Why do people think the PHB beast master ranger and beast don't share a turn? That is one of the strongest features of the subclass for me. Is it because of that one random late night tweet from JC like 6 years ago? Because, he's been wrong and/or changed directions like 8 times. You need the flexibility of the turns being one to make the subclass really shine. Being able to respond as needed on your turn with the beast makes up for the 2-3 points of less damage it does versus one ranger attack (when using hunter's mark).
He's the head designer, but his words are guidance or "advice", not gospel. But they are also insights into the thought process behind designs, which helps us understand things when we wish to tweak them.
This is important to the topic at hand as favored foe only works once on your turn and the beast takes (or can take with Tasha's version) an attack in place of one of the ranger's.
Just as smite and many other abilities can be triggered on a hit or something, the beast sharing the ranger's turn is great because you can have the beast do or not do something that it might have or not have done depending on the outcome of a move, attack, or other action by the ranger.
He's the head designer, but his words are guidance or "advice", not gospel. But they are also insights into the thought process behind designs, which helps us understand things when we wish to tweak them.
I understand that, but he has changed his guidance several times before. And the guidance regarding the PHB beast master preceded any other publication of any other "pet" class/subclass. Several situations exist in the PHB and DMG that have creatures taking their turn in tandem, and several situation in the PHB and DMG have creatures specially taking a turn at their own initiative. Is it clear? No. Is it the intent as I read it? Yes.
Devil's advocate, bonus action advantage through the help action alone is a greater problem than any other use.
Prone? Bear helps me!
Str check? Bear helps me!
Difficult terrain? Bear grapple(attack action) and drags me!
Does the bear get a free object interaction? Can it retrieve objects for you from an open space?
I'll drop my glaive to draw a longsword, command bear to pick up glaive, and attack with longsword. Next turn I'll drop longsword and grab glaive, command bear to grab longsword.
Mcguffin? Bear grab that!
BM ranger is entirely able to get a 16 in STR, take athletics prof., And use Deft explorer to gain a +7 (expertise) to athletics at level 1. At level three you will be so tired of the help action on shove attempts.
Not to mention it's a core feature of the TCoE optional, and around the same level others get sneak attack, wildshape, and smite. A single BA attack seems to compare and scale with these other core class features.
Especially considering any intelligent enemy will focus down on the animal companion, regardless of primal or base companion. They allowed less of a drawback to the DM acting in that fashion with the 1 spell slot revive.
You can run it however you like, and I appreciate your response taking the time to further clarify your issues with it.
The "...and any other action" could have been stated as "...any other action except the attack action" if it was the desired design, like the find familiar spell. The frame work is there, so it is a major oversight to have not specifically stated that same wording for the same effect.
I think you and I have both said our piece. I appreciate the responses, and I wish you the best.
For the record, I don't think either of us will have a solid answer until WoTC says something about it. There is too much justification on both sides.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." "What if I like being sick?"
He's the head designer, but his words are guidance or "advice", not gospel. But they are also insights into the thought process behind designs, which helps us understand things when we wish to tweak them.
I understand that, but he has changed his guidance several times before. And the guidance regarding the PHB beast master preceded any other publication of any other "pet" class/subclass. Several situations exist in the PHB and DMG that have creatures taking their turn in tandem, and several situation in the PHB and DMG have creatures specially taking a turn at their own initiative. Is it clear? No. Is it the intent as I read it? Yes.
You are correct and several of us advocate just this. Jounichi is one of them. I'm another. But many take his word as law. Even when it's contradictory. Even when we point out that it's contradictory. They tend to just take the statements that side with what they want and throw out the rest. A few might apply at least the logic of "this is the latest way he leaned on it so it's most accurate." but that's usually pretty rare.
There's also a couple of instances where he's gone "I would run it this way but no, We changed it because it wasn't supposed to work that way at all." and people have stopped at the first part and considered that the ruling and intention.
So Jeremy is helpful and his position on staff is somewhat helpful in making what he's saying is semi-official. But by things he's said one way and errata have come out differently. We do know he's not always in full sync with the design team sometimes. So it may not be the design teams opinion and then his advice may just become another problem part of the issue. So it's give and take.
