When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player's Handbook.
So every creature is allowed the hide action.
There is no rule for commanding a phb pet to hide so it becomes an improvised action allowing the dm to determine what action it would take to command because phb beast is an actual creature with a turn it makes sense that it could do it with just an order no action required. At the same time tasha's beast does not call it out as a independent a turn. It always requires an some form of activity done by the ranger which is why the wording had to include "Some other action". but I wish they had not rewritten the whole feature and instead just had well designed creatures that had special traits that gave the resurrection abilities and were allowed certain actions to be commanded by a bonus. This is one time I think the UA ( EDIT: the primal beast one ) was cleaner than the end result.
I want to say there was at least one vanilla beast option that could hide as a bonus action, but none come to mind. It might just be wishful thinking.
But, yes, the PHB Beast Master was woefully lacking in what it could command their beast to actually do. It was a bit too rigid.
There are a surprising number of skills and little ability options on beasts if you really go through them all.
The one your thinking of are a couple different kinds of Hare that I know for certain that can dash, disengage, or hide as a bonus action. Both the chimerical and regular version have that ability.
But there is just so much more that makes it hard to say just exactly what beast is best. And even worse most of them are really hard to know at a glance everything your own proficiency bonus raises for them by the way it's written without really examining the numbers. But below are just some various things that you can find on different animals that qualify for the Beast Companion roll.
Pack tactis are common but there are ones that Grapple automatically on hit, Ones that charge or Pounce. There are a number of them that have at least 2 kinds of movement speed, even ones that include burrowing, Primarily the Chemeric ones will have multiple senses beyond dark vision (such as the chimerical cat having blindsense and Tremorsense out to 60 feet), several of the winged ones have flyby..
the cranium rat and the fire beetle both shed light in a short radius, .
The Giant centipede and the hellwasp grub would be a fairly frightening pet if by RaW the PHB version raised the DC's associated with such animals along with it's attacks because if it's poison DC is failed it just outright paralyzes somebody for an hour with no additional saving throws assuming the target isn't immune to the poisoned condition.
Spiders like the giant wolf spider can't be webbed, know exactly where anything else touching a web is even if it's invisible or hidden, and can just run around on the wolf or walls like it's the floor automatically.
The Stirge if it hits it attaches itself and just autohits for following turns and does damage by draining blood (represented by hp damage) basically only detaching if something takes their turn to detach it or it's drained 10 hp of blood or the creature dies.
The Tressym both sees invisibility out to 60' and can tell if a substance is poisonous by taste, touch, or smell.
Read the 7th level ability of the beast master in the PHB and the controlled mount section in the combat chapter in the PHB.
Exceptional Training
Beginning at 7th level, on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn’t attack, you can use a bonus action to command the beast to take the Dash, Disengage, or Helpaction on its turn.
Mounting and Dismounting
Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount. Doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed. For example, if your speed is 30 feet, you must spend 15 feet of movement to mount a horse. Therefore, you can’t mount it if you don’t have 15 feet of movement left or if your speed is 0.
If an effect moves your mount against its will while you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount, landing prone in a space within 5 feet of it. If you’re knocked prone while mounted, you must make the same saving throw.
If your mount is knocked prone, you can use your reaction to dismount it as it falls and land on your feet. Otherwise, you are dismounted and fall prone in a space within 5 feet it.
Controlling a Mount
While you’re mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.
You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.
An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.
In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player's Handbook.
So every creature is allowed the hide action.
There is no rule for commanding a phb pet to hide so it becomes an improvised action allowing the dm to determine what action it would take to command because phb beast is an actual creature with a turn it makes sense that it could do it with just an order no action required. At the same time tasha's beast does not call it out as a independent a turn. It always requires an some form of activity done by the ranger which is why the wording had to include "Some other action". but I wish they had not rewritten the whole feature and instead just had well designed creatures that had special traits that gave the resurrection abilities and were allowed certain actions to be commanded by a bonus. This is one time I think the UA was cleaner than the end result.
Here is the issue. Your dealing with issues of specific versus general. What your quoting from the MOnster Manual is the General ability of all monsters/npc's that are not created like the PC's are. But the BM stuff for using a beast as a companion is specific. And the PHB version of the PHB strictly by RaW makes no allowances what so ever for improvised or non listed actions. That is a distinction that only comes about from Tasha's. In Fact Strictly by Raw purely by the PHB you can't actually tell it to do anything and everything that is even in the creatures general stat-block. this is one of the Issues with the PHB version that people had. If you really really get down to only what the book says then it is extremely over restrictive and even contradicts itself to some extent. which is why almost nobody actually played it fully to RaW even if they followed it closely. There were just details that were intentionally or unintentionally overlooked by pretty much everybody and almost nobody even discussed the way it played perfectly to RaW. Tasha's little tweaks actually addresses a lot of this issue.
Also. Many people actually know the UA and played off the UA either exclusively or a lot more than they actually played truely to the PHB. The UA actually fixed a number of these truely RaW issues while it was being used as semi-official in most games, with many expecting them to supplant the old stuff. Which actually did allow for more actions in it's own ways and probably helped influence the way that the Tasha's entry ended up being written. Despite the problems that we are having with it. Overall it's actually better written and allows for more In a number of little ways such as Proficiency applying to all saves the Beast Makes rather than just the ones they are proficient in. There are a lot of beasts that if you actually broke things down closely you would find they didn't actually have any save proficiencies at all.
Personally becuse of the overall less issue. i'm inclined to apply basically all of Tasha's changes regardless of whether a ranger at my table wants a regular beast or one of the beast companions. I'll just apply the primal bond trait to the regular animals to solve the save issue and the rest of the rules solve most of the other glaring problems in the way the old one is written.
Also Despite the wording abuot the Beast companion had a turn. The specifics basically demolished any semblance of that turn for the most part by the restrictions and all of the indepth effort that were required from the BM Ranger to be able to in any way utilize that turn up to and including only being able to move by free action allowance by the Ranger.
In the PHB, the paragraph about commanding the companion starts with the sentence
“The beast obeys your commands as best it can.”
So it’s not about what a beast can do. The DM has the ability to decide what the beast is capable of based on the general rules of the game and common sense.
It’s about what a ranger can command.
Does command have a specific meaning that is wholly defined by the rest of the paragraph or does have the general meaning of plain language.
