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.
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.
It's a good thing the ranger doesn't actually output that much damage that early then.
Since the Primal Companion works best with a strong wisdom modifier, it's a high-Wisdom build. Let's optimize that with Druidic Warrior for shillelagh. That gives us a +9 to hit for all attacks, and the staff does an average of 9.5 (1d8+5) damage per hit. And let's drop hunter's mark from the equation because it doesn't honestly add that much.
So that's 1 ranger attack and two Maul attacks, with the same +9 to hit, for 10.5 (1d8+6) damage per hit. The grand total for the entire Attack is 29.5 damage. If they use their bonus action to also command a 3rd Maul, it's an average of 39 damage.
So now there is three of us comparing three different damage calculations based off three different interpretations of how the sub class functions mechanically. What a great game!
"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.
You’re still ignoring the central issue: just as you, the Warding Flare user, only have one reaction to spend on the two options, so too does the beast companion only have one action to spend on obeying its ranger’s commands.
No one is arguing that a ranger can’t issue two commands on their turn. They clearly can. But the companion still only has one action, so there’s not any point to issuing two commands. A rogue can disengage twice on their turn, but they don’t gain any benefit in so doing.
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."
Also, I'm not sure what part of the quoted post you think is untrue. You're absolutely right that it's "just 'your spell attack modifier,'" but an 11th-level ranger with a Wisdom of 16 has a spell attack modifier of +7.
Although, I do think rangers should be doing more damage than fighters.
Oh wait... I might see where you're going (this is part of that conversation about how making an Attack with a Maul is different from taking Maul as an action). Hmm, yes, I forgot that I wanted to skip this conversation because it's a pain in the ass, and it led to me forgetting to do the recalculation that's necessary for turning a Monster action -> Natural Weapon.
First of all, yes, monsters have Natural Weapons, not just special actions. The MM Introduction tells us as much, that monster attacks most commonly represent "spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the “weapon” might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike." For a Beast, I think we can all agree that generally those actions represent "natural weapons," when their name and nature makes that sound sensible.
But, just like hitting someone with a Booming Blade is an attack with a weapon but doesn't accurately describe the weapon itself, any given monster action might not quite describe its core Natural Weapon correctly? Like... a Knight uses a "Greatsword" action which describes dealing 2d6+3 damage. Would you expect that a "Greatsword" is a manufactured weapon which has a 2d6+3 damage die, or 2d6? Yeah, exactly. Monsters and NPCs may have bonuses in their special actions which go beyond the weapon damage dice + ability score modifier that all melee attacks do by default. You don't have to look far to find them, see the Wolf which does 2d4+2 with its bite instead of the +1 its Strength would suggest. "Oh, but that means its a Finesse Bite, its 2d4+Dex!" you say. Nah, RAW it really isn't... it just "is what it is," +2 for "reasons." Nothing in the Wolf block provides it has Finesse, and when you become a Wolf and take the Attack action with a Bite Natural Weapon, you're going to have to deal with the fact that nothing RAW tells you you can use Dex for that attack.
Maybe you're with me that we can't assume weapon properties, and that melee Natural Weapons follow the PHB to use Strength for attacks unless explicitly provided otherwise. If so, it's probably pretty uncontroversial that a WolfBite action (which does 2d4+2 damage) would translate to a Bite Natural Weapon that does 2d4 weapon dice, + Strength. But like... okay, a BrontosaurusStomp doesn't just do damage, it also inflicts Prone, and is usable once per turn. Does a Stomp Natural Weapon inflict Prone the same way if it's being used with an Attack action or as a Bonus Action or Reaction, or was that a special quality of the action instead of the weapon? Arguable, because again these Natural Weapons don't have a Special property or anything, and different Beasts (or other monsters with Natural Weapons) might make people feel different ways: does a Mind Flayer using Tentacles as a Natural Weapon instead of as an Actionstill grapple on a hit? Is Extract Brain even a Natural Weapon at all?
