The primal companion says "...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." So only a bonus action command would stop it from auto dodging, by (silly) RAW.
That's a good point, and I revise my analysis. Primal Companion will auto-dodge if the only command you issue it is by sacrificing an attack during your own Attack action, so it can Dodge + Attack/Maul. Great catch! Still can't Dodge+Help though.
And I know there is a tweet from JC like in the middle of the night from 7 years ago, and people think the ranger and PHB beast take separate turns, but they don't, they take their turn together. Proof? Below:
1. "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." How can the beast attack on your turn if the turns are separate? Answer is, they are the same turn.
2. "The DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time." Here is RAW counterpoint against the statement that every creatures acts on its own turn.
3. "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." ...and... "A controlled mount can move and act even on the turn that you mount it." More precedent within the game that creatures can act at the same time on the same turn.
Again, all true. I agree that RAI, the Ranger's Companion was probably meant to act on your turn. RAI, a controlled mount is definitely meant to act on your turn. But other abilities which use the "share your initiative count" language have also explicitly required the creature to take its own turn (see e.g. Summon Aberration, which "shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours"). When we try to find what language a Ranger's Companion most closely resembles, it is Summon Aberration, not Primal Companion. Also, Ranger's Companion says "it's turn," not "your turn," again reinforcing that it's a seperate turn. But like you say, that contradicts other language below within Ranger's Companion, and probably was merely a result of poor editing and playtesting that never got fixed or errata'd, so I'm fine with accepting that a Ranger's Companion should share your Ranger's turn.
The PHB ranger's companion ability says "It takes its turn on your initiative." Period.
The Summon Aberration spell language you are referring to says "...the creature shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours."
These are actually explicit in my favor as it clearly states the beast "...takes its turn on your..." while the aberration says shares your count but takes its turn after.
What evidence would you accept, if evidence that you can issue more than one command in a round is not sufficient? Do you think that you can issue more than one command but your Primal Companion or Ranger's Companion only can obey one?
Here's something you might find persuasive, from the Ranger's Companion feature:
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.
At 7th level, you can command it to Dash, Disengage, or Helpif it hasn't attacked. How can the companion attack?
On your turn, you can verbally command the beast where to move (no action required by you). You can use your action to verbally command it to take the Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help action. If you don't issue a command, the beast takes the Dodge action. Once you have the Extra Attack feature, you can make one weapon attack yourself when you command the beast to take the Attack action.... The beast never requires your command to use its reaction, such as when making an opportunity attack.
It attacks by either (1) you ordering it to take the Attack action, or (2) by taking an opportunity attack.
But... why didn't it say "on any of your turns when you haven't commanded your companion to take an action, and it hasn't made an opportunity attack, you can..."? Just because that's a little wordier? That would have made it quite clear that you couldn't issue a Bonus Action command (Dash, Disengage, or Help) if you've already used your Action to command it (to Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help) or its taken an OA... did they not think there was possible confusion there? Or, is it perhaps more likely that they didn't write that because that wasn't what was intended, and it was always okay to order your companion to Dash with your Action and Help with your Bonus?
I guess we can disagree about the intent, but as I read it, the limitation on the Bonus Action order is "companion doesn't attack" not "companion hasn't acted and doesn't attack." Reading unwritten restrictions isn't my jam.
What evidence would you accept, if evidence that you can issue more than one command in a round is not sufficient? Do you think that you can issue more than one command but your Primal Companion or Ranger's Companion only can obey one?
Any consistent with the rest of the game?!
None of the rules that you have pointed to say that companions actually get more than one action, just a variety of options in order for you to issue a command for what it spends its action on.
You are literally writing an unwritten rule when you are saying that a creature that isn't given more than one action all of the sudden has them without any text telling you that.
What evidence would you accept, if evidence that you can issue more than one command in a round is not sufficient? Do you think that you can issue more than one command but your Primal Companion or Ranger's Companion only can obey one?
Any consistent with the rest of the game?!
None of the rules that you have pointed to say that companions actually get more than one action, just a variety of options in order for you to issue a command for what it spends its action on.
You are literally writing an unwritten rule when you are saying that a creature that isn't given more than one action all of the sudden has them without any text telling you that.
