Would you allow a steel defender to use barding?

[Spiritchaser]

So, the title pretty much says it all. If a player wanted to spend the money and the time to have a custom suit of clankety clank plate mail barding hammered out for their battlesmith’s steel defender, would you allow it?

Some thoughts:

Plate barding is not easily affordable, this is not usually going to happen at low levels.

There’s nothing to clearly allow barding on a steel defender, and it certainly does not appear to have been intended.

It doesn’t appear to break anything.

My first inclination is to allow it, but require the PC to find an armorer who’s used to armouring articulated mechanical joints (probably some drunken dwarf with a bad temper and a worse Scottish accent, because it’s classic for good reason)

Has anyone done this?

[JeffreyGator]

It's a permanent companion generally so I don't see why it couldn't wear barding.

I might get it half plate for ac 17 + Magic if I'm willing to use one of my infusions on the pet.

If I had it in supply I would want either adamantine (for it to not be critted) or mithral for stealth.

The issue that has come up with barding a ranger creature in the past is if the animal had that proficiency or not and could be trained to wear armor. This seems like less of an issue for a construct that you built.

[stoutstien]

I don't see why not. I also allows them to use any of the armor infusions on them as well.

[Throne12]

Why? A steel defender is already made of metal. Its like asking if I can wear plate over the plate your wearing.

[stoutstien]

Why? A steel defender is already made of metal. Its like asking if I can wear plate over the plate your wearing.

Cost and weight. same reason why we don't build airplanes out of the same material we build the black boxes of.

[JackPhoenix]

Sure. It's not proficient, and it's got no way to get proficiency in heavy armor, but anyone can put on properly shaped armor.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Why? A steel defender is already made of metal. Its like asking if I can wear plate over the plate your wearing.

You must not be a fan of the current Warforged iteration then.

Sure. It's not proficient, and it's got no way to get proficiency in heavy armor, but anyone can put on properly shaped armor.

I wasn't aware that Barding was something a mount required proficiency for, or is the argument here that it shouldn't be considered a mount for Barding, but a creature for traditional armor?

If Barding does require some sort of proficiency... isn't that something all mounts would have to be trained for? I can't find mention of the PHB mount options saying anything about armor proficiencies yet it suggests Barding is intended for them. Should their not be some option to gain proficiency then?

EDIT: Here I am forgetting as well, the steel defender doesn't have to be animal shaped to begin with, there's no reason to even bother getting a custom armor made when it could be humanoid shaped. Unless of course you don't want it to be.

[Throne12]

You must not be a fan of the current Warforged iteration then.

I'm a fan of warforge. But warforge don't wear a suit of plate. They attach metal plates to there body. the steel defender is all metal.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I'm a fan of warforge. But warforge don't wear a suit of plate. They attach metal plates to there body. the steel defender is all metal.

The Warforged attaches metal plates to their wood and metal body. They're putting metal on top of metal. Or leather on top of metal, or cloth on top of metal.

Strictly speaking, they wear the armor pretty much as normal but incorporate some fashion of it directly into their body. A Warforged wearing Plate Armor is going to have a lot of extra metal on their already metal bits... Because more layers is more protection.

[JackPhoenix]

I wasn't aware that Barding was something a mount required proficiency for, or is the argument here that it shouldn't be considered a mount for Barding, but a creature for traditional armor?

Anyone needs to be proficient with armor to avoid penalties for wearing it. I don't know why you make distinction between "mount" and "creature".... all mounts are creatures.

If Barding does require some sort of proficiency... isn't that something all mounts would have to be trained for? I can't find mention of the PHB mount options saying anything about armor proficiencies yet it suggests Barding is intended for them. Should their not be some option to gain proficiency then?

The stat block for a warhorse has a variant for barding. That gives them proficiency, as creatures are proficient with the equipment listed in their stat blocks.

The Warforged attaches metal plates to their wood and metal body. They're putting metal on top of metal. Or leather on top of metal, or cloth on top of metal.

Strictly speaking, they wear the armor pretty much as normal but incorporate some fashion of it directly into their body. A Warforged wearing Plate Armor is going to have a lot of extra metal on their already metal bits... Because more layers is more protection.

Warforged body contains relatively little metal. Most of the body is wood, with few metal bits and some stone. Integrated plating serves as their 'skin'.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The stat block for a warhorse has a variant for barding. That gives them proficiency, as creatures are proficient with the equipment listed in their stat blocks.

So which one costs 400gp? The one proficient with Light Armor or Heavy Armor? Ooh, it better not be the non-proficient one. Does each mount have a Barding variant or can only Warhorse become proficient with Barding?

