I don't believe my moon druid would be able to use magic items in beast form. To me the PHB is very clear on that and I wouldn't expect my DM to bend the rules as I wouldn't either as a DM in order to be fair to the other players. I do however cast mirror image and switch to beast form, my DM hasn't said I can't and I don't see what would stop this, espically great as it doesn't even require concentration.
What do you mean by 'use'? Do you mean activate or wear? The PHB indicates you should be able wear some magic items, but is really loose on the guidelines for what the DM should permit:
You choose whether your equipment falls to the ground in your space, merges into your new form, or is worn by it. Worn equipment functions as normal, but the DM decides whether it is practical for the new form to wear a piece of equipment, based on the creature’s shape and size. Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form, and any equipment that the new form can’t wear must either fall to the ground or merge with it. Equipment that merges with the form has no effect until you leave the form.
A necklace maybe, but that's really going to be limited to a handful of beasts. I'd say they'd be a risk of losing it in other forms as it would be Ill fitting.
A necklace maybe, but that's really going to be limited to a handful of beasts. I'd say they'd be a risk of losing it in other forms as it would be Ill fitting.
The next step of the argument; from the DMG -
In most cases, a magic item that’s meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer. Rare exceptions exist. If the story suggests a good reason for an item to fit only creatures of a certain size or shape, you can rule that it doesn’t adjust. For example, armor made by the drow might fit elves only. Dwarves might make items usable only by dwarf-sized and dwarf-shaped characters. When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs has no way to wear magic boots.
This is why all Druids and DMs have to work out at their table what is permitted and what isn't. The books imply the druids should be able to wear some of their magic, but is woefully unclear about what should or should not be permitted. Since there's no clear cut rules and the game encourages a negotiation between a player and the DM, discussions like this one are inevitable.
A necklace maybe, but that's really going to be limited to a handful of beasts. I'd say they'd be a risk of losing it in other forms as it would be Ill fitting.
The next step of the argument; from the DMG -
In most cases, a magic item that’s meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer. Rare exceptions exist. If the story suggests a good reason for an item to fit only creatures of a certain size or shape, you can rule that it doesn’t adjust. For example, armor made by the drow might fit elves only. Dwarves might make items usable only by dwarf-sized and dwarf-shaped characters. When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs has no way to wear magic boots.
This is why all Druids and DMsl have to work out at their table what is permitted and what isn't. The books imply the druids should be able to wear some of their magic, but is woefully unclear about what should or should be permitted. Since there's no clear cut rules and the game encourages a negotiation between a player and the DM, discussions like this one are inevitable.
This is all a little frustrating Jimbo because it's like you didn't even read the thread and then proceeded to post your opinion anyways... Either way, too add to CKelly's post, there is one more piece of relevant text.
DMG Pg.141 "Wearing and Wielding Items" When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs can't wear boots.
This, and everything Ckelly posted was all already posted in this thread, hence the minor frustration in re-posting all this.
Hopefully going forward you and your DM can figure out which of your magic items will transition nicely to which beast forms.
A necklace maybe, but that's really going to be limited to a handful of beasts. I'd say they'd be a risk of losing it in other forms as it would be Ill fitting.
The next step of the argument; from the DMG -
In most cases, a magic item that’s meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer. Rare exceptions exist. If the story suggests a good reason for an item to fit only creatures of a certain size or shape, you can rule that it doesn’t adjust. For example, armor made by the drow might fit elves only. Dwarves might make items usable only by dwarf-sized and dwarf-shaped characters. When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs has no way to wear magic boots.
This is why all Druids and DMsl have to work out at their table what is permitted and what isn't. The books imply the druids should be able to wear some of their magic, but is woefully unclear about what should or should be permitted. Since there's no clear cut rules and the game encourages a negotiation between a player and the DM, discussions like this one are inevitable.
This is all a little frustrating Jimbo because it's like you didn't even read the thread and then proceeded to post your opinion anyways... Either way, too add to CKelly's post, there is one more piece of relevant text.
DMG Pg.141 "Wearing and Wielding Items" When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs can't wear boots.
This, and everything Ckelly posted was all already posted in this thread, hence the minor frustration in re-posting all this.
Hopefully going forward you and your DM can figure out which of your magic items will transition nicely to which beast forms.