I have to use latter because it allows me as DM to say “yes, you can command your mastiff companion to pick up a stick” rather than “no, it doesn’t specifically tell me you can command it to interact with an object”
In the PHB, the paragraph about commanding the companion starts with the sentence
“The beast obeys your commands as best it can.”
So it’s not about what a beast can do. The DM has the ability to decide what the beast is capable of based on the general rules of the game and common sense.
It’s about what a ranger can command.
Does command have a specific meaning that is wholly defined by the rest of the paragraph or does have the general meaning of plain language.
I have to use latter because it allows me as DM to say “yes, you can command your mastiff companion to pick up a stick” rather than “no, it doesn’t specifically tell me you can command it to interact with an object”
you would use the latter. But purely by RaW the PHB paragraph does the former in the way it is structured.
So in your interpretation, if the ranger tells the mastiff companion “Fetch”, the ranger has not given a command.
Incorrect. The issue is not actually whether it is a command at this point. There are a lot of things that are commands. If you want to play by the strictest sense of the PHB (which I'm not advising by the way. I've said I'm not going to use it). The issue is if the Command falls within the Paremeters set forth by the paragraph. If it's not within that paragraph by the strict plain language of the way it is written in the PHB then even if it is a command it's not actually valid to be used with your Beast Companion.
Which Again is half the problem with strictly following the PHB and why they needed to create an alternative to begin with. Honestly we might have been better off if they just replaced it. But now we have the old broken one and a new on that is much less broken but still confusing.
You agree that the ranger has given a command. The mastiff companion is able to do it. “The beast obeys your commands as best it can.”
So the reason it doesn’t is “Parameters...”?
smh
If you want to look at it this way. This frees up the DM to do what he wants by instead following the more obvious part of "follows commands to the best of it's ability" and ignore the finer details like a lot of us have been doing intentionally or unintentionally for years already. But if all he's going to do is strictly follow the book. It doesn't know your Fetch Command by what the Beast Companion to Do. Doesn't know a lot of things. You can shake your head and not like it. But again. this is one of the problems. most people just don't notice it because as I said. Most don't really play BM entirely by the book and never have in this particular instance. Even when they are doing the PHB version. It's one of those things that people just kind of automatically skirt around to various degrees and ignore that it's happening unless it's directly point out to us.
And this one has always been an amazingly easy one to over look just about everywhere. Either because of playing previous editions and variations that weren't so restrictive (or even always codified in a book) so they just adjust what they are used to doing with the broad strokes. Or newer people go off what older people say or do combined with trying to learn the game so they go for the broad strokes and the major important details instead. There are some surface level issues with the ability already as well so it's even easier to over look the fine details and never bother to notice them so the finer problems just get ignored because we don't really need a fine detail approach since reasonably if you fix the bigger problem it may fix the smaller problem without your knowing or go in a different direction enough with tweaking that it's moot because it's going somewhere different. This is kind of what Tasha's did for the most part.
This actually isn't the only thing that is like this either and some of them Go in the Players favor that we've been missing out on. For Example there are a lot of people that complain about the Exhaustion on the Berserker Barbarians Frenzied Rage. And everybody knows that it has a Bonus Action attack attached to it when you use it. Most people don't ever actually realize that the Frenzied Rage is one of the only ways to make a bonus action attack regardless of what the actual action that the barbarian takes for their main action. Most just assume it's tied to taking the attack action to get it because that's the way almost all others work. It's one of about only 3 or 4 ways to do it across all of the books for the game.
Swift Quiver is one of the only other ones that allows such a thing. But it's actually got a few interesting distinctions in the realm of Rare capabilities of features. It's also the only other one that I can think of that allows a person to take Two Attacks for a single Bonus Action along with Flurry of Blows, and it's one of only a few ways to actually be able to make 5 attacks on a repeatable multi-turn basis, though it has to be combined with the Beast Master Ranger (Another properly viable way that's realistic that I can remember is a dual wielding fighter at 20th Level). The reason why people don't realize just how much it actually allows is because it is so high level that it's a smaller group of us that plays into those levels. And I haven't yet caught it actually being used by any Ranger in the most popular streams of people playing D&D when they have a ranger that gets that high level.
And of course there is the Lightning Arrow thread just down a bit in this same forum. I didn't even know people read that wrong and were missing out on some of it's abilities.
Would it make a difference if the ranger was able to speak with the beast companion? Perhaps the subclass abilities, the commands and such, are the maximum potential of what a person can expect to obtain from a loyal, yet wild, animal. The beast dodges and makes reaction attacks when able, but is basically looking out for his bipedal buddy. (The part about the beast acting on its own and focusing on protecting itself and the ranger when the ranger is incapacitated OR absent is one of my favorite parts about the PHB version and was taken out of all of the Tasha's versions.) Getting this wild animal to attack on command is tough and takes effort, but it gets better and better at it (high damage output and chance to hit, bypass magic resistance, and two attacks). Getting it to do something like disengage or help another (very tactical kinds of things) is tough too, but gets easier. This is the trade off for getting and KEEPING a wild animal that is tough, but gets tougher, and ferocious, but gets more ferocious, as the ranger gains experience.
Now assuming that the beast is not only a beast but an exceptional beast, would the spell speak with animals (not a concentration spell, by the way) not gain at LEAST the same benefits for a companion as it does for a normal wild animal? Imagine if Timmy and Lassie could both understand one another.
Anyway, to stay on the threads topic, in the strictest terms possible, the beast is an extender of the ranger's actions and even action economy. The ranger can turn a bonus action into a full on help action, and turn two attacks with the attack action into more attacks, all depending on which version of the subclass you are playing. The beast is there to increase the rangers actions, not the other way around. The beast's action is at the disposal of the ranger to use via the ranger's bonus action or in conjunction with the ranger's attack action. All the while adding hit points, a hearty AC, and another viable target for the enemy.
I'm kiiind of hesitant to revive a dead thread, but I recently got Tasha's Cauldron myself, was wondering the same thing and stumbled upon this...heated discussion.
And since no post seems to really answer the original question AND the discussion itself got very meta with things like action economy and "does the beast even have a turn?", I thought I'd take a swing!
TL;DR: The "special" attack of each Beast (like Maul) can be done when taking the attack action. This means that at Level 11, the Land Beast can make two Maul attacks as part of it's attack action for example.
