dnd 3.5 Spell / rule interactions

[samduke]

I think this is possible

Cast: Greater Luminous Armor - made to last 48 hours

Cast: Magic Vestment - made to last 48 hours , on the Greater Luminous Armor

potentially making the GLA magical +5 platemail for 13ac


the question is this possible ?

[Darg]

I think this is possible

Cast: Greater Luminous Armor - made to last 48 hours

Cast: Magic Vestment - made to last 48 hours , on the Greater Luminous Armor

potentially making the GLA magical +5 platemail for 13ac


the question is this possible ?

No. Luminous armor is not a "suit of armor." It only resembles one. The effect of magic vestment would affect your shirt or other armor you are wearing. Bonuses of the same type don't stack. You'd be able to use magic vestment on a psychoactive Skin of Ectoplasmic Armor as it surrounds you in a "suit of protective armor."

[samduke]

Greater luminous armor resembles a suit of dazzling full plate AC AB+8

Magic vestment
An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.
so what stops this from targeting an outfit AC AB+0 (no stacking ab) enhancement bonus +5 with the GLA providing an AC AB+8?

[Buufreak]

The word resembles is not the word is.

[Darg]

Magic vestment
An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.
so what stops this from targeting an outfit AC AB+0 (no stacking ab) enhancement bonus +5 with the GLA providing an AC AB+8?

An enhancement bonus enhances the item or ability directly. A full plate +5 has an armor bonus of +13, +5 enhancement to the original +8. An enhancement bonus of +5 to a normal shirt gives the shirt an armor bonus of +5. The Greater Luminous Armor gives an armor bonus of +8. Two sources of armor bonuses don't stack.

[Crake]

An enhancement bonus enhances the item or ability directly. A full plate +5 has an armor bonus of +13, +5 enhancement to the original +8. An enhancement bonus of +5 to a normal shirt gives the shirt an armor bonus of +5. The Greater Luminous Armor gives an armor bonus of +8. Two sources of armor bonuses don't stack.

To make this more clear, the magic vestment does not give you a "+5 enhancement bonus" to AC, it increases the bonus of a piece of armor by +5. If you put the bonus on your shirt, giving it a +5 bonus total, it would be functionally the same as wearing a suit of chainmail underneath a suit of fullplate. The two armor bonuses do not stack, and you end up with the highest, +8.

[Inevitability]

As the others said, Magic Vestment gives an enhancement bonus to your armor's armor bonus, which only then gets added to your AC.

Other effects, like Barkskin, give an enhancement bonus to natural armor instead, and would stack with Magic Vestment because of how this is worded.

Directly getting an enhancement bonus to AC is also possible; Thicken Skin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/thickenSkin.htm) does it for one. Theoretically all three of these would stack.

[Darg]

Directly getting an enhancement bonus to AC is also possible; Thicken Skin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/thickenSkin.htm) does it for one. Theoretically all three of these would stack.

This is controversial though. Thicken Skin specifically mentions your skin/natural armor is what is benefitting from the power. If we also take the definition of enhancement bonus as a rule, the power doesn't explicitly make an exception for itself to work differently.

[ShurikVch]

This is controversial though. Thicken Skin specifically mentions your skin/natural armor is what is benefitting from the power. If we also take the definition of enhancement bonus as a rule, the power doesn't explicitly make an exception for itself to work differently.
Enhancement Bonus (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#enhancementBonus):

An enhancement bonus represents an increase in the sturdiness and/or effectiveness of armor or natural armor, or the effectiveness of a weapon, or a general bonus to an ability score. Multiple enhancement bonuses on the same object (in the case of armor and weapons), creature (in the case of natural armor), or ability score do not stack. Only the highest enhancement bonus applies. Since enhancement bonuses to armor or natural armor effectively increase the armor or natural armor's bonus to AC, they don't apply against touch attacks.
What is controversial there?

[Darg]

Enhancement Bonus (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm#enhancementBonus):

What is controversial there?

They were saying you could stack Thicken Skin with Barkskin because they think it isn't enhancing natural armor, but rather your AC directly.

