Pierce Magical Protection + Polymorph

[Wacky89]

Since I had no luck in the RAW thread.
I might aswell try here instead ;)
by RAW would the feat "Pierce Magical Protection" dispel polymorph effects?

I've heard arguments that it does because you get a natural armor, but I'm unsure if it doesnt just change your natural armor?
Unlike barkskin which gives you a actual bonus

[Eldariel]

As you'd imagine, it's a DM call on whether Polymorph counts as something that grants a bonus or alters base values. RAW is...irrelevant. It's muddy enough to rule it either way, though by strict RAW Alter Self does use the terminology "Natural Armor Bonus". I'd allow PMP to work here. That feat is a huge investment and most of the Wizards' good defenses ignore it. Plus it limits you to a standard action. This at least gives it one somewhat reasonable function, though even there it requires hitting and dealing damage. Frankly, it's way on the underpowered side if it can't and not amazing even if it can.

[Necroticplague]

Nope. Polymorph doesn't grant you natural armor, it grants you a new form. That form might have natural armor, but saying this makes Polymorph grant a bonus to armor is like saying fabricate does slashing damage because fabricate can make swords, which do slashing damage.

[AnachroNinja]

I would say that since the polymorph spell is directly responsible for your new form and thus any increase in armor class that it would dispel it.

[Silva Stormrage]

I would and have ruled that PmP removes polymorph.

[Psyren]

I'm with Necroticplague on this one - 3.5 Polymorph doesn't actually give a bonus, rather it replaces your NA value with that of the target form. (PF Polymorph is a different matter however.)

[Crake]

I'm with Necroticplague on this one - 3.5 Polymorph doesn't actually give a bonus, rather it replaces your NA value with that of the target form. (PF Polymorph is a different matter however.)

Same here, and a question to all the people who think otherwise: Would you rule that pierce magical protection would apply if the natural armor bonus from polymorph is LESS than the base form? What if a hill giant was polymorphed into, say, a half giant? Does polymorph still "grant an armor bonus", albiet a smaller one than your base form? What about a human being baleful polymorphed into a dog? Does that count? They now have a +1 natural armor bonus after all.

[AnachroNinja]

Yes, even a human effectively has a natural armor of +0. I consider polymorph an armor affecting spell and so it is always dispelled. Others may rule differently but that's my view and I think it's reasonable both in interpretation and balance

[KillianHawkeye]

Personally, I agree with Necroticplague. I believe that the way two things interact should be consistent, so if Pierce Magical Protection can dispel Polymorph, it should do it every time. The problem is, I can have my wizard Polymorph into an elf and gain no natural armor at all from it, so how does it qualify for removal then?

How about a Wall of Force? If you stand behind one, does it not grant a cover bonus to AC? I guess Pierce Magical Protection should cancel the wall, too, huh? But only if somebody is standing next to it? No way in hell!

The point is that it should work or not work regardless of extenuating circumstances, and the only way to do that is for it to not work at all.

[Crake]

Yes, even a human effectively has a natural armor of +0. I consider polymorph an armor affecting spell and so it is always dispelled. Others may rule differently but that's my view and I think it's reasonable both in interpretation and balance

Does your interpretation extend to "armor affecting"? If so, do spells like curse of impending blades, which give AC penalties, also count?

Also, would pierce magical protection also then dispel any buffs to dexterity? What about buffs to charisma for those with charisma to AC? Wisdom buffs for a monk/swordsage? What about someone using minor creation to make a wooden shield that they then strap to their arm?

To say polymorph should be dispelled because it modifies values which CAN SOMETIMES result in an increased total AC leads down a slippery slope where you can justify almost anything.

[AnachroNinja]

Polymorph has a direct effect on your armor class. It directly sets your natural armor to a given value. That does not in any way compare to spells which adjust a stat that affects armor class. That's a whole step removed and completely irrelevant.

[Necroticplague]

Polymorph has a direct effect on your armor class. It directly sets your natural armor to a given value. That does not in any way compare to spells which adjust a stat that affects armor class. That's a whole step removed and completely irrelevant.

It's exactly as removed as Polymorph is. Polymorph gives you a form, which may or may not have a natural armor bonus*. Cat's Grace increases you're DEX bonus, which may or may not increase your AC. Both are one step removed from 'increase in AC', and have quite a few situations where the spell results in no AC bonus for reasons unconcerned with stacking rules.

*=humans, elves, halfings, and similar completely lack natural armor altogether, instead of having +0 natural armor. A human's natural armor is the same as a zombie's intelligence and Constitution score.

[AnachroNinja]

I interpret it differently. You're welcome to your own views. It's just as easy to say "the Shield spell doesn't affect your armor class, it creates a shield that happens to add a bonus to your armor class."

I think it's pretty easy to use logic and reason to decide what spells should be affected rather then some over specific attempt at reading into it. I think it's reasonable for polymorph to qualify. It's not reasonable for wall of force to qualify. It's neither difficult nor conflicting to me to rule that way.

You prefer your way, that's fine. Enjoy your game however you want.

[Kelb_Panthera]

*=humans, elves, halfings, and similar completely lack natural armor altogether, instead of having +0 natural armor. A human's natural armor is the same as a zombie's intelligence and Constitution score.

The amulet of natural armor clarifies that creatures with unlisted natural armor -do- have +0 natural armor ratings.

I do otherwise agree with you, psyren, and others.

[Necroticplague]

The amulet of natural armor clarifies that creatures with unlisted natural armor -do- have +0 natural armor ratings.

Huh? Where's it say that? All I see is

This amulet, usually crafted from bone or beast scales, toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor bonus of from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet.

Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, barkskin, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus; Price 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), or 50,000 gp (+5).
Now, the spell it's based off, barkskin, does say something to that exact effect, but that's a case of a specific interaction of that spell, and not a general rule about natural armor.

[Zanos]

*=humans, elves, halfings, and similar completely lack natural armor altogether, instead of having +0 natural armor. A human's natural armor is the same as a zombie's intelligence and Constitution score.
That would mean that the amulet of natural armor does not function at all for creatures without a base natural armor bonus. Considering there are a variety of example NPCs in books with no base natural armor clearly benefiting from an amulet of natural armor, I'm inclined to say that you're wrong.

Also, barkskins text does not provide any language that indicates that creatures only have base +0 only in the context of the spell. The phrase is discrete, and stands on it's own.

[Necroticplague]

That would mean that the amulet of natural armor does not function at all for creatures without a base natural armor bonus. Agreed.


Considering there are a variety of example NPCs in books with no base natural armor clearly benefiting from an amulet of natural armor, I'm inclined to say that you're wrong.Yes, because example NPCs have such an unimpeachable history of following the rules.At best that's an RAI argument. And You can equally find things that point RAI in the opposite direction (thanks to the left hand having frequently been long divorced from the right hand). In this case, Improved Natural Armor. If every creature has natural armor, than that prerequisite is pointless.


