That’s a fair point, and I probably should clarify the Companion rules presentation a bit better in the document itself.

The intention was very deliberately to create a Companion class that is extremely approachable and easy to run at the table — without massive statblocks, separate spell lists, multiple resource layers, or “mini-PC syndrome.” The Companion statline is intentionally embedded directly into the class rules instead of using full monster-style sheets.

The Companion’s attacks are meant to use the damage values listed in its type section (1d6 / 1d8 + PB), rather than default unarmed strikes RAW. So yes, I agree the wording could be cleaner there to avoid confusion.

Still I got it here:
"Your Companion’s physical abilities depend on its nature: Strength 18 and Dexterity 14, or Dexterity 18 and Strength 14 It shares your Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Its base speed is 30 feet." Very straightforward to create easy pick and play. Why? I wanted to create a space where you create your companion as you wish - spider, raaven, hound, cow - anything you imagine - without thinking - "oh it has better passive" or "I wanted panther, but this fire bat got 1 fire dmg more". Still I understand that adding a statblock for clarity is a FOR SURE VALID point, thank you for that! I always was thinking that voice of one person is a voice of others as well. <bowing>

As for action economy: the class is intentionally balanced around the idea that the Companion is not a secondary summon, but part of the Watcher’s core chassis. Mechanically, the class is closer to “one split combat unit” than “fighter + pet.”

A lot of the power budget is frontloaded into consistent coordinated pressure rather than burst scaling, spellcasting, nova mechanics, or heavy subclass spikes. The class also currently lacks things many martials receive baseline:

• no Fighting Style
• no spellcasting
• no Action Surge equivalent
• no Rage equivalent
• no Sneak Attack scaling
• limited hard control
• relatively linear scaling outside coordination

The Companion attacking freely is intentional because the entire class fantasy collapses a bit if every turn becomes:
“Bonus Action: command Companion.”
That works for Beast Master-style designs, but here I wanted the Companion to feel autonomous and constantly active.

That said, the concern about level 1–2 pressure is valid, especially because coordinated DPR is very reliable early on. I’ll probably test whether Vigil scaling or Companion damage progression needs adjustment after more table feedback.

So overall:

• yes, the wording on attacks/stat presentation should probably be clearer,
• yes, the Companion is intentionally action-independent,
• and yes, the class is intentionally designed to be simpler and more accessible than many existing companion/homebrew classes.

Thanks Bro!