Y'all shouldn't be arguing about rules that are properly explained RAW: The DM decides if a monster is proficient with their armor and weapons, but usually they assume they are, so the RAW ruling is "talk to your DM". They won't be breaking any rule by saying they are, or that they aren't (though a DM allowing a PC to spend absurd amounts of money and time on barding for their companions only to end up saying "But they suffer the downsides since they're not profiient" is a massive AH move).
The way we always rules on horses and barding was just like real life.
A wild horse needs to be broke and trained.
A working plow horse often does not like it when a person tries to ride it. Its not trained for that activity. The same as a riding horse does not like having a yoke for pulling a plow.
The only difference between a working Clydesdale and a knights horse is the training. When it says War horse it means a horse specifically trained to fight. To carry a knight into battle and to stay next to him if he is dismounted, maybe even to protect him. This expensive and very specific training includes training the horse to carry barding.
This training could and often took years.
So if you want any other odd ball type of creature to have barding they need to be trained to it.
The riding horse. 75 gold The War horse 400 gold
A riding griffon whatever A war griffon at least 4 times whatever, if your can find a trainer.
The title of "war" whatever implies the beast is trained to armor and battle. Thus proficient.
Peasants who do the bulk of all animal training do not have that ability. And the animal might not believe you trust you or understand your intent. Communication does not impart training or even all the knowledge you think it should.
It doesn't make the animal smarter.
Some people say 'just hand wave it' for the story. But its just as easy to hand wave the time spent. Estimate the cost of the time and expense and hand wave the time spent training the beast.
Uhhhh, why are you arguing with rules? I showed you the ruling. Your DM can, reasonably and 100% within the rules, claim that the creature is profiient with their armor, or that you can train it (taking as much time as the DM rules is reasonable), that you can aid them through magic, or simply that they can't learn at all. Dunno what this has to do with warhorses, your DM has the final say on this anyway.
To me, it sounds reasonable to have a creature that also has proficiency with the kind of armor train the creature using barding (likely through Xanathar's proficiency learning rules), and if the latter isn't intelligent enough for that (I'd assume anything with an INT below 6), they could have the trainer do Animal Handling checks (if appropriate) and/or be aided by magic. If the trainer isn't a PC, it would be reasonable to have an NPC require payment for the training. As for the armor itself, it should have the normal rules of armor, item creation and barding, though stuff that doesn't make sense could be altered (having your familiar Toad need 15 STR to wear a full plate armor doesn't make sense, nor does it that a tiny armor weights x4 times what a normal armor does).
This is, however, just a ruling, not an oficial rule. However, it mostly doesn't contradict or stray from RAW since, again, it's the DMs call on this.
If you could find someone who has smith's/leatherworker's tools proficiency and can also cast Fabricate, as per the spell description, the cost of producing the barding would be heavily reduced (since you'd only be paying for the raw materials) and it'd be much faster. Unlike my previous ruling, however, this is 100% RAW (and likely RAI).
Barding is another glitch in the rules that no one caught initially so it ends up being DM fiat. In my games I rule similarly to thegnome. Wild animals don’t wear barding and will generally fight getting it put on them. Just how much depends on the creature. Tamed animals also generally don’t want to wear boarding but the DC to get them to is lower. Over time a tamed animal or a domestic animal can be trained to accept and use properly made barding without penalty. Who trains them? Generally NPC experts many of whom may be retired adventurers with the animal handling skill and spells like speak with animals. Can the PC do it themselves? Yes if they have the skills and/or spells and the time. Of course downtime in most games I’ve seen is fairly limited so … In addition, some creatures, like an owl familiar simply can’t wear barding - even leather - as it’s either too much weight or it interferes too much with their activities like flying. Generally barding needs to be of a certain thickness to do its job and so it’s going to have a certain weight which makes creating the smaller sets difficult and relatively heavy for the creature wearing it. For flying creatures and tiny creatures if you can get them I would have them wear things like bracers and rings of protection. That or for Wizard familiars especially, casting mage armor on them.
Peasants or the apprentice would be the one training the horse for the first two years of its life. First to take direction, then to saddle break them, then to get them used to armor. After that the master steps in and does the combat training.
What are you going to tell the horse about battle that will make it want to go into battle?
Who is doing the training? Rather than calling them peasants let’s use the DnD term - commoners. So commoners and retired low level adventurers. Or, the adventurer the creature is adventuring with. What does the creature get for being trained? Good food, grooming, friendship, etc. most critters aren’t interested in long term goals they just want food, mates, care and companionship now. Give them that and they will learn to do just about any fool thing you want them to. Add in the animal handling skill and maybe the ability to talk to them directly and training shouldn’t be too hard.
you actually do and no proficiencies arnt tied to your class backgrounds feats and training can all give them to you as well. also magic. we have rules on npcs and proficiencies also the npc classes give proficiencies
again wrong and at this point intentionally and blatantly the rules on this where cited repeatedly but aside from those rules are the sidekick classes aka npc classes and the penalities for wearing barding non proficiently arnt that bad for non combat creature you wish to protect from collateral dmg.
Y'all shouldn't be arguing about rules that are properly explained RAW: The DM decides if a monster is proficient with their armor and weapons, but usually they assume they are, so the RAW ruling is "talk to your DM". They won't be breaking any rule by saying they are, or that they aren't (though a DM allowing a PC to spend absurd amounts of money and time on barding for their companions only to end up saying "But they suffer the downsides since they're not profiient" is a massive AH move).
