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 closest we have to a rule for headwear is some guidance from the DMG on how many magic items you can equip at once - there's nothing substantive. Most DMs will agree that you don't need proficiency in the helmet or gauntlets just as you won't get any benefit from wearing them - I've never even heard of a DM insisting that plate stops working if you aren't wearing a helmet and gauntlets, and we certainly have no rules for it partially ceasing to work, like dropping to 17 AC. That would all be firm homebrew territory and outside of the RAW. But since the nonproficiency penalty is clearly intended to offset the benefits of wearing the suit, if you're gaining no benefits at all, I don't see a reason to try to think of an excuse to levy a penalty. Plus, monks in gauntlets are cool.
Helmets aren't armor because no rule says they are. Gauntlets aren't armor because no rule says they are. Fun fact: shields aren't armor because no rule says they are, which is usually the number one armor rule I find people getting confused about, not this one. That's why we don't need to answer absurd questions like "do the barding rules for increased weight and cost apply when building a shield for a trained chimpanzee" - shields aren't armor, so there's no such thing as a barding version of a shield.
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.
Please cite a rule that says it's not armor in the mechanical sense of the word. Also try not to be such an ******* to people you don't know.
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?
There's nothing about plate mail requiring proficiency either. It's almost as though the rules for armor in general don't need to be reinforced by specific rules for each individual kind of armor. Barding is armor (as established by black and white rules text). Armor requires proficiency to be used without penalty (as established by black and white rules text). Therefore, barding requires proficiency to be used without penalty. QED.
I have no idea what the Dread Helm has to do with anything. I don't even know what a Dread Helm is. Why do you insist on mentioning entirely irrelevant things with zero context or explanation? It doesn't make your "argument" stronger, it makes you look unhinged.
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.
You have provided exactly zero explanation of how any logic fails in the case of a warhorse. Allow me to remind you: I have never mentioned warhorses. I do not care about warhorses. If you want me to care about warhorses, you need to explain to me how they're relevant. quindraco seems to have addressed this however.
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.
Barding is armor, so it follows the rules for armor. If you find some rule that says a Dread Helm is armor, then it will also follow the rules for armor, so yeah, you'll suffer penalties if you wear it without proficiency. Was that your entire point? "This thing that is not armor doesn't require proficiency, so this other that IS armor also doesn't"?
The rules on barding state it is armor. Where in the armor rules does it say the proficiency rules are humanoid only?
Armor proficiency is determined by class. NPCs generally don't have classes in the traditional sense. Lots of monsters have fairly arbitrary armors and weapons and I don't think you need to worry about armor proficiency for the purpose of restrictions except with PCs.
The issue, Saga, is that arguing that barding requires proficiency to not impose penalties on the animal wearing it defeats the entire purpose of barding's existence. Barding is specially designed armor meant to be worn by an animal. Animals do not and cannot have proficiency with any form of tool or equipment because they are incapable of using that equipment without human(oid) assistance. Ergo, by your technically-"correct" reading of RAW, barding cannot ever be worn by anything ever without imposing severe penalties on the creature being barded - even though the barding is specifically designed to avoid imposing these penalties.
How do you resolve this? How is barding useful in a game where an animal needs a proficiency it cannot possibly possess to wear barding?
You know there are rules for training proficiencies during downtime right? I passively mentioned them when I was saying that I just don't worry about it and encourage you to not either.
There is no reason animals can't be trained to have armor proficiency (even tool and weapon proficiencies if they are capable of holding it, like monkeys etc).
You know there are rules for training proficiencies during downtime right?
Can you link me please? All I see is the Xanathar guide where they talk about learning a language or becoming proficient with a tool. Armor proficiency is, I believe, entirely handled through class selection, which only applies to PCs.
There's a good chance I'm looking in the wrong place though since this stuff tends to be spread out among the books.
I'm mostly curious what the resolution is for folks who believe that an animal needs to have armor proficiency to use barding, since I'm at least 80% sure animals cannot have armor proficiencies, or proficiency in any tool or weapon. It's a paradox situation that suggests barding simply doesn't work, and I dunno bout you, but if I paid six thousand gold pieces to plate up my charger as a fighter? I'd be a mite twitch upset if the DM told me the critter can't actually wear that armor he allowed me to have custom crafted and took all my money for.
