This is worded to imply it can take two actions as the exception to the general rule if the player sacrifices an attack and uses their bonus action to command
because of the usage of “also”. Otherwise, it would say so “or”.
Usually when something is an exception to a rule, it references the rule or uses rather specific wording. This is pretty non-specific, so I don't think it counters the general rule.
I'm pretty sure the usage of "also" they are using here is: likewise; in the same manner. "You can do A, you can also do B, but you can't do both." For example.
And it really does matter that this is set straight, otherwise the beastmaster gets 5 attacks at level 11 without spending resources.
1 from beast from extra attack sacrifice or extra attack
1 bonus attack either two weapon fighting or beast action
Where are the other two coming from?
its the same number of attacks
at level 1 it is 2. because you would sacrifice your normally attack and bonus attack to make two attacks with your beast
Because people keep misconstruing "some other action" to mean any and all actions. The DM has final say on what's allowed, but Attack has specific criteria and Exceptional Training specificaly adds three (Dash, Disengage, and Help).
So some people are claiming the ranger and beast can get in five total attacks. First, the ranger uses Attack, sacrificing one of theirs for their companion to attack twice. And then they use their bonus action to order it to Attack a second time. Which is just all kinds of insane.
Even by the most conservative estimate, the intent is still 3-5 attacks. But it still requires either TWF or something like swift quiver to attempt more than three. I've been arguing in favor of letting the beast get off a third attack via the bonus action because...
It's no better than Two-Weapon Fighting.
The ranger can issue multiple commands per turn, so the beast should be able to follow through.
But beyond that? I think people have just been upset with the ranger (the Beast Master, especially) for so long they're not interested in having a serious discussion in how Tasha's changes it. They'd rather point to absurdity and use it as a mark against it.
1 from beast from extra attack sacrifice or extra attack
1 bonus attack either two weapon fighting or beast action
Where are the other two coming from?
its the same number of attacks
at level 1 it is 2. because you would sacrifice your normally attack and bonus attack to make two attacks with your beast
Well I specifically mentioned level 11, so lets look at what beast master gains at that level.
Bestial Fury
Starting at 11th level, when you command your beast companion to take the Attack action, the beast can make two attacks, or it can take the Multiattack action if it has that action.
Wow, this says that every time you tell the companion to attack, it makes 2 attacks.
This means, if you tell it to attack twice (once with your attack and another with bonus action) the beast makes 4 attacks and you still make 1. 4+1=5.
[Edit]Apparently, it confuses people if I don't repeat for a 6th time this thread that I am against a level 11 ranger getting more attacks than a level 11 fighter here. Even though I am about to say exactly that in this very comment.
Even by the most conservative estimate, the intent is still 3-5 attacks. But it still requires either TWF or something like swift quiver to attempt more than three. I've been arguing in favor of letting the beast get off a third attack via the bonus action because...
It's no better than Two-Weapon Fighting.
The ranger can issue multiple commands per turn, so the beast should be able to follow through.
But beyond that? I think people have just been upset with the ranger (the Beast Master, especially) for so long they're not interested in having a serious discussion in how Tasha's changes it. They'd rather point to absurdity and use it as a mark against it.
5 attacks are not better than 3 or 4?
If I gave you 1 coin and gave you two commands 1)place the coin heads up, 2)place the coin tails up. Naturally you would be able to follow both commands with 1 coin the same was the companion can follow 2 commands with 1 action.
I love the Tasha changes to beast master. Previously it only got 2-3 attacks, now it gets 3-4. Not only does it get an extra attack, but they have multiple ways of ordering the attacks so they can fully utilize their action economy. Plus the companion got a boost to survivability. It is all good things.
What it didn't do is change it to break action limits or allow 5 attacks. 3-4 attacks is great because it is in line with TWF and other ranger subclasses. And if you want 5 attacks you will have to use a 5th level slot you gain at level 17 to cast swift quiver, not spend no resources at level 11. That's all I'm saying.
Could you please make up your mind? You've been all over the place in this thread.
I don't know what you mean. My mind is firmly in the "the companion can take 1 action per turn," camp and has never been anywhere else.
If I've changed my opinion on this thread please point them out.
Sorry, I misread. I thought you were saying it could get five by taking the Attack twice. It still can't with the ranger's bonus action, though. I, honestly, have no idea why people keep thinking this is somehow the case.
Yeah, I must have "misread" as well. Dx started post #27 saying one thing ("This means, if you tell it to attack twice (once with your attack and another with bonus action) the beast makes 4 attacks and you still make 1. 4+1=5."), but then changes their mind and ends with something else? (""what it didn't do is change it to break action limits or allow 5 attacks..."). Huh?
