Can companions/familiars/mounts wear barding and still use evasion? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Can companions/familiars/mounts wear barding and still use evasion? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Lotus Crane
05-28-06, 01:29 PM Hey guys, reading the entry for animal companions, familiars, and special mounts, I noticed that the description for their (improved) evasion abilities don't mention an armor limitation, like the monk, ranger, and rogue do. Does this mean that a paladin's heavy warhorse mount, or a wizard's winter wolf improved familiar, could wear medium or heavy barding, and still be able to avoid most of the damage from AoE spells?

I do believe a precedent for such an ability exists in the form of the Divine Oracle PrC being able to use prescient sense (effectively evasion) in all types of armor. However, I do admit that companions/familiars/mounts are not quite characters with levels in a PrC.

Well, what do you think?
belthazzar1113
05-28-06, 01:43 PM my interpretation is that the "evasion" ability includes the prohibition against all but light armor. so that if your animal companions or whatnot wear anything other than light barding they lose the evasion ability.

a charitable dm might just knock it down from improved evasion to regular evasion, but i consider all of it to be mobility dependent. so anything other than light or no armor ends that ability.
HalasterAteMyHamster
05-28-06, 02:00 PM Improved Evasion (Ex)

When subjected to an attack that normally allows a Reflex saving throw for half damage, a familiar takes no damage if it makes a successful saving throw and half damage even if the saving throw fails.
It makes no reference to the Rogue ability, and as such, it doesn't work like the rogue ability. Therefore, as its text includes no armour clause, it's independant of armor.
belthazzar1113
05-28-06, 02:06 PM common sense / rule 0

you can't put a housecat in a tin can throw it in an explosion and expect it can escape. all of the evasion abilities have armor restrictions. Familiars don't normally wear amor or barding, but in this case I would very much say that depspit the rules not explicitly saying so you lose evasion the same way a character would if you pile on armor or barding.
Dragonteuthis
05-28-06, 02:14 PM From the handy old DMG, page 293:

"Rogues and monks cannot use evasion in medium or heavy armor. Some creatures with the evasion ability as an innate quality do not have this limitation."

It took me longer to write up this post than to look up the answer. You CAN do research before coming here.

While I recognize that "innate quality" has debateable consequences, I think the meaning is quite clear; that non-rogue/monk evasion generally does not have (armor) limitations.

Edit: all of the evasion abilities have armor restrictions.

Actually, no they don't. At least, according to the DMG.
HalasterAteMyHamster
05-28-06, 02:16 PM common sense / rule 0

you can't put a housecat in a tin can throw it in an explosion and expect it can escape. all of the evasion abilities have armor restrictions. Familiars don't normally wear amor or barding, but in this case I would very much say that depspit the rules not explicitly saying so you lose evasion the same way a character would if you pile on armor or barding.
Wearing barding hardly equates to being sealed into a tin. Look at some of the art in the PHB; hell, look at barding in real-life. It's not as restrictive as human full-plate.

The fact that the designers implemented barding shows that they intended for animals companions (by which I mean any animals travelling with the party, not just a druid or ranger's) to wear armour in combat. So, why didn't they include the armour clause in companion Improved Evasion? It could very reasonably be argued that their intent was to allow them to evade regardless of armour, which is backed up by RAW, instead of your view, which is backed up by 'common sense' which isn't actually common.
Kary Wanzer
05-28-06, 02:26 PM you can't put a housecat in a tin can throw it in an explosion and expect it can escape.
Well, going by real world "common sense" you can't throw a housecat into an explosion and expect it to survive, period, regardless of whether or not you stuff it into a tin can first.

In a world with flying lizards that breathe fire, I don't think we should expect any sort of "common sense" from the rules, nor should we be forced to interpret the rules in the most "realistic" fashion.
belthazzar1113
05-28-06, 02:44 PM your right, who would expect common sense from the rules. i mean its not like the game thats based on any sembalance of reality or real world physics. just a random collection of numbers that people roll around that doesn't mean anything at all. just pluses and minus and multipliers, no story or world behind those.

what the hell are you talking about?!

as far as the housecat example yes you can expect a cat to survive a blast or a fire. cats are like that and i have seen a great many animals be able to get out of the way of thigns like that where humans stand and die. however you tie a tin can to its tail and it won't be doing anything but crawling around.

you want to let creatures wear barding and keep evasion, fine... i want a centar rogue 19 fighter 1 with full plate barding dodging lightning bolts and making sneak attacks with a lance. after all its barding not armor so it doesn't stop me.
there are some things that don't make sense and should be allowed under the rule zero common sense clause.

but then again expecting common sense from these boards is often my first mistake.
Witch
05-28-06, 02:48 PM Common sense is relevant in the world of D&D, it's merely not omnipotent.
HalasterAteMyHamster
05-28-06, 02:48 PM you want to let creatures wear barding and keep evasion, fine... i want a centar rogue 19 fighter 1 with full plate barding dodging lightning bolts and making sneak attacks with a lance. after all its barding not armor so it doesn't stop me.
Actually, barding is a type of armour, so it would.

