There’s nothing that says anything needs proficiency in barding (I don’t think), so I don’t require it. Other than that I use the PHB equipment rules, it costs 4x and weighs 2x standard armor. I realize that formula was probably designed for horses, so it might not apply to something like a familiar or companion. In those cases I’d say the cost is still 4x — materials aren’t usually as important as labor costs, and it’s going to be so unusual to make barding for, say an owl, that it’s going to cost a lot more. The weight I might adjust to something like medium or small creature, PHB weight; smaller than small 1/2 weight.
Where do most of you DMs land on barding proficiency and weights for mounts, familiars, and beast companions?
No proficiency in general, although warhorses get it. Barding is armor, and the armor rules demand proficiency. The barding rules for weight and cost are ridiculous, though, since they suggest the exact same weight and cost for any barding for any animal, from tiny to gargantuan. Once we open up house rules, I recommend re-writing them as follows:
Equipment Weight: This is tough, because armor doesn't scale linearly in all three dimensions as you scale it - in particular, horse barding shouldn't be twice as thick as human armor. That's just ridiculous. Also, you need to be aware that carrying capacity is based on a factor of 2, so if you pick any other factor, you will change how much relative carrying capacity a creature must expend on armor. For example, with a factor of 4, a tiny creature has half the carrying capacity from its strength but its armor weights one fourth the amount, so it's twice as efficient at carrying armor as a small creature. Meanwhile, a Large creature has 2x the capacity and 4x the weight, so it's half as efficient as a medium creature. Because the barding rules were, in my opinion, written with large creatures in mind, not medium creatures, I recommend sticking to the raw as closely as possible, so I recommend scaling weight with a factor of 2, so it correlates 1:1 with carrying capacity. This means tiny barding is 1/2 the weight, small or medium 1x, large 2x, huge 4x, and gargantuan 8x.
Equipment Cost: This is also tough, because larger barding requires more raw materials, but smaller barding requires more skill. I would say keep the 4x multiplier for large and tiny barding, but reduce the small and medium multiplier to 1x, with the caveat that it likely needs to be made from scratch for an exotic mount, as otherwise you get weird nonsense like chimpanzee armor fundamentally requiring more materials or skill than human armor. Set the multiplier for Huge armor to 8x and the multiplier for Gargantuan armor to 16x, so the cost correlates with the weight (i.e. more raw materials cost more), but you stop up-charging for needing more skill.
For both rulings above, you may need to apply additional modifiers for very small or very large creatures, as tiny and gargantuan both apply to creatures of arbitrary size - a mosquito and a hummingbird are both tiny, while a blue whale and a humpback whale are both gargantuan. Don't chain yourself directly to size categories for extreme sizes.
It would be lovely if we had a RAW way to teach barding proficiency to animals, like however warhorses are trained. You could come up with a homebrew for that, if you wanted - Xanathar's training rules could be easily ported over to allow you to simply spend time and money getting it done, for example. But I have no idea how it would impact game balance to suddenly allow everyone's familiars, companions, and so on to have higher AC than the developers intended (without crippling their saves).
Where do most of you DMs land on barding proficiency and weights for mounts, familiars, and beast companions?
No proficiency in general, although warhorses get it. Barding is armor, and the armor rules demand proficiency.
Well, it requires proficiency for armor worn by humanoid characters. Barding is armour, sure, but it doesn't require the same skill to move about and fight in as armour designed for a humanoid warrior. Therefor you don't need proficiency in barding. I'd say it's about the same as not needing proficiency in armor to wear a magical helmet.
Where do most of you DMs land on barding proficiency and weights for mounts, familiars, and beast companions?
No proficiency in general, although warhorses get it. Barding is armor, and the armor rules demand proficiency.
Well, it requires proficiency for armor worn by humanoid characters. Barding is armour, sure, but it doesn't require the same skill to move about and fight in as armour designed for a humanoid warrior. Therefor you don't need proficiency in barding. I'd say it's about the same as not needing proficiency in armor to wear a magical helmet.
The rules on barding state it is armor. Where in the armor rules does it say the proficiency rules are humanoid only?
Where do most of you DMs land on barding proficiency and weights for mounts, familiars, and beast companions?
No proficiency in general, although warhorses get it. Barding is armor, and the armor rules demand proficiency.
Well, it requires proficiency for armor worn by humanoid characters. Barding is armour, sure, but it doesn't require the same skill to move about and fight in as armour designed for a humanoid warrior. Therefor you don't need proficiency in barding. I'd say it's about the same as not needing proficiency in armor to wear a magical helmet.
