Darklone
Registered User
Well, it may not be mathematically correct... but you quote "A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0."
That means you could say "an effective natural armor bonus of +0" equals "no natural armor". So no, a human would not qualify for Imp Natural Armor.
About the dragonfire adept: Go ahead and try it, yet a warlock like class whose most important ability is CON is already pretty strong, even without allowing many nearly broken draconic feats.
That means you could say "an effective natural armor bonus of +0" equals "no natural armor". So no, a human would not qualify for Imp Natural Armor.
About the dragonfire adept: Go ahead and try it, yet a warlock like class whose most important ability is CON is already pretty strong, even without allowing many nearly broken draconic feats.