I'm mostly curious what the resolution is for folks who believe that an animal needs to have armor proficiency to use barding, since I'm at least 80% sure animals cannot have armor proficiencies, or proficiency in any tool or weapon.
My solution is to only care about weapon and armor proficiencies for PCs. When the ogre picks up the longsword or shield from his fallen hobgoblin ally, I don't worry about whether he has proficiency with it.
The issue, Saga, is that arguing that barding requires proficiency to not impose penalties on the animal wearing it defeats the entire purpose of barding's existence.
I disagree. Animals wearing barding usually aren't making rolls. The purpose of barding's existence is increase the wearer's armor class.
Barding is specially designed armor meant to be worn by an animal. Animals do not and cannot have proficiency with any form of tool or equipment because they are incapable of using that equipment without human(oid) assistance.
Can you cite a rule that says animals can't have proficiencies with tools or equipment? I'm not aware of any such restriction.
Ergo, by your technically-"correct" reading of RAW, barding cannot ever be worn by anything ever without imposing severe penalties on the creature being barded - even though the barding is specifically designed to avoid imposing these penalties.
Has it been designed to avoid imposing those penalties? If it has, presumably there should be rules text establishing that.
How do you resolve this? How is barding useful in a game where an animal needs a proficiency it cannot possibly possess to wear barding?
I make rulings. Has an animal been bred and trained for combat? If so, I just rule that it's proficient in whatever armor seems appropriate. If not, it's not. For example, I'd say a soldier's war mount or a ranger's animal companion is proficient in its PC's armor proficiencies. A wizard's familiar? Probably none. That's what GMs are for. I do want to contest your "it cannot possible possess" bit. I really do not believe there is any restriction anywhere that says animals can't be proficient in armor.
I'm mostly curious what the resolution is for folks who believe that an animal needs to have armor proficiency to use barding, since I'm at least 80% sure animals cannot have armor proficiencies, or proficiency in any tool or weapon. It's a paradox situation that suggests barding simply doesn't work, and I dunno bout you, but if I paid six thousand gold pieces to plate up my charger as a fighter? I'd be a mite twitch upset if the DM told me the critter can't actually wear that armor he allowed me to have custom crafted and took all my money for.
I hate to double-post, but I think this merits a more focused response. Again, and this is important, there's no rule against animals having armor, tool, or weapon proficiencies (and if you can find one, I will happily apologize for being wrong and revise my position here). Many mounts also don't have explicit statblocks, so it's up to the GM to either pick a statblock that seems appropriate or make up the stats themselves. This really is a situation where whether or not a creature has a proficiency isn't firmly established by the rules, and saying "there's no proficiency" is no more rooted in RAW than saying "there's every proficiency."
The Monster Manual says to assume creatures are proficient with any equipment their statblocks say they have and to make a call otherwise. A badger found in the wild probably does not have armor proficiency (I am not going to to look it up, but I'm willing to bet that the badger in the MM isn't equipped with armor). But a badger that a ranger is using as their animal companion isn't a badger found in the wild, and the rules explicitly grant some discretion to the GM in saying "we'll mostly use the MM statblock, but this one is different in a few ways: for example, since you've been training together for combat, it probably knows how to move effectively in leather armor."
I'm mostly curious what the resolution is for folks who believe that an animal needs to have armor proficiency to use barding, since I'm at least 80% sure animals cannot have armor proficiencies, or proficiency in any tool or weapon. It's a paradox situation that suggests barding simply doesn't work, and I dunno bout you, but if I paid six thousand gold pieces to plate up my charger as a fighter? I'd be a mite twitch upset if the DM told me the critter can't actually wear that armor he allowed me to have custom crafted and took all my money for.
If I was that fighter, I'd also be wondering why I'd spend 6,000 to protect something that costs 400. And spent it on something that will do nothing to help its saving throws, when AoE effects are probably going to kill it before weapon attacks. Just buy 10 extra horses, and you'll still come out ahead.