I prefer not to rely on Crawford's rulings (especially on a topic that's already covered RAW, as explained above), but here's the relevant Sage Advice confirming it:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/do-animals-need-proficiency-in-that-type-of-armor-to-avoid-penalties/?fbclid=IwAR0bRIXVT5DCrlxwVBO2D-Ox3bZPOUjwoZ7QdrIJCLm1XrfVpakyBpzLvY4
The way we always rules on horses and barding was just like real life.
A wild horse needs to be broke and trained.
A working plow horse often does not like it when a person tries to ride it. Its not trained for that activity. The same as a riding horse does not like having a yoke for pulling a plow.
The only difference between a working Clydesdale and a knights horse is the training.
When it says War horse it means a horse specifically trained to fight. To carry a knight into battle and to stay next to him if he is dismounted, maybe even to protect him. This expensive and very specific training includes training the horse to carry barding.
This training could and often took years.
So if you want any other odd ball type of creature to have barding they need to be trained to it.
The riding horse. 75 gold
The War horse 400 gold
A riding griffon whatever
A war griffon at least 4 times whatever, if your can find a trainer.
The title of "war" whatever implies the beast is trained to armor and battle. Thus proficient.
Peasants who do the bulk of all animal training do not have that ability. And the animal might not believe you trust you or understand your intent. Communication does not impart training or even all the knowledge you think it should.
It doesn't make the animal smarter.
Some people say 'just hand wave it' for the story. But its just as easy to hand wave the time spent. Estimate the cost of the time and expense and hand wave the time spent training the beast.
Uhhhh, why are you arguing with rules? I showed you the ruling. Your DM can, reasonably and 100% within the rules, claim that the creature is profiient with their armor, or that you can train it (taking as much time as the DM rules is reasonable), that you can aid them through magic, or simply that they can't learn at all. Dunno what this has to do with warhorses, your DM has the final say on this anyway.
To me, it sounds reasonable to have a creature that also has proficiency with the kind of armor train the creature using barding (likely through Xanathar's proficiency learning rules), and if the latter isn't intelligent enough for that (I'd assume anything with an INT below 6), they could have the trainer do Animal Handling checks (if appropriate) and/or be aided by magic. If the trainer isn't a PC, it would be reasonable to have an NPC require payment for the training. As for the armor itself, it should have the normal rules of armor, item creation and barding, though stuff that doesn't make sense could be altered (having your familiar Toad need 15 STR to wear a full plate armor doesn't make sense, nor does it that a tiny armor weights x4 times what a normal armor does).
This is, however, just a ruling, not an oficial rule. However, it mostly doesn't contradict or stray from RAW since, again, it's the DMs call on this.
If you could find someone who has smith's/leatherworker's tools proficiency and can also cast Fabricate, as per the spell description, the cost of producing the barding would be heavily reduced (since you'd only be paying for the raw materials) and it'd be much faster. Unlike my previous ruling, however, this is 100% RAW (and likely RAI).
Barding is another glitch in the rules that no one caught initially so it ends up being DM fiat. In my games I rule similarly to thegnome. Wild animals don’t wear barding and will generally fight getting it put on them. Just how much depends on the creature. Tamed animals also generally don’t want to wear boarding but the DC to get them to is lower. Over time a tamed animal or a domestic animal can be trained to accept and use properly made barding without penalty. Who trains them? Generally NPC experts many of whom may be retired adventurers with the animal handling skill and spells like speak with animals. Can the PC do it themselves? Yes if they have the skills and/or spells and the time. Of course downtime in most games I’ve seen is fairly limited so … In addition, some creatures, like an owl familiar simply can’t wear barding - even leather - as it’s either too much weight or it interferes too much with their activities like flying. Generally barding needs to be of a certain thickness to do its job and so it’s going to have a certain weight which makes creating the smaller sets difficult and relatively heavy for the creature wearing it. For flying creatures and tiny creatures if you can get them I would have them wear things like bracers and rings of protection. That or for Wizard familiars especially, casting mage armor on them.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Peasants or the apprentice would be the one training the horse for the first two years of its life. First to take direction, then to saddle break them, then to get them used to armor. After that the master steps in and does the combat training.
What are you going to tell the horse about battle that will make it want to go into battle?
Tell the horses tales of glory and the potential riches of oats that await their success on the battlefield.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Who is doing the training? Rather than calling them peasants let’s use the DnD term - commoners. So commoners and retired low level adventurers. Or, the adventurer the creature is adventuring with. What does the creature get for being trained? Good food, grooming, friendship, etc. most critters aren’t interested in long term goals they just want food, mates, care and companionship now. Give them that and they will learn to do just about any fool thing you want them to. Add in the animal handling skill and maybe the ability to talk to them directly and training shouldn’t be too hard.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
sorry but your argument of real world mechanics doesnt work when my muscles are so stronk im harder to hit than plate mail is a thing bud.
you actually do and no proficiencies arnt tied to your class backgrounds feats and training can all give them to you as well. also magic. we have rules on npcs and proficiencies also the npc classes give proficiencies
again wrong and at this point intentionally and blatantly the rules on this where cited repeatedly but aside from those rules are the sidekick classes aka npc classes and the penalities for wearing barding non proficiently arnt that bad for non combat creature you wish to protect from collateral dmg.
also btw there are rules for npcs with class levels and the dmg has classes specifically for npcs and a different book has side kick classes
the problem is conveying those concepts accurately to a horse we cant even agree on the words barding is armour
i notice now the reply feature doesnt do that copy paste thing yall do
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorYou're looking for the "Quote" button, not the "Reply" button.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
How long does it take to put barding on a mount? Also, how long does it take to saddle a mount? I can’t find anything online.