Warforged body contains relatively little metal. Most of the body is wood, with few metal bits and some stone. Integrated plating serves as their 'skin'.

I'm not finding much evidence of this either, their "muscles" seem to be explicitly made of wood but the rest of their construction varies between steel and stone.

This is a description I found of them on the Eberron Wiki, which seems to be sourced from Eberron Campaign Setting (2004) Eberron Player's Guide (2009) and Rising from the Last War (2019)

The warforged are made of stone, metal and wood fibres. The core of a warforged is a skeletal frame made of metal and stone with wood fibres acting as a muscular system. Covering the warforged is an outer shell of metal and stone plates.

Metal and Stone seem to be the more abundant material here. In Rising from the Last War, they are called "steel soldiers". I'd find it pretty silly to call them that if they're made mostly of wood.

You make the claim that integrated plating serves as their skin, which I'm not sure I buy.

[stoutstien]

Something to keep in mind when it comes to the steel defender and their defenses. you don't want them to have terribly high AC because you want it to be targeted. Any attack directed at the SD is a win for the party. Now that they have hit dice alongside their self-prepare and mending they are respectable damage sponges.

[JackPhoenix]

So which one costs 400gp?

Whichever your GM decides to give you.

I'm not finding much evidence of this either, their "muscles" seem to be explicitly made of wood but the rest of their construction varies between steel and stone.

This is a description I found of them on the Eberron Wiki, which seems to be sourced from Eberron Campaign Setting (2004) Eberron Player's Guide (2009) and Rising from the Last War (2019)

Metal and Stone seem to be the more abundant material here. In Rising from the Last War, they are called "steel soldiers". I'd find it pretty silly to call them that if they were being called such of wood was most of their composition.

That 'outer shell of metal and stone plates' is represented by Integrated Armor in 5e. The feature exist for balance reasons, but historically, Warforged didn't work that way. In 3.5, where warforged couldn't change their armor at will, there were feats you had to take at 1st level that determined what armor the WF has built-in, with basic composite plating being mix of steel and stone, darkwood, mithral and adamantine being exactly what it says, and unarmored body WF lacking the plates, but being able to wear normal armor. It's been noted by Keith Baker that despite the Integrated Plating option, most non-PC warforged don't change their armor, because it's like if a human peeled off and replaced their skin.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Whichever your GM decides to give you.

But then how did they gain that proficiency... Surely they were trained? Why would it be impossible to train a non-proficient creature to use armor?

You do realize that what you're suggesting here is that if it's not on a creatures statblock, tough luck, it's literally impossible, right? I spend 400gp on a Warhorse that isn't proficient in armor and can do nothing but cry about it because this Warhorse is forever destined to not wear armor ever.

That 'outer shell of metal and stone plates' is represented by Integrated Armor in 5e. The feature exist for balance reasons, but historically, Warforged didn't work that way. In 3.5, where warforged couldn't change their armor at will, there were feats you had to take at 1st level that determined what armor the WF has built-in, with basic composite plating being mix of steel and stone, darkwood, mithral and adamantine being exactly what it says, and unarmored body WF lacking the plates, but being able to wear normal armor. It's been noted by Keith Baker that despite the Integrated Plating option, most non-PC warforged don't change their armor, because it's like if a human peeled off and replaced their skin.

I was under the impression that this was the default appearance of most unarmored Warforged:

Spoiler: Warforged

Show

Which I suppose would suggest that they're not primarily covered in metal, but stone certainly seems to be more exposed than wood.

Though, it doesn't really matter what they consider "skin" to be. The point I had intended to make was that if you can cover your "skin" with something "not skin" it would be a protective layer. More layers of armor on a Steel Defender would protect it, there would be good reason to do so.

On the bolded note, wouldn't that also lend more to the idea that if they were planning to be more heavily armored, they wouldn't opt to remove their existing plates and instead incorporate further protection over it?

[JackPhoenix]

But then how did they gain that proficiency... Surely they were trained? Why would it be impossible to train a non-proficient creature to use armor?

You do realize that what you're suggesting here is that if it's not on a creatures statblock, tough luck, it's literally impossible, right? I spend 400gp on a Warhorse that isn't proficient in armor and can do nothing but cry about it because this Warhorse is forever destined to not wear armor ever.

Nonproficient creature can wear armor just fine. It'll have disadvantage on Str and Dex based rolls, and it won't be able to cast spells, but it can serve as a mount just fine. Note that Steel Defender isn't affected by the attack disadvantage, as the new version uses the artificer's attack modifier instead of the defender's Str or Dex.

