A baseline fighter with a greatsword does about 39 damage a round. I don’t think a ranger should be doing 55 to 62 damage a round. No other ranger subclass comes even close to that.
Gloom with a Greatsword in round 1:
2d6 + 1d6 + 6
2d6 + 1d6 + 6
2d6 + 1d6 + 6 +1d8
= 54
Any 11th-level ranger with, say 8 or 10 enemies in a 60ft cone can inflict >100pts of damage with conjure barrage. Conjure animals, another 3rd-level ranger spell, famously inflicts massive amounts of damage.
That gloomstalker suggestion is a perfect setup using resources on a single turn. What is that over 3-5 rounds using zero resources. Very different.
I'll save you the trouble on the math: a TCOE Companion BM ranger under optimal conditions (Sharpshooter, Crossbow Mastery, Dex 16, Wis 16, beast of the land gets to charge 20 feet straight and then swing twice, and then the ranger keeps up and fires directly into melee, assuming the target has AC 17 per the DMG and a strength saving throw bonus of +4, which I just randomly guessed at as the DMG has no guidance), does very slightly more damage than a Champion would without needing extra caveats. That's the Champion, probably the second worst or first worst fighter subclass. Against a Battlemaster or Samurai, there would be no contest, and of course with magical weapons, the Fighter will pull ahead, as they'll buff the shots but not the beast.
So I don't know what's so startling or surprising about the TCOE companion damage. It's on par with being a weak striker, as expected.
Gloomstalker DPR is hard to measure accurately, but I can measure round 1 just fine - after that things get weird, since the Companion has to get a 20 foot "straight" charge in or both it and the Ranger's DPR plummet precipitously, and the Gloomstalker's DPR just plummets with no way to fix it.
Note for below: + HM means the Ranger put Hunter's Mark up before battle started. DPR numbers for a single round go down if you give up a crossbow bolt for HM - your numbers come back up over more rounds.
Champion: 32.9
TCOE Beastmaster + HM: 33.43 (target's strength save bonus will modify this)
TCOE Beastmaster: 27.62 (target's strength save bonus will modify this)
Gloom Stalker: 35.73 (math previously in this thread is incorrect; Gloom Stalkers get an additional shot if they miss, raising their DPR - it's basically an extra incentive to take Sharpshooter, if you needed one) (note: calculated without permanent advantage, which GSes often have)
Gloom Stalker + HM: 43.56
The only other subclasses worth discussing in a DPR discussion are Hunters, Fey Wanderers, and Horizon Walkers, all of whom are better against groups. Swarmkeepers and Monster Slayers just aren't designed for DPR.
I just don't see how Beastmaster is so out of band.
I’m just reading this quickly, but those numbers don’t seem correct to me. Also a lot of feats, which I think over complicate the question at hand. I’ll dig into them later today. Thanks for the thoughts so far, everyone.
I just don't see how Beastmaster is so out of band.
It's not. And, arguably, it wasn't before. It was always capable of keeping up in terms of damage-dealing. There were some obvious shortcomings, but then again there were things the old Ranger's Companion allowed that Primal Companion does not. Barding, for example, isn't compatible with the alternate feature. Or, at the very least, there's no mechanical benefit. Sure, it was a gold sink, but it also allowed for higher statistics than before.
The biggest issue was their relative squishiness. A primal Beast of the Land at 11th-level would have 60 hit points, an AC of 17, and decent saving throws. But a panther could have 44 hit points, an AC of 20 with breastplate for barding, and advantage on their Widsom (Perception) checks that rely on scent. Never mind that the panther has a better modifier (+8) than the primal companion (+6). The primal companion might have better damage rolls, but the panther isn't reliant on the ranger's Wisdom modifier for their attack roll.
There are legitimate pros and cons to both, and I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer as to which one players should have. And I plan on hybridizing them at my table anyway to give my players the best of both worlds.
"Gloomstalker's DPR just plummets with no way to fix it."
The way you fix it is with 3 levels of Rogue (Assassin) and (at least) a couple levels of Fighter.
Then your first round looks like Crit/Crit/Crit/Crit/Crit/Crit/Crit.
