PC Animal Companion. Would you allow it?

[AchwardSilence]

Not a scenario I've encountered, but just for laughs I thought I'd ask the DMs. Let's say you have two players. One wants to play a BM Ranger with an ape companion, the other wants to play the ape. For the sake of argument, let's assume you know both players will always make it to the same games, the one playing the Ranger will be starting at least at Level 3, and the one wanting to play the ape is willing to accept any and all limitations you place on the character. You also trust both as roleplayers. Would you allow this? Would you give or take anything away to or from the ape? PHB or UA Revised?

[Ennio]

I sure would, sounds great.

[tieren]

I don't think I would.

Its a cool idea when thinking about social situations and stuff, but it seriously gimps the ranger to have no control over the beast companion, or conversely it would be seriously annoying to come to games wanting to play the beast companion and being controlled instead by another player.

[Laserlight]

I'd allow it. My latest character has a 4INT and I considered making him a Russian wolfhound with the personality of a Jack Russell. (But I ended up with a gnomish Hulk).

[Coffee_Dragon]

Unless it's a one-shot I'd talk them out of it. You can't really do much role-playing with an animal.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'd allow it, but I wouldn't use the Beast Master setup. Let the ape be a Barbarian with a custom race, and the Ranger be a Hunter or something. That sidesteps all balance concerns.

[malachi]

I'd allow it, but I wouldn't use the Beast Master setup. Let the ape be a Barbarian with a custom race, and the Ranger be a Hunter or something. That sidesteps all balance concerns.

I second this.

[RickAllison]

I second this.

Thirded. Unless you are dealing with an intrigue-heavy campaign where the emphasis is on RP rather than mechanical function, being someone's mechanical companion is not a great way to start it off.

[BillyBobShorton]

Chewbacca.

[Asmotherion]

I've actualy allowed something similar with a player who was playing a warlock who had pact of the Chain and the player's significant other who wanted to be his fammiliar (A Sprite with regular character levels). Actually went quite smoothly, and as a DM I had fun seeing something both out of the box and fresh.

An other similar case was when, as a player, the DM would want to introduce my character latter on in the scenario, wile I was present in the session. He gave me control of an NPC talking cat, gave me a backstory (I was the fammiliar of an evil wizard who was abusing me and during an experiment where he was using me as a lab rat, there was an accident and he died. Instead of going back to the feywild I somehow ended up with the ability to talk and to cast a couple countrips and one 1st level spell, as per the magic initiate feat) and let me play. My NPC ended up creating a sub-quest adventure hook where the players would have to find why I was left there and how to help me.
(for anyone interested, it turned out I actually died in the experiment, but was not awear of it, thus being hooked to the material plane as some sort of minor ghost. When I went back to the lab and found out about it I moved on to the feywild and my actual character used the same cat as his fammiliar (retaining the ability to talk, but not the spellcasting ability). This was also an interesting thing to experiance as a player.

That said, if a player really wanted to play an animal I would first suggest them to play a moon druid. However it's a great way to have a player that comes for just one session join the game activelly without spending the time of a full introduction of the game on someone who might or might not come back to play again. It is also a great introduction to the world of dnd since, as a beast, all his actions are pre made and he needs not analyse complicate things to begin understanding the game.

[Vogonjeltz]

Not a scenario I've encountered, but just for laughs I thought I'd ask the DMs. Let's say you have two players. One wants to play a BM Ranger with an ape companion, the other wants to play the ape. For the sake of argument, let's assume you know both players will always make it to the same games, the one playing the Ranger will be starting at least at Level 3, and the one wanting to play the ape is willing to accept any and all limitations you place on the character. You also trust both as roleplayers. Would you allow this? Would you give or take anything away to or from the ape? PHB or UA Revised?

In the interests of not undercutting the characters effectiveness, I'd tell the Ranger to just pick the Hunter track and have their "companion" take levels in a class towards something like Champion Fighter or Thief Rogue depending on what the species of the animal was.

i.e. a Weasel or whatever would be a Thief Rogue, a Magilla Gorilla would be a Champion Fighter.

Being a BM Ranger just doesn't make any sense at all without the benefits to the companion (which wouldn't be in effect with another player roleplaying it).

So mechanics wise it's two distinct characters, but in terms of roleplaying one could be the woodsman, the other his loyal wolf or whatever.