The sticking point for us is whether or not the beast can act on every command the ranger issues it. And there's no reason to assume it cannot. There's nothing prohibiting the ranger from issuing multiple commands, and there's nothing saying the beast can't at least attempt to carry them out. And the language for Primal Companion all but stops short of expressly saying they can order it twice.
No matter what anyone here says "also" does not mean "or" or "alternatively". It means "in addition to".
I just don't see ordering the Beast to Dash using your Bonus Action as particularly different in kind from ordering yourself to Dash using your Bonus Action, from an overall turn balance perspective. Are you using your Bonus Action to order the Beast to Dash as its own Bonus Action? No, probably not, but also the Primal Companion doesn't have a turn at all, so why are you assuming that it's constrained to anything PHB Chapter 9 tells you about "your turn"? It "acts" on the player's turn, it has no turn of its own. The Ranger's Companion does have a turn, but can't seem to decide whether that turn is "it's" turn or "your" turn. Insofar as there is a general rule that creatures can only use one Action on their turn, and insofar as the Primal Companion and Ranger's Companion even have "turns" at all, both Companions also provide explicit language which provides that actions which would normally take one Action cannot be taken using the Beast's Action, but can be taken using some or all of the Character's Action or Bonus Action without involving the Beast's Reaction like command effects otherwise ordinarily do elsewhere in the game, so...
Primal Companion and Ranger's Companion are their own thing. They aren't really like anything else. It doesn't really matter how any other features work, or that they operate in specific ways that contradict general expectations. That's features for ya, they all break the rules in their own way to do new things.
Your argument is that they didn't say you couldn't then? Because, again, we know that creatures get one action. You have only pointed to options on how to tell your companion how to use its action, not anything that expressly allows a second action.
That's like saying I can cast 5 second level spells because I have 5 options prepared.
Your argument is that they didn't say you couldn't then? Because, again, we know that creatures get one action. You have only pointed to options on how to tell your companion how to use its action, not anything that expressly allows a second action.
That's like saying I can cast 5 second level spells because I have 5 options prepared.
No, my argument is the ranger is allowed to issue multiple commands. Ergo, the beast carries out those commands. If the beast was limited to only one action, the ranger would be limited to one command.
Your argument is that they didn't say you couldn't then? Because, again, we know that creatures get one action. You have only pointed to options on how to tell your companion how to use its action, not anything that expressly allows a second action.
That's like saying I can cast 5 second level spells because I have 5 options prepared.
No, my argument is the ranger is allowed to issue multiple commands. Ergo, the beast carries out those commands. If the beast was limited to only one action, the ranger would be limited to one command.
I'm allowed to prepare more than 3 second level spells, so i can cast them?
I'm still on the fence on this argument, but I will say this, in terms of action economy the ranger isn't actually gaining additional actions with the interaction of their beast. I mean, they are gaining options for their actions, but not more actions, like with the old UA revised ranger companion. If you look at the artificer or druid that get a similar kind of bonus action (and ONLY a bonus action) command "pet", perhaps the "iconic" ranger beast gets its punch from really opening up the action economy even more. Like everyone loves how rogues get cunning action and the flexibility it brings. Now these pet focused subclasses (or spells) get other action economy things but in a different way. I'll be honest, from a mathematical balance perspective, it's only the additional attacks that set me off with the beast being unhinged from the "standard" action economy rules. And that is something the PHB beast had baked in the rules to avoid, making 3, 4, or 5 attacks in a round. Perhaps they think using the spell attack modifier balances this out. I've run some rough numbers, and if you constrain the beast to only one action it puts the PHB beast right in step with all of the other ranger subclasses, and the Tasha's beast near or at the top of the heap. If you allow the interpretation we are debating, the Tasha's beast ranger is the highest damage dealer of all of the ranger subclasses. All of them (I'm looking at you gloomstalker players).
Don't be obtuse, Bees. Primal Companion explicitly tells the Ranger that they can issue one type of command with a Bonus Action and "also" issue a different type of command as part of their own Attack action. Also doesn't mean or, they're two different types of command instead of two options of issuing the same command, etc. etc. four pages of analysis that if you haven't read you should go ahead and do so. It's not particularly similar to casting multiple leveled spells with [Tooltip Not Found], because there's no language to be found within any class or the Spellcasting section in general which would invite you to do that, and in fact there is language warning you not to? No language exists in Primal Companion or Ranger's Companion or the Beast Master in general which warns you not to issue two commands with two different types of action, and the features themselves tell you to do that, so.... It's just not "like saying" that at all.