Also, barkskin's text does not provide any language that indicates that creatures only have base +0 only in the context of the spell. The phrase is discrete, and stands on it's own.
Feats and spells descriptions are inherently only about themselves (except for 'normal' sections of feats).

[Rakoa]

Feats and spells descriptions are inherently only about themselves (except for 'normal' sections of feats).

[Citation needed].

[Necroticplague]

[Citation needed].

More than happy to provide:
Descriptive Text
This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description included "see text," this is where the explanation is found.

So, the description of Barkskin is only talking about how Barkskin works, not how Natural Armor in general works.


Feat Descriptions

Here is the format for feat descriptions.
Feat Name [Type of Feat]

Prerequisite
A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or a class level that a character must have in order to acquire this feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.
Benefit
What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description. In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.
Normal
What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.
Special
Additional facts about the feat that may be helpful when you decide whether to acquire the feat. Note how all the entries talk about 'this feat' or 'the feat', and not about rules in general, with the exception of Normal.

[AnachroNinja]

So your evidence to prove your position is the absence of evidence proving his position?

[Necroticplague]

So your evidence to prove your position is the absence of evidence proving his position?

Yes, because of how the rules of DnD work. Unless something is allowed/stated to be true, it's false. So unless the rules actually say that 'lacking natural armor is the same as having natural armor of +0' in a way that's actually applicable, the statement is false. My claim is merely the negation of their's.

In this case, their evidence is inapplicable, since it only applies to the narrow scenario of 'when using Barkskin', and not to the general situation concerning creatures in general.

[Mr Adventurer]

I've played in a (rules heavy) game where the feat, you know, did what it said. Dispelled Polymorph, Persistent Shapechange, Cat's Grace... whatever really.

Really messed up the resident Incarnum Mage one time.

[Zanos]

While I don't agree that the rules text of spells is so limited in scope, there is some other evidence that might convince you. MMI on page 298 has a table that lists "normal skin" as having a natural armor bonus of +0, and lists humans as an example of this.

[AnachroNinja]

Yes, because of how the rules of DnD work. Unless something is allowed/stated to be true, it's false. So unless the rules actually say that 'lacking natural armor is the same as having natural armor of +0' in a way that's actually applicable, the statement is false. My claim is merely the negation of their's.

In this case, their evidence is inapplicable, since it only applies to the narrow scenario of 'when using Barkskin', and not to the general situation concerning creatures in general.

So... The only existing evidence is a spell which specifically references the information you disagree with. You claim that the spell doesn't count, because the rules on spells don't specifically say that they are applicable to other situations, and instead believe that your position, that a creature without a positive natural armor score has a null value instead of zero, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence backingthinkingyour claim, and it would in fact make a very common magic item unable to function on standard PC races... That's the sum of it?

The only evidence that exists at all, is on support of natural armor +0 being a thing. You claim their evidence is invalid, while providing no evidence to support your position, or your claim that their position is invalid. You are apparently someone who is not interested in the available information so I think I'm just going to leave you to your crazy illogical viewpoint, because thinking that is your prerogative.

[Necroticplague]

So... The only existing evidence is a spell which specifically references the information you disagree with. The Only one that was brought up at the time of writing, yes.

You claim that the spell doesn't count, because the rules on spells don't specifically say that they are applicable to other situations,Wrong, i claim the spell doesn't count because the rules for spell descriptions specifically state they talk about how the spell works, and not rules in general.

and instead believe that your position, that a creature without a positive natural armor score has a null value instead of zero, Not a null value. They simply lack that attribute altogether.


despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence backingthinkingyour claim, and it would in fact make a very common magic item unable to function on standard PC races... That's the sum of it?
Of course there isn't gonna be evidence something doesn't exist. You can't disprove that there's an invisible, incoporeal, undetectable teacup orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars, but that doesn't make it logical to say it must be true, because it can't be disproven.

Or to keep it DnD related, what evidence do you have that humans can't insta-kill anything, no save, as a free action 1/round, other than the fact the rules don't say they can? None? Does that make it sensible to argue that that's true?

Anyways, if we're going to accept 'but that would make X a bit less useful/pointless for some' as a valid argument, then I refer you back to my earlier mention of the Improved Natural Armor feat. If every creature has natural armor of +0 at least, than the prerequisite of that feat for natural armor is pointless.


While I don't agree that the rules text of spells is so limited in scope, there is some other evidence that might convince you. MMI on page 298 has a table that lists "normal skin" as having a natural armor bonus of +0, and lists humans as an example of this.
Fair enough. So humans do have an Natural Armor Bonus of +0. Got any similar entries for dwarves, elves, halflings, and simiilar?

[Zanos]

Fair enough. So humans do have an Natural Armor Bonus of +0. Got any similar entries for dwarves, elves, halflings, and simiilar?
Normal skin is +0, so it should apply to all those races unless you figure they have hide, scales, or an exoskeleton.

[Necroticplague]

Normal skin is +0, so it should apply to all those races unless you figure they have hide, scales, or an exoskeleton.

Assuming, of course, those races do have normal skin.

[Name1]

Assuming, of course, those races do have normal skin.

Wouldn't the fact that their skin ages differently (as in, elves don't have wrinkles at the age of 90) imply that they aren't the same though?

I mean, I'd say we consider this normal skin on basis that we have it, but an elves skin must work differently in some way if it ages that slow...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Wouldn't the fact that their skin ages differently (as in, elves don't have wrinkles at the age of 90) imply that they aren't the same though?

I mean, I'd say we consider this normal skin on basis that we have it, but an elves skin must work differently in some way if it ages that slow...

... Can't tell if serious... :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

This is all ignoring the point that the spell is not giving you a NA bonus - rather, the spell is giving you the form, which then has a value for its natural armor. This is like saying that Mount gives you an AC bonus because you get a +1 for elevation while you're riding it, so stabbing you should dispel your Mount.

[AnachroNinja]

Mount isn't a spell that targets the caster si that's a terrible analogy and completely irrelevant.

[Psyren]

Mount isn't a spell that targets the caster si that's a terrible analogy and completely irrelevant.

Fly then. Targets caster.

[Wacky89]

I think the argument for dispelling polymorph is that Polymorph refers to Alter Self, which says you get the forms "natural armor bonus".

[Name1]

... Can't tell if serious... :smallconfused:

That's for you to decide :3

[Necroticplague]

Wouldn't the fact that their skin ages differently (as in, elves don't have wrinkles at the age of 90) imply that they aren't the same though?

I mean, I'd say we consider this normal skin on basis that we have it, but an elves skin must work differently in some way if it ages that slow...

It gets even weirder once you step outside of Humanoids from core. I mean, just think about Warforged. They don't have a natural armor bonus, just like all of those, but does the outermost layer of wood they have really qualify as 'normal skin'? I'm frankly not even sure it qualifies as skin.

[AnachroNinja]

Fly doesn't grant an armor bonus, height does. The text for Pierce magical protection says it dispels any Sorel that grants an armor class bonus.

Polymorph itself grants you a natural armor bonus. Fly does not.

