren't intended.
Again, if the intent was for the ranger to use their Bonus Action to order it to Attack, the feature would say so. But that language is conspicuously missing. It wouldn't bother saying the companion could use the action in its stat block because Attack would cover that and more. Rather, Attack is given its own sentence. And you guys are conflating the two rather than even try to understand why it was written as it was.
Why are you treating "some" to mean "any and all"?
Two days ago you didn't have the foggiest idea how any of this worked, and today you're still on this kick about how you think I've been wrong about everything. You just latched on to the first person who gave you an answer without ever thinking critically about it. If I had gotten to you first, instead of Bobbybaker, would this even be happening?
SMH
As an NPC, the companion isn't limited in the same way a PC is. What's more, the companions act as an extension of the ranger. Their action economies are inexorably linked. And there's nothing saying the companion's attack is either/or. In fact, the word "also" is used. In other words, "in addition to."
First, my original question was whether Maul = Attack action for the pet or not. The jury is still out on that, definitively. It could go either way. You never answered my question about what stats you use to roll your pet's "Attack" if Maul is actually a separate thing, though.
Secondly, I'm much more sure about how the interactions work now in either case, thanks to having these debates. I didn't latch on to the first person. I have read critically, and analyzed it. My previous 2 responses basically definitively prove things out. Just reread my response to kurtrune above. You know you're wrong, but you've been stuck defending a badly designed class for so long that you're holding onto a schema of things based on an outdated level 7 ability and a misreading of plain text. The PHB clearly states the pet has ALWAYS had Dash, Disengage, Help, and Attack available to it at every level (it's quoted above for you).
Your argument about those things not being available to it until level 7 is incorrect on its face, just on this alone. But now you're trying to take the old talent and force it onto the new version of the class to make it fit.
Also, you yourself kept stressing about Action economy and how things don't get more than 1 action without haste, etc. Explain, then, how you can command the pet with your bonus action to take the Maul action and, then sacrifice an attack to command it to take the Attack action. The pet cannot take 2 actions. It gets 1 action, 1 reaction, some move, and 1 bonus action if it actually had any abilities it could use with a bonus action (it currently doesn't). The action economies are linked insofar as they act on the same turn and the pet follows your commands. You have 2 options for issuing those commands.
That's actually very simple to answer. Maul is its own action. I've been saying that this entire time. By default, NPCs don't have an Attack action. If they want to attack, they use one of the attacks they're given. But those are, explicitly, separate actions. That said, Maul is also a weapon, which means it can be used with the Attack action. I've been saying that, too. It's just that they're also distinct enough that they can, and are, treated differently. To borrow from someone else, they're both rectangles. But only one of them is a square.
The feature Primal Companion gives a way for the NPC to have an Attack action; something it normally cannot do. It doesn't matter too much at 3rd-level, but it does at 11th-level. And regardless of how you go about using Maul (or Binding Strike or Shred), the attack and damage rolls are outlined in the action description. There's no special rule for using a different modifier. You just use it as-is when taking the Attack action.
The Bonus Action command, initially, is to use their default action: Maul, Binding Strike, or Shred. It can also be used for some other actions, but that's between the DM and player. IMO, given how the 7th-level feature remains unaltered, it still applies in its entirety. The Attack action command is for the Attack action. And the only limit on the number of actions the companion can take is the number of commands the ranger can give. Using just the PH, it's possible to command the companion with Exceptional Training and also direct it with your Action in the same turn. That's always been the case. Why are you saying that's not possible now? Did something change, or have you always operated under this false assumption?
And I honestly don't know why you keep saying the optional 3rd-level feature wasn't written with the 7th-level feature in mind. It clearly was with regard to the 11th and 15th-level features. The age isn't something you should be holding against it.
ok. Guys... Let's break this down a bit. Allow me to try my hand at this.
First of all. The Beast Companion from the Primal Companion is in essence a half PC. It's block follows NPC statistic Structure but it's action Economy follows a players. This is an important little distinction we need to see first. This means that The Beast Companion will only ever be doing 1 action that happens to be an attack or 2 attacks as part of one action. This is important because The Primal Companion feature is what the old beast companion feature should have been. Which is to say it's basically the Beast Master Rangers built in bonus action attack feature like some kind of offhand weapon of a different type. It's technically another living creature yes. and there are some advantages to that. But Damage dealing wise and action economy wise this is what it is for the most part and this never really changes no matter what features it picks up. (it's sad that it took the original archetype to level 11 to reach this point however).
