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...
For any other companion the language is usually "It takes its turn on your initiative" but for the Primal Companion the language changes to "In combat, the beast acts during your turn." I interpret this to mean that it does not have a separate turn, but rather that it takes its turn as part of the ranger's turn.
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!
Yes. It takes its turn simultaneously with the BM as opposed to right after like other pet classes.
And since we're talking about other pet classes, the Wildfire Druid, Creation Bard, and Battlesmith don't have access to the BM's Exceptional Training feature, but are otherwise worded identically to the Primal Companion. Does this mean that those pets can't dash/disengage/hide at all? Or does it mean they can do so right at level 3 while the Primal Companion is somehow stuck waiting until level 7 to do the same? Or does it just mean WotC accidentally overlooked Exceptional Training while designing the new BM?
I'd argue Occam's Razor would suggest the last option is the most likely.
The original beast master companion takes its turn in tandem with the ranger' turn too. The intent of this is just clarified in Tasha's. This is the great power of the subclass; action extension and flexibility.
There are several situation in the game where creatures take their turns at the same time as one another; controlled mount and rider, animals hooked up to pull something like a chariot, like monsters in initiative, conjured animals, etc.
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...
With all due respect, I do not believe this to be any display of mental gymnastics. The artificer's Steel Defender included the following text:
In combat, the defender shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours.
And the Wildfire Spirit for the druid's Circle of Wildfire contains almost identical text, only swapping out "defender" for "spirit". But the ranger's Primal Companion, almost conspicuously, lacks such language. Now, you're free to interpret that the beast has a turn. It has reactions, and spent reactions are recovered at the start of the creature's next turn. And the battle smith, again, uses other, near-identical text. And the above example I gave of a conservative estimation of the beast master's action economy assumes the beast is limited to only one action.
And the near-identical language between Steel Defender and Primal Companion does give credence to the idea that the beast isn't limited by Exceptional Training. And yet, Exceptional Traning was left unaltered. But that still isn't getting to the core issue; sorry for the digression. The ranger is explicitly allowed to issue multiple commands over the span of their turn; via both their Action and Bonus Action. There are no prohibitions. It doesn't say one or the other. "Also", meaning in addition to, means they're not mutually exclusive.
That's the conundrum we find ourselves in. This debate has been raging on Reddit for the last 2 and a half months. We're trying to prescribe an assumed action economy, based on rules for player characters in the Player's Handbook, to summoned NPCs, granted by a class feature, which aren't necessarily bound by those same rules. And, in the process, we may find ourselves disregarding the action economy of the player character to whom the NPC belongs to. And the really messed up part is the Battle Smith and Circle of Wildfire don't suffer from this problem at all. They use similar language, yes, but they're also clear on the matter. Primal Companion, in what I think is an attempt at having one's cake and eating it, too, is written in such a way that it can't help but be confusing. And I don't mean this as some dig at the design team. I know they worked hard on this. I know some stuff fell through the cracks. Stuff always does. But it's still frustrating that, after all this time, they still can't nail down the ranger.
And I love the ranger. My first character ever, 20+ years ago, was a ranger.
Now, I've already gone to Sage Advice, and I saw another retweet of something along those lines earlier today. No answer yet, and there may never be one. Crawford, et al, don't get around to everything, and they don't owe us their time like that. Ultimately, this may just come down to "rulings, not rules." I know that's frustrating, but...
If it helps, I have my fingers crossed that another errata is bound for the PHB this year. For a couple of reasons, but one of them will be to updated some of the language for the beast master subclass and perhaps the ranger's higher level abilities.
The Tasha's OPTIONAL rules for the THIRD LEVEL (only) beast master ability simple makes the seventh level ability loose half of its function. Automatic zero resource spent magical attacks at level seven is nothing to sneeze at (see moon druid and monk). The Tasha's third level optional replacement ability does what the original seventh level ability does but better.
