I'm having a hard time finding clarification on how the companion acts if I move it, but otherwise issue no other commands in 5e. Specifically the rule that states that my companion takes the Dodge Action if I issue no other commands.
My DM's interpretation was that telling it to move was issuing a command so it doesn't take the Dodge Action. My interpretation was that it takes the Dodge Action by default if I don't use my Action to command it do something (disengage, help, attack) whether I move it or not.
I see where the confusions has arisen as the wording has introduced an ambiguity issue:
The act of informing your companion that you want it to move is referred to as "you can verbally command the beast where to move"
The act of sacrificing your character's action, so that you can grant the companion the ability to attack etc is referred to as, "You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action"
The default dodge action is phrased as, " If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action."
The problem is that both (1) move and (2) attack use the word "command" in their phrasing.
Part (3) states that the default dodge only happens if you don't issue a command.
So, my interpretation of that RAW (Rules As Written) is that using either (1) or (2) is issuing a command and therefore the default dodge from (3) doesn't happen.
I doubt this is intended - I'm pretty sure that the RAI (Rules As Intended) are that only using (2) would invalidate the default dodge action in (3). You should be able to use (1) to move your companion without removing (3).
That's just my interpretation from reading it though.
Yeah, Stormknight, that's exactly it. You explained it much better than I did. I'm not a terribly experienced player so I'm not sure how to how to go about this. I was hoping that I might find an official RAI to show my DM, otherwise I would just have to go with the RAW and that kinda hurts the survivability of it particularly at low levels.
I see where the confusions has arisen as the wording has introduced an ambiguity issue:
The act of informing your companion that you want it to move is referred to as "you can verbally command the beast where to move"
The act of sacrificing your character's action, so that you can grant the companion the ability to attack etc is referred to as, "You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action"
The default dodge action is phrased as, " If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action."
The problem is that both (1) move and (2) attack use the word "command" in their phrasing.
Part (3) states that the default dodge only happens if you don't issue a command.
So, my interpretation of that RAW (Rules As Written) is that using either (1) or (2) is issuing a command and therefore the default dodge from (3) doesn't happen.
I doubt this is intended - I'm pretty sure that the RAI (Rules As Intended) are that only using (2) would invalidate the default dodge action in (3). You should be able to use (1) to move your companion without removing (3).
That's just my interpretation from reading it though.
I think this is absolutely and undeniably the intended reading of these rules. Why? Because Dodge was also removed from the list of actions you are able to command the animal to take. That means you cannot command the animal to move and Dodge in the same turn. The reason you can't do that is because you don't need to; the Dodge is automatic if no other "action commands" are given.
I'm having a hard time finding clarification on how the companion acts if I move it, but otherwise issue no other commands in 5e. Specifically the rule that states that my companion takes the Dodge Action if I issue no other commands.
My DM's interpretation was that telling it to move was issuing a command so it doesn't take the Dodge Action. My interpretation was that it takes the Dodge Action by default if I don't use my Action to command it do something (disengage, help, attack) whether I move it or not.
I see where the confusions has arisen as the wording has introduced an ambiguity issue:
The problem is that both (1) move and (2) attack use the word "command" in their phrasing.
Part (3) states that the default dodge only happens if you don't issue a command.
So, my interpretation of that RAW (Rules As Written) is that using either (1) or (2) is issuing a command and therefore the default dodge from (3) doesn't happen.
I doubt this is intended - I'm pretty sure that the RAI (Rules As Intended) are that only using (2) would invalidate the default dodge action in (3). You should be able to use (1) to move your companion without removing (3).
That's just my interpretation from reading it though.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
It would seem that, by RAW, the beast takes the Dodge action for free only if the ranger doesn't command anything (no movement nor action).
Yeah, Stormknight, that's exactly it. You explained it much better than I did. I'm not a terribly experienced player so I'm not sure how to how to go about this. I was hoping that I might find an official RAI to show my DM, otherwise I would just have to go with the RAW and that kinda hurts the survivability of it particularly at low levels.
I think this is absolutely and undeniably the intended reading of these rules. Why? Because Dodge was also removed from the list of actions you are able to command the animal to take. That means you cannot command the animal to move and Dodge in the same turn. The reason you can't do that is because you don't need to; the Dodge is automatic if no other "action commands" are given.
Maybe they will errata the errata.