Unless the new wording says “ and the animal companion can’t do anything else”, it’s still valid. You are claiming the “You can...” in the text is clearing saying that you can’t do anything else. In some cases like spells, I would agree with you because the general rules for spells don’t allow other things. With Beast Master, this is not the case. The general rules clearly allow the things I’m talking about.
Unless the new wording says “ and the animal companion can’t do anything else”, it’s still valid. You are claiming the “You can...” in the text is clearing saying that you can’t do anything else. In some cases like spells, I would agree with you because the general rules for spells don’t allow other things. With Beast Master, this is not the case. The general rules clearly allow the things I’m talking about.
And the specific rule says that absent the ranger’s Action ordering one of those actions, the beast either 1) does nothing at all, in the older print edition you love so much, or 2) Dodges, in the current RAW. Specific beats general.
Unless the new wording says “ and the animal companion can’t do anything else”, it’s still valid.
The new wording specifies the action the animal companion takes if you don't give it a command. As they only get one action, and it is consumed by dodging, they cannot do anything else.
I’m giving it a command, it’s just not one that requires the ranger’s action. I’ve answered that several times now.
Imagine a DM controlled wolf. The wolf can take any action that the DM deems it capable of. It can Search, it can Hide, it can Ready an attack when a creature comes within reach. It can do all the things a PC can do as long as the DM thinks it’s anatomy and intelligence allow it.
Now take that wolf and make it an animal companion by applying the Beast Master rules. Modified what the Beast Master tells you to modify, don’t modify the things the Beast Master doesn’t talk about. It is as simple as that.
I’m giving it a command, it’s just not one that requires the ranger’s action. I’ve answered that several times now.
The only command that doesn't require the ranger's action is movement. There is no general rule allowing you to command beasts to do things.
Imagine a DM controlled wolf. The wolf can take any action that the DM deems it capable of. It can Search, it can Hide, it can Ready an attack when a creature comes within reach. It can do all the things a PC can do as long as the DM thinks it’s anatomy and intelligence allow it.
This is correct. What a DM controlled wolf can't do is be commanded to take any action by a beastmaster ranger.
Now take that wolf and make it an animal companion by applying the Beast Master rules. Modified what the Beast Master tells you to modify, don’t modify the things the Beast Master doesn’t talk about. It is as simple as that.
Okay, let's do this. To begin with we have a wolf that can take all the normal creature actions but cannot be commanded to do anything. Now let's apply the animal companion rules:
On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you).
Great! Now we can command it to move without spending any action. We can't command it to do anything else, but that's fine; it can still do anything a normal creature can do, so maybe we can just trust it to take care of itself! Let's continue.
You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action.
Hmmm... if we want to tell it to attack our enemy, we have to use our action, so we can't make an attack ourselves. That's... not ideal. But hey, at least it can still do anything a normal beast can do, right? Surely it'll get the hint when it sees us attack the enemy and will be smart enough to follow suit without our order. Let's see how this turns out!
If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action.
Oh. Well then.
You know what? I see what you mean! Modify what the Beast Master tells you to modify, don’t modify the things the Beast Master doesn’t talk about. It really is as simple as that!
Well, it's not quite that clear-cut, though it requires a strained interpretation of the rules. The rules never actually say that you cannot give the animal companion commands other than the listed set (can you command a giant frog to swallow a victim? It's not actually an attack action, it's a special action), and it would be quite odd if you can't tell your dog to fetch (which would be [Tooltip Not Found]) or Search -- but it never says what sort of action, if any, is required to give a command other than movement or the listed four actions.
Well, it's not quite that clear-cut, though it requires a strained interpretation of the rules. The rules never actually say that you cannot give the animal companion commands other than the listed set (can you command a giant frog to swallow a victim? It's not actually an attack action, it's a special action), and it would be quite odd if you can't tell your dog to fetch (which would be Use an Object) or Search -- but it never says what sort of action, if any, is required to give a command other than movement or the listed four actions.
The rules say what they allow, not what they don't, and the entire basis of the whole discussion is attacking, not using objects or searching outside of combat. I think it absolutely is the intent that attacking be restricted to the basic Attack action, e.g. no swallowing; nothing says you can't order the beast to Multiattack, but there's an entire class feature devoted to saying you can.
By the general rules, if you want to have a trained animal perform an action, it would require a successful Animal Handling check, which would require your action to do so.
The Beast Master Companion rules allow you to Command the beast to do one of the listed actions without an Animal Handling check, also costing your action.
There are no general rules that allow a PC to control an NPC without some kind of action on their part, whether that be through spells or skill checks.
I’m not trying to convince you that my interpretation is RAW, I’m trying to give you a way to consider it compatible with RAW if you choose. Consider it house rules if you want.
