Is Ranger's Companion turn also your turn?

[Rukelnikov]

I'm not talking about Tasha's Primal Companion, specifically PHB Ranger's Companion, it says:



Ranger's Companion

[...]The beast obeys your commands as best as it can. It takes its turn on your initiative. 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.[...]

So, is it also my turn? Or is it a different turn? Say, if a companion used its attack to shove somebody into an AoE, and then I grappled the target and moved them out and into the AoE again, would that be 2 different turns or just one?

In the new one, the beast acts during your turn, so there's no doubt its a single turn, but I'm under the impression PHB's Ranger Companion is a different turn, since t says "it takes ITS turn on your initiative", we share initiative, but don't share turns, thus would proc the AoE twice.

[Sigreid]

At our table we rule it as a jumbled mess. Seriously, it acts on the same initiative as you but you get to decide whether it acts before or after you. So I guess technically we just treat the whole thing as your turn.

[Yakk]

Table flow is important to me.

So your companion acts as part of your turn. So do familiars and summons.

[da newt]

I believe RAW is that it shares your initiative, but has it's own turn (usually right after you complete yours) in exactly the same way as when two PCs or a PC and a badguy have the same initiative.

In your example, on your turn you'd command it to do a thing (action), then with your multi attack you could follow that up w/ one weapon attack and any movement/BA. Once your turn was over, it would act and carry out your command on it's turn.

Tables of course can rule how they like.

[Kane0]

For mounts, pets, familiars, summons, etc i just roll their turn into yours (and request players refrain from having more than one).

[Rukelnikov]

Thanks all, I know pets/mounts/companions are amongst the most table dependant things in DnD, I was asking from a RAW perspective, cause it seems to me that with the trend in many builds to have forced movements and AoE, that 3 levels of PHB Beastmaster, along with some Extra Attack (from Ranger or something else), you'd get much more out of it than with 3 levels of Tasha's BM (ie 2 procs of an AoE, instead of one)

To be honest I stumbled upon this when trying to find a way to weaponize Deflect Missiles, so I need to be regularly hit with a returning dagger, an Homunculus doesn't have a good to hit bonus, but the Baboon and Flying Monkey would have better to hit, and advantage to hit me thanks to Pack Tactics (I'm an ally of the Baboon and I'm within 5 feet of its target), but I needed it to be in a different turn for Sneak Attack pourposes.

[Theodoxus]

If I were DMing that scenario, I'd be inclined to rule it as the companion acts on your initiative (probably after you went, since that's typically what the newer rules go with), but that it had its own turn, so your idea of using Deflect Missiles off of an allies attack would trigger sneak. I'm trying to understand the level interaction though. Two levels of Monk for DM, one level of Rogue for sneak, three levels of Ranger for Beastmaster... seems... convoluted. The singular advantage is that it's a DAD build, needing only Dex and Wisdom... Not sure what the leveling guide would be for it... but I assume you've already done that part.

Provided the party isn't full of companions of various types, I don't see an issue with it.

[Psyren]

For mounts, pets, familiars, summons, etc i just roll their turn into yours (and request players refrain from having more than one).

We allow a maximum of 1 familiar, summon, and pet per player. Most players don't hit this limit (my Creation Bard with Summon Construct did.)

When a Sidekick is present, generally the player who has the least going on is the one who gets to control them (or the DM does.)

[Rukelnikov]

If I were DMing that scenario, I'd be inclined to rule it as the companion acts on your initiative (probably after you went, since that's typically what the newer rules go with), but that it had its own turn, so your idea of using Deflect Missiles off of an allies attack would trigger sneak. I'm trying to understand the level interaction though. Two levels of Monk for DM, one level of Rogue for sneak, three levels of Ranger for Beastmaster... seems... convoluted. The singular advantage is that it's a DAD build, needing only Dex and Wisdom... Not sure what the leveling guide would be for it... but I assume you've already done that part.

Provided the party isn't full of companions of various types, I don't see an issue with it.