If you can find an example of "you can X as part of your Attack. You can also do Y with a Bonus Action" meaning "you can do X or Y but not both", I'm all ears. That would be a pretty atrocious editing job which would earn a swift errata or bring a lot of heat on the forums, so the fact that no one can seem to recall one is probably a good indication it doesn't exist... but hey, if you want to pour through every "also" to find support for your argument, be my guest.
I don’t think there’s any compelling reason to interpret “also” as meaning “in the same turn.” As WolfOfTheBees said, we know that any creature only gets one action. You can command the beast with your bonus action; you can also command it with one of your attacks. Similarly, you can cast Misty Step with your reaction. You can also cast Fireball with your action! But you can’t do both in the same turn, because there’s a rule that says you can’t, just like there’s a rule that says a creature gets one action per turn.
Taking that single “also” to mean that the companion can take multiple entire actions, despite there being literally no text that says that, is almost literally unbelievable, as in, it reads like a troll argument, but I’m familiar enough with CC and Jounichi to accept that it’s not.
I don’t think there’s any compelling reason to interpret “also” as meaning “in the same turn.” As WolfOfTheBees said, we know that any creature only gets one action. You can command the beast with your bonus action; you can also command it with one of your attacks. Similarly, you can cast Misty Step with your reaction. You can also cast Fireball with your action! But you can’t do both in the same turn, because there’s a rule that says you can’t, just like there’s a rule that says a creature gets one action per turn.
Taking that single “also” to mean that the companion can take multiple entire actions, despite there being literally no text that says that, is almost literally unbelievable, as in, it reads like a troll argument, but I’m familiar enough with CC and Jounichi to accept that it’s not.
I agree entirely. Something else to point out is that the "also" doesn't refer to what the creature can do, but it literally says "you can also sacrifice..." as in it is 100% providing you an additional option, but none of the words in the remainder of the sentence give a second action to the beast.
Let's see those numbers. Taking the "it can be commanded to Attack twice in two different ways, and at level 11+, those Attacks each include two Maulattacks" position, I still fail to see how that turns them into the new Prom King of the Ranger subclasses.
Weapon attack +9 to hit: Weapon Die (d8) + Ability Score (+5) + Style (+2) + Hunter's Mark (d6), average 15
Command - move and Attack to your Primal Companion
Maul +3 to hit: 1d8 + 2 + 4, +1d6 from Charge, average 14
Maul +3 to hit: 1d8 + 2 + 4, average 11
Ranger Bonus Action Command - Attack to your Primal Companion
Maul +3 to hit: 1d8 + 2 + 4, average 11
Maul +3 to hit: 1d8 + 2 + 4, average 11
Total average damage is maybe 62, which is pretty good! But, the beast has an atrocious to hit modifier if you've left Wisdom at 16 since creation (like most Rangers), and is only slightly better at +5 if you pumped Wisdom to 20 by 8 instead of Dexterity. Even if the Charge Maul is the first attack in the rotation instead of your own Weapon Attack, and knocks the enemy Prone, and you pumped Wisdom instead of Dex (-2 Ranger damage, -2 Ranger to-hit, -2 Ranger AC)... +5 to hit with advantage is pretty poor in Tiers 3 and 4, and the only way to get it any better is with a (Necklace of Fangs? Claw Amulet? WTF was it called again?) which doesn't help much.
Compare that against a Fey Wanderer at 11, who's benefited from the same opportunity to use a Bonus Action the round before to put up Hunter's Mark. This guy uses Two-Weapon Fighting, however.
Weapon Attack +9 to hit: Weapon damage (d6) + Ability Score (+5) + Hunter's Mark (d6), average 15
Total average damage is 49... but all three attacks were made with a full +9 to hit modifier, rather than +3! The value of that probably changes based on what the AC of your enemy is, but what would you think the DPR impact of an additional +6 to hit on 30 of your damage vs. 45 of your Beast's damage would be?
