Druid Companions Wearing Metal Armor

[Tequila Sunrise]

Some time ago, a munchkin* on the WotC forums wanted to know if it’s technically legal for a druid’s animal companion to wear metal armor. He wanted to dress his dinosaur in mountain plate; I quote “I want a freakin robot dinosar!!!”

We all told him that yes, it’s technically legal, but his DM would have every right to disallow it unless the DM was running an intentionally silly campaign. He told us that no, his DM wasn’t running a silly campaign, but that he wanted to ruin the mood with his RAW antics.

So what do you think? Would you let a druid’s companion wear metal armor, despite the obvious double standard?

*Before anyone gets righteously indignant, that was his word, not mine.

[Optimystik]

Is this in a particular setting? In Faerun, Mielikki is fine with druids in metal armor and thus you would have no problems with the animal doing the same.

[Gerrtt]

Yes, the druid takes an oath to not utilize metal armor which interferes with the energy that fuels their powers.

Their animal companion, who has no powers other than those granted to them by the druid and their powers, suffers no such consequences from using metal armor.

I can understand why a druid would want to disallow their companion from using such armor, but I can also understand wanting to keep their companion safe by giving the best protection money can buy. It is after all, a companion and for many druids (fluff statement coming up) the companion is played as being a friend of the druid as well.

[Chen]

Eh the standard itself is already pretty inconsistent. Can't use metal armor...but there's no issue in using a metal scimitar. Or really anything else thats worked metal. I see no real problem letting the animal companion use metal armor. I mean do druids stop their other party members from wearing metal armor?

[Escheton]

When playing druids or rangers I usually teach the compaignion the "wear armor" trick and don him/her with a chain shirt. If it's a zealous druid perhaps studded leather. Mountain plate is right out though.

[Vizzerdrix]

Why so? I could see something like an ox or bear in Mt. Plate. Heck, I could see part of the oath to forgot metal being so you could put it on your companion instead. To protect that part of nature that has chosen to accompany you on your journeys better than yourself.


Now here's a strange one. One of the Dragon Mags has a plant companion variant. What about putting THAT in armor!

[Tengu_temp]

He told us that no, his DM wasn’t running a silly campaign, but that he wanted to ruin the mood with his RAW antics.

I hope other people on the forum chewed him out for this part. And by RAW, you can give armor to any animal, but:
1. The armor must be custom-made and will cost more.
2. The animal is most likely not proficient in it and will receive a hefty penalty.

[kamikasei]

Druidic philosophy is pretty incoherent based only on what's in the books, so I'd have to judge it on a case-by-case basis. I'd see the question as between giving the companion items (especially armor) at all, metal or otherwise, or having them rely on buff spells for their natural abilities. The image of a dire wolf in leather barding isn't much less weird to my mind than having him in plate. And panserbjorne have the Rule of Cool working in their favour.

[Killer Angel]

Some time ago, a munchkin* on the WotC forums wanted to know if it’s technically legal for a druid’s animal companion to wear metal armor. He wanted to dress his dinosaur in mountain plate; I quote “I want a freakin robot dinosar!!!”

We all told him that yes, it’s technically legal, but his DM would have every right to disallow it unless the DM was running an intentionally silly campaign. He told us that no, his DM wasn’t running a silly campaign, but that he wanted to ruin the mood with his RAW antics.

Beside the fact that I totally disagree with the premises of said player (messing with the DM), I'd say that the "silliness" is very subjective.
I, personally, find silly a dinosaur companion, armor or no armor (where "silly" is a thing totally different from "dangerous" ).
While an armoured bear is always totally cool and badass.

[Seatbelt]

Ditto. I've never fought or encountered a dinosaur unless it was summoned. In my settings they do not exist as living animals on the prime except for random land of the lost type places

[Telonius]

Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor. (A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell so that it functions as though it were steel. See the ironwood spell description) Druids are proficient with shields (except tower shields) but must use only wooden ones.

A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.

Animal companions (generally) don't cast spells, so there's no issue with metal armor. There's no restriction on animal companions for wearing metal barding.

Easy way to solve it, though - throw a dragon at them, and have a master smith in the next town offer to make dragonscale barding free for a trade of the current barding. "Are you kidding? I'll be known as the smith who put dragonscale barding on a dinosaur! I'll be set for life!"

[Another_Poet]

I'd allow it and not think twice about it. As others said, the animal is under no special restrictions.

For a fun parallel imagine a Buddhist monk with a pet dog. The Buddhist is sworn to be a vegetarian but their dog took no such vow. They feed it meat-based dog chow because otherwise it will die.

A druid (should) give their animal companion the best armour they can buy, otherwise it will be killed in battle. If you can't afford magical or dragonhide armour then full plate may be the cheapest way to get a respectable AC.

