Before getting ready for a combat or a battle, there are times you have enough time to get prepared. As most games most DMs do not involve battles in their games, it is not really relevant though. I already said monkeys can not physically speak, but that is due to lack of neural control as i written above. My real purpose for mentioning apes was actually somewhere else, as they can use their hands like us, it would be reasonable that they can cast spells with somatic components, ability to make two attacks with fists, climb speed and ability to use spells without verbal components make them quite useful during level 2 for a moon druid.
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.
So in effect a moon druid with low physical AS can get to use ape form in level 2 and wear his equipment, he can cast absorb elements, gets a multiple fist attack, gets an athletic skill modifier of +5 and climbing speed, i think it's situationally useful. It is not about achieving something. It is about showing armored wildshape options, as that is the subject of this thread as you are aware i guess...
Outside of wildshape an beast is not proficient in wearing armor. I have a paladin who's stead wears armor, doing so gives it disadvantage on things like athletics checks and dex saves but I think that is more than offset by the increased AC
In wildshape you retain your skill proficiencies so I would presume you are proficient in mediaum and light barding armor but heavy (unless you have heavy armor proficiency)
Even if you are proficient with heavy armor you can't wear heavy armor unless made of natural materials with druid i guess tho, due to non metallic armor ethos... But paladin steed taking disadvantage from lack of proficiency is news to me, is your steed a warhorse or some other animal?
Even if you are proficient with heavy armor you can't wear heavy armor unless made of natural materials with druid i guess tho, due to non metallic armor ethos... But paladin steed taking disadvantage from lack of proficiency is news to me, is your steed a warhorse or some other animal?
You are right I should have mentioned the armor would have to be non metal
My paladin is high enough level now to have a pegasus but it does not say in the rules that a war horse (or any other beast) has proficiency in armor and find steed say the only changes for the normal beast are it has an intelligence of at least 6 and it can understand one language. So any ignoring of the disadvantages due to lack of armor proficiency is homebrew.
Honestly i think barding is constructed in a way that does not hamper movement speed, as per encumbrance rules as long as armor does not pass 5xstrength(and any size modifier) i would not give any penalties, as wearing light armor is probably less disturbing than carrying the same weight on our back or hands, as the weight is more evenly distrubuted. If you think like this even wearing a backpack loaded with 20pounds of gear would require proficiency and that backpack hampers ones movement much more than a leather armor does. Ofcourse this is logic rather than game rule, but per game rules barding itself is called adventuring gear rather than armor, and instead uses types of armor as its base(applicable armor) so as you have suggested light and medium armor proficiency gives druid the proficiency to wear any leather, hide, or even treebark(halfplate) adventuring gear that is considered armor, if barding is an armor that too is included if you consider it as armor, if you do not consider it as armor then no prof needed anyway just like the backpack.
And for animals since animals are not pcs, i do not understand how they would need proficieny as they are not player races, they use monster stat block(talking about steed, not the wildform, i agree that wildform might be considered a bit more special in this case) thus both steed, and beastmasters pet should be able to use barding without any penalties. (Do we assume that apes have unarmed fighting style? no, monsters do things and the way do things do not need to be explained with the same logic as players do in 5e).
Jegpeg, thanks for your input i'm sure OP had our answer from our fruitful converisation.
The same arguement imply that human light armor is less disturbing than carring the same weight on back or hands. Not sure if it is true IRL but noone argues that a wizard is encumbered wearing light armor unless proficient.
Many animals have implied proficiency in skills (e.g .an eagle has a +4 to perception dispite having a +2 wisdom modifier) so it seems reasonable to assume unless a creature has a stated proficiency it does not. An Apes attack if different from unarmed fighting (it does not get the grapple benefit) but the rules for the fist attack say exactly what it does.
However something I have just noticed is the barding details say which types of barding give disadvantage to stealth but if the lack of proficiency rules apply then ant beast I am aware of would be at disadvantage on stealth wearing any barding. Anyway we have strayed off topic on this.
There's no official rule of beasts having or gaining armor proficiency, just the note that warhorses can be wearing barding of specific types. So it's completely open and up to the DM and their group how to handle. I'd say just play it logically. Is a mount trained for war? No? No proficiency, penalties apply. Is a mount trained for war? It has the required proficiency and no penalties apply. As for the summoned steed, at the very least the greater steed should be proficient in it I'd say, but I'd also already grant it the regular version since warhorse is already a listed option there as well. That being said, it doesn't say that it gets summoned with barding so you gotta get it yourself and if it dies you gotta carry it around yourself until you summon it again.
As for how that applies to the wildshaping druid though, I'm not quite sure. Druids already have armor proficiencies so there's not really a problem lol.
Since the barding rules are presented in the mounts and vehicles section of the equipment chapter, you could make an argument that all of the "Mounts and Other Animals" are implied to be able to wear barding, and other than that there is no game implication.