In light of that, I did indeed do my own math wrong, because the damage dice of a Maul as a Natural Weapon is not "1d8+2+PB", it is "1d8," and like all melee attacks by default, adds the Beast's Strength modifier as a bonus to that roll. A Maul action may do1d8+2+PB, with a [casting modifier] to hit bonus (+3 at Wisdom 16)(thank you, why did I read "spell attack modifier" as "spellcasting ability score bonus"???!?!?), but an Attack with a Maul Natural Weapon does 1d8+Strength (2) damage, with a Beast's Proficiency Bonus (which is based off its CR, which it doesn't possess, so +0)+Strength modifier (+2).
This is a way that Ranger's Companions were better,(for individual attacks), because a Wolf that is attacking with a 2d4+Strength(1) Bite Natural Weapon with the Attack command would still benefit from the Ranger's Companion language which provided "Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s ... attack rolls, and damage rolls." So it would be a Prof Bonus (+2) + Strength (+1) + Ranger PB (+4) to hit, +7, and a Natural Weapon (2d4) + Strength (+1) + Ranger PB (+4) damage roll, 2d4+5. It had to be that way, because the Ranger had no way to command the Wolf to take the Bite action rather than Attack with Bite as a Natural Weapon. Because the Primal Companion has special actions which incorporate PB themselves, it has no general language that also adds Ranger PB to all attacks... so once you decide not to take that action, you're really boned the Beast by taking the Ranger PB out of its Natural Weapon's equation.
As complicated as all of this sounds (and yes, its awful, and counterintuitive, and makes one exclaim "if that's true, monsters don't work with player actions at all!", which is true, and why Beast Master and Druid were poorly conceived to have just copypasta'd Beasts out of the MM instead of being set up like Primal Companion from day 1....), I think if you took a step back and really think hard about what it looks like when a Druid takes the Attack action vs. using a Beast's Multiattack... you might find you agree with me? Primal Companion may not really play all that nicely with the Beastmaster's Level 11 Bestial Fury at all (and again, RAW, I don't think it even applies because a "primal beast" is not a "beast companion"), because using the Attack action with Natural Weapons instead of the Maulaction takes away more advantages than a second attack would provide.
Also, I'm not sure what part of the quoted post you think is untrue. You're absolutely right that it's "just 'your spell attack modifier,'" but an 11th-level ranger with a Wisdom of 16 has a spell attack modifier of +7.
Although, I do think rangers should be doing more damage than fighters.
I'm a doof, thank you. I was reading that as "spellcasting ability score modifier", even though its totally different words. Huh, maybe I should get a brain scan >_<
You’re still ignoring the central issue: just as you, the Warding Flare user, only have one reaction to spend on the two options, so too does the beast companion only have one action to spend on obeying its ranger’s commands.
No one is arguing that a ranger can’t issue two commands on their turn. They clearly can. But the companion still only has one action, so there’s not any point to issuing two commands. A rogue can disengage twice on their turn, but they don’t gain any benefit in so doing.
Lemme take a whole different approach here.
Battle Master has a maneuver, Commander's Strike:
When you take the Attack action on your turn, you can forgo one of your attacks and use a bonus action to direct one of your companions to strike. When you do so, choose a friendly creature who can see or hear you and expend one superiority die. That creature can immediately use its reaction to make one weapon attack, adding the superiority die to the attack’s damage roll.
Let's imagine some edits. Say that blue sections read more similar to Primal Companion, something along the lines of "you can issue this command by forgoing an attack. Also you can issue this command with a bonus action," yada yada. You'd agree that you the Battle Master could use it twice on a turn, right? Even to direct the same companion to strike! But I would agree, that creature is directed to "use its reaction" to make the attack, so even if you've issued to valid commands, it can only follow one. Great.
But let's say the blue part had changed that way, but "use its reaction" hadn't been printed, nothing specified if that weapon attack was being made with a reaction, no action, or whathaveyou, its just "one weapon attack." Would you let the Battle Master command someone twice (once by forgoing an attack, once as a bonus action) to make two attacks? I would.
But maybe you're comfortable with "make one weapon attack" being a thing you can do with no action economy, but put your foot down that "take the Attack action" is different, it has to be an Action!!! But it doesn't, right? Because we already know that you can use Ready to take the Attack using a reaction. We don't know that because Readyexplicitly says "you can Attack as a Reaction", but rather because Ready describes using your action, to select an action you'll take later using a reaction, and nothing tells you that Attack can't be that action.