[ShurikVch]

They were saying you could stack Thicken Skin with Barkskin because they think it isn't enhancing natural armor, but rather your AC directly.
Ah, I see!..
Well, they may stack: after all, enhancement bonus to Armor stacks with enhancement bonus to Shield.
Thicken Skin gives enhancement bonus to unspecified AC (the "skin or natural armor" is a fluff text - power should work even on creatures which are lacking both) - thus, may stack with other enhancement bonuses (DM's call, obviously)

[Darg]

Ah, I see!..
Well, they may stack: after all, enhancement bonus to Armor stacks with enhancement bonus to Shield.
Thicken Skin gives enhancement bonus to unspecified AC (the "skin or natural armor" is a fluff text - power should work even on creatures which are lacking both) - thus, may stack with other enhancement bonuses (DM's call, obviously)

Fluff text is not RAW. It's kind of counterintuitive to use RAI to declare what is RAW. Even then, the RAI is quite clear in this case.

[ShurikVch]

Fluff text is not RAW. It's kind of counterintuitive to use RAI to declare what is RAW. Even then, the RAI is quite clear in this case.
So, do you mean some Ooze (or Construct without any natural armor) which get access to Thicken Skin (via item - or even class levels) wouldn't be able to benefit from it? (They have neither skin, nor natural armor)

[Gruftzwerg]

This is controversial though. Thicken Skin specifically mentions your skin/natural armor is what is benefitting from the power. If we also take the definition of enhancement bonus as a rule, the power doesn't explicitly make an exception for itself to work differently.

Enhancement bonuses are declared generally as a bonus to "armor bonus" or to "shield bonus".

But that doesn't stop specific stuff to trump that general rule by explicitly giving you the bonus directly to AC. While these direct bonuses to AC are very rare, they exist.

Defending Weapon comes to my mind, since we had a debate about it a while ago:

A defender weapon allows the wielder to transfer some or all of the sword's enhancement bonus to his AC as a special bonus that stacks with all others. As a free action, the wielder chooses how to allocate the weapon's enhancement bonus at the start of his turn before using the weapon, and the effect to AC lasts until his next turn.

It even goes so far to explicitly tell you that this is a bonus that stats will all others. Thus if would stretch the rules as far as possible, we could even stack Thicken Skin's and a Defending Weapon's enhancement bonuses to AC together.

[thatothersting]

The same section that declares that enhancement bonuses to AC only enhance armor and natural armor also says

Dodge Bonus
A dodge bonus improves Armor Class (and sometimes Reflex saves) resulting from physical skill at avoiding blows and other ill effects. Dodge bonuses are never granted by spells or magic items.

which is wrong on EVERY level. And, funny enough, psionics is yet again a place where the rule about what it's "allowed" to apply to is explicitly broken, right there in the SRD:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/elocater.htm

So frankly, I don't put much stock into that section at all. It's just a set of general guidelines more than hard and fast rules, a simplified explanation that was meant to make starting out and understanding the stacking rules easier for new players but is ultimately wrong about the specifics once you get down into the nitty gritty. Perhaps it really was intended to be absolute and infallible, but this is an exceptions-based system, so just about every rule has things which break it. And while Thicken Skin isn't explicitly called out as an exception to those rules neither is Elocator; must we then rule that Elocator's class feature can't provide a bonus of that type to attack rolls because that bonus isn't "allowed" to be applied there? Obviously not. The lack of an explicit declaration of exception is no proof that it isn't an exception, and psionics in particular is "weird", often quite intentionally so.

And yes, I understand that the wording on thicken skin's description does seem to suggest it's creating an enhancement bonus to natural armor, but as stated earlier in the thread "fluff text" means nothing, and the rules of the power are that it grants an enhancement bonus to AC directly, so that's what it does. "Skin" isn't a game term, there are no creatures with the "skinless" tag to worry about, anything and everything with psionic power can use this ability (yes, even ghosts), therefore the first bit is fluff and the comma separates the fluff from the crunch, as is typical.

[Darg]

So, do you mean some Ooze (or Construct without any natural armor) which get access to Thicken Skin (via item - or even class levels) wouldn't be able to benefit from it? (They have neither skin, nor natural armor)

That's nonsense. I'm saying it fills the same niche barkskin does psionically. Why, do you think barkskin doesn't work with Oozes?


Enhancement bonuses are declared generally as a bonus to "armor bonus" or to "shield bonus".

But that doesn't stop specific stuff to trump that general rule by explicitly giving you the bonus directly to AC. While these direct bonuses to AC are very rare, they exist.