The application to druids is that it is possible that even if barding was the solution to armored wild shape AND you took the time to have the rest of the party help you don that equipment, you still might be shut down by a DM who says "there's no bear armor, no matter what Iorek says" or "you're not proficient in that armor" or whatever else. And again, someone already mentioned the restrictions that druids have on metal armor should still apply to horse armor while in horse shape.
Yes i agree with metal armor being unusable by druid class wheter if be barding in wildshape or otherwise, but there is no "bear amor" thing simply does not work as, one can't get such item either through regular crafting or through spells like fabricate, any DM shutting down logical solutions to problems simply would have to look for another player to fill the place of the player he lost. I do kinda like repeating logic>rai>raw. Though i too often use rai over logic as this is afterall a game. But somethings that are so obvious and easy to implement on the go without even houseruling should simply be let...
(as fabricate spell actually gives one the ability to craft such an armor/barding with the help of tools proficiency, saying such an item does not exists does not solve the problem, players reaction would be, "oh cool, so i invented it!")
Logic comes last. Generally, if the words in the game tell you something different (ether implied or in the text), then that should come first in that game. Those words, after all, are the rules of the game.
Can you create bear armor with crafting or fabricate? Maybe, just like you might be able to create internal combustion engines. I mean fabricate says right on the tin that you can't create armor without tool proficiency anyway. Hopefully your wizard has leatherworking tool proficiency. And armor/barding are still game features that have listed availability that in actual fact is not listed for any creatures other than humanoids and the creatures listed in "Mounts and other animals". Providing something beyond the text is literally NOT RAW; it simply is not written. Is it possible? Probably, but it depends on the DM.
But again, all of this is so that what? Your 7th level druid (who is now only a polar bear or equivalent) can have probably no better AC? (12+ 0 for hide vs 12 for natural armor). Remember, you agreed that we have to stick to the no metal armor restriction. (And If i recall correctly, bears have particularly bad AC for their level to make up for their higher HP.)
Just looking quickly through beasts CR 2 (when fabricate becomes available) through CR 6 and the elementals available to Elemental Wild Shape, only a small number of monsters would be improved by hide or studded leather. Usually the improvement is only by 1 or 2 AC for the few dexterous beasts, often cats or spiders. Some of the elementals would be improved by studded leather, but at the cost of their trait that allows them to squeeze.
Oh, and by the way, I think maybe only the elementals would be better served by armor that a druid can wear than barkskin. All of the bests would be better off with an AC of 16 than studded/hide + dex mod.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Before getting ready for a combat or a battle, there are times you have enough time to get prepared. As most games most DMs do not involve battles in their games, it is not really relevant though. I already said monkeys can not physically speak, but that is due to lack of neural control as i written above. My real purpose for mentioning apes was actually somewhere else, as they can use their hands like us, it would be reasonable that they can cast spells with somatic components, ability to make two attacks with fists, climb speed and ability to use spells without verbal components make them quite useful during level 2 for a moon druid.
So in effect a moon druid with low physical AS can get to use ape form in level 2 and wear his equipment, he can cast absorb elements, gets a multiple fist attack, gets an athletic skill modifier of +5 and climbing speed, i think it's situationally useful. It is not about achieving something. It is about showing armored wildshape options, as that is the subject of this thread as you are aware i guess...
Outside of wildshape an beast is not proficient in wearing armor. I have a paladin who's stead wears armor, doing so gives it disadvantage on things like athletics checks and dex saves but I think that is more than offset by the increased AC
In wildshape you retain your skill proficiencies so I would presume you are proficient in mediaum and light barding armor but heavy (unless you have heavy armor proficiency)
Even if you are proficient with heavy armor you can't wear heavy armor unless made of natural materials with druid i guess tho, due to non metallic armor ethos... But paladin steed taking disadvantage from lack of proficiency is news to me, is your steed a warhorse or some other animal?
You are right I should have mentioned the armor would have to be non metal
My paladin is high enough level now to have a pegasus but it does not say in the rules that a war horse (or any other beast) has proficiency in armor and find steed say the only changes for the normal beast are it has an intelligence of at least 6 and it can understand one language. So any ignoring of the disadvantages due to lack of armor proficiency is homebrew.
Honestly i think barding is constructed in a way that does not hamper movement speed, as per encumbrance rules as long as armor does not pass 5xstrength(and any size modifier) i would not give any penalties, as wearing light armor is probably less disturbing than carrying the same weight on our back or hands, as the weight is more evenly distrubuted. If you think like this even wearing a backpack loaded with 20pounds of gear would require proficiency and that backpack hampers ones movement much more than a leather armor does. Ofcourse this is logic rather than game rule, but per game rules barding itself is called adventuring gear rather than armor, and instead uses types of armor as its base(applicable armor) so as you have suggested light and medium armor proficiency gives druid the proficiency to wear any leather, hide, or even treebark(halfplate) adventuring gear that is considered armor, if barding is an armor that too is included if you consider it as armor, if you do not consider it as armor then no prof needed anyway just like the backpack.