But I do agree with Yurei that having to take proficiency in barding for a horse is a lot to ask, to the point that the proficiency makes barding pointless. The idea that you have to buy a horse, then spend 250 days in game, to train it to wear armor (if you even can train for armor without a feat) then finally give it the armor to wear. By the time your high enough level to have the time and money to have done all that, you're just going to be teleported everywhere by the party wizard, and won't even need the horse anyway.
Like DJC said, if someone actually wants to buy barding for their animal, I'd just let them do it. It's not exactly a huge advantage for the person with the mount -- the thing is either going to die the first time they meet a caster, or its going to be left outside when they enter the dungeon. If a character has 6k to spend on something that's barely useful, just let them.
You know there are rules for training proficiencies during downtime right?
Can you link me please? All I see is the Xanathar guide where they talk about learning a language or becoming proficient with a tool. Armor proficiency is, I believe, entirely handled through class selection, which only applies to PCs.
There's a good chance I'm looking in the wrong place though since this stuff tends to be spread out among the books.
Nope misremembered that... (Firearms mention gaining proficiency through training though...)
Uh... Sidekick levels then I guess. Or just house rule that as well? How else are animals supposed to get armor proficiency?
I don't think creatures are meant to get (or even have) armor proficiency. I think that rule only applies to players.
Counterpoint: this section of the Monster Manual that's been posted before.
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.
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 closest we have to a rule for headwear is some guidance from the DMG on how many magic items you can equip at once - there's nothing substantive.
My point exactly. Helmets and helms are a piece of protective gear collectively known as "armor" though, yes? But mechanically within the rules they don't fall inside the category of "Armor". The same goes for barding. It is a piece of protective gear that can also be called "armor" but it is not what the rules call "Armor" when it comes to proficiencies.
Most DMs will agree that you don't need proficiency in the helmet or gauntlets just as you won't get any benefit from wearing them - I've never even heard of a DM insisting that plate stops working if you aren't wearing a helmet and gauntlets, and we certainly have no rules for it partially ceasing to work, like dropping to 17 AC. That would all be firm homebrew territory and outside of the RAW. But since the nonproficiency penalty is clearly intended to offset the benefits of wearing the suit, if you're gaining no benefits at all, I don't see a reason to try to think of an excuse to levy a penalty. Plus, monks in gauntlets are cool.
No disagreement from me there. :)
Helmets aren't armor because no rule says they are. Gauntlets aren't armor because no rule says they are. Fun fact: shields aren't armor because no rule says they are, which is usually the number one armor rule I find people getting confused about, not this one. That's why we don't need to answer absurd questions like "do the barding rules for increased weight and cost apply when building a shield for a trained chimpanzee" - shields aren't armor, so there's no such thing as a barding version of a shield.
Well, yeah. Because barding is the kind of armor you wear, shields are something that you (usually) carry. But again, there's a difference between "armor" and "Armor" in the language we use.
Also, where can I get one of these trained chimpanzees? Asking for a druid...
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.
Please cite a rule that says it's not armor in the mechanical sense of the word. Also try not to be such an ******* to people you don't know.
No need to be rude. But no, that is not how things work. You can't prove a negative. You have to prove that there is such a rule, not the other way around.
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?
There's nothing about plate mail requiring proficiency either. It's almost as though the rules for armor in general don't need to be reinforced by specific rules for each individual kind of armor. Barding is armor (as established by black and white rules text). Armor requires proficiency to be used without penalty (as established by black and white rules text). Therefore, barding requires proficiency to be used without penalty. QED.
No, barding is a piece of equipment that works as "armor", not "Armor". Again, it's the whole "normal language" thing that 5E messes up all the time.
I have no idea what the Dread Helm has to do with anything. I don't even know what a Dread Helm is. Why do you insist on mentioning entirely irrelevant things with zero context or explanation? It doesn't make your "argument" stronger, it makes you look unhinged.
