While it's certainly possible that it's just not included yet... Given this, I suspect that it may be more of an illegal combination that flatly doesn't exist. with the linked tweet saying that a druid can't wildshape & have magic armor adjust to fit the new form as the gm decides because armor & barding are treated different it raises the question of "well what are valid targets for the magic armor options in the dmg."
The word barding does not appear to exist at all in the dmg & armor != barding is especially important because all of the magic armors say things like "armor (any)", "armor: Plate", etc. If barding is under something like "Barding:leather", "Barding:plate", etc it exists in limbo
I'll have to look over the DMG but I think magical armor for animals is typically not listed. Really if you are playing a game you can assume the cost of a set of magical armor for a humanoid is roughly the same price as that for an animal. If we are talking bear maybe increase it some.
I assume they didn't want to have to list every animal that one could possibly have and leave that more up to the dm.
The problem id that wotc (as linked) has said that a druid with magic armor would need barding if they wildshape because barding & armor are different. If all the magic armor types can only be applied to "armor", then "barding" is invalid since barding is not armor
If all the magic armor types can only be applied to "armor", then "barding" is invalid since barding is not armor
This isn't true. Here's a link to the section on mounts and vehicles. And here's the important text.
Barding. Barding is armor designed to protect an animal’s head, neck, chest, and body. Any type of armor shown on the Armor table can be purchased as barding. The cost is four times the equivalent armor made for humanoids, and it weighs twice as much.
Barding is armor, it's just armor made for animals. Mechanically there is nothing different about plate armor for horses and plate armor for humans, except that it costs 4 times as much and weighs a little more.
We can therefore infer that magical barding is quite possible. If you can make plate armor of acid resistance, you can make plate barding of acid resistance. There don't need to be separate pages for this either, because we already know that barding and armor are the same thing.
How much magic barding costs is up to the DM, just as the price of magic armor is. However I will say that I see no reason that the cost of the enchantment should change. The base armor costs more because there is much more of it to make, but the number of spells cast to enchant it is the same. I would just add the 4x base armor cost to whatever price I ruled the enchantment cost and call it good.
The problem id that wotc (as linked) has said that a druid with magic armor would need barding if they wildshape because barding & armor are different. If all the magic armor types can only be applied to "armor", then "barding" is invalid since barding is not armor
Off the top of my head I believe this would be the case as armor worn should shape with the druids change into whatever animal they are turning into or at best is dropped and therefore not worn. To put armor on an animal would require barding as normal armor doesn't fit. Someone would have to put the armor on you as you can no longer do it yourself.
Basically by shapechanging you are doubling your hp which is why you don't get to keep your armor while shapechanged because you have a ton of temporary hp.
I think this is a good example of why RPG books should repeat themselves rather than assume you read the rule on page X while reading about the topic on page X+100.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While it's certainly possible that it's just not included yet... Given this, I suspect that it may be more of an illegal combination that flatly doesn't exist. with the linked tweet saying that a druid can't wildshape & have magic armor adjust to fit the new form as the gm decides because armor & barding are treated different it raises the question of "well what are valid targets for the magic armor options in the dmg."
The word barding does not appear to exist at all in the dmg & armor != barding is especially important because all of the magic armors say things like "armor (any)", "armor: Plate", etc. If barding is under something like "Barding:leather", "Barding:plate", etc it exists in limbo
I'll have to look over the DMG but I think magical armor for animals is typically not listed. Really if you are playing a game you can assume the cost of a set of magical armor for a humanoid is roughly the same price as that for an animal. If we are talking bear maybe increase it some.
I assume they didn't want to have to list every animal that one could possibly have and leave that more up to the dm.
The problem id that wotc (as linked) has said that a druid with magic armor would need barding if they wildshape because barding & armor are different. If all the magic armor types can only be applied to "armor", then "barding" is invalid since barding is not armor
This isn't true. Here's a link to the section on mounts and vehicles. And here's the important text.
Barding is armor, it's just armor made for animals. Mechanically there is nothing different about plate armor for horses and plate armor for humans, except that it costs 4 times as much and weighs a little more.
We can therefore infer that magical barding is quite possible. If you can make plate armor of acid resistance, you can make plate barding of acid resistance. There don't need to be separate pages for this either, because we already know that barding and armor are the same thing.
How much magic barding costs is up to the DM, just as the price of magic armor is. However I will say that I see no reason that the cost of the enchantment should change. The base armor costs more because there is much more of it to make, but the number of spells cast to enchant it is the same. I would just add the 4x base armor cost to whatever price I ruled the enchantment cost and call it good.
I think this is a good example of why RPG books should repeat themselves rather than assume you read the rule on page X while reading about the topic on page X+100.