| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup. Totally legit.
If you don't like it, roleplay the fact that he is trying to force a suit of armor on a wild animal that has had no training or experience in armor.
You take the armor's check penalty when you're wearing it, proficiency or not.
The check penalty is zero.
Therefore, proficient or not, you can wear it without penalty.
You take the armor's check penalty when you're wearing it, proficiency or not.
The check penalty is zero.
Therefore, proficient or not, you can wear it without penalty.
Except when you are not proficient with it you also take the armor check penalty to attack rolls.
Other than that, yes. No penalty since the armor check penalty is zero.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This used to be an old trick in 3.5 ... you could, for about 5 grand, get a chain shirt with no check penalties and no spell failure. No proficiency required.
The cat should act like a cat and freak out trying to get it off all the time.
Nothing in the rules gives the player total control over his INT 2 pet.
Armor check penalty of 0 doesn't matter, the cat can run off and start rubbing up against a tree trying to get it off.
If you want.
Or relax and realize that improving an animal companions armor class isn't that big a deal.
|
The cat should act like a cat and freak out trying to get it off all the time.
Nothing in the rules gives the player total control over his INT 2 pet.
Armor check penalty of 0 doesn't matter, the cat can run off and start rubbing up against a tree trying to get it off.
If you want.
Or relax and realize that improving an animal companions armor class isn't that big a deal.
If it is a Paladin's Mount, it has an Int of 6, which can be higher than perfectly legitimate PCs, including the Paladin himself.
The second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. This mount is usually a heavy horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony (for a Small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the paladin's level as her effective druid level. Bonded mounts have an Intelligence of at least 6.
Dump stat Int to 7, take a race that gives a -2 to Int, badaboom, you now have a legal PC with an Int of 5, lower than a Paladin's Mount.
And, in a "roll your stats" game, it could be even lower.
The cat should act like a cat and freak out trying to get it off all the time.
Nothing in the rules gives the player total control over his INT 2 pet.
Armor check penalty of 0 doesn't matter, the cat can run off and start rubbing up against a tree trying to get it off.
If you want.
Or relax and realize that improving an animal companions armor class isn't that big a deal.
If it is a Paladin's Mount, it has an Int of 6, which can be higher than perfectly legitimate PCs, including the Paladin himself.
The second type of bond allows a paladin to gain the service of an unusually intelligent, strong, and loyal steed to serve her in her crusade against evil. This mount is usually a heavy horse (for a Medium paladin) or a pony (for a Small paladin), although more exotic mounts, such as a boar, camel, or dog are also suitable. This mount functions as a druid's animal companion, using the paladin's level as her effective druid level. Bonded mounts have an Intelligence of at least 6.Dump stat Int to 7, take a race that gives a -2 to Int, badaboom, you now have a legal PC with an Int of 5, lower than a Paladin's Mount.
And, in a "roll your stats" game, it could be even lower.
No matter what players think, animal companions are controlled by the GM. :D
Nothing published disagrees with this.
Regardless, boosting an animal companions armor class by four (or more if it's magical) isn't a big deal.
Look at the casters, look at what they can do.
Damn Timestop...
Planeshift...
Baleful Polymorph...
etc.
]If it is a Paladin's Mount, it has an Int of 6, which can be higher than perfectly legitimate PCs, including the Paladin himself.
Dump stat Int to 7, take a race that gives a -2 to Int, badaboom, you now have a legal PC with an Int of 5, lower than a Paladin's Mount.
And, in a "roll your stats" game, it could be even lower.
No matter what players think, animal companions are controlled by the GM. :D
Nothing published disagrees with this.
.........
Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions.
.........yeah. While I generally agree that most animal companions are supposed to be played with handle animal, no matter what cute tricks you pull with your ability score increase and a +int headband, the paladin mount is explicitly called out as sentient and player controlled (and presumably other 6 int mounts as well, since...why bother? It isn't enough for skill points, and only serves as a buffer against INT damage...and even then it could still be one shotted by a d6)
Anyway, yes, light armor profiency is kinda useless to spend a feat on as an animal companion. If you get it for free (such as with cavalier mounts) then that is great- you get to use better or cheaper armor (since you don't have to go leather, and then buy some special material chainmail).
But putting a feat into it is...eh.... Maybe if you are aiming for heavy armor...but really, why bother?
]If it is a Paladin's Mount, it has an Int of 6, which can be higher than perfectly legitimate PCs, including the Paladin himself.
Dump stat Int to 7, take a race that gives a -2 to Int, badaboom, you now have a legal PC with an Int of 5, lower than a Paladin's Mount.
And, in a "roll your stats" game, it could be even lower.
No matter what players think, animal companions are controlled by the GM. :D
Nothing published disagrees with this.
.........
Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions..........yeah. While I generally agree that most animal companions are supposed to be played with handle animal, no matter what cute tricks you pull with your ability score increase and a +int headband, the paladin mount is explicitly called out as sentient and player controlled (and presumably other 6 int mounts as well, since...why bother? It isn't enough for skill points, and only serves as a buffer against INT damage...and even then it could still be one shotted by a d6)
Anyway, yes, light armor profiency is kinda useless to spend a feat on as an animal companion. If you get it for free (such as with cavalier mounts) then that is great- you get to use better or cheaper armor (since you don't have to go leather, and then buy some special material chainmail).
But putting a feat into it is...eh.... Maybe if you are aiming for heavy armor...but really, why bother?