Defending Weapon comes to my mind, since we had a debate about it a while ago:


It even goes so far to explicitly tell you that this is a bonus that stats will all others. Thus if would stretch the rules as far as possible, we could even stack Thicken Skin's and a Defending Weapon's enhancement bonuses to AC together.

Except, now here is the kicker, an enhancement bonus to armor, natural armor, or shield is a bonus to AC.

The bonus from a defending weapon is a "special" bonus, not an enhancement bonus.


The same section that declares that enhancement bonuses to AC only enhance armor and natural armor also says

Dodge Bonus
A dodge bonus improves Armor Class (and sometimes Reflex saves) resulting from physical skill at avoiding blows and other ill effects. Dodge bonuses are never granted by spells or magic items.

which is wrong on EVERY level. And, funny enough, psionics is yet again a place where the rule about what it's "allowed" to apply to is explicitly broken, right there in the SRD:

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/elocater.htm

So frankly, I don't put much stock into that section at all. It's just a set of general guidelines more than hard and fast rules, a simplified explanation that was meant to make starting out and understanding the stacking rules easier for new players but is ultimately wrong about the specifics once you get down into the nitty gritty. Perhaps it really was intended to be absolute and infallible, but this is an exceptions-based system, so just about every rule has things which break it. And while Thicken Skin isn't explicitly called out as an exception to those rules neither is Elocator; must we then rule that Elocator's class feature can't provide a bonus of that type to attack rolls because that bonus isn't "allowed" to be applied there? Obviously not. The lack of an explicit declaration of exception is no proof that it isn't an exception, and psionics in particular is "weird", often quite intentionally so.

And yes, I understand that the wording on thicken skin's description does seem to suggest it's creating an enhancement bonus to natural armor, but as stated earlier in the thread "fluff text" means nothing, and the rules of the power are that it grants an enhancement bonus to AC directly, so that's what it does. "Skin" isn't a game term, there are no creatures with the "skinless" tag to worry about, anything and everything with psionic power can use this ability (yes, even ghosts), therefore the first bit is fluff and the comma separates the fluff from the crunch, as is typical.

The fact people mention "fluff" text to support their argument outside of special italicized sections completely invalidates any argument based on RAW. It enhances the natural armor to provide a bonus to AC. Just because it's working through a proxy does not mean it isn't a bonus to AC.

[ShurikVch]

That's nonsense. I'm saying it fills the same niche barkskin does psionically. Why, do you think barkskin doesn't work with Oozes?
Barkskin (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/barkskin.htm) have this line:

A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0.
No such line for Thicken Skin (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/thickenSkin.htm).
If you hold on the "skin or natural armor thickens" must mean "natural AC - and natural AC only" - then you must also think Thicken Skin doesn't work on Oozes...


The fact people mention "fluff" text to support their argument outside of special italicized sections completely invalidates any argument based on RAW. It enhances the natural armor to provide a bonus to AC. Just because it's working through a proxy does not mean it isn't a bonus to AC.
As I said above: taken extremely literally, it should mean creatures without skin or natural AC are incapable to benefit from Thicken Skin psionic power. (While it's a valid school of thinking in its own right - it isn't the only possible interpretation...)

[Darg]

Barkskin (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/barkskin.htm) have this line:

No such line for Thicken Skin (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/thickenSkin.htm).
If you hold on the "skin or natural armor thickens" must mean "natural AC - and natural AC only" - then you must also think Thicken Skin doesn't work on Oozes...


As I said above: taken extremely literally, it should mean creatures without skin or natural AC are incapable to benefit from Thicken Skin psionic power. (While it's a valid school of thinking in its own right - it isn't the only possible interpretation...)

If what you say is true, then the amulet of natural armor (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#amuletofNaturalArmor) would only work on creatures with natural armor already because it doesn't have the missing line. We both know that isn't the case. You can provide an enhancement bonus to an armor, natural armor, or shield bonus of 0.

[ShurikVch]

If what you say is true, then the amulet of natural armor (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#amuletofNaturalArmor) would only work on creatures with natural armor already because it doesn't have the missing line.
It don't need to: Amulet of Natural Armor is created via Barkskin, and thus - by default, inherits all benefits and drawbacks of the spell (possible specific exceptions aside)


We both know that isn't the case. You can provide an enhancement bonus to an armor, natural armor, or shield bonus of 0.
Yes you can "provide an enhancement bonus to an armor, natural armor, or shield bonus of 0"
But Oozes (which I checked - don't want to generalize for the whole type) are don't have even "natural AC 0" - they just don't have natural armor at all! ("natural AC —", if you want)
Attempt to give them natural AC bonus without firstly granting natural AC by some other way would be akin to putting Headband of Intellect (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#headbandofIntellect) on a Skeleton...