So Attack is usually an Action. Sometimes, it can be Reaction. Why can't it be... no action? Is there a rule that says that actions are never free? No, but maybe there doesn't need to be, maybe that's self evident... there are examples (see Drunken Master's Drunken Technique) of providing you the benefit of an action for free without having taken it, but I'm not sure I can think of an example of a feature that lets you take an action for free... well, actually there's one right on the Monk page, Mastery of Death at Long Death 11. "When you are reduced to 0 hit points, you can expend 1 ki point (no action required) to have 1 hit point instead." Is Mastery of Death an "action" (in the "thing you do" sense)? Sure it is. It's an action that doesn't take an Action, or any other kind of Bonus Action or Reaction.
So if Mastery of Death can be free, why can't Attack, if you're faced with an ability that tells you (the Beast) to take it after a different creature (the Ranger) has spent an action, but doesn't provide that there's any cost to you for doing so?
So everyone agrees that 60 average damage at level 11 is too high? And now in order to defend the "but 2 commands means 2 actions," argument they are saying that ordering the beast to take the attack action prevents it from using maul (I only skimmed the last page)? That is wrong, but also irrelevant.
The problem is still that a creature can't take 2 actions on its turn without a feature that says so. Yes the beast is a creature, and yes it has a turn. How do I know? Because it can take actions (which you can only do on your own turn) including reactions which you only get back on your turn.
Any other argument is irrelevant unless it is showing that the beast is granted multiple actions on its turn. The ranger being able to give multiple commands on its turn is tangentially relevant, and not evidence of an exception.
So everyone agrees that 60 average damage at level 11 is too high? And now in order to defend the "but 2 commands means 2 actions," argument they are saying that ordering the beast to take the attack action prevents it from using maul (I only skimmed the last page)? That is wrong, but also irrelevant.
The problem is still that a creature can't take 2 actions on its turn without a feature that says so. Yes the beast is a creature, and yes it has a turn. How do I know? Because it can take actions (which you can only do on your own turn) including reactions which you only get back on your turn.
Any other argument is irrelevant unless it is showing that the beast is granted multiple actions on its turn. The ranger being able to give multiple commands on its turn is tangentially relevant, and not evidence of an exception.
It's irrelevant to keep insisting the beast needs to be granted additional actions when it doesn't. It simply takes the actions it's ordered to take. This has always been the case; even with the PHB Beast Master. The ranger issues however many commands they choose, and the beast then carries them out. It's the feature doing what it says it does.
Why is it impossible for the feature to do exactly what it says: allow you to issue some commands as an action and some as a bonus action without inventing statements that aren't in the text or breaking other rules of the game?
As soon as you imply a companion has more than one action, you are implying rules and not reading them. That belongs somewhere other than the rules & mechanics forum.
It's irrelevant to keep insisting the beast needs to be granted additional actions when it doesn't. It simply takes the actions it's ordered to take. This has always been the case; even with the PHB Beast Master. The ranger issues however many commands they choose, and the beast then carries them out. It's the feature doing what it says it does.
The rule is creatures only get 1 action on their turn.
Insisting that rules be followed is not irrelevant. This has always been the case; even with the PHB Beast Master (though no one ever asked about it afaik). The ranger has multiple ways they can issue command, but the beast has 1 action it can use to carry them out. It's the feature doing what it says it does and not more.
It's irrelevant to keep insisting the beast needs to be granted additional actions when it doesn't. It simply takes the actions it's ordered to take. This has always been the case; even with the PHB Beast Master. The ranger issues however many commands they choose, and the beast then carries them out. It's the feature doing what it says it does.
The rule is creatures only get 1 action on their turn.
Insisting that rules be followed is not irrelevant. This has always been the case; even with the PHB Beast Master (though no one ever asked about it afaik). The ranger has multiple ways they can issue command, but the beast has 1 action it can use to carry them out. It's the feature doing what it says it does and not more.
That general rule has always been overwritten by the commands the beast master can issue. The beast master, even the PHB one, has always been capable of issuing multiple commands from 7th-level onward. The variant in Tasha's can do it from 3rd-level. Those features are the new standard.