And then the fight is over and you can go on the the next fight in which you will again have the benefit of the Gloomstalker's first-round damage for approximately the entire duration of the fight.
I'll save you the trouble on the math: a TCOE Companion BM ranger under optimal conditions (Sharpshooter, Crossbow Mastery, Dex 16, Wis 16, beast of the land gets to charge 20 feet straight and then swing twice, and then the ranger keeps up and fires directly into melee, assuming the target has AC 17 per the DMG and a strength saving throw bonus of +4, which I just randomly guessed at as the DMG has no guidance), does very slightly more damage than a Champion would without needing extra caveats. That's the Champion, probably the second worst or first worst fighter subclass. Against a Battlemaster or Samurai, there would be no contest, and of course with magical weapons, the Fighter will pull ahead, as they'll buff the shots but not the beast.
So I don't know what's so startling or surprising about the TCOE companion damage. It's on par with being a weak striker, as expected.
Gloomstalker DPR is hard to measure accurately, but I can measure round 1 just fine - after that things get weird, since the Companion has to get a 20 foot "straight" charge in or both it and the Ranger's DPR plummet precipitously, and the Gloomstalker's DPR just plummets with no way to fix it.
Note for below: + HM means the Ranger put Hunter's Mark up before battle started. DPR numbers for a single round go down if you give up a crossbow bolt for HM - your numbers come back up over more rounds.
Champion: 32.9
TCOE Beastmaster + HM: 33.43 (target's strength save bonus will modify this)
TCOE Beastmaster: 27.62 (target's strength save bonus will modify this)
Gloom Stalker: 35.73 (math previously in this thread is incorrect; Gloom Stalkers get an additional shot if they miss, raising their DPR - it's basically an extra incentive to take Sharpshooter, if you needed one) (note: calculated without permanent advantage, which GSes often have)
Gloom Stalker + HM: 43.56
The only other subclasses worth discussing in a DPR discussion are Hunters, Fey Wanderers, and Horizon Walkers, all of whom are better against groups. Swarmkeepers and Monster Slayers just aren't designed for DPR.
I just don't see how Beastmaster is so out of band.
The idea that the Primal Companion can only take one Action in a round is incorrect - The Primal Companion gets to take an action (which may be Dodge, Help, Use an Item, Dash, Help, Hide, etc.) when the Ranger uses a bonus action to command the companion, and then *also* gets to use the Attack action when the Ranger takes the Attack action and sacrifices an attack to the Primal Companion. The debate in this thread deals with whether the Attack action can be used *both* as the Ranger's bonus action *and* when the Ranger sacrifices one attack in the Attack action. Since Attack is *always* categorized as a regular Action along with Dodge, Help, Dash and all the others, it seems clear that the Primal Companion can, when so commanded, take two Attack actions in a round, or an Attack and another Action the Ranger would use the bonus action to command.
What makes you think the primal companion can take more than one action on its turn?
Primal Companion is not a well-written feature. A ranger can, via their Action and Bonus Action, explicitly order their companion to perform multiple actions in a given turn. Nothing prohibits this, and nothing says the companion is limited to a single action; though I can certainly understand that being the default assumption.
It's more consistent with features like Steel Defender, and shares a lot of the same language, but it also has differences which set it apart. Ultimately, how it runs is going to be left to DM fiat. Some are more permissive, allowing Attack to be commanded via the ranger's Bonus Action. Some will allow for multiple actions. Some may fall on the more restrictive side.
The irony in Primal Companion is it truly is a lateral shift when compared to the PHB Beast Companion. They're both poorly worded messes.
Not to start another “discussion” on this thread, but conjure animals says they follow your commands, so I could command them to attack twice. Right? The words say that.
For the primal companion wording…
”In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.”
The phrasing throughout the entire paragraph implies an action, a single action, it’s action
The baseline general rules also explicitly state the following.
”On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed — sometimes called your walking speed — is noted on your character sheet.”
I get that some think the beast is somehow given action surge because of the wording of the ability, but this DM’s fiat is that is an incorrect reading and the intent of the words.
What makes you think the primal companion can take more than one action on its turn?
Primal Companion is not a well-written feature. A ranger can, via their Action and Bonus Action, explicitly order their companion to perform multiple actions in a given turn. Nothing prohibits this, and nothing says the companion is limited to a single action; though I can certainly understand that being the default assumption.