The Primal Companion beast is better at dealing damage than the Ranger's Companion beast used to be, that's true, because (1) you can attack alongside it much easier than you used to be able to, and (2) you can command it to Attack twice per round instead of once. But the Beast Master has not become the new top dog even among pure Rangers, at best it's drawn level with them... but the true damage potential of Rangers has always been in multiclassing out to a different class at level 3 after poaching a Bonus Action damage enhancement action and Hunter's Mark, not running pure Ranger. Beast Master's still can't really play that game, because while PB will boost their Beast's damage and AC, it won't improve their low HP and they'll just get swatted out of existence early in many fights. The only way to play a Beast Master is to stay a Beast Master, and Ranger players (less so with Tasha's options, but even still) hate being pure Rangers.
"Starting at 6th level, you can also use your Warding Flare feature when a creature that you can see within 30 feet of you attacks a creature other than you."
I don’t think there’s any compelling reason to interpret “also” as meaning “in the same turn.” As WolfOfTheBees said, we know that any creature only gets one action. You can command the beast with your bonus action; you can also command it with one of your attacks. Similarly, you can cast Misty Step with your reaction. You can also cast Fireball with your action! But you can’t do both in the same turn, because there’s a rule that says you can’t, just like there’s a rule that says a creature gets one action per turn.
Taking that single “also” to mean that the companion can take multiple entire actions, despite there being literally no text that says that, is almost literally unbelievable, as in, it reads like a troll argument, but I’m familiar enough with CC and Jounichi to accept that it’s not.
I don't enjoy being accused of troll arguments. I think it's pretty clear that I'm taking my analysis seriously, supporting it with citations, and inviting textually supported counter arguments. "Lol that's ridiculous, because." is a far trollier argument to make.
As I challenged before, please find even so much as a single example of "also" being used in the way you're suggesting, in writing , not by paraphrasing imprecise english.
Let's see those numbers. Taking the "it can be commanded to Attack twice in two different ways, and at level 11+, those Attacks each include two Maulattacks" position, I still fail to see how that turns them into the new Prom King of the Ranger subclasses.
Weapon attack +9 to hit: Weapon Die (d8) + Ability Score (+5) + Style (+2) + Hunter's Mark (d6), average 15
Command - move and Attack to your Primal Companion
Maul +3 to hit: 1d8 + 2 + 4, +1d6 from Charge, average 14
Maul +3 to hit: 1d8 + 2 + 4, average 11
Ranger Bonus Action Command - Attack to your Primal Companion
Maul +3 to hit: 1d8 + 2 + 4, average 11
Maul +3 to hit: 1d8 + 2 + 4, average 11
Total average damage is maybe 62, which is pretty good! But, the beast has an atrocious to hit modifier if you've left Wisdom at 16 since creation (like most Rangers), and is only slightly better at +5 if you pumped Wisdom to 20 by 8 instead of Dexterity. Even if the Charge Maul is the first attack in the rotation instead of your own Weapon Attack, and knocks the enemy Prone, and you pumped Wisdom instead of Dex (-2 Ranger damage, -2 Ranger to-hit, -2 Ranger AC)... +5 to hit with advantage is pretty poor in Tiers 3 and 4, and the only way to get it any better is with a [Tooltip Not Found], which doesn't help much.
Compare that against a Fey Wanderer at 11, who's benefited from the same opportunity to use a Bonus Action the round before to put up Hunter's Mark. This guy uses Two-Weapon Fighting, however.
Weapon Attack +9 to hit: Weapon damage (d6) + Ability Score (+5) + Hunter's Mark (d6), average 15
Total average damage is 49... but all three attacks were made with a full +9 to hit modifier, rather than +3! The value of that probably changes based on what the AC of your enemy is, but what would you think the DPR impact of an additional +6 to hit on 30 of your damage vs. 45 of your Beast's damage would be?
The Primal Companion beast is better at dealing damage than the Ranger's Companion beast used to be, that's true, because (1) you can attack alongside it much easier than you used to be able to, and (2) you can command it to Attack twice per round instead of once. But the Beast Master has not become the new top dog even among pure Rangers, at best it's drawn level with them... but the true damage potential of Rangers has always been in multiclassing out to a different class at level 3 after poaching a Bonus Action damage enhancement action and Hunter's Mark, not running pure Ranger. Beast Master's still can't really play that game, because while PB will boost their Beast's damage and AC, it won't improve their low HP and they'll just get swatted out of existence early in many fights. The only way to play a Beast Master is to stay a Beast Master, and Ranger players (less so with Tasha's options, but even still) hate being pure Rangers.
