Your animal companion already adds your proficiency bonus to all its attacks regardless of proficiency, it would not be able to add its own and that is just an difference of 2 points, not a lot.
Getting an animal to weild a weapon is a question of design However, if you can adapt the general shape of an weapon to the anatomy of an beast, applying spear heads to the ends of an elephant's tusks, reforming handaxes or scimitars to become claw attachments for an bear / wolf / panther or attatching a flail or whip to the tail of an snake, many things can be done to fortify and arm your natural ally if you have Smiths tools and some creativity
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I am absolutely going to resurrect this dead thread and say that this question is *exactly* why rangers should max-out their animal handling skill and why DMs should be more creative in their thinking of animal handling. Want to train a rat to use a mouth-borne, poisoned dagger? Absolutely. Make an animal handling roll at DC25 during your next long-rest, please. Your wisdom-based Beastmaster with a +11 animal handling should get the same kind of crazy and cool benefits as a rogue with +11 stealth or a cleric with +11 perception.
I would not let an animal companion wield a weapon unless they have appendage that can hold it properly and extensive training to use it. Even though a baboon can hold a warhammer, giving it one will not mean he'd have the reflexes to use it properly in combat. Animals are not physically and mentally fit for wielding a weapon in combat in any effective way.
Baboons have hands.
Yes. But what is their intelligence stat? I know that they are smart in real life, but DnD is not real life.
'The Cleverness of mushrooms always surprises me!' - Ivern Bramblefoot.
I'll worldbuild for your DnD games!
Just a D&D enjoyer, check out my fiverr page if you need any worldbuilding done for ya!
Your animal companion already adds your proficiency bonus to all its attacks regardless of proficiency, it would not be able to add its own and that is just an difference of 2 points, not a lot.
Getting an animal to weild a weapon is a question of design However, if you can adapt the general shape of an weapon to the anatomy of an beast, applying spear heads to the ends of an elephant's tusks, reforming handaxes or scimitars to become claw attachments for an bear / wolf / panther or attatching a flail or whip to the tail of an snake, many things can be done to fortify and arm your natural ally if you have Smiths tools and some creativity
i am soup, with too many ideas (all of them very spicy) who has made sufficient homebrew material and character to last an thousand human lifetimes
I am absolutely going to resurrect this dead thread and say that this question is *exactly* why rangers should max-out their animal handling skill and why DMs should be more creative in their thinking of animal handling. Want to train a rat to use a mouth-borne, poisoned dagger? Absolutely. Make an animal handling roll at DC25 during your next long-rest, please. Your wisdom-based Beastmaster with a +11 animal handling should get the same kind of crazy and cool benefits as a rogue with +11 stealth or a cleric with +11 perception.
I would not let an animal companion wield a weapon unless they have appendage that can hold it properly and extensive training to use it. Even though a baboon can hold a warhammer, giving it one will not mean he'd have the reflexes to use it properly in combat. Animals are not physically and mentally fit for wielding a weapon in combat in any effective way.
I mean, now I want a wolf named Sif wielding a sword by the mouth.
Prove to me a weasel cannot hold on to a hairpin and jiggle it in a lock as well as most other players.