OP asked about AC, not a bonded mount.
It is legit.
Why take it away?
Do you take away other peoples things?
OP asked about AC, not a bonded mount.
So... I was reading the rules on armour that you are not proficient in.
The Paladin has a lion yes [/b]divine bond[/b] and celetial template ect... However the cat does not/have barding? But does not have the light armour proficiency. I'm trying to find if this lion can have have armour with a 0 armour check and still do everything like attack with no negatives ect... it says armour check 0 .... so....Now he put on a mithral Master work Chain shirt on his cat and it now has a -0 armour check penalty.
He says that now because it is a -0 armour check he does not suffer any of the:
Normal: A character who is wearing armor with which he is not proficient applies its armour check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving.Am I reading something wrong or can people put on armour that they are not proficient in as long as the armour check penalty is 0?
Thanks guys, I'm trying to make sense of this.
In the second sentence the OP said he was talking about a bonded mount by saying that the Cat was gain by the paladin using his divine bond class feature and as such is celestial too.
Would you allow a Divine Bond horse to wear armour? So why say no to a Lion?
It's usually pretty easy to get around GM-imposed restrictions on light armor with Mage Armor anyway. A Pearl of Power or Wand as a gift to the nearest friendly arcane caster is cheaper than mithral chain barding.
OP asked about AC, not a bonded mount.]If it is a Paladin's Mount, it has an Int of 6, which can be higher than perfectly legitimate PCs, including the Paladin himself.
Dump stat Int to 7, take a race that gives a -2 to Int, badaboom, you now have a legal PC with an Int of 5, lower than a Paladin's Mount.
And, in a "roll your stats" game, it could be even lower.
No matter what players think, animal companions are controlled by the GM. :D
Nothing published disagrees with this.
.........
Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions..........yeah. While I generally agree that most animal companions are supposed to be played with handle animal, no matter what cute tricks you pull with your ability score increase and a +int headband, the paladin mount is explicitly called out as sentient and player controlled (and presumably other 6 int mounts as well, since...why bother? It isn't enough for skill points, and only serves as a buffer against INT damage...and even then it could still be one shotted by a d6)
Anyway, yes, light armor profiency is kinda useless to spend a feat on as an animal companion. If you get it for free (such as with cavalier mounts) then that is great- you get to use better or cheaper armor (since you don't have to go leather, and then buy some special material chainmail).
But putting a feat into it is...eh.... Maybe if you are aiming for heavy armor...but really, why bother?
The thread title references AC, but in the post itself he clarifies that it's a bounded mount - not an animal companion.
This is absolutely legal, animal companion or otherwise.
I have a unchained rogue who wear kikko armor (medium armor). Kikko armor has +5 to AC, +4 max dex, -3 ACP versus a breastplate's +6 to AC, +3 max dex, and -4 ACP. When you make the kikko armor mithral, the max dex raises to 6, and the ACp drops to 0.
Meaning that even though my rogue isn't proficient in medium armor, she can wear this particular armor with effectively no penalty.
People also used to do the same with the Armor Expert(?) trait and mithral breastplates to get the ACP to 0.
Sentient and int 3 is SOP for a druids animal companion.
|
Leather, masterwork studded leather, leaf armor, mithril chain, and mithral kikko armor are all great for doing this.
Just wait until your animals growth spurt because investing in anything expensive, no point in spending a lot on baby clothes that they'll just outgrow.
If you want to go nuts, you can get mithral breastplate of comfort.
OP asked about AC, not a bonded mount.]If it is a Paladin's Mount, it has an Int of 6, which can be higher than perfectly legitimate PCs, including the Paladin himself.
Dump stat Int to 7, take a race that gives a -2 to Int, badaboom, you now have a legal PC with an Int of 5, lower than a Paladin's Mount.
And, in a "roll your stats" game, it could be even lower.
No matter what players think, animal companions are controlled by the GM. :D
Nothing published disagrees with this.
.........
Sentient Companions: a sentient companion (a creature that can understand language and has an Intelligence score of at least 3) is considered your ally and obeys your suggestions and orders to the best of its ability. It won't necessarily blindly follow a suicidal order, but it has your interests at heart and does what it can to keep you alive. Paladin bonded mounts, familiars, and cohorts fall into this category, and are usually player-controlled companions..........yeah. While I generally agree that most animal companions are supposed to be played with handle animal, no matter what cute tricks you pull with your ability score increase and a +int headband, the paladin mount is explicitly called out as sentient and player controlled (and presumably other 6 int mounts as well, since...why bother? It isn't enough for skill points, and only serves as a buffer against INT damage...and even then it could still be one shotted by a d6)
Anyway, yes, light armor profiency is kinda useless to spend a feat on as an animal companion. If you get it for free (such as with cavalier mounts) then that is great- you get to use better or cheaper armor (since you don't have to go leather, and then buy some special material chainmail).
But putting a feat into it is...eh.... Maybe if you are aiming for heavy armor...but really, why bother?
Ignoring OP (which someone has already stated that it is a paladin mount), you were replying to kinevon discussing paladin mounts, as you can see in the very top quote of this little bit of discusssion
oopsy.
Regardless, nothing in the rules preventing using armor like this, we all seem to agree on that.
Strict RAW he can do it. My group requires the feat or the animal is constantly trying to remove it. That would be a house rule though. *points to first sentence in post before anyone jumps on what i said.*