At level 11 with a ranger's 16 wisdom score, the beast's to-hit modifier is +7. That 62 puts you in tier 3 fighter damage territory, which it shouldn't be, and WAY above all of the other ranger subclasses. Also, don't forget about attacks of opportunity.
"Starting at 6th level, you can also use your Warding Flare feature when a creature that you can see within 30 feet of you attacks a creature other than you."
???
Sure, that has the word "also." So you can (A) use your warding flare when you're attacked, with your reaction. AND ALSO (b) use your warding flare when someone else is attacked, with your reaction. You can't "OR" do those, you can AND "ALSO" do those. The reason you can't actually do both is because you (the warding flare user) only have one reaction to spend on those two options.
A Beast Master has a Bonus Action, and also has an Action to use on Attack. They have (A) AND "ALSO" (B), and the action economy resources to use both (A) AND "ALSO" (B). Its your ability, so its your action economy that matters. I could give a crap about the Beast's action economy, if indeed it even has one.
Need a better example than that. A setup where you're told "you can do X as an Action, and also Y as a Bonus Action," which in any way suggests that you have to choose X OR Y and not both.
At level 11 with a ranger's 16 wisdom score, the beast's to-hit modifier is +7. That 62 puts you in tier 3 fighter damage territory, which it shouldn't be, and WAY above all of the other ranger subclasses. Also, don't forget about attacks of opportunity.
At level 11 with a ranger's 16 wisdom score, the beast's to-hit modifier is +7. That 62 puts you in tier 3 fighter damage territory, which it shouldn't be, and WAY above all of the other ranger subclasses. Also, don't forget about attacks of opportunity.
It is not "your spell attack modifier + PB." Just "your spell attack modifier."
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus.
Most spells that require attack rolls involve ranged attacks. Remember that you have disadvantage on a ranged attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and that isn't incapacitated (see chapter 9).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The PHB ranger's companion ability says "It takes its turn on your initiative." Period.
The Summon Aberration spell language you are referring to says "...the creature shares your initiative count, but it takes its turn immediately after yours."
These are actually explicit in my favor as it clearly states the beast "...takes its turn on your..." while the aberration says shares your count but takes its turn after.
Is there any evidence that says that a companion can take more than one action? Or only evidence that you can issue commands in more than one fashion?
What evidence would you accept, if evidence that you can issue more than one command in a round is not sufficient? Do you think that you can issue more than one command but your Primal Companion or Ranger's Companion only can obey one?
Here's something you might find persuasive, from the Ranger's Companion feature:
At 7th level, you can command it to Dash, Disengage, or Help if it hasn't attacked. How can the companion attack?
It attacks by either (1) you ordering it to take the Attack action, or (2) by taking an opportunity attack.
But... why didn't it say "on any of your turns when you haven't commanded your companion to take an action, and it hasn't made an opportunity attack, you can..."? Just because that's a little wordier? That would have made it quite clear that you couldn't issue a Bonus Action command (Dash, Disengage, or Help) if you've already used your Action to command it (to Attack, Dash, Disengage, or Help) or its taken an OA... did they not think there was possible confusion there? Or, is it perhaps more likely that they didn't write that because that wasn't what was intended, and it was always okay to order your companion to Dash with your Action and Help with your Bonus?
I guess we can disagree about the intent, but as I read it, the limitation on the Bonus Action order is "companion doesn't attack" not "companion hasn't acted and doesn't attack." Reading unwritten restrictions isn't my jam.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Any consistent with the rest of the game?!
None of the rules that you have pointed to say that companions actually get more than one action, just a variety of options in order for you to issue a command for what it spends its action on.
You are literally writing an unwritten rule when you are saying that a creature that isn't given more than one action all of the sudden has them without any text telling you that.
The sticking point for us is whether or not the beast can act on every command the ranger issues it. And there's no reason to assume it cannot. There's nothing prohibiting the ranger from issuing multiple commands, and there's nothing saying the beast can't at least attempt to carry them out. And the language for Primal Companion all but stops short of expressly saying they can order it twice.
No matter what anyone here says "also" does not mean "or" or "alternatively". It means "in addition to".