It's more consistent with features like Steel Defender, and shares a lot of the same language, but it also has differences which set it apart. Ultimately, how it runs is going to be left to DM fiat. Some are more permissive, allowing Attack to be commanded via the ranger's Bonus Action. Some will allow for multiple actions. Some may fall on the more restrictive side.
The irony in Primal Companion is it truly is a lateral shift when compared to the PHB Beast Companion. They're both poorly worded messes.
There is in fact something that says the companion is limited to a single action. The rules: "On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action." All creatures follow these rules, according to the Monster Manual
The ranger is welcome to use both their bonus action and one of their attacks to command their beast, but one of those is going to be wasted, because the beast only has one action and only needs to be commanded once. There is absolutely nothing in the Primal Companion text that would supersede the general rule (cf. the fighter's Action Surge, which absolutely does have such text).
So the caster can command the beasts from conjure animals to each attack twice. Right?
The, by your own admission, poorly written primal companion rules, state specific rules for various options of delivering commands from the ranger, not specific rules for the beast circumventing the general rule of one action per creature. That would take something specific like a rogue’s cunning action or a fighter’s action surge.
I agree that the way the feature is worded the beast would need two actions to both replace an attack and perform its bonus action commanded action. And I feel you'd need a more explicit statement than what we have here to break the One Action rule. However, in terms of action economy, the former really shouldn't require the beast to take the Attack action. That attack is literally part of the ranger's attack action. The overall action economy remains the same. So I'd personally allow it as a houserule.
"The baseline general rules also explicitly state the following."
The general rules are irrelevant in the face of a specific exception.
There isn't a specific exception. That's the point.
See, this is where we disagree. Below, I'll cite the relevant paragraph
In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.
So the ranger can issue two commands. The first, or primary, command is issues through their Bonus Action. The second command is issued as part of their Attack. And here's the kicker: the word "also" means "in addition to". They may as well be using the word "plus". If they wanted to avoid any confusion, they'd use "alternatively" and make the commands mutually exclusive. But they didn't, so they're not.
The ranger can, RAW, issue multiple commands. And there's nothing saying the companion cannot carry them all out. There's no clarification about what happens if multiple commands are issued. Ergo, multiple commands resulting in multiple actions is a valid interpretation; whether personally agree with its implementation it or not. Personally, I don't like it and won't allow it. But what I do and don't allow at my table has no bearing on anyone else's, and vice versa.
"The baseline general rules also explicitly state the following."
The general rules are irrelevant in the face of a specific exception.
There isn't a specific exception. That's the point.
See, this is where we disagree. Below, I'll cite the relevant paragraph
In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.
So the ranger can issue two commands. The first, or primary, command is issues through their Bonus Action. The second command is issued as part of their Attack. And here's the kicker: the word "also" means "in addition to". They may as well be using the word "plus". If they wanted to avoid any confusion, they'd use "alternatively" and make the commands mutually exclusive. But they didn't, so they're not.
The ranger can, RAW, issue multiple commands. And there's nothing saying the companion cannot carry them all out. There's no clarification about what happens if multiple commands are issued. Ergo, multiple commands resulting in multiple actions is a valid interpretation; whether personally agree with its implementation it or not. Personally, I don't like it and won't allow it. But what I do and don't allow at my table has no bearing on anyone else's, and vice versa.
No, I fully agree that the ranger can issue multiple commands; I said as much in my post. I've bolded the statement you make that is objectively incorrect; I have cited the rule saying the companion cannot carry them all out (at least not in the way you mean). You're correct that there's no clarification about what happens if multiple commands are issued. But your conclusion that this can result in multiple actions is completely unfounded, because we have an explicit rule that a creature gets one action per turn and absolutely no text in this feature that contradicts that. I've cited the general rule; you have failed to cite any exception.
I agree that the way the feature is worded the beast would need two actions to both replace an attack and perform its bonus action commanded action. And I feel you'd need a more explicit statement than what we have here to break the One Action rule. However, in terms of action economy, the former really shouldn't require the beast to take the Attack action. That attack is literally part of the ranger's attack action. The overall action economy remains the same. So I'd personally allow it as a houserule.