Devil's advocate, bonus action advantage through the help action alone is a greater problem than any other use.
Prone? Bear helps me!
Str check? Bear helps me!
Difficult terrain? Bear grapple(attack action) and drags me!
Does the bear get a free object interaction? Can it retrieve objects for you from an open space?
I'll drop my glaive to draw a longsword, command bear to pick up glaive, and attack with longsword. Next turn I'll drop longsword and grab glaive, command bear to grab longsword.
Mcguffin? Bear grab that!
BM ranger is entirely able to get a 16 in STR, take athletics prof., And use Deft explorer to gain a +7 (expertise) to athletics at level 1. At level three you will be so tired of the help action on shove attempts.
Not to mention it's a core feature of the TCoE optional, and around the same level others get sneak attack, wildshape, and smite. A single BA attack seems to compare and scale with these other core class features.
Especially considering any intelligent enemy will focus down on the animal companion, regardless of primal or base companion. They allowed less of a drawback to the DM acting in that fashion with the 1 spell slot revive.
You can run it however you like, and I appreciate your response taking the time to further clarify your issues with it.
The "...and any other action" could have been stated as "...any other action except the attack action" if it was the desired design, like the find familiar spell. The frame work is there, so it is a major oversight to have not specifically stated that same wording for the same effect.
I think you and I have both said our piece. I appreciate the responses, and I wish you the best.
For the record, I don't think either of us will have a solid answer until WoTC says something about it. There is too much justification on both sides.
The full benefit of the help action is often drawn out a bit much. Be careful thinking it solves anything because you may run into DM's who's response is "ok well how does that help?" I've watched that derail more than a few plans with familiars and other things. And they may come up with other unintended consequences or reasons why something doesn't work. On rare occasion there is one that goes overboard with it. but that's a whole different problem ultimately.
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.
No place in the Tasha's setup is there an indication the beast has a regular turn (shared or not). It states "In combat, the beast acts during your turn." this implies a direct tie to the rangers actions. The ranger needs to do something for it to act. this is established by "only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action." becoming the general rule with a few exceptions. Meaning the tasha's beast can't really even scout without the ranger.
Now take a look at the phb "It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast....." The PHB beast clearly has a turn (that shares initiative with the ranger) but with restrictions (similar to familiars). Now where it gets weird is the commands. Some actions are listed but others aren't. eventually wizards added The Errata change "If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action." but there is still space where a command can issued but it uses a different requirement because no general rule is established for the associated action. A scouting command can be given and as long as it doesn't cross into one of the listed restrictions it still has its own turn to do so. Same with foraging or other weird improvised actions (example: allowing a tiny space hamster named Boo to pilot a space ship. Yes, Crawford actually let this happen in an official dnd stream when they released Avernus).
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.
No place in the Tasha's setup is there an indication the beast has a regular turn (shared or not). It states "In combat, the beast acts during your turn." this implies a direct tie to the rangers actions. The ranger needs to do something for it to act. this is established by "only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action." becoming the general rule with a few exceptions. Meaning the tasha's beast can't really even scout without the ranger.
Now take a look at the phb "It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast....." The PHB beast clearly has a turn (that shares initiative with the ranger) but with restrictions (similar to familiars). Now where it gets weird is the commands. Some actions are listed but others aren't. eventually wizards added The Errata change "If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action." but there is still space where a command can issued but it uses a different requirement because no general rule is established for the associated action. A scouting command can be given and as long as it doesn't cross into one of the listed restrictions it still has its own turn to do so. Same with foraging or other weird improvised actions (example: allowing a tiny space hamster named Boo to pilot a space ship. Yes, Crawford actually let this happen in an official dnd stream when they released Avernus).
Similar to a familiar? A familiar rolls it’s own initiative.
Read the entire PHB beast master ability set. And read how controlled mounts, groups of similar monsters, and creatures all pulling a chariot together work in initiative.
The ranger and the beast have the greatest flexibility of action economy in the core rules.
Similar to a familiar? A familiar rolls it’s own initiative.