I just don't see ordering the Beast to Dash using your Bonus Action as particularly different in kind from ordering yourself to Dash using your Bonus Action, from an overall turn balance perspective. Are you using your Bonus Action to order the Beast to Dash as its own Bonus Action? No, probably not, but also the Primal Companion doesn't have a turn at all, so why are you assuming that it's constrained to anything PHB Chapter 9 tells you about "your turn"? It "acts" on the player's turn, it has no turn of its own. The Ranger's Companion does have a turn, but can't seem to decide whether that turn is "it's" turn or "your" turn. Insofar as there is a general rule that creatures can only use one Action on their turn, and insofar as the Primal Companion and Ranger's Companion even have "turns" at all, both Companions also provide explicit language which provides that actions which would normally take one Action cannot be taken using the Beast's Action, but can be taken using some or all of the Character's Action or Bonus Action without involving the Beast's Reaction like command effects otherwise ordinarily do elsewhere in the game, so...
Primal Companion and Ranger's Companion are their own thing. They aren't really like anything else. It doesn't really matter how any other features work, or that they operate in specific ways that contradict general expectations. That's features for ya, they all break the rules in their own way to do new things.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Your argument is that they didn't say you couldn't then? Because, again, we know that creatures get one action. You have only pointed to options on how to tell your companion how to use its action, not anything that expressly allows a second action.
That's like saying I can cast 5 second level spells because I have 5 options prepared.
No, my argument is the ranger is allowed to issue multiple commands. Ergo, the beast carries out those commands. If the beast was limited to only one action, the ranger would be limited to one command.
I'm allowed to prepare more than 3 second level spells, so i can cast them?
I'm still on the fence on this argument, but I will say this, in terms of action economy the ranger isn't actually gaining additional actions with the interaction of their beast. I mean, they are gaining options for their actions, but not more actions, like with the old UA revised ranger companion. If you look at the artificer or druid that get a similar kind of bonus action (and ONLY a bonus action) command "pet", perhaps the "iconic" ranger beast gets its punch from really opening up the action economy even more. Like everyone loves how rogues get cunning action and the flexibility it brings. Now these pet focused subclasses (or spells) get other action economy things but in a different way. I'll be honest, from a mathematical balance perspective, it's only the additional attacks that set me off with the beast being unhinged from the "standard" action economy rules. And that is something the PHB beast had baked in the rules to avoid, making 3, 4, or 5 attacks in a round. Perhaps they think using the spell attack modifier balances this out. I've run some rough numbers, and if you constrain the beast to only one action it puts the PHB beast right in step with all of the other ranger subclasses, and the Tasha's beast near or at the top of the heap. If you allow the interpretation we are debating, the Tasha's beast ranger is the highest damage dealer of all of the ranger subclasses. All of them (I'm looking at you gloomstalker players).
Don't be obtuse, Bees. Primal Companion explicitly tells the Ranger that they can issue one type of command with a Bonus Action and "also" issue a different type of command as part of their own Attack action. Also doesn't mean or, they're two different types of command instead of two options of issuing the same command, etc. etc. four pages of analysis that if you haven't read you should go ahead and do so. It's not particularly similar to casting multiple leveled spells with [Tooltip Not Found], because there's no language to be found within any class or the Spellcasting section in general which would invite you to do that, and in fact there is language warning you not to? No language exists in Primal Companion or Ranger's Companion or the Beast Master in general which warns you not to issue two commands with two different types of action, and the features themselves tell you to do that, so.... It's just not "like saying" that at all.
If you can find an example of "you can X as part of your Attack. You can also do Y with a Bonus Action" meaning "you can do X or Y but not both", I'm all ears. That would be a pretty atrocious editing job which would earn a swift errata or bring a lot of heat on the forums, so the fact that no one can seem to recall one is probably a good indication it doesn't exist... but hey, if you want to pour through every "also" to find support for your argument, be my guest.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I don’t think there’s any compelling reason to interpret “also” as meaning “in the same turn.” As WolfOfTheBees said, we know that any creature only gets one action. You can command the beast with your bonus action; you can also command it with one of your attacks. Similarly, you can cast Misty Step with your reaction. You can also cast Fireball with your action! But you can’t do both in the same turn, because there’s a rule that says you can’t, just like there’s a rule that says a creature gets one action per turn.
Taking that single “also” to mean that the companion can take multiple entire actions, despite there being literally no text that says that, is almost literally unbelievable, as in, it reads like a troll argument, but I’m familiar enough with CC and Jounichi to accept that it’s not.