[BillyBobShorton]

Druid spell AWAKEN is actually this, on a 30-day trial period depending on how you treat it, can even be a plant that can walk. And it can talk and has an int of 10. It is charmed, though, so no disagreeable Han/Chewy banter if another player were to play the pet/slave/single-serving friend.

(inspiration point to whoever gets that reference)

I once rolled a staff of the woodlands on magic item chart and used it to cast awaken on a poison ivy plant, who would sneak into the thankless caravan bosses' quarters at night (Horde module) and snuggle with their clothes, shoes, flasks, and once we got the boss hammered and he never noticed the plant that slept in crotch and snuck out before sunrise like ditching a regretful 1-night stand. His name was Pi.

[Herobizkit]

I'd allow it. I'd also play it. I've also wanted to play it for years.

What about an Awakened Ape with a human companion? George of the Jungle, anyone?

Also, if that ape is allowed to have PC levels... oh, the shenanigans. :smallsmile:

[Sabeta]

I couldn't find the source, but I remember there being a series of posts about the DMs girlfriend playing a Druid who took a human (the DMPC) as her Animal Companion, complete with gag ball and a leash. I think she was a Drow.

[BillyBobShorton]

I couldn't find the source, but I remember there being a series of posts about the DMs girlfriend playing a Druid who took a human (the DMPC) as her Animal Companion, complete with gag ball and a leash. I think she was a Drow.

"Hey Jenny, what character are you playing in that new group?"

"Oh, I'm a 14th level Circle of BDSM Druid with the Kinky Feat."

"Huh? Is that in Unearthed Arcana?"

"Ummm... yeah. Prestige Class. Bitchy Drow Slave Mistress."

[Cybren]

As a DM, i'd definitely allow it. I'd talk with the players about how they want to work things out, but it sounds great.

As a player, I'd find playing a barbarian or fighter in all but name would be incredibly disappointing if i wanted to be an animal PC. I'd rather figure out some alternate method of advancement/development.

[Sigreid]

I'd allow but make sure they understand they've basically chosen to play half a character each.

[Asmotherion]

Druid spell AWAKEN is actually this, on a 30-day trial period depending on how you treat it, can even be a plant that can walk. And it can talk and has an int of 10. It is charmed, though, so no disagreeable Han/Chewy banter if another player were to play the pet/slave/single-serving friend.

(inspiration point to whoever gets that reference)

I once rolled a staff of the woodlands on magic item chart and used it to cast awaken on a poison ivy plant, who would sneak into the thankless caravan bosses' quarters at night (Horde module) and snuggle with their clothes, shoes, flasks, and once we got the boss hammered and he never noticed the plant that slept in crotch and snuck out before sunrise like ditching a regretful 1-night stand. His name was Pi.

thumbs up for the subtle "fight club" reference.

I remembered an other one, in a d20 modern scenario, where I played a protocol droid's head till the players found a body for me.

[BillyBobShorton]

thumbs up for the subtle "fight club" reference.

I remembered an other one, in a d20 modern scenario, where I played a protocol droid's head till the players found a body for me.

Lol... good catch. Show this thread to your current DM and see if he hooks you up!

So what class was the head? Bard? Did it float or need to be carried around? Could you actually do anything other than talk?

[lordarkness]

Let's not be speciest here. Maybe the ape is a Humanmaster Ranger with a human companion....

The game is about fun. If the players would be able to have a good time with it, them and the other players in their party, then i would applaud them thinking outside the box.*

*Disclaimer: As a DM I have a history if permitting strange things as a matter of encouraging engagement and creativity provided it doesn't mess up the game or dramatically transform it into something no one had planned on playing.

[Maxilian]

Let's not be speciest here. Maybe the ape is a Humanmaster Ranger with a human companion....

The game is about fun. If the players would be able to have a good time with it, them and the other players in their party, then i would applaud them thinking outside the box.*

*Disclaimer: As a DM I have a history if permitting strange things as a matter of encouraging engagement and creativity provided it doesn't mess up the game or dramatically transform it into something no one had planned on playing.

The new Ranger BM actually allows you to have a really smart Ape as your companion while you only have 8 INT, so its not that impossible (and yes, the idea is quite fun)

[Douche]

Playing as an ape would be boring af. They think it's a funny idea now, but after 2 games I guarantee the ape will be frustrated at being incapable of speech & it won't make any sense that a dumb ape is somehow capable of sign language (or at least very expressive gesturing) that conveys complex human-like emotions.

