Do Nat Armor bonuses require some Nat armor to apply?

Gm recently made a ruling based on some questionable wording of the Natural Armor rules and various effects, that unless something that grants an Enhancement Bonus to Nat Armor explicitly says you have an effective bonus of +0 like with Barkskin or Ironskin, then you need to have at least 1 Natural Armor before any enhancement bonuses apply. The object in question was an amulet of natural armor.

Is there any place in the rules that can point out if this is or is not the case explicitly?

you quoted the only thing you need, barkskin. the rule in barkskin that "A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0" is a general rule not a specific rule about barkskin. which means as a human for example you have natural armor +0

thats why barkskin and ironskin both have that rule in them, it is so you know that all creatures have at least +0 natural armor bonus. again, it is not a unique rule about those two spells only, it is a general rule that they are just restating.

Lets start by looking a few things up

Amulet of Natural Armor
This amulet, usually containing some type of magically preserved monster hide or other natural armor—such as bone, horn, carapace, or beast scales—toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet.

So by the description you need to have natural armor to use the amulet. So, if the character doesn't have natural armor they cannot use the item. All the item does is add a enchantment bonus to the natural armor of the user from +1 to +5.

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

Right... They did not make this one to clear. Ok you have to have a tough hide to start with, or natural armor. Anything that add to AC can add to Natural armor bonuses, including spells. Wearing armor over natural armor also adds the armors bonus, the armor cannot be another set of natural armor though. and it doesn't help against touch attacks.

Ok,
Now for the question:

Gm recently made a ruling based on some questionable wording of the Natural Armor rules and various effects, that unless something that grants an Enhancement Bonus to Nat Armor explicitly says you have an effective bonus of +0 like with Barkskin or Ironskin, then you need to have at least 1 Natural Armor before any enhancement bonuses apply. The object in question was an amulet of natural armor.

I would say he is right YOU need to have natural Armor to use the amulet, lots of races have natural armor. Lizard folk have tough scaly skin, granting them a +1 natural armor bonus. If you are a race without it