[Necroticplague]

Polymorph itself can grant you a natural armor bonus. Fly does not.

Bolded what needed fixing. Polymorph can grant you a natural armor bonus. However, it doesn't always.

[Deophaun]

Bolded what needed fixing. Polymorph can grant you a natural armor bonus. However, it doesn't always.
That's the bridge too far. Either polymorph doesn't grant an NA bonus, or it always does, even if that NA bonus is +0 and you've lost a pre-existing +1.

[Eldariel]

Bolded what needed fixing. Polymorph can grant you a natural armor bonus. However, it doesn't always.

So how about this: Polymorph that grants an NA bonus is pierced and dispelled while one that doesn't isn't? That seems like the most consistent ruling provided you want to empower the feat (which, let's face it, it kinda needs).

[Necroticplague]

So how about this: Polymorph that grants an NA bonus is pierced and dispelled while one that doesn't isn't? That seems like the most consistent ruling provided you want to empower the feat (which, let's face it, it kinda needs).

That seems like the opposite of consistent, either from the view of one caster going into two different forms, or from the point of view of two casters going into the same form.


That's the bridge too far. Either polymorph doesn't grant an NA bonus, or it always does, even if that NA bonus is +0 and you've lost a pre-existing +1.

What if you polymorph into a creature that doesn't have any natural armor?

[Eldariel]

That seems like the opposite of consistent, either from the view of one caster going into two different forms, or from the point of view of two casters going into the same form.

Well, Polymorph is essentially a vast number of spells in one anyways so I don't see that being problematic.

[Deophaun]

What if you polymorph into a creature that doesn't have any natural armor?
Such a creature would have to exist before I'd worry about that.

[Necroticplague]

Such a creature would have to exist before I'd worry about that.
1. Most the core races don't have natural armor, beyond except by the very questionable method brought up earlier.
2. Dragonborn lack both any natural armor and the composite plating that would normally supplant it.

[AnachroNinja]

It has already been shown that normal races have a natural armor bonus of +0, so regardless of your original score, polymorph is granting you with an armor bonus on all cases, it is just sometimes zero.

[Brannmuffyn]

So here's how I read the rules for this in order to make a judgement on the RAW:

First is the text of Pierce Magical Protection itself -

Benefit
Your contempt for magic is so fierce that as a standard action you can make a melee attack that ignores any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells (including spell trigger or spell completion effects created by magic items such as wands or potions). If you deal damage to your opponent, you also instantly and automatically dispel all that opponent's spells and spell effects that grant a bonus to Armor Class.

The important line of text here is "ignores any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells "

Polymorph states that
"This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature."

The relevant text from alter self:
You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind. Physical qualities include natural size, mundane movement capabilities (such as burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming, and flight with wings, to a maximum speed of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for nonflying movement), natural armor bonus, natural weapons (such as claws, bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities (presence or absence of wings, number of extremities, and so forth). A body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks (or more advantageous two-weapon attacks) than normal.

Note that this part is not changed or overwritten in the text of polymorph in any way.

So now there are two checks for whether or not polymorph is effected by pierce magical protection:
1. Is it a spell? Yes
2. Does it grant a bonus to AC? Yes, even if it grants a +0 natural armor bonus its still a natural armor bonus.

[Necroticplague]

It has already been shown that normal races have a natural armor bonus of +0, so regardless of your original score, polymorph is granting you with an armor bonus on all cases, it is just sometimes zero.

It was shown that one race (human) who's entry does not include racial armor actually has it with a value of +0. That does not necessarily mean that such is the case for all races that don't have an entry for natural armor.

[Deophaun]

It was shown that one race (human) who's entry does not include racial armor actually has it with a value of +0. That does not necessarily mean that such is the case for all races that don't have an entry for natural armor.
No, because that's listed in a table of typical natural armor values, in a section for helping DMs determine what NA values their homebrew creations should have. If NA - was a thing for elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and the like, that would make NA - a "typical" value, and it would be listed on the table, and that section would explain what quality of a creature's anatomy would justify having a null value.

And then are all the other places where not having a listed NA is called out as being NA +0, but those don't count, because they don't support your conclusion.

[AnachroNinja]

You are desperately ignoring logic of you are honestly trying to claim that just because humans have +0, just because barkskin also says that +0 is a thing, and just because amulets of natural armor are listed as affecting standard humanoids in various stat blocks and would be useless other wise... That elves, dwarves and etc work differently and don't have a natural armor value.

Seriously, you're wrong. Just let it go and quit arguing for the sake of arguing. You have no evidence to back up your theory or even to invalidate the evidence against you. It's just sad now.

[Necroticplague]

No, because that's listed in a table of typical natural armor values, in a section for helping DMs determine what NA values their homebrew creations should have. If NA - was a thing for elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and the like, that would make NA - a "typical" value, and it would be listed on the table, and that section would explain what quality of a creature's anatomy would justify having a null value.Wouldn't be the first time they screwed up a table.


And then are all the other places where not having a listed NA is called out as being NA +0, but those don't count, because they don't support your conclusion.
No, they don't count because they're specific rules, talking about how one thing in specific works. If there was a general rule, those specific ones wouldn't need to be repeated in each individual spell or item. I.e, if it was generally true that no natural armor=natural armor zero, barkskin would not need to mention that in its description of how barkskin works.


You are desperately ignoring logic of you are honestly trying to claim that just because humans have +0, just because barkskin also says that +0 is a thing, and just because amulets of natural armor are listed as affecting standard humanoids in various stat blocks and would be useless other wise... That elves, dwarves and etc work differently and don't have a natural armor value.
No, I'm perfectly in keeping with logic when I make those claims. Things that apply in specific scenarios (like example NPCs, specific spells, and specific races) do not necessarily apply in broader scenarios. Just because all humans give live birth (specific), doesn't mean all mammals do (general). Similarly, just because some things consider lack of NAC to be NAC +0 doesn't mean (specific) doesn't mean all things consider lack of NAC to be NAC +0.

[Psyren]

I agree that every creature has a NA bonus, I just don't see that as coming from the spell. It comes from the form you took, and the form comes from the spell, but I see that degree of separation being sufficient to stop PMP from working.

As Eldariel stated in the second post, everyone is going to interpret this differently. Ordering people who disagree with one side or the other to stop posting is just rude.

[Deophaun]

Wouldn't be the first time they screwed up a table.
You're saying they screwed up the table because it does not fit with your preconceived notion of NA, not because there's actually anything in the text anywhere that conflicts with it. It's "text trumps table," not "headcanon trumps table."

[Brannmuffyn]

I agree that every creature has a NA bonus, I just don't see that as coming from the spell. It comes from the form you took, and the form comes from the spell, but I see that degree of separation being sufficient to stop PMP from working.


By this logic Shield would not be dispelled either.
Neither would Mage Armor, nor Luminous Armor.

Polymoprh is granting the form and all of the stuff from it, thus it is a product of the spell and by that measure is pierced by Pierce Magical Protection.