[Darg]

It don't need to: Amulet of Natural Armor is created via Barkskin, and thus - by default, inherits all benefits and drawbacks of the spell (possible specific exceptions aside)

No, it doesn't. Please point to the rule that says so.


Yes you can "provide an enhancement bonus to an armor, natural armor, or shield bonus of 0"
But Oozes (which I checked - don't want to generalize for the whole type) are don't have even "natural AC 0" - they just don't have natural armor at all! ("natural AC —", if you want)
Attempt to give them natural AC bonus without firstly granting natural AC by some other way would be akin to putting Headband of Intellect (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#headbandofIntellect) on a Skeleton...

...Player character races don't have natural armor either...

[ShurikVch]

No, it doesn't. Please point to the rule that says so.
Please, point to the rules which say differently


...Player character races don't have natural armor either...
At least, they have skin:

Your skin or natural armor thickens and spreads across your body, providing a +1 enhancement bonus to your Armor Class.
(At least - most of PC races have skin...)

[Darg]

Please, point to the rules which say differently

The rules work as they are written, not how you assume they should be. There are plenty of magic items that have nothing to do with the spells used to create them. The burden is still on you to answer the question that was first asked. Unless of course you don't have evidence or it just doesn't exist.


At least, they have skin:

(At least - most of PC races have skin...)

You're the one making up game mechanics like "natural AC —". I'm still working on the presumption that magic items only work as written until you evidence otherwise. Having skin has nothing to do with the Amulet of Natural Armor in that case.

[ShurikVch]

The rules work as they are written, not how you assume they should be.
And I asked you: show me written rules which are disagreeing with me!
Your "I asked first!.." is incredibly childish and, ultimately, proves nothing


There are plenty of magic items that have nothing to do with the spells used to create them.
Please, re-read my reply: I said

(possible specific exceptions aside)
Those items you're speaking of are, very obviously, all specific exceptions
I don't see how or why Amulet of Natural Armor may be specific exception


You're the one making up game mechanics like "natural AC —"..
I'm not making up anything!
Look at the text of Barkskin (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/barkskin.htm):

A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0.
Why, you think, they need that line - if any single creature in existence have either natural armor bonus of +0, or higher?
And why Improved Natural Armor (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsterFeats.htm#improvedNaturalArmor) required "Natural armor, Con 13"? If everybody already have natural AC +0 (if not higher) - then nobody would be disqualified on that reason ever.

Thinking everybody have "natural AC 0" - is the same kind of mistake as thinking everybody have 0 levels in every single class in the game (except, obviously, those classes in which they have actual levels)

[Gruftzwerg]

It don't need to: Amulet of Natural Armor is created via Barkskin, and thus - by default, inherits all benefits and drawbacks of the spell (possible specific exceptions aside)


Sorry but no. This is sole the case for magic items that either:

a) effectively cast the spell (wands, scrolls, rods...)

b) when the item's effect explicitly refers to a spell.

Otherwise you have no permission to make any assumptions in that regard.

Further you reading would be problematic for b) because some spells are used for multiple items with different effects.

What's next? Can we use "Bag of Holding" to hide a chest on the ethereal plane since it is based on the spell "Secret Chest"?


You have to provide ruletext that backs up your assumption. Nobody (not even Darg^^) can prove the nonexistance of a rule. For that you would need to quote the entire rules and that wouldn't be really helpful here.

You have to prove that the rule exist, before you allow a magic item to do things which you could do with the spell used to craft it.

Sole wands, scrolls and rods have this rule. It not a global rule for all magic items.

edit: the same goes for your assumption that Natural Armor defaults to " - " and not to simply " +/- 0 ".
Because you can't just assume " - ".
Have a look at Ability Scores. There we have an explicit sub-rule for "Nonabilities" that allow Ability Scores to be " - " and explains what happens then. I don't see any such rule for Natural Armor, nor do I see any explanation what to do in such a situation. Unless you can provide that, your assumption sole creates dysfunctions.

[ShurikVch]

Sorry but no. This is sole the case for magic items that either:

a) effectively cast the spell (wands, scrolls, rods...)

b) when the item's effect explicitly refers to a spell.