The rules on barding state it is armor. Where in the armor rules does it say the proficiency rules are humanoid only?
Where are the rules stating you need proficiency in barding?
Here, under the header “armor proficiency” (to be clear, they don’t say you “need proficiency,” they just spell out the penalties of wearing armor without proficiency).
Here, under the header “armor proficiency” (to be clear, they don’t say you “need proficiency,” they just spell out the penalties of wearing armor without proficiency).
That doesn't say anything about mounts needing proficiency, though.
Here, under the header “armor proficiency” (to be clear, they don’t say you “need proficiency,” they just spell out the penalties of wearing armor without proficiency).
That doesn't say anything about mounts needing proficiency, though.
Rules do what they say; there’s no exception carved out for any specific kinds of creature.
Here, under the header “armor proficiency” (to be clear, they don’t say you “need proficiency,” they just spell out the penalties of wearing armor without proficiency).
That doesn't say anything about mounts needing proficiency, though.
Rules do what they say; there’s no exception carved out for any specific kinds of creature.
Exactly. And under the heading you referred to their is no mention of barding:
Armor Proficiency. Anyone can put on a suit of armor or strap a shield to an arm. Only those proficient in the armor's use know how to wear it effectively, however. Your class gives you proficiency with certain types of armor. If you wear armor that you lack proficiency with, you have disadvantage on any ability check, saving throw, or attack roll that involves Strength or Dexterity, and you can't cast spells.
The point is that barding is and works inherently different from armor used by people which explains why you need proficiency as fighter/rogue/whatever. Barding is more of a passive protection that is just stuck on to the animal.
Barding is armor. Every time the rules say “armor,” it includes all armor.
I’m not sure what your point is re: warhorses. I’ve never said anything about warhorses.
War horses can be equipped with barding. If we following your logic they would need proficiency to be able to use it properly. The rules you refer to speak about classes giving you proficiency in different types of armor. So, which class is war horses that gives them proficiency in "barding armor"?
The point is that barding is and works inherently different from armor used by people which explains why you need proficiency as fighter/rogue/whatever. Barding is more of a passive protection that is just stuck on to the animal.
Please cite a rule that says barding is and works inherently differently. The only rule I can find says: "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." Absolutely nothing says anything about bypassing proficiency rules.
War horses can be equipped with barding. If we following your logic they would need proficiency to be able to use it properly. The rules you refer to speak about classes giving you proficiency in different types of armor. So, which class is war horses that gives them proficiency in "barding armor"?
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never said anything about warhorses. I do not care about warhorses. You're arguing with someone else.
Since no one else has mentioned it, I'll just post the rules for equipment proficiencies on NPCs here:
ARMOR, WEAPON, AND TOOL PROFICIENCIES
Assume that a creature is proficient with its armor, weapons, and tools. If you swap them out, you decide whether the creature is proficient with its new equipment.
For example, a hill giant typically wears hide armor and wields a greatclub. You could equip a hill giant with chain mail and a greataxe instead, and assume the giant is proficient with both, one or the other, or neither.
See the Player’s Handbook for rules on using armor or weapons without proficiency.
So as you can see, creatures are not assumed to be proficient with any equipment not in its stat block per RAW. And it is up to the DM to decide otherwise. Barding is armor and as such requires proficiency.
When I DM I house rule away the need for proficiency with barding so I don't have to track which animals have been trained to wear it. Do the same or don't, but don't argue that it is in the written rules, it isn't.
The point is that barding is and works inherently different from armor used by people which explains why you need proficiency as fighter/rogue/whatever. Barding is more of a passive protection that is just stuck on to the animal.
Please cite a rule that says barding is and works inherently differently.
Ah. So you don't know how amor and barding works. I see. It's one of those "normal language" things that 5E screws up so often. Barding is "armor" in the colloquial meaning of the word. It is, however, not armor in the mechanical sense of the word. If you want to learn about how armour actually works and the difference between armour and barding, there are numerous youtube channels that deal with the topic of medieval armour.
The only rule I can find says: "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." Absolutely nothing says anything about bypassing proficiency rules.
Yup. Don't see anything about barding requiring proficiency though. What proficiency do I need to wear Dread helm?
War horses can be equipped with barding. If we following your logic they would need proficiency to be able to use it properly. The rules you refer to speak about classes giving you proficiency in different types of armor. So, which class is war horses that gives them proficiency in "barding armor"?
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never said anything about warhorses. I do not care about warhorses. You're arguing with someone else.
Warhorses is an example of when your logic fails. You can substitute any mount wearing barding if you feel better about it.