From my perspective, it's pretty explicit that you can command the Beast to take the Attack* action or Maul/Shred/Binding Strike action twice per turn: once when you "take a bonus action on your turn to command it," and also once when you "sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action." The beast using two Actions on one turn is of no particular concern, other abilities and features have been known to operate as specific exceptions to the general action economy in the past (see Haste), or to provide actions that are normally Actions as Bonus Actions (see Cunning Action), this is no stranger no matter which you think it more closely resembles.
And while Primal Companion entirely replaces Ranger's Companion, it doesn't purport to replace Bestial Fury, you have that feature. But is a "primal beast" (aka "the beast") a "beast companion" like Ranger's Companion had provided and Bestial Fury requires? Not as written, no, but in common sense English, yes. So I'd chalk this up as:
RAW you can command the Primal Beast to take the Attack action (or Maul/Shred/Binding Strike ) twice per round, but those Attack actions don't provide two attacks (3 attacks per round as a pure Ranger);
RAI you can command the Primal Beast to take the Attack action (or Maul/Shred/Binding Strike ) twice per round, and those Attack actions do provide two attacks (5 attacks per round as a pure Ranger), but the Maul/Shred/Binding Strike remain one attack each (3 attacks per round as a pure Ranger).
* I don't think we need to have the conversation about what the Attack action looks like using Binding Strike as a Natural Weapon, vs taking the Binding Strikeaction itself. But, there is a discussion there.
Limiting the beast’s action to just that, a single action (because it isn’t a rogue or a wizard casting haste on itself) is still a huge boon to the ranger’s action economy. Even the PHB ranger. I want the ranger to get as much as it can get, but the idea that you can command the beast to take two actions is not even hinted at, let alone stated explicitly.
Also, the primal beasts are beasts. They have the beast tag in their stat block.
Yeah, I must have "misread" as well. Dx started post #27 saying one thing ("This means, if you tell it to attack twice (once with your attack and another with bonus action) the beast makes 4 attacks and you still make 1. 4+1=5."), but then changes their mind and ends with something else? (""what it didn't do is change it to break action limits or allow 5 attacks..."). Huh?
The first part of my comment #27, I was responding to a reply directed at my comment asking how I came up with the 5 attacks I was arguing against. I think it is easy to tell by the tone and conclusion of my post that that was only an explanation of how it breaks the action economy and not an argument in favor of it.
From my perspective, it's pretty explicit that you can command the Beast to take the Attack* action or Maul/Shred/Binding Strike action twice per turn: once when you "take a bonus action on your turn to command it," and also once when you "sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action." The beast using two Actions on one turn is of no particular concern, other abilities and features have been known to operate as specific exceptions to the general action economy in the past (see Haste), or to provide actions that are normally Actions as Bonus Actions (see Cunning Action), this is no stranger no matter which you think it more closely resembles.
There is a funny thing about haste, cunning action, and action surge. They all specifically phrased so they are clearly exceptions. I'm pretty sure I already pointed that out somewhere. In this case, the ranger can give 2 commands, but nothing says or implies the beast can take 2 actions. Since there is no feature that breaks the rule, there is no specific beats general, so the general rule must still be followed.
And while Primal Companion entirely replaces Ranger's Companion, it doesn't purport to replace Bestial Fury, you have that feature. But is a "primal beast" (aka "the beast") a "beast companion" like Ranger's Companion had provided and Bestial Fury requires? Not as written, no, but in common sense English, yes. So I'd chalk this up as:
RAW you can command the Primal Beast to take the Attack action (or Maul/Shred/Binding Strike ) twice per round, but those Attack actions don't provide two attacks (3 attacks per round as a pure Ranger);
RAI you can command the Primal Beast to take the Attack action (or Maul/Shred/Binding Strike ) twice per round, and those Attack actions do provide two attacks (5 attacks per round as a pure Ranger), but the Maul/Shred/Binding Strike remain one attack each (3 attacks per round as a pure Ranger).
* I don't think we need to have the conversation about what the Attack action looks like using Binding Strike as a Natural Weapon, vs taking the Binding Strikeaction itself. But, there is a discussion there.
This... Is definitely a small oversight. Technically the primal companion is a beast and is a companion. And every beastmaster feature calls the beast "beast companion" only once and refers to it as "the beast" from then on.
It is definitely RAI that the primal beast companion is a beast companion, otherwise the beast master loses half its subclass features. Either way, this doesn't help with the current discussion.