For the last 6 years, you guys have been complaining about the Beast Master and it got you what? A few errata that still leave you deeply unsatisfied?
What have I got. A few errata that change very little. Most of the things in the errata were things my Beast Master already had. It did gain the ability to retain its reaction when Dodging so it can make Opportunity Attacks. Thank you.
So if you want to keep complaining, I’ll keep explaining that there is an alternative. Who knows, a few more years and a few more errata, you might have my Beast Master too.
I’m not trying to convince you that my interpretation is RAW, I’m trying to give you a way to consider it compatible with RAW if you choose.
There's absolutely no benefit to doing so. "Look, I have a really dubious interpretation of RAW that makes beastmasters better" is not more convincing than "Beastmasters kind of suck, how do you feel about house rules?"
This section of the Forums is about RAW thus the reason everyone else is talking about RAW. Most of us here use House Rules to make the Beast Master better, but when people come to this section of the Forums, we are talking about RAW.
I’m not trying to convince you that my interpretation is RAW, I’m trying to give you a way to consider it compatible with RAW if you choose.
There's absolutely no benefit to doing so. "Look, I have a really dubious interpretation of RAW that makes beastmasters better" is not more convincing than "Beastmasters kind of suck, how do you feel about house rules?"
I thought it was about RAW also. I was in total agreement in reply to the original post, that RAW Hunter’s Mark does not affect the animal companion’s damage.
Then someone posts “Beast Master sucks”. At that that point I explained how I interpret RAW in a way that eliminates many of the complaints about Beast Master.
I have explained how I apply the rules as worded, starting with Specific beats General. I consider the beast master text as specific changes to the general rules that apply to all PCs and NPCs. I do not change any wording, I don’t ignore anything. In my opinion, you are ignoring Specific beats General.
You can keep repeating the same arguments over and over but they are not changing my mind that your interpretation is RAW. You insist that “You can..” also means “You can’t do anything else”. How is that RAW?
I’m not even sure if you are understanding my line of reasoning. Some of your responses seem to indicate you don’t. I have explained it the best I can so it is up to you either take the time to figure it out or just continue complaining about the rules every time the subject of Beast Master comes up.
You can keep repeating the same arguments over and over but they are not changing my mind that your interpretation is RAW. You insist that “You can..” also means “You can’t do anything else”. How is that RAW?
They first give a general statement, and follow it with an explanation of what that statement means.
This will most likely be my last post on this but here it goes.
You have not provide a single general rule that allows a PC to control another creature without expending an action of some kind. You keep saying "Specific beats General" yet you have not provide any rules at all, general or other wise.
I thought it was about RAW also. I was in total agreement in reply to the original post, that RAW Hunter’s Mark does not affect the animal companion’s damage.
Then someone posts “Beast Master sucks”. At that that point I explained how I interpret RAW in a way that eliminates many of the complaints about Beast Master.
No. What I said is that the problem with the beastmaster is that they spend two levels in which they have to choose between their own attack and their companion's, which isn't fun.
I have explained how I apply the rules as worded, starting with Specific beats General. I consider the beast master text as specific changes to the general rules that apply to all PCs and NPCs. I do not change any wording, I don’t ignore anything. In my opinion, you are ignoring Specific beats General.
You ignored the part where it says that commanding the beast to attack takes your Action and if you don't issue a command, the beast Dodges. The specific beast companion rules state this, which overrides the general rule that creatures can do whatever they want.
You can keep repeating the same arguments over and over but they are not changing my mind that your interpretation is RAW. You insist that “You can..” also means “You can’t do anything else”. How is that RAW?
No rule in 5e says what you can't do. That's not how the rules work. The rules say that when an enemy provokes an attack of opportunity, you can make a melee attack against. You're arguing that you can cast a spell instead because the rules don't say you can't.
I’m not even sure if you are understanding my line of reasoning. Some of your responses seem to indicate you don’t. I have explained it the best I can so it is up to you either take the time to figure it out or just continue complaining about the rules every time the subject of Beast Master comes up.
Your "explanations" have consistently refused to even mention the core point of the conversation, that the ranger has to choose between their attack and the companion's until 5th level.
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 Help action on its turn.
It does almost sound like you can interweave turns when you command your companion to attack. Otherwise, it will default to acting on it's turn. This makes sense for the purposes of commanding it to attack with extra attack. Not sure about what bonus comes from it otherwise.
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 Help action on its turn.
It does almost sound like you can interweave turns when you command your companion to attack. Otherwise, it will default to acting on it's turn. This makes sense for the purposes of commanding it to attack with extra attack. Not sure about what bonus comes from it otherwise.
I believe that the primary benefit is to be able to use your bonus action to command the Beast instead of having to sacrifice one of your own attacks to do so. You just can't have it attack that turn. This also means that since the Beast shares your initiative you use your bonus action to give the Help Command giving you advantage on your first attack roll each turn.
