Lycanthropes and Armor

[UltimaGabe]

But what if the armor were magical? Don't magical armors generally resize to fit the wearer?

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Not in 3.5

 

[frankthedm]

Not in 3.5

Yep, they did away with that bit of sillyness.

 

[Jacob]

Apologies for bringing up an old topic, but it's this discussion that tries to address what has been bothering me for a long time. I've read through the SRD, read through the FAQs and Errata and even bought the official rulebook for 3.5, and yet I can't see any ruling that a hybrid cannot wear armor even if when enlarged...through 3.5 rules alone.

I'm a stickler when it comes to the rules, and I have Werebears in my game which wear armor, and I loathe getting this wrong...even though everything I've read thus far says it's right. Assistance?

 

[Sekhmet]

Quick fix their armor to have the Wild enchant.

 

[Rakusia]

well as long as its the proper size then they can wear them

 

[Jacob]

Quick fix their armor to have the Wild enchant.

Funny you should mention that, because this was brought up in another thread I found. In summary, no, that's for Wild Shape, though someone in the thread brought forth the idea of creating a home brewed magical enhancement. This does not help me however, because I'm looking for rulings through the 3.5 rules alone without any tweaking.

Let's doing some quoting to assist in logic pattern. From Alternate Form...

Any gear worn or carried by the creature that can’t be worn or carried in its new form instead falls to the ground in its space. If the creature changes size, any gear it wears or carries that can be worn or carried in its new form changes size to match the new size. (Nonhumanoid-shaped creatures can’t wear armor designed for humanoid-shaped creatures, and vice versa.) Gear returns to normal size if dropped.

Because the hybrid creature is humanoid-shaped, it can wear armor. And because it was wearing it when it changed size from Medium to Large (if a werebear/dire boar/dire wolf/etc.), it fits to accommodate as well. Any disputes on this train of thought?

 

[Opalesce]

Would Wild be the same as the Beastskin armor property from the 3.5 Magic Item Compendium?

'First created by powerful druids, armor that has this property is particularly useful to characters of that class. When ever you use wild shape, you can expend one additional daily use of that ability to transform your beastskin armor along with you, rather than simply allowing it to merge with your body. When you do so, the armor transforms into a suit of armor of the same type, fitted for your new form.

The armor's weight changes to match your new size (and shape, if you assume a form with a different body shape). If you are proficient with your suit of beastskin armor in your natural form, then you are proficient with the trans formed version as well, regardless of what shape you take.

Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and
Armor, Ironwood'

 

[Jacob]

An interesting magic that one is. Instead of just having the Enhancement Bonus taken over, the entire armor is used as well, which means you will still have your fortification fixed in.

...but, no, that doesn't really help the question and logic I proposed. It's another Druid exclusive, and the Lycanthropes are left to dry on what happens to their armor. But again, with the logic I presented they don't even need to worry about magicking their armor, for it will simply re-size for them should they enlarge. So...