And for animals since animals are not pcs, i do not understand how they would need proficieny as they are not player races, they use monster stat block(talking about steed, not the wildform, i agree that wildform might be considered a bit more special in this case) thus both steed, and beastmasters pet should be able to use barding without any penalties. (Do we assume that apes have unarmed fighting style? no, monsters do things and the way do things do not need to be explained with the same logic as players do in 5e).
Jegpeg, thanks for your input i'm sure OP had our answer from our fruitful converisation.
The same arguement imply that human light armor is less disturbing than carring the same weight on back or hands. Not sure if it is true IRL but noone argues that a wizard is encumbered wearing light armor unless proficient.
Many animals have implied proficiency in skills (e.g .an eagle has a +4 to perception dispite having a +2 wisdom modifier) so it seems reasonable to assume unless a creature has a stated proficiency it does not. An Apes attack if different from unarmed fighting (it does not get the grapple benefit) but the rules for the fist attack say exactly what it does.
However something I have just noticed is the barding details say which types of barding give disadvantage to stealth but if the lack of proficiency rules apply then ant beast I am aware of would be at disadvantage on stealth wearing any barding. Anyway we have strayed off topic on this.
There's no official rule of beasts having or gaining armor proficiency, just the note that warhorses can be wearing barding of specific types. So it's completely open and up to the DM and their group how to handle. I'd say just play it logically. Is a mount trained for war? No? No proficiency, penalties apply. Is a mount trained for war? It has the required proficiency and no penalties apply. As for the summoned steed, at the very least the greater steed should be proficient in it I'd say, but I'd also already grant it the regular version since warhorse is already a listed option there as well. That being said, it doesn't say that it gets summoned with barding so you gotta get it yourself and if it dies you gotta carry it around yourself until you summon it again.
As for how that applies to the wildshaping druid though, I'm not quite sure. Druids already have armor proficiencies so there's not really a problem lol.
I've never encountered a forum where I got this many "talking to a wall" impressions as this one...
Since the barding rules are presented in the mounts and vehicles section of the equipment chapter, you could make an argument that all of the "Mounts and Other Animals" are implied to be able to wear barding, and other than that there is no game implication.
The application to druids is that it is possible that even if barding was the solution to armored wild shape AND you took the time to have the rest of the party help you don that equipment, you still might be shut down by a DM who says "there's no bear armor, no matter what Iorek says" or "you're not proficient in that armor" or whatever else. And again, someone already mentioned the restrictions that druids have on metal armor should still apply to horse armor while in horse shape.
Yes i agree with metal armor being unusable by druid class wheter if be barding in wildshape or otherwise, but there is no "bear amor" thing simply does not work as, one can't get such item either through regular crafting or through spells like fabricate, any DM shutting down logical solutions to problems simply would have to look for another player to fill the place of the player he lost. I do kinda like repeating logic>rai>raw. Though i too often use rai over logic as this is afterall a game. But somethings that are so obvious and easy to implement on the go without even houseruling should simply be let...
(as fabricate spell actually gives one the ability to craft such an armor/barding with the help of tools proficiency, saying such an item does not exists does not solve the problem, players reaction would be, "oh cool, so i invented it!")
Logic comes last. Generally, if the words in the game tell you something different (ether implied or in the text), then that should come first in that game. Those words, after all, are the rules of the game.
Can you create bear armor with crafting or fabricate? Maybe, just like you might be able to create internal combustion engines. I mean fabricate says right on the tin that you can't create armor without tool proficiency anyway. Hopefully your wizard has leatherworking tool proficiency. And armor/barding are still game features that have listed availability that in actual fact is not listed for any creatures other than humanoids and the creatures listed in "Mounts and other animals". Providing something beyond the text is literally NOT RAW; it simply is not written. Is it possible? Probably, but it depends on the DM.
But again, all of this is so that what? Your 7th level druid (who is now only a polar bear or equivalent) can have probably no better AC? (12+ 0 for hide vs 12 for natural armor). Remember, you agreed that we have to stick to the no metal armor restriction. (And If i recall correctly, bears have particularly bad AC for their level to make up for their higher HP.)
Just looking quickly through beasts CR 2 (when fabricate becomes available) through CR 6 and the elementals available to Elemental Wild Shape, only a small number of monsters would be improved by hide or studded leather. Usually the improvement is only by 1 or 2 AC for the few dexterous beasts, often cats or spiders. Some of the elementals would be improved by studded leather, but at the cost of their trait that allows them to squeeze.
Oh, and by the way, I think maybe only the elementals would be better served by armor that a druid can wear than barkskin. All of the bests would be better off with an AC of 16 than studded/hide + dex mod.