I'd say that it would affect the wolf's bite attack at 15 though. This is when Share Spells kicks in and Bite is listed as a melee weapon attack. At that point a wolf would have 60 HP, 18 AC, the Bite attack would be +9 to hit with 2d4+7 (12 average) damage normally. Which brings up the question, would you really want to have your wolf attack at that point for 2d4+1d6+7 (15.5 average) damage and placing it at greater risk (plus your 1d8+1d6+5 or 13 average damage for a total of 28.5), or continue to have it dodge and take opportunity attacks while helping provide the rogue with advantage and attacking on your own 2d8+2d6+10 (26 average) with a longbow. 18 AC is decent but 60 HP isn't that great of a buffer.
Right, but why say "on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn't attack..." and follow it by "...on its turn..."? If it doesn't attack on your turn anyway, why make that distinction? If the companion wasn't attacking on your turn as opposed to its turn, it would say something like "If your companion didn't attack on its previous turn..." or "If you don't command your companion to attack on its turn...". Additionally, what good is the help action on your turn if the companion doesn't do it until its turn (after yours but on the same initiative). The language seems to suggest that the companion takes some of its actions on your turn and some on its turn, which goes against a rebuttal against one of Trirhabda's statements earlier in the thread.
Oh, I agree. The rule simply states that the Beast goes on your initiative count. I don't see any reason it MUST go before or after you, especially since it is not taking it's own action, it is taking yours.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Unless the new wording says “ and the animal companion can’t do anything else”, it’s still valid. You are claiming the “You can...” in the text is clearing saying that you can’t do anything else. In some cases like spells, I would agree with you because the general rules for spells don’t allow other things. With Beast Master, this is not the case. The general rules clearly allow the things I’m talking about.
And the specific rule says that absent the ranger’s Action ordering one of those actions, the beast either 1) does nothing at all, in the older print edition you love so much, or 2) Dodges, in the current RAW. Specific beats general.
The new wording specifies the action the animal companion takes if you don't give it a command. As they only get one action, and it is consumed by dodging, they cannot do anything else.
I’m giving it a command, it’s just not one that requires the ranger’s action. I’ve answered that several times now.
Imagine a DM controlled wolf. The wolf can take any action that the DM deems it capable of. It can Search, it can Hide, it can Ready an attack when a creature comes within reach. It can do all the things a PC can do as long as the DM thinks it’s anatomy and intelligence allow it.
Now take that wolf and make it an animal companion by applying the Beast Master rules. Modified what the Beast Master tells you to modify, don’t modify the things the Beast Master doesn’t talk about. It is as simple as that.
The only command that doesn't require the ranger's action is movement. There is no general rule allowing you to command beasts to do things.
This is correct. What a DM controlled wolf can't do is be commanded to take any action by a beastmaster ranger.
Okay, let's do this. To begin with we have a wolf that can take all the normal creature actions but cannot be commanded to do anything. Now let's apply the animal companion rules:
Great! Now we can command it to move without spending any action. We can't command it to do anything else, but that's fine; it can still do anything a normal creature can do, so maybe we can just trust it to take care of itself! Let's continue.
Hmmm... if we want to tell it to attack our enemy, we have to use our action, so we can't make an attack ourselves. That's... not ideal. But hey, at least it can still do anything a normal beast can do, right? Surely it'll get the hint when it sees us attack the enemy and will be smart enough to follow suit without our order. Let's see how this turns out!
Oh. Well then.
You know what? I see what you mean! Modify what the Beast Master tells you to modify, don’t modify the things the Beast Master doesn’t talk about. It really is as simple as that!
Well, it's not quite that clear-cut, though it requires a strained interpretation of the rules. The rules never actually say that you cannot give the animal companion commands other than the listed set (can you command a giant frog to swallow a victim? It's not actually an attack action, it's a special action), and it would be quite odd if you can't tell your dog to fetch (which would be [Tooltip Not Found]) or Search -- but it never says what sort of action, if any, is required to give a command other than movement or the listed four actions.
The rules say what they allow, not what they don't, and the entire basis of the whole discussion is attacking, not using objects or searching outside of combat. I think it absolutely is the intent that attacking be restricted to the basic Attack action, e.g. no swallowing; nothing says you can't order the beast to Multiattack, but there's an entire class feature devoted to saying you can.
By the general rules, if you want to have a trained animal perform an action, it would require a successful Animal Handling check, which would require your action to do so.
The Beast Master Companion rules allow you to Command the beast to do one of the listed actions without an Animal Handling check, also costing your action.