RAW allows either. If we're going to bring personal opinion into it then I hereby suggest that a druid who denies their animal companion metal armour is cruelly negligent, and should have their animal companion license revoked by the Council of Druids for mistreating the poor creature, whose loyal heart only wanted to serve its druid friend.

:)

ap

[Emmerask]

Legal by RAW yes, would I allow it as a dm or use it as a druid player, nope!

[Akal Saris]

Legal by RAW yes, would I allow it? Yes. Would I equip my animal companion in metal armor as a PC? Only if I trained it to wear armor, otherwise it would miss a lot...

[Frosty]

Mithril Chain Shirt barding yo! No ACP = 0 non-proficiency penalties.

[Coidzor]

Is training the animal to be proficient with the armor a single trick?

Also, does it only apply to that specific type of armor (say, full-plate or chainmail) or proficiency in an armor category (light, medium, heavy)?

[LibraryOgre]

Given that it's mountain plate, I'd probably say no, simply because that armor is designed to be encumbering.

[Tetsubo 57]

I always require Druids to be 'vegetarians' when it comes to weapons & armour: No Metal. I would extend that to their companions as well.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Is this in a particular setting? In Faerun, Mielikki is fine with druids in metal armor and thus you would have no problems with the animal doing the same.

It could have been, but he never mentioned a particular setting.

And panserbjorne have the Rule of Cool working in their favour.

QFT. If only said munchkin had been playing a sentient bear capable of making its own decisions.

Eh the standard itself is already pretty inconsistent. Can't use metal armor...but there's no issue in using a metal scimitar. Or really anything else thats worked metal. I see no real problem letting the animal companion use metal armor. I mean do druids stop their other party members from wearing metal armor?

No doubt the restriction is laughably inconsistent.

But assuming that a DM does bother to enforce it on druids, neglecting to enforce it on a druid’s companion seems…logically obtuse. The companion isn’t an independently thinking and ethically responsible being, like other PCs are. A druid may call his companion ‘friend,’ but it is like a child in many ways. Buying metal armor, training his companion to wear it and then dressing his animal pet in metal armor is ethically suspect, to say the least.

Animal companions (generally) don't cast spells, so there's no issue with metal armor. There's no restriction on animal companions for wearing metal barding.

The RAW also says that drowning a dying character will raise his HP to 0, but how many DMs would actually let that fly? Sometimes a smidge of common sense is needed to smooth over the mistakes that the designers never got around to fixing. Yeah, yeah, common sense isn’t necessarily common......but still.

For a fun parallel imagine a Buddhist monk with a pet dog. The Buddhist is sworn to be a vegetarian but their dog took no such vow. They feed it meat-based dog chow because otherwise it will die.

The parallel might be fun, but it’s not very parallel. Buddha can hardly blame his followers for giving their pets what they need to live. Druid companions don’t need armor, let alone metal armor, to live. So whatever higher power grants a druid his spells very likely will blame a druid for ignoring an ethical restriction in order to make his companion do something unnatural that it wouldn’t normally do. If a druid wants to protect his companion really well, he can spring for dragonscale. Or just train his pet to keep out of combat, which is even cheaper than buying armor.

[Greenish]

But assuming that a DM does bother to enforce it on druids, neglecting to enforce it on a druid’s companion seems…logically obtuse. The companion isn’t an independently thinking and ethically responsible being, like other PCs are. A druid may call his companion ‘friend,’ but it is like a child in many ways. Buying metal armor, training his companion to wear it and then dressing his animal pet in metal armor is ethically suspect, to say the least.

Druids don't view using metal armour as ethically wrong, they just don't use it for some obscure reason.

[Lin Bayaseda]

Is training the animal to be proficient with the armor a single trick?

Also, does it only apply to that specific type of armor (say, full-plate or chainmail) or proficiency in an armor category (light, medium, heavy)?

It's not a trick, it's a feat (animals get a bonus feat for every 3 HD)

[Coidzor]

It's not a trick, it's a feat (animals get a bonus feat for every 3 HD)

hmm. So you could get 'em up to Mithril Breastplate with Light Armor Proficiency Feat.

[kamikasei]

Druids don't view using metal armour as ethically wrong, they just don't use it for some obscure reason.

Just so. The restriction is so arbitrary and weirdly specific (seriously, why armor but not weapons or anything else?) with no reasoning given for it that it's not at all clear how far it should extend or whether or how a druid is prohibited from using metal that isn't his own armor.

Does this restriction derive from earlier editions? What was the justification for it then? (And how much of that justification still makes sense given the other changes to the class?)

[Jorda75]

I personally wouldn't allow it in my game, simply because I feel it is against the general theme of the druid. I do however allow a lot of optional rules and if someone wanted a dinosaur with mountain plate it wouldn't be hard to bend the rules a little and allow it. Straight out of the blue though in a standard game I'd have to say no, just doesn't feel right.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Druids don't view using metal armour as ethically wrong, they just don't use it for some obscure reason.