Actually the build would be REALLY convoluted, its not finished yet because I'm not convinced by the damage yet, but the current draft is:

Tortle
Monk5/Ranger3/Soulknife X

15+2
13
14+1
9
13
8

This way we have AC 17, but when the Flying Monkey attacks us we choose to use Unarmored Defense instead of Tortle Shell, thus for the Flying Monkey our AC is 12, and it attacks with advantage thanks to pact tactics, giving it a pretty good chance to hit us, it deals pitiful damage 1d4+2+PB damage, Deflec Missiles reduces 1d10+6, which will usually reduce it to 0, thus allowing the second Sneak Attack.

It still has too many problems, even without having to jump hoops for the assured attack against me, truth is Monk 3/Soulknife X just doesn't do THAT much damage even with the weaponized reaction, at level 12 it'd be:

Action: 1d6+5 [+5d6]
BA: 1d4+5
Reaction: 1d4+5[+5d6]

So damage is 11d6+2d4+15 = 58.5, adjusted by accuracy and crits, we have a pretty good chance to land our reaction thanks to Homing Strikes, it ok, but my aim is a throwing build that wouldn't be better just using a Hand C, and I want it to be at least comparable to the damage a run of the mill HXB Battlemaster would do, which by this point would be:

4* 1d6+15 = 4d6+60 = 74

I'm still juggling what feats to take, what concentration to use, and even if this route is useful or not (I have another build in the works with Oathbreaker Pally which may be more promissing)

[Kane0]

We allow a maximum of 1 familiar, summon, and pet per player. Most players don't hit this limit (my Creation Bard with Summon Construct did.)

When a Sidekick is present, generally the player who has the least going on is the one who gets to control them (or the DM does.)

Yeah happens a lot at my table too, often the fighter or rogue will end up with a sidekick (or absent PC).

[Yakk]

Thanks all, I know pets/mounts/companions are amongst the most table dependant things in DnD, I was asking from a RAW perspective, cause it seems to me that with the trend in many builds to have forced movements and AoE, that 3 levels of PHB Beastmaster, along with some Extra Attack (from Ranger or something else), you'd get much more out of it than with 3 levels of Tasha's BM (ie 2 procs of an AoE, instead of one)

To be honest I stumbled upon this when trying to find a way to weaponize Deflect Missiles, so I need to be regularly hit with a returning dagger, an Homunculus doesn't have a good to hit bonus, but the Baboon and Flying Monkey would have better to hit, and advantage to hit me thanks to Pack Tactics (I'm an ally of the Baboon and I'm within 5 feet of its target), but I needed it to be in a different turn for Sneak Attack pourposes.
I mean, ask your DM. Seriously.

The rules are vague enough and this is corner case enough that your DM will almost certainly have a way that they personally run it. What more, they'll probably feel free to change it based on in-play experience.

So if you have a convoluted trick that relies on a specific reading of when you and your animal companion go, the practical answer is ask your DM. Or make the build work regardless of the order of you and your companion (just before, just after, at the same time).

I could find a quote in the DMG or PHB about how the DM interprets the rules in these kind of situations if that makes it feel more RAW to you?

As a referee, the DM interprets the rules, decides when to abide by them, and when to change them. (Page 4, 5e DMG)
As it is written so it is RAW.

The rules are vague, the situation is a corner case, and the best you are going to get is twitter commentary by someone working at WotC, which is far less RAW than the above quote.

[Rukelnikov]

I mean, ask your DM. Seriously.

The rules are vague enough and this is corner case enough that your DM will almost certainly have a way that they personally run it. What more, they'll probably feel free to change it based on in-play experience.

So if you have a convoluted trick that relies on a specific reading of when you and your animal companion go, the practical answer is ask your DM. Or make the build work regardless of the order of you and your companion (just before, just after, at the same time).

I could find a quote in the DMG or PHB about how the DM interprets the rules in these kind of situations if that makes it feel more RAW to you?

As it is written so it is RAW.

The rules are vague, the situation is a corner case, and the best you are going to get is twitter commentary by someone working at WotC, which is far less RAW than the above quote.

I don't plan to play this, its just an attempt to see how good Throwing weapons can get.

[Damon_Tor]

Just ally with a hunter ranger and be in the AoE of his volley. You can deliberately give him advantage by shutting your eyes, as silly as that sounds. As a PC with archery style and the advantage you let him have he should hit you often enough.

