However the rules are written, there is one important factor, as a dm, or a player in discussion with the dm can agree on how to handle updated beastmaster.
I will go with:
"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 any other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take any action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge."
But! As it is written I believe that the bonus action command should be compared to other bonus actions in the game, and therefore only allow you to use the maul action, one attack from the primal companion using ranger bonus action. For example:
Offhand swing for two weapon fighters using the bonus action, one extra attack.
Polearm master, one extra attack from the opposite side of the weapon when using the bonus action.
War priest, use a bonus action to make one extra attack.
Monk able to make one unarmed attack as a bonus action, when taking the Attack action.
At level 11, a ranger will be able to make 4 attacks if allowed to use the bonus action to command companion to take the Attack action. The fighter need to be level 20 to make that many attacks, yes they are for stronger but same number of attacks. Even with three attacks per turn for the ranger and companion, it is more attacks than any other class except the fighter.
We think we can agree that it is written weird...
"Some other action", if they meant any action, why not write any?
"You can also sacrifice one of your attacks...". Why not write -That action can be one in its stat block or some other action, or you can also sacrifice one of your attacks. English is not my main language, but to me, also, means that you can do both, not one or the other. -Pick up that trash young companion also when you finished doing that clean your desk! :)
Edit: I totally agree with Jounichi1983 interpretation, but do we have to follow it? :) I actually think I will, but I would allow bonus action commands to be Dash, Help and Disengage from level 3.
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.
You've insulted the reading comprehension of no less than two people, and now you launch additional personal attacks? I changed careers because I chose to. Most people don't do what their B.A. says for their entire life. My father went to school for electrical engineering and transitioned to data analysis and cybersecurity without ever changing his employer. (Government agencies are funny like that.) MSNBC's Chris Hayes has a degree in philosophy. For crying out loud, Todd Kenrick used to work at NBC. You feel like insulting him, too?
And I haven't twisted anything. You're the one here who, repeatedly, cannot seem to grasp in plain English what I've been writing out. And, golly gee, I thought I gave a detailed breakdown. If you have serious questions, I'll answer them. But I don't think you do, because you felt the need to announce your departure.
Having good manners is free. There's no excuse for you not being able to afford them.
I wouldn’t focus too much on insults. Even though it’s against the rules of this forum, pretty much every one of us at one point in this response chain has let off some steam with a remark or two. Everyone seems to have acknowledged the views of the other posters. An actual change of opinion was doomed from the start since most people are going to stick with their first impression or interpretation of the rules regardless of what’s brought to the table.
i personally don’t care too much about people’s careers or touted level of professionalism, especially in a forum. The individuals you’ve mentioned have made a great many mistakes like the rest of us, but their mistakes are recorded and are usually leveraged against them. Hindsight being 20/20 and all.
I don’t believe there’s any twisting, I think there is our original interpretations the way they are, and that when explaining it to others it may look or feel different enough to their own interpretation that they become defensive, not understanding how anyone else’s logic or train of thought could be different from their own.
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 did not step over my own argument. You have chosen to ignore half of it to get the result that you want out of this debate. Which you have done repeatedly by ignoring everything but your chosen partial sentence to support your argument. If you actually pay attention you will notice I point out both how you are right and how you are wrong.
Everything else is on you.
Also Treant has been known to be wrong many many times. He comes off as a stickler for rules but also tends to choose favorable twists and interpretations when doing so.
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.
You've insulted the reading comprehension of no less than two people, and now you launch additional personal attacks? I changed careers because I chose to. Most people don't do what their B.A. says for their entire life. My father went to school for electrical engineering and transitioned to data analysis and cybersecurity without ever changing his employer. (Government agencies are funny like that.) MSNBC's Chris Hayes has a degree in philosophy. For crying out loud, Todd Kenrick used to work at NBC. You feel like insulting him, too?
And I haven't twisted anything. You're the one here who, repeatedly, cannot seem to grasp in plain English what I've been writing out. And, golly gee, I thought I gave a detailed breakdown. If you have serious questions, I'll answer them. But I don't think you do, because you felt the need to announce your departure.
Having good manners is free. There's no excuse for you not being able to afford them.
Higher levels to many journalism and writing careers are also in things like Editing, Producing, and various other extensions of the Journalism field where they are no longer Journalism. Which I'm sure that Jounichi could tell you as well but I thought i'd just add in for him for further backing and clarification.
