Would having the Rangers animal attack really cause that much of a balancing issue? Most of the companions attacks are pretty weak and this is a feature just like action surge is also a feature. Even if it is too strong, we could prevent that by not having the companion attack, but still have it move around or do other actions. It also really bugs me that the animal takes its masters initiative but the familiar doesn't, even though the familiar seems more like an extension of its master then the companion does Also if the animal was attacked would it not defend itself?

@ArtaSoral I haven't played with a Beastmaster Ranger yet, so I can't really comment on balance from experience. But compare with a Druid, who can change into a beast, but can't attack as both humanoid and beast at once, or a PC with a conjuration spell that allows them to bring additional combatant(s) into a combat, but only for a limited amount of time, and only if they can maintain concentration. I've linked another question that analyzes the overpower issue. If you want to ask about a specific house rule you are considering, I recommend making a new question.

@ArtaSoral also the beast can be commanded to move without using up the master's action.

@ArtaSoral check the new link I added to the answer -- someone has done the math on this already.

Your right that does help alot, thank you

I get that balancing can sometimes force DMs and/or Wizards of the Coast to implement rules/decisions that don't seem to fit with whats "actually happening in the world" but obviously we want to avoid that as much as possible

what happens if the beast is attacked without the ranger using his action to give it an attack order still bothers me, and I'm not sure how i would DM that situation.

Also (and maybe i should be asking this in a separate question) regardless of how much we remove the autonomy of the beast, shouldn't we also treat the familiar at least the same even though there may not be a balancing issue?

O and i wanted to thank you for your answer and patience, sorry for all the trouble :)

I see the familiar as completely different, so I don't see any need to "treat them the same" so to speak.

I think letting the beast defend itself without the master using an action will create a loophole where the master can essentially allow the beast to get attacked in order to let it get "free" actions to attack back. I'd be very careful about that.

One thing you might try if you really want to houserule this is the "concentration" mechanic. The master gives a command to attack and the beast continues attacking the same creature without being re-commanded as long as the master can maintain concentration on the command. I can't think of a way that "makes sense in the real world" but I think it could balance it better.

@PurpleVermont You might consider actually making it a spell. Say, a level 2(?) spell that's a standard action to cast then allows you command your pet to attack as a bonus action while you concentrate it. You could fluff it as creating a telepathic bond.

@ArtaSoral consider Oblivious Sage's suggestion to make it a spell -- I think that would balance it better.

Its true that would probably balance very well, but that seems even farther from the spirit of a beast companion. This, to me at least, would make it feel like the companion is an empty shell, waiting for its masters conciousness, or something like that as rangers cant actualy see from their beasts perspective

im probably being too nit-picky here, but it really bugs me that the animal companion in combat effectively doesn't act like a pet or even a real animal.

@ArtaSoral it's a game first and foremost -- be careful about prioritizing realism over balance

I see it more as a story first and foremost :)

As long as your players agree with you, that's fine. But balance issues have a habit of making the game not fun for some of the players, and that's a big red flag.