There is a funny thing about haste, cunning action, and action surge. They all specifically phrased so they are clearly exceptions. I'm pretty sure I already pointed that out somewhere. In this case, the ranger can give 2 commands, but nothing says or implies the beast can take 2 actions. Since there is no feature that breaks the rule, there is no specific beats general, so the general rule must still be followed.
But here's the thing: the primal companion isn't wholly its own creature. It doesn't act independently of the ranger or have its own place in the initiative order. It functions exclusively as an extension of the ranger. The ranger, expressly, can issue two commands. The beast can fulfill those two commands. The use of the word "also" is telling. It means "in addition to", so you read the sentence in question as follows:
"You can additionally sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action."
So you can issue a command, with your bonus action, for it to use the action in its stat block or some (but not just any) other action. And you can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack to let it do the same.
Yeah, I don't think there's any justification for not taking Primal Companion at face value when it says you can order your beast to Attack using your Bonus Action and "also" when you sacrifice an attack. "Or" isn't a word that 5E has a problem using when it's intended, and I don't see any precedent for reading "also" as "or" anywhere else (did I miss a quote to another feature that uses "also" that way?). Just take Primal Companion's "yes" for the answer it is, because its unreasonable to expect an already-wordy feature to go above and beyond repeating itself or shoving in extra words just in order to promise you that it truly means what it says it means.
I do think its funny that you don't want the Primal Companion Beast Master to let his "Primal Beast" make four attacks at Ranger 11, but also are unwilling to accept the only RAW support for your position (Primal Companion never calls the Beast anything other than the "primal beast", "the beast" or in the title the "primal companion," and never the "beast companion"). But if you're willing to agree that RAI the Ranger's 7th level Exceptional Training and 11th level Bestial Fury should apply to the Primal Beast, then I urge you, come over to the light side and release your inhibitions!
But here's the thing: the primal companion isn't wholly its own creature. It doesn't act independently of the ranger or have its own place in the initiative order. It functions exclusively as an extension of the ranger. The ranger, expressly, can issue two commands. The beast can fulfill those two commands. The use of the word "also" is telling. It means "in addition to", so you read the sentence in question as follows:
"You can additionally sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action."
So you can issue a command, with your bonus action, for it to use the action in its stat block or some (but not just any) other action. And you can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack to let it do the same.
Not or.
And.
The beast is very much it's own creature. It has its own HP, it's own stats, and its own action and reaction. What it doesn't have is its own separate turn, the ranger's turn is it's also.
It is a creature, it can take actions, it has a turn (which it shares), and:
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action.
(Emphasis theirs) and
“You” can also mean the character or monster that you control.
That is the rule.
The reason the word "also" was used is because it was a different sentence. No one has ever accused d&d 5e of having consistent and clear wording.
In this case the ranger has the option to give an order with an attack and the option to give an order with a bonus action. And is correct. But the beast has 1 action with which to follow those orders.
The general rule is, “you” (any creature) have a turn in combat where you can both move and use an Action to take any of the normal actions in Chapter 9 (attack etc.), or other special actions on your stat block/character sheet. But, the Primal Beast doesn’t work the way “the rule” generally does:
It doesn’t have its own turn.
It can’t take the general actions in Chapter 9, other than Dodge.
it can’t take its own special actions.
This is all against “the rule” (and many more things besides! It has no challenge rating despite being a monster/npc, lacks its own proficiency bonus, receives a PB as a bonus to AC in a way no monster does, does not add its Con bonus to its hit dice to determine HP, etccccccc.) But, it’s fine, because Primal Beast tells us to break “the rule” in all of these ways! The fact that it also breaks “the rule” by letting the Primal Beast Attack twice is hardly the most mechanically unique thing about it, and there’s no reason to insist that Primal Companion cannot be permitted to do that when it so plainly says it does. It does no violence to the action economy in general, or the assumptions of 5E, there’s just no reason to scrutinize this SO harshly.
It's just one Attack and one Maul/Binding Strike/Shred or "some other action." But other than that, yeah. It doesn't break anything to allow it to act on both the ranger's action and bonus action. The general rules for how creatures act has been thrown entirely out the window by the feature.
No. Your bonus action command can be any action (like Help), but your attack-sub command can only be to Attack/Maul. And it only Dodges on its own when NOT commanded.
Pretty much. You can read "also" as "alternately" but that is certainly not the only way to read it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
They're not synonyms.
Usually when something is an exception to a rule, it references the rule or uses rather specific wording. This is pretty non-specific, so I don't think it counters the general rule.