Read the entire PHB beast master ability set. And read how controlled mounts, groups of similar monsters, and creatures all pulling a chariot together work in initiative.
The ranger and the beast have the greatest flexibility of action economy in the core rules.
Purely by the book the familiar rolls it's own initiative. But that's actually to the Familiars detriment despite how much people try to make super squishy familiars abundantly effective. There is also the fact that many games actually forgo the Familiar acting on it's own and actually make it work with the players own turn in some way. Which from what I can remember some of the design staff actually prefer as well even though that's not how the final PHB product ended up.
Right. Ok. Why are folks so restrictive for the ranger? Why does the find familiar spell get hand waves for ease of play and/or enjoyment when the beast master gets the ball and chain attached? The language for the ranger class and beast master subclass is debatable until forever, by compared to others elements of the PHB it’s clear to me that the ranger clans beast act with interwoven turns. The level 7 language for example.
What I meant by "similar" is just that it has a full set of actions but each of those actions may have independent restrictions. Familiars have restrictions on attack. Beasts have restrictions on attacks (although very different ones). Similar was probably a bad phrase to use even though it was accurate because I wasn't trying to apply it to initiative.
I agree the PHB beast master has a better companion than any other option. familiar, mounts, find steed spells and other summons all have restrictions that limit them. The rules show the Beast actions are directly tied to the beastmaster and happen at the same time but in a way less limiting than Tasha's or the new summon/companion designs.
so, can Tashas beast attack as a bonus action? I think the removal of the ability to function without the ranger and the removal of all the cool utility and poison possibilities of the beast make me say "I don't care if the beast gets a attack from the ranger bonus action." It seems to match/fix many complaints about the original ranger. At lower levels your basically trading out an off hand attack for the pet one. Enough people wanted to attack the same turn as the pet and since the rule calls out a action in its stat block. I would say Maul or shred or blinding strike are valid because they are in the only action in the stat block.
At this point I think Tasha's is more likely to get an errata than PHB.
Side note: And I actually think the errata "if you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action." was the biggest fix mistake in the history of the sub-class because it confused the issue. Hide or dodge, search seemed to originally be free actions for Companions and the deep Rothe with its spellcasting that is also its "language" should not require a command from a ranger. The idea that it has its own turn supports this interpretation and is more consistent with other companions. Some players and dms say if it isn't expressly given it doesn't exist. (those opinions usually are the same ones that dislike the base ranger stuff too ). I just see it as falling back under general rules allowing it to use its normal turn.
I always played the PHB as a wild animal, with the ranger present, isn't going to be a trained fighting machine. It takes the ranger's action economy to have the beast actively interact with the combat in a way similar to a PC (attack, dash, disengage, or help). Dodging and making opportunity attacks are more instinctual and we see this in animals in "real life". In essence, the animal acts like an animal if the ranger doesn't spend a little focus commanding the animal to engage in battle. The PHB beast is still a beast after all.
I agree with you that the auto dodge is nice but muddles the water for those that approach the subclass harshly in their interpretation of its mechanics. If we interpret the beast as it "...obeys your commands as best as it can.", and would happily stealth away and hide in the darkness by just telling it to do so (no action economy needed) but making it do something that would be considered tactical in a sense well beyond a normal animal's comprehension, like disengaging, attacking, or helping one of your allies, requires the ranger to spend the action economy. We see this in the difference in the Tasha's and PHB version with Tasha's saying the steel defender/companion acts on its on when you are incapacitated, while the beast in the PHB acts on its own when you are incapacitated OR ABSENT, but it focuses on protecting you and itself. The PHB version "feels" much more like what a wild animal with an attachment to the ranger would do, while the Tasha's :feels" much more like what those are, a robot and a magical spirit.
