Bonus actions to control companions/conjurings

[Telsar]

I'm running a 5e game with a Ranger Beastmaster PC, and as I have seen many complain on various forums, we're finding the Beastmaster underpowered, with it requiring giving up an attack to control the beast's action each round. As a house rule, I've let her control her beast as a bonus action. When she initiates her Hunter's Mark, she obviously can't have the beast attack that round, but other rounds, she has no other use for her bonus action, so it seems to give her the boost she needs.

I'm wondering if there's anything broken or problematic with the house rule that I should be considering? Also, I'm concerned with the various conjuring spells for other characters (so far, no one has any, so no problems yet) for the opposite reason, that those spells will be overpowered by not requiring the PC's action. Would there be any balance issues with also requiring your bonus action to be used to control things you summon?

I'm just looking to head off problems before I use this idea as a general house rule for our games. Thanks for any advice.

 

[Dragongrief]

Most of the usable beasts in the PHB don't appear much more powerful than two-weapon fighting (average 4 damage). The biggest exception is the wolf, which gives Avg. 7 damage and potentially the prone position (and has advantage if you're tag-teaming the target).

 

[LandOfConfusion]

Personally I toss game balance for flavor and character. I am preparing a game and I actually combined the beastmaster and hunter subclasses. Also the ranger will be able to command his companion without using an action or bonus action or reaction or whatever. I'll think of it as having an extra character or half a character when creating encounters. Is it balanced? Nope. Do I care? Nope. Do my players care? Nope. The rules for beastmasters are clearly rules designed for balance, which then stifle the flavor of the class. I have no problem making a class a little more powerful if it adds a lot more flavor.

If I find the party rolls through fights because of this "super ranger" I'll make adjustments.

Edit: Oh I just remembered. I had an idea to turn the ranger into a "You Pick Two" class. The Hunter subclass, the Beastmaster subclass, and spell casting ability would be the options. Meaning the player can make a hunter or beastmaster just like in the book with spell casting abilities or give up spell casting to make a hunter/beastmaster ranger. Either way the beastmaster can command the animal companion to do whatever they want whenever they want. This just lets the player customize the ranger a little. Some players don't like the spell casting ranger. Preferring the Drizzt style ranger who never really used "ranger spells". This would be a little more balanced and interesting than just mashing the two sub-classes together.

 

[Wrathamon]

You could even do Action to Command, and Bonus action to "sustain" that command.

I would just do Action to Command and then the Beast does that till it needs a new command which would be an action and it will defend itself if attacked.

Like how the magic item that summons an Golden Lion to fight for you work.

Give command to Attack a target. It keeps attacking that target till that target is no longer a threat. If something attacks it. It will attack it. If you want it to switch targets you have to give it an attack command again. It will follow you if you feel or move, unless it has a command to attack something or has to defend itself. Then it might need to be commanded (but I might make that a bonus action or free) If you want it to guard a spot and attack anything. Command. If you want it to protect someone and attack any threat near it that is a command.

I think that would be better than using an action every turn to sustain a command.