Frustrating as it may seem I still think that despite what is stated in the DMG it's not all that relevant. What are you saying will work then? A bear wearing a ring wouldn't work because a bear paw doesn't have the same structure as a human hand. Despite a rings size it wouldn't have a way of staying in place. An ape you could I guess, but the DM might say if it's an item which requires attunement the the resizing happens during that process.
Frustrating as it may seem I still think that despite what is stated in the DMG it's not all that relevant. What are you saying will work then? A bear wearing a ring wouldn't work because a bear paw doesn't have the same structure as a human hand. Despite a rings size it wouldn't have a way of staying in place. An ape you could I guess, but the DM might say if it's an item which requires attunement the the resizing happens during that process.
Yes, a DM might say that, but the thing is that it's up to the DM. And clearly, the DMG has stated that a tentacle might be able to wear a ring. So if a tentacle, why not a bear claw/nail. If the ring resizes to fit snug. I can definitely see me, or another DM ruling for it. I could also see a DM ruling against it. Point is, there are multiple different beast shapes that can wear multiple different magic items. I'd say a cape and or necklace would fit most 4 legged animals. Boots as well. It's just up to being logical while understanding that the magic items reshape and whether that reshaping would fit, well enough, an animals form. Obviously, a snake couldn't wear boots. But a bear is questionable and up to each DM to arbitrate. Afar-cry from:
"I don't believe my moon druid would be able to use magic items in beast form. To me the PHB is very clear on that and I wouldn't expect my DM to bend the rules as I wouldn't either as a DM in order to be fair to the other players."
There aren’t any magic items that are for piercings (earrings, nose rings, various other ring things) that I know of but you could homebrew some for use by wildshape druids.
That would circumvent the whole “could an animal wear (fill in the blank)” and make it about “does it make the wildshape druid overpowered”
Now we have some thought going into this, lets expand on this - assuming that your DM allows magic items to resize and therefor that they resize to fit an altered form, what magic items would you choose for your druid?
One of the three attuneable could be dragonscale mail, its one of the only non metal armours featured and gives a resistance to an elemental type. This alone changes which forms you might want to transform into.
I've actually been having good luck with a necklace of adaptation. Couple of smoke filled rooms and AOE poison clouds that have been negated by that handy little thing. Also being a Bear who can potentially hangout underwater indefinitely and survive being buried alive has lead to spirited table conversation when planning.
I think a cloak of displacement with barkskin would be nice.
Your equipment doesn’t change size or shape to match the new form...
It makes no mention of "magic items". Equipment and magic items are very different things. Some magical horse barding could easily change shape to fit a bear, much like magic plate armor resizes to fit a kobold or goliath.
"In most cases, a magic item that’s meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer."
The statement above doesn't exist for normal equipment, here , magic items specifically are called out.
So providing the magic item your starting with obeys the statement below, I see no reason why a bear could not also where boots of speed for instance.
"When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a Yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs has no way to wear magic boots."
Magic items may be described as both magical and equipment. There is no preclusion of one item being both magical and equipment. Not surprisingly, DDB includes magic equipment in the equipment section. Remember that Ch 5 of the PHB describes equipment as “armor, weapons, backpacks, rope, and similar goods...” all the same stuff that one would describe as magic items if they found magical versions of those things. And again, weapons and armor are flat out described as equipment. Nothing in the magic items sections of the books indicates that these things stop being equipment when they are magic.
On a side note, a bear — which is a quadruped — should gain no magical benefit of wearing 2 boots on 2 of its legs. Making the back legs of a bear go fast doesn’t speed its front legs.
Funny, I cant find a single reference in the DMG where it states magic equipment, magic items yes, magic equipment no.
Either way there is nothing anywhere other than for magic "items" that states "made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer."
And exactly, the PHB describes equipment only, not magic items.
I agree with your take on the boots of speed, bad example.
And potions are never called magic potions. We know armor and weapons are equipment.
And magic items show up in the equipment chapter of the PHB. It is a very semantic argument to say that stuff that we all know is equipment (for one reason, because the books call it equipment) isn’t simply because it is magical — especially when nothing in the books indicates such. If you want anyone to believe your argument, you need to affirm it by proving that the book somewhere state that items that are magical cannot also be equipment.