Also, don't worry about comparing to multiattack because multiattack isn't in the stat block so it means nothing here and we just need to throw that part away entirely. Now 1 action to attack is very easy. It's the basic structure. The Ranger uses it's bonus action and the Beast will take it's action that happens to be an attack. Whether that action is Maul, Blinding Strike, Or Shred does not matter because each stat block only has one. And No matter what level. Whether it is level 3 or it's level 17. That Bonus Action is going to allow it to take this one action that happens to be an attack. This by now is probably obvious considering the Pet is basically the Rangers bonus action attack anyway.
Beastial Fury does not apply to the Ranger's Bonus action use of this ability ever. Now Some of you are trying to argue it does and some of you are argueing it doesn't. But the reality is that by RaW it doesn't. Why? The rule of Specificity.
The rule of Specificity wins here. You have to take the whole Paragraph into account with this one to understand the RaW because it gives a general effect of allowing to give the beast a lot of types of actions which would normally include the attack action BUT (And this is a really big but) then it immediately follows with a very Specific Way to allow the beast to use the Attack Action that over rides the more general sentence right before it. This is that the Attack Action can only be used by the Beast by the Ranger Sacrificing an Attack when they take the Attack Action which means using the Attack action because of the previous sentence is now unusable.
So we are locked into a binding set of circumstances for the Attack Action to be usable by the beast. This only affects the previous ability of the bonus action to allow the beasts action that happens to be an attack (maul, etc) in a single way. The Beast does not have enough actions to do both. So it either takes the action that happens to be the attack or the conditions are met for the Beast to take the Attack Action which allows it to attack twice with it's attack (maul, shred, or blinding strike). There is no both what so ever. Beastial Fury doesn't change this in any way. It only cares that When the Ranger uses their Attack Action and Sacrifices one Attack then the Beast can take the Attack Action which allows it to give the Beast a second Attack for that Action. Beastial Fury does not care any time the Maul/shred/blinding strike action that just happens to be an attack is made. It does not even care that when it activates that Maul/Shred/Blinding Strike qualify as viable attacks to be made through it. All it cares about is that it's conditions are met and to do that requires the specificity on the attack action in the Primal Companion write up which requires the Ranger to sacrifice an attack to be able to let their pet take the Attack Action.
So Under Normal Circumstances (that can actually be cheesed) Under any Normal Situation the Ranger is going to get a maximum of 3 attacks. Starting at Level 5 Up until level 11 it's the standard 2 Ranger attacks and one Beast attack. Or after level 11 you have the option of making 1 Ranger attack and 2 Beast Attacks, and able to free up the Rangers Bonus action to be freed up (which opens up a few instances of cheese).
Also it's important to note that There is no natural way to turn a bonus action Attack into two attacks. But there are a very very small handful of ways to get two attacks during your bonus action but both of them are more special uses of your Bonus Action that are distinct from Bonus Action attack. Literally the only two that I can think of Are Flurry of Blows which Flurry of Blows is it's own bonus action that just happens to allow 2 attacks, and Swift Quiver which is a special Bonus Action allowed by the spell where you take technically the Swift Quiver Bonus Action to take two ammunition based attacks. Both of which are seperate, distinct from, and do not work with Bonus Action Attack for various obvious reasons. Something to note about Swift Quiver is that it's also in a very very small group of Bonus Actions that allow you to make an Attack of some kind that does not require to make you take the attack action first (one of the only others belonging to the Berserker Barbarian).
The beast's actions are only limited by how many commands the ranger can issue it. There was nothing preventing the ranger from issuing commands with both their Action and Bonus Action before Tasha's, and there's nothing limiting it now.
there actually is. The way the Primal Companion section is written up limits it. It states exactly how many actions it has available to it.
At least I understand where you are coming from now.
What's the limit, because there's nothing in my book that says it can only take one action. Again, that's never been the case before.
So...
“some other action” has to be limited because the book doesn’t explain specific actions. A limitation imposed by lack of info by your interpretation.
And...
the primal companion gets multiple actions because the book doesn’t say it only gets one action like every other creature? A rather large buff you’ve given based on lack of specific information.
seems inconsistent.
Nothing inconsistent about it. The companion's actions have always been limited by the number of commands the ranger could give it. That hasn't changed since the PH was first published over 6 years ago. A vanilla Beast Master has always been able to order their companion around with both their Action and Bonus Action; once it becomes available.
And "some other action", while nebulous, is not all-encompassing. It's the DM, not the player, who gets the final say. And the 7th-level feature, Exceptional Training, remains unaltered by new text. This means it still applies in its entirety. If the Primal Companion feature was intended to act as some form of errata, it would say so. If there was intended to be another alternate feature to replace Exceptional Training, we would see it published alongside Primal Companion. But no such thing exists. The very idea that the writing staff ignored the rest of the subclass, that they didn't stop to consider how Primal Companion would interact with the rest of it, is ludicrous.