They don't necessarily view it as wrong.[/nitpick]

I'd allow this as a DM and use it as a player.

If my Animal Companion wears armour and the DM rules that it has, for some inexplicable and utterly stupid reason, also taken a Druidic vow to not wear metal armour that's fine. I can handle my now-armoured Companion losing its Druidic spellcasting and Supernatural Abilities (hint: It doesn't have any).

If the DM decides that the penalties apply to me for some even more obscure and less understandable reason then I'll roll a new character. With a Merciful weapon, increased ability to take down animals and plenty of spare sets of metal armour. Beat up Druid/Ranger's (a Ranger's Companion functions just like a Druid's, making the thought of applying any penalties at all even less sensible. Rangers don't even take the same vow) Animal Companion, which should be easier than taking down the character themselves, put armour on to the companion and wait till the character's existing buffs run out (apart from Wildshape, that winks out as soon as you lose it, I should think, though I could be wrong). Have them enjoy their d8 hit die, lack of any magical capabilities whatsoever and the fact that you screwed them over for twenty-four hours even if you fell to them before their buffs expired. Also torturous interrogation if you happen to need information from them.

If the DM complains about metagaming you can say that this is about as sensible in the gameworld as having any other ability to shut down the spellcasting of a class for a whole day with only the effort required being enough to take down an Animal Companion (say hello to Ray of Stupidity!). Basically anyone who has even heard about it as a rumor is going to at least test it one day, basing your combat strategy against those particular foes around it is just as most other choices. And leagues more sensible than having divine power being cut off from someone because an unusually loyal animal has broken a vow that it didn't take and can't even comprehend.

Why not take away a Druid's casting because their lover is wearing metal armour? Their lover is (usually) much closer than their Animal Companion, which is literally a particularly loyal but otherwise normal animal. A Wizard's familiar is a part of him in some way, a Druid or Ranger's Animal Companion has no special bonds to the one it follows at all, apart from increased training together. There is a section dedicated to this information in the DMG. Why people seem to assume an Animal Companion is anything more than a loyal, but still mostly wild, animal is beyond me.

[Devils_Advocate]

But assuming that a DM does bother to enforce it on druids, neglecting to enforce it on a druid’s companion seems…logically obtuse.

How so?

Buying metal armor, training his companion to wear it and then dressing his animal pet in metal armor is ethically suspect, to say the least.

How so?

obvious double standard

In the technical sense that only jailing criminals is a double standard, sure. But I don't see an actual known reason why druids are prohibited from wearing metal armor that would also apply to their animal companions. It's a pretty odd specific, presented without any real explanation. Which is often what D&D's rulebooks deliver when it comes to codes of conduct and alignment, come to think.

Here's a fun exercise: Try to come up for a reasonable-sounding justification for why druids aren't allowed to wear metal armor, but are allowed to use metal weapons and are even proficient with some metal weapons.

Druids are prohibited from wearing metal armor and are penalized for a day for doing that. They also become ex-druids if they cease "revering nature" (whatever that means), change to a corner alignment, or teach Druidic to a nondruid. I don't see how this is supposed to add up to a coherent philosophy.

Tangentially: It seems like it would be extremely useful to have lockable metal armor designed to have 100% arcane spell failure rather than to protect the wearer from harm, as a means of dealing with troublesome wizards and druids. Why is this (so far as I know) not an official item? It seems like it would be easier to make and more broadly useful than dimensional shackles.

I'd see the question as between giving the companion items (especially armor) at all, metal or otherwise, or having them rely on buff spells for their natural abilities.

I can see the argument against interfering with an animal's wild nature. Of course, that means no domestication, and since animals companions basically function as pets, it seems to work out to be an argument against having animal companions at all.

(Arguably a good one. If druids aren't supposed to support the wilderness, what are they supposed to support? "Nature" as opposed to what, exactly? If not the artificial and not the supernatural, what is it that they don't like? Because "nature" is broad enough to include everything that exists. Hmmm, maybe the tenets of their faith are so vague because they're really a secret organization dedicated to protecting the world(s) from destruction? And that's why they have a secret language? Of course! It all fits! )

For a fun parallel imagine a Buddhist monk with a pet dog. The Buddhist is sworn to be a vegetarian but their dog took no such vow. They feed it meat-based dog chow because otherwise it will die.

I gather that it's possible for a dog to survive in good health on a vegan diet, actually, but try to do that with a cat and it ain't pretty.

If we're going to bring personal opinion into it then I hereby suggest that a druid who denies their animal companion metal armour is cruelly negligent, and should have their animal companion license revoked by the Council of Druids for mistreating the poor creature, whose loyal heart only wanted to serve its druid friend.