Again, why so rude? There is no need for insults just because someone proves you wrong. Anyway, helms and helmets are protective gear that is commonly known as "armor". If you did not know this, I'm explaining it to you now. According to your logic they would then require proficiency to be used. Therefor the question is completely relevant whereas your tantrum is unwarranted. If helmets can be used without proficiency, so can barding.
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.
You have provided exactly zero explanation of how any logic fails in the case of a warhorse. Allow me to remind you: I have never mentioned warhorses. I do not care about warhorses. If you want me to care about warhorses, you need to explain to me how they're relevant. quindraco seems to have addressed this however.
My mistake. I assumed hat you knew about warhorses wearing barding yet lacking the proficiency. Is there anything else that you need me to explain? I'd be happy to clear out any misunderstandings.
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.
Barding is armor, so it follows the rules for armor. If you find some rule that says a Dread Helm is armor, then it will also follow the rules for armor, so yeah, you'll suffer penalties if you wear it without proficiency. Was that your entire point? "This thing that is not armor doesn't require proficiency, so this other that IS armor also doesn't"?
Except that helms and helmets are armor. At least in the common meaning of the word. It feels a bit too complicated to have to rework the entire English language just because you want them to be something else. There's a difference between the everyday meaning of "armor" as a kind of protective gear (which both barding and helmets fall under) and the mechanical meaning of the rules for "Armor".
Just going to post a couple of rules for the people who are claiming the exact opposite:
Barding.Barding is armor designed to protect an animal’s head, neck, chest, and body. Any type of armor shown on the Armor table in this chapter can be purchased as barding.
So barding is armor. Plainly stated. But how do we know what is and isn't armor?
The Armor table collects the most commonly available types of armor found in the game and separates them into three categories: light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor.
Oh, it seems there is a convenient list of all armor found in the game, and all armor is one of the 3 armor categories. But just to be sure, what does armor do?
Armor protects its wearer from attacks. The armor (and shield) you wear determines your base Armor Class.
Oh good, the rules make that clear as well. So if it is not on the armor list, is not an armor category, and does not determine AC, it is not armor. Barding has all the properties of the armor on the Armor list that it is barding of including all these properties.
Is a Helm on the armor list? Does it have an Armor class? Is it light, medium, or heavy? Nope, none of those things. Guess you can draw a triangle with 3 lines, but 1 line is not a triangle, or an armor set may include a helm but a lone helm is not an armor set.
Now please stop arguing against printed rules of the game with personal opinions and Wikipedia articles. I will not be responding to arguments not containing rules quotes, and I suggest everyone else stop engaging in such baseless claims as well.
Just going to post a couple of rules for the people who are claiming the exact opposite:
Barding.Barding is armor designed to protect an animal’s head, neck, chest, and body. Any type of armor shown on the Armor table in this chapter can be purchased as barding.
So barding is armor. Plainly stated. But how do we know what is and isn't armor?
The Armor table collects the most commonly available types of armor found in the game and separates them into three categories: light armor, medium armor, and heavy armor.
Oh, it seems there is a convenient list of all armor found in the game, and all armor is one of the 3 armor categories. But just to be sure, what does armor do?
Armor protects its wearer from attacks. The armor (and shield) you wear determines your base Armor Class.
Oh good, the rules make that clear as well. So if it is not on the armor list, is not an armor category, and does not determine AC, it is not armor. Barding has all the properties of the armor on the Armor list that it is barding of including all these properties.
Is a Helm on the armor list? Does it have an Armor class? Is it light, medium, or heavy? Nope, none of those things. Guess you can draw a triangle with 3 lines, but 1 line is not a triangle, or an armor set may include a helm but a lone helm is not an armor set.
Now please stop arguing against printed rules of the game with personal opinions and Wikipedia articles. I will not be responding to arguments not containing rules quotes, and I suggest everyone else stop engaging in such baseless claims as well.
Lol! You think the actual definitions of words are "personal opinions"? Sure, if that's the standard you go by. Just don't get confused by the fact that barding isn't on the list of available armor (it's under a different section of Equipment) nor that there is other gear that gives you a bonus to AC.
I don't think creatures are meant to get (or even have) armor proficiency. I think that rule only applies to players.