I’m terms of action economy, having a ranger bonus action to do basically anything, including an attack attack, is very strong, and the real issue arrives at level 11 when this action economy turns into 5 attacks from the duo. Unheard of, and completely out of line mathematically for level 11 ranger damage output.
"The baseline general rules also explicitly state the following."
The general rules are irrelevant in the face of a specific exception.
There isn't a specific exception. That's the point.
See, this is where we disagree. Below, I'll cite the relevant paragraph
In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.
So the ranger can issue two commands. The first, or primary, command is issues through their Bonus Action. The second command is issued as part of their Attack. And here's the kicker: the word "also" means "in addition to". They may as well be using the word "plus". If they wanted to avoid any confusion, they'd use "alternatively" and make the commands mutually exclusive. But they didn't, so they're not.
The ranger can, RAW, issue multiple commands. And there's nothing saying the companion cannot carry them all out. There's no clarification about what happens if multiple commands are issued. Ergo, multiple commands resulting in multiple actions is a valid interpretation; whether personally agree with its implementation it or not. Personally, I don't like it and won't allow it. But what I do and don't allow at my table has no bearing on anyone else's, and vice versa.
No, I fully agree that the ranger can issue multiple commands; I said as much in my post. I've bolded the statement you make that is objectively incorrect; I have cited the rule saying the companion cannot carry them all out (at least not in the way you mean). You're correct that there's no clarification about what happens if multiple commands are issued. But your conclusion that this can result in multiple actions is completely unfounded, because we have an explicit rule that a creature gets one action per turn and absolutely no text in this feature that contradicts that. I've cited the general rule; you have failed to cite any exception.
And that, right there, is the hiccup. Because multiple commands can be issued, and because there's no clarification on resolution if such a thing were to occur, the feature is just nebulous enough that a DM would not be wrong in allowing it.
Again, I'm not saying you have to like it. I don't even like it, and it's one I would personally disallow. But I will maintain it's a valid interpretation because the DM has to make a call. And, in my opinion, the permissions granted by a specific subclass feature trump the general rule.
And that, right there, is the hiccup. Because multiple commands can be issued, and because there's no clarification on resolution if such a thing were to occur, the feature is just nebulous enough that a DM would not be wrong in allowing it.
Again, I'm not saying you have to like it. I don't even like it, and it's one I would personally disallow. But I will maintain it's a valid interpretation because the DM has to make a call. And, in my opinion, the permissions granted by a specific subclass feature trump the general rule.
DMs are never wrong in allowing anything. But allowing it here would unambiguously violate a rule. The rules do not specifically say what happens, but they do specifically say what doesn't happen. When the rules say "you can't do X," you can't use the lack of the rules saying "you CAN do Y" as evidence that you can, actually, do X.
Permissions granted by specific subclass features definitely trump general rules! Specific beats general, there's no argument there. But, again, and I cannot stress this enough, you continue to not provide any specific rule that would trump the general rule.
That gloomstalker suggestion is a perfect setup using resources on a single turn. What is that over 3-5 rounds using zero resources. Very different.
I'll save you the trouble on the math: a TCOE Companion BM ranger under optimal conditions (Sharpshooter, Crossbow Mastery, Dex 16, Wis 16, beast of the land gets to charge 20 feet straight and then swing twice, and then the ranger keeps up and fires directly into melee, assuming the target has AC 17 per the DMG and a strength saving throw bonus of +4, which I just randomly guessed at as the DMG has no guidance), does very slightly more damage than a Champion would without needing extra caveats. That's the Champion, probably the second worst or first worst fighter subclass. Against a Battlemaster or Samurai, there would be no contest, and of course with magical weapons, the Fighter will pull ahead, as they'll buff the shots but not the beast.
So I don't know what's so startling or surprising about the TCOE companion damage. It's on par with being a weak striker, as expected.
Gloomstalker DPR is hard to measure accurately, but I can measure round 1 just fine - after that things get weird, since the Companion has to get a 20 foot "straight" charge in or both it and the Ranger's DPR plummet precipitously, and the Gloomstalker's DPR just plummets with no way to fix it.