[Psyren]

By this logic Shield would not be dispelled either.
Neither would Mage Armor, nor Luminous Armor.

Nonsense - all of those do directly give you an AC bonus. Polymorph, by my reading, does not.

Put another way - would you say this can dispel Cat's Grace? That gives you a Dex bonus, which in turn gives you more AC. By your reading it would, by mine it would not.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, they don't count because they're specific rules, talking about how one thing in specific works. If there was a general rule, those specific ones wouldn't need to be repeated in each individual spell or item. I.e, if it was generally true that no natural armor=natural armor zero, barkskin would not need to mention that in its description of how barkskin works.

Nonsense. The game's texts are chock-full of redundant reminders of how things work, even just within the core rulebooks. A reminder in the PHB, for spells that manipulate -extant- natural armor, that creatures that don't have particuarly tough hides/scales/exoskeletons -do-, in fact, have a natural armor bonus of +0, when that detail is presented in the MM, is perfectly in keeping with that pattern.

[Brannmuffyn]

Nonsense - all of those do directly give you an AC bonus. Polymorph, by my reading, does not.

Put another way - would you say this can dispel Cat's Grace? That gives you a Dex bonus, which in turn gives you more AC. By your reading it would, by mine it would not.

Polymorph gives you the natural armor bonus of the form you assume, as it is one of the physical traits of the form you are assuming, and as such is dispelled. This is RAW, which is what this thread is discussing.

By your logic, and by what you posted

I agree that every creature has a NA bonus, I just don't see that as coming from the spell. It comes from the form you took, and the form comes from the spell, but I see that degree of separation being sufficient to stop PMP from working.

As Eldariel stated in the second post, everyone is going to interpret this differently. Ordering people who disagree with one side or the other to stop posting is just rude.

Shield and Mage armor do not work, because its not spell that's giving you the AC, its an effect that they create that give the AC(an invisible shield of force and an invisible field of force).

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear as to what my point was.

Cat's Grace isn't dispelled because it grants a bonus to Dex not a bonus to AC.

[Psyren]

Shield and Mage armor do not work, because its not spell that's giving you the AC, its an effect that they create that give the AC(an invisible shield of force and an invisible field of force).

Mage Armor says:

"An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC."

It mentions AC directly. Show me where in the Polymorph text an AC bonus is mentioned and I'll cede the point this instant. Otherwise we'll have to simply part ways.



I'm sorry if I wasn't clear as to what my point was.

No, your point is clear, I just happen to disagree with it.



Cat's Grace isn't dispelled because it grants a bonus to Dex not a bonus to AC.

But it does increase your AC, right? Isn't that what you folks care about?

[Zanos]

Polymorph inherits from alter self, which specifically grants physical characteristics, among which is the forms natural armor. The AC change is a direct result of the spells description.

[Psyren]

Polymorph inherits from alter self, which specifically grants physical characteristics, among which is the forms natural armor. The AC change is a direct result of the spells description.

That comes from the form you assume, not from the spell itself. You can alter self from a human into another human after all (or an elf into a human etc.), and therefore the spell is giving you no form of armor bonus you didn't already have. Therefore I concluded, and still conclude, that it is not from the spell and thus doesn't count.

[Brannmuffyn]

Mage Armor says:

"An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC."

It mentions AC directly. Show me where in the Polymorph text an AC bonus is mentioned and I'll cede the point this instant. Otherwise we'll have to simply part ways.



No, your point is clear, I just happen to disagree with it.



Ignoring how wrong you are about spells that boost dex, all I have to do is show that Polymorph has a similar function to Mage Armor in relation to AC and you'll understand that Pierce Magical Protection works on it?

For this part I'll refer to what I've already posted, perhaps reading it will help you:




Polymorph states that

"This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature."

The relevant text from alter self:
You acquire the physical qualities of the new form while retaining your own mind. Physical qualities include natural size, mundane movement capabilities (such as burrowing, climbing, walking, swimming, and flight with wings, to a maximum speed of 120 feet for flying or 60 feet for nonflying movement), natural armor bonus, natural weapons (such as claws, bite, and so on), racial skill bonuses, racial bonus feats, and any gross physical qualities (presence or absence of wings, number of extremities, and so forth). A body with extra limbs does not allow you to make more attacks (or more advantageous two-weapon attacks) than normal

Note that this part is not changed or overwritten in the text of polymorph in any way.

So now there are two checks for whether or not polymorph is effected by pierce magical protection:
1. Is it a spell? Yes
2. Does it grant a bonus to AC? Yes, even if it grants a +0 natural armor bonus its still a natural armor bonus.

[Zanos]

That comes from the form you assume, not from the spell itself. You can alter self from a human into another human after all (or an elf into a human etc.), and therefore the spell is giving you no form of armor bonus you didn't already have. Therefore I concluded, and still conclude, that it is not from the spell and thus doesn't count.
If you were wearing chainmail and had mage armor up, would pierce magical protection dispel the mage armor?

I would say that yes, it does. Even if the spell is providing a redundant bonus, there's still a bonus.

[Psyren]

If you were wearing chainmail and had mage armor up, would pierce magical protection dispel the mage armor?

I would say that yes, it does. Even if the spell is providing a redundant bonus, there's still a bonus.

Yeah, one that comes from the spell, not a form granted by the spell.

As I suspected, we'll have to just rule it differently at our respective tables.

[Telok]

So would PMP dispell Animate Dead? It's a spell, the applied skeleton or zombie template has an armor bonus. Reduce Person increases AC by size bonuses. Bigby's Interposing Hand creates cover, the cover rules give you an AC bonus. You can cower behind the horse sommoned by the Mount spell for an AC bonus. Web provides cover, another AC bonus, if there's enough between attacker and target.

Where do you stop?

[Brannmuffyn]

So would PMP dispell Animate Dead? It's a spell, the applied skeleton or zombie template has an armor bonus. Reduce Person increases AC by size bonuses. Bigby's Interposing Hand creates cover, the cover rules give you an AC bonus. You can cower behind the horse sommoned by the Mount spell for an AC bonus. Web provides cover, another AC bonus, if there's enough between attacker and target.

Where do you stop?

Alright I'll answer case by case via RAW

1. Animate Dead does not have the words "Armor bonus" anywhere within the spell, nor does it refer to any spell with an armor bonus in it. In this case it does not get dispelled. It can't be dispelled anyway, it has a duration Instantaneous.

2. Reduce Person does in fact grant an AC bonus, as it is a spell this would be dispelled.

3. By your own admission Bigby's Interposing Hand and Web provide cover, and as such the cover is the thing providing the AC bonus not the spell itself. Same with the Mount Spell here.

To answer your question about where it stops: "Your contempt for magic is so fierce that as a standard action you can make a melee attack that ignores any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells"

By RAW any spell that directly grants an AC bonus(read: Does not grant cover, adjust an ability score that somehow adds AC, etc etc) is effected by Pierce Magical Protection.