Well, I hate to break it to you, but animal companions are disposable. Unlike paladins and wizards, druids can send their sentient class features to their deaths at no penalty to themselves and replace them the very next day. And, really, making animals fight and die for you hardly seems like an abuse of the power to... well, make animals fight and die for you (also available in the form of spontaneous casting of summon nature's ally spells). Just a use.

Now I'm imagining a Neutral Evil druid with a wolf named "Kenny #37".

When playing druids or rangers I usually teach the compaignion the "wear armor" trick

Is training the animal to be proficient with the armor a single trick?

No, it's not a trick. Since they don't get class levels, animals' proficiency with barding comes from up to three of the feats that they get with their hit dice. (And since a "1st-level druid’s companion is completely typical for its kind except as noted", you can't just swap out the feats from the animal's statblock; you have to use the ones that come with its bonus hit dice.) Medium and heavy barding aren't really worth it, since they not only require more feats to be proficient with but slow the animal down.

I always require Druids to be 'vegetarians' when it comes to weapons & armour: No Metal.

Your phrasing is so totally racist against pedants, dude.

[Jorda75]

I just look at it this way: Metal armor (and weapons should be included but aren't, probably for balance reasons but whatever) requires one to take ore in it's pure, natural form and to work and bend it to your will with heat and more metal. The druid finds this "perversion" of nature abhorent as he would much rather use the bark of a magical tree or the hide of a slain beast (with proper rites, ect) to something that has been so greatly altered from it's natural form.

This would then lead me to believe that a druid would not want to clad the animal with which he has gained a mystical bond and trust in the same armor he himself refuses to use. The rules are not specific but that's how I've always interpreted them.

[Greenish]

(Arguably a good one. If druids aren't supposed to support the wilderness, what are they supposed to support? "Nature" as opposed to what, exactly? If not the artificial and not the supernatural, what is it that they don't like? Because "nature" is broad enough to include everything that exists. Hmmm, maybe the tenets of their faith are so vague because they're really a secret organization dedicated to protecting the world(s) from destruction? And that's why they have a secret language? Of course! It all fits! )

Wouldn't druids be opposed to pseudonatural stuff, like aberrations?

[Edit]:

I just look at it this way: Metal armor (and weapons should be included but aren't, probably for balance reasons but whatever) requires one to take ore in it's pure, natural form and to work and bend it to your will with heat and more metal. The druid finds this "perversion" of nature abhorent as he would much rather use the bark of a magical tree or the hide of a slain beast (with proper rites, ect) to something that has been so greatly altered from it's natural form.

You know you don't just wear unworked hides of animals?

Not to even mention shaping and hardening wood into a passable armour.

[Jorda75]

Wouldn't druids be opposed to pseudonatural stuff, like aberrations?

[Edit]:You know you don't just wear unworked hides of animals?

Not to even mention shaping and hardening wood into a passable armour.

I'm not saying they don't use unworked materials alone, it's the process of utterly changing an elemental substance that they would be apprehensive about.

If you look as well I mentioned proper rites when using animal hides and using the bark from magical trees, like darkwood. It may require work and alterations but it's not the same as metal crafting, it may even be the fact that metal working is a more "advanced" and "modern" form of armor crafting that druids dislike since they would prefer things to be done the old and natural way.

[Devils_Advocate]

Ah, so they're more OK with primitive technology than they are with advanced technology, as the latter is far more removed from wild nature. Makes sense, I s'pose.

Wouldn't druids be opposed to pseudonatural stuff, like aberrations?

(Undead could be lumped in there, too, probably.) But what does it mean for something to be "contrary to the natural order"? What distinction is being drawn? Presumably such creatures are bad to have around in some sense, but in what sense? How and why are they "toxic"?

Why not take away a Druid's casting because their lover is wearing metal armour? Their lover is (usually) much closer than their Animal Companion, which is literally a particularly loyal but otherwise normal animal. A Wizard's familiar is a part of him in some way, a Druid or Ranger's Animal Companion has no special bonds to the one it follows at all, apart from increased training together. There is a section dedicated to this information in the DMG. Why people seem to assume an Animal Companion is anything more than a loyal, but still mostly wild, animal is beyond me.

"A druid’s animal companion is different from a normal animal of its kind in many ways. A druid’s animal companion is superior to a normal animal of its kind and has special powers" -- for example, the "Link" and "Share Spells" bits. It's only "completely typical for its kind except as noted" (emphasis mine).

Now, granted, an animal companion doesn't have the same fluff as a familiar, which is, in some senses, the same being as its master. It's not quite that extreme. But you're really overstating your case here. An animal companion is exceptional in ways besides being particularly loyal and does in fact have a special bond to the one it follows.