Note for below: + HM means the Ranger put Hunter's Mark up before battle started. DPR numbers for a single round go down if you give up a crossbow bolt for HM - your numbers come back up over more rounds.
Champion: 32.9
TCOE Beastmaster + HM: 33.43 (target's strength save bonus will modify this)
TCOE Beastmaster: 27.62 (target's strength save bonus will modify this)
Gloom Stalker: 35.73 (math previously in this thread is incorrect; Gloom Stalkers get an additional shot if they miss, raising their DPR - it's basically an extra incentive to take Sharpshooter, if you needed one) (note: calculated without permanent advantage, which GSes often have)
Gloom Stalker + HM: 43.56
The only other subclasses worth discussing in a DPR discussion are Hunters, Fey Wanderers, and Horizon Walkers, all of whom are better against groups. Swarmkeepers and Monster Slayers just aren't designed for DPR.
I just don't see how Beastmaster is so out of band.
I’m just reading this quickly, but those numbers don’t seem correct to me. Also a lot of feats, which I think over complicate the question at hand. I’ll dig into them later today. Thanks for the thoughts so far, everyone.
It's not. And, arguably, it wasn't before. It was always capable of keeping up in terms of damage-dealing. There were some obvious shortcomings, but then again there were things the old Ranger's Companion allowed that Primal Companion does not. Barding, for example, isn't compatible with the alternate feature. Or, at the very least, there's no mechanical benefit. Sure, it was a gold sink, but it also allowed for higher statistics than before.
The biggest issue was their relative squishiness. A primal Beast of the Land at 11th-level would have 60 hit points, an AC of 17, and decent saving throws. But a panther could have 44 hit points, an AC of 20 with breastplate for barding, and advantage on their Widsom (Perception) checks that rely on scent. Never mind that the panther has a better modifier (+8) than the primal companion (+6). The primal companion might have better damage rolls, but the panther isn't reliant on the ranger's Wisdom modifier for their attack roll.
There are legitimate pros and cons to both, and I'm not sure there's a right or wrong answer as to which one players should have. And I plan on hybridizing them at my table anyway to give my players the best of both worlds.
"Gloomstalker's DPR just plummets with no way to fix it."
The way you fix it is with 3 levels of Rogue (Assassin) and (at least) a couple levels of Fighter.
Then your first round looks like Crit/Crit/Crit/Crit/Crit/Crit/Crit.
And then the fight is over and you can go on the the next fight in which you will again have the benefit of the Gloomstalker's first-round damage for approximately the entire duration of the fight.
Can we bring this down to non feat calculations?
The idea that the Primal Companion can only take one Action in a round is incorrect - The Primal Companion gets to take an action (which may be Dodge, Help, Use an Item, Dash, Help, Hide, etc.) when the Ranger uses a bonus action to command the companion, and then *also* gets to use the Attack action when the Ranger takes the Attack action and sacrifices an attack to the Primal Companion. The debate in this thread deals with whether the Attack action can be used *both* as the Ranger's bonus action *and* when the Ranger sacrifices one attack in the Attack action. Since Attack is *always* categorized as a regular Action along with Dodge, Help, Dash and all the others, it seems clear that the Primal Companion can, when so commanded, take two Attack actions in a round, or an Attack and another Action the Ranger would use the bonus action to command.
What makes you think the primal companion can take more than one action on its turn?
Primal Companion is not a well-written feature. A ranger can, via their Action and Bonus Action, explicitly order their companion to perform multiple actions in a given turn. Nothing prohibits this, and nothing says the companion is limited to a single action; though I can certainly understand that being the default assumption.
It's more consistent with features like Steel Defender, and shares a lot of the same language, but it also has differences which set it apart. Ultimately, how it runs is going to be left to DM fiat. Some are more permissive, allowing Attack to be commanded via the ranger's Bonus Action. Some will allow for multiple actions. Some may fall on the more restrictive side.
The irony in Primal Companion is it truly is a lateral shift when compared to the PHB Beast Companion. They're both poorly worded messes.
Not to start another “discussion” on this thread, but conjure animals says they follow your commands, so I could command them to attack twice. Right? The words say that.