Long version: One thing that often gets overlooked in DnD 5e rules is that "taking the Attack action" and "making an attack" technically are two separate things. When taking the Attack action, you look at all the attacks you have (Longsword, Unarmed, Throw an Axe, etc.), pick one, and then make that attack. In special circumstances, like a fighter with extra attack, you can choose another attack and make that too. Same thing with the Reaction "Opportunity attack". You use your reaction, look at all the attacks you have, pick one, and then make that attack. You do NOT take the Attack action when doing an Opportunity attack. All creatures (PCs, Monsters, Companions, Familiars, etc.) that I can think of work like this. When a Giant Spider, for example, takes the "Attack" action, it can choose from its two attacks: Bite or Web. The spider has no "Bite" action, it has a "Bite: melee weapon attack" that it can use when taking the "Attack" action. I know that the monster stat blocks say "Actions", which is a simplification of this technicality since MOST of the time, it makes no difference for monsters.
Where does this leave us with our primal companion (I'll just use the Land Beast cause the rest works the same)? The "Maul" melee attack is just that, an attack, which the companion can make when taking the "Attack" action. And after Level 11, with Bestial Fury, taking the "Attack" action let's it make two attacks, which can be two Maul melee attacks.
With that out of the way, I'd like to address the topic of Action Economy, "other actions" and all that jazz:
Every creature (PCs, Monsters, Companions, Familiars, etc.) that takes part in a combat in DnD 5e gets the same treatment: They can move, have 1 (one, uno) Action, 1 (one, uno) Reaction and maybe 1 (one, uno) Bonus Action. Everything else are explicit special rules like the Haste spell or Action Surge. Even the great Tiamat or Strahd abide by these exact rules. They have the "Multiattack" Action, legendary actions and lair actions that make them more powerful, but they have exactly one Action per round. There is absolutely no reason why the Primal Companion should behave any different, it's the core of DnD 5e combat.
This means in a combat, a ranger has one action, one bonus action, one reaction and he (I'll be bold and assume it's gender for this example) has his trusty companion with him that has one action, one bonus action and one reaction. The (new Primal Companion) ranger now has several options on his turn:
He can use his bonus action to command his companion to take an action: Attack (e.g. with the Maul attack), Disengage, Help, Ready, Search, etc.
He CAN NO LONGER use his action to command his companion to take an action, since the "Ranger's companion" feature gets replaced.
When he takes the Attack action to make attacks, he can sacrifice one of those attacks to command his companion to take the Attack action (e.g. with the Maul attack).
When the ranger gets incapacitated, the companion can go full rampage on its own.
The ranger CANNOT normally use both his bonus action and sacrifice one of his attacks in the same turn to let his companion take one action and then another attack action, since the companion, like EVERY other creature, only has 1 (one, uno) Action on its turn. Please don't speculate that maybe this new Primal Companion is a whole new entity that works totally outside of the core concept of 5e combat. It's a creature like everything else.
So what do we take home from all this? Is this broken? Weak? First and foremost, it gives the Rangers player a lot of options: Controlling your companion with your bonus action frees up your action to contribute to the fight yourself, which was a great problem before. Additionally, if you need your bonus action for something else like casting a spell, using some magic item effect, a feature, shooting with Swift Quiver or something else, you can still order your pet to attack as part of your attack action, instead of just having it stand there and dodge. A "power gamer" combo would be to have your party cast Haste on the Companion and yourself, cast Wild Quiver on yourself and then make 8 attacks in total on your turn:
2 as a bonus action from Wild Quiver (these cannot be sacrificed for the companion since you are not taking the "Attack" action)
1 from your first Attack action, you sacrifice the second attack for your companion
+2 from the companion as his first Attack action with Bestial fury
1 from your second Attack action, you sacrifice the second attack for your companion
+2 from the companion as his second Attack action with Bestial fury
That may seem like a lot of attacks, but it also takes a Haste spell for the companion which would better be spent on another PC like a Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin, since they will most likely have a better use for those extra Actions/Attacks.
Long version: One thing that often gets overlooked in DnD 5e rules is that "taking the Attack action" and "making an attack" technically are two separate things. When taking the Attack action, you look at all the attacks you have (Longsword, Unarmed, Throw an Axe, etc.), pick one, and then make that attack. In special circumstances, like a fighter with extra attack, you can choose another attack and make that too. Same thing with the Reaction "Opportunity attack". You use your reaction, look at all the attacks you have, pick one, and then make that attack. You do NOT take the Attack action when doing an Opportunity attack. All creatures (PCs, Monsters, Companions, Familiars, etc.) that I can think of work like this. When a Giant Spider, for example, takes the "Attack" action, it can choose from its two attacks: Bite or Web. The spider has no "Bite" action, it has a "Bite: melee weapon attack" that it can use when taking the "Attack" action. I know that the monster stat blocks say "Actions", which is a simplification of this technicality since MOST of the time, it makes no difference for monsters.
Except here's your problem. Monster's don't work like this. It says Directly in the Monster Manual...
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.
What This means is that unlike a player. That Spider indeed does have a Bite Action that your saying it doesn't have. it's an Action in stat block. More than that it's in it's stat Block under a heading marked "ACTIONS" Which means it is not merely a melee weapon attack called Bite. It is the BITE ACTION. And it also lists the WEB ACTION. Everything above that point is a feature of some kind of the creature. Some of them might be Legendary Actions. They might be always on effects, they might be conditional effects or they might be functionally other actions like Breath Weapons.
But that's something that a lot of people either ignore or don't really think about. They just see a rough equivalent and run with it and in general that just kind of works because it doesn't make a big difference. Action Economy and everything else doesn't work quite like anybody else and monsters tend to have a lot of little special rules involved in various ways in their stat blocks.
What they do not have however. Is all of the information to make an attack action. Take the Spider for example. yes we know it's strength and we know it's Dexterity. We can look up what should be a proficiency for it, if it's not listed, that is somewhat close usually enough but doesn't entirely make sense. Like the Giant Spider for example. It's Bite Action which functions as an Attack is a +5 to hit. It doesn't give us an indication that it's somehow finesse. So a CR 1 creature with +2 proficiency bonus and strength of the spider of 14 gets us a +4. It's dex Matches to get that +5. But we're taught repeatedly by anything to do with characters that if it does not list a quality it does not have a quality. So somehow the spider is using a quality without have it listed to make the +5 make sense. And there are bigger disparities in some creatures than just this one that we can at least reach a reasoned conclusion to why it is what it is even though it basically breaks the rules we're taught about PC's.