Counterpoint: this section of the Monster Manual that's been posted before.
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.
Yeah, I think my earlier statement was overly broad, thanks for pointing that out. Your quote shows that proficiency is meant to also apply to NPCs, and we can see that in stat blocks where a creature's proficiency bonus is added to attack hit rolls. But when it comes to using weapons or armor without proficiency, that snippet amounts to "Ask your DM," so I think it still satisfies the barding situation well enough. And it is also a little strange that it references the PHB rules for using armor without proficiency when that very rule points out proficiency comes from class, which is a player-specific. I suppose it's not so much of a leap to imagine an ogre as having the same proficiencies as a barbarian or a fighter, but that is as speculative as it is reasonable at that point.
Question for those stating an animal should have proficiency in barding to wear it without hindrances. Does a proficiency in barding cover all types of barding (light, medium, and heavy), or is a separate proficiency required in order for an animal to wear heavy plate barding as opposed to just light leather barding?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The closest we have to a rule for headwear is some guidance from the DMG on how many magic items you can equip at once - there's nothing substantive. Most DMs will agree that you don't need proficiency in the helmet or gauntlets just as you won't get any benefit from wearing them - I've never even heard of a DM insisting that plate stops working if you aren't wearing a helmet and gauntlets, and we certainly have no rules for it partially ceasing to work, like dropping to 17 AC. That would all be firm homebrew territory and outside of the RAW. But since the nonproficiency penalty is clearly intended to offset the benefits of wearing the suit, if you're gaining no benefits at all, I don't see a reason to try to think of an excuse to levy a penalty. Plus, monks in gauntlets are cool.
Helmets aren't armor because no rule says they are. Gauntlets aren't armor because no rule says they are. Fun fact: shields aren't armor because no rule says they are, which is usually the number one armor rule I find people getting confused about, not this one. That's why we don't need to answer absurd questions like "do the barding rules for increased weight and cost apply when building a shield for a trained chimpanzee" - shields aren't armor, so there's no such thing as a barding version of a shield.
Please cite a rule that says it's not armor in the mechanical sense of the word. Also try not to be such an ******* to people you don't know.
There's nothing about plate mail requiring proficiency either. It's almost as though the rules for armor in general don't need to be reinforced by specific rules for each individual kind of armor. Barding is armor (as established by black and white rules text). Armor requires proficiency to be used without penalty (as established by black and white rules text). Therefore, barding requires proficiency to be used without penalty. QED.
I have no idea what the Dread Helm has to do with anything. I don't even know what a Dread Helm is. Why do you insist on mentioning entirely irrelevant things with zero context or explanation? It doesn't make your "argument" stronger, it makes you look unhinged.
You have provided exactly zero explanation of how any logic fails in the case of a warhorse. Allow me to remind you: I have never mentioned warhorses. I do not care about warhorses. If you want me to care about warhorses, you need to explain to me how they're relevant. quindraco seems to have addressed this however.
Barding is armor, so it follows the rules for armor. If you find some rule that says a Dread Helm is armor, then it will also follow the rules for armor, so yeah, you'll suffer penalties if you wear it without proficiency. Was that your entire point? "This thing that is not armor doesn't require proficiency, so this other that IS armor also doesn't"?
Armor proficiency is determined by class. NPCs generally don't have classes in the traditional sense. Lots of monsters have fairly arbitrary armors and weapons and I don't think you need to worry about armor proficiency for the purpose of restrictions except with PCs.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
The issue, Saga, is that arguing that barding requires proficiency to not impose penalties on the animal wearing it defeats the entire purpose of barding's existence. Barding is specially designed armor meant to be worn by an animal. Animals do not and cannot have proficiency with any form of tool or equipment because they are incapable of using that equipment without human(oid) assistance. Ergo, by your technically-"correct" reading of RAW, barding cannot ever be worn by anything ever without imposing severe penalties on the creature being barded - even though the barding is specifically designed to avoid imposing these penalties.
How do you resolve this? How is barding useful in a game where an animal needs a proficiency it cannot possibly possess to wear barding?