However the rules are written, there is one important factor, as a dm, or a player in discussion with the dm can agree on how to handle updated beastmaster.
I will go with:
"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 any other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take any action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge."
But! As it is written I believe that the bonus action command should be compared to other bonus actions in the game, and therefore only allow you to use the maul action, one attack from the primal companion using ranger bonus action. For example:
Offhand swing for two weapon fighters using the bonus action, one extra attack.
Polearm master, one extra attack from the opposite side of the weapon when using the bonus action.
War priest, use a bonus action to make one extra attack.
Monk able to make one unarmed attack as a bonus action, when taking the Attack action.
At level 11, a ranger will be able to make 4 attacks if allowed to use the bonus action to command companion to take the Attack action. The fighter need to be level 20 to make that many attacks, yes they are for stronger but same number of attacks. Even with three attacks per turn for the ranger and companion, it is more attacks than any other class except the fighter.
We think we can agree that it is written weird...
"Some other action", if they meant any action, why not write any?
"You can also sacrifice one of your attacks...". Why not write -That action can be one in its stat block or some other action, or you can also sacrifice one of your attacks. English is not my main language, but to me, also, means that you can do both, not one or the other. -Pick up that trash young companion also when you finished doing that clean your desk! :)
Edit: I totally agree with Jounichi1983 interpretation, but do we have to follow it? :) I actually think I will, but I would allow bonus action commands to be Dash, Help and Disengage from level 3.
One little clarification. Monks actually can make 4 attacks early on. But their damage dice are lower to compensate for this and actually increase upon level up based upon increases to other classes. (also it's not truely sustainable).
Onto the issue of Allowing the bonus action to effectively extra attack. To apply two attacks to the Bonus action and allow two attacks by giving up one attack would actually allow 5 attacks for the ranger. More than Basically anything else in the game besides a max level fighter spec'd into dual wielding who actually takes a penalty to things like Damage and usability of other Feats and the like. The other two possibilities for doing such are a Monk or a max level fighter being hasted to get an additional weapon attack. Or the cheese that I kind of mentioned in a previous post involving Swift Quiver. The saving grace of Swift Quiver being that it's a ranger only 5th level spell so it's only available to high level rangers and archer bards that somehow manage to snatch it up with one of their lore powers. I only know of this cheese from playing in a campaign that went into tier 4 with a ranger in the party. (also both Haste and Swift Quiver are concentration spells so they can be gotten rid of by various means.)
As for the 7th level power. It was a bit stronger in some ways on the original Beast Master which actually had more limited command over their pet and was always giving up at least one of their attacks in their attack action to do so. But the way i look at it with the Primal companions considering it's effectively just 3 abilities that you can do this way that your effectively giving the Primal companion a bonus action by giving up your own bonus action. And While it's not a perfect analogy of the mechanics, That is really the problem with the Beast Master Ranger. Nothing really is a perfect Analogy because the Beast Companion or the Primal Companion exists in this weird place where it's literally part pc and part NPC and it's essentially all class feature, which is a situation that literally nothing else in the game exists as. Not even Summons because they are still entirely NPC's no matter who runs them or chooses them or murders them in combat and no matter how you get access to summoning them.
I would like to take this opportunity to address just what I think "some other action" encompasses for levels 3-10. I probably should have sooner, but I didn't think it was necessary. It's a vague enough clause that it's functionally left up to the DM's whims; explicit instruction at 7th-level aside. And regardless of whatever the RAW or RAI might be, the DM's word is final. I'm not here to step on anyone's toes. I'm just trying to communicate what the feature says. That said, I'm trying to be conservative because it's a safer bet to be more widely accepted. You are always welcome to try and negotiate with your DM. Just don't go around thinking you can rules-lawyer them.
So, without further ado...
We know Attack is for when the ranger declares the same action. And the ranger can give up one of their attacks, possibly their only attack, to get the beast to strike. It might not be optimal, but I can conceive of cases where it might be appropriate. Every beast has a better movement speed than the ranger. And this is how Bestial Fury is intended to work; via the Attack action. We also know Dash, Disengage, and Help are explicitly granted via Exceptional Training. Lastly, we know Dodge is performed automatically if no command (via an Action or Bonus Action) is given.
So, what are we left with?