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.
If I wanted to read this in messed up ways, here are some examples:
it says the only action it takes is the Dodge action unless the Ranger uses a bonus action to command it to take another action. I read that as the beast always takes the Dodge action, always, and gets to take another action if I use my bonus action to come out to do so. Hear the “unless” does it mean one or the other it means it always does the one unless I use a bonus action and then it does both.
The ability says it can take an action and it’s stat block or some other action. The some other action part doesn’t specify that it has to be one of the “normal“ actions from the players handbook, so it can be any action I want it to be! I can command my beast to cast a spell, pick a lock, or build a fort.
It’s funny, but the strongest argument made so far that would convince me about this beast not using the normal action economy argument is that from the PHB:
“Beginning at 7th level, on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn’t attack, you can use a bonus action to command the beast to take the Dash, Disengage, or Helpaction on its turn.”
Attack is the only command that you can give to your beast as part of some other action and not the entire action, and also the only listed command that you cannot issue as a bonus action. This feature allows you to use your bonus action to issue some commands, thereby providing the option of using your action or bonus action to provide those commands, while specifically excluding the one command that you can issue via action or foregoing an attack. That is all.
Attack is the only command that you can give to your beast as part of some other action and not the entire action, and also the only listed command that you cannot issue as a bonus action. This feature allows you to use your bonus action to issue some commands, thereby providing the option of using your action or bonus action to provide those commands, while specifically excluding the one command that you can issue via action or foregoing an attack. That is all.
Yes, but it's also expressly stated precedent that shows the beast companion was capable of performing two actions in one turn. The only limitation on Exceptional Training is Attack. They can still perform Dash, Disengage, or Help in any combination.
The very idea that the beast companion cannot perform multiple actions in a given turn, that it is hard-capped at a single action, is utterly false.
Attack is the only command that you can give to your beast as part of some other action and not the entire action, and also the only listed command that you cannot issue as a bonus action. This feature allows you to use your bonus action to issue some commands, thereby providing the option of using your action or bonus action to provide those commands, while specifically excluding the one command that you can issue via action or foregoing an attack. That is all.
Yes, but it's also expressly stated precedent that shows the beast companion was capable of performing two actions in one turn. The only limitation on Exceptional Training is Attack. They can still perform Dash, Disengage, or Help in any combination.
The very idea that the beast companion cannot perform multiple actions in a given turn, that it is hard-capped at a single action, is utterly false.
Sure. If some feature told you that a companion could take a second action, then it could. But none does. They only imply that you can issue multiple commands (or provide you options to issue commands in different ways).
Attack is the only command that you can give to your beast as part of some other action and not the entire action, and also the only listed command that you cannot issue as a bonus action. This feature allows you to use your bonus action to issue some commands, thereby providing the option of using your action or bonus action to provide those commands, while specifically excluding the one command that you can issue via action or foregoing an attack. That is all.
Yes, but it's also expressly stated precedent that shows the beast companion was capable of performing two actions in one turn. The only limitation on Exceptional Training is Attack. They can still perform Dash, Disengage, or Help in any combination.
The very idea that the beast companion cannot perform multiple actions in a given turn, that it is hard-capped at a single action, is utterly false.
Sure. If some feature told you that a companion could take a second action, then it could. But none does. They only imply that you can issue multiple commands (or provide you options to issue commands in different ways).
Attack is the only command that you can give to your beast as part of some other action and not the entire action, and also the only listed command that you cannot issue as a bonus action. This feature allows you to use your bonus action to issue some commands, thereby providing the option of using your action or bonus action to provide those commands, while specifically excluding the one command that you can issue via action or foregoing an attack. That is all.
Yes, but it's also expressly stated precedent that shows the beast companion was capable of performing two actions in one turn. The only limitation on Exceptional Training is Attack. They can still perform Dash, Disengage, or Help in any combination.
The very idea that the beast companion cannot perform multiple actions in a given turn, that it is hard-capped at a single action, is utterly false.
Sure. If some feature told you that a companion could take a second action, then it could. But none does. They only imply that you can issue multiple commands (or provide you options to issue commands in different ways).
