D&D 5E Have shared actions returned in 5e?

[RotGrub]

I just found a hidden 4e style shared action rule embedded in the warlock class.

Apparently nice familiars like imps and pseudodragons with intelligence scores that are higher than some characters are not capable of attacking on their own. The warlock must expend an attack to allow their familiars to attack.

IMO, this rule is asinine. It's an example of over balance and it isn't applied in a consistent manner throughout the system.

Now, you might think that it should take time to direct the familiar to attack each round, but the problem I have with that argument is that Page 190 allows for communication and a single free action (some of which are far more complicated). If those actions don't require you to waste an attack why should your trusted familiar? In addition, the find familiar spell allows you communicate telepathically with your familiar making that argument even less convincing. Even the animate dead spell allows you to use a bonus action or issue general commands. Lastly, an independent mount doesn't need to share its actions with a rider, so why should an independent familiar need to share its attacks with a master?

 

[the Jester]

Have you read the beastmaster ranger?

 

[RotGrub]

Not yet

 

[the Jester]

Let's just say- yes, shared actions are back.

 

[Wrathamon]

R comes before W ??

 

[RotGrub]

Yeah I've been skipping around. Now I'm rather disappointed. I guess I payed for a game I really didn't want.

 

[Iosue]

/ragequit?

 

[77IM]

Yeah I've been skipping around. Now I'm rather disappointed. I guess I payed for a game I really didn't want.

If this is your only problem with it, I have some simple house rules to sell you as an add-on.

 

[Paraxis]

D&D is not a simulationist game, never has been. It is a combination of many playstyles to be attractive to the most people. Shared actions are a gamist conceit, purely there for game balance/action economy reasons, so arguing it doesn't make sense is what doesn't make sense. HP, AC, Hit Dice, halflings with 20 strengths, falling 20 miles from the sky rolling 20d6 and taking only 20 points of damage, making a save vs fireball centered on you in a empty room, tons of things in D&D don't make sense because it is a game.

Now if you want to argue that beastmaster rangers and chain pact warlocks should have companions with independent actions because conjurer wizards don't have to take actions to control monsters summoned with the "conjure" series of spells that is a very valid point.

I think chain pact warlocks should be able to concentrate and issue mental commands for the familiar to act independently, much like the conjure spells require concentration.

I think beastmaster rangers should be able to cast speak with animals and give vocal commands to their companions for the duration because they spent a spell slot for it.

But the above two beliefs are all about game balance and have nothing to do with "what makes sense" because come on this is D&D and very little makes sense.

 

[RotGrub]

Balance at the expense of believability will be rebuked at my table.