D&D 5E 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?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Probably not. For one, I know my players and I'm sure that roleplaying an ape would feel way too limiting for them, and they'd find it to get boring pretty fast after the novelty wore off.

 

[Istbor]

I would if the animal in question was something other than an Ape. I have a remorseless and illogical dislike for Apes and Monkeys.

My guess would also be that the novelty of the venture would be worn out quickly, and the animal companion would soon want a real character of their own.

 

[draxthis]

My guess would also be that the novelty of the venture would be worn out quickly, and the animal companion would soon want a real character of their own.

I agree with this statement. That being said, I would allow it within the confines of my sanity as a DM. I fully expect my players to go off scope and plot but even I have a tolerance and this scenario has plot kill all over it.

 

[iserith]

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?

Yes, absolutely, for however long the player was having fun playing the ape. I'd leave it to the players to choose whether it was PHB or UA.

I don't really see why I wouldn't allow this.

 

[Creamsteak]

You really don't want to know how prepared I am for this option.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

I wouldn't allow it. Not because it's a bad idea, but because mechanically it just creates a mess since the benefits of the ranger beast master wouldn't be for him. If I did this, I'd have one be a ranger (non-beast master) and the other player play whatever and just reskin him as an ape. Then let them role play the animal companion thing. This seems more an opportunity for role play rather than a reason to mechanically bind the two players.

 

[MarkB]

If one player wants to be another player's animal companion, that's fine with me. But he still has to pick a race and class out of the PHB, just like everyone else.

 

[ccs]

Yes, absolutely, for however long the player was having fun playing the ape. I'd leave it to the players to choose whether it was PHB or UA.

I don't really see why I wouldn't allow this.

Yeah, this ^ pretty much sums up my stance.

The ranger can be made using either the PHB or UA version. (I assume the two players will work together on that choice)
The APE? Uses the stats out of the MM & is modified as per the ranger effects. It doesn't advance in any other way.

The only major change is that the Ape will act on it's own initiative & won't siphon the rangers actions - but then this is true for all animal companions/familiars in my games....

The player can play the ape as long as they like. If they ever decide to stop? Then it just comes under the ranger players control.

 

[TwoSix]

If someone says they want to play an ape, I make up a 20-level ape progression. (Extra Attack is renamed to Going Bananas.) I'd just let the ranger take the other ranger subclass instead and just roleplay it as the ranger's companion. I'd do the same thing if someone wanted to play a wizard's familiar, too. Why not encourage out-of-the-box thinking?