You're essentially accusing the book team of incompetence to justify your own interpretation of the text. Eleven total designers worked on this book. Two of them also served as editors, along with three others. How arrogant do you have to be?
You guys really suffer from a reading comprehension problem when dealing with plain text.
You're even saying yourself that the beast can be commanded to take the Attack Action with the ranger's bonus action, but then you said it isn't the Attack action. Don't step over your own argument. The beast making an attack on its turn is taking the attack action. If the beast takes the attack action, Bestial Fury is triggered.
"Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks..."
It doesn't matter whether you use your bonus action to command it, or sacrifice a ranger attack to command it. The beast takes the Attack Action, and that's it. I went ahead and checked with several respected and/or popular D&D channel and website, and they all agree on reading the rules this way: You can Ranger attack twice, then use bonus action to command pet to attack, which is can do twice at level 11. Alternatively, you can ranger attack and then sacrifice a ranger attack to let the pet attack (twice at 11), thereby freeing up the use of the ranger's bonus action.
The wording of sacrificing an attack to command the pet to take the Attack Action isn't limiting the clause before it at all. It's not saying you can't use your bonus action to command an attack. Tasha's explicitly says you can use bonus actions to command the pet to take standard actions, of which Attack is one. The wording of the sacrifice attack line is self-contained, only limiting itself, saying you can only sacrifice an attack to command the pet to Attack. You cannot sacrifice an attack to command the pet to do something besides Attack. THAT's the limitation it's imparting.
Here, I'll even provide a couple links to get you started. Treantmonk is a known stickler for rules, and he also explains things in pretty good detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boUlMUCn7Hc (Tasha's pet starts at 24:33)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KRQwyw7B9rM
I don’t know about the arrogance, but I do know that the first section gives direction on primal companion action use without specifying exactly what the action can be. And you go in the direction of limiting it.
the second section gives you a description of how to make use of that primal companion action in regard to the players action economy. With no information supporting this creature getting additional actions at all, and you add to it.
.
first section, unclear guidelines is a nerf for you.
second section gives debatably vague info, you buff it buy giving an action.
inconsistent.
a feature giving versatility of choice on how to make use of an action is not the same as a feature giving an additional action. The wording in no way replicates action surge or haste, which off the top of my head are the only ways to recieve another action on a turn.
to support this, think about similar features that give players the ability to command creatures to act, like the voice of authority feature or the battlemaster commanding strike. Both of those features give another creature the ability to make a reaction attack after they are used. If the chosen targets have already used their reaction, they do not suddenly receive another reaction simply because they are commanded to do so.
I’m not accusing the WOTC team of anything. But since you brought it up I think their stance is to minimize the errata’d they have to do. Every printing probably costs a substantial amount of money, and they have already done quite a few. Some of which I didn’t know happened since I have an older PHB and this has lead to several mistakes on my end admittedly. I think the decision came down to time, money, and ultimately then deciding that feature overlap was acceptable even though it doesn’t read well.
I submitted a link to this thread and a summary of its various arguments to Sage Advice. No idea if they'll actually ever pay attention to it, but maybe we'll eventually get an official answer so we can all shut up. XD
I’ve been ignored every single time I’ve asked a question or brought up a critique except for one example. When the feats for tashas came out for play testing way back when, I read through and noticed a discrepancy with the telekinetic feat, like many others. The feat expanded the mage hand spells “range” but its spell description limited the mage hand existence to 30 feet specifically without actually referencing the spells range. Dan Dillon responded to me immediately on Twitter the day the arcana came out. And then it never changed and made it all the way to printing. In that scenario I will say that they made a mistake. There’s no arrogance in that.
people make mistakes. I do. You do. The design team does. It’s a large project every time they finish one of these books. I’m not questioning their professionalism or quality. But as a counterpoint, I’m pretty sure every book they’ve released so far has had an errata, so yea people can make mistakes. It’s honestly people like us in this thread that help make those differences. It’s not something I prioritize, I just enjoy having thoughtful discussions with people. People I disagree with provide excellent counterpoints usually and at least open me up to different perspectives that I hadn’t considered before.
You keep using that word, "inconsistent." I don't think it means what you think it means. But, for the sake of argument, we'll go over that paragraph again, line by line.
This tells us the beast doesn't get a turn of its own. It doesn't roll initiative, and it lays the groundwork for the action economy of both the ranger and beast being intertwined.