Cast a Spell: This only works if they have the means to cast a spell; most likely through some magic item in their possession. I don't know that I'd allow a summoned creature to attune to an item, but there's nothing prohibiting it. And I'd certainly allow one to have barding. And custom magic items are always possible, so while it may not be standard it's definitely possible.
Hide: Telling your beast they've done enough and should get back and find cover seems reasonable enough. They might still take a parting shot, but that's the risk. Or, perhaps more plainly, it allows both you and the beast to roll Dexterity (Stealth) during the same turn. I can picture it now: an archer and wolf crouching in the tall grass in perfect synchronicity, disappearing from sight.
Ready: This could be like a trained attack dog that's heeled, ready to strike at a moment's notice. And it allows the ranger and beast to activate their held action (possibly an attack) and go at the same time. Again, acting in unison.
Search: Once again, both could perform this action, normally a Wisdom (Perception) check, during the ranger's turn. Or the beast could grant the ranger advantage on their own check. Or the beast could just roll and, if they spot a hidden foe, the ranger could let loose with 1-2 attacks; depending on whether they've hit 5th-level yet.
Use an Object: My cat can open doors, and I've seen birds open their own cages. Heck, this could be a dog or wolf playing fetch. It has a place here.
And, as I've mentioned before, actions can always be improvised. If you need to jump a gap and make a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) roll, now the beast can, too. What's more, the beasts add the ranger's proficiency bonus to every ability check and saving throw. They're never rolling just the relevant ability modifier.
Believe me when I say I get that this isn't all obvious. I had to spend some time on it, as well. The writing team may be counting on players and DMs to figure this out as situations arise. Or they were just hampered by how much space they had to work with. They tried their darndest to fit that entire feature, and the three accompanying beasts, onto a single page. And I think they succeeded, even if it cost them some specificity.
By the same token, the lack of specificity is also indicative of 5e's overriding design philosophy: rulings, not rules. After two and a half iterations of strict management, WotC is deliberately trying to be hands-off this time around. It can be frustrating, even stymying, but it can also be liberating.
I would like to take this opportunity to address just what I think "some other action" encompasses for levels 3-10. I probably should have sooner, but I didn't think it was necessary. It's a vague enough clause that it's functionally left up to the DM's whims; explicit instruction at 7th-level aside. And regardless of whatever the RAW or RAI might be, the DM's word is final. I'm not here to step on anyone's toes. I'm just trying to communicate what the feature says. That said, I'm trying to be conservative because it's a safer bet to be more widely accepted. You are always welcome to try and negotiate with your DM. Just don't go around thinking you can rules-lawyer them.
So, without further ado...
We know Attack is for when the ranger declares the same action. And the ranger can give up one of their attacks, possibly their only attack, to get the beast to strike. It might not be optimal, but I can conceive of cases where it might be appropriate. Every beast has a better movement speed than the ranger. And this is how Bestial Fury is intended to work; via the Attack action. We also know Dash, Disengage, and Help are explicitly granted via Exceptional Training. Lastly, we know Dodge is performed automatically if no command (via an Action or Bonus Action) is given.
So, what are we left with?
Cast a Spell: This only works if they have the means to cast a spell; most likely through some magic item in their possession. I don't know that I'd allow a summoned creature to attune to an item, but there's nothing prohibiting it. And I'd certainly allow one to have barding. And custom magic items are always possible, so while it may not be standard it's definitely possible.
Hide: Telling your beast they've done enough and should get back and find cover seems reasonable enough. They might still take a parting shot, but that's the risk. Or, perhaps more plainly, it allows both you and the beast to roll Dexterity (Stealth) during the same turn. I can picture it now: an archer and wolf crouching in the tall grass in perfect synchronicity, disappearing from sight.
Ready: This could be like a trained attack dog that's heeled, ready to strike at a moment's notice. And it allows the ranger and beast to activate their held action (possibly an attack) and go at the same time. Again, acting in unison.
Search: Once again, both could perform this action, normally a Wisdom (Perception) check, during the ranger's turn. Or the beast could grant the ranger advantage on their own check. Or the beast could just roll and, if they spot a hidden foe, the ranger could let loose with 1-2 attacks; depending on whether they've hit 5th-level yet.
Use an Object: My cat can open doors, and I've seen birds open their own cages. Heck, this could be a dog or wolf playing fetch. It has a place here.
