outfitting a familiar ?

[da newt]

Is there anything RAW that would allow / support kitting out my familiar (IMP) w/ armor, shield, barding, weapons, magic items, etc?

What is allowed? What is Prohibited? What is neither and must be ruled upon by a DM ?

[JackPhoenix]

Norhing is prohibited. The familiar just lack any proficiencies, and propably doesn't have appropriate anatomy for most available gear.

[Khrysaes]

Is there anything RAW that would allow / support kitting out my familiar (IMP) w/ armor, shield, barding, weapons, magic items, etc?

What is allowed? What is Prohibited? What is neither and must be ruled upon by a DM ?

They can attune to their own items and wear/use items if they have the physical capabilities. You may need barding imstead of normal armor. Thanks to recent errata when your familiar goes to their pocket dimension or dies all their items drop.

[nickl_2000]

https://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/cat-battle-armor/

On mobile so I can't post the picture directly.

[Gale]

This is my personal opinion as a DM and not exactly RAW.

Most familiars do not have a humanoid anatomy and therefore they couldn't wear normal armor; but barding would be totally fine, as it's specifically designed to fit beasts or any creatures of unusual anatomy. If your familiar has a hand to hold a shield then they can wield one as well. Just keep in mind that your familiar isn't likely to be proficient with shields or any armor, including barding, and therefore would take the appropriate penalties for using them.

A familiar could wield a weapon if they had the appropriate anatomy for it. However, like armor most familiars are unlikely to be proficient with a weapon. Sprite are notable for being explicitly proficient with a couple of weapons, those being the longsword and the shortbow. From this you could logically presume they would also be proficient with similar weapons such as a dagger. But that's ultimately up to your DM to decide.

Magic items are a bit tricky. Page 140 of the DMG has a section called "Wearing and Wielding Items" where it states that "a magic item meant to be worn must be donned in the intended fashion." However, it also says, "In most cases, a magic item that's meant to be worn can fit a creature regardless of size or build. Many magic garments are made to be easily adjustable, or they magically adjust themselves to the wearer." For this reason I think most magic items would fit perfectly fine on a familiar and function as normal, at least within reason. I would let you put a Cloak of Protection on your owl and even a Headband of Intellect if you so wish. But I'd probably say no to Bracers of Ogre Power because an owl simply has no way to wear them in the "intended fashion." Yes, I know it says some magic items magically adjust themselves but I think the creature at least needs to meet some minimum standard of having appropriate anatomy.

Similarly, I would say no to an owl or similar creature wielding a Ring of Spell Storing. This is probably one of the most powerful applications of giving a familiar a magic item, and I've seen it suggested as an idea numerous times, but I simply don't think it works. An owl has no hands, therefore they cannot wear a ring in the intended fashion. I think that's rather clear. I'm aware that toe rings exist, and an owl certainly has toes. But activating a magic ring with your foot simply doesn't sound right to me. In either case, I appreciate that this creates a clear difference in power between a Warlock's Imp familiar, who does have hands and therefore use a Ring of Spell Storing, and the average Wizard's owl familiar.

[Willowhelm]

Your biggest issue is whether those thing disappear with the familiar or not. Letting the familiar pop in and out of existence with all the items they’re wearing or carrying is… exploitable. As such your dm might not allow it and then it’s kind of a pain in the ass for them to have a lot of equipment.

[Greywander]

Norhing is prohibited. The familiar just lack any proficiencies, and propably doesn't have appropriate anatomy for most available gear.
NPC statblocks generally don't show equipment proficiencies. Usually any armor or weapons the statblock has are assumed to be proficient, and I think only in a couple of cases does the creature specifically not include its proficiency bonus e.g. for the attack roll with specific weapons.

So I think this has to come down to DM fiat. NPCs simply don't have listed proficiencies for gear. Going off the stat blocks, it's obvious that they do benefit from proficiency, but it's never made explicitly clear which proficiencies they do or don't have.

Given that barding exists, it seems to be assumed that you can train an animal to be proficient with armor, and presumably this would apply to a familiar as well. This has interesting implications once you get into chainlock familiars, such as the imp, which would wear normal armor for humanoids. Does this imply that anyone can be trained in armor? I mean, that would make sense. But there simply aren't rules for this. If nothing else, though, you could give them sidekick levels to represent their training, which should grant them weapon and armor proficiencies. But giving a familiar sidekick levels would make the familiar even stronger than it already was, and a familiar with Expert or Caster sidekick levels could be rather gamebreaking.


Your biggest issue is whether those thing disappear with the familiar or not. Letting the familiar pop in and out of existence with all the items they’re wearing or carrying is… exploitable. As such your dm might not allow it and then it’s kind of a pain in the ass for them to have a lot of equipment.
An errata has clarified that dismissing your familiar causes it to drop any equipment it is carrying. It's a shame, but honestly it's probably for the best. Letting them take items with them made heists pretty easy, since you didn't need to escape, only to get in and grab the item. I might amend this with a houserule that allows you to "bond" equipment to your familiar (probably at the end of a long rest), and the familiar would be able to take bonded equipment with them when you dismiss or resummon them.

[False God]

Proficiency is your main issue, but for some magical items (like rings) there shouldn't be any issues. The same rules that limit how many magical items a player can wear can be applied to familiars. The secondary issue is the shape. Humanoid-shaped familiars would likely be able to use small but otherwise humanoid-styled equipment. Animal-shaped familiars would likely be able to use barding and small but animal-shaped gear.

Technically they're supposed to drop their stuff when poofed away, but I'd argue that should be applied to carried goods, as opposed to equipped or attuned goods. The main reason is to avoid shenanigans, so really if you want your DM to approve it: don't do shenanigans. Or ya know, never poof your familiar away.