The Tasha's OPTIONAL rules for the THIRD LEVEL (only) beast master ability simple makes the seventh level ability loose half of its function. Automatic zero resource spent magical attacks at level seven is nothing to sneeze at (see moon druid and monk). The Tasha's third level optional replacement ability does what the original seventh level ability does but better.
First off, optional or not, the feature shouldn't be trivializing a later feature for the same archetype. That's just basic design.
Second, I don't think those are fair comparisons. Circle of the Moon doesn't just get magical attacks at 6th-level. They can also turn into CR 2 beasts. That is a tremendous jump in power. And all monk's get both Ki-Empowered Strikes and their next Monastic Tradition feature at 6th-level. They both get a lot. And now the ranger gets less?
The higher level PHB feature does seem to be trivialized by the lower level Tasha feature. I would imagine that was talked about at some point during the editing process. The tashas optional features seem to be the largest reset that WOTC has being able to do that doesn’t involve heavy errata of printed books.
they tried to tie everything up in A nice nice bow, but I don’t think the bow was never going to be nice with how much the beast masters ranger companion feature had to be rebuilt.
there are also about 3 beast options that are still very viable if making partial use of tashas options with the base class upgrade options.
The Tasha's OPTIONAL rules for the THIRD LEVEL (only) beast master ability simple makes the seventh level ability loose half of its function. Automatic zero resource spent magical attacks at level seven is nothing to sneeze at (see moon druid and monk). The Tasha's third level optional replacement ability does what the original seventh level ability does but better.
First off, optional or not, the feature shouldn't be trivializing a later feature for the same archetype. That's just basic design.
Second, I don't think those are fair comparisons. Circle of the Moon doesn't just get magical attacks at 6th-level. They can also turn into CR 2 beasts. That is a tremendous jump in power. And all monk's get both Ki-Empowered Strikes and their next Monastic Tradition feature at 6th-level. They both get a lot. And now the ranger gets less?
I agree it is bad design, and its why I thing the PHB will see another errata in the near future.
Can we agree that much of the ranger subclasses are front loaded? Now the beast master is too.
Although not all "subclass features" the beast master, and others like it, gain a little more power every couple of levels since they benefit from the proficiency bonus. The companion shows up at level 3, get more interactive at level 5, gets a bump in power at level 5, gets magic attacks at level 7, gets a bump in power at level 9, gets to make two attacks when it takes the attack action at level 11, gets a bump in power at level 13, benefits from shared spells at level 15, and gets a bump in power at level 17.
The higher level PHB feature does seem to be trivialized by the lower level Tasha feature. I would imagine that was talked about at some point during the editing process. The tashas optional features seem to be the largest reset that WOTC has being able to do that doesn’t involve heavy errata of printed books.
they tried to tie everything up in A nice nice bow, but I don’t think the bow was never going to be nice with how much the beast masters ranger companion feature had to be rebuilt.
there are also about 3 beast options that are still very viable if making partial use of tashas options with the base class upgrade options.
My guess is a 2021 errata for the PHB beast master would be adding the bonus action command to level 3, changing the wording of commands more like Tasha's (the ranger takes the attack action and replaces one... instead of the ranger commands the beast and makes one attack..., etc.), and removing the bonus action command from level 7.
There is no reason to think they are going to issue new errata for the PHB. If they were, they wouldn't have bothered with the Primal Companion.
And this whole hoopla about whether or not the beast can take multiple actions in one turn hinges on specificity versus vaguity. Yes, as a general rule, no creature can take more than one action per turn. And as a specific rule, Primal Companion allows the ranger to issue multiple commands via its Action and Bonus Action. The same also applies to the PHB ranger's Beast Companion and Exceptional Training features.
Nevermind people saying it can Attack as a bonus action because of "some other action", regardless of Attack being called out specifically for the ranger's own Attack action.
That's what I don't get. "Specific beats general", except in the case with this one feature.
General: "On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action." From the Player's Handbook, combat section.
Specific: "Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action." From the Player's Handbook, fighter base class.