As far as the attack thing goes. I compare it to a stat block of any old NPC. They list attacks in the stat block for ease of use. Say a skeleton. Does very skeleton in the world have armor scrapes, a short sword, and a short bow? I doubt it. But that is there for CR calculations and and ease of use. If a skeleton has a different weapon and/or its attack action and AC would be different. When a creature takes the attack action it makes an attack with a weapon, an unarmed strike, or a spell. A short sword is a melee weapon attack. Maul in the Tasha's beats of the land stat block, is a melee weapon attack. The maul is a weapon the beast of the land has access to, AND its listed in its stat block. When it makes an AoO it makes a melee weapon attack. Long story short, I'm on the side of the discussion that the beast gets the same kind of action economy that every other creatures gets, but the way in which those actions of the beast is taken is dependent on the ranger's action economy. Tasha's just offers more options in this relationship. The beast, from either book, can take one action per turn, if available one bonus action per turn, make one reaction per round.
I always played the PHB as a wild animal, with the ranger present, isn't going to be a trained fighting machine. It takes the ranger's action economy to have the beast actively interact with the combat in a way similar to a PC (attack, dash, disengage, or help). Dodging and making opportunity attacks are more instinctual and we see this in animals in "real life". In essence, the animal acts like an animal if the ranger doesn't spend a little focus commanding the animal to engage in battle. The PHB beast is still a beast after all.
I want to touch on this here. You will actively see animals Disengage and Dash as well as part of play and combat. They don't just stand there and bounce away from blows and then hit when they can. They will launch their own intended assaults, They will run to new positioning, The will guardedly back away to remove themselves from the altercation without getting attacked (exactly what the disengage is), and they will do this all of their own free will in the wild on their own. Some Animals will also naturally work tactically and in co-ordination such as wolf packs and ambush predators. This is represented in characteristics like Pack Tactics and Pounce.
Your actually doing a dis-service to live animals to say they can't and don't do these things on their own in real life. read up on Wolf Packs and how they hunt large prey some time if you don't think these things happen. The way they harry and guide prey and wear it down while staying in communication with each other is in some way nature's version of a small military force wearing down an enemy.
This is why The small changes that Tasha's brings to the table are valuable. The Beast as it is written can't even hide itself without taking your full action. I'm aware that a turn only allows for a short conversation. But taking your Full Action to tell your beast to go hide is appalling. The only thing I can ever picture when it takes up your action enough to stop your entire attack is akin to telling your bear to go hide. Wathcing it run over behind a tree and then sitting there going. "No your hind quarters are sticking out, Now I can see your snout. Hunker down a little bit. There good Boy." as you litterally have to coax it into position and litterally everything else you do. Bonus actions are short. maybe a second or second and a half of that 6 second average combat round at most, and often something that you can do while your making your attack or just before you actually launch it as your preparing. "Attack That one", "Go over there and Hide", "Protect Johnny Two Legs", "Watch Yourself and Come Back". These are examples of bonus action commands in my mind that the beast can follow and do through it's own cognition and ability that is a nice quality of life improvement. Specially for a humanoid and animal pairing that is supposed to have basically a mystical bond and understanding of each other to some degree. Even if they don't share a language to be completely specific. This is also an improvement because it uses a lot more of the animals own internal mental ability in essence to take place, That with the PHB version required you to do nothing but give these kinds of orders to function. The beast didn't even move without the Hunters Input in the original version. it's just that it didn't take up a mechanical action economy slot to make it happen. Literally all the PHB animal could do by itself while it's BM Handler was there was take the dodge action. It's action economy only appearing when the BM was absent or unable to give commands at all. the PHB version didn't treat it like a wild animal. The PHB treated it like a Pet doing tricks until the master isn't paying attention to it.
The Tasha's version with Primal Companion now actually follows simple commands and doesn't take all or a significant portion of your energy each round to direct almost everything it does. It's able to move entirely on it's own. It follows simple commands with at least a bestial level of understanding without focused direction through a bonus action meaning that the BM can actually function without taking a large chunk of it's time each turn focused on it's own beast companion rather than the enemy and the situation at hand. It now does animal things to correspond to the BM's directions and actually behaves it's own way with guidance much more than the original BM. It's much more of a companion and less of a well directed Pet.
Yes. When the ranger isn’t present the beast does what it normally would, including all of the stuff you mentioned wild animals do.