[Psyren]

To answer your question about where it stops: "Your contempt for magic is so fierce that as a standard action you can make a melee attack that ignores any bonuses to Armor Class granted by spells"


Where we seem to disagree is what constitutes "granted by spells."

[Brannmuffyn]

Where we seem to disagree is what constitutes "granted by spells."

In the fact that you somehow misunderstand what RAW is.

[Zanos]

Yeah, one that comes from the spell, not a form granted by the spell.

As I suspected, we'll have to just rule it differently at our respective tables.
Fair enough. I don't really believe in the myth of absolute RAW anyway.

[Psyren]

In the fact that you somehow misunderstand what RAW is.

Nah, I just interpret it differently than you. That doesn't make either of us wrong, though it does mean that we'll probably be glad not to have to play at each other's tables.

[Brannmuffyn]

Fair enough. I don't really believe in the myth of absolute RAW anyway.


I don't think of absolute RAW as a myth, more like an ideal to strive for. Especially when the initial question was about what the RAW ruling is. Any other discussion or ruling is fairly irrelevant to the topic.



Nah, I just interpret it differently than you. That doesn't make either of us wrong, though it does mean that we'll probably be glad not to have to play at each other's tables.

You used the word interpret, RAW is the rules as they are written. Not as they are interpreted.

[Psyren]

You used the word interpret, RAW is the rules as they are written. Not as they are interpreted.

RAW requires interpretation all the time. There is no RAW definition for terms like "granted", "appropriate", "unreasonable" etc., yet those words show up in rules text in several places.

[Brannmuffyn]

RAW requires interpretation all the time. There is no RAW definition for terms like "granted", "appropriate", "unreasonable" etc., yet those words show up in rules text in several places.


Except its in the English language, so this is where we reach for a dictionary to understand what words mean. Words have strict definitions.

[Psyren]

Except its in the English language, so this is where we reach for a dictionary to understand what words mean. Words have strict definitions.

Precisely, which leads to my ruling:

"To give or confer officially or formally"

Indirect AC, like Cat's Grace and Polymorph, don't meet that standard for me.

[Deadkitten]

Except its in the English language, so this is where we reach for a dictionary to understand what words mean. Words have strict definitions.

That's an argument that is not going to go anywhere. The English language is notoriously imprecise, and I have lurked on the Dysfunctional Rules thread long enough to know that there can be multiple interpretations of "RAW" based on how you read a single word.

The designers had intentions of how an ability works when they wrote their content, its just sometimes what is clear an precise to one person is a grey area for another. This is why this debate is even happening.

[Brannmuffyn]

Precisely, which leads to my ruling:

"To give or confer officially or formally"

Indirect AC, like Cat's Grace and Polymorph, don't meet that standard for me.


I feel like I'm arguing in circles here, I'm sorry that I couldn't explain how the rules work to you.

[Psyren]

I feel like I'm arguing in circles here, I'm sorry that I couldn't explain how the rules work to you.

And I'm sorry you don't understand what "interpretation" means :smalltongue:

[ExLibrisMortis]

Words have strict definitions.
No. No, they really don't. To repeat: words do not have strict definitions, and there are usually multiple viable interpretations of a given sentence, especially in written language, where the lack of intonation can make it hard to distinguish certain interpretations (sarcasm is easy to detect, though).

I will add my support to the 'doesn't dispel' camp. PMP would have to know its target's base natural armour, and dispel any polymorph with net gain, or else dispel polymorph in cases where dispelling the effect leads to an increase in AC, despite the purpose and design of the ability (it would even be harder to use the ability, because it would target the higher pre-polymorph AC).

I feel like polymorph should be considered a very deep level of change, as evidenced by the type change it grants, so it shouldn't be easy to figure out your target's base form, and reverting should be difficult, as well (that polymorph is too low of a spell level for this kind of deep change - sure). That said, it would be appropriate to grant some sort of forced shapechange as a third feat, perhaps as a tactical feat for anti-magic warriors (so that it can incorporate direct counters to other common spells, as well, else the feat would be a bit narrow).

Note that none of these arguments are RAW, and I'm not particularly convinced of RAW's ability to conclude the matter, having read this thread's discussion, so there's no need to bring it up :smallwink:.

[AnachroNinja]

I feel like if the spell causes a change to you at a very deep level, that is what supports it being dispelled. If you are as human who polymorphs into a different human, your natural armor value did not stay the same. You are quite literally in a completely different body, nothing whatsoever carried over. That body is completely a result of the spell, as it is an ongoing magical effect. It gives you a brand new natural armor value. Whether it happens to be the same as your original or not has nothing to do with the fact that it grants you a natural armor value.

At no point does PMP require that the spell grant you an INCREASE in armor value, or that your new armor value be higher then your original. It would, in my opinion, dispel an effect that actually have you a lower armor value. In much the same way that your "dexterity bonus" to AC can be a negative value, it doesn't cease to be an armor bonus if it is a negative value. It is still an integer, and it is still an " armor bonus" regardless of the value provided.

That is my personal opinion, and at this point I think I have explained myself as well as I possibly can, so I'm going to leave it at that.

[Brannmuffyn]

That's an argument that is not going to go anywhere. The English language is notoriously imprecise, and I have lurked on the Dysfunctional Rules thread long enough to know that there can be multiple interpretations of "RAW" based on how you read a single word.

The designers had intentions of how an ability works when they wrote their content, its just sometimes what is clear an precise to one person is a grey area for another. This is why this debate is even happening.


No. No, they really don't. To repeat: words do not have strict definitions, and there are usually multiple viable interpretations of a given sentence, especially in written language, where the lack of intonation can make it hard to distinguish certain interpretations.


I'll apologize for insisting that the English language has strict definitions. I said it without thinking. I can say though we have enough context in this situation for me at least to be able to confidentially state how PMP functions.

I do agree, there are times in the rules where there is no real answer. But here there is one and it is very clear. By the very rules of PMP, if it directly imparts an AC bonus it is dispelled. By the very rules of Polymorph, it gives you the Natural Armor Bonus of the assumed form. So by the rules, with no ulterior motive behind what I say: it would be dispelled. That is the strictest reading of RAW in this situations.

If we go super RAW though and insist its only spells that have the word "grant" and "AC" in their description, we are left with barkskin, and probably very few others.

[Troacctid]

At no point does PMP require that the spell grant you an INCREASE in armor value, or that your new armor value be higher then your original. It would, in my opinion, dispel an effect that actually have you a lower armor value. In much the same way that your "dexterity bonus" to AC can be a negative value, it doesn't cease to be an armor bonus if it is a negative value. It is still an integer, and it is still an " armor bonus" regardless of the value provided.
Not true, actually—the rules define a bonus as a positive modifier. A negative modifier is considered a penalty, not a bonus. So, for example, when an ability says something like "You add your Wisdom bonus (if any) to your AC," it will not reduce your AC if you have a Wisdom mod of -1.