By the way, arguing that “magic items” don’t need to be re-sized while “equipment” does is a misunderstanding of the rules. The rules on equipment say that with in reason all equipment is adjustable to fit creatures of different sizes. Wildshape still overrides this.
I know this isn’t a rule, but it is intended to work as I have explained. When a game feature says something about equipment, it probably means your equipment that happens to also be magic items.
If you need a visual reference for yourself on the concept of magical items vs. Equipment.
Get a sheet of paper. Draw yourself a circle. Label it Equipment. Now Draw yourself a second circle that overlaps the first one at least half way. Label this new second over lapping circle as Magic Items.
Congratulations you've just created yourself a visual representation to solve the issue.
If you want to know why it does this. Well it's because not all equipment is magical. There is a fair bit that isn't. There are also certain magical items (such as potions, scrolls, and other consumables but also the occasional wierd magical contraption or room or something that's hard to take into account) that are not equipment. Thus you have Equipment and you have Magical Items and They mostly overlap but they have some things about each that do not.
Going back to more of the original topics. This issue is why some editions actually came up with an enchantment for druids, mostly for armor, that actually dealt in specificity with the issue of magical items not changing shape to fit the shapes of the forms you take. This is something that can conceivably be recreated in 5e on a Homebrew level. It's just never been done in an official capacity. it basically increased the functionality of size changing magical items to also be able to handle shape changing.
I did not want to necro, but this thread requires clarification imho. The wildshape explanation about worn items not changing size clearly is meant for nonmagical items, as magical item definitions contradicts with it, either way, there is something called barding in this game, and since magical items change their size they can effectively apply to a say, giant elk as barding. If you lawyered/rule otherwise by saying raw; player armor and barding are two different things, i would have to give centaur in armor as an example, obviously magical plate armor changes it's forn to suit the centaur's equine body no?... If you still rule it out though, what can stop a player from getting an actual barding and donning it by the help of his party mates after changing into a beast via wildshape, as far as i know barding work on beasts as intended, and you are effectively a beast in wildshape.
Magic items resize but they don't change their structure or such. Barding is a very different kind of armoring than the kind of armor humanoids are wearing. You can't just give your horse a magical gauntlet and suddenly it's wearing proper barding lol
As for centaurs, they weren't a playable race when the core rules got released and WotC didn't bother to clarify anything so they completely rely on DM fiat. RAW though they'd just wear the armor on their humanoid part and still get the full benefit because DnD 5e is simplified like that.
Nothing stops a druid to get proper barding and don it with help of their party ... apart maybe from the time it takes, the Druid not always wanting to be in animal form since they also want to cast spells and not always wanting to be a kind of animal that can actually make use of barding. Changing back to humanoid form while wearing barding is probably fun too. Are you proficient in it? No? Too bad, can't cast spells anymore until you took your time to doff it. It's just highly impractical.
Barding proficiency? Well you simply use barding on a horse and somehow it gets proficient?, I had giant elk in mind tbh, an armored giant elk or even polar bear could be fun, and by all means, there is no need to make it harder than actual life, something applicable in real life would be more than welcome in a fantasy setting, or else it simply kills the purpose no? And, since there is no proficiency listed in the game for it, and that the item exists, we can conclude that it does not require a proficiency slot, or simply use similar armor proficiency based on the materials used in it's production(latter being a homebrew approach adherent to common sense, but by raw, there are no rules stopping you to wear barding, and an elk by all means can be consider as a proper mount, a giant elk being huge would have higher costs for barding though, but i do not comprehend how it would be impossible. Process is same for a knight, squires help him don his plate armor, in this case friends help him don whatever barding he is trying to don(non metal ofc). Btw, i doubt it will take alot of time to doff a huge barding for a medium sized character, they'll just get out of it, maximum perhaps in a single action or perhaps in a movement phase.
Your assumption about Centaur wearing armor on his humanoid torso, is your assumption based on art in media i guess, otherwise i haven't read anything like that. And not to mention it does not make sense, but still we are getting used to things which does not make sense in this game so... Though why can not they speak in ape form as their intelligence score is derived from their druid form, which means their neurological structure should now suit to talking, as apes have the hardware required to speak, but lack the driver. "Monkeys and apes lack the neural control over their vocal tract muscles to properly configure them for speech"
Barding is armor and armor requires proficiency. Barding can be of specific types as listed in the PHB for the Warhorse. Of course there's no "barding proficiency" since armor and weapon proficiencies are for player characters and player characters aren't normally supposed to be wearing barding since they aren't beasts. You'd be using the regular light/medium/heavy armor proficiency in this case. If we go with the classic barding most people think of then it's usually heavy armor but yes of course you could also go with just medium armor. It's something to keep in mind though.