And if they do make the attack action over taking the BITE ACTION or the WEB ACTION. Are we just supposed to do Unarmed Combat rules?
Except here's your problem. Monster's don't work like this. It says Directly in the Monster Manual...
[...]
And if they do make the attack action over taking the BITE ACTION or the WEB ACTION. Are we just supposed to do Unarmed Combat rules?
That's exactly my point. If a Brown Bear gets an Attack of Opportunity, do you think it should be able to use it's "Bite" or "Claws" attack? Because if they are actions, it can't and the DM would have to think of something not in the stat block, like an unarmed attack based on strength with proficiency. Or would you say that a monster can use an Action as an Attack of Opportunity because it's the only things listed in its stat block? Well, then Multiattack is also an option. Most DMs and players I know would let the Bear have one Bite or one Claws attack as an Attack of Opportunity. And I agree since the stat block describes them as: "Melee weapon attacks". And because, as you correctly quoted, "When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.", Monsters can use the "Attack" action. So the Bear could either use his pseudo "Bite" action or use an Attack action and attack with his Bite melee attack.
I still stand by my argument that the representation of actions on the Monsters stat blocks are simplifications for easier reading, instead of saying "Attack action: Bite, melee weapon attack <nextline> Attack action: Web, ranged weapon attack" or "This creature has the following attacks: ... AND the following special actions: ...".
Except here's your problem. Monster's don't work like this. It says Directly in the Monster Manual...
[...]
And if they do make the attack action over taking the BITE ACTION or the WEB ACTION. Are we just supposed to do Unarmed Combat rules?
That's exactly my point. If a Brown Bear gets an Attack of Opportunity, do you think it should be able to use it's "Bite" or "Claws" attack? Because if they are actions, it can't and the DM would have to think of something not in the stat block, like an unarmed attack based on strength with proficiency. Or would you say that a monster can use an Action as an Attack of Opportunity because it's the only things listed in its stat block? Well, then Multiattack is also an option. Most DMs and players I know would let the Bear have one Bite or one Claws attack as an Attack of Opportunity. And I agree since the stat block describes them as: "Melee weapon attacks". And because, as you correctly quoted, "When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.", Monsters can use the "Attack" action. So the Bear could either use his pseudo "Bite" action or use an Attack action and attack with his Bite melee attack.
I still stand by my argument that the representation of actions on the Monsters stat blocks are simplifications for easier reading, instead of saying "Attack action: Bite, melee weapon attack <nextline> Attack action: Web, ranged weapon attack" or "This creature has the following attacks: ... AND the following special actions: ...".
Except they can't use the attack action because they have only some of the supporting details to make the actual attack with it. Which everybody misses. You don't have the proper stats to use to just use the attack action. Because you only have about half of the information. Interesting little detail that just about everybody skips over since they have nothing to take the attack action with outside of the actions in their stat blocks. But the attack action is clearly separate from their stat block actions. But to make the attack at best you have their attribute and you can figure out their proficiency bonus. But there is more to an attack action than that.
As for the Attack of Opportunity. That is just another way that Monsters do not work like Characters. When they take an opportunity attack. They do get to make their one of their Actions from the Actions section that are attacks as their opportunity attack. This is because they work off of their stat blocks. It's just like that they don't technically have any gear that is not listed in their stat blocks (with the exception of appropriate attire where necessary and spell components for their spells) unless the DM gives it to them. They work off of Treasure Rules technically. This is why rewards you can get in places are things that the enemies didn't actually use when they probably should have or are things creatures of their type shouldn't really have. This is sometimes given an exploratory flavor like a cache of items found after the fight or on the remains of previous victims or the like. But that's only to mask that oddness about disparity between gear and loot.
You want to make monsters like Characters. But they are not. They are their own thing that work by their own rules.
[...] But there is more to an attack action than that.
As for the Attack of Opportunity. That is just another way that Monsters do not work like Characters. When they take an opportunity attack. They do get to make their one of their Actions from the Actions section that are attacks as their opportunity attack. [...]
You want to make monsters like Characters. But they are not. They are their own thing that work by their own rules.
With all due respect, it kind of sounds like you are trolling... I'll give this one last shot nonetheless :D
There is nothing more to an Attack Action. To quote the PHB: With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. That's it, that's the rule. All the rest like range, stats, modifiers, rolls, etc. comes later in the "Making an Attack" section.
To also quote the "Actions" section of the Monster Manual: The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks.
You go out of your way to try and somehow interpret that these two rules, which are worded veeery similar, do not fit each other and that monsters must somehow work entirely different. Despite having ability scores. Despite having hit dice. Despite having a proficiency bonus. Despite having saving throws. Despite having skills. Even further, you then make up the new rule "When they take an opportunity attack. They do get to make their one of their Actions from the Actions section that are attacks as their opportunity attack." which nothing in the PHB or MM even hints at. The MM covers a lot about Monsters actions, spells, reactions, movement and much more. If Attacks of Opportunity worked differently for Monsters than stated in the PHB, they would have put it in the MM by now.
Lastly, I do not "want" Monsters to be like PCs, it's a fact that they are both "creatures" in D&D 5E. They have a lot of differences, but their core mechanics are the same, which I think was a deliberate design decision to make 5E as simple and coherent as possible.
If you're not trolling here, you are unnecessarily thinking around corners and making things harder for you at the table instead of just using these rules in the more simple and approachable way they are probably meant to be used.
[...] But there is more to an attack action than that.
As for the Attack of Opportunity. That is just another way that Monsters do not work like Characters. When they take an opportunity attack. They do get to make their one of their Actions from the Actions section that are attacks as their opportunity attack. [...]
You want to make monsters like Characters. But they are not. They are their own thing that work by their own rules.
With all due respect, it kind of sounds like you are trolling... I'll give this one last shot nonetheless :D
There is nothing more to an Attack Action. To quote the PHB: With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. That's it, that's the rule. All the rest like range, stats, modifiers, rolls, etc. comes later in the "Making an Attack" section.
To also quote the "Actions" section of the Monster Manual: The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks.
You go out of your way to try and somehow interpret that these two rules, which are worded veeery similar, do not fit each other and that monsters must somehow work entirely different. Despite having ability scores. Despite having hit dice. Despite having a proficiency bonus. Despite having saving throws. Despite having skills. Even further, you then make up the new rule "When they take an opportunity attack. They do get to make their one of their Actions from the Actions section that are attacks as their opportunity attack." which nothing in the PHB or MM even hints at. The MM covers a lot about Monsters actions, spells, reactions, movement and much more. If Attacks of Opportunity worked differently for Monsters than stated in the PHB, they would have put it in the MM by now.