And, as I've mentioned before, actions can always be improvised. If you need to jump a gap and make a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) roll, now the beast can, too. What's more, the beasts add the ranger's proficiency bonus to every ability check and saving throw. They're never rolling just the relevant ability modifier.
Believe me when I say I get that this isn't all obvious. I had to spend some time on it, as well. The writing team may be counting on players and DMs to figure this out as situations arise. Or they were just hampered by how much space they had to work with. They tried their darndest to fit that entire feature, and the three accompanying beasts, onto a single page. And I think they succeeded, even if it cost them some specificity.
By the same token, the lack of specificity is also indicative of 5e's overriding design philosophy: rulings, not rules. After two and a half iterations of strict management, WotC is deliberately trying to be hands-off this time around. It can be frustrating, even stymying, but it can also be liberating.
And this all works perfectly fine and completely as intended with Beast Companions. However. The Primal Companion Alternate Features from Tasha's is slightly different. The Ranger no longer has to sacrifice their only attack to make the beast attack. Or wait for level 5 to be able to make their own attack and make the beast attack. They can now make it take an action with their bonus action. this is where the whole issue of the thread is coming from initially. How people are seeing this alternate feature being used with it's slightly different mechanics.
The Primal Companion is not ordered around by default by the Rangers Action or one of it's attacks. it's actually ordered around by default by it's bonus action which is a switch from how the older standard beast companion works. This means even from level 1 both the ranger and the beast are able to attack without sacrificing the Rangers action which wasn't possible until level 5 before. This is a small but major change to the way the two interact which is causing a lot of misunderstandings and grief. While bringing Beast Masters more in line with what other classes can usually do anyway.
this is why I personally shift up exceptional training to be like a bonus action on the beasts part but am still not inclined to allow the simple bonus action of the ranger to turn into two attacks. Having experience with rogues i know giving the beast what is the equivilant of Cunning Action is not in the least bit game breaking.
I never said this was all done with the ranger's Action. In fact, the very first sentence includes "some other action"; a clear reference to being able to command the beast with the ranger's Bonus Action.
Y'all need to start actually reading what I've put down.
I never said this was all done with the ranger's Action. In fact, the very first sentence includes "some other action"; a clear reference to being able to command the beast with the ranger's Bonus Action.
Y'all need to start actually reading what I've put down.
Here's one problem with that. Unless you make the clarification, Which in this case you didn't, What you intended does not necessarily carry across to the reader. Particularly one like me that has issues with understanding tones even at the best of times. Even my own. Your post talks primarily on the basis of the Rangers action at points (such as when mentioning attack specifically) and without the clarification people like me may miss your change in intention. Which you often do make the clarification, I'm not saying that you don't. But this is the case of what happened in this particular instance.
I read the post twice before posting the first time by the way. It's only through your clarification now that I can go through and start to see where you meant the differences to be at.
I never said this was all done with the ranger's Action. In fact, the very first sentence includes "some other action"; a clear reference to being able to command the beast with the ranger's Bonus Action.
Y'all need to start actually reading what I've put down.
Here's one problem with that. Unless you make the clarification, Which in this case you didn't, What you intended does not necessarily carry across to the reader. Particularly one like me that has issues with understanding tones even at the best of times. Even my own. Your post talks primarily on the basis of the Rangers action at points (such as when mentioning attack specifically) and without the clarification people like me may miss your change in intention. Which you often do make the clarification, I'm not saying that you don't. But this is the case of what happened in this particular instance.
I read the post twice before posting the first time by the way. It's only through your clarification now that I can go through and start to see where you meant the differences to be at.
The entire first paragraph is, implicitly, about the ranger's Bonus Action. Even if you didn't have the book in front of you, you could still reasonably follow along if you paid attention to the now four pages' worth of exchanges. I did not type primarily about the ranger's action. The only paragraph that even mentions the ranger's action doesn't even spend the whole paragraph on the action. That post, including the list, was primarily (i.e. chiefly, essentially, mainly, etc.) about the commands the ranger can issue with their Bonus Action starting at 3rd-level. So there was no "change in intention".
I have no idea where'd you'd even get that from. Just as I have no idea why you'd think the ranger and beast could attack without sacrificing the ranger's action. The ranger doesn't get their archetype until 3rd-level. You read as if you're out of your depth. If you have any doubts, ask for clarification. Don't make assumptions.