I agree entirely. Something else to point out is that the "also" doesn't refer to what the creature can do, but it literally says "you can also sacrifice..." as in it is 100% providing you an additional option, but none of the words in the remainder of the sentence give a second action to the beast.
Let's see those numbers. Taking the "it can be commanded to Attack twice in two different ways, and at level 11+, those Attacks each include two Maul attacks" position, I still fail to see how that turns them into the new Prom King of the Ranger subclasses.
At level 11 (PB +4), you'd have:
Total average damage is maybe 62, which is pretty good! But, the beast has an atrocious to hit modifier if you've left Wisdom at 16 since creation (like most Rangers), and is only slightly better at +5 if you pumped Wisdom to 20 by 8 instead of Dexterity. Even if the Charge Maul is the first attack in the rotation instead of your own Weapon Attack, and knocks the enemy Prone, and you pumped Wisdom instead of Dex (-2 Ranger damage, -2 Ranger to-hit, -2 Ranger AC)... +5 to hit with advantage is pretty poor in Tiers 3 and 4, and the only way to get it any better is with a (Necklace of Fangs? Claw Amulet? WTF was it called again?) which doesn't help much.
Compare that against a Fey Wanderer at 11, who's benefited from the same opportunity to use a Bonus Action the round before to put up Hunter's Mark. This guy uses Two-Weapon Fighting, however.
Total average damage is 49... but all three attacks were made with a full +9 to hit modifier, rather than +3! The value of that probably changes based on what the AC of your enemy is, but what would you think the DPR impact of an additional +6 to hit on 30 of your damage vs. 45 of your Beast's damage would be?
The Primal Companion beast is better at dealing damage than the Ranger's Companion beast used to be, that's true, because (1) you can attack alongside it much easier than you used to be able to, and (2) you can command it to Attack twice per round instead of once. But the Beast Master has not become the new top dog even among pure Rangers, at best it's drawn level with them... but the true damage potential of Rangers has always been in multiclassing out to a different class at level 3 after poaching a Bonus Action damage enhancement action and Hunter's Mark, not running pure Ranger. Beast Master's still can't really play that game, because while PB will boost their Beast's damage and AC, it won't improve their low HP and they'll just get swatted out of existence early in many fights. The only way to play a Beast Master is to stay a Beast Master, and Ranger players (less so with Tasha's options, but even still) hate being pure Rangers.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
"Starting at 6th level, you can also use your Warding Flare feature when a creature that you can see within 30 feet of you attacks a creature other than you."
I don't enjoy being accused of troll arguments. I think it's pretty clear that I'm taking my analysis seriously, supporting it with citations, and inviting textually supported counter arguments. "Lol that's ridiculous, because." is a far trollier argument to make.
As I challenged before, please find even so much as a single example of "also" being used in the way you're suggesting, in writing , not by paraphrasing imprecise english.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
At level 11 with a ranger's 16 wisdom score, the beast's to-hit modifier is +7. That 62 puts you in tier 3 fighter damage territory, which it shouldn't be, and WAY above all of the other ranger subclasses. Also, don't forget about attacks of opportunity.
???
Sure, that has the word "also." So you can (A) use your warding flare when you're attacked, with your reaction. AND ALSO (b) use your warding flare when someone else is attacked, with your reaction. You can't "OR" do those, you can AND "ALSO" do those. The reason you can't actually do both is because you (the warding flare user) only have one reaction to spend on those two options.
A Beast Master has a Bonus Action, and also has an Action to use on Attack. They have (A) AND "ALSO" (B), and the action economy resources to use both (A) AND "ALSO" (B). Its your ability, so its your action economy that matters. I could give a crap about the Beast's action economy, if indeed it even has one.
Need a better example than that. A setup where you're told "you can do X as an Action, and also Y as a Bonus Action," which in any way suggests that you have to choose X OR Y and not both.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This is untrue.
It is not "your spell attack modifier + PB." Just "your spell attack modifier."
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Attack Rolls
Some spells require the caster to make an attack roll to determine whether the spell effect hits the intended target. Your attack bonus with a spell attack equals your spellcasting ability modifier + your proficiency bonus.
Most spells that require attack rolls involve ranged attacks. Remember that you have disadvantage on a ranged attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature that can see you and that isn't incapacitated (see chapter 9).