|
At least in my local area I seem to be in the minority in thinking that an Animal Companion can NOT wear armor without a feat. Or, at least, that it is a GM call as to whether they can.
If it matters, I am particularly concerned about the situation in PFS.
Obviously they'd take the proficiency penalty (which is, of course, virtually guaranteed to be zero for light armors past the first adventure or so).
My basic argument is that there are many things a character can do that an animal companion cannot do. This list is never made explicit. It is up to the GM to decide.
In PFS, that list includes all sorts of things that they are anatomically able to do but that are precluded because they're unintelligent animals. Wearing armor seems to me to full firmly into that category.
In real life, getting an animal to wear armour is not something that they do naturally, Horses have to be broken to a saddle. Cats refuse to move when in a harness. Etc.
Note that in PFS an animal companion (even one with an Int of 3) is explicitly disallowed from wielding weapons.
|
This is cross-posted on Ontariopathfinders.com, where the discussion originated.
Regarding animals (and other creatures) wearing armour without proficiency, there will not be any rules explicitly allowing it, because there do not need to be. Rules in Pathfinder tend to implicitly allow things and explicitly disallow them. As such, here is the only information in the Core Rulebook I am aware of regarding armour proficiency:
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.
Armor Proficiency, Light (Combat)
You are skilled at wearing light armor.
Benefit: When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Dexterity- and Strength-based skill checks.
Normal: A character who is wearing armor with which he is not proficient applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving.
Special: All characters except monks, sorcerers, and
wizards automatically have Light Armor Proficiency as a
bonus feat. They need not select it.
If you look at "Normal", you'll notice the implication that any character can wear armour. Non-Proficiency, as stated in my first quote, merely inflicts a penalty upon the wearer equal to the AC penalty (which can be 0-10 depending on the armour worn).
Animal companions are not characters, but there is also nothing explicitly preventing them from wearing armour. That they gain access to the Armour Proficiency feats reveals that they are intended to have access to armour, and going back to the previous quotes, we can find that the feats are not required to have them wear armour; these feats merely remove penalties to their attack rolls while wearing it.
So what's the point of Light Armour Proficiency if all it does is remove a penalty that might not even exist? First off, not everyone wants to shell out the cash to get their animal companion mithral chain shirt barding, and the feat means they can wear regular chain shirt barding with only minor penalties. Secondly, it's a prerequisite for Medium Armour Proficiency, which does have some real benefits; you could even give your animal companion full plate barding if you really wanted it to have the best armour. Feats are not required, however, and giving armour extra penalties (for example, "Your animal companion will refuse to move if you put this on them") is not something that is possible in a setting like PFS.