When I DM I house rule away the need for proficiency with barding so I don't have to track which animals have been trained to wear it. Do the same or don't, but don't argue that it is in the written rules, it isn't.
That's exactly my point. There is nothing in the rules that says that you need profiiency to use barding. Just as there isn't a rules that says you need a certain proficiency to use a Dread Helm.
According to the rules: there are penalties for wearing armor you are not proficient in.
Technically, you don't need proficiency if you don't mind the penalties...
And dread helm is completely irrelevant, it is headwear, not armor. You only need proficiency with weapons, armor, and tools. Headwear is none of those things, barding is.
According to the rules: there are penalties for wearing armor you are not proficient in.
Technically, you don't need proficiency if you don't mind the penalties...
And dread helm is completely irrelevant, it is headwear, not armor. You only need proficiency with weapons, armor, and tools. Headwear is none of those things, barding is.
Wear can I find the rules for "headwear"? Do I need proficiency in "headwear" to wear them without penalties? Plate armor includes a helmet. Can anyone wear those helmets even if they don't have proficiency in heavy armor? If so, why? Why aren't helmets armor? Is a gauntlet from a full plate a piece of armor?
The point is that barding is and works inherently different from armor used by people which explains why you need proficiency as fighter/rogue/whatever. Barding is more of a passive protection that is just stuck on to the animal.
Barding is armor. Every time the rules say “armor,” it includes all armor.
I’m not sure what your point is re: warhorses. I’ve never said anything about warhorses.
War horses can be equipped with barding. If we following your logic they would need proficiency to be able to use it properly. The rules you refer to speak about classes giving you proficiency in different types of armor. So, which class is war horses that gives them proficiency in "barding armor"?
Hi! I'm not SagaTympana. I'm the warhorses guy.
Monster Manual page 9 says to assume a monster is proficient with "armor, weapons, and tools" in its entry. The warhorse entry includes barding, so the rules grant it proficiency. Implicitly, of course, this absolutely means monsters are not proficient in armor otherwise, but we don't need that implication - nothing has any proficiency until we're told it does.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Where do most of you DMs land on barding proficiency and weights for mounts, familiars, and beast companions?
There’s nothing that says anything needs proficiency in barding (I don’t think), so I don’t require it. Other than that I use the PHB equipment rules, it costs 4x and weighs 2x standard armor. I realize that formula was probably designed for horses, so it might not apply to something like a familiar or companion. In those cases I’d say the cost is still 4x — materials aren’t usually as important as labor costs, and it’s going to be so unusual to make barding for, say an owl, that it’s going to cost a lot more. The weight I might adjust to something like medium or small creature, PHB weight; smaller than small 1/2 weight.
That's part of what I'm curious about from others. Obviously the weight multiplier is meant for large creatures.
Bigger = Weighs More
No proficiency in general, although warhorses get it. Barding is armor, and the armor rules demand proficiency. The barding rules for weight and cost are ridiculous, though, since they suggest the exact same weight and cost for any barding for any animal, from tiny to gargantuan. Once we open up house rules, I recommend re-writing them as follows:
Equipment Weight: This is tough, because armor doesn't scale linearly in all three dimensions as you scale it - in particular, horse barding shouldn't be twice as thick as human armor. That's just ridiculous. Also, you need to be aware that carrying capacity is based on a factor of 2, so if you pick any other factor, you will change how much relative carrying capacity a creature must expend on armor. For example, with a factor of 4, a tiny creature has half the carrying capacity from its strength but its armor weights one fourth the amount, so it's twice as efficient at carrying armor as a small creature. Meanwhile, a Large creature has 2x the capacity and 4x the weight, so it's half as efficient as a medium creature. Because the barding rules were, in my opinion, written with large creatures in mind, not medium creatures, I recommend sticking to the raw as closely as possible, so I recommend scaling weight with a factor of 2, so it correlates 1:1 with carrying capacity. This means tiny barding is 1/2 the weight, small or medium 1x, large 2x, huge 4x, and gargantuan 8x.
Equipment Cost: This is also tough, because larger barding requires more raw materials, but smaller barding requires more skill. I would say keep the 4x multiplier for large and tiny barding, but reduce the small and medium multiplier to 1x, with the caveat that it likely needs to be made from scratch for an exotic mount, as otherwise you get weird nonsense like chimpanzee armor fundamentally requiring more materials or skill than human armor. Set the multiplier for Huge armor to 8x and the multiplier for Gargantuan armor to 16x, so the cost correlates with the weight (i.e. more raw materials cost more), but you stop up-charging for needing more skill.