And it's not totally helpless. If left to its own devices, it will take efforts to protect itself.
So this tells us two things, both of which should be obvious. It uses the action in its stat block, which means it's an action. In terms of a normal action economy, it has the same weight as any other action; including player actions. Maul, from the Beast of the Land, is just as weighty as any other action listed in the PH or Basic Rules.
The second thing is that it tells us other actions are possible. We're not given concrete examples, and while such examples would be helpful we don't need them. On page 4 of the same book, you'll find Ten Rules to Remember. The very first rule is The DM Adjudicates the Rules. As ambiguous as that "some other action" might be, the book is clear on how it should be handled. And, when in doubt, actions can always be improvised.
And while this may be skipping ahead a bit, I feel it's worth mentioning. In the context of Exceptional Training, there is a clear design intent. The nebulous nature of this sentence starts to give way as specificities are added. In other words, the RAI is that you can't order the beast to Dash, Disengage, or Help as a Bonus Action until 7th-level. And I think I've made a good case for the RAW, as well. After all, specific beats general. Or as Tasha's puts it, Exceptions Supersede General Rules. That's rule number 2 of 10, also found on page 4.
As to your claim that I think this is some kind of nerf, it's not. I've said as much before. The ability to take actions as a Bonus Action is a solid buff this early on for the beast. The vanilla Beast Companion feature simply didn't allow for it.
This is key. Again, two things are going on here. First, the word "also" does not mean "or" or "alternatively." It means "in addition to." The ranger can command the beast both with their Bonus Action and their Action. Remember, the beast acts on the ranger's turn. It takes its cues, if any, from the ranger. This is quintessential, "Yes, and." Nothing is prohibiting the ranger from ordering the beast twice in one turn.
The second is that, here, the Attack action is specifically called out. This would not be necessary if it was intended to be included in the previous sentence. They could have saved themselves some ink, otherwise. But this means there's something special about the ranger taking the Attack action. It is distinct from ordering the beast to use an action in its stat block; even if that action happens to be an attack. They are not interchangeable.
Skipping ahead again, this means the Bonus Action command to attack cannot trigger Bestial Fury. And I'm not giving the ranger and beast anything they couldn't do before Tasha's. There was nothing before which prevented the ranger from commanding their beast as a Bonus Action and attacking in unison with their Action; aside from having to wait to get that Bonus Action, of course.
And this gives the beast some much-needed autonomy, should anything befall the ranger.
###
Satisfied, yet?
Your continued, intentional misreading of plain text makes it obvious as to why you referred to your journalism and "professional writing" experience in the past tense. That aside, you're still inventing your own rules based on the wording of a level 7 ability that was not written with Tasha's version even in mind.
Take a minute. Think about what you're saying. Tasha's Primal Companion uses a ranger's bonus actions to command it. By staying stuck on this PHB version, you're saying the beast can literally do nothing through the ranger's bonus action until level 7, except for the singular option in its stat block? Despite the very same sentence in the NEW rules allowing for actions from outside the stat block? It cannot Dash, Disengage, Help, or Attack? It doesn't even have access to any of these actions until level 7, despite getting the ability to be commanded through bonus actions at level 3?
Tasha's says beast commands are all issued through bonus actions now. Tasha's does not allow for issuing a beast a command using the Ranger's regular action. Regular Actions and Bonus Actions are not interchangeable when the rules specify an ability must use one or the other.
Bonus actions and the attack sacrifice are the only mechanics that allow for commanding the pet now. Therefore, according to your logic, the ranger cannot command the pet to use any of the basic actions listed above, despite the companion always having had access to those actions from level 3 in the past, and despite basically every single other controllable pet in the game having access to all of those basic actions. Your reading is just simply wrong.
PHB Beast Master used full actions to command the pet, which is why the level 7 ranger ability was useful. It was written for the PHB Beast Master! The PHB pet version always had each of these actions available to it at every level. They didn't just suddenly gain them at level 7. It was just that the manner of their use changed. But you're saying the designers took them all away for levels 3-6 for Tasha's pet? For what reason? For balance? Come on, man. It was an oversight, at best. At worst, they were too lazy to change the wording on the old talent to balance it for both versions.
You're forcing your old, beloved class onto the new, improved version. You're looking like the cranky old man who can't accept change. Leave everything about that trash of a class/subclass in the past.
In any case, I'm done here. Even if your arguments weren't paper thin, I've established that pretty much everyone of note disagrees with your reading of the rules. It's easy enough to Google/Youtube. I very much doubt you're the genius savant who is right in their niche belief in the faces of experts and others who make their livings doing this.