Specific: "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." From the Player's Handbook, fighter, ranger, barbarian, and ranger feature.
Let's take Tasha's out of the conversation for just a moment. The PHB beast master says you can use your action to command the beast to take, among others, the help action. At level 7 the beast master can now use their bonus action to command the beast to take the help action. Are you suggesting the beast could take the help action twice on their turn (whenever that turn takes place)?
Ok, in the spirit of trying to see both sides of the conversation, I found precedent in the rogue class for Jounichi1983's argument.
Cunning Action
Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action.
Here we see the rules saying that this feature specifically allows the rogue to take an ACTION as a bonus action. And we all seem to be under the impression that this would stack with the rogue taking one of these actions as their action as well, even dashing with both, some builds are designed around this concept.
Ok, in the spirit of trying to see both sides of the conversation, I found precedent in the rogue class for Jounichi1983's argument.
Cunning Action
Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action.
Here we see the rules saying that this feature specifically allows the rogue to take an ACTION as a bonus action. And we all seem to be under the impression that this would stack with the rogue taking one of these actions as their action as well, even dashing with both, some builds are designed around this concept.
So the beast could use the help action twice, because the 7th level ability only requires the beast not make an attack to do so. The beast can't auto dodge and take the help action because the beast only auto dodges if no command is issued (which frustrates me even more and makes me think there WILL be an errata because moving the beast in the PHB is a command).
>moves, takes reactions, and dodges unless you command it to do something else
>sacrificing an attack allows your beast companion to attacks and retain your BA
>Sacrificing a BA allows the beast to an action, which is not clarified or given restrictions: "There is never fluff in the text"
>at higher levels the beast can attack twice. "starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multiattack action if it has that action."
>You can take your (1)attack(action) to attack twice, command your beast to take the (1)attack(action) twice as a BA, attacking four times.
>You can attack once at higher levels or straight not use an attack and sacrifice one/both of your attacks to allow the beast to attack, allowing you to cast hunters mark(ba)or the like: The feature makes sense at level 3, when you get spellcasting and scales with higher levels.
-------
Nowhere is it stated that you are imbuing the beast with special powers allowing it to ignore the established action economy and take multiple Attack actions per round. You're merely commanding the beast to attack in whichever way is most convenient to you at the time.
Whether you give the command once or twice, in the end the beast can still only take a single action per turn. Which gives it 2 attacks, per the attack action.
Its like the entire Optional Features was to make the beast and the ranger work as a team instead of a "my x is in the top 1%" level Pokémon trainer that you run over in 10 seconds flat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." "What if I like being sick?"
The beast doesn't have its own turn. It acts as an extension of the ranger. The only expressed limits on the beast's action economy are the number of commands the ranger can issue it.
The only other limitation I can find is the "some other action." If the intent was to allow the beast to Attack, using the ranger's Bonus Action to command it so, then it would expressly say so. There would be no point in mentioning the action in its stat block; which is invariably an attack. Ergo, if the beast is to Attack then it must be commanded to do so at the expressed cost of the ranger sacrificing one of its attacks.
I've litigated this in-depth already. And it's insane that nobody here can see reason.
The argument that a turn should be limited to a single action per character and not per creature is ridiculously wrong.
Especially when doing anything with the companion requires a sacrifice of that very action economy.
The additional attacks from the companion aren't even close to what a PC could do without it.
Lightning arrow +2 attacks with a common longbow and +5 from dex do a maximum total of 74 (6d8+10 with additional 2d8 AOE). If 2 attacks hit.
2 attacks with a common longbow and +5 from dex and 2 attacks from beat companion(Ba command) do a maximum damage of 64 (4d8+32) if all 4 attacks hit.
It's literally to dispense damage more evenly a cross multiple targets, and stick with the flavor of the subclass.
The primal companion lacks the multiattack action and additional senses/proficienct that the animal companion had. Meaning you don't get an owls keen sense. That's why it's balanced. It retains it's statblock regardless of it forms.