I’m saying that the ONLY actions that need action economy spent by the ranger are the ones listed that say they do, attack, dash, disengage, and help. Other commands and/or things the animals can/would/will do DON’T require the ranger’s action economy, like hiding or searching. I don’t see that list as an exhaustive list of what ONLY can be done by the beast. I see it as a list of the specific things that need a command from the ranger for the beast to do in combat.
If you want to get super weird with and use the most strict interpretation of RAW, you can’t move the beast and have it auto dodge on the same turn, because of the way the ability is written and the abilities use and placement of the word “command”
The PHB doesn’t say anything about the ranger having to use their action to command the animal companion to hide. It says nothing at all about the Hide action. Some think that this means that the animal companion cannot be commanded to Hide. I think it means that it doesn’t require the ranger’s action to Hide, just a verbal command.
The PHB doesn’t say anything about the ranger having to use their action to command the animal companion to hide. It says nothing at all about the Hide action. Some think that this means that the animal companion cannot be commanded to Hide. I think it means that it doesn’t require the ranger’s action to Hide, just a verbal command.
The PHB doesn’t say anything about the ranger having to use their action to command the animal companion to hide. It says nothing at all about the Hide action. Some think that this means that the animal companion cannot be commanded to Hide. I think it means that it doesn’t require the ranger’s action to Hide, just a verbal command.
Or there is the issue that because it is left out. Then Hiding isn't an option. Which is silly but completely possible considering the very next line is that if the beast is not specificlly commanded then it only takes the dodge action. Which would actually preclude hiding. So it's actually easier and makes more sense in this context to just consider hiding another action you can command it to do. Particularly when other ranger or BM features suggest that the beast is actually able to hide and be stealthy because when your traveling with your beast you can use stealth and still move normal speed. Which implies that both you and the beast are stealthed but without the half speed restriction stealth usually possesses.
the Tasha's version actually fixes this but creates other problems by phrasing "Or some Other action" to be more all encompassing. Which now clearly includes hide but then causes the problem with Attack even though Attack is given it's very own clarifications immediately following this phrase.
So by RaW somehow we are damned if we do, and we are damned if we don't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why do people think the PHB beast master ranger and beast don't share a turn? That is one of the strongest features of the subclass for me. Is it because of that one random late night tweet from JC like 6 years ago? Because, he's been wrong and/or changed directions like 8 times. You need the flexibility of the turns being one to make the subclass really shine. Being able to respond as needed on your turn with the beast makes up for the 2-3 points of less damage it does versus one ranger attack (when using hunter's mark).
He's the head designer, but his words are guidance or "advice", not gospel. But they are also insights into the thought process behind designs, which helps us understand things when we wish to tweak them.
This is important to the topic at hand as favored foe only works once on your turn and the beast takes (or can take with Tasha's version) an attack in place of one of the ranger's.
Just as smite and many other abilities can be triggered on a hit or something, the beast sharing the ranger's turn is great because you can have the beast do or not do something that it might have or not have done depending on the outcome of a move, attack, or other action by the ranger.
I understand that, but he has changed his guidance several times before. And the guidance regarding the PHB beast master preceded any other publication of any other "pet" class/subclass. Several situations exist in the PHB and DMG that have creatures taking their turn in tandem, and several situation in the PHB and DMG have creatures specially taking a turn at their own initiative. Is it clear? No. Is it the intent as I read it? Yes.
Devil's advocate, bonus action advantage through the help action alone is a greater problem than any other use.
Prone? Bear helps me!
Str check? Bear helps me!
Difficult terrain? Bear grapple(attack action) and drags me!
Does the bear get a free object interaction? Can it retrieve objects for you from an open space?
I'll drop my glaive to draw a longsword, command bear to pick up glaive, and attack with longsword. Next turn I'll drop longsword and grab glaive, command bear to grab longsword.
Mcguffin? Bear grab that!
BM ranger is entirely able to get a 16 in STR, take athletics prof., And use Deft explorer to gain a +7 (expertise) to athletics at level 1. At level three you will be so tired of the help action on shove attempts.
Not to mention it's a core feature of the TCoE optional, and around the same level others get sneak attack, wildshape, and smite. A single BA attack seems to compare and scale with these other core class features.