[KillianHawkeye]

Not true, actually—the rules define a bonus as a positive modifier. A negative modifier is considered a penalty, not a bonus. So, for example, when an ability says something like "You add your Wisdom bonus (if any) to your AC," it will not reduce your AC if you have a Wisdom mod of -1.

Yes.

Similarly, your AC does not increase if you have single digit Dexterity and you're caught flat-footed. Being flat-footed causes you to lose your Dex bonus to AC, but the character has a Dex penalty rather than a bonus.



Also, whoever was saying earlier in the thread that flying or being on a horse grants +1 to AC is wrong. Higher ground grants +1 to attack rolls vs someone beneath you (although I've never seen concrete evidence that being airborne counts for that), that's all.

[AnachroNinja]

Not true, actually—the rules define a bonus as a positive modifier. A negative modifier is considered a penalty, not a bonus. So, for example, when an ability says something like "You add your Wisdom bonus (if any) to your AC," it will not reduce your AC if you have a Wisdom mod of -1.

I will grant you that, I was thinking purely in terms of math rather then rules terms. By the same token however, of negative modifiers are penalties, a +0 is still a bonus. This is backed up in my opinion simply by the fact that it is consistently listed in the rules as +0, not -0 or +/-0 or any other possible notation.

Man I'm really trying to stay away from this topic but I screwed up my last explanation so felt compelled

[Telok]

By the very rules of PMP, if it directly imparts an AC bonus it is dispelled.
But that's the thing, Bigby's, Web, Baleful Poly, Reduce, Owl's Wis on a monk, will all give AC bonuses. Bigby's and Web are explicit and give the bonuses in the spell description. Baleful Poly and Reduce don't give bonuses, just size modifiers. Owl's doesn't give AC bonuses, but you get a bonus if you have the right class features.

I'm hearing people saying that Web's explicit cover bonus doesn't qualify but Baleful's indirect AC change from size alteration does, and the stat buffs only give bonuses if you have class features which means they only get dispelled on some people and not others. Even Cat's Grace only gives a bonus if the target has a Dex of more than 9 because for Dex scores of less than 10 it only reduces penalties.

Really it just requires consistent ruling of whether or not the magic of a spell is directly increasing AC, or if the AC increase is a side effect.

[AnachroNinja]

Bigbys and web are not targeted on a person so they wouldn't count for it. Reduce and owls wisdom don't give an AC bonus, they give a stat bonus that indirectly applies to AC. Reduce changes your size and indirectly applies an AC bonus, but honestly that's the one I'm not sure of. I think it would probably qualify for dispelling in my opinion because the AC bonus is a direct result of the spells affect, not an indirect function of a different stat altogether. Just my opinion though

[Telok]

See, what I'd be looking for as a player is consistency.

Does it break size alteration magic because size affects AC? Then I expect it to break all the size alteration magic. Likewise with attribute boosts, or shapeshifting, or time warping magic. If the feat only works on spells when the spell makes AC go up but not when it makes AC go down, or on some people but not on others because of class features or such, then I'm stuck guessing. It won't matter if I'm the PMP user or the spell caster, the interaction is based on circumstances and GM whims instead of on the basic purpose or action of the spell used.

[Brannmuffyn]

See, what I'd be looking for as a player is consistency.

Does it break size alteration magic because size affects AC? Then I expect it to break all the size alteration magic. Likewise with attribute boosts, or shapeshifting, or time warping magic. If the feat only works on spells when the spell makes AC go up but not when it makes AC go down, or on some people but not on others because of class features or such, then I'm stuck guessing. It won't matter if I'm the PMP user or the spell caster, the interaction is based on circumstances and GM whims instead of on the basic purpose or action of the spell used.

The thing is, it is consistent. The rules have all been described. There are two checks to whether a spell is effected by PMP:

1. Is it a spell?
2. Does the spell itself confer an AC bonus?

According to the srd:

A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty.

Now, PMP only cares about AC bonuses. So:

Shrink Person grants a size bonus to AC. It is effected.
Enlarge Person grants a penalty. It is not effected.
Polymorph replaces your natural armor bonus with the bonus of the form you assume. It is effected because it still confers a bonus to AC, even if it happens to be lower than what you normally have.
Mage Armor would be effected, it grants AC.
Cat's Grace grants a Dexterity Bonus, not an AC Bonus so it would not be effected.
Owl's Wisdom grants a Wisdom Bonus, not an AC Bonus. It would not be effected.

I'm not seeing anywhere or any reason why this isn't consistent. There are two things to check, and provided that they are true, it gets dispelled.

[Wacky89]

The thing is, it is consistent. The rules have all been described. There are two checks to whether a spell is effected by PMP:
Polymorph replaces your natural armor bonus with the bonus of the form you assume. It is effected because it still confers a bonus to AC, even if it happens to be lower than what you normally have.



Isn't a lower natural armor the definition of a penalty? It ceases to be a bonus right?
Now it's no longer consistent as you write it, your AC was lower than it was originally right? That can never be a bonus in dnd terms as far as i know.
Also the point about not every race has a listed natural armor which means their NA is nonexistent by RAW (This was covered earlier in the thread. It might be dysfunctional, but it is RAW none the less), which means if you polymorph into something that doesn't have a natural armor. We have the same problem inconsistency.

[Deophaun]

Isn't a lower natural armor the definition of a penalty? It ceases to be a bonus right?
No, because of how it's applied. The spell does not give you a bonus or a penalty based on what you have now in order to give you the proper armor class. Instead, it completely removes your existing armor class, then gives you a bonus equal to the target form's AC. Yes, the first part is the application of a penalty, but PMP doesn't care about that at all.

[Beheld]

Also the point about not every race has a listed natural armor which means their NA is nonexistent by RAW (This was covered earlier in the thread. It might be dysfunctional, but it is RAW none the less), which means if you polymorph into something that doesn't have a natural armor.

Except you know, all the parts of the RAW that tell you what their natural armor bonus is.

[AnachroNinja]

Just for the sake of clarification, +3 NA is an armor bonus even if you previously had +5 before the spell took effect. It did not give you a -2 penalty. It removed your +5, then gave you a +3. That's how polymorph works.

Also as noted, the evidence that +0 NA is a standard thing is nearly overwhelming unless your devoid of reason.

[Necroticplague]

Also as noted, the evidence that +0 NA is a standard thing is nearly overwhelming unless your devoid of reason.
Then why have you failed to provide solid evidence of this, outside of your constant ad hominem attacks on the ones holding the position? You say you have overwhelming evidence, but all you've shown is assumptions, personal attacks, and weak evidence.

[AnachroNinja]

You mean amulets of natural armor, barkskin, and the monster manual entry about typical natural armor classes? All those things you, with no evidence pretend don't apply?

Edit: oh wait, I forgot... Elves and dwarves don't have normal skin because... Something crazy you thought up while drinking?

[Necroticplague]

You mean amulets of natural armor, barkskin, and the monster manual entry about typical natural armor classes? All those things you, with no evidence pretend don't apply?