If you don't want the optional features, don't allow them. However, don't allow them only to nerf them back into base features they replaced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." "What if I like being sick?"
The beast doesn't have its own turn. It acts as an extension of the ranger. The only expressed limits on the beast's action economy are the number of commands the ranger can issue it.
The only other limitation I can find is the "some other action." If the intent was to allow the beast to Attack, using the ranger's Bonus Action to command it so, then it would expressly say so. There would be no point in mentioning the action in its stat block; which is invariably an attack. Ergo, if the beast is to Attack then it must be commanded to do so at the expressed cost of the ranger sacrificing one of its attacks.
I've litigated this in-depth already. And it's insane that nobody here can see reason.
I believe this is true for Tasha's optional beasts but not The original PHB ones. It creates an interesting space where it still is possible for the original to be better than the new one. There is also a lot of weirdness for actions outside of combat because they technically use different rules that are mostly identical but not exactly the same.
The beast doesn't have its own turn. It acts as an extension of the ranger. The only expressed limits on the beast's action economy are the number of commands the ranger can issue it.
The only other limitation I can find is the "some other action." If the intent was to allow the beast to Attack, using the ranger's Bonus Action to command it so, then it would expressly say so. There would be no point in mentioning the action in its stat block; which is invariably an attack. Ergo, if the beast is to Attack then it must be commanded to do so at the expressed cost of the ranger sacrificing one of its attacks.
I've litigated this in-depth already. And it's insane that nobody here can see reason.
I believe this is true for Tasha's optional beasts but not The original PHB ones. It creates an interesting space where it still is possible for the original to be better than the new one. There is also a lot of weirdness for actions outside of combat because they technically use different rules that are mostly identical but not exactly the same.
This could turn into a long one, so I apologize in advance.
If I'm reading you correctly, I think it's the other way around. The PH Panger's Companion, "takes its turn on your initiative." Conversely, while in combat the Primal Companion, "acts during your turn." Functionally, there isn't really a difference. Regardless of which feature used to acquire a beast companion, they still get to move, take an Action and Bonus Action (if they have any), and have a reaction that refreshes either on their turn or the ranger's turn.
That said, I don't think you're entirely wrong that the Ranger's Companion could be stronger under certain circumstances. Actual beasts have skill proficiencies, features, and traits that the Primal Companions don't, so their utility is arguably greater. They're certainly more specialized, so they have clearer strengths and weaknesses, but the Primal Companions are more generalists and have better survivability. And, if I'm being honest, I'm just going to run a hybrid of the two at my table the next time someone wants to play a Beast Master: you pick an actual beast but get to use the math of Primal Companion. Which isn't that far off from what I've been doing already; giving them white dice equal to the ranger's and adding the ranger's proficiency bonus to all saving throws and the DC of abilities. That said, the PH ranger is more limited in what it can do and how it can contribute. Levels 3 & 4 are painful, but once you get Extra Attack it really takes off. If you want to cast hunter's mark for bonus damage on your one attack, great. If you'd rather cast something like ensnaring strike, also good. And 7th-level sees another shift with Exceptional training. The PH Beast Master's tactics evolve over time as new options become available. There's a story in there, somewhere, but you have to be receptive of it.
But I digress. Getting back to their respective action economies, I think the limitation of only one action per turn, if it applies, should only apply to the PH Ranger's Companion. Why, you ask? Because it expressly has a turn. I don't think anyone really bothered to before because, by 7th-level, the ranger can output more damage with hunter's mark and so the beast is better off using Help or some other available choice. To play a Beast Master is to know a little bit of pain and frustration. There are spikes and dips, peaks and valleys, in power relative to everyone else that make it feel uneven. And this can be...dissatisfying. Druids with the Circle of the Moon feel similar pain; with their combat wild shapes steadily growing less powerful before their next CR forms become available.