Edit - Oh, and for the record, a centaur wouldn't wear barding, they'd use the armour for unusual creatures (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#armorForUnusualCreatures) rules.
Kary Wanzer
05-28-06, 02:49 PM you want to let creatures wear barding and keep evasion, fine... i want a centar rogue 19 fighter 1 with full plate barding dodging lightning bolts and making sneak attacks with a lance. after all its barding not armor so it doesn't stop me.
Barding is in fact armor, just for nonhumanoids, and the centaur in your example gained evasion from being a rogue, which explicitly has an armor restriction. That's totally different from an animal companion/familiar/special mount, which gain evasion without any explicit armor restriction, or a reference to the rogue or monk. (In fact, the rogue and monk are a perfect example of why we shouldn't expect all sources of evasion to be equal, since monks aren't allowed to even wear light armor if they want to use evasion.)

With a totally incomparable and irrelevant comparison like that, I suspect the one lacking common sense is in fact you.
Count Arioch the 28th
05-28-06, 02:49 PM you want to let creatures wear barding and keep evasion, fine... i want a centar rogue 19 fighter 1 with full plate barding dodging lightning bolts and making sneak attacks with a lance. after all its barding not armor so it doesn't stop me.

You're not paying any attention.

No one on this thread except you has said that barding isn't armor. The argument is that there is a clause in the evasion ability that says that not all beings with evasion are restricted in their armor.

Rogues are restricted to light armor. Rangers are restricted to light armor. Monks are restricted to no armor at all.

Animal companions don't have that restriction.

So, said centaur rogue couldn't use evasion in heavy barding, ebcause the rogue class prohibits it.

Now, if you wanted to say you want to be a centaur that's an animal companion to another player to get evasion, that would count as a rediculous abuse of rules.