Please do not contact or message me.
You know there are rules for training proficiencies during downtime right? I passively mentioned them when I was saying that I just don't worry about it and encourage you to not either.There is no reason animals can't be trained to have armor proficiency (even tool and weapon proficiencies if they are capable of holding it, like monkeys etc).[Edit]Not RAW, lets say sidekick levels then...
Can you link me please? All I see is the Xanathar guide where they talk about learning a language or becoming proficient with a tool. Armor proficiency is, I believe, entirely handled through class selection, which only applies to PCs.
There's a good chance I'm looking in the wrong place though since this stuff tends to be spread out among the books.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I'm mostly curious what the resolution is for folks who believe that an animal needs to have armor proficiency to use barding, since I'm at least 80% sure animals cannot have armor proficiencies, or proficiency in any tool or weapon. It's a paradox situation that suggests barding simply doesn't work, and I dunno bout you, but if I paid six thousand gold pieces to plate up my charger as a fighter? I'd be a mite twitch upset if the DM told me the critter can't actually wear that armor he allowed me to have custom crafted and took all my money for.
Please do not contact or message me.
My solution is to only care about weapon and armor proficiencies for PCs. When the ogre picks up the longsword or shield from his fallen hobgoblin ally, I don't worry about whether he has proficiency with it.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I disagree. Animals wearing barding usually aren't making rolls. The purpose of barding's existence is increase the wearer's armor class.
Can you cite a rule that says animals can't have proficiencies with tools or equipment? I'm not aware of any such restriction.
Has it been designed to avoid imposing those penalties? If it has, presumably there should be rules text establishing that.
I make rulings. Has an animal been bred and trained for combat? If so, I just rule that it's proficient in whatever armor seems appropriate. If not, it's not. For example, I'd say a soldier's war mount or a ranger's animal companion is proficient in its PC's armor proficiencies. A wizard's familiar? Probably none. That's what GMs are for. I do want to contest your "it cannot possible possess" bit. I really do not believe there is any restriction anywhere that says animals can't be proficient in armor.
I hate to double-post, but I think this merits a more focused response. Again, and this is important, there's no rule against animals having armor, tool, or weapon proficiencies (and if you can find one, I will happily apologize for being wrong and revise my position here). Many mounts also don't have explicit statblocks, so it's up to the GM to either pick a statblock that seems appropriate or make up the stats themselves. This really is a situation where whether or not a creature has a proficiency isn't firmly established by the rules, and saying "there's no proficiency" is no more rooted in RAW than saying "there's every proficiency."
The Monster Manual says to assume creatures are proficient with any equipment their statblocks say they have and to make a call otherwise. A badger found in the wild probably does not have armor proficiency (I am not going to to look it up, but I'm willing to bet that the badger in the MM isn't equipped with armor). But a badger that a ranger is using as their animal companion isn't a badger found in the wild, and the rules explicitly grant some discretion to the GM in saying "we'll mostly use the MM statblock, but this one is different in a few ways: for example, since you've been training together for combat, it probably knows how to move effectively in leather armor."
If I was that fighter, I'd also be wondering why I'd spend 6,000 to protect something that costs 400. And spent it on something that will do nothing to help its saving throws, when AoE effects are probably going to kill it before weapon attacks. Just buy 10 extra horses, and you'll still come out ahead.
But I do agree with Yurei that having to take proficiency in barding for a horse is a lot to ask, to the point that the proficiency makes barding pointless. The idea that you have to buy a horse, then spend 250 days in game, to train it to wear armor (if you even can train for armor without a feat) then finally give it the armor to wear. By the time your high enough level to have the time and money to have done all that, you're just going to be teleported everywhere by the party wizard, and won't even need the horse anyway.
Like DJC said, if someone actually wants to buy barding for their animal, I'd just let them do it. It's not exactly a huge advantage for the person with the mount -- the thing is either going to die the first time they meet a caster, or its going to be left outside when they enter the dungeon. If a character has 6k to spend on something that's barely useful, just let them.
Nope misremembered that... (Firearms mention gaining proficiency through training though...)