Not to mention that playing as someone else's class feature would be severely limiting. An ape has like 3 abilities. If you ask me, it'd be more interesting if he chose to be, say, a half-orc or warforged with an actual class. I could see a half-orc being a slave to a human or something (depending on the setting, I suppose) or at least dumb enough to be subservient, while still able to communicate with others. The warforged could be specifically built to be a servant of the ranger (or any class, really), or found in a ruin somewhere and accidentally reactivated, and the warforged is programmed to believe whoever activated him is his master... It'd also be pretty funny if the new master doesn't actually want a servant and is constantly telling him to go away.

Also, you could pretty much pick any race and say that one of them owes a life debt to the other. They were saved by the "master" from bandits or a wyvern or something, and now they have sworn to follow the guy until the life debt is repaid... Pretty standard cartoon/sitcom plot, lol, but I think it also allows for a lot of roleplaying.

Pretty much what I'm trying to say is that there are a lot of ways they could achieve the same thing without resorting to making one an idiot animal... Unless the ape player wants to essentially do zero roleplaying & have zero class features.

[Contrast]

...and the one wanting to play the ape is willing to accept any and all limitations you place on the character. You also trust both as roleplayers. Would you allow this?

So your question is 'assuming you think its fine for players to do something, do you think its fine for them to do something?' :smallconfused:

In terms of the practicalities of actually doing this I can't imagine trying not to talk anyone who asked me to do this out of it. I definately wouldn't allow it if the animal wasn't sentient in some way and the campaign was intended to be anything other than a couple of sessions. There's really not much scope to engage with the game as a non-sentient character.

Another issue is this relationship seems very insular. How are they intending to interact with the rest of the party? Its fine for two PCs to have a very interconnected history but one which makes them literally unable to interact or communicate with other PCs (let alone NPCs) is usually going to be a no-no for me. It may be entertaining at first but its going to get real old real quick.

If you've addressed both of these issues and the 'animal companion' character is sentient and able to communicate with other PCs/NPCs then you're not really an animal companion any more in so much as you are a character who is friends with another character and happens to be in the shape of an animal as oppose to a human shape or elf shape or dwarf shape. Of course the issue here is a character like this might well clash pretty heavily with the setting your DM is going for which could be a reason for a hard no.

If you were gonna go with it I would definately make them two separate charcters rules wise rather than trying to mangle the existing beast master subclass somehow. Maybe come up with a feat they can both take which allows them to do some sort of combo maneuvers together or something if they really want to.

...hmm in a similar theme I need to make a Full Metal Alchemist inspired warlock with another character playing a suit of armour animated by the ghost of my dead brother...

[Draco4472]

Why does this remind me of the story of Sir Bearington and his butler?

[Cybren]

So your question is 'assuming you think its fine for players to do something, do you think its fine for them to do something?' :smallconfused:

In terms of the practicalities of actually doing this I can't imagine trying not to talk anyone who asked me to do this out of it. I definately wouldn't allow it if the animal wasn't sentient in some way and the campaign was intended to be anything other than a couple of sessions. There's really not much scope to engage with the game as a non-sentient character.


Well you're in luck, since any animal qualifying to be an animal companion is already sentient

[Asmotherion]

Lol... good catch. Show this thread to your current DM and see if he hooks you up!

So what class was the head? Bard? Did it float or need to be carried around? Could you actually do anything other than talk?

nope, just a talking robot head. And was not able to move by it's own. Was fun though for a lot of reasons.

[Zanthy1]

I've done stuff like this with guest players. Example: We have a party, and a friend is visiting and is interested in playing, but doesnt really want to make a character. So they just role play the animal companion or familiar for a session. Its fun, but by the end the guest usually agrees that they don't really want to do it a second time. Its a great way to include an extra player every now and then without affecting party size.

[djreynolds]

Are you asking to play Falcor?

[Contrast]

Well you're in luck, since any animal qualifying to be an animal companion is already sentient

Apologies I clearly misphrased myself. I meant sapience. As far as I'm aware nothing in the animal companion bond intrinsically makes the animals smarter - just they're magically bonded to a human and can magically understand that humans desires through the bond. While you have to command them verbally, its not even clear if they generically understand speech or if thats just part of the magic of the companion bond.