I'm pretty sure the usage of "also" they are using here is: likewise; in the same manner. "You can do A, you can also do B, but you can't do both." For example.
And it really does matter that this is set straight, otherwise the beastmaster gets 5 attacks at level 11 without spending resources.
how is that 5 attacks?
1 from ranger attack action
1 from beast from extra attack sacrifice or extra attack
1 bonus attack either two weapon fighting or beast action
Where are the other two coming from?
its the same number of attacks
at level 1 it is 2. because you would sacrifice your normally attack and bonus attack to make two attacks with your beast
Because people keep misconstruing "some other action" to mean any and all actions. The DM has final say on what's allowed, but Attack has specific criteria and Exceptional Training specificaly adds three (Dash, Disengage, and Help).
So some people are claiming the ranger and beast can get in five total attacks. First, the ranger uses Attack, sacrificing one of theirs for their companion to attack twice. And then they use their bonus action to order it to Attack a second time. Which is just all kinds of insane.
Even by the most conservative estimate, the intent is still 3-5 attacks. But it still requires either TWF or something like swift quiver to attempt more than three. I've been arguing in favor of letting the beast get off a third attack via the bonus action because...
But beyond that? I think people have just been upset with the ranger (the Beast Master, especially) for so long they're not interested in having a serious discussion in how Tasha's changes it. They'd rather point to absurdity and use it as a mark against it.
Well I specifically mentioned level 11, so lets look at what beast master gains at that level.
Wow, this says that every time you tell the companion to attack, it makes 2 attacks.
This means, if you tell it to attack twice (once with your attack and another with bonus action) the beast makes 4 attacks and you still make 1. 4+1=5.
[Edit]Apparently, it confuses people if I don't repeat for a 6th time this thread that I am against a level 11 ranger getting more attacks than a level 11 fighter here. Even though I am about to say exactly that in this very comment.
I love the Tasha changes to beast master. Previously it only got 2-3 attacks, now it gets 3-4. Not only does it get an extra attack, but they have multiple ways of ordering the attacks so they can fully utilize their action economy. Plus the companion got a boost to survivability. It is all good things.
What it didn't do is change it to break action limits or allow 5 attacks. 3-4 attacks is great because it is in line with TWF and other ranger subclasses. And if you want 5 attacks you will have to use a 5th level slot you gain at level 17 to cast swift quiver, not spend no resources at level 11. That's all I'm saying.
Could you please make up your mind? You've been all over the place in this thread.
Any/every creature gets one action.
The RANGER has multiple ways with their action economy to command the beast to use its action.
I don't know what you mean. My mind is firmly in the "the companion can take 1 action per turn," camp and has never been anywhere else.
If I've changed my opinion on this thread please point them out.
Sorry, I misread. I thought you were saying it could get five by taking the Attack twice. It still can't with the ranger's bonus action, though. I, honestly, have no idea why people keep thinking this is somehow the case.
Yeah, I must have "misread" as well. Dx started post #27 saying one thing ("This means, if you tell it to attack twice (once with your attack and another with bonus action) the beast makes 4 attacks and you still make 1. 4+1=5."), but then changes their mind and ends with something else? (""what it didn't do is change it to break action limits or allow 5 attacks..."). Huh?
From my perspective, it's pretty explicit that you can command the Beast to take the Attack* action or Maul/Shred/Binding Strike action twice per turn: once when you "take a bonus action on your turn to command it," and also once when you "sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action." The beast using two Actions on one turn is of no particular concern, other abilities and features have been known to operate as specific exceptions to the general action economy in the past (see Haste), or to provide actions that are normally Actions as Bonus Actions (see Cunning Action), this is no stranger no matter which you think it more closely resembles.
And while Primal Companion entirely replaces Ranger's Companion, it doesn't purport to replace Bestial Fury, you have that feature. But is a "primal beast" (aka "the beast") a "beast companion" like Ranger's Companion had provided and Bestial Fury requires? Not as written, no, but in common sense English, yes. So I'd chalk this up as:
* I don't think we need to have the conversation about what the Attack action looks like using Binding Strike as a Natural Weapon, vs taking the Binding Strike action itself. But, there is a discussion there.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Limiting the beast’s action to just that, a single action (because it isn’t a rogue or a wizard casting haste on itself) is still a huge boon to the ranger’s action economy. Even the PHB ranger. I want the ranger to get as much as it can get, but the idea that you can command the beast to take two actions is not even hinted at, let alone stated explicitly.