Everyone is right and no one is, as long as there is no official ruling. Right now I am playing a new BM in DotMM and it is a lot of fun (not level 7 now but my DM ruled that I can do the Dash, Disengage, and Help Action right now, because he rules that the old level 7 stuff is for the old BM. It is not at all OP and we all have lots of fun). We will see if at level 11 taking two attacks with the Rangers bonus Action is too OP or not.
Thats that. And as long as Crawford or any other official rules it, not one of us can really say how they think we should handle it. So relax everyone. ;)
From my reading of the various rules, my interpretation is:
At 3rd level the Beast Master can use a Bonus Action to command the companion to Dash, Disengage, Help, Attack or any other default action. Yes, this does give the old 7th level ability early. To me that's a feature, not a bug.
At 11th level this means that the Ranger can take their own Extra Attack and Bonus Action the companion to take a full Attack action with two attacks as well.
I also interpret the companion acting "during your turn" to mean that it acts and moves as part of the Ranger's turn instead of having a turn of it's own allowing various interweaving of the Ranger's actions and the companion's actions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
No matter how or why the primal companion takes an action, it only gets one action.
The action listed in it’s stat block, like the maul, can be used when it takes the attack action. And even if maul is also its own action, it doesn’t matter, because it can only take one action.
The primal companion also can’t dodge and attack on the same turn because that is two actions. Even if the ranger commands it to do so. The primal companion can’t attack with its action and then attack again instead of one of the ranger’s attacks as they both take an action
No matter how or why the primal companion takes an action, it only gets one action.
The action listed in it’s stat block, like the maul, can be used when it takes the attack action. And even if maul is also its own action, it doesn’t matter, because it can only take one action.
The primal companion also can’t dodge and attack on the same turn because that is two actions. Even if the ranger commands it to do so. The primal companion can’t attack with its action and then attack again instead of one of the ranger’s attacks as they both take an action
Yes... I also think that it works that way (still waiting for an official clarification if the Primal Companion can do two attacks with the Rangers Bonus Action at level 11) but it will be a maximum of 4 attacks between the Ranger and its companion imho. I play a Wisdom BM Ranger (Tashas) in DotMM at the moment and it is tons of fun btw...
Okay, let's assume, for the sake of argument, the beast is limited to only one action; regardless of how many actions a ranger could theorietically give it. It also interweaves its action with the ranger's turn and, as such, has no separate turn. The total action economy looks something like this, with new action combos being listed at the appropriate levels:
3rd-level:
Beast's Attack + Ranger's BA spell or trait
Ranger's action + Beast's BA Maul/Binding Strike/Shred, or some (but not just any) other action
5th-level:
Ranger's Attack + Beast's Attack + Ranger's BA spell, trait, or TWF
Ranger's [Extra] Attack + Beasts BA Maul/Binding Strike/Shred, or some (but not just any) other action
7th-level: Exceptional Training explicitly opens up new options (Dash, Disengage, and Help) for the BA command
11th-level: Ranger's Attack + Beast's Bestial Fury + Ranger's BA spell, trait, or TWF
And that all is basically the safest, most-conservative reading of the feature I can come up with. Arguably, I'm still stretching it with "some other action", because there's no guidance whatsoever. It's DM's fiat, but that fiat is also supported by the text.
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed — sometimes called your walking speed — is noted on your character sheet.
The most common actions you can take are described in the "Actions in Combat" section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action.
The "Movement and Position" section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move.
You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn. If you can't decide what to do on your turn, consider taking the Dodge or Readyaction, as described in "Actions in Combat."
Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
It doesn’t matter if the ranger has eight different ways to command the beast. The beast has one action it can take on its turn, which it shares with the ranger.
Im all for making the ranger and both beast masters better, but saying the ranger+beast somehow breaks the action economy without explicitly saying so is, in my opinion, a bad read.
Giving the beast master the ability to command the beast to take one attack as a bonus action is already a huge bump in options and action economy.
It doesn’t matter if the ranger has eight different ways to command the beast. The beast has one action it can take on its turn, which it shares with the ranger.
Im all for making the ranger and both beast masters better, but saying the ranger+beast somehow breaks the action economy without explicitly saying so is, in my opinion, a bad read.
Giving the beast master the ability to command the beast to take one attack as a bonus action is already a huge bump in options and action economy.