The Primal Companion is a little weird because it lacks clear language on whether or not it has a turn. Presumably, it does, and you're free to treat it as such. It's a safe bet, but it doesn't expressly say so. What it does expressly say is that, in addition to commanding it with your Bonus Action, you can also command it to Attack by taking the same action and giving up one of your own attacks; possibly your only attack. It doesn't say that you can only give one of these commands per turn. But it does say that the Bonus Action command is limited to, "one in its stat block or some other action." That one in its stat block is an attack, and if the intent was to allow it to take the Attack action as a Bonus Action, it would just say so. There would be no point in calling attention to the action in its stat block. Otherwise, the full sentence would read as follows:
I get why people want this to be a thing, to allow for two attacks from the beast as a Bonus Action, but it doesn't make sense. You can make three attacks together starting at 5th-level, but it costs a Bonus Action. From 11th-level on, it's three attacks (with a slightly different order) using just your Action. If you want a 4th attack, then the only guaranteed way is with TWF. (And that should have been a viable option 6 years ago.) Anything else is questionable at best, and that includes my own previously-stated interpretation of the action economy. At least until swift quiver becomes available at 17th-level, in which case you can take a total of 4 attacks. But that was always the case, and how many campaigns play that far?
I'm comfortable allowing multiple commands, I always have been. And there's never been an expressed limit on the number of commands the ranger can issue. A thing does what it sais it does; no more and no less. But I understand why people argue against that, and that's fine. I respect that. But what I cannot agree with is "some other action" allowing any and all actions, including Attack. There's nothing to support that claim. At best, it's nebulous and left entirely to the DM's whims. And I know that's not helpful, but it's the only answer that makes sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
For any other companion the language is usually "It takes its turn on your initiative" but for the Primal Companion the language changes to "In combat, the beast acts during your turn." I interpret this to mean that it does not have a separate turn, but rather that it takes its turn as part of the ranger's turn.
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!
Yes. It takes its turn simultaneously with the BM as opposed to right after like other pet classes.
And since we're talking about other pet classes, the Wildfire Druid, Creation Bard, and Battlesmith don't have access to the BM's Exceptional Training feature, but are otherwise worded identically to the Primal Companion. Does this mean that those pets can't dash/disengage/hide at all? Or does it mean they can do so right at level 3 while the Primal Companion is somehow stuck waiting until level 7 to do the same? Or does it just mean WotC accidentally overlooked Exceptional Training while designing the new BM?
I'd argue Occam's Razor would suggest the last option is the most likely.
The original beast master companion takes its turn in tandem with the ranger' turn too. The intent of this is just clarified in Tasha's. This is the great power of the subclass; action extension and flexibility.
There are several situation in the game where creatures take their turns at the same time as one another; controlled mount and rider, animals hooked up to pull something like a chariot, like monsters in initiative, conjured animals, etc.
With all due respect, I do not believe this to be any display of mental gymnastics. The artificer's Steel Defender included the following text:
And the Wildfire Spirit for the druid's Circle of Wildfire contains almost identical text, only swapping out "defender" for "spirit". But the ranger's Primal Companion, almost conspicuously, lacks such language. Now, you're free to interpret that the beast has a turn. It has reactions, and spent reactions are recovered at the start of the creature's next turn. And the battle smith, again, uses other, near-identical text. And the above example I gave of a conservative estimation of the beast master's action economy assumes the beast is limited to only one action.
And the near-identical language between Steel Defender and Primal Companion does give credence to the idea that the beast isn't limited by Exceptional Training. And yet, Exceptional Traning was left unaltered. But that still isn't getting to the core issue; sorry for the digression. The ranger is explicitly allowed to issue multiple commands over the span of their turn; via both their Action and Bonus Action. There are no prohibitions. It doesn't say one or the other. "Also", meaning in addition to, means they're not mutually exclusive.
