I want this interpretation to work for the beast master, I really do. The "...on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn’t attack..." implies that this is what it does (giving the beast the ability to take more than one action) but it does not state that precisely.
Both of these abilities, all versions of the PHB and the Tasha's, are written in such a confusing, convoluted, and clunky manner that I'm not sure that it even matters anymore.
The general rules permit all creatures one and only one action per turn. There are exceptions like Haste and Action Surge that allow more, but those exceptions are clearly stated as doing that.
Reading a rule as implying that it allows the creature to take more than one action per turn is not proof. If it only implies it, it doesn’t say it. And if it doesn’t say it, it doesn’t mean it.
I’m in the it doesn’t matter any more camp. If every answer has to be simple and succinct for you people to acknowledge and engage it, what’s the point. You can order two actions, because it says you can, and doesn’t say you can’t, and doesn’t say it requires the beasts Action each time as well as your own Bonus or Action. But RAW, a primal companion isn’t a beast companion and doesn’t benefit from Bestial Fury, so it only can attack once on each Attack action anyway. But if you do permit it to benefit instead, an Attack action using two Mauls won’t add Ranger PB, but a single Maul action does, so there’s not much potential for damage to balloon. Everything is fine.
But none of you enjoy reading other people’s perspectives and seriously considering them, just trading dismissive barbs and repeating yourselves, so what’s the point of links to citations or arguing further. I’m out.
I’m in the it doesn’t matter any more camp. If every answer has to be simple and succinct for you people to acknowledge and engage it, what’s the point. You can order two actions, because it says you can, and doesn’t say you can’t, and doesn’t say it requires the beasts Action each time as well as your own Bonus or Action. But RAW, a primal companion isn’t a beast companion and doesn’t benefit from Bestial Fury, so it only can attack once on each Attack action anyway. But if you do permit it to benefit instead, an Attack action using two Mauls won’t add Ranger PB, but a single Maul action does, so there’s not much potential for damage to balloon. Everything is fine.
But none of you enjoy reading other people’s perspectives and seriously considering them, just trading dismissive barbs and repeating yourselves, so what’s the point of links to citations or arguing further. I’m out.
I am not interested in perspectives. I'm interested in what the rules say and what they mean. I'm not interested in your thoughts on what the rules imply. Implying isn't saying.
I’m in the it doesn’t matter any more camp. If every answer has to be simple and succinct for you people to acknowledge and engage it, what’s the point. You can order two actions, because it says you can, and doesn’t say you can’t, and doesn’t say it requires the beasts Action each time as well as your own Bonus or Action. But RAW, a primal companion isn’t a beast companion and doesn’t benefit from Bestial Fury, so it only can attack once on each Attack action anyway. But if you do permit it to benefit instead, an Attack action using two Mauls won’t add Ranger PB, but a single Maul action does, so there’s not much potential for damage to balloon. Everything is fine.
But none of you enjoy reading other people’s perspectives and seriously considering them, just trading dismissive barbs and repeating yourselves, so what’s the point of links to citations or arguing further. I’m out.
Wait!!!
Do people think that the level 7, 11, and 15 PHB abilities DON'T work with the Tasha's level 3 option?! Why?! Because it talks about the "beast companion" specifically?
The Tasha's ranger section says "If you take a feature that replaces another feature, you gain no benefit from the replaced one and don't qualify for anything in the game that requires it."
So since the PHB ability calls it the "beast companion", the Tasha's option calls it the "primal companion", and the PHB level 7, 11, and 15 abilities specifically refer to the "beast companion", they don't mesh?! And the beast master ranger from Tasha's only gets a level 3 ability?!?!
"Primal beast" and "beast" (the only things that Primal Companion ever calls it), never a "companion" and never a "beast companion." Ranger's Companiondoes use the terms "beast companion," "companion," and "beast." So, strictly RAW, you've swapped out the feature that gave you a "beast companion" and now have a "primal beast" instead. Features which enhance a "beast companion" are still yours, but you don't have a "beast companion" to benefit.
But also, half of the 7 feature and half of the 11 feature don't even make sense to add to the Primal Companion primal beast in the first place.
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.
You can already do that with a Primal Companion primal beast at 3. Arguably, if this did apply to your primal beast, it would downgrade the ability that you already had, by preventing you from ordering Dash, Disengage, or Help any longer after the beast has already attacked from an OA or as part of an attack-sacrificing order, which you've already been able to do in the past for 4 levels. You don't want this to apply to your primal beast... so why would you be able to cherry pick the second half of the feature, which makes its attack magic?
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.