The beast doesn't explicitly have a turn. It doesn't take a turn alongside the ranger, and it doesn't take its turn immediately following the ranger; unlike the PHB beast companion.
It can move, take reactions, and take actions (dodge, if not commanded) on your turn. Sounds like it's taking a turn to me. Do you really need it to be so explicit that otherwise it doesn't count?
However the rules are written, there is one important factor, as a dm, or a player in discussion with the dm can agree on how to handle updated beastmaster.
I will go with:
"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 any other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take any action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge."
But! As it is written I believe that the bonus action command should be compared to other bonus actions in the game, and therefore only allow you to use the maul action, one attack from the primal companion using ranger bonus action. For example:
At level 11, a ranger will be able to make 4 attacks if allowed to use the bonus action to command companion to take the Attack action. The fighter need to be level 20 to make that many attacks, yes they are for stronger but same number of attacks. Even with three attacks per turn for the ranger and companion, it is more attacks than any other class except the fighter.
We think we can agree that it is written weird...
Edit: I totally agree with Jounichi1983 interpretation, but do we have to follow it? :) I actually think I will, but I would allow bonus action commands to be Dash, Help and Disengage from level 3.
You've insulted the reading comprehension of no less than two people, and now you launch additional personal attacks? I changed careers because I chose to. Most people don't do what their B.A. says for their entire life. My father went to school for electrical engineering and transitioned to data analysis and cybersecurity without ever changing his employer. (Government agencies are funny like that.) MSNBC's Chris Hayes has a degree in philosophy. For crying out loud, Todd Kenrick used to work at NBC. You feel like insulting him, too?
And I haven't twisted anything. You're the one here who, repeatedly, cannot seem to grasp in plain English what I've been writing out. And, golly gee, I thought I gave a detailed breakdown. If you have serious questions, I'll answer them. But I don't think you do, because you felt the need to announce your departure.
Having good manners is free. There's no excuse for you not being able to afford them.
I wouldn’t focus too much on insults. Even though it’s against the rules of this forum, pretty much every one of us at one point in this response chain has let off some steam with a remark or two. Everyone seems to have acknowledged the views of the other posters. An actual change of opinion was doomed from the start since most people are going to stick with their first impression or interpretation of the rules regardless of what’s brought to the table.
i personally don’t care too much about people’s careers or touted level of professionalism, especially in a forum. The individuals you’ve mentioned have made a great many mistakes like the rest of us, but their mistakes are recorded and are usually leveraged against them. Hindsight being 20/20 and all.
I don’t believe there’s any twisting, I think there is our original interpretations the way they are, and that when explaining it to others it may look or feel different enough to their own interpretation that they become defensive, not understanding how anyone else’s logic or train of thought could be different from their own.
I did not step over my own argument. You have chosen to ignore half of it to get the result that you want out of this debate. Which you have done repeatedly by ignoring everything but your chosen partial sentence to support your argument. If you actually pay attention you will notice I point out both how you are right and how you are wrong.
Everything else is on you.
Also Treant has been known to be wrong many many times. He comes off as a stickler for rules but also tends to choose favorable twists and interpretations when doing so.
Higher levels to many journalism and writing careers are also in things like Editing, Producing, and various other extensions of the Journalism field where they are no longer Journalism. Which I'm sure that Jounichi could tell you as well but I thought i'd just add in for him for further backing and clarification.
One little clarification. Monks actually can make 4 attacks early on. But their damage dice are lower to compensate for this and actually increase upon level up based upon increases to other classes. (also it's not truely sustainable).
Onto the issue of Allowing the bonus action to effectively extra attack. To apply two attacks to the Bonus action and allow two attacks by giving up one attack would actually allow 5 attacks for the ranger. More than Basically anything else in the game besides a max level fighter spec'd into dual wielding who actually takes a penalty to things like Damage and usability of other Feats and the like. The other two possibilities for doing such are a Monk or a max level fighter being hasted to get an additional weapon attack. Or the cheese that I kind of mentioned in a previous post involving Swift Quiver. The saving grace of Swift Quiver being that it's a ranger only 5th level spell so it's only available to high level rangers and archer bards that somehow manage to snatch it up with one of their lore powers. I only know of this cheese from playing in a campaign that went into tier 4 with a ranger in the party. (also both Haste and Swift Quiver are concentration spells so they can be gotten rid of by various means.)