For both rulings above, you may need to apply additional modifiers for very small or very large creatures, as tiny and gargantuan both apply to creatures of arbitrary size - a mosquito and a hummingbird are both tiny, while a blue whale and a humpback whale are both gargantuan. Don't chain yourself directly to size categories for extreme sizes.
It would be lovely if we had a RAW way to teach barding proficiency to animals, like however warhorses are trained. You could come up with a homebrew for that, if you wanted - Xanathar's training rules could be easily ported over to allow you to simply spend time and money getting it done, for example. But I have no idea how it would impact game balance to suddenly allow everyone's familiars, companions, and so on to have higher AC than the developers intended (without crippling their saves).
I just play them as is and so far haven't had an issue (since no one has tried to armor anything smaller than medium or bigger than large).
And I don't worry about armor proficiency for animals.
Well, it requires proficiency for armor worn by humanoid characters. Barding is armour, sure, but it doesn't require the same skill to move about and fight in as armour designed for a humanoid warrior. Therefor you don't need proficiency in barding. I'd say it's about the same as not needing proficiency in armor to wear a magical helmet.
uote from Lostwhilefishing >>
The rules on barding state it is armor. Where in the armor rules does it say the proficiency rules are humanoid only?
Where are the rules stating you need proficiency in barding?
Here, under the header “armor proficiency” (to be clear, they don’t say you “need proficiency,” they just spell out the penalties of wearing armor without proficiency).
That doesn't say anything about mounts needing proficiency, though.
Rules do what they say; there’s no exception carved out for any specific kinds of creature.
Exactly. And under the heading you referred to their is no mention of barding:
I also can't find what class the war horse is.
Barding is armor. Every time the rules say “armor,” it includes all armor.
I’m not sure what your point is re: warhorses. I’ve never said anything about warhorses.
The point is that barding is and works inherently different from armor used by people which explains why you need proficiency as fighter/rogue/whatever. Barding is more of a passive protection that is just stuck on to the animal.
War horses can be equipped with barding. If we following your logic they would need proficiency to be able to use it properly. The rules you refer to speak about classes giving you proficiency in different types of armor. So, which class is war horses that gives them proficiency in "barding armor"?
Please cite a rule that says barding is and works inherently differently. The only rule I can find says: "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." Absolutely nothing says anything about bypassing proficiency rules.
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about. I have never said anything about warhorses. I do not care about warhorses. You're arguing with someone else.
Since no one else has mentioned it, I'll just post the rules for equipment proficiencies on NPCs here:
So as you can see, creatures are not assumed to be proficient with any equipment not in its stat block per RAW. And it is up to the DM to decide otherwise. Barding is armor and as such requires proficiency.
When I DM I house rule away the need for proficiency with barding so I don't have to track which animals have been trained to wear it. Do the same or don't, but don't argue that it is in the written rules, it isn't.
Ah. So you don't know how amor and barding works. I see. It's one of those "normal language" things that 5E screws up so often. Barding is "armor" in the colloquial meaning of the word. It is, however, not armor in the mechanical sense of the word. If you want to learn about how armour actually works and the difference between armour and barding, there are numerous youtube channels that deal with the topic of medieval armour.
Yup. Don't see anything about barding requiring proficiency though. What proficiency do I need to wear Dread helm?
Warhorses is an example of when your logic fails. You can substitute any mount wearing barding if you feel better about it.
That's exactly my point. There is nothing in the rules that says that you need profiiency to use barding. Just as there isn't a rules that says you need a certain proficiency to use a Dread Helm.
According to the rules: Barding is armor.
According to the rules: there are penalties for wearing armor you are not proficient in.
Technically, you don't need proficiency if you don't mind the penalties...
And dread helm is completely irrelevant, it is headwear, not armor. You only need proficiency with weapons, armor, and tools. Headwear is none of those things, barding is.
Wear can I find the rules for "headwear"? Do I need proficiency in "headwear" to wear them without penalties? Plate armor includes a helmet. Can anyone wear those helmets even if they don't have proficiency in heavy armor? If so, why? Why aren't helmets armor? Is a gauntlet from a full plate a piece of armor?
Hi! I'm not SagaTympana. I'm the warhorses guy.
Monster Manual page 9 says to assume a monster is proficient with "armor, weapons, and tools" in its entry. The warhorse entry includes barding, so the rules grant it proficiency. Implicitly, of course, this absolutely means monsters are not proficient in armor otherwise, but we don't need that implication - nothing has any proficiency until we're told it does.