No primal beast has Multiattack. Primal beasts can take the Attack, but due to the way that turning monster attacks -> Natural Weapons functions, you don't really ever want to. Doesn't seem like a RAI fit for Primal Companion, and again, uses the wrong "beast companion" term.
Right. So if you go with the beast master subclass, take the primal companion option at level 3, none of those other abilities for that subclass work for you by RAW because Tasha's says "If you take a feature that replaces another feature, you gain no benefit from the replaced one and don't qualify for anything in the game that requires it." and all three of the other subclass abilities specifically call for the beast companion, which is the ability you replaced.
When the PHB refers to a "beast companion", it is always in the lower case. The feature that grants such a companion is called Ranger's Companion. Primal Companion, found in Tasha's, only ever uses the term "beast" in lower case. But, make no mistake, the summoned creature is still a companion. It's right there in the name of the feature.
You cannot forget the emphasis on natural language used throughout all the 5E books. The 7th and 11th-level features are clearly still intended to work with the Primal Companion.
Yes. Which ordinarily would feel unfair, if Primal Companion hadn't been written in a way that scales itself without needing later features to improve its functions. It already includes half of the level 7 benefit right at 3. The effect of the level 11 benefit on a Ranger's Companion Beastmaster was primarily to make ordering the beast to Attack give you three total attacks in a round (Order the beast to attack (2 attacks), make 1 attack yourself since you have Extra Attack)... with Primal Companion Beastmaster, you already have that right from level 5 in an even more flexible way (take your own Attack action (1 attack), sacrifice an attack for the primal beast to Maul, bonus action either take your own Two-Weapon Fighting attack or order the primal beast to Maul again).
The level 7 magic weapons feature, and the level 15 sharing spells feature, those are a loss for sure. But in exchange, you've been a more effective combatant right from level 3. Should they have released a complete "Primal Beastmaster" subclass in Tasha's, that actually had 7, 11, and 15 features? Yes absolutely. But they didn't, because 5E is pathologically incapable of making correct moves for Beastmaster at this point.
*publishing the Primal Beasts as "instead of a beast that is no larger than Medium and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower, a Beastmaster may summon one of the options below as its beast companion" would have worked much better as well, probably.
When the PHB refers to a "beast companion", it is always in the lower case. The feature that grants such a companion is called Ranger's Companion. Primal Companion, found in Tasha's, only ever uses the term "beast" in lower case. But, make no mistake, the summoned creature is still a companion. It's right there in the name of the feature.
You cannot forget the emphasis on natural language used throughout all the 5E books. The 7th and 11th-level features are clearly still intended to work with the Primal Companion.
Do the Beastmaster's level 7, 11, and 15 features apply to anything you summon with Summon Beast as well then? It's never called a "beast companion" either, or a "companion," but it's a beast, and its your ally? That makes it precisely as much of a "beast companion" as a primal beast is?
Or what about a store-bought Warhorse? It's a beast, and it's your ally, so it's a "beast companion" too?
When the PHB refers to a "beast companion", it is always in the lower case. The feature that grants such a companion is called Ranger's Companion. Primal Companion, found in Tasha's, only ever uses the term "beast" in lower case. But, make no mistake, the summoned creature is still a companion. It's right there in the name of the feature.
You cannot forget the emphasis on natural language used throughout all the 5E books. The 7th and 11th-level features are clearly still intended to work with the Primal Companion.
I'm not arguing one side or the other. But you can't argue "words imply meaning" in one post and "words are taken literally" in another post. Both level 3 abilities refer to the beast as a "beast" after the name of the ability, with caps, and the title of the companion, with no caps, is clearly stated.
Ranger’s Companion
At 3rd level, you gain a beast companion that accompanies you on your adventures and is trained to fight alongside you.
Primal Companion
3rd-level Beast Master feature, which replaces the Ranger's Companion feature You magically summon a primal beast, which draws strength from your bond with nature.
These either mean something or they don't.
If the later abilities don't apply to the Tasha's option, that kind of sucks, even though between the two abilities at level 3 Tasha's is way stronger.
If the later abilities do apply to the Tasha's option, that sucks in a different way as the level 7 ability actually restricts the options used for the bonus action! I agree with chicken that you can't cherry-pick from that ability. It is either all on or all off.
Ranger's Companion also uses "companion" one more time at the end of the feature
Ranger's Companion:
At 3rd level, you gain a beast companion that accompanies you on your adventures and is trained to fight alongside you.
...
If the beast dies, you can obtain a new companion by spending 8 hours magically bonding with a beast that isn’t hostile to you and that meets the requirements.
Primal Companion
You magically summon a primal beast, which draws strength from your bond with nature.
...
When you finish a long rest, you can summon a different primal beast.