Lastly, I do not "want" Monsters to be like PCs, it's a fact that they are both "creatures" in D&D 5E. They have a lot of differences, but their core mechanics are the same, which I think was a deliberate design decision to make 5E as simple and coherent as possible.
If you're not trolling here, you are unnecessarily thinking around corners and making things harder for you at the table instead of just using these rules in the more simple and approachable way they are probably meant to be used.
It sounds like I'm trolling because I don't agree with you and proved the details aren't there?
Also The fact that monsters in the monster manual most often make melee and ranged attacks does not mean what you think it means. Those ranged and melee attacks can still be talking about their own unique actions. Not the basic attack action that your trying to link it to. Considering that they went and marked those unique actions as either melee or ranged attacks which is important because some abilities function based only upon something being ranged or Melee attacks. Not whether they came from the Attack action or a special action that a Monster used to attack.
I'm not trolling. I'm not even going out of my way to make these points. This is very simple basic stuff that you don't like and want to convert to something else so that your way works. When the support is not there. There is basic reasoning without leaps of logic to reach where I did. Where there is a lot of filling in and converting to do it your way. Even if most people don't realize that they are trying to do such.
Regardless of the fact that both are Creatures. They are not equal. They are not the same. Nothing in the game says they have to be. Trying to equate that they all work by PC rules simply because you can broadly call them creatures is a very long stretch at best and nonsensical at worst.
Your repeated attempts to force monsters into the PC structure is your stretching and your desire to make them work like PC's. But if you take them purely as monsters and by monster rules you realize they work just fine and they do not follow all of the rules of PC's. if you want them to function more like PC's do things like give them full PC classes.
Because here's another reality why Monsters are not the same as PC's. Most that magic user classes do not have the same amount of spells or even spell books on their inventories that they use, if they mimic wizards, for their spell casting like PC characters do unless a DM specifically puts it there. They also do not necessarily have some or even any of the features that go along with things like the classes and subclasses they mimic. The second part is true even for non-spell caster class mimic Monster Entries like the Assassin.
There is a lot of evidence that monsters do not and are not meant to function like PC's even if you want them to function like PC's. To the point that they have their own book with their own breakdown on what their abilities mean and it only references a few things that they get from the PHB that the PC's draw primarily from and it's specific what they get. There is simply a whole lot less to core mechanics than your really saying and they just simply do not work the same and are not meant to without work from the DM. Because the Truth is. They don't really need most of that stuff to simply be a combat antagonist. Not even a lot of what your trying to give to them by forcing PC specific rules upon them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I want to say there was at least one vanilla beast option that could hide as a bonus action, but none come to mind. It might just be wishful thinking.
But, yes, the PHB Beast Master was woefully lacking in what it could command their beast to actually do. It was a bit too rigid.
There are a surprising number of skills and little ability options on beasts if you really go through them all.
The one your thinking of are a couple different kinds of Hare that I know for certain that can dash, disengage, or hide as a bonus action. Both the chimerical and regular version have that ability.
But there is just so much more that makes it hard to say just exactly what beast is best. And even worse most of them are really hard to know at a glance everything your own proficiency bonus raises for them by the way it's written without really examining the numbers. But below are just some various things that you can find on different animals that qualify for the Beast Companion roll.
Pack tactis are common but there are ones that Grapple automatically on hit, Ones that charge or Pounce. There are a number of them that have at least 2 kinds of movement speed, even ones that include burrowing, Primarily the Chemeric ones will have multiple senses beyond dark vision (such as the chimerical cat having blindsense and Tremorsense out to 60 feet), several of the winged ones have flyby..
the cranium rat and the fire beetle both shed light in a short radius, .
The Giant centipede and the hellwasp grub would be a fairly frightening pet if by RaW the PHB version raised the DC's associated with such animals along with it's attacks because if it's poison DC is failed it just outright paralyzes somebody for an hour with no additional saving throws assuming the target isn't immune to the poisoned condition.
Spiders like the giant wolf spider can't be webbed, know exactly where anything else touching a web is even if it's invisible or hidden, and can just run around on the wolf or walls like it's the floor automatically.
The Stirge if it hits it attaches itself and just autohits for following turns and does damage by draining blood (represented by hp damage) basically only detaching if something takes their turn to detach it or it's drained 10 hp of blood or the creature dies.
The Tressym both sees invisibility out to 60' and can tell if a substance is poisonous by taste, touch, or smell.
The PHB ranger and beast also share a turn.
Read the 7th level ability of the beast master in the PHB and the controlled mount section in the combat chapter in the PHB.
Exceptional Training
Beginning at 7th level, on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn’t attack, you can use a bonus action to command the beast to take the Dash, Disengage, or Helpaction on its turn.
Mounting and Dismounting
Once during your move, you can mount a creature that is within 5 feet of you or dismount. Doing so costs an amount of movement equal to half your speed. For example, if your speed is 30 feet, you must spend 15 feet of movement to mount a horse. Therefore, you can’t mount it if you don’t have 15 feet of movement left or if your speed is 0.
If an effect moves your mount against its will while you’re on it, you must succeed on a DC 10 Dexterity saving throw or fall off the mount, landing prone in a space within 5 feet of it. If you’re knocked prone while mounted, you must make the same saving throw.
If your mount is knocked prone, you can use your reaction to dismount it as it falls and land on your feet. Otherwise, you are dismounted and fall prone in a space within 5 feet it.
Controlling a Mount
While you’re mounted, you have two options. You can either control the mount or allow it to act independently. Intelligent creatures, such as dragons, act independently.
You can control a mount only if it has been trained to accept a rider. Domesticated horses, donkeys, and similar creatures are assumed to have such training. The initiative of a controlled mount changes to match yours when you mount it. It moves as you direct it, and it has only three action options: Dash, Disengage, and Dodge. A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it.
An independent mount retains its place in the initiative order. Bearing a rider puts no restrictions on the actions the mount can take, and it moves and acts as it wishes. It might flee from combat, rush to attack and devour a badly injured foe, or otherwise act against your wishes.
In either case, if the mount provokes an opportunity attack while you’re on it, the attacker can target you or the mount.