The reason why there's no RAW way to learn proficiency in armor or weapons is that every spellcaster ever would learn how to wear heavy armor without the need to multiclass, picking a specific race or taking feats. As NPCs don't get ASIs, they can't pick armor proficiency feats (though warrior sidekick does grant proficiency in armor).

I was under the impression that this was the default appearance of most unarmored Warforged:

Spoiler: Warforged

Show

Which I suppose would suggest that they're not primarily covered in metal, but stone certainly seems to be more exposed than wood.

Default armor was composite plating, unarmored body required a feat. The feat wasn't even from the ECS, it came later, in Races of Eberron.

On the bolded note, wouldn't that also lend more to the idea that if they were planning to be more heavily armored, they wouldn't opt to remove their existing plates and instead incorporate further protection over it?

It's a nod to the original rules where changing armor wasn't possible and the plating was a permanent part of the warforged's body. That option was reflected in one UA version (the one that still allowed them to pick what armor they want to count as at the end of a long rest). For balance reasons, the warforged wear armor like everyone else (and also count as humanoids)... the original adamantine plating was the equivalent of adamangine full plate available from level 1, with lower arcane spell failure chance and armor check penalties, the mithral plating was equivalent to mithral... breastplate, I think? A lot of people considered it unbalanced back in the day, especially when combined with the immunities WF got as constructs.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Nonproficient creature can wear armor just fine. It'll have disadvantage on Str and Dex based rolls, and it won't be able to cast spells, but it can serve as a mount just fine. Note that Steel Defender isn't affected by the attack disadvantage, as the new version uses the artificer's attack modifier instead of the defender's Str or Dex.

The reason why there's no RAW way to learn proficiency in armor or weapons is that every spellcaster ever would learn how to wear heavy armor without the need to multiclass, picking a specific race or taking feats. As NPCs don't get ASIs, they can't pick armor proficiency feats (though warrior sidekick does grant proficiency in armor).

Right, so what is the point of Barding at all if there's no way to train a creature to wear it? How is it possible for any creature with such a proficiency to exist if it can't be trained? It has to be possible. Warhorse with proficiency in armor for Barding don't just appear from nothing, someone trained them.

So the argument is either "it's impossible, you can't do it, you're born with the skill or you're not" or "NPC can do it for their Warhorse but you can't do it for your mount/pet because we don't want you to claim a Wizard sidekick is your mount so he can wear plate armor Barding."

I, for one, would leave the option open. Lack of rules be damned, it makes no sense to me that bear/elephant/camel armor can exist but I can't train them to wear it effectively.

[JackPhoenix]

Right, so what is the point of Barding at all if there's no way to train a creature to wear it?

For about a third time, anyone and anything can wear an armor without being proficient.

How is it possible for any creature with such a proficiency to exist if it can't be trained? It has to be possible. Warhorse with proficiency in armor for Barding don't just appear from nothing, someone trained them.

So the argument is either "it's impossible, you can't do it, you're born with the skill or you're not" or "NPC can do it for their Warhorse but you can't do it for your mount/pet because we don't want you to claim a Wizard sidekick is your mount so he can wear plate armor Barding."

No, the 'argument' is "The GM decide if a creature is proficient with anything".

[Sigreid]

Yes, yes I would. I'd be in the camp that an artificer would be tinkering with their robot dog.

[Zhorn]

When it comes to what is written in the books, there's an overall majority of what JackPhoenix writes that I agree with, but when we get to the 'not explicitly stated in the books' territory we start to diverge.
Mounts/pets and armor proficiencies being the relevant one here.
To me, the existence of the warhorse being proficient with armor barding should be treated as a building block for any mount/pet/NPC creature being trainable in gaining armor proficiency. The 'how' is up for coordination with your DM, but at the very least should be a "yes, this is a thing that should be reasonably achievable and not blocked just because the statblock for said creature with the desired proficiency doesn't come pre-existing in an official book"

[ProsecutorGodot]

No, the 'argument' is "The GM decide if a creature is proficient with anything".

That's not what you said. It certainly wasn't implied at all when you said "and it's got no way to get armor proficiency" or "as creatures are proficient with the equipment listed in their stat blocks."

So a DM is well within their right to allow a player to train their Steel Defender with armor. Glad we're agreed on it.

For about a third time, anyone and anything can wear an armor without being proficient.

And just to be clear, this continued to go unaddressed because it wasn't the point.

[Pex]

The picture of the Steel Defender is a dog, but it can be a bipedal humanoid. If you allow barding would you allow regular armor?

