D&D (2024) Beast Master attack sacrificed for beast attack and Dual Wielder

[Horwath]

1: attack with your main hand weapon in attack action
triggers off hand with Nick mastery
triggers off hand Bonus action attack via Feat
2. 2nd attack with attack action(if 5th level ranger or higher.

now you have 3 options.

1. sacrifice 2nd main hand attack(if 5th level)
2. sacrifice off hand attack via Nick as a attack that is part of Attack action
3. sacrifice Bonus action and not use the Feat.

more or less, Dual wielder feat is a waste on beast master, as you need Bonus action for HM and for Beast command.

 

[Willie the Duck]

A feat for a bonus action minor attack is quite poor. Polearm Master gives you that and you don't need to take a fighting style to add your proficiency bonus to the damage. You also get the reaction attack.

For a dual wielder I would always take Mage Slayer over the feat or even Defensive Duelist.

You already have a use for your bonus action as a Beast Master so you gain nothing with the feat.

I think they are both sub-optimal. The primary advantages of twf w/ Dual Wielder over PAM are that is compliments Dex and can be stacked on top of Nick-based off-hand attack. Otherwise it is inferior (as it should be). Both of them struggle with the limited number of situations where you can get enough per-attack damage-stacking to make the bonus-action attack worth the expenditure and not have to move your hex or hunter's mark around every other round -- divine favor paladin or raging barb (especially after already taking GWM) might be the the optimal answers (although both lose first round bonus actions, plus the alternate uses of their feats and bonus actions). Even with the improvements to 2wf Nick provides, I think it is mostly a labor of love to try to make work 'okay enough' for anyone except a rogue (who is mostly looking for at least one successful hit per round to proc their SA, and usually want to preserve their bonus action).

Mage Slayer is indeed a good feat -- nearly over-tuned-- and rarely a bad choice. The only real downside it has is that it's marginal worth is dependent on how good you otherwise are at Int/Wis/Cha saves (it is the most benefit if those are low), yet you really can't rely on only one such save per short rest. There are a few feats (Mage Slayer and Mounted Combatant, as examples) that have really impressive benefits because of the innate limits they also come with.

If you’re a beast master shouldn’t you be using your bonus action to command the beast to attack? ... I don’t understand the desire for dual wielder feat here.

In the end, that is what is going to have to happen.
The goal of the thought experiment was to get the bonus-action attack created by the feat, and have it be with the main hand (which would have the magic weapon, and dex to damage without selecting 2wf fighting style), while sacrificing the off-hand attack, which I could then exert no effort towards boosting (finding magic weapon, taking 2wf fighting style, etc.). There just doesn't seem to be a way to get that to happen.

 

[Fizbang]

You cannot make the beast attack twice in one turn because it only has one action, and both ways to command it to use Beast Strike require it to use its action.

There is no clause to state this because it does not need to be specified that the beast only gets one action, just like everything in the game.

I think if we go by Jeremy Crawfords explanation that the beast has a turn in the initiative order directly after the ranger it would then be using its reaction if you sacrifice an attack to command it to attack during the rangers turn, same as the fighters maneuver that allows them to sacrifice an attack to give someone withing 5' an attack with their reaction. You could also use your bonus action so the beast can use its action to attack on its turn. If it was not intended to be this way it makes no sense that they used the word also instead of or.

 

[FrogReaver]

You cannot make the beast attack twice in one turn because it only has one action, and both ways to command it to use Beast Strike require it to use its action.

There is no clause to state this because it does not need to be specified that the beast only gets one action, just like everything in the game.

Using an ability to command it to take an action can be read as an implicit this ability does this specific thing regardless of the general rules.

Or it could be read, you can do this specific thing so long as you conform to the general rules.

It’s ambiguous.

IMO if a player wants to give up their bonus attack and their attack so their beast can attack 1 more time I’m going to say yes.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think if we go by Jeremy Crawfords explanation that the beast has a turn in the initiative order directly after the ranger it would then be using its reaction if you sacrifice an attack to command it to attack during the rangers turn, same as the fighters maneuver that allows them to sacrifice an attack to give someone withing 5' an attack with their reaction. You could also use your bonus action so the beast can use its action to attack on its turn. If it was not intended to be this way it makes no sense that they used the word also instead of or.

I don’t think it requires a reaction.

Also is interesting but not quite proof IMO. You can do X. You can also do Y, doesn’t imply you can do X and Y at the same time or on the same turn.

The wizard can cast fireball. He can also cast hypnotic pattern. The implication need not be that he can do both on the same turn.

 

[mellored]

Personally I would focus on using the bonus action to command the beast, since that scales at level 7.

Attack and Dodge is better than just attacking.
Or Disengage and Attack to get the Lands charge bonus.

 

[Fizbang]

I don’t think it requires a reaction.

Also is interesting but not quite proof IMO. You can do X. You can also do Y, doesn’t imply you can do X and Y at the same time or on the same turn.

The wizard can cast fireball. He can also cast hypnotic pattern. The implication need not be that he can do both on the same turn.

To that I would say you can search "you can also" in PHB pdf and the only example I can find where there is a discrepancy about whether you can do both is the primal beast companion rule out of 50 examples. I see what you are saying grammatically but this is a rule and no where does it say at such and such level a wizard can cast 1 spell and you can also cast another as a rule. And I also appreciate that the wording is unclear and the word command makes it even less clear. I wish it said command it to take an action like it does for bonus action for sacrificing the attack, that would make it more clear. Or oppositely said take the strike action as a reaction.

The Beast in Combat ln 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 to command it to take an action 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 Beast's Strike action. If you have the Incapacitated condition, the beast acts on its own and isn't limited to the Dodge action.