Next time, please at least read the replies of the people you are arguing with ebfore you say something foolish again.
Lotus Crane
05-29-06, 03:26 PM So the consensus is that animal companions/familiars/special mounts can in fact wear even medium or heavy barding and still use their evasion or improved evasion abilities. Good to know, thanks.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lotus Crane 05-28-06, 01:29 PM	Hey guys, reading the entry for animal companions, familiars, and special mounts, I noticed that the description for their (improved) evasion abilities don't mention an armor limitation, like the monk, ranger, and rogue do. Does this mean that a paladin's heavy warhorse mount, or a wizard's winter wolf improved familiar, could wear medium or heavy barding, and still be able to avoid most of the damage from AoE spells? I do believe a precedent for such an ability exists in the form of the Divine Oracle PrC being able to use prescient sense (effectively evasion) in all types of armor. However, I do admit that companions/familiars/mounts are not quite characters with levels in a PrC. Well, what do you think?
belthazzar1113 05-28-06, 01:43 PM	my interpretation is that the "evasion" ability includes the prohibition against all but light armor. so that if your animal companions or whatnot wear anything other than light barding they lose the evasion ability. a charitable dm might just knock it down from improved evasion to regular evasion, but i consider all of it to be mobility dependent. so anything other than light or no armor ends that ability.
HalasterAteMyHamster 05-28-06, 02:00 PM	Improved Evasion (Ex) When subjected to an attack that normally allows a Reflex saving throw for half damage, a familiar takes no damage if it makes a successful saving throw and half damage even if the saving throw fails. It makes no reference to the Rogue ability, and as such, it doesn't work like the rogue ability. Therefore, as its text includes no armour clause, it's independant of armor.
belthazzar1113 05-28-06, 02:06 PM	common sense / rule 0 you can't put a housecat in a tin can throw it in an explosion and expect it can escape. all of the evasion abilities have armor restrictions. Familiars don't normally wear amor or barding, but in this case I would very much say that depspit the rules not explicitly saying so you lose evasion the same way a character would if you pile on armor or barding.
Dragonteuthis 05-28-06, 02:14 PM	From the handy old DMG, page 293: "Rogues and monks cannot use evasion in medium or heavy armor. Some creatures with the evasion ability as an innate quality do not have this limitation." It took me longer to write up this post than to look up the answer. You CAN do research before coming here. While I recognize that "innate quality" has debateable consequences, I think the meaning is quite clear; that non-rogue/monk evasion generally does not have (armor) limitations. Edit: all of the evasion abilities have armor restrictions. Actually, no they don't. At least, according to the DMG.
HalasterAteMyHamster 05-28-06, 02:16 PM	common sense / rule 0 you can't put a housecat in a tin can throw it in an explosion and expect it can escape. all of the evasion abilities have armor restrictions. Familiars don't normally wear amor or barding, but in this case I would very much say that depspit the rules not explicitly saying so you lose evasion the same way a character would if you pile on armor or barding. Wearing barding hardly equates to being sealed into a tin. Look at some of the art in the PHB; hell, look at barding in real-life. It's not as restrictive as human full-plate. The fact that the designers implemented barding shows that they intended for animals companions (by which I mean any animals travelling with the party, not just a druid or ranger's) to wear armour in combat. So, why didn't they include the armour clause in companion Improved Evasion? It could very reasonably be argued that their intent was to allow them to evade regardless of armour, which is backed up by RAW, instead of your view, which is backed up by 'common sense' which isn't actually common.
Kary Wanzer 05-28-06, 02:26 PM	you can't put a housecat in a tin can throw it in an explosion and expect it can escape. Well, going by real world "common sense" you can't throw a housecat into an explosion and expect it to survive, period, regardless of whether or not you stuff it into a tin can first. In a world with flying lizards that breathe fire, I don't think we should expect any sort of "common sense" from the rules, nor should we be forced to interpret the rules in the most "realistic" fashion.
belthazzar1113 05-28-06, 02:44 PM	your right, who would expect common sense from the rules. i mean its not like the game thats based on any sembalance of reality or real world physics. just a random collection of numbers that people roll around that doesn't mean anything at all. just pluses and minus and multipliers, no story or world behind those. what the hell are you talking about?! as far as the housecat example yes you can expect a cat to survive a blast or a fire. cats are like that and i have seen a great many animals be able to get out of the way of thigns like that where humans stand and die. however you tie a tin can to its tail and it won't be doing anything but crawling around. you want to let creatures wear barding and keep evasion, fine... i want a centar rogue 19 fighter 1 with full plate barding dodging lightning bolts and making sneak attacks with a lance. after all its barding not armor so it doesn't stop me. there are some things that don't make sense and should be allowed under the rule zero common sense clause. but then again expecting common sense from these boards is often my first mistake.
Witch 05-28-06, 02:48 PM	Common sense is relevant in the world of D&D, it's merely not omnipotent.
HalasterAteMyHamster 05-28-06, 02:48 PM	you want to let creatures wear barding and keep evasion, fine... i want a centar rogue 19 fighter 1 with full plate barding dodging lightning bolts and making sneak attacks with a lance. after all its barding not armor so it doesn't stop me. Actually, barding is a type of armour, so it would. Edit - Oh, and for the record, a centaur wouldn't wear barding, they'd use the armour for unusual creatures (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm#armorForUnusualCreatures) rules.
Kary Wanzer 05-28-06, 02:49 PM	you want to let creatures wear barding and keep evasion, fine... i want a centar rogue 19 fighter 1 with full plate barding dodging lightning bolts and making sneak attacks with a lance. after all its barding not armor so it doesn't stop me. Barding is in fact armor, just for nonhumanoids, and the centaur in your example gained evasion from being a rogue, which explicitly has an armor restriction. That's totally different from an animal companion/familiar/special mount, which gain evasion without any explicit armor restriction, or a reference to the rogue or monk. (In fact, the rogue and monk are a perfect example of why we shouldn't expect all sources of evasion to be equal, since monks aren't allowed to even wear light armor if they want to use evasion.) With a totally incomparable and irrelevant comparison like that, I suspect the one lacking common sense is in fact you.
Count Arioch the 28th 05-28-06, 02:49 PM	you want to let creatures wear barding and keep evasion, fine... i want a centar rogue 19 fighter 1 with full plate barding dodging lightning bolts and making sneak attacks with a lance. after all its barding not armor so it doesn't stop me. You're not paying any attention. No one on this thread except you has said that barding isn't armor. The argument is that there is a clause in the evasion ability that says that not all beings with evasion are restricted in their armor. Rogues are restricted to light armor. Rangers are restricted to light armor. Monks are restricted to no armor at all. Animal companions don't have that restriction. So, said centaur rogue couldn't use evasion in heavy barding, ebcause the rogue class prohibits it. Now, if you wanted to say you want to be a centaur that's an animal companion to another player to get evasion, that would count as a rediculous abuse of rules. Next time, please at least read the replies of the people you are arguing with ebfore you say something foolish again.
Lotus Crane 05-29-06, 03:26 PM	So the consensus is that animal companions/familiars/special mounts can in fact wear even medium or heavy barding and still use their evasion or improved evasion abilities. Good to know, thanks.