Otherwise you have no permission to make any assumptions in that regard.
Show to me how, exactly, Amulet of Natural Armor (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#amuletofNaturalArmor) is different from Barkskin (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/barkskin.htm)
If there is no difference - then why I need to prove anything?


Further you reading would be problematic for b) because some spells are used for multiple items with different effects.

What's next? Can we use "Bag of Holding" to hide a chest on the ethereal plane since it is based on the spell "Secret Chest"?
I would need to resort to self-quoting one more time:

(possible specific exceptions aside)
Those items are all specific exceptions
No problem on this front


You have to provide ruletext that backs up your assumption. Nobody (not even Darg^^) can prove the nonexistance of a rule. For that you would need to quote the entire rules and that wouldn't be really helpful here.
If we would presume working of magic items are completely independent of the spell which was used to create it - no matter how alike are their respective effects - then it would create even more problems.
Say, aforementioned Amulet of Natural Armor wouldn't be useful for your typical Humanoid character - because Amulet doesn't inherits "creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0" rule, and most Humanoids are have no natural AC to enhance


edit: the same goes for your assumption that Natural Armor defaults to " - " and not to simply " +/- 0 ".
Because you can't just assume " - ".
Have a look at Ability Scores. There we have an explicit sub-rule for "Nonabilities" that allow Ability Scores to be " - " and explains what happens then. I don't see any such rule for Natural Armor, nor do I see any explanation what to do in such a situation. Unless you can provide that, your assumption sole creates dysfunctions.
If the aforementioned line from Barkskin RAW and prerequisite for Improved Natural Armor are don't convincing you, then the only other thing I can say on the subject is the quote from the Glossary (https://web.archive.org/web/20161101210654/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_naturalarmorbonus&alpha=):

natural armor bonus

A bonus to 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.
Source:Â PHB
Emphasis mine: natural armor should exist in order to be enhanced
Barkskin sidestepping the issue by declaring "no natural AC"="natural AC 0" - but it's not a general rule

[Gruftzwerg]

Show to me how, exactly, Amulet of Natural Armor (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#amuletofNaturalArmor) is different from Barkskin (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/barkskin.htm)
If there is no difference - then why I need to prove anything?

I was sole pointing out that this ain't a rule to prevent misinformation in general. I'm not saying that the amulet works differently (I just have another reasoning than you to come to that conclusion). But you can't make the assumption for all magic items because it ain't the default state (sole for wands, scrolls, rods... and those that explicitly mention it).




I would need to resort to self-quoting one more time:

Those items are all specific exceptions
No problem on this front
Sorry but it is actually the other way around as described above. You need to show us a general statement like rods wands and scrolls do, to show a rule text connection between the item's effect and the spell's effect.


If we would presume working of magic items are completely independent of the spell which was used to create it - no matter how alike are their respective effects - then it would create even more problems.
Say, aforementioned Amulet of Natural Armor wouldn't be useful for your typical Humanoid character - because Amulet doesn't inherits "creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0" rule, and most Humanoids are have no natural AC to enhance
The rules haven't given you permission in any way that " - " is a legal value for Natural Armor.
The default mathametical value for nothing is " 0 " and not " - ".
"0 and - " are not interchangeable and you don't have any permission to do so unless the rules explicitly allow you to do so.



If the aforementioned line from Barkskin RAW and prerequisite for Improved Natural Armor are don't convincing you, then the only other thing I can say on the subject is the quote from the Glossary (https://web.archive.org/web/20161101210654/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_naturalarmorbonus&alpha=):

Emphasis mine: natural armor should exist in order to be enhanced
Barkskin sidestepping the issue by declaring "no natural AC"="natural AC 0" - but it's not a general rule

Let me try to explain where imho your confusion comes from.
3.5 often uses "friendly reminders" to remind you of stuff that you should already know. But since the rules are buried somewhere else, they often point out the obvious. I've to admit that it ain't easy to always correctly identify if something is a "specific exception" or if it thrives from a "general rule" mentioned elsewhere.

To give you an example of this, have a look at all the "size changing effects". Most of em have a "friendly reminder" that you can't stack em. If you aren't aware of the general "Stacking" rules in 3.5, you might misinterpret those "friendly reminders" as "specific exception" and assume that those things that lack the line are stack able.
But since they are just reminding you of the general state of the rules, nothing changes if a size changing ability doesn't have the line. It doesn't become suddenly stack able.

