Natural Armor question.

[Oryan77]

In 3.5e, are all races without Natural Armor still considered to have Natural Armor +0? I'm asking because some magic items that give a bonus to Natural Armor say that it improves your "existing Natural Armor".

I've always taken that to mean it improves creatures that already have a Natural Armor +1 or better. But if you don't have Natural Armor, it wouldn't give you a bonus. But then I thought Barkskin works for anyone, and I just noticed the same description, "improves existing Natural Armor". So now I'm thinking I've maybe misunderstood this and I'm wondering if everyone actually has a Natural Armor of +0 or better.

 

[Dandu]

Yes.

 

[frankthedm]

This text

Barkskin
A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0.

Does not mean everyone qualifies for

Improved Natural Armor [General]
Prerequisites
Natural armor, Con 13.
Benefit
The creature’s natural armor bonus increases by 1.
Special
A creature can gain this feat multiple times. Each time the creature takes the feat its natural armor bonus increases by another point.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

This text

Barkskin
A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0.

Does not mean everyone qualifies for

Improved Natural Armor [General]
Prerequisites
Natural armor, Con 13.
Benefit
The creature’s natural armor bonus increases by 1.
Special
A creature can gain this feat multiple times. Each time the creature takes the feat its natural armor bonus increases by another point.

Definitely. You can enhance your +0 natural armor bonsu with spells and items, but you don't have any actual natural armor to begin with. That said, a feat for +1 AC that doesn't even benefit touch AC never seemed that powerful to me, I don't mind anyone taking that feat. Certainly in a Pathfinder game or any game where the DM makes Dodge a flat +1 AC against all (fairly common houserule IME), it's actually a pretty weak feat...

 

[radmod]

Correct me if I'm wrong (I can't find it right now) but doesn't it say that races without NA have a natural armor bonus of +0? This is not the same as having natural armor.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

No one has disagreed with that.

 

[Persiflage]

You can only really define natural armor by inference: in the "Armor Class" section of the SRD, it just says "Natural armor improves your AC", which isn't terribly helpful. I'm inclined to agree though; most effects or class abilities that grant a natural armor bonus do so with the wording "your natural armor bonus increases by +x", with no prerequisite that you have natural armor to begin with.

The Improved Natural Armor feat is an exception, and seems to me it's intended only for those who possess actual "natural armor", but frankly it's such a complete and utter waste of a feat that it goes straight onto my "Can't bring myself to care" pile. Even if a character of mine got three feats per level I'm pretty certain I'd never get around to bothering with this.

The only thing I can think of that would make it worthwhile is if there's some obscure prestige class that has a given natural armor bonus as a prerequisite... although if that's so, the most appropriate response is probably "don't take that prestige class" rather than "take the feat"

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The fact that you can repeatedly take it makes it attractive to a character built solely for huge defense. Now, making a "turtle" character is probably the weakest, most ineffective build you could possibly make in 3E, so I don't really see that as a problem. But just saying.

 

[Persiflage]

If I were building a character solely for huge defence, this wouldn't make it onto my list at all, let alone repeatedly, but I do see what you mean.