Here is the issue. Your dealing with issues of specific versus general. What your quoting from the MOnster Manual is the General ability of all monsters/npc's that are not created like the PC's are. But the BM stuff for using a beast as a companion is specific. And the PHB version of the PHB strictly by RaW makes no allowances what so ever for improvised or non listed actions. That is a distinction that only comes about from Tasha's. In Fact Strictly by Raw purely by the PHB you can't actually tell it to do anything and everything that is even in the creatures general stat-block. this is one of the Issues with the PHB version that people had. If you really really get down to only what the book says then it is extremely over restrictive and even contradicts itself to some extent. which is why almost nobody actually played it fully to RaW even if they followed it closely. There were just details that were intentionally or unintentionally overlooked by pretty much everybody and almost nobody even discussed the way it played perfectly to RaW. Tasha's little tweaks actually addresses a lot of this issue.
Also. Many people actually know the UA and played off the UA either exclusively or a lot more than they actually played truely to the PHB. The UA actually fixed a number of these truely RaW issues while it was being used as semi-official in most games, with many expecting them to supplant the old stuff. Which actually did allow for more actions in it's own ways and probably helped influence the way that the Tasha's entry ended up being written. Despite the problems that we are having with it. Overall it's actually better written and allows for more In a number of little ways such as Proficiency applying to all saves the Beast Makes rather than just the ones they are proficient in. There are a lot of beasts that if you actually broke things down closely you would find they didn't actually have any save proficiencies at all.
Personally becuse of the overall less issue. i'm inclined to apply basically all of Tasha's changes regardless of whether a ranger at my table wants a regular beast or one of the beast companions. I'll just apply the primal bond trait to the regular animals to solve the save issue and the rest of the rules solve most of the other glaring problems in the way the old one is written.
Also Despite the wording abuot the Beast companion had a turn. The specifics basically demolished any semblance of that turn for the most part by the restrictions and all of the indepth effort that were required from the BM Ranger to be able to in any way utilize that turn up to and including only being able to move by free action allowance by the Ranger.
In the PHB, the paragraph about commanding the companion starts with the sentence
“The beast obeys your commands as best it can.”
So it’s not about what a beast can do. The DM has the ability to decide what the beast is capable of based on the general rules of the game and common sense.
It’s about what a ranger can command.
Does command have a specific meaning that is wholly defined by the rest of the paragraph or does have the general meaning of plain language.
I have to use latter because it allows me as DM to say “yes, you can command your mastiff companion to pick up a stick” rather than “no, it doesn’t specifically tell me you can command it to interact with an object”
you would use the latter. But purely by RaW the PHB paragraph does the former in the way it is structured.
So in your interpretation, if the ranger tells the mastiff companion “Fetch”, the ranger has not given a command.
Incorrect. The issue is not actually whether it is a command at this point. There are a lot of things that are commands. If you want to play by the strictest sense of the PHB (which I'm not advising by the way. I've said I'm not going to use it). The issue is if the Command falls within the Paremeters set forth by the paragraph. If it's not within that paragraph by the strict plain language of the way it is written in the PHB then even if it is a command it's not actually valid to be used with your Beast Companion.
Which Again is half the problem with strictly following the PHB and why they needed to create an alternative to begin with. Honestly we might have been better off if they just replaced it. But now we have the old broken one and a new on that is much less broken but still confusing.
You agree that the ranger has given a command. The mastiff companion is able to do it. “The beast obeys your commands as best it can.”
So the reason it doesn’t is “Parameters...”?
smh
There's an awful lot that is just left up for the DM to adjudicate. This just happens to be one of them.
If you want to look at it this way. This frees up the DM to do what he wants by instead following the more obvious part of "follows commands to the best of it's ability" and ignore the finer details like a lot of us have been doing intentionally or unintentionally for years already. But if all he's going to do is strictly follow the book. It doesn't know your Fetch Command by what the Beast Companion to Do. Doesn't know a lot of things. You can shake your head and not like it. But again. this is one of the problems. most people just don't notice it because as I said. Most don't really play BM entirely by the book and never have in this particular instance. Even when they are doing the PHB version. It's one of those things that people just kind of automatically skirt around to various degrees and ignore that it's happening unless it's directly point out to us.
And this one has always been an amazingly easy one to over look just about everywhere. Either because of playing previous editions and variations that weren't so restrictive (or even always codified in a book) so they just adjust what they are used to doing with the broad strokes. Or newer people go off what older people say or do combined with trying to learn the game so they go for the broad strokes and the major important details instead. There are some surface level issues with the ability already as well so it's even easier to over look the fine details and never bother to notice them so the finer problems just get ignored because we don't really need a fine detail approach since reasonably if you fix the bigger problem it may fix the smaller problem without your knowing or go in a different direction enough with tweaking that it's moot because it's going somewhere different. This is kind of what Tasha's did for the most part.
This actually isn't the only thing that is like this either and some of them Go in the Players favor that we've been missing out on. For Example there are a lot of people that complain about the Exhaustion on the Berserker Barbarians Frenzied Rage. And everybody knows that it has a Bonus Action attack attached to it when you use it. Most people don't ever actually realize that the Frenzied Rage is one of the only ways to make a bonus action attack regardless of what the actual action that the barbarian takes for their main action. Most just assume it's tied to taking the attack action to get it because that's the way almost all others work. It's one of about only 3 or 4 ways to do it across all of the books for the game.
Swift Quiver is one of the only other ones that allows such a thing. But it's actually got a few interesting distinctions in the realm of Rare capabilities of features. It's also the only other one that I can think of that allows a person to take Two Attacks for a single Bonus Action along with Flurry of Blows, and it's one of only a few ways to actually be able to make 5 attacks on a repeatable multi-turn basis, though it has to be combined with the Beast Master Ranger (Another properly viable way that's realistic that I can remember is a dual wielding fighter at 20th Level). The reason why people don't realize just how much it actually allows is because it is so high level that it's a smaller group of us that plays into those levels. And I haven't yet caught it actually being used by any Ranger in the most popular streams of people playing D&D when they have a ranger that gets that high level.
And of course there is the Lightning Arrow thread just down a bit in this same forum. I didn't even know people read that wrong and were missing out on some of it's abilities.