Especially considering any intelligent enemy will focus down on the animal companion, regardless of primal or base companion. They allowed less of a drawback to the DM acting in that fashion with the 1 spell slot revive.
You can run it however you like, and I appreciate your response taking the time to further clarify your issues with it.
The "...and any other action" could have been stated as "...any other action except the attack action" if it was the desired design, like the find familiar spell. The frame work is there, so it is a major oversight to have not specifically stated that same wording for the same effect.
I think you and I have both said our piece. I appreciate the responses, and I wish you the best.
For the record, I don't think either of us will have a solid answer until WoTC says something about it. There is too much justification on both sides.
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." "What if I like being sick?"
You are correct and several of us advocate just this. Jounichi is one of them. I'm another. But many take his word as law. Even when it's contradictory. Even when we point out that it's contradictory. They tend to just take the statements that side with what they want and throw out the rest. A few might apply at least the logic of "this is the latest way he leaned on it so it's most accurate." but that's usually pretty rare.
There's also a couple of instances where he's gone "I would run it this way but no, We changed it because it wasn't supposed to work that way at all." and people have stopped at the first part and considered that the ruling and intention.
So Jeremy is helpful and his position on staff is somewhat helpful in making what he's saying is semi-official. But by things he's said one way and errata have come out differently. We do know he's not always in full sync with the design team sometimes. So it may not be the design teams opinion and then his advice may just become another problem part of the issue. So it's give and take.
The full benefit of the help action is often drawn out a bit much. Be careful thinking it solves anything because you may run into DM's who's response is "ok well how does that help?" I've watched that derail more than a few plans with familiars and other things. And they may come up with other unintended consequences or reasons why something doesn't work. On rare occasion there is one that goes overboard with it. but that's a whole different problem ultimately.
I basically consider his tweets little mini unearthed arcana articles.
No place in the Tasha's setup is there an indication the beast has a regular turn (shared or not). It states "In combat, the beast acts during your turn." this implies a direct tie to the rangers actions. The ranger needs to do something for it to act. this is established by "only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action." becoming the general rule with a few exceptions. Meaning the tasha's beast can't really even scout without the ranger.
Now take a look at the phb "It takes its turn on your initiative. On your turn, you can verbally command the beast....." The PHB beast clearly has a turn (that shares initiative with the ranger) but with restrictions (similar to familiars). Now where it gets weird is the commands. Some actions are listed but others aren't. eventually wizards added The Errata change "If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action." but there is still space where a command can issued but it uses a different requirement because no general rule is established for the associated action. A scouting command can be given and as long as it doesn't cross into one of the listed restrictions it still has its own turn to do so. Same with foraging or other weird improvised actions (example: allowing a tiny space hamster named Boo to pilot a space ship. Yes, Crawford actually let this happen in an official dnd stream when they released Avernus).
We're in complete agreement here.
Similar to a familiar? A familiar rolls it’s own initiative.
Read the entire PHB beast master ability set. And read how controlled mounts, groups of similar monsters, and creatures all pulling a chariot together work in initiative.
The ranger and the beast have the greatest flexibility of action economy in the core rules.
Purely by the book the familiar rolls it's own initiative. But that's actually to the Familiars detriment despite how much people try to make super squishy familiars abundantly effective. There is also the fact that many games actually forgo the Familiar acting on it's own and actually make it work with the players own turn in some way. Which from what I can remember some of the design staff actually prefer as well even though that's not how the final PHB product ended up.
Right. Ok. Why are folks so restrictive for the ranger? Why does the find familiar spell get hand waves for ease of play and/or enjoyment when the beast master gets the ball and chain attached? The language for the ranger class and beast master subclass is debatable until forever, by compared to others elements of the PHB it’s clear to me that the ranger clans beast act with interwoven turns. The level 7 language for example.
What I meant by "similar" is just that it has a full set of actions but each of those actions may have independent restrictions. Familiars have restrictions on attack. Beasts have restrictions on attacks (although very different ones). Similar was probably a bad phrase to use even though it was accurate because I wasn't trying to apply it to initiative.