Also, the primal beasts are beasts. They have the beast tag in their stat block.
The first part of my comment #27, I was responding to a reply directed at my comment asking how I came up with the 5 attacks I was arguing against. I think it is easy to tell by the tone and conclusion of my post that that was only an explanation of how it breaks the action economy and not an argument in favor of it.
There is a funny thing about haste, cunning action, and action surge. They all specifically phrased so they are clearly exceptions. I'm pretty sure I already pointed that out somewhere. In this case, the ranger can give 2 commands, but nothing says or implies the beast can take 2 actions. Since there is no feature that breaks the rule, there is no specific beats general, so the general rule must still be followed.
This... Is definitely a small oversight. Technically the primal companion is a beast and is a companion. And every beastmaster feature calls the beast "beast companion" only once and refers to it as "the beast" from then on.
It is definitely RAI that the primal beast companion is a beast companion, otherwise the beast master loses half its subclass features. Either way, this doesn't help with the current discussion.
But here's the thing: the primal companion isn't wholly its own creature. It doesn't act independently of the ranger or have its own place in the initiative order. It functions exclusively as an extension of the ranger. The ranger, expressly, can issue two commands. The beast can fulfill those two commands. The use of the word "also" is telling. It means "in addition to", so you read the sentence in question as follows:
"You can additionally sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack action to command the beast to take the Attack action."
So you can issue a command, with your bonus action, for it to use the action in its stat block or some (but not just any) other action. And you can also sacrifice one of your attacks when you take the Attack to let it do the same.
Not or.
And.
Yeah, I don't think there's any justification for not taking Primal Companion at face value when it says you can order your beast to Attack using your Bonus Action and "also" when you sacrifice an attack. "Or" isn't a word that 5E has a problem using when it's intended, and I don't see any precedent for reading "also" as "or" anywhere else (did I miss a quote to another feature that uses "also" that way?). Just take Primal Companion's "yes" for the answer it is, because its unreasonable to expect an already-wordy feature to go above and beyond repeating itself or shoving in extra words just in order to promise you that it truly means what it says it means.
I do think its funny that you don't want the Primal Companion Beast Master to let his "Primal Beast" make four attacks at Ranger 11, but also are unwilling to accept the only RAW support for your position (Primal Companion never calls the Beast anything other than the "primal beast", "the beast" or in the title the "primal companion," and never the "beast companion"). But if you're willing to agree that RAI the Ranger's 7th level Exceptional Training and 11th level Bestial Fury should apply to the Primal Beast, then I urge you, come over to the light side and release your inhibitions!
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The beast is very much it's own creature. It has its own HP, it's own stats, and its own action and reaction. What it doesn't have is its own separate turn, the ranger's turn is it's also.
It is a creature, it can take actions, it has a turn (which it shares), and:
(Emphasis theirs) and
That is the rule.
The reason the word "also" was used is because it was a different sentence. No one has ever accused d&d 5e of having consistent and clear wording.
In this case the ranger has the option to give an order with an attack and the option to give an order with a bonus action. And is correct. But the beast has 1 action with which to follow those orders.
The general rule is, “you” (any creature) have a turn in combat where you can both move and use an Action to take any of the normal actions in Chapter 9 (attack etc.), or other special actions on your stat block/character sheet. But, the Primal Beast doesn’t work the way “the rule” generally does:
It doesn’t have its own turn.
It can’t take the general actions in Chapter 9, other than Dodge.
it can’t take its own special actions.
This is all against “the rule” (and many more things besides! It has no challenge rating despite being a monster/npc, lacks its own proficiency bonus, receives a PB as a bonus to AC in a way no monster does, does not add its Con bonus to its hit dice to determine HP, etccccccc.) But, it’s fine, because Primal Beast tells us to break “the rule” in all of these ways! The fact that it also breaks “the rule” by letting the Primal Beast Attack twice is hardly the most mechanically unique thing about it, and there’s no reason to insist that Primal Companion cannot be permitted to do that when it so plainly says it does. It does no violence to the action economy in general, or the assumptions of 5E, there’s just no reason to scrutinize this SO harshly.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's just one Attack and one Maul/Binding Strike/Shred or "some other action." But other than that, yeah. It doesn't break anything to allow it to act on both the ranger's action and bonus action. The general rules for how creatures act has been thrown entirely out the window by the feature.
Can the beast auto dodge and use the help action on the same turn?
No. Your bonus action command can be any action (like Help), but your attack-sub command can only be to Attack/Maul. And it only Dodges on its own when NOT commanded.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.