Both times that it would have been natural to use the same "companion" or "beast companion" language, Primal Companion seems to have gone out of its way to avoid doing so. I don't see a good RAW argument that it's a "beast companion," even if it RAI might be.
Ranger's Companion also uses "companion" one more time at the end of the feature
Ranger's Companion:
At 3rd level, you gain a beast companion that accompanies you on your adventures and is trained to fight alongside you.
...
If the beast dies, you can obtain a new companion by spending 8 hours magically bonding with a beast that isn’t hostile to you and that meets the requirements.
Primal Companion
You magically summon a primal beast, which draws strength from your bond with nature.
...
When you finish a long rest, you can summon a different primal beast.
Both times that it would have been natural to use the same "companion" or "beast companion" language, Primal Companion seems to have gone out of its way to avoid doing so. I don't see a good RAW argument that it's a "beast companion," even if it RAI might be.
Again, are we trying to figure out what the rule means in the game or are we trying to figure out one possible interpretation that is the actual worst for the game?
That is to say, are you trying to say that the rules imply you don't gain the features at 7th, 11th, and 15th levels any more. Again, are you making rules by implication?
It's almost like the subclass needed a complete overhaul rather than a quick band-aid.
LOL!
Yes!
But then that wouldn't help sell a new book.
It would if they put it in the new book :p
I guess. That is really mudding the waters and getting back to why the revised ranger died. They "said" they didn't want two versions of a class or subclass so they let it go. Then they came up with all of these options for classes and thought they'd make a book. But no other subclass got this kind of an overhaul. It needs a hard errata in the PHB.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I want this interpretation to work for the beast master, I really do. The "...on any of your turns when your beast companion doesn’t attack..." implies that this is what it does (giving the beast the ability to take more than one action) but it does not state that precisely.
Both of these abilities, all versions of the PHB and the Tasha's, are written in such a confusing, convoluted, and clunky manner that I'm not sure that it even matters anymore.
The general rules permit all creatures one and only one action per turn. There are exceptions like Haste and Action Surge that allow more, but those exceptions are clearly stated as doing that.
Reading a rule as implying that it allows the creature to take more than one action per turn is not proof. If it only implies it, it doesn’t say it. And if it doesn’t say it, it doesn’t mean it.
I’m in the it doesn’t matter any more camp. If every answer has to be simple and succinct for you people to acknowledge and engage it, what’s the point. You can order two actions, because it says you can, and doesn’t say you can’t, and doesn’t say it requires the beasts Action each time as well as your own Bonus or Action. But RAW, a primal companion isn’t a beast companion and doesn’t benefit from Bestial Fury, so it only can attack once on each Attack action anyway. But if you do permit it to benefit instead, an Attack action using two Mauls won’t add Ranger PB, but a single Maul action does, so there’s not much potential for damage to balloon. Everything is fine.
But none of you enjoy reading other people’s perspectives and seriously considering them, just trading dismissive barbs and repeating yourselves, so what’s the point of links to citations or arguing further. I’m out.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
This may be like illusion magic in D&D 5E where it is a very non-specific and delicate conversation that needs to happen with your specific DM.
I am not interested in perspectives. I'm interested in what the rules say and what they mean. I'm not interested in your thoughts on what the rules imply. Implying isn't saying.
Wait!!!
Do people think that the level 7, 11, and 15 PHB abilities DON'T work with the Tasha's level 3 option?! Why?! Because it talks about the "beast companion" specifically?
The Tasha's ranger section says "If you take a feature that replaces another feature, you gain no benefit from the replaced one and don't qualify for anything in the game that requires it."
So since the PHB ability calls it the "beast companion", the Tasha's option calls it the "primal companion", and the PHB level 7, 11, and 15 abilities specifically refer to the "beast companion", they don't mesh?! And the beast master ranger from Tasha's only gets a level 3 ability?!?!
"Primal beast" and "beast" (the only things that Primal Companion ever calls it), never a "companion" and never a "beast companion." Ranger's Companion does use the terms "beast companion," "companion," and "beast." So, strictly RAW, you've swapped out the feature that gave you a "beast companion" and now have a "primal beast" instead. Features which enhance a "beast companion" are still yours, but you don't have a "beast companion" to benefit.
But also, half of the 7 feature and half of the 11 feature don't even make sense to add to the Primal Companion primal beast in the first place.
You can already do that with a Primal Companion primal beast at 3. Arguably, if this did apply to your primal beast, it would downgrade the ability that you already had, by preventing you from ordering Dash, Disengage, or Help any longer after the beast has already attacked from an OA or as part of an attack-sacrificing order, which you've already been able to do in the past for 4 levels. You don't want this to apply to your primal beast... so why would you be able to cherry pick the second half of the feature, which makes its attack magic?