There are no general rules that allow a PC to control an NPC without some kind of action on their part, whether that be through spells or skill checks.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I’m not trying to convince you that my interpretation is RAW, I’m trying to give you a way to consider it compatible with RAW if you choose. Consider it house rules if you want.
For the last 6 years, you guys have been complaining about the Beast Master and it got you what? A few errata that still leave you deeply unsatisfied?
What have I got. A few errata that change very little. Most of the things in the errata were things my Beast Master already had. It did gain the ability to retain its reaction when Dodging so it can make Opportunity Attacks. Thank you.
So if you want to keep complaining, I’ll keep explaining that there is an alternative. Who knows, a few more years and a few more errata, you might have my Beast Master too.
There's absolutely no benefit to doing so. "Look, I have a really dubious interpretation of RAW that makes beastmasters better" is not more convincing than "Beastmasters kind of suck, how do you feel about house rules?"
This section of the Forums is about RAW thus the reason everyone else is talking about RAW. Most of us here use House Rules to make the Beast Master better, but when people come to this section of the Forums, we are talking about RAW.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I thought it was about RAW also. I was in total agreement in reply to the original post, that RAW Hunter’s Mark does not affect the animal companion’s damage.
Then someone posts “Beast Master sucks”. At that that point I explained how I interpret RAW in a way that eliminates many of the complaints about Beast Master.
I have explained how I apply the rules as worded, starting with Specific beats General. I consider the beast master text as specific changes to the general rules that apply to all PCs and NPCs. I do not change any wording, I don’t ignore anything. In my opinion, you are ignoring Specific beats General.
You can keep repeating the same arguments over and over but they are not changing my mind that your interpretation is RAW. You insist that “You can..” also means “You can’t do anything else”. How is that RAW?
I’m not even sure if you are understanding my line of reasoning. Some of your responses seem to indicate you don’t. I have explained it the best I can so it is up to you either take the time to figure it out or just continue complaining about the rules every time the subject of Beast Master comes up.
They first give a general statement, and follow it with an explanation of what that statement means.
This will most likely be my last post on this but here it goes.
You have not provide a single general rule that allows a PC to control another creature without expending an action of some kind. You keep saying "Specific beats General" yet you have not provide any rules at all, general or other wise.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
No. What I said is that the problem with the beastmaster is that they spend two levels in which they have to choose between their own attack and their companion's, which isn't fun.
You ignored the part where it says that commanding the beast to attack takes your Action and if you don't issue a command, the beast Dodges. The specific beast companion rules state this, which overrides the general rule that creatures can do whatever they want.
No rule in 5e says what you can't do. That's not how the rules work. The rules say that when an enemy provokes an attack of opportunity, you can make a melee attack against. You're arguing that you can cast a spell instead because the rules don't say you can't.
Your "explanations" have consistently refused to even mention the core point of the conversation, that the ranger has to choose between their attack and the companion's until 5th level.
I found this interesting.
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 Help action on its turn.
It does almost sound like you can interweave turns when you command your companion to attack. Otherwise, it will default to acting on it's turn. This makes sense for the purposes of commanding it to attack with extra attack. Not sure about what bonus comes from it otherwise.
I believe that the primary benefit is to be able to use your bonus action to command the Beast instead of having to sacrifice one of your own attacks to do so. You just can't have it attack that turn. This also means that since the Beast shares your initiative you use your bonus action to give the Help Command giving you advantage on your first attack roll each turn.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I'd say that it would affect the wolf's bite attack at 15 though. This is when Share Spells kicks in and Bite is listed as a melee weapon attack. At that point a wolf would have 60 HP, 18 AC, the Bite attack would be +9 to hit with 2d4+7 (12 average) damage normally. Which brings up the question, would you really want to have your wolf attack at that point for 2d4+1d6+7 (15.5 average) damage and placing it at greater risk (plus your 1d8+1d6+5 or 13 average damage for a total of 28.5), or continue to have it dodge and take opportunity attacks while helping provide the rogue with advantage and attacking on your own 2d8+2d6+10 (26 average) with a longbow. 18 AC is decent but 60 HP isn't that great of a buffer.
Right, but why say "on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn't attack..." and follow it by "...on its turn..."? If it doesn't attack on your turn anyway, why make that distinction? If the companion wasn't attacking on your turn as opposed to its turn, it would say something like "If your companion didn't attack on its previous turn..." or "If you don't command your companion to attack on its turn...". Additionally, what good is the help action on your turn if the companion doesn't do it until its turn (after yours but on the same initiative). The language seems to suggest that the companion takes some of its actions on your turn and some on its turn, which goes against a rebuttal against one of Trirhabda's statements earlier in the thread.
Oh, I agree. The rule simply states that the Beast goes on your initiative count. I don't see any reason it MUST go before or after you, especially since it is not taking it's own action, it is taking yours.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master