Has there been a change to the Amulets of Natural Armor?

[LordVyreth]

A player alerted me to the fact that the terminology for the Amulets of Natural Armor has changed. I believe that in 3.0, amulets did not stack with a creature's own natural armor. So a creature with +4 natural armor wearing a +5 amulet would have a +5 bonus, not a +9 bonus. Is this still true in 3.5 edition? Has there been any errata or Sage advice to clarify this?

 

[UltimaGabe]

A player alerted me to the fact that the terminology for the Amulets of Natural Armor has changed. I believe that in 3.0, amulets did not stack with a creature's own natural armor. So a creature with +4 natural armor wearing a +5 amulet would have a +5 bonus, not a +9 bonus. Is this still true in 3.5 edition? Has there been any errata or Sage advice to clarify this?

In 3.5, an Amulet of Natural armor now provides an enhancement bonus to the wearer's existing natural armor. So, in other words, they stack now. (Which makes a heck of a lot more sense, and it makes monster races as PCs a lot more usable.)

 

[the Jester]

Well, Gabe got there first.

He's got the right of it, though.

 

[Junkheap]

so you have to have natural ac to benefit form the amulet? What if my human wizard wanted to take it? It wouldnt benefit him becuase he doesnt have any natural ac to enhance right?

 

[Crothian]

He has a natural armor bonus of +0, so that gets enhazed...but an ooze who cannot have a natural armor bonus would not benefit

 

[Dark Dragon]

Well, the natural armor of your wiz is 0, the amulet would enhance it to +1 to +5, depending on the amulet.

 

[mikebr99]

...but an ooze who cannot have a natural armor bonus would not benefit

Maybe it gets crusty.


Mike

 

[Cheiromancer]

... an ooze who cannot have a natural armor bonus would not benefit

Where does it say that?

After all, the effigy (an incorporeal creature in MM2) has a +5 NA. And if a critter without a body can have natural armor, why not an ooze?

 

[UltimaGabe]

Where does it say that?

After all, the effigy (an incorporeal creature in MM2) has a +5 NA. And if a critter without a body can have natural armor, why not an ooze?

It states in the Barkskin spell description (which also grants an enhancement bonus to the character's existing natural armor) that a creature without a natural armor bonus effectively has a natural armor bonus of +0. I thought it stated such in the description of the Amulet of Natural armor, but I could be wrong.

As for the Effigy, it's probably a typo. If it isn't, remember that incorporeal foes CAN have a Natural Armor bonus- but it only applies against Ethereal foes.

 

[Caliban]

It states in the Barkskin spell description (which also grants an enhancement bonus to the character's existing natural armor) that a creature without a natural armor bonus effectively has a natural armor bonus of +0. I thought it stated such in the description of the Amulet of Natural armor, but I could be wrong.

As for the Effigy, it's probably a typo. If it isn't, remember that incorporeal foes CAN have a Natural Armor bonus- but it only applies against Ethereal foes.

Incorporeal creatures are not ethereal, and have no special vulnerabilities against ethereal attackers. In most cases, ethereal creatures cannot attack targets on our plane, whether or not the target is incorporeal.