The same we have here. Many things that give a bonus to your natural armor bonus have a special reminder that the default value is 0.

Remind you that the rules are presented by math here. And in math nothing stops you from adding something unless you make a specific rule for that situation.
"If you got 2 apples, nothing stops us from adding 2 melons to it."
There would be the need of a rule that those that don't have any meleons by default, may not gain any additional ones. This would translate into a "Meleon: - " as mechanical value that explicitly blocks any changes (e.g. Nonabilities, like undead with their CON: - ).
As said, we lack the general rule that the nonexistense of a Natural Armor Bonus defaults to " - " and what happens in such a situation (meaning how strict it is and if it can be overcome somehow). Thus we have to default to normal math that nothing stops you from adding the 2 melons, even if you didn't have any before.

[Blue Jay]

This is controversial though. Thicken Skin specifically mentions your skin/natural armor is what is benefitting from the power. If we also take the definition of enhancement bonus as a rule, the power doesn't explicitly make an exception for itself to work differently.

I think I agree with you: thicken skin providing an enhancement bonus to natural armor is RAI, and I'd probably rule it that way in games I DM, especially if my players were the types who only dip into psionics when it's convenient for bonus-stacking.

However, I also agree with the other guys: by strict RAW, thicken skin provides an enhancement bonus to Armor Class directly, so I think their argument is completely justified and technically more accurate.


And while Thicken Skin isn't explicitly called out as an exception to those rules neither is Elocator; must we then rule that Elocator's class feature can't provide a bonus of that type to attack rolls because that bonus isn't "allowed" to be applied there? Obviously not. The lack of an explicit declaration of exception is no proof that it isn't an exception, and psionics in particular is "weird", often quite intentionally so.

What I find most curious about the "Modifiers" section is that it defines a modifier as a "bonus or penalty applying to a die roll." Astute readers will note that modifiers frequently apply to things that aren't die rolls, such as Armor Class, Difficulty Classes, and even movement speeds.


And yes, I understand that the wording on thicken skin's description does seem to suggest it's creating an enhancement bonus to natural armor, but as stated earlier in the thread "fluff text" means nothing, and the rules of the power are that it grants an enhancement bonus to AC directly, so that's what it does. "Skin" isn't a game term, there are no creatures with the "skinless" tag to worry about, anything and everything with psionic power can use this ability (yes, even ghosts), therefore the first bit is fluff and the comma separates the fluff from the crunch, as is typical.

I think you have to be careful with this kind of reasoning, though. There really isn't a clear and consistent way to delineate which parts of the text should be considered "fluff text" and which parts should be considered "rules text".

In this case, I agree with you that "skin" isn't being used as a game term here (although, the existence of psychoactive skins might throw a wrench in that). However, the term "natural armor" also appears in the same pre-comma clause as "skin." I've rarely, if ever, heard the term "natural armor" used outside the context of D&D rules text, so it's hard to swallow the idea that "natural armor" is being used as anything but a game term.

So, I think you have to at least concede that the distinction between "rules text" and "fluff text" is unclear here, and allow for the possibility that there really isn't one "gospel truth" for this debate.


It don't need to: Amulet of Natural Armor is created via Barkskin, and thus - by default, inherits all benefits and drawbacks of the spell (possible specific exceptions aside)

I think Darg has the right of this: the burden of proof is on you to show that a magic item inherits the benefits and drawbacks of its prerequisite spells. The rules about spell prerequisites for magic item creation (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#prerequisites) don't mention anything like that, and I'm not sure where else it would make sense for a rule like that to be hiding.

[Fiery Diamond]

Actually, regarding Natural Armor (and noting Improved Natural Armor's prerequisite of having natural armor), a creature without a listed natural armor has neither 0 nor -. They basically have both of those things: they have an "effective" natural armor of 0, which allows stuff that adds pluses to natural armor to modify the value of zero, but they have don't actually really have natural armor, which prevents them from taking anything (like Improved Natural Armor) that has a prerequisite of having natural armor.

[Kalkra]

Somebody might have said this above, but if you enchant a robe or something with a permanent Greater Luminous Armor effect, you'd have a better shot of getting away with casting Magic Vestment on it.