Exceptional Training does precisely that.
How are you all this obtuse?
It says that a companion can use two actions on its turn? I did miss that. I could see why you think I'm being obtuse, if I've missed the obvious statement that changes the default rule.
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.
It's a good thing the ranger doesn't actually output that much damage that early then.
Since the Primal Companion works best with a strong wisdom modifier, it's a high-Wisdom build. Let's optimize that with Druidic Warrior for shillelagh. That gives us a +9 to hit for all attacks, and the staff does an average of 9.5 (1d8+5) damage per hit. And let's drop hunter's mark from the equation because it doesn't honestly add that much.
So that's 1 ranger attack and two Maul attacks, with the same +9 to hit, for 10.5 (1d8+6) damage per hit. The grand total for the entire Attack is 29.5 damage. If they use their bonus action to also command a 3rd Maul, it's an average of 39 damage.
So on par and not too shabby.
So now there is three of us comparing three different damage calculations based off three different interpretations of how the sub class functions mechanically. What a great game!
You’re still ignoring the central issue: just as you, the Warding Flare user, only have one reaction to spend on the two options, so too does the beast companion only have one action to spend on obeying its ranger’s commands.
No one is arguing that a ranger can’t issue two commands on their turn. They clearly can. But the companion still only has one action, so there’s not any point to issuing two commands. A rogue can disengage twice on their turn, but they don’t gain any benefit in so doing.
Also, I'm not sure what part of the quoted post you think is untrue. You're absolutely right that it's "just 'your spell attack modifier,'" but an 11th-level ranger with a Wisdom of 16 has a spell attack modifier of +7.
Although, I do think rangers should be doing more damage than fighters.
??? What ??
Oh wait... I might see where you're going (this is part of that conversation about how making an Attack with a Maul is different from taking Maul as an action). Hmm, yes, I forgot that I wanted to skip this conversation because it's a pain in the ass, and it led to me forgetting to do the recalculation that's necessary for turning a Monster action -> Natural Weapon.
First of all, yes, monsters have Natural Weapons, not just special actions. The MM Introduction tells us as much, that monster attacks most commonly represent "spell attacks or weapon attacks, where the “weapon” might be a manufactured item or a natural weapon, such as a claw or tail spike." For a Beast, I think we can all agree that generally those actions represent "natural weapons," when their name and nature makes that sound sensible.
But, just like hitting someone with a Booming Blade is an attack with a weapon but doesn't accurately describe the weapon itself, any given monster action might not quite describe its core Natural Weapon correctly? Like... a Knight uses a "Greatsword" action which describes dealing 2d6+3 damage. Would you expect that a "Greatsword" is a manufactured weapon which has a 2d6+3 damage die, or 2d6? Yeah, exactly. Monsters and NPCs may have bonuses in their special actions which go beyond the weapon damage dice + ability score modifier that all melee attacks do by default. You don't have to look far to find them, see the Wolf which does 2d4+2 with its bite instead of the +1 its Strength would suggest. "Oh, but that means its a Finesse Bite, its 2d4+Dex!" you say. Nah, RAW it really isn't... it just "is what it is," +2 for "reasons." Nothing in the Wolf block provides it has Finesse, and when you become a Wolf and take the Attack action with a Bite Natural Weapon, you're going to have to deal with the fact that nothing RAW tells you you can use Dex for that attack.
Maybe you're with me that we can't assume weapon properties, and that melee Natural Weapons follow the PHB to use Strength for attacks unless explicitly provided otherwise. If so, it's probably pretty uncontroversial that a Wolf Bite action (which does 2d4+2 damage) would translate to a Bite Natural Weapon that does 2d4 weapon dice, + Strength. But like... okay, a Brontosaurus Stomp doesn't just do damage, it also inflicts Prone, and is usable once per turn. Does a Stomp Natural Weapon inflict Prone the same way if it's being used with an Attack action or as a Bonus Action or Reaction, or was that a special quality of the action instead of the weapon? Arguable, because again these Natural Weapons don't have a Special property or anything, and different Beasts (or other monsters with Natural Weapons) might make people feel different ways: does a Mind Flayer using Tentacles as a Natural Weapon instead of as an Action still grapple on a hit? Is Extract Brain even a Natural Weapon at all?