It's a nice idea but lack of proficiency is a problem. I'm sure that lack is on purpose. The Steel Defender compliments the Battlesmith, but it isn't nor shouldn't be as tough as the Artificer or any warrior. I'm glad it's superior to the PHB Ranger Beast Companion. There was room for improvement to Companion status compared to that, but there's a metaphorical line. That said I wouldn't have minded a little better AC. Now that the concept exists an AC of (10 + X) + Proficiency Bonus would have been nice. X = 3, 4, or 5. They'd probably do 3. I lean to 4. Infusions that enchance weapons or armor could be used on the Steel Defender. It can only have one but at some level, 11 maybe, it can have two.

[JackPhoenix]

That's not what you said. It certainly wasn't implied at all when you said "and it's got no way to get armor proficiency" or "as creatures are proficient with the equipment listed in their stat blocks."

So a DM is well within their right to allow a player to train their Steel Defender with armor. Glad we're agreed on it.

The GM is well within their right to do anything they want. That's the entire basis of the game and applies every time. Doesn't change the fact that there's no RAW way for the players to teach anyone... pet or not... how to be proficient with armor or a weapon.

But if you allow PCs to train animals to be proficient in armor, be ready for the PC who too would want to get armor proficiencies for free. After all, if a horse can learn it without spending any character building resources (which it doesn't have, anyway), why can't Int 16-20 wizard?

And just to be clear, this continued to go unaddressed because it wasn't the point.

Well, the point of barding... like any armor... is to change your AC calculation. That remains true whether you're able to gain proficiency with it or not.

[ProsecutorGodot]

The GM is well within their right to do anything they want. That's the entire basis of the game and applies every time. Doesn't change the fact that there's no RAW way for the players to teach anyone... pet or not... how to be proficient with armor or a weapon.

But if you allow PCs to train animals to be proficient in armor, be ready for the PC who too would want to get armor proficiencies for free. After all, if a horse can learn it without spending any character building resources (which it doesn't have, anyway), why can't Int 16-20 wizard?

Because the DM is well within his right to do anything they want. You want armor proficiency Wizard? Take some downtime to train a feat, we gotta start you light with your scrawny bones.

Animals have downtime, PC's have downtime. Same cost, same acquisition method.

Alternatively, I'll repeat my original point: If an NPC can train a warhorse to wear armor effectively, why couldn't the same NPC try to teach my four legged Steel Defender the same thing. The Artificer could be taking significant risk leaving his Steel Defender with the trainer, or it could be part of the downtime activity mentioned before since a proper trainer would be required to begin with.

The same trainer certainly isn't going to be able to train a Wizard, that is unless he plans to be polymorphed into a Warhorse.

I don't see why the written rules matter here, the premise of this thread is assuming deviation from them.

[Zhorn]

But if you allow PCs to train animals to be proficient in armor, be ready for the PC who too would want to get armor proficiencies for free. After all, if a horse can learn it without spending any character building resources (which it doesn't have, anyway), why can't Int 16-20 wizard?

Yep, I am ready for this request and allow training for proficiencies.
DMG p231 has a section on training for skills and feats, armor and weapon proficiencies are included in some feats.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yep, I am ready for this request and allow training for proficiencies.
DMG p231 has a section on training for skills and feats, armor and weapon proficiencies are included in some feats.

I knew I'd seen the rule somewhere, but I kept skipping right to downtime.

My DM has used this a handful of times in our campaign too. The Monk got Observant (taught by the Black Viper), the Fighter got Linguist (taught by the retired 8 language Rogue) and my Paladin got Martial Adept (taught by a former mercenary and operative of the lord's alliance).

Our Sorcerer did not, in fact, go straight to wearing armor. He went to the druids and got Magic Initiate.

[Throne12]

If you want a war horse to get proficiency in armor. Make it a side kick.

[ProsecutorGodot]

If you want a war horse to get proficiency in armor. Make it a side kick.

I think I'd rather go for a donkey.

[da newt]

Armor requires Proficiency or there are performance penalties.

Barding does not require proficiency and has no performance penalties. It does cost 4X the amount of humanoid armor, and is 2x as heavy. PHB pg 155.

[Zhorn]

I think I'd rather go for a donkey.

But then you know someone's gonna cast Awaken on the thing behind your back...
... and then it'll take levels in bard bespite it's lack of social grace ...
... and you just can just tell there's going to be a short run of it polymorphed into a white stallion for an arc or two ...
... and you won't get to loot the dragon horde once that blasted donkey starts with the seduction attempts ...

[Pex]

But then you know someone's gonna cast Awaken on the thing behind your back...
... and then it'll take levels in bard bespite it's lack of social grace ...
... and you just can just tell there's going to be a short run of it polymorphed into a white stallion for an arc or two ...
... and you won't get to loot the dragon horde once that blasted donkey starts with the seduction attempts ...

... and it will never shut up