For the primal companion wording…
”In combat, the beast acts during your turn. It can move and use its reaction on its own, but the only action it takes is the Dodge action, unless you take a bonus action on your turn to command it to take another action. That action can be one in its stat block or some other action. You can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action. If you are incapacitated, the beast can take any action of its choice, not just Dodge.”
The phrasing throughout the entire paragraph implies an action, a single action, it’s action
The baseline general rules also explicitly state the following.
”On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action. You decide whether to move first or take your action first. Your speed — sometimes called your walking speed — is noted on your character sheet.”
I get that some think the beast is somehow given action surge because of the wording of the ability, but this DM’s fiat is that is an incorrect reading and the intent of the words.
There is in fact something that says the companion is limited to a single action. The rules: "On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action." All creatures follow these rules, according to the Monster Manual
The ranger is welcome to use both their bonus action and one of their attacks to command their beast, but one of those is going to be wasted, because the beast only has one action and only needs to be commanded once. There is absolutely nothing in the Primal Companion text that would supersede the general rule (cf. the fighter's Action Surge, which absolutely does have such text).
"The baseline general rules also explicitly state the following."
The general rules are irrelevant in the face of a specific exception.
So the caster can command the beasts from conjure animals to each attack twice. Right?
The, by your own admission, poorly written primal companion rules, state specific rules for various options of delivering commands from the ranger, not specific rules for the beast circumventing the general rule of one action per creature. That would take something specific like a rogue’s cunning action or a fighter’s action surge.
There isn't a specific exception. That's the point.
I agree that the way the feature is worded the beast would need two actions to both replace an attack and perform its bonus action commanded action. And I feel you'd need a more explicit statement than what we have here to break the One Action rule. However, in terms of action economy, the former really shouldn't require the beast to take the Attack action. That attack is literally part of the ranger's attack action. The overall action economy remains the same. So I'd personally allow it as a houserule.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
See, this is where we disagree. Below, I'll cite the relevant paragraph
So the ranger can issue two commands. The first, or primary, command is issues through their Bonus Action. The second command is issued as part of their Attack. And here's the kicker: the word "also" means "in addition to". They may as well be using the word "plus". If they wanted to avoid any confusion, they'd use "alternatively" and make the commands mutually exclusive. But they didn't, so they're not.
The ranger can, RAW, issue multiple commands. And there's nothing saying the companion cannot carry them all out. There's no clarification about what happens if multiple commands are issued. Ergo, multiple commands resulting in multiple actions is a valid interpretation; whether personally agree with its implementation it or not. Personally, I don't like it and won't allow it. But what I do and don't allow at my table has no bearing on anyone else's, and vice versa.
No, I fully agree that the ranger can issue multiple commands; I said as much in my post. I've bolded the statement you make that is objectively incorrect; I have cited the rule saying the companion cannot carry them all out (at least not in the way you mean). You're correct that there's no clarification about what happens if multiple commands are issued. But your conclusion that this can result in multiple actions is completely unfounded, because we have an explicit rule that a creature gets one action per turn and absolutely no text in this feature that contradicts that. I've cited the general rule; you have failed to cite any exception.
I’m terms of action economy, having a ranger bonus action to do basically anything, including an attack attack, is very strong, and the real issue arrives at level 11 when this action economy turns into 5 attacks from the duo. Unheard of, and completely out of line mathematically for level 11 ranger damage output.
And that, right there, is the hiccup. Because multiple commands can be issued, and because there's no clarification on resolution if such a thing were to occur, the feature is just nebulous enough that a DM would not be wrong in allowing it.
Again, I'm not saying you have to like it. I don't even like it, and it's one I would personally disallow. But I will maintain it's a valid interpretation because the DM has to make a call. And, in my opinion, the permissions granted by a specific subclass feature trump the general rule.
DMs are never wrong in allowing anything. But allowing it here would unambiguously violate a rule. The rules do not specifically say what happens, but they do specifically say what doesn't happen. When the rules say "you can't do X," you can't use the lack of the rules saying "you CAN do Y" as evidence that you can, actually, do X.
Permissions granted by specific subclass features definitely trump general rules! Specific beats general, there's no argument there. But, again, and I cannot stress this enough, you continue to not provide any specific rule that would trump the general rule.