In light of that, I did indeed do my own math wrong, because the damage dice of a Maul as a Natural Weapon is not "1d8+2+PB", it is "1d8," and like all melee attacks by default, adds the Beast's Strength modifier as a bonus to that roll. A Maul action may do1d8+2+PB, with a
[casting modifier] to hit bonus (+3 at Wisdom 16)(thank you, why did I read "spell attack modifier" as "spellcasting ability score bonus"???!?!?), but an Attack with a Maul Natural Weapon does 1d8+Strength (2) damage, with a Beast's Proficiency Bonus (which is based off its CR, which it doesn't possess, so +0)+Strength modifier (+2).This is a way that Ranger's Companions were better,(for individual attacks), because a Wolf that is attacking with a 2d4+Strength(1) Bite Natural Weapon with the Attack command would still benefit from the Ranger's Companion language which provided "Add your proficiency bonus to the beast’s ... attack rolls, and damage rolls." So it would be a Prof Bonus (+2) + Strength (+1) + Ranger PB (+4) to hit, +7, and a Natural Weapon (2d4) + Strength (+1) + Ranger PB (+4) damage roll, 2d4+5. It had to be that way, because the Ranger had no way to command the Wolf to take the Bite action rather than Attack with Bite as a Natural Weapon. Because the Primal Companion has special actions which incorporate PB themselves, it has no general language that also adds Ranger PB to all attacks... so once you decide not to take that action, you're really boned the Beast by taking the Ranger PB out of its Natural Weapon's equation.
As complicated as all of this sounds (and yes, its awful, and counterintuitive, and makes one exclaim "if that's true, monsters don't work with player actions at all!", which is true, and why Beast Master and Druid were poorly conceived to have just copypasta'd Beasts out of the MM instead of being set up like Primal Companion from day 1....), I think if you took a step back and really think hard about what it looks like when a Druid takes the Attack action vs. using a Beast's Multiattack... you might find you agree with me? Primal Companion may not really play all that nicely with the Beastmaster's Level 11 Bestial Fury at all (and again, RAW, I don't think it even applies because a "primal beast" is not a "beast companion"), because using the Attack action with Natural Weapons instead of the Maul action takes away more advantages than a second attack would provide.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm a doof, thank you. I was reading that as "spellcasting ability score modifier", even though its totally different words. Huh, maybe I should get a brain scan >_<
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Lemme take a whole different approach here.
Battle Master has a maneuver, Commander's Strike:
Let's imagine some edits. Say that blue sections read more similar to Primal Companion, something along the lines of "you can issue this command by forgoing an attack. Also you can issue this command with a bonus action," yada yada. You'd agree that you the Battle Master could use it twice on a turn, right? Even to direct the same companion to strike! But I would agree, that creature is directed to "use its reaction" to make the attack, so even if you've issued to valid commands, it can only follow one. Great.
But let's say the blue part had changed that way, but "use its reaction" hadn't been printed, nothing specified if that weapon attack was being made with a reaction, no action, or whathaveyou, its just "one weapon attack." Would you let the Battle Master command someone twice (once by forgoing an attack, once as a bonus action) to make two attacks? I would.
But maybe you're comfortable with "make one weapon attack" being a thing you can do with no action economy, but put your foot down that "take the Attack action" is different, it has to be an Action!!! But it doesn't, right? Because we already know that you can use Ready to take the Attack using a reaction. We don't know that because Ready explicitly says "you can Attack as a Reaction", but rather because Ready describes using your action, to select an action you'll take later using a reaction, and nothing tells you that Attack can't be that action.
So Attack is usually an Action. Sometimes, it can be Reaction. Why can't it be... no action? Is there a rule that says that actions are never free? No, but maybe there doesn't need to be, maybe that's self evident... there are examples (see Drunken Master's Drunken Technique) of providing you the benefit of an action for free without having taken it, but I'm not sure I can think of an example of a feature that lets you take an action for free... well, actually there's one right on the Monk page, Mastery of Death at Long Death 11. "When you are reduced to 0 hit points, you can expend 1 ki point (no action required) to have 1 hit point instead." Is Mastery of Death an "action" (in the "thing you do" sense)? Sure it is. It's an action that doesn't take an Action, or any other kind of Bonus Action or Reaction.