I agree the PHB beast master has a better companion than any other option. familiar, mounts, find steed spells and other summons all have restrictions that limit them. The rules show the Beast actions are directly tied to the beastmaster and happen at the same time but in a way less limiting than Tasha's or the new summon/companion designs.
so, can Tashas beast attack as a bonus action? I think the removal of the ability to function without the ranger and the removal of all the cool utility and poison possibilities of the beast make me say "I don't care if the beast gets a attack from the ranger bonus action." It seems to match/fix many complaints about the original ranger. At lower levels your basically trading out an off hand attack for the pet one. Enough people wanted to attack the same turn as the pet and since the rule calls out a action in its stat block. I would say Maul or shred or blinding strike are valid because they are in the only action in the stat block.
At this point I think Tasha's is more likely to get an errata than PHB.
Side note: And I actually think the errata "if you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action." was the biggest fix mistake in the history of the sub-class because it confused the issue. Hide or dodge, search seemed to originally be free actions for Companions and the deep Rothe with its spellcasting that is also its "language" should not require a command from a ranger. The idea that it has its own turn supports this interpretation and is more consistent with other companions. Some players and dms say if it isn't expressly given it doesn't exist. (those opinions usually are the same ones that dislike the base ranger stuff too ). I just see it as falling back under general rules allowing it to use its normal turn.
I always played the PHB as a wild animal, with the ranger present, isn't going to be a trained fighting machine. It takes the ranger's action economy to have the beast actively interact with the combat in a way similar to a PC (attack, dash, disengage, or help). Dodging and making opportunity attacks are more instinctual and we see this in animals in "real life". In essence, the animal acts like an animal if the ranger doesn't spend a little focus commanding the animal to engage in battle. The PHB beast is still a beast after all.
I agree with you that the auto dodge is nice but muddles the water for those that approach the subclass harshly in their interpretation of its mechanics. If we interpret the beast as it "...obeys your commands as best as it can.", and would happily stealth away and hide in the darkness by just telling it to do so (no action economy needed) but making it do something that would be considered tactical in a sense well beyond a normal animal's comprehension, like disengaging, attacking, or helping one of your allies, requires the ranger to spend the action economy. We see this in the difference in the Tasha's and PHB version with Tasha's saying the steel defender/companion acts on its on when you are incapacitated, while the beast in the PHB acts on its own when you are incapacitated OR ABSENT, but it focuses on protecting you and itself. The PHB version "feels" much more like what a wild animal with an attachment to the ranger would do, while the Tasha's :feels" much more like what those are, a robot and a magical spirit.
As far as the attack thing goes. I compare it to a stat block of any old NPC. They list attacks in the stat block for ease of use. Say a skeleton. Does very skeleton in the world have armor scrapes, a short sword, and a short bow? I doubt it. But that is there for CR calculations and and ease of use. If a skeleton has a different weapon and/or its attack action and AC would be different. When a creature takes the attack action it makes an attack with a weapon, an unarmed strike, or a spell. A short sword is a melee weapon attack. Maul in the Tasha's beats of the land stat block, is a melee weapon attack. The maul is a weapon the beast of the land has access to, AND its listed in its stat block. When it makes an AoO it makes a melee weapon attack. Long story short, I'm on the side of the discussion that the beast gets the same kind of action economy that every other creatures gets, but the way in which those actions of the beast is taken is dependent on the ranger's action economy. Tasha's just offers more options in this relationship. The beast, from either book, can take one action per turn, if available one bonus action per turn, make one reaction per round.
I want to touch on this here. You will actively see animals Disengage and Dash as well as part of play and combat. They don't just stand there and bounce away from blows and then hit when they can. They will launch their own intended assaults, They will run to new positioning, The will guardedly back away to remove themselves from the altercation without getting attacked (exactly what the disengage is), and they will do this all of their own free will in the wild on their own. Some Animals will also naturally work tactically and in co-ordination such as wolf packs and ambush predators. This is represented in characteristics like Pack Tactics and Pounce.