No primal beast has Multiattack. Primal beasts can take the Attack, but due to the way that turning monster attacks -> Natural Weapons functions, you don't really ever want to. Doesn't seem like a RAI fit for Primal Companion, and again, uses the wrong "beast companion" term.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Right. So if you go with the beast master subclass, take the primal companion option at level 3, none of those other abilities for that subclass work for you by RAW because Tasha's says "If you take a feature that replaces another feature, you gain no benefit from the replaced one and don't qualify for anything in the game that requires it." and all three of the other subclass abilities specifically call for the beast companion, which is the ability you replaced.
When the PHB refers to a "beast companion", it is always in the lower case. The feature that grants such a companion is called Ranger's Companion. Primal Companion, found in Tasha's, only ever uses the term "beast" in lower case. But, make no mistake, the summoned creature is still a companion. It's right there in the name of the feature.
You cannot forget the emphasis on natural language used throughout all the 5E books. The 7th and 11th-level features are clearly still intended to work with the Primal Companion.
Yes. Which ordinarily would feel unfair, if Primal Companion hadn't been written in a way that scales itself without needing later features to improve its functions. It already includes half of the level 7 benefit right at 3. The effect of the level 11 benefit on a Ranger's Companion Beastmaster was primarily to make ordering the beast to Attack give you three total attacks in a round (Order the beast to attack (2 attacks), make 1 attack yourself since you have Extra Attack)... with Primal Companion Beastmaster, you already have that right from level 5 in an even more flexible way (take your own Attack action (1 attack), sacrifice an attack for the primal beast to Maul, bonus action either take your own Two-Weapon Fighting attack or order the primal beast to Maul again).
The level 7 magic weapons feature, and the level 15 sharing spells feature, those are a loss for sure. But in exchange, you've been a more effective combatant right from level 3. Should they have released a complete "Primal Beastmaster" subclass in Tasha's, that actually had 7, 11, and 15 features? Yes absolutely. But they didn't, because 5E is pathologically incapable of making correct moves for Beastmaster at this point.
*publishing the Primal Beasts as "instead of a beast that is no larger than Medium and that has a challenge rating of 1/4 or lower, a Beastmaster may summon one of the options below as its beast companion" would have worked much better as well, probably.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Do the Beastmaster's level 7, 11, and 15 features apply to anything you summon with Summon Beast as well then? It's never called a "beast companion" either, or a "companion," but it's a beast, and its your ally? That makes it precisely as much of a "beast companion" as a primal beast is?
Or what about a store-bought Warhorse? It's a beast, and it's your ally, so it's a "beast companion" too?
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I'm not arguing one side or the other. But you can't argue "words imply meaning" in one post and "words are taken literally" in another post. Both level 3 abilities refer to the beast as a "beast" after the name of the ability, with caps, and the title of the companion, with no caps, is clearly stated.
Ranger’s Companion
At 3rd level, you gain a beast companion that accompanies you on your adventures and is trained to fight alongside you.
Primal Companion
3rd-level Beast Master feature, which replaces the Ranger's Companion feature
You magically summon a primal beast, which draws strength from your bond with nature.
These either mean something or they don't.
If the later abilities don't apply to the Tasha's option, that kind of sucks, even though between the two abilities at level 3 Tasha's is way stronger.
If the later abilities do apply to the Tasha's option, that sucks in a different way as the level 7 ability actually restricts the options used for the bonus action! I agree with chicken that you can't cherry-pick from that ability. It is either all on or all off.
Ranger's Companion also uses "companion" one more time at the end of the feature
Both times that it would have been natural to use the same "companion" or "beast companion" language, Primal Companion seems to have gone out of its way to avoid doing so. I don't see a good RAW argument that it's a "beast companion," even if it RAI might be.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
It's almost like the subclass needed a complete overhaul rather than a quick band-aid.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Again, are we trying to figure out what the rule means in the game or are we trying to figure out one possible interpretation that is the actual worst for the game?
That is to say, are you trying to say that the rules imply you don't gain the features at 7th, 11th, and 15th levels any more. Again, are you making rules by implication?
How do you think the rules work/interact, WolfOfTheBees?
LOL!
Yes!
But then that wouldn't help sell a new book.
It would if they put it in the new book :p
I guess. That is really mudding the waters and getting back to why the revised ranger died. They "said" they didn't want two versions of a class or subclass so they let it go. Then they came up with all of these options for classes and thought they'd make a book. But no other subclass got this kind of an overhaul. It needs a hard errata in the PHB.