Would it make a difference if the ranger was able to speak with the beast companion? Perhaps the subclass abilities, the commands and such, are the maximum potential of what a person can expect to obtain from a loyal, yet wild, animal. The beast dodges and makes reaction attacks when able, but is basically looking out for his bipedal buddy. (The part about the beast acting on its own and focusing on protecting itself and the ranger when the ranger is incapacitated OR absent is one of my favorite parts about the PHB version and was taken out of all of the Tasha's versions.) Getting this wild animal to attack on command is tough and takes effort, but it gets better and better at it (high damage output and chance to hit, bypass magic resistance, and two attacks). Getting it to do something like disengage or help another (very tactical kinds of things) is tough too, but gets easier. This is the trade off for getting and KEEPING a wild animal that is tough, but gets tougher, and ferocious, but gets more ferocious, as the ranger gains experience.
Now assuming that the beast is not only a beast but an exceptional beast, would the spell speak with animals (not a concentration spell, by the way) not gain at LEAST the same benefits for a companion as it does for a normal wild animal? Imagine if Timmy and Lassie could both understand one another.
Anyway, to stay on the threads topic, in the strictest terms possible, the beast is an extender of the ranger's actions and even action economy. The ranger can turn a bonus action into a full on help action, and turn two attacks with the attack action into more attacks, all depending on which version of the subclass you are playing. The beast is there to increase the rangers actions, not the other way around. The beast's action is at the disposal of the ranger to use via the ranger's bonus action or in conjunction with the ranger's attack action. All the while adding hit points, a hearty AC, and another viable target for the enemy.
I'm kiiind of hesitant to revive a dead thread, but I recently got Tasha's Cauldron myself, was wondering the same thing and stumbled upon this...heated discussion.
And since no post seems to really answer the original question AND the discussion itself got very meta with things like action economy and "does the beast even have a turn?", I thought I'd take a swing!
TL;DR: The "special" attack of each Beast (like Maul) can be done when taking the attack action. This means that at Level 11, the Land Beast can make two Maul attacks as part of it's attack action for example.
Long version:
One thing that often gets overlooked in DnD 5e rules is that "taking the Attack action" and "making an attack" technically are two separate things.
When taking the Attack action, you look at all the attacks you have (Longsword, Unarmed, Throw an Axe, etc.), pick one, and then make that attack. In special circumstances, like a fighter with extra attack, you can choose another attack and make that too.
Same thing with the Reaction "Opportunity attack". You use your reaction, look at all the attacks you have, pick one, and then make that attack. You do NOT take the Attack action when doing an Opportunity attack.
All creatures (PCs, Monsters, Companions, Familiars, etc.) that I can think of work like this. When a Giant Spider, for example, takes the "Attack" action, it can choose from its two attacks: Bite or Web. The spider has no "Bite" action, it has a "Bite: melee weapon attack" that it can use when taking the "Attack" action. I know that the monster stat blocks say "Actions", which is a simplification of this technicality since MOST of the time, it makes no difference for monsters.
Where does this leave us with our primal companion (I'll just use the Land Beast cause the rest works the same)? The "Maul" melee attack is just that, an attack, which the companion can make when taking the "Attack" action. And after Level 11, with Bestial Fury, taking the "Attack" action let's it make two attacks, which can be two Maul melee attacks.
With that out of the way, I'd like to address the topic of Action Economy, "other actions" and all that jazz:
Every creature (PCs, Monsters, Companions, Familiars, etc.) that takes part in a combat in DnD 5e gets the same treatment: They can move, have 1 (one, uno) Action, 1 (one, uno) Reaction and maybe 1 (one, uno) Bonus Action. Everything else are explicit special rules like the Haste spell or Action Surge. Even the great Tiamat or Strahd abide by these exact rules. They have the "Multiattack" Action, legendary actions and lair actions that make them more powerful, but they have exactly one Action per round. There is absolutely no reason why the Primal Companion should behave any different, it's the core of DnD 5e combat.
This means in a combat, a ranger has one action, one bonus action, one reaction and he (I'll be bold and assume it's gender for this example) has his trusty companion with him that has one action, one bonus action and one reaction. The (new Primal Companion) ranger now has several options on his turn:
The ranger CANNOT normally use both his bonus action and sacrifice one of his attacks in the same turn to let his companion take one action and then another attack action, since the companion, like EVERY other creature, only has 1 (one, uno) Action on its turn. Please don't speculate that maybe this new Primal Companion is a whole new entity that works totally outside of the core concept of 5e combat. It's a creature like everything else.
So what do we take home from all this? Is this broken? Weak? First and foremost, it gives the Rangers player a lot of options: Controlling your companion with your bonus action frees up your action to contribute to the fight yourself, which was a great problem before.
Additionally, if you need your bonus action for something else like casting a spell, using some magic item effect, a feature, shooting with Swift Quiver or something else, you can still order your pet to attack as part of your attack action, instead of just having it stand there and dodge.
A "power gamer" combo would be to have your party cast Haste on the Companion and yourself, cast Wild Quiver on yourself and then make 8 attacks in total on your turn:
That may seem like a lot of attacks, but it also takes a Haste spell for the companion which would better be spent on another PC like a Fighter, Barbarian or Paladin, since they will most likely have a better use for those extra Actions/Attacks.
Except here's your problem. Monster's don't work like this. It says Directly in the Monster Manual...
When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.
What This means is that unlike a player. That Spider indeed does have a Bite Action that your saying it doesn't have. it's an Action in stat block. More than that it's in it's stat Block under a heading marked "ACTIONS" Which means it is not merely a melee weapon attack called Bite. It is the BITE ACTION. And it also lists the WEB ACTION. Everything above that point is a feature of some kind of the creature. Some of them might be Legendary Actions. They might be always on effects, they might be conditional effects or they might be functionally other actions like Breath Weapons.
But that's something that a lot of people either ignore or don't really think about. They just see a rough equivalent and run with it and in general that just kind of works because it doesn't make a big difference. Action Economy and everything else doesn't work quite like anybody else and monsters tend to have a lot of little special rules involved in various ways in their stat blocks.
What they do not have however. Is all of the information to make an attack action. Take the Spider for example. yes we know it's strength and we know it's Dexterity. We can look up what should be a proficiency for it, if it's not listed, that is somewhat close usually enough but doesn't entirely make sense. Like the Giant Spider for example. It's Bite Action which functions as an Attack is a +5 to hit. It doesn't give us an indication that it's somehow finesse. So a CR 1 creature with +2 proficiency bonus and strength of the spider of 14 gets us a +4. It's dex Matches to get that +5. But we're taught repeatedly by anything to do with characters that if it does not list a quality it does not have a quality. So somehow the spider is using a quality without have it listed to make the +5 make sense. And there are bigger disparities in some creatures than just this one that we can at least reach a reasoned conclusion to why it is what it is even though it basically breaks the rules we're taught about PC's.