That's the conundrum we find ourselves in. This debate has been raging on Reddit for the last 2 and a half months. We're trying to prescribe an assumed action economy, based on rules for player characters in the Player's Handbook, to summoned NPCs, granted by a class feature, which aren't necessarily bound by those same rules. And, in the process, we may find ourselves disregarding the action economy of the player character to whom the NPC belongs to. And the really messed up part is the Battle Smith and Circle of Wildfire don't suffer from this problem at all. They use similar language, yes, but they're also clear on the matter. Primal Companion, in what I think is an attempt at having one's cake and eating it, too, is written in such a way that it can't help but be confusing. And I don't mean this as some dig at the design team. I know they worked hard on this. I know some stuff fell through the cracks. Stuff always does. But it's still frustrating that, after all this time, they still can't nail down the ranger.
And I love the ranger. My first character ever, 20+ years ago, was a ranger.
Now, I've already gone to Sage Advice, and I saw another retweet of something along those lines earlier today. No answer yet, and there may never be one. Crawford, et al, don't get around to everything, and they don't owe us their time like that. Ultimately, this may just come down to "rulings, not rules." I know that's frustrating, but...
[Shrugs shoulders.]
If it helps, I have my fingers crossed that another errata is bound for the PHB this year. For a couple of reasons, but one of them will be to updated some of the language for the beast master subclass and perhaps the ranger's higher level abilities.
The Tasha's OPTIONAL rules for the THIRD LEVEL (only) beast master ability simple makes the seventh level ability loose half of its function. Automatic zero resource spent magical attacks at level seven is nothing to sneeze at (see moon druid and monk). The Tasha's third level optional replacement ability does what the original seventh level ability does but better.
First off, optional or not, the feature shouldn't be trivializing a later feature for the same archetype. That's just basic design.
Second, I don't think those are fair comparisons. Circle of the Moon doesn't just get magical attacks at 6th-level. They can also turn into CR 2 beasts. That is a tremendous jump in power. And all monk's get both Ki-Empowered Strikes and their next Monastic Tradition feature at 6th-level. They both get a lot. And now the ranger gets less?
The higher level PHB feature does seem to be trivialized by the lower level Tasha feature. I would imagine that was talked about at some point during the editing process. The tashas optional features seem to be the largest reset that WOTC has being able to do that doesn’t involve heavy errata of printed books.
they tried to tie everything up in A nice nice bow, but I don’t think the bow was never going to be nice with how much the beast masters ranger companion feature had to be rebuilt.
there are also about 3 beast options that are still very viable if making partial use of tashas options with the base class upgrade options.
I agree it is bad design, and its why I thing the PHB will see another errata in the near future.
Can we agree that much of the ranger subclasses are front loaded? Now the beast master is too.
Although not all "subclass features" the beast master, and others like it, gain a little more power every couple of levels since they benefit from the proficiency bonus. The companion shows up at level 3, get more interactive at level 5, gets a bump in power at level 5, gets magic attacks at level 7, gets a bump in power at level 9, gets to make two attacks when it takes the attack action at level 11, gets a bump in power at level 13, benefits from shared spells at level 15, and gets a bump in power at level 17.
My guess is a 2021 errata for the PHB beast master would be adding the bonus action command to level 3, changing the wording of commands more like Tasha's (the ranger takes the attack action and replaces one... instead of the ranger commands the beast and makes one attack..., etc.), and removing the bonus action command from level 7.
There is no reason to think they are going to issue new errata for the PHB. If they were, they wouldn't have bothered with the Primal Companion.
And this whole hoopla about whether or not the beast can take multiple actions in one turn hinges on specificity versus vaguity. Yes, as a general rule, no creature can take more than one action per turn. And as a specific rule, Primal Companion allows the ranger to issue multiple commands via its Action and Bonus Action. The same also applies to the PHB ranger's Beast Companion and Exceptional Training features.
Nevermind people saying it can Attack as a bonus action because of "some other action", regardless of Attack being called out specifically for the ranger's own Attack action.
That's what I don't get. "Specific beats general", except in the case with this one feature.
Specific does beat general.
General: "On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action." From the Player's Handbook, combat section.
