PDA

View Full Version : Natural Armor, eh?



zergrusheddie
08-30-2008, 04:50 AM
I've had some extreme success with asking for help on making a monk. Now I have a semi-decent idea on how to achieve the fabled "b1G Dmg Dic3!" but have just come up on this feat earlier today:

Improved Natural Attack:
Prerequisite: Natural armor, Con 13
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature's size by one category.

Sounds fantastic when you consider all the other stuff that is going to be added. But the prerequisite is strange {no, not the need of 13 Con}. How do you get a Natural Armor as a Human Monk, and what can be considered a Natural Armor?

Best of luck
-Eddie

Kalanth
08-30-2008, 08:01 AM
I've had some extreme success with asking for help on making a monk. Now I have a semi-decent idea on how to achieve the fabled "b1G Dmg Dic3!" but have just come up on this feat earlier today:

Improved Natural Attack:
Prerequisite: Natural armor, Con 13
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature's size by one category.

Sounds fantastic when you consider all the other stuff that is going to be added. But the prerequisite is strange {no, not the need of 13 Con}. How do you get a Natural Armor as a Human Monk, and what can be considered a Natural Armor?

Best of luck
-Eddie

Natural armor generally is tougher skin, chittin hide, thick fur, things like that. As a human there are no things that I can think of that would provide natural armor. Our skin is to soft and easily damaged and we certainly don't have enough fur. But you could use this one for a humanoid creature like a Gnoll or Hobgoblin. I just think it will be tough for you to find a way to successfully develop natural armor for a human.

cplmac
08-30-2008, 09:52 AM
I agree with Kalanth. Humans would not be able to claim the natural armor ability. Although some armors that humans use are made from materials that when on the original creature would be considered as natural armor, it still would not qualify for a human, since it is not a part of the human body. Crossbreeds between humans and other humaniods would be another story though. However, the resulting crossbreed would not be considered as being a human.

zergrusheddie
08-30-2008, 09:58 AM
Damn, that's what I thought. However, from every single thread I have been reading {and holy hell there are many} about making a Damage Monk-y the guide always says to take Improved Natural Attack. One guide even mentions:
"Improved natural attack (feat): Every single monk has this, period"
Unfortunatly, 99.9% of all the threads I have been too are long dead and dead things tend not to answer questions.
So, how is it possible to take this feat if it requries a Natural Armor?

cplmac
08-30-2008, 11:10 AM
I would interpret this as to mean that the human would have to not be wearing any type of an armor, thus maiking him or her in their "natural" armor, aka skin. By not being weighed down, restricted in movement, or both, this is how it allows for a better attack. Like I said though, this is just my interpretation of the feat, each particular DM/GM may have a slightly or greater interpretation.

gdmcbride
08-30-2008, 11:59 AM
Natural Armor has a definite mechanical meaning in 3.5. From the SRD:



Natural Armor Bonus
A natural armor bonus improves Armor Class resulting from a creature's naturally tough hide. Natural armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to Armor Class (even with armor bonuses) except other natural armor bonuses. Some magical effects (such as the barkskin spell) grant an enhancement bonus to the creature's existing natural armor bonus, which has the effect of increasing the natural armor's overall bonus to Armor Class. A natural armor bonus doesn't apply against touch attacks.


I would interpret the above mentioned feat as being not so much intended for monks as for any creature that has natural attacks such as claws etc.

Now, if you are a scaly skinned lizardman who happens to have mastered kung-fu...well, yes, this feat does sound like a natural choice.

Gary

Zeneak
08-30-2008, 12:41 PM
Monks do get armor bonus at lvl5 this is not really natural armor But it can be open to interpretation so speak to your GM about it. its one of those calls where a GM says yay or nay. if your GM agrees then it's an easy feat choice at lvl 6.. other then that sorry i don't think a human can take it unless if that is the case.

ignimbrite
08-31-2008, 11:10 AM
Damn, that's what I thought. However, from every single thread I have been reading {and holy hell there are many} about making a Damage Monk-y the guide always says to take Improved Natural Attack. One guide even mentions:
"Improved natural attack (feat): Every single monk has this, period"
Unfortunatly, 99.9% of all the threads I have been too are long dead and dead things tend not to answer questions.
So, how is it possible to take this feat if it requries a Natural Armor?

What book are you getting the Imp Nat Attack feat from and what version are you playing?
In 3.5 Monster Manual and Eberron Campaign Setting the prerequisite for Imp Nat Atk are: a natural weapon and base attack +4. You do not need natural armour.

ignimbrite
08-31-2008, 11:15 AM
I think you've mixed up the feats:
Improved Natual Armour: Natural armour, Con 13
adds +1 Nat AC

Improved Natural Attack: Natural attack, Base attack +4
Increase damage dice of natural attacks

Farcaster
08-31-2008, 01:53 PM
Improved Natural Attack comes from the Monster Manual. There is no way I would ever allow a player to take this feat. Reading from the very first sentence of the section this feat is in, "This chapter provides descriptions of ... a number of feats that are typically used only by monsters."

rabkala
08-31-2008, 11:19 PM
Okay, this is an easy one people...
An amulet of natural armor provides an enchantment bonus to natural armor. By RAW, that is enough. By RAW any virtual feat/ability provided by enchantment is enough to to fill a prerequisite for another feat/ability.

What happens if you lose your magic item? Do you suddenly lose the next feat/ability in the chain... apparently, yes. Now, I know many who do not like it, but Andy Collins weighed in on this and gave said answer. See your local DM for final approval. As with many things found in character optimization circles, it is perhaps a loophole or something against the spirit and intent of the writer. The final rulings by WoTC always land on the side of RAW for easy usage of the rules, even if it is not 'cool' with the DM.

kirksmithicus
09-01-2008, 12:07 AM
How about you just give them the ability to dodge?

rabkala
09-01-2008, 12:15 AM
As a side note, this is similar to the monks taking TWF chain of feats. WoTC and Andy Collins said that monks could take the feats which would stack with the monk flurry. Skip Williams said that the intent was to give the monk these feats virtually by way of class ability for free which would not stack with Two weapon fighting. Due to vauge and ambiguous writing, WoTC official stance said they do stack for ease of play RAW (Rules as Written).

rabkala
09-01-2008, 12:19 AM
How about you just give them the ability to dodge?
Dodge does not play into this equation anywhere. If you are interested in Dodge, perhaps another thread, there are probably many things people could learn on that front as well.

zergrusheddie
09-01-2008, 03:17 AM
I think you've mixed up the feats:
Improved Natual Armour: Natural armour, Con 13
adds +1 Nat AC

Improved Natural Attack: Natural attack, Base attack +4
Increase damage dice of natural attacks

And so I have... Was reading it from a huge list of feats and they must have screwed up, which in turn makes me look like a jackass.
Thanks for all the help.
-Eddie

nijineko
09-01-2008, 02:41 PM
humanoids have natural armor. the bonus is +0. this has been determined to be why amulets of natural armor work on humanoids. but they still would not qualify for the feat as outlined, as they do not have the necessary bonus.

having an amulet would allow one to qualify for the feat, until a dispell magic, or anti-magic shell, dead-magic zone, or other loss of the amulet or effect. then you would lose both the amulet's effect and access to the feat until it could be restored.

depending on the seriousness of the campaign, i would require a prolonged exposure to the magic of the amulet before considering granting the feat. something on the order of a year or more of uninterrupted contact.

in a more-for-fun campaign i wouldn't really care, and would let them start off with it if they wanted to. i mean... using a feat and a magic item slot and a chunk of gold? good enough payment for the effect.