Armor with out Armor proficiency

[Shadow-mane]

A PC in a game wants to buy their pet a set of medium armor and then have it composed of Mithral so his pet can wear it. Said pet does not have armor proficiency at all. Can the pet wear it and still avail himself of the bonuses of wearing Mithral Armor?

I need an official Ruling

It was first edition we need a response.

[Grankless]

Use barding, which is animal armor.

Here.

[HammerJack]

First, there is still a 1E forum you could and should have posted this in. Flagged the thread to be moved.

Second, lack of proficiency has never stopped you from wearing things in 1E. It just causes armor check (if there's any left after making it out of mithral) to apply to things that aren't normally affected (attack rolls and any skill check that involves moving).

Third, "I need an official ruling" is generally a statement that doesn't work. But you don't need anything outside of the Pathfinder CRB, which defines what the penalties are for wearing armor you aren't proficient with. There would be no need for that, if wearing armor you aren't proficient in was somehow impossible.

[Nefreet]

Concur with the others.

PCs, Animal Companions and even Familiars can all benefit from wearing armor in the same way, and suffer non-proficiency penalties in the same way.

EDIT: realized the link up thread is for 2nd Edition; here is the section linked for 1st Edition:

Page 149 of the Core Rulebook wrote:

Nonproficient with Armor Worn: A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he is not proficient takes the armor’s (and/or shield’s) armor check penalty on attack rolls as well as on all Dexterity- and Strength-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for shields.

[Keith Greer]

Moved to PF 1st Edition / Rules Questions