I provided evidence as to why Barkskin doesn't apply. Spell descriptions talk about how that spell works. What evidence do you have spell descriptions relate to things outside of their description?

Amulets of natural armor don't say anything at all on the subject.

Amulet of Natural Armor: This amulet, usually crafted from bone or beast scales, toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor bonus of from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet.

Faint transmutation; CL 5th; Craft Wondrous Item, barkskin, creator’s caster level must be at least three times the amulet’s bonus; Price 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 18,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), or 50,000 gp (+5).
Nothing about what happens if you don't have any natural armor.

The topic we are talking about is outside the scope of that table, and that table is not necessarily exhaustive. That table is talking about typical values for natural armor. Having any form of value for natural armor requires having it in the first place, so things without natural armor are outside the scope of the table. What evidence do you have that the table is exhaustive and within the scope of this discussion?



Edit: oh wait, I forgot... Elves and dwarves don't have normal skin because... Something crazy you thought up while drinking?

Because it's never said that they do, to the best of my knowledge. And things that are not explicitly stated to be true within the rules cannot be assumed.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Because it's never said that they do, to the best of my knowledge. And things that are not explicitly stated to be true within the rules cannot be assumed.

Reasonable inference is part of how -any- TTRPG works. If a creature isn't noted to have any stronger than normal hide/scales/exoskeleton, either in its description or inferred by having a positive NA bonus, then it -must- have normal skin and the attendant +0 natural armor bonus. Even the go-to example of a creature with -no- skin, the skeleton, has an exoskeleton (its skeleton -is- on the outside :smallwink:) and a noted NA bonus ranging from +0 up.

This argument has become utterly nonsensical.

[Zaydos]

I don't actually have a horse in this race but the amulet of natural armor notes that it's an "enhancement bonus to his natural armor" and thus they must have a pre-existing natural armor (n/a + 4 is still n/a, hence a skeleton doesn't have 4 Con if you cast Bear's Endurance on them).

Also there is something that is explicitly called out as not having natural armor. Creatures with the incorporeal subtype have no natural armor. It is a listed trait of the subtype. Notably this makes it questionable whether by RAW they can benefit from enhancement bonuses to natural armor.

Now there can be argument over whether alternate form/polymorph give you a bonus to your natural armor by removing your natural armor and replacing it, but arguing that outside of humans humanoids don't have natural armor +0 is just the sort of thing to make your argument look weak.

Oh and before shapechange into incorporeal gets brought up, incorporeal subtype explicitly grants a deflection bonus in place of natural armor.

[AnachroNinja]

Natural armor values of +0 exist. Ergo creatures with less natural armor then +1, have values of +0. There is no negative values. Natural armor values of " - " exist, explicitly for incorporeal creatures and no other listed creatures. They in fact have that value BECAUSE THEY are incorporeal. Ergo, corporeal creatures always have a natural armor value of some kind unless specifically noted otherwise.

Edit: also note...
Barkskin toughens a creature’s skin. The effect grants a +2 enhancement bonus to the creature’s existing natural armor bonus. This enhancement bonus increases by 1 for every three caster levels above 3rd, to a maximum of +5 at caster level 12th.

The enhancement bonus provided by barkskin stacks with the target’s natural armor bonus, but not with other enhancement bonuses to natural armor. A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0.

At no point does it say "For the purposes of this spell..." Or "In this instance..." Or anything similar. Also at no point in your quote of rules text did it actually say that text in spell descriptions wasn't applicable outside of the spell. Therefore unless there is contradictory information elsewhere in the rules, that is the most relevant rules text on natural armor values of zero, in combination with the MM table on normal skin.

It's like your trying to argue that whales aren't aquatic because they aren't fish.

[Brannmuffyn]

I don't actually have a horse in this race but the amulet of natural armor notes that it's an "enhancement bonus to his natural armor" and thus they must have a pre-existing natural armor (n/a + 4 is still n/a, hence a skeleton doesn't have 4 Con if you cast Bear's Endurance on them).

Also there is something that is explicitly called out as not having natural armor. Creatures with the incorporeal subtype have no natural armor. It is a listed trait of the subtype. Notably this makes it questionable whether by RAW they can benefit from enhancement bonuses to natural armor.

Now there can be argument over whether alternate form/polymorph give you a bonus to your natural armor by removing your natural armor and replacing it, but arguing that outside of humans humanoids don't have natural armor +0 is just the sort of thing to make your argument look weak.

Oh and before shapechange into incorporeal gets brought up, incorporeal subtype explicitly grants a deflection bonus in place of natural armor.

Ghost isn't called out as explicitly not having natural armor, if you actually read the ghost template you would know it says:


Armor Class
Natural armor is the same as the base creature’s but applies only to ethereal encounters. When the ghost manifests (see below), its natural armor bonus is +0, but it gains a deflection bonus equal to its Charisma modifier or +1, whichever is higher.



So clearly there is a contradiction in the rules

[Necroticplague]

Natural armor values of +0 exist. Ergo creatures with less natural armor then +1, have values of +0. There is no negative values. Natural armor values of " - " exist, explicitly for incorporeal creatures and no other listed creatures. They in fact have that value BECAUSE THEY are incorporeal. Ergo, corporeal creatures always have a natural armor value of some kind unless specifically noted otherwise.That doesn't follow. The fact incoporeal creatures definitely don't have natural armor doesn't mean that all things that aren't incoporeal do. It's entirely logically possible for 'no incorporeal creature has natural armor' and 'some corporeal creatures don't have natural armor' to both be true. Just like the fact that all undead don't have CON scores doesn't mean all non-undead creatures have CON scores.


At no point does it say "For the purposes of this spell..." Or "In this instance..." Or anything similar. Also at no point in your quote of rules text did it actually say that text in spell descriptions wasn't applicable outside of the spell. The rules for spell descriptions are clear in what they cover. They talk about how the spell works. No more, and no less. They don't talk about how other things work. Again, where does it actually say spell descriptions can talk about things other than what that spell does? Things do exactly what they say they do, and not anything more. It doesn't say a spell's description can provide rules for things that aren't that spell's workings, so they can't.


Therefore unless there is contradictory information elsewhere in the rules, that is the most relevant rules text on natural armor values of zero, in combination with the MM table on normal skin. The portion about normal skin, to the best of my knowledge, isn't useful beyond putting Humans in the clear, because the other races aren't described as having normal skin.


It's like your trying to argue that whales aren't aquatic because they aren't fish.
? Can you explain how that analogy is in any way relevant, because I fail to see it. From my point of view, you're arguing all mammals give live birth (general situation) because humans give live birth (specific situation).

[AnachroNinja]

And generally all mammals so give live birth. That is in fact what they will teach you in biology, while noting the few specific exceptions. As there are no noted exceptions of creatures NOT having natural armor, they all do.

[Necroticplague]

And generally all mammals so give live birth. That is in fact what they will teach you in biology, while noting the few specific exceptions. The fact there are exceptions means the statement 'all mammals give live birth' is false. It's a general trait many of them share, but not a core one. Just like how the fact majority of creatures have some amount of natural armor, doesn't mean they all do.

