Do humans have natural armor?

[phindar]

It makes me wonder why there aren't NA ratings lower than +0. If the human body is NA +0, shouldn't a marshmellow creature be NA -4? If you can't have NA modifiers lower than 0, does that mean that humans are the least damage resistant thing imaginable?

 

[Scribbler]

Human skin isn't enough to repel weapons. If they get hit, they get hurt at least a little.
Having an negative NA modifier means that something could miss your touch AC, but you're so susceptible to damage that you got hurt anyway.
I'd just give a flimsy creature less hit points rather than a negative NA.

 

[Vegepygmy]

The hair I'm trying to split is kind of like the difference between having a Constitution of 0 and not having a Constitution score at all, which are two very different things.

Unless you can give an example of some situation where a creature with no natural armor is treated differently than a creature with a natural armor bonus of +0, there's no reason to split that hair. Do you have a certain scenario in mind?

 

[Draloric]

Unless you can give an example of some situation where a creature with no natural armor is treated differently than a creature with a natural armor bonus of +0, there's no reason to split that hair. Do you have a certain scenario in mind?

Vegepygmy: I can't give you an example; rather, the question was somewhat academic. It came out of seeing confusing prose that had descriptions like "creatures with no natural armor" and then seeing in other places that said creatures *technically* have, or are in some instances treated as having, a +0 natural armor bonus, to which ehancement bonuses could be applied. That said, it seems that the intent of the rule is that "no natural armor" means natural armor bonus +0, and I'm content to run with that.

Kris

 

[Diirk]

Vegepygmy: I can't give you an example; rather, the question was somewhat academic. It came out of seeing confusing prose that had descriptions like "creatures with no natural armor" and then seeing in other places that said creatures *technically* have, or are in some instances treated as having, a +0 natural armor bonus, to which ehancement bonuses could be applied. That said, it seems that the intent of the rule is that "no natural armor" means natural armor bonus +0, and I'm content to run with that.

Kris

From the barkskin spell: "A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0.". So a human doesn't have natural armour, so couldn't qualify for Improved Natural Armour, for example, but he is treated as having a natural armour bonus of +0 for things that build on that (eg amulet of natural armour, barkskin etc), I guess.

 

[Elemmakil]

Vegepygmy: I can't give you an example; rather, the question was somewhat academic. It came out of seeing confusing prose that had descriptions like "creatures with no natural armor" and then seeing in other places that said creatures *technically* have, or are in some instances treated as having, a +0 natural armor bonus, to which ehancement bonuses could be applied. That said, it seems that the intent of the rule is that "no natural armor" means natural armor bonus +0, and I'm content to run with that.

Kris

Improved Natural Armor counts, does it not? The prerequisites are "Natural armor, Con 13." I assume that we all agree that a human (with no particularly abnormal abilities) could not take this feat.

Barkskin statement, "A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0," acknowledges the possibility that some creatures do not have a natural armor bonus. The term "effective" is not clear here; for exactly what effects does no natural armor = a +0 bonus to natural armor?

 

[Rvdvelden]

There is a belt in the MiC that had similar wordings like "a creature with no listed natural armor bonus is treated as having a natural armor of +0", which irked me greatly, as this indeed nullified half of the prerequisite for Improved Natural Armor. Someone at WotC must've been sleeping while writing these rules, I guess.

 

[the_mighty_agrippa]

Humans don't have natural armor - only have DR 10/housecat.

 

[mvincent]

There is a belt in the MiC that had similar wordings like "a creature with no listed natural armor bonus is treated as having a natural armor of +0", which irked me greatly, as this indeed nullified half of the prerequisite for Improved Natural Armor.

It's still subject to interpretation. Despite the literal meaning, the writer's intent seems fairly clear.