So if Mastery of Death can be free, why can't Attack, if you're faced with an ability that tells you (the Beast) to take it after a different creature (the Ranger) has spent an action, but doesn't provide that there's any cost to you for doing so?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The rules mean what they say, no more, no less.
Specific rules beat general rules but only in the way that the specific rule explicitly says. Otherwise the general rule still applies.
Took a day off. I see we have new voices in the maddening darkness.
So everyone agrees that 60 average damage at level 11 is too high? And now in order to defend the "but 2 commands means 2 actions," argument they are saying that ordering the beast to take the attack action prevents it from using maul (I only skimmed the last page)? That is wrong, but also irrelevant.
The problem is still that a creature can't take 2 actions on its turn without a feature that says so. Yes the beast is a creature, and yes it has a turn. How do I know? Because it can take actions (which you can only do on your own turn) including reactions which you only get back on your turn.
Any other argument is irrelevant unless it is showing that the beast is granted multiple actions on its turn. The ranger being able to give multiple commands on its turn is tangentially relevant, and not evidence of an exception.
It's irrelevant to keep insisting the beast needs to be granted additional actions when it doesn't. It simply takes the actions it's ordered to take. This has always been the case; even with the PHB Beast Master. The ranger issues however many commands they choose, and the beast then carries them out. It's the feature doing what it says it does.
Why is it impossible for the feature to do exactly what it says: allow you to issue some commands as an action and some as a bonus action without inventing statements that aren't in the text or breaking other rules of the game?
As soon as you imply a companion has more than one action, you are implying rules and not reading them. That belongs somewhere other than the rules & mechanics forum.
The rule is creatures only get 1 action on their turn.
Insisting that rules be followed is not irrelevant. This has always been the case; even with the PHB Beast Master (though no one ever asked about it afaik). The ranger has multiple ways they can issue command, but the beast has 1 action it can use to carry them out. It's the feature doing what it says it does and not more.
That general rule has always been overwritten by the commands the beast master can issue. The beast master, even the PHB one, has always been capable of issuing multiple commands from 7th-level onward. The variant in Tasha's can do it from 3rd-level. Those features are the new standard.
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.
If I wanted to read this in messed up ways, here are some examples:
it says the only action it takes is the Dodge action unless the Ranger uses a bonus action to command it to take another action. I read that as the beast always takes the Dodge action, always, and gets to take another action if I use my bonus action to come out to do so. Hear the “unless” does it mean one or the other it means it always does the one unless I use a bonus action and then it does both.
The ability says it can take an action and it’s stat block or some other action. The some other action part doesn’t specify that it has to be one of the “normal“ actions from the players handbook, so it can be any action I want it to be! I can command my beast to cast a spell, pick a lock, or build a fort.
It’s funny, but the strongest argument made so far that would convince me about this beast not using the normal action economy argument is that from the PHB:
“Beginning at 7th level, on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn’t attack, you can use a bonus action to command the beast to take the Dash, Disengage, or Helpaction on its turn.”
Why even have the first part of that sentence?
Attack is the only command that you can give to your beast as part of some other action and not the entire action, and also the only listed command that you cannot issue as a bonus action. This feature allows you to use your bonus action to issue some commands, thereby providing the option of using your action or bonus action to provide those commands, while specifically excluding the one command that you can issue via action or foregoing an attack. That is all.
Yes, but it's also expressly stated precedent that shows the beast companion was capable of performing two actions in one turn. The only limitation on Exceptional Training is Attack. They can still perform Dash, Disengage, or Help in any combination.
The very idea that the beast companion cannot perform multiple actions in a given turn, that it is hard-capped at a single action, is utterly false.
Sure. If some feature told you that a companion could take a second action, then it could. But none does. They only imply that you can issue multiple commands (or provide you options to issue commands in different ways).
Exceptional Training does precisely that.
How are you all this obtuse?
It says that a companion can use two actions on its turn? I did miss that. I could see why you think I'm being obtuse, if I've missed the obvious statement that changes the default rule.