[Rukelnikov]

Just ally with a hunter ranger and be in the AoE of his volley. You can deliberately give him advantage by shutting your eyes, as silly as that sounds. As a PC with archery style and the advantage you let him have he should hit you often enough.

Yeah, but an arrow is not a finesse or ranged weapon, thus I can't sneak attack with it

[Witty Username]

Generally, shared initiative means seperate but overlaping turns, how that is resolved depends on the DM, I would have the beast move and act at the same time commands are given (makes intuitive sense).

I generally go with most intuitive plus most expedient for play. Mount movement can be broken up with the riders actions, summons and monsters use shared initiative and move as packs/formation as applicable, etc.

[Tanarii]

Generally, shared initiative means seperate but overlaping turns,
No it doesn't. It means one happens before the other, as per tied initiative.

Same thing happens with the mounted combat rules. The mount either acts (usually meaning moves) before or after the player turn. Not mixed in with it.

[Damon_Tor]

Yeah, but an arrow is not a finesse or ranged weapon, thus I can't sneak attack with it

I'd say that arrows/bolts are close enough to darts to fall under the "similar enough" clause of the improvised weapon rules.

[Damon_Tor]

No it doesn't. It means one happens before the other, as per tied initiative.

Same thing happens with the mounted combat rules. The mount either acts (usually meaning moves) before or after the player turn. Not mixed in with it.

Except on the turn you mount it. It can explicitly move on the turn you mount it.

[Witty Username]

No it doesn't. It means one happens before the other, as per tied initiative.


That is the specific rules for PCs, as PCs are not allowed to share initiative with eachother or monsters. So they go one then the other (PC vs PC) , or roll a tie breaker (PC vs Monster group).

The general rules is that creatures that share initiative take their turns at the same time, most commonly when monster's determine initiative, as the DM rolls once for NPCs with the same initiative bonus.

One after another is a DM ruling to resolve the situation, but isn't actually supported in the rules more than any other ruling on the subject.

[Tanarii]

Even when monsters have a single initiative for a group, they still take turns one after the other. Not mixed up together.

[Witty Username]

They don't have to, setting aside for the moment that having each monster move and act individually is abysmal for speed of play. The actual rules say that monsters of identical dex bonuses share a single roll to determine initiative and act at the same time.

Whether that means move and act individually like PCs are required, or moving and acting as a unit, is the DMs personal preferences. I go with the latter because it is easier to move monsters in set formations and is more compatible with the DMGs horde combat rules.

[Samayu]

... The general rules is that creatures that share initiative take their turns at the same time, most commonly when monster's determine initiative, as the DM rolls once for NPCs with the same initiative bonus...

General rule? You mean "generally accepted by most people you play with"? My table plays that though different creatures can have the same initiative numbers (are tied), they take their turns in sequence. Even monster blocks. Technically that means that the first monster on the scene can't get advantage on their attack from an adjacent ally, but that is often overlooked.

As for rangers' companions (or similar), we rule they take their turns immediately after the controlling players.

[Witty Username]

General rule? You mean "generally accepted by most people you play with"? My table plays that though different creatures can have the same initiative numbers (are tied), they take their turns in sequence. Even monster blocks. Technically that means that the first monster on the scene can't get advantage on their attack from an adjacent ally, but that is often overlooked.
Its not "generally accepted" its RAW, "the DM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time"

At that point we are quibbling over what "at the same time" means.

Note that this is also the only place in the general rules where characters can share initiative, and also makes a distinction between dexterity checks to determine initiative and the characters space in the initiative order (because ties in the dex check does not give characters a shared initiative, the DM determines from that point where in initiative they act).
--
Now to my personal rulings, since sharing initiative is only possible in the general rules by the identical monsters rule, other rules that force a shared initiative (mounted combat, some summon effects) use the same criteria (so "at the same time"). And "at the same time", means, well, at the same time, rather than one at a time in a set order.

Is it fair to call that a ruling instead of the rules, sure. But your rulings aren't any better than mine.

The only fair way to interpret the RAW, is it is up to the DM how to resolve questions of how to resolve shared initiative.