And if they do make the attack action over taking the BITE ACTION or the WEB ACTION. Are we just supposed to do Unarmed Combat rules?
That's exactly my point. If a Brown Bear gets an Attack of Opportunity, do you think it should be able to use it's "Bite" or "Claws" attack? Because if they are actions, it can't and the DM would have to think of something not in the stat block, like an unarmed attack based on strength with proficiency. Or would you say that a monster can use an Action as an Attack of Opportunity because it's the only things listed in its stat block? Well, then Multiattack is also an option.
Most DMs and players I know would let the Bear have one Bite or one Claws attack as an Attack of Opportunity. And I agree since the stat block describes them as: "Melee weapon attacks". And because, as you correctly quoted, "When a monster takes its action, it can choose from the options in the Actions section of its stat block or use one of the actions available to all creatures, such as the Dash or Hide action, as described in the Player’s Handbook.", Monsters can use the "Attack" action. So the Bear could either use his pseudo "Bite" action or use an Attack action and attack with his Bite melee attack.
I still stand by my argument that the representation of actions on the Monsters stat blocks are simplifications for easier reading, instead of saying "Attack action: Bite, melee weapon attack <nextline> Attack action: Web, ranged weapon attack" or "This creature has the following attacks: ... AND the following special actions: ...".
Except they can't use the attack action because they have only some of the supporting details to make the actual attack with it. Which everybody misses. You don't have the proper stats to use to just use the attack action. Because you only have about half of the information. Interesting little detail that just about everybody skips over since they have nothing to take the attack action with outside of the actions in their stat blocks. But the attack action is clearly separate from their stat block actions. But to make the attack at best you have their attribute and you can figure out their proficiency bonus. But there is more to an attack action than that.
As for the Attack of Opportunity. That is just another way that Monsters do not work like Characters. When they take an opportunity attack. They do get to make their one of their Actions from the Actions section that are attacks as their opportunity attack. This is because they work off of their stat blocks. It's just like that they don't technically have any gear that is not listed in their stat blocks (with the exception of appropriate attire where necessary and spell components for their spells) unless the DM gives it to them. They work off of Treasure Rules technically. This is why rewards you can get in places are things that the enemies didn't actually use when they probably should have or are things creatures of their type shouldn't really have. This is sometimes given an exploratory flavor like a cache of items found after the fight or on the remains of previous victims or the like. But that's only to mask that oddness about disparity between gear and loot.
You want to make monsters like Characters. But they are not. They are their own thing that work by their own rules.
With all due respect, it kind of sounds like you are trolling... I'll give this one last shot nonetheless :D
There is nothing more to an Attack Action. To quote the PHB: With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack. That's it, that's the rule. All the rest like range, stats, modifiers, rolls, etc. comes later in the "Making an Attack" section.
To also quote the "Actions" section of the Monster Manual: The most common actions that a monster will take in combat are melee and ranged attacks.
You go out of your way to try and somehow interpret that these two rules, which are worded veeery similar, do not fit each other and that monsters must somehow work entirely different. Despite having ability scores. Despite having hit dice. Despite having a proficiency bonus. Despite having saving throws. Despite having skills. Even further, you then make up the new rule "When they take an opportunity attack. They do get to make their one of their Actions from the Actions section that are attacks as their opportunity attack." which nothing in the PHB or MM even hints at. The MM covers a lot about Monsters actions, spells, reactions, movement and much more. If Attacks of Opportunity worked differently for Monsters than stated in the PHB, they would have put it in the MM by now.
Lastly, I do not "want" Monsters to be like PCs, it's a fact that they are both "creatures" in D&D 5E. They have a lot of differences, but their core mechanics are the same, which I think was a deliberate design decision to make 5E as simple and coherent as possible.
If you're not trolling here, you are unnecessarily thinking around corners and making things harder for you at the table instead of just using these rules in the more simple and approachable way they are probably meant to be used.
It sounds like I'm trolling because I don't agree with you and proved the details aren't there?
Also The fact that monsters in the monster manual most often make melee and ranged attacks does not mean what you think it means. Those ranged and melee attacks can still be talking about their own unique actions. Not the basic attack action that your trying to link it to. Considering that they went and marked those unique actions as either melee or ranged attacks which is important because some abilities function based only upon something being ranged or Melee attacks. Not whether they came from the Attack action or a special action that a Monster used to attack.
I'm not trolling. I'm not even going out of my way to make these points. This is very simple basic stuff that you don't like and want to convert to something else so that your way works. When the support is not there. There is basic reasoning without leaps of logic to reach where I did. Where there is a lot of filling in and converting to do it your way. Even if most people don't realize that they are trying to do such.
Regardless of the fact that both are Creatures. They are not equal. They are not the same. Nothing in the game says they have to be. Trying to equate that they all work by PC rules simply because you can broadly call them creatures is a very long stretch at best and nonsensical at worst.
Your repeated attempts to force monsters into the PC structure is your stretching and your desire to make them work like PC's. But if you take them purely as monsters and by monster rules you realize they work just fine and they do not follow all of the rules of PC's. if you want them to function more like PC's do things like give them full PC classes.
Because here's another reality why Monsters are not the same as PC's. Most that magic user classes do not have the same amount of spells or even spell books on their inventories that they use, if they mimic wizards, for their spell casting like PC characters do unless a DM specifically puts it there. They also do not necessarily have some or even any of the features that go along with things like the classes and subclasses they mimic. The second part is true even for non-spell caster class mimic Monster Entries like the Assassin.
There is a lot of evidence that monsters do not and are not meant to function like PC's even if you want them to function like PC's. To the point that they have their own book with their own breakdown on what their abilities mean and it only references a few things that they get from the PHB that the PC's draw primarily from and it's specific what they get. There is simply a whole lot less to core mechanics than your really saying and they just simply do not work the same and are not meant to without work from the DM. Because the Truth is. They don't really need most of that stuff to simply be a combat antagonist. Not even a lot of what your trying to give to them by forcing PC specific rules upon them.