Your actually doing a dis-service to live animals to say they can't and don't do these things on their own in real life. read up on Wolf Packs and how they hunt large prey some time if you don't think these things happen. The way they harry and guide prey and wear it down while staying in communication with each other is in some way nature's version of a small military force wearing down an enemy.
This is why The small changes that Tasha's brings to the table are valuable. The Beast as it is written can't even hide itself without taking your full action. I'm aware that a turn only allows for a short conversation. But taking your Full Action to tell your beast to go hide is appalling. The only thing I can ever picture when it takes up your action enough to stop your entire attack is akin to telling your bear to go hide. Wathcing it run over behind a tree and then sitting there going. "No your hind quarters are sticking out, Now I can see your snout. Hunker down a little bit. There good Boy." as you litterally have to coax it into position and litterally everything else you do. Bonus actions are short. maybe a second or second and a half of that 6 second average combat round at most, and often something that you can do while your making your attack or just before you actually launch it as your preparing. "Attack That one", "Go over there and Hide", "Protect Johnny Two Legs", "Watch Yourself and Come Back". These are examples of bonus action commands in my mind that the beast can follow and do through it's own cognition and ability that is a nice quality of life improvement. Specially for a humanoid and animal pairing that is supposed to have basically a mystical bond and understanding of each other to some degree. Even if they don't share a language to be completely specific. This is also an improvement because it uses a lot more of the animals own internal mental ability in essence to take place, That with the PHB version required you to do nothing but give these kinds of orders to function. The beast didn't even move without the Hunters Input in the original version. it's just that it didn't take up a mechanical action economy slot to make it happen. Literally all the PHB animal could do by itself while it's BM Handler was there was take the dodge action. It's action economy only appearing when the BM was absent or unable to give commands at all. the PHB version didn't treat it like a wild animal. The PHB treated it like a Pet doing tricks until the master isn't paying attention to it.
The Tasha's version with Primal Companion now actually follows simple commands and doesn't take all or a significant portion of your energy each round to direct almost everything it does. It's able to move entirely on it's own. It follows simple commands with at least a bestial level of understanding without focused direction through a bonus action meaning that the BM can actually function without taking a large chunk of it's time each turn focused on it's own beast companion rather than the enemy and the situation at hand. It now does animal things to correspond to the BM's directions and actually behaves it's own way with guidance much more than the original BM. It's much more of a companion and less of a well directed Pet.
Yes. When the ranger isn’t present the beast does what it normally would, including all of the stuff you mentioned wild animals do.
I’m saying that the ONLY actions that need action economy spent by the ranger are the ones listed that say they do, attack, dash, disengage, and help. Other commands and/or things the animals can/would/will do DON’T require the ranger’s action economy, like hiding or searching. I don’t see that list as an exhaustive list of what ONLY can be done by the beast. I see it as a list of the specific things that need a command from the ranger for the beast to do in combat.
If you want to get super weird with and use the most strict interpretation of RAW, you can’t move the beast and have it auto dodge on the same turn, because of the way the ability is written and the abilities use and placement of the word “command”
The PHB doesn’t say anything about the ranger having to use their action to command the animal companion to hide. It says nothing at all about the Hide action. Some think that this means that the animal companion cannot be commanded to Hide. I think it means that it doesn’t require the ranger’s action to Hide, just a verbal command.
I agree.
Or there is the issue that because it is left out. Then Hiding isn't an option. Which is silly but completely possible considering the very next line is that if the beast is not specificlly commanded then it only takes the dodge action. Which would actually preclude hiding. So it's actually easier and makes more sense in this context to just consider hiding another action you can command it to do. Particularly when other ranger or BM features suggest that the beast is actually able to hide and be stealthy because when your traveling with your beast you can use stealth and still move normal speed. Which implies that both you and the beast are stealthed but without the half speed restriction stealth usually possesses.
the Tasha's version actually fixes this but creates other problems by phrasing "Or some Other action" to be more all encompassing. Which now clearly includes hide but then causes the problem with Attack even though Attack is given it's very own clarifications immediately following this phrase.
So by RaW somehow we are damned if we do, and we are damned if we don't.