[Vaern]

Amulet of Natural Armor is created via Barkskin, and thus - by default, inherits all benefits and drawbacks of the spell (possible specific exceptions aside)

Yes, this is why bags of holding are so dangerous to use. Since they are created via the Secret Chest spell there is a cumulative 5% chance per day that the extradimensional space within the bag will vanish and its contents irretrievably lost if it goes unused for more than sixty days, even though this functionality is not mentioned within the item's description.

Seriously, though. An item does what its description says it does. Unless it says, "...as though affected by barkskin," it does not grant benefits and drawbacks of barkskin beyond what its description says it does.

[Crake]

Actually, regarding Natural Armor (and noting Improved Natural Armor's prerequisite of having natural armor), a creature without a listed natural armor has neither 0 nor -. They basically have both of those things: they have an "effective" natural armor of 0, which allows stuff that adds pluses to natural armor to modify the value of zero, but they have don't actually really have natural armor, which prevents them from taking anything (like Improved Natural Armor) that has a prerequisite of having natural armor.

Having 0 natural armor means you have no natural armor, the same way having 0 armor means youre not wearing any armor. Lets not overcomplicate things by trying to include “-“ values where they arent ever mentioned.

[Fiery Diamond]

Having 0 natural armor means you have no natural armor, the same way having 0 armor means youre not wearing any armor. Lets not overcomplicate things by trying to include “-“ values where they arent ever mentioned.

I know this thread is about 3.5, but in Pathfinder 1e at least, that's not quite true. Pathfinder has the Broken condition, which can reduce an Armor of 1 to 0 while you're still wearing armor. I'm no expert on the many splatbooks of 3.5, but if there is anything at all that can reduce your armor or natural armor (not just get rid of a temporary bonus), then that statement isn't true.

Also...

Another way of looking at it: a score of zero isn't a score of none. It's not in ability scores, so why would you assume it would be for literally anything else? A score of zero is "this thing, which exists, has its in-game effect set to a value of zero," while having none of something means you actually don't have that thing. In some cases, the mechanical effect is the same: lacking natural armor means that you use the value zero when you modify it, but you still don't actually have it: if I'm under the effects of barkskin, I still can't take Improved Natural Armor because I don't actually have natural armor, I have a +X modifier to natural armor. It improves my nonexistent natural armor by +X, but it doesn't actually give me an inherent natural armor to qualify for things. And I'd point and laugh at any DM who ruled that I could take the feat, but it would only apply while I was under the effects of Barkskin or wearing an amulet of natural armor.

Similarly, if you're not wearing armor, you have an armor bonus of 0... but that's not the same as wearing armor that grants you +0 to AC. Because, see, while the spell Magic Vestment allows you to augment the latter (and treats normal clothing as the latter), if you're in the nude, you can't target your nonexistent armor with the spell. Here, lacking armor is only treated as having armor of with a score of +0 if you're wearing clothes, making the mechanical effect very much not the same in all cases of having an armor bonus of 0 and having no armor. Furthermore, just like with natural armor and barkskin not qualifying you for something requiring you to have natural armor, there are things that give you armor bonuses (Mage Armor, Bracers of Armor) that don't qualify for things you need armor for - you can't enhance Bracers of Armor with Magic Vestment, for example, or add flat gp cost armor abilities to it.

[Darg]

And I'd point and laugh at any DM who ruled that I could take the feat, but it would only apply while I was under the effects of Barkskin or wearing an amulet of natural armor.

Except that's exactly what you can do in 3.5. You have natural armor as long as you have a bonus greater than 0. You are also capable of taking the TWF feat chain using magical effects to boost your dexterity. All that matters is that you meet the prerequisite at the time of selecting the feat.

[Crake]

Except that's exactly what you can do in 3.5. You have natural armor as long as you have a bonus greater than 0. You are also capable of taking the TWF feat chain using magical effects to boost your dexterity. All that matters is that you meet the prerequisite at the time of selecting the feat.

And that you meet the prerequisites when you want to USE the feat. If you have 12 dex normally, and wear +2 dex gloves, then get twf, you lose the ability to use twf when you take the gloves off.



Another way of looking at it: a score of zero isn't a score of none. It's not in ability scores, so why would you assume it would be for literally anything else?

You just kinda debunked yourself here, because yes, ability scores can have a null value, and the null values have a modifier of 0, but they cannot be modified, which would mean that natural armor, if it were null, would not be modifiable, ergo, the value must be 0, and having 0 would make you be considered as having no natural armor.