Uh... Sidekick levels then I guess. Or just house rule that as well? How else are animals supposed to get armor proficiency?
I don't think creatures are meant to get (or even have) armor proficiency. I think that rule only applies to players.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Counterpoint: this section of the Monster Manual that's been posted before.
So RAW is “DM decides”.
Therefore RAW is houserule.
My point exactly. Helmets and helms are a piece of protective gear collectively known as "armor" though, yes? But mechanically within the rules they don't fall inside the category of "Armor". The same goes for barding. It is a piece of protective gear that can also be called "armor" but it is not what the rules call "Armor" when it comes to proficiencies.
No disagreement from me there. :)
Well, yeah. Because barding is the kind of armor you wear, shields are something that you (usually) carry. But again, there's a difference between "armor" and "Armor" in the language we use.
Also, where can I get one of these trained chimpanzees? Asking for a druid...
No need to be rude. But no, that is not how things work. You can't prove a negative. You have to prove that there is such a rule, not the other way around.
No, barding is a piece of equipment that works as "armor", not "Armor". Again, it's the whole "normal language" thing that 5E messes up all the time.
Again, why so rude? There is no need for insults just because someone proves you wrong. Anyway, helms and helmets are protective gear that is commonly known as "armor". If you did not know this, I'm explaining it to you now. According to your logic they would then require proficiency to be used. Therefor the question is completely relevant whereas your tantrum is unwarranted. If helmets can be used without proficiency, so can barding.
My mistake. I assumed hat you knew about warhorses wearing barding yet lacking the proficiency. Is there anything else that you need me to explain? I'd be happy to clear out any misunderstandings.
Except that helms and helmets are armor. At least in the common meaning of the word. It feels a bit too complicated to have to rework the entire English language just because you want them to be something else. There's a difference between the everyday meaning of "armor" as a kind of protective gear (which both barding and helmets fall under) and the mechanical meaning of the rules for "Armor".
Links for clarity: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/helmet
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/barding#:~:text=Noun&text=(historical)%20Armour%20for%20a%20warhorse.
Just going to post a couple of rules for the people who are claiming the exact opposite:
So barding is armor. Plainly stated. But how do we know what is and isn't armor?
Oh, it seems there is a convenient list of all armor found in the game, and all armor is one of the 3 armor categories. But just to be sure, what does armor do?
Oh good, the rules make that clear as well. So if it is not on the armor list, is not an armor category, and does not determine AC, it is not armor. Barding has all the properties of the armor on the Armor list that it is barding of including all these properties.
Is a Helm on the armor list? Does it have an Armor class? Is it light, medium, or heavy? Nope, none of those things. Guess you can draw a triangle with 3 lines, but 1 line is not a triangle, or an armor set may include a helm but a lone helm is not an armor set.
Now please stop arguing against printed rules of the game with personal opinions and Wikipedia articles. I will not be responding to arguments not containing rules quotes, and I suggest everyone else stop engaging in such baseless claims as well.
Lol! You think the actual definitions of words are "personal opinions"? Sure, if that's the standard you go by. Just don't get confused by the fact that barding isn't on the list of available armor (it's under a different section of Equipment) nor that there is other gear that gives you a bonus to AC.
Yeah, I think my earlier statement was overly broad, thanks for pointing that out. Your quote shows that proficiency is meant to also apply to NPCs, and we can see that in stat blocks where a creature's proficiency bonus is added to attack hit rolls. But when it comes to using weapons or armor without proficiency, that snippet amounts to "Ask your DM," so I think it still satisfies the barding situation well enough. And it is also a little strange that it references the PHB rules for using armor without proficiency when that very rule points out proficiency comes from class, which is a player-specific. I suppose it's not so much of a leap to imagine an ogre as having the same proficiencies as a barbarian or a fighter, but that is as speculative as it is reasonable at that point.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Question for those stating an animal should have proficiency in barding to wear it without hindrances. Does a proficiency in barding cover all types of barding (light, medium, and heavy), or is a separate proficiency required in order for an animal to wear heavy plate barding as opposed to just light leather barding?