I didn't doubt the process of donning the armor. Donning armor takes a lot of time though. 1 minute for light armor, 5 minutes for medium armor, 10 minutes for heavy armor. Even if you cut that in half (due to being helped by the party) it would still be way too late to do when the combat already begins and you don't usually wild shape ahead of time because you also want to cast at least one spell in combat to concentrate on and often don't even know you're going to run into enemies unless you're in a dungeon or did some successful scouting.
Doffing won't take a long time since you aren't mechanically actually doffing it but I'd argue it would still take your Action that turn to get rid of it properly. Not really something you'd want in combat. Action economy is important, especially when you just got punched out of your wild shape form.
I didn't make any assumptions about centaurs wearing armor. I only stated how it is RAW. They are a player character and aren't restricted in wearing armor in any shape or form nor is it anywhere stated that they need to do anything more to be properly protected. They can don the same kind of armor as a human and get to benefit from the full effect. If you want to add additional rules about them having to don barding or such then that's up to you and your table but it'd be a homebrew (one I'd support but that's not the topic).
Not sure what you're trying to achieve with your monkey strawman there though. First of all, I'd need a source that monkeys could physically speak (don't bother looking it up), second it doesn't matter in the slightest for fantasy monkeys and lastly but probably most importantly ... because the rules say so.
A necklace maybe, but that's really going to be limited to a handful of beasts. I'd say they'd be a risk of losing it in other forms as it would be Ill fitting.
The next step of the argument; from the DMG -
This is why all Druids and DMs have to work out at their table what is permitted and what isn't. The books imply the druids should be able to wear some of their magic, but is woefully unclear about what should or should not be permitted. Since there's no clear cut rules and the game encourages a negotiation between a player and the DM, discussions like this one are inevitable.
This is all a little frustrating Jimbo because it's like you didn't even read the thread and then proceeded to post your opinion anyways... Either way, too add to CKelly's post, there is one more piece of relevant text.
DMG Pg.141 "Wearing and Wielding Items"
When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs can't wear boots.
This, and everything Ckelly posted was all already posted in this thread, hence the minor frustration in re-posting all this.
Hopefully going forward you and your DM can figure out which of your magic items will transition nicely to which beast forms.
Frustrating as it may seem I still think that despite what is stated in the DMG it's not all that relevant. What are you saying will work then? A bear wearing a ring wouldn't work because a bear paw doesn't have the same structure as a human hand. Despite a rings size it wouldn't have a way of staying in place. An ape you could I guess, but the DM might say if it's an item which requires attunement the the resizing happens during that process.
Yes, a DM might say that, but the thing is that it's up to the DM. And clearly, the DMG has stated that a tentacle might be able to wear a ring. So if a tentacle, why not a bear claw/nail. If the ring resizes to fit snug. I can definitely see me, or another DM ruling for it. I could also see a DM ruling against it. Point is, there are multiple different beast shapes that can wear multiple different magic items. I'd say a cape and or necklace would fit most 4 legged animals. Boots as well. It's just up to being logical while understanding that the magic items reshape and whether that reshaping would fit, well enough, an animals form. Obviously, a snake couldn't wear boots. But a bear is questionable and up to each DM to arbitrate. Afar-cry from:
"I don't believe my moon druid would be able to use magic items in beast form. To me the PHB is very clear on that and I wouldn't expect my DM to bend the rules as I wouldn't either as a DM in order to be fair to the other players."
There aren’t any magic items that are for piercings (earrings, nose rings, various other ring things) that I know of but you could homebrew some for use by wildshape druids.
That would circumvent the whole “could an animal wear (fill in the blank)” and make it about “does it make the wildshape druid overpowered”
Now we have some thought going into this, lets expand on this - assuming that your DM allows magic items to resize and therefor that they resize to fit an altered form, what magic items would you choose for your druid?