As for the 7th level power. It was a bit stronger in some ways on the original Beast Master which actually had more limited command over their pet and was always giving up at least one of their attacks in their attack action to do so. But the way i look at it with the Primal companions considering it's effectively just 3 abilities that you can do this way that your effectively giving the Primal companion a bonus action by giving up your own bonus action. And While it's not a perfect analogy of the mechanics, That is really the problem with the Beast Master Ranger. Nothing really is a perfect Analogy because the Beast Companion or the Primal Companion exists in this weird place where it's literally part pc and part NPC and it's essentially all class feature, which is a situation that literally nothing else in the game exists as. Not even Summons because they are still entirely NPC's no matter who runs them or chooses them or murders them in combat and no matter how you get access to summoning them.
I would like to take this opportunity to address just what I think "some other action" encompasses for levels 3-10. I probably should have sooner, but I didn't think it was necessary. It's a vague enough clause that it's functionally left up to the DM's whims; explicit instruction at 7th-level aside. And regardless of whatever the RAW or RAI might be, the DM's word is final. I'm not here to step on anyone's toes. I'm just trying to communicate what the feature says. That said, I'm trying to be conservative because it's a safer bet to be more widely accepted. You are always welcome to try and negotiate with your DM. Just don't go around thinking you can rules-lawyer them.
So, without further ado...
We know Attack is for when the ranger declares the same action. And the ranger can give up one of their attacks, possibly their only attack, to get the beast to strike. It might not be optimal, but I can conceive of cases where it might be appropriate. Every beast has a better movement speed than the ranger. And this is how Bestial Fury is intended to work; via the Attack action. We also know Dash, Disengage, and Help are explicitly granted via Exceptional Training. Lastly, we know Dodge is performed automatically if no command (via an Action or Bonus Action) is given.
So, what are we left with?
And, as I've mentioned before, actions can always be improvised. If you need to jump a gap and make a Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics) roll, now the beast can, too. What's more, the beasts add the ranger's proficiency bonus to every ability check and saving throw. They're never rolling just the relevant ability modifier.
Believe me when I say I get that this isn't all obvious. I had to spend some time on it, as well. The writing team may be counting on players and DMs to figure this out as situations arise. Or they were just hampered by how much space they had to work with. They tried their darndest to fit that entire feature, and the three accompanying beasts, onto a single page. And I think they succeeded, even if it cost them some specificity.
By the same token, the lack of specificity is also indicative of 5e's overriding design philosophy: rulings, not rules. After two and a half iterations of strict management, WotC is deliberately trying to be hands-off this time around. It can be frustrating, even stymying, but it can also be liberating.
And this all works perfectly fine and completely as intended with Beast Companions. However. The Primal Companion Alternate Features from Tasha's is slightly different. The Ranger no longer has to sacrifice their only attack to make the beast attack. Or wait for level 5 to be able to make their own attack and make the beast attack. They can now make it take an action with their bonus action. this is where the whole issue of the thread is coming from initially. How people are seeing this alternate feature being used with it's slightly different mechanics.
The Primal Companion is not ordered around by default by the Rangers Action or one of it's attacks. it's actually ordered around by default by it's bonus action which is a switch from how the older standard beast companion works. This means even from level 1 both the ranger and the beast are able to attack without sacrificing the Rangers action which wasn't possible until level 5 before. This is a small but major change to the way the two interact which is causing a lot of misunderstandings and grief. While bringing Beast Masters more in line with what other classes can usually do anyway.
this is why I personally shift up exceptional training to be like a bonus action on the beasts part but am still not inclined to allow the simple bonus action of the ranger to turn into two attacks. Having experience with rogues i know giving the beast what is the equivilant of Cunning Action is not in the least bit game breaking.
I never said this was all done with the ranger's Action. In fact, the very first sentence includes "some other action"; a clear reference to being able to command the beast with the ranger's Bonus Action.
Y'all need to start actually reading what I've put down.
Here's one problem with that. Unless you make the clarification, Which in this case you didn't, What you intended does not necessarily carry across to the reader. Particularly one like me that has issues with understanding tones even at the best of times. Even my own. Your post talks primarily on the basis of the Rangers action at points (such as when mentioning attack specifically) and without the clarification people like me may miss your change in intention. Which you often do make the clarification, I'm not saying that you don't. But this is the case of what happened in this particular instance.