Specific: "Starting at 2nd level, you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment. On your turn, you can take one additional action." From the Player's Handbook, fighter base class.
Specific: "Beginning at 5th level, you can attack twice, instead of once, whenever you take the Attack action on your turn." From the Player's Handbook, fighter, ranger, barbarian, and ranger feature.
Let's take Tasha's out of the conversation for just a moment. The PHB beast master says you can use your action to command the beast to take, among others, the help action. At level 7 the beast master can now use their bonus action to command the beast to take the help action. Are you suggesting the beast could take the help action twice on their turn (whenever that turn takes place)?
Ok, in the spirit of trying to see both sides of the conversation, I found precedent in the rogue class for Jounichi1983's argument.
Cunning Action
Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action.
Here we see the rules saying that this feature specifically allows the rogue to take an ACTION as a bonus action. And we all seem to be under the impression that this would stack with the rogue taking one of these actions as their action as well, even dashing with both, some builds are designed around this concept.
So the beast could use the help action twice, because the 7th level ability only requires the beast not make an attack to do so. The beast can't auto dodge and take the help action because the beast only auto dodges if no command is issued (which frustrates me even more and makes me think there WILL be an errata because moving the beast in the PHB is a command).
>Have beast companion
>Shares your turn
>moves, takes reactions, and dodges unless you command it to do something else
>sacrificing an attack allows your beast companion to attacks and retain your BA
>Sacrificing a BA allows the beast to an action, which is not clarified or given restrictions: "There is never fluff in the text"
>at higher levels the beast can attack twice. "starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multiattack action if it has that action."
>You can take your (1)attack(action) to attack twice, command your beast to take the (1)attack(action) twice as a BA, attacking four times.
>You can attack once at higher levels or straight not use an attack and sacrifice one/both of your attacks to allow the beast to attack, allowing you to cast hunters mark(ba)or the like: The feature makes sense at level 3, when you get spellcasting and scales with higher levels.
-------
Nowhere is it stated that you are imbuing the beast with special powers allowing it to ignore the established action economy and take multiple Attack actions per round. You're merely commanding the beast to attack in whichever way is most convenient to you at the time.
Its like the entire Optional Features was to make the beast and the ranger work as a team instead of a "my x is in the top 1%" level Pokémon trainer that you run over in 10 seconds flat.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." "What if I like being sick?"
The beast doesn't have its own turn. It acts as an extension of the ranger. The only expressed limits on the beast's action economy are the number of commands the ranger can issue it.
The only other limitation I can find is the "some other action." If the intent was to allow the beast to Attack, using the ranger's Bonus Action to command it so, then it would expressly say so. There would be no point in mentioning the action in its stat block; which is invariably an attack. Ergo, if the beast is to Attack then it must be commanded to do so at the expressed cost of the ranger sacrificing one of its attacks.
I've litigated this in-depth already. And it's insane that nobody here can see reason.
Dragon's breath on familiar
The argument that a turn should be limited to a single action per character and not per creature is ridiculously wrong.
Especially when doing anything with the companion requires a sacrifice of that very action economy.
The additional attacks from the companion aren't even close to what a PC could do without it.
Lightning arrow +2 attacks with a common longbow and +5 from dex do a maximum total of 74 (6d8+10 with additional 2d8 AOE). If 2 attacks hit.
2 attacks with a common longbow and +5 from dex and 2 attacks from beat companion(Ba command) do a maximum damage of 64 (4d8+32) if all 4 attacks hit.
It's literally to dispense damage more evenly a cross multiple targets, and stick with the flavor of the subclass.
The primal companion lacks the multiattack action and additional senses/proficienct that the animal companion had. Meaning you don't get an owls keen sense. That's why it's balanced. It retains it's statblock regardless of it forms.
If you don't want the optional features, don't allow them. However, don't allow them only to nerf them back into base features they replaced.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." "What if I like being sick?"