As an aside, if your armor is broken and gives no bonus, then its not armor, is it, its broken armor. Being naked is irrelevant, because we’re talking about the properties of the equipment, not yourself.

[Blue Jay]

And I'd point and laugh at any DM who ruled that I could take the feat, but it would only apply while I was under the effects of Barkskin or wearing an amulet of natural armor.

Mocking your DM when you disagree with them just makes you an entitled prick. Show some respect for the person who's putting in a lot of extra effort so you can play.

And, I'll throw in my voice with the others: there's not really a "-" value for natural armor. I think it makes sense to say you can have a natural armor bonus without having actual natural armor (I believe a value of +0 counts as a "bonus"), but trying to extrapolate that into an analog to the non-ability concept is going too far, and isn't necessary.

[Gruftzwerg]

The problem with "Natural Armor: - " would be that it prevents you from getting any NA at all. You would need an explicit call out that explicitly targets creatures with the " - " value. Just like in the case of Awaken Construct (9th!) when you want to give a construct a Constitution score.

While I could see a reason to give something like that to special creature forms like Oozes maybe, 3.5 doesn't make use of that. (Maybe an interesting houserule for "specific creatures".) There is no rule support for this.



edit: for all those that get upset when people first default to RAW when it comes to rule discussions: Here you have a good example why RAW should always be the first destination in a rule discussion (followed by possible RAI and maybe possible houserule recommendations). Otherwise there is the risk that we go overboard with assumptions about intentions and what not.
Here multiple people defaulted to RAW (without mentioning or realizing it) to counter the wrong assumptions.
RAW ain't the holy grail, nor is it evil or should be the scapegoat.
It has its place just like RAI and houserules do. (no offense intended here; just my humble observation)

[Fiery Diamond]

Except that's exactly what you can do in 3.5. You have natural armor as long as you have a bonus greater than 0. You are also capable of taking the TWF feat chain using magical effects to boost your dexterity. All that matters is that you meet the prerequisite at the time of selecting the feat.

Huh. Guess that's another difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder that I was unaware of. Check out the difference for +X enhancement bonus items for ability scores in 3.5 versus Pathfinder. There's a clause in Pathfinder that doesn't exist in 3.5: "treat this as a temporary ability bonus for the first 24 hours worn." Why would this distinction even need to be made if you could qualify for permanent aspects of your character with temporary modifiers? If you take the item off, you no longer qualify and it effectively becomes inactive, but that's only if you've worn it long enough for it to be permanent for you to qualify in the first place.

Yet another thing that Pathfinder did to improve upon the idiocy that you can find in 3.5.

Edited to add: And yes, I will point and laugh at DMs who follow RAW when it's patently absurd. And allowing someone to take Improved Natural Armor because they're under the effects of a temporary spell, which will only have the effect of increasing the bonus provided by that spell, now and in the future, because it only applies during that spell's effects... is as stupid as drown healing, in my view.

[Fiery Diamond]

And that you meet the prerequisites when you want to USE the feat. If you have 12 dex normally, and wear +2 dex gloves, then get twf, you lose the ability to use twf when you take the gloves off.



You just kinda debunked yourself here, because yes, ability scores can have a null value, and the null values have a modifier of 0, but they cannot be modified, which would mean that natural armor, if it were null, would not be modifiable, ergo, the value must be 0, and having 0 would make you be considered as having no natural armor.

As an aside, if your armor is broken and gives no bonus, then its not armor, is it, its broken armor. Being naked is irrelevant, because we’re talking about the properties of the equipment, not yourself.

1) Ability score null values have a modifier of zero, they aren't zero themselves, which completely ruins your "0 is none, none is 0." Or are you going to say that having an Intelligence of 10 means you have no Intelligence? Because that's completely wrong.

2) You're making a distinction that doesn't exist between armor and broken armor. Broken armor is in fact armor, and can be targeted by things that target armor. It is neither normal clothing (which can be affected by things like Magic Vestment) nor an object that isn't armor and provides no armor bonus like a necklace or something (which cannot be affected) nor an object that isn't armor and provides an armor bonus like Bracers of Armor (which cannot be affected).

3) The only reason you can modify things with no natural armor to add natural armor bonus is because there's a specific callout somewhere in the rules saying that having no natural armor is treated as an effective natural armor score of 0. If that line didn't exist in barkskin (I don't know if it does anywhere else, but assuming it also didn't anywhere else), then you couldn't.