I read the post twice before posting the first time by the way. It's only through your clarification now that I can go through and start to see where you meant the differences to be at.
The entire first paragraph is, implicitly, about the ranger's Bonus Action. Even if you didn't have the book in front of you, you could still reasonably follow along if you paid attention to the now four pages' worth of exchanges. I did not type primarily about the ranger's action. The only paragraph that even mentions the ranger's action doesn't even spend the whole paragraph on the action. That post, including the list, was primarily (i.e. chiefly, essentially, mainly, etc.) about the commands the ranger can issue with their Bonus Action starting at 3rd-level. So there was no "change in intention".
I have no idea where'd you'd even get that from. Just as I have no idea why you'd think the ranger and beast could attack without sacrificing the ranger's action. The ranger doesn't get their archetype until 3rd-level. You read as if you're out of your depth. If you have any doubts, ask for clarification. Don't make assumptions.
Everyone is right and no one is, as long as there is no official ruling. Right now I am playing a new BM in DotMM and it is a lot of fun (not level 7 now but my DM ruled that I can do the Dash, Disengage, and Help Action right now, because he rules that the old level 7 stuff is for the old BM. It is not at all OP and we all have lots of fun). We will see if at level 11 taking two attacks with the Rangers bonus Action is too OP or not.
Thats that. And as long as Crawford or any other official rules it, not one of us can really say how they think we should handle it. So relax everyone. ;)
From my reading of the various rules, my interpretation is:
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Each creature only gets one action.
The primal companion is no different.
No matter how or why the primal companion takes an action, it only gets one action.
The action listed in it’s stat block, like the maul, can be used when it takes the attack action. And even if maul is also its own action, it doesn’t matter, because it can only take one action.
The primal companion also can’t dodge and attack on the same turn because that is two actions. Even if the ranger commands it to do so. The primal companion can’t attack with its action and then attack again instead of one of the ranger’s attacks as they both take an action
Yes... I also think that it works that way (still waiting for an official clarification if the Primal Companion can do two attacks with the Rangers Bonus Action at level 11) but it will be a maximum of 4 attacks between the Ranger and its companion imho. I play a Wisdom BM Ranger (Tashas) in DotMM at the moment and it is tons of fun btw...
Okay, let's assume, for the sake of argument, the beast is limited to only one action; regardless of how many actions a ranger could theorietically give it. It also interweaves its action with the ranger's turn and, as such, has no separate turn. The total action economy looks something like this, with new action combos being listed at the appropriate levels:
And that all is basically the safest, most-conservative reading of the feature I can come up with. Arguably, I'm still stretching it with "some other action", because there's no guidance whatsoever. It's DM's fiat, but that fiat is also supported by the text.
Your Turn
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed — sometimes called your walking speed — is noted on your character sheet.
The most common actions you can take are described in the "Actions in Combat" section later in this chapter. Many class features and other abilities provide additional options for your action.
The "Movement and Position" section later in this chapter gives the rules for your move.
You can forgo moving, taking an action, or doing anything at all on your turn. If you can't decide what to do on your turn, consider taking the Dodge or Readyaction, as described in "Actions in Combat."
Bonus Actions
Various class features, spells, and other abilities let you take an additional action on your turn called a bonus action. The Cunning Action feature, for example, allows a rogue to take a bonus action. You can take a bonus action only when a special ability, spell, or other feature of the game states that you can do something as a bonus action. You otherwise don't have a bonus action to take.
You can take only one bonus action on your turn, so you must choose which bonus action to use when you have more than one available.
You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.
It doesn’t matter if the ranger has eight different ways to command the beast. The beast has one action it can take on its turn, which it shares with the ranger.
Im all for making the ranger and both beast masters better, but saying the ranger+beast somehow breaks the action economy without explicitly saying so is, in my opinion, a bad read.
Giving the beast master the ability to command the beast to take one attack as a bonus action is already a huge bump in options and action economy.
The beast doesn't explicitly have a turn. It doesn't take a turn alongside the ranger, and it doesn't take its turn immediately following the ranger; unlike the PHB beast companion.
It just acts during the ranger's turn.
It can move, take reactions, and take actions (dodge, if not commanded) on your turn. Sounds like it's taking a turn to me. Do you really need it to be so explicit that otherwise it doesn't count?
The mental gymnastics going on here...