I believe this is true for Tasha's optional beasts but not The original PHB ones. It creates an interesting space where it still is possible for the original to be better than the new one. There is also a lot of weirdness for actions outside of combat because they technically use different rules that are mostly identical but not exactly the same.
This could turn into a long one, so I apologize in advance.
If I'm reading you correctly, I think it's the other way around. The PH Panger's Companion, "takes its turn on your initiative." Conversely, while in combat the Primal Companion, "acts during your turn." Functionally, there isn't really a difference. Regardless of which feature used to acquire a beast companion, they still get to move, take an Action and Bonus Action (if they have any), and have a reaction that refreshes either on their turn or the ranger's turn.
That said, I don't think you're entirely wrong that the Ranger's Companion could be stronger under certain circumstances. Actual beasts have skill proficiencies, features, and traits that the Primal Companions don't, so their utility is arguably greater. They're certainly more specialized, so they have clearer strengths and weaknesses, but the Primal Companions are more generalists and have better survivability. And, if I'm being honest, I'm just going to run a hybrid of the two at my table the next time someone wants to play a Beast Master: you pick an actual beast but get to use the math of Primal Companion. Which isn't that far off from what I've been doing already; giving them white dice equal to the ranger's and adding the ranger's proficiency bonus to all saving throws and the DC of abilities. That said, the PH ranger is more limited in what it can do and how it can contribute. Levels 3 & 4 are painful, but once you get Extra Attack it really takes off. If you want to cast hunter's mark for bonus damage on your one attack, great. If you'd rather cast something like ensnaring strike, also good. And 7th-level sees another shift with Exceptional training. The PH Beast Master's tactics evolve over time as new options become available. There's a story in there, somewhere, but you have to be receptive of it.
But I digress. Getting back to their respective action economies, I think the limitation of only one action per turn, if it applies, should only apply to the PH Ranger's Companion. Why, you ask? Because it expressly has a turn. I don't think anyone really bothered to before because, by 7th-level, the ranger can output more damage with hunter's mark and so the beast is better off using Help or some other available choice. To play a Beast Master is to know a little bit of pain and frustration. There are spikes and dips, peaks and valleys, in power relative to everyone else that make it feel uneven. And this can be...dissatisfying. Druids with the Circle of the Moon feel similar pain; with their combat wild shapes steadily growing less powerful before their next CR forms become available.
The Primal Companion is a little weird because it lacks clear language on whether or not it has a turn. Presumably, it does, and you're free to treat it as such. It's a safe bet, but it doesn't expressly say so. What it does expressly say is that, in addition to commanding it with your Bonus Action, you can also command it to Attack by taking the same action and giving up one of your own attacks; possibly your only attack. It doesn't say that you can only give one of these commands per turn. But it does say that the Bonus Action command is limited to, "one in its stat block or some other action." That one in its stat block is an attack, and if the intent was to allow it to take the Attack action as a Bonus Action, it would just say so. There would be no point in calling attention to the action in its stat block. Otherwise, the full sentence would read as follows:
"That action can be Attack or some other action."
I get why people want this to be a thing, to allow for two attacks from the beast as a Bonus Action, but it doesn't make sense. You can make three attacks together starting at 5th-level, but it costs a Bonus Action. From 11th-level on, it's three attacks (with a slightly different order) using just your Action. If you want a 4th attack, then the only guaranteed way is with TWF. (And that should have been a viable option 6 years ago.) Anything else is questionable at best, and that includes my own previously-stated interpretation of the action economy. At least until swift quiver becomes available at 17th-level, in which case you can take a total of 4 attacks. But that was always the case, and how many campaigns play that far?
I'm comfortable allowing multiple commands, I always have been. And there's never been an expressed limit on the number of commands the ranger can issue. A thing does what it sais it does; no more and no less. But I understand why people argue against that, and that's fine. I respect that. But what I cannot agree with is "some other action" allowing any and all actions, including Attack. There's nothing to support that claim. At best, it's nebulous and left entirely to the DM's whims. And I know that's not helpful, but it's the only answer that makes sense.