As there are no noted exceptions of creatures NOT having natural armor, they all do.
1.Someone else noted incoporeal creatures, which would be an exception to such a rule, should it exist.
2.There isn't a general rule that says "all creatures have natural armor". If there was, this matter would be long settled.

[Telok]

The thing is, it is consistent. The rules have all been described. There are two checks to whether a spell is effected by PMP:

1. Is it a spell?
2. Does the spell itself confer an AC bonus?

That's where this sort of thing gets iffy for me. Polymorph is affected but Animal Shapes isn't because one inherits from Alter Self and the other doesn't. Moment of Prescience can give an AC bonus when it's used that way so is it always affected or only sometimes? A spell that allowed someone to switch between small and large sizes would be affected when the person was small but not when they were large. You even choose to have it affect Reduce Person if it increases the size bonus but not if it reduces the size penalty. Some dodge bonuses are affected but others aren't.

[AnachroNinja]

The fact there are exceptions means the statement 'all mammals give live birth' is false. It's a general trait many of them share, but not a core one. Just like how the fact majority of creatures have some amount of natural armor, doesn't mean they all do.

1.Someone else noted incoporeal creatures, which would be an exception to such a rule, should it exist.
2.There isn't a general rule that says "all creatures have natural armor". If there was, this matter would be long settled.

It was actually noted afterwards that incorporeal creatures, ghosts in particular, do have NA, it is simply only effective on the ethereal plane and otherwise is +0.

Edit: it appears likely that the distinction exists between creatures which are naturally incorporeal and thus never had a physical body to have natural armor and creatures with a template applied like ghost. It is also specifically noted that incorporeal creatures have no NA, treating it as an exception to a general rule. If you can point to the entry under humanoid where it says something similar, I'll be happy to listen.

[Necroticplague]

It was actually noted afterwards that incorporeal creatures, ghosts in particular, do have NA, it is simply only effective on the ethereal plane and otherwise is +0.
+Edit: it appears likely that the distinction exists between creatures which are naturally incorporeal and thus never had a physical body to have natural armor and creatures with a template applied like ghost. Actually, that's because Ghosts have special rulings just about them, due to their incredibly wierd nature. Normally, they're not even incorporeal, instead being corporeal, but Ethereal. Thus, they have Strength and Natural Armor on the Ethereal Plane. They become incorporeal through their Manifestation ability (thus losing reducing their NA to 0 and making their Stregnth a nonability).


It is also specifically noted that incorporeal creatures have no NA, treating it as an exception to a general rule.
I'm aware of the style with which it's written. However, style does not create substance. Do all creatures with no type have no need to eat, breathe, or sleep, because Humanoids are explicitly mentioned as having to, as if an exception to a general rule? Or do they have to eat, sleep, and breath, because Undead are explicitly mentioned as not needing to do so, as if an exception to a general rule? Does the fact that Fighters get their bonus feats in addition to the ones from levelling mean that other sources of bonus feats shut off access to feats from levelling?
Of course not. It's entirely possible, and even incredibly common, for redundant rulesets to exist within the system. Some creatures don't have natural armor, and incorporeal creatures definitely don't. Again, those two are logically compatible.


If you can point to the entry under humanoid where it says something similar, I'll be happy to listen. Can't, isn't one. Fortunately, there isn't a general rule that everything has natural armor for there to need to be one. If you could point to an entry anywhere that says that, I'd be quite happy to listen.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'm aware of the style with which it's written. However, style does not create substance. Do all creatures with no type have no need to eat, breathe, or sleep, because Humanoids are explicitly mentioned as having to, as if an exception to a general rule? Or do they have to eat, sleep, and breath, because Undead are explicitly mentioned as not needing to do so, as if an exception to a general rule?

No such creatures exist. All creatures are one of the thirteen types. Incorporeals having a null NA value is an exception that wouldn't need calling out if there weren't a general rule to except, by your own logic. The general rule that creatures with normal skin have a NA of +0 is the extent rule that it is excepting.

You've lost this one. Just stop already.

[Rakoa]

From what I'm reading here, the overwhelming consensus (aside from one vocal minority) is that both RAW and RAI support those without a positive natural armour modifier as having a natural armor bonus of +0. That said, how does this discovery impact the feat in question?

EDIT: Wrong number.

[Deophaun]

That said, how does this discovery impact the feat in question?
If you do not believe that polymorph grants a bonus, then it doesn't.
If you do believe that polymorph grants a bonus, then it does even when the end result is a lower natural armor bonus, so PMP still works.

[Psyren]

From what I'm reading here, the overwhelming consensus (aside from one vocal minority) is that both RAW and RAI support those without a positive natural armour modifier as having a natural armor bonus of +2. That said, how does this discovery impact the feat in question?

Did you mean +0 here?

Anyway, your question was answered in post #2 of the thread, so we're right back where we started.

[AnachroNinja]

The effect is based around the wording in that polymorph grants you the natural armor bonus of the new form rather then giving you a bonus or penalty to your existing bonus. Thus in my reading of it, any natural armor that it gives you, even a bonus of +0, is a bonus granted by the spell that causes it to be vulnerable to PMP.

That's the sum of my view.

[Wacky89]

No such creatures exist. All creatures are one of the thirteen types. Incorporeals having a null NA value is an exception that wouldn't need calling out if there weren't a general rule to except, by your own logic. The general rule that creatures with normal skin have a NA of +0 is the extent rule that it is excepting.

You've lost this one. Just stop already.

What about a Ghost polymorph any object into a shadow, wouldn't that give the ruling inconsistency?

[Rakoa]

Did you mean +0 here?

Anyway, your question was answered in post #2 of the thread, so we're right back where we started.

Yup, my bad. And here I had hoped there was some progress being made.


What about a Ghost polymorph any object into a shadow, wouldn't that give the ruling inconsistency?

Wouldn't the subject of the spell still be receiving an armour bonus in the form of deflection?

[Psyren]

Yup, my bad. And here I had hoped there was some progress being made.

In my mind, the answer was always "table variation, nobody is definitively right or wrong" and the remaining posts were articulating the rationale behind our respective positions without any real desire by either side to abandon the one they'd chosen. A poster here and there may have done so of course, but the lines of scrimmage were more or less drawn on this one pages ago.

If you approach it from that standpoint, the thread has more or less served its purpose as a discussion tool. If you're holding out for Playground consensus though, you may leave disappointed.

[Rakoa]

In my mind, the answer was always "table variation, nobody is definitively right or wrong" and the remaining posts were articulating the rationale behind our respective positions without any real desire by either side to abandon the one they'd chosen. A poster here and there may have done so of course, but the lines of scrimmage were more or less drawn on this one pages ago.

If you approach it from that standpoint, the thread has more or less served its purpose as a discussion tool. If you're holding out for Playground consensus though, you may leave disappointed.

Fair enough! I'll still stick around, though. Maybe someone will throw a curveball, eh?