One of the three attuneable could be dragonscale mail, its one of the only non metal armours featured and gives a resistance to an elemental type. This alone changes which forms you might want to transform into.
I've actually been having good luck with a necklace of adaptation. Couple of smoke filled rooms and AOE poison clouds that have been negated by that handy little thing. Also being a Bear who can potentially hangout underwater indefinitely and survive being buried alive has lead to spirited table conversation when planning.
I think a cloak of displacement with barkskin would be nice.
From the rules on Wildshape:
It makes no mention of "magic items". Equipment and magic items are very different things. Some magical horse barding could easily change shape to fit a bear, much like magic plate armor resizes to fit a kobold or goliath.
"In most cases, a magic item that’s meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer."
The statement above doesn't exist for normal equipment, here , magic items specifically are called out.
So providing the magic item your starting with obeys the statement below, I see no reason why a bear could not also where boots of speed for instance.
"When a nonhumanoid tries to wear an item, use your discretion as to whether the item functions as intended. A ring placed on a tentacle might work, but a Yuan-ti with a snakelike tail instead of legs has no way to wear magic boots."
A powerful necromancer appears. This thread was two years old lol
Magic items may be described as both magical and equipment. There is no preclusion of one item being both magical and equipment. Not surprisingly, DDB includes magic equipment in the equipment section. Remember that Ch 5 of the PHB describes equipment as “armor, weapons, backpacks, rope, and similar goods...” all the same stuff that one would describe as magic items if they found magical versions of those things. And again, weapons and armor are flat out described as equipment. Nothing in the magic items sections of the books indicates that these things stop being equipment when they are magic.
On a side note, a bear — which is a quadruped — should gain no magical benefit of wearing 2 boots on 2 of its legs. Making the back legs of a bear go fast doesn’t speed its front legs.
Funny, I cant find a single reference in the DMG where it states magic equipment, magic items yes, magic equipment no.
Either way there is nothing anywhere other than for magic "items" that states "made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer."
And exactly, the PHB describes equipment only, not magic items.
I agree with your take on the boots of speed, bad example.
And potions are never called magic potions. We know armor and weapons are equipment.
And magic items show up in the equipment chapter of the PHB. It is a very semantic argument to say that stuff that we all know is equipment (for one reason, because the books call it equipment) isn’t simply because it is magical — especially when nothing in the books indicates such. If you want anyone to believe your argument, you need to affirm it by proving that the book somewhere state that items that are magical cannot also be equipment.
By the way, arguing that “magic items” don’t need to be re-sized while “equipment” does is a misunderstanding of the rules. The rules on equipment say that with in reason all equipment is adjustable to fit creatures of different sizes. Wildshape still overrides this.
I know this isn’t a rule, but it is intended to work as I have explained. When a game feature says something about equipment, it probably means your equipment that happens to also be magic items.
If you need a visual reference for yourself on the concept of magical items vs. Equipment.
Get a sheet of paper.
Draw yourself a circle.
Label it Equipment.
Now Draw yourself a second circle that overlaps the first one at least half way.
Label this new second over lapping circle as Magic Items.
Congratulations you've just created yourself a visual representation to solve the issue.
If you want to know why it does this. Well it's because not all equipment is magical. There is a fair bit that isn't. There are also certain magical items (such as potions, scrolls, and other consumables but also the occasional wierd magical contraption or room or something that's hard to take into account) that are not equipment. Thus you have Equipment and you have Magical Items and They mostly overlap but they have some things about each that do not.
Going back to more of the original topics. This issue is why some editions actually came up with an enchantment for druids, mostly for armor, that actually dealt in specificity with the issue of magical items not changing shape to fit the shapes of the forms you take. This is something that can conceivably be recreated in 5e on a Homebrew level. It's just never been done in an official capacity. it basically increased the functionality of size changing magical items to also be able to handle shape changing.
Mage armor can not be cast on you (by you or a other caster). If you wear armor
I did not want to necro, but this thread requires clarification imho. The wildshape explanation about worn items not changing size clearly is meant for nonmagical items, as magical item definitions contradicts with it, either way, there is something called barding in this game, and since magical items change their size they can effectively apply to a say, giant elk as barding. If you lawyered/rule otherwise by saying raw; player armor and barding are two different things, i would have to give centaur in armor as an example, obviously magical plate armor changes it's forn to suit the centaur's equine body no?... If you still rule it out though, what can stop a player from getting an actual barding and donning it by the help of his party mates after changing into a beast via wildshape, as far as i know barding work on beasts as intended, and you are effectively a beast in wildshape.
