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

[abirdcall]

I'm not sure if we are looking at the same feat.
For a non-Beastmaster Ranger, it looks like a very good feat. If both of your weapons are light, and one of them has the nick property, it looks to me like you can add two attacks to your standard allotment.

Ex. level 4 (to keep multi-attack out of it) -- you have one attack with your primary hand. You make an additional attack with your off hand, that (due to nick) is part of your attack action and not a bonus action. You have now made an attack with two light weapons as a part of the attack action. You may now invoke the feat and make one (further) extra attack as a Bonus Action later on the same turn with a weapon that is different from either of the two weapons you have already used (and each is different from the other). It's not clear to me how that wouldn't work, but if you can explain it, I am certainly not an expert.

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.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you’re a beast master shouldn’t you be using your bonus action to command the beast to attack? Then in addition to that possibly commanding it to attack again by trading one of your attacks to command it to do so again?

I don’t understand the desire for dual wielder feat here. All that is needed as far as I can tell is a nick weapon and mastery. Then at level 3 you attack, trade the nick attack for the beast to attack and then bonus action command the beast to attack.

At level 5 you get to make 2 attacks along with the beast making 2.

 

[Charlaquin]

Fair enough but then they both need to be light weapons to be using Nick. A feat for a bonus action 1d6 attack is quite poor (need the fighting style too). Most characters will already have something better and if not, other feats provide something better.

In the case of this question I don't think there is any difference. 1 attack is being replaced by the beast master either way.

Dual Wielder is not the worst feat in the book but it's not good.

Well, with the new weapon swapping rules you can draw or stow a weapon whenever you make an attack as part of the attack action, and with the dual wielder feat you can draw or stow two weapons whenever you could normally draw or stow one weapon. And since Nick makes the extra attack of the light property part of the attack action, that’s two attacks that are each part of the attack action, for a total of four draws and stows.

That means, by RAW, you can draw and attack with your shortsword and also draw your scimitar as part of that attack. Then attack with your scimitar using the Nick property, stow your shortsword and draw a rapier as part of that attack. Then use a bonus action to attack with your rapier. Next turn, you can stow your rapier and draw your shortsword as part of your attack with it. Then attack with your scimitar with the Nick action, and stow that scimitar and draw the rapier as part of that attack. Rinse and repeat that two-turn cycle as many times as necessary.

Granted, a lot of DMs are just going to say no, I don’t care what RAW says, this weapon juggling nonsense is not allowed. But, you know, might as well check with your DM in case they feel like being permissive about it.

 

[abirdcall]

Well, with the new weapon swapping rules you can draw or stow a weapon whenever you make an attack as part of the attack action, and with the dual wielder feat you can draw or stow two weapons whenever you could normally draw or stow one weapon. And since Nick makes the extra attack of the light property part of the attack action, that’s two attacks that are each part of the attack action, for a total of four draws and stows.

That means, by RAW, you can draw and attack with your shortsword and also draw your scimitar as part of that attack. Then attack with your scimitar using the Nick property, stow your shortsword and draw a rapier as part of that attack. Then use a bonus action to attack with your rapier. Next turn, you can stow your rapier and draw your shortsword as part of your attack with it. Then attack with your scimitar with the Nick action, and stow that scimitar and draw the rapier as part of that attack. Rinse and repeat that two-turn cycle as many times as necessary.

Granted, a lot of DMs are just going to say no, I don’t care what RAW says, this weapon juggling nonsense is not allowed. But, you know, might as well check with your DM in case they feel like being permissive about it.

It's a lot of fiddling for 1 damage.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's a lot of fiddling for 1 damage.

If you have a strength build it’s possible to do with a versatile weapon and swing it two-handed

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I'm confused. To get your beast to attack, you need to use both your bonus action (to command it to attack) and your attack action to actually attack?

So it uses both every round?

 

[mellored]

I'm confused. To get your beast to attack, you need to use both your bonus action (to command it to attack) and your attack action to actually attack?

So it uses both every round?

Use 1 of your attacks (including Nick weapon mastery).
OR use your bonus action.

But NOT a bonus action attack (dual weapon fighter, flurry of blows, polearm master, ect..).


*if you do both it might attacks twice. But not sure that's intentional.
**maybe 3 times if you have haste?

 

[Stormonu]

I'm not overly fond of the whole process for the Ranger Beast companion first of all.

RAW, I don't think sacrificing an attack + bonus action will allow it to attack twice. Otherwise, you could sacrifice both attacks + bonus action to attack thrice with the companion, and the wording seems to clearly indicate "one of your attacks". RAI, I'd be all for it.

Nor would haste under RAW, unless it was on the companion. Though I seem to recall a "share spell" feature at some point so if the Ranger was hasted the companion would be as well, so you

 

[Asisreo]

Also, am I missing something or can you make the beast attack twice? Once with your action, and attack again as your bonus action?

There is no clause saying otherwise, so that is the case. You can use your action and bonus action to attack with the beast.

 

[DrJawaPhD]

There is no clause saying otherwise, so that is the case. You can use your action and bonus action to attack with the beast.

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.