Magic items resize but they don't change their structure or such. Barding is a very different kind of armoring than the kind of armor humanoids are wearing. You can't just give your horse a magical gauntlet and suddenly it's wearing proper barding lol
As for centaurs, they weren't a playable race when the core rules got released and WotC didn't bother to clarify anything so they completely rely on DM fiat. RAW though they'd just wear the armor on their humanoid part and still get the full benefit because DnD 5e is simplified like that.
Nothing stops a druid to get proper barding and don it with help of their party ... apart maybe from the time it takes, the Druid not always wanting to be in animal form since they also want to cast spells and not always wanting to be a kind of animal that can actually make use of barding. Changing back to humanoid form while wearing barding is probably fun too. Are you proficient in it? No? Too bad, can't cast spells anymore until you took your time to doff it. It's just highly impractical.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
Barding proficiency? Well you simply use barding on a horse and somehow it gets proficient?, I had giant elk in mind tbh, an armored giant elk or even polar bear could be fun, and by all means, there is no need to make it harder than actual life, something applicable in real life would be more than welcome in a fantasy setting, or else it simply kills the purpose no? And, since there is no proficiency listed in the game for it, and that the item exists, we can conclude that it does not require a proficiency slot, or simply use similar armor proficiency based on the materials used in it's production(latter being a homebrew approach adherent to common sense, but by raw, there are no rules stopping you to wear barding, and an elk by all means can be consider as a proper mount, a giant elk being huge would have higher costs for barding though, but i do not comprehend how it would be impossible. Process is same for a knight, squires help him don his plate armor, in this case friends help him don whatever barding he is trying to don(non metal ofc). Btw, i doubt it will take alot of time to doff a huge barding for a medium sized character, they'll just get out of it, maximum perhaps in a single action or perhaps in a movement phase.
Your assumption about Centaur wearing armor on his humanoid torso, is your assumption based on art in media i guess, otherwise i haven't read anything like that. And not to mention it does not make sense, but still we are getting used to things which does not make sense in this game so... Though why can not they speak in ape form as their intelligence score is derived from their druid form, which means their neurological structure should now suit to talking, as apes have the hardware required to speak, but lack the driver. "Monkeys and apes lack the neural control over their vocal tract muscles to properly configure them for speech"
Barding is armor and armor requires proficiency. Barding can be of specific types as listed in the PHB for the Warhorse. Of course there's no "barding proficiency" since armor and weapon proficiencies are for player characters and player characters aren't normally supposed to be wearing barding since they aren't beasts. You'd be using the regular light/medium/heavy armor proficiency in this case. If we go with the classic barding most people think of then it's usually heavy armor but yes of course you could also go with just medium armor. It's something to keep in mind though.
I didn't doubt the process of donning the armor. Donning armor takes a lot of time though. 1 minute for light armor, 5 minutes for medium armor, 10 minutes for heavy armor. Even if you cut that in half (due to being helped by the party) it would still be way too late to do when the combat already begins and you don't usually wild shape ahead of time because you also want to cast at least one spell in combat to concentrate on and often don't even know you're going to run into enemies unless you're in a dungeon or did some successful scouting.
Doffing won't take a long time since you aren't mechanically actually doffing it but I'd argue it would still take your Action that turn to get rid of it properly. Not really something you'd want in combat. Action economy is important, especially when you just got punched out of your wild shape form.
I didn't make any assumptions about centaurs wearing armor. I only stated how it is RAW. They are a player character and aren't restricted in wearing armor in any shape or form nor is it anywhere stated that they need to do anything more to be properly protected. They can don the same kind of armor as a human and get to benefit from the full effect. If you want to add additional rules about them having to don barding or such then that's up to you and your table but it'd be a homebrew (one I'd support but that's not the topic).
Not sure what you're trying to achieve with your monkey strawman there though. First of all, I'd need a source that monkeys could physically speak (don't bother looking it up), second it doesn't matter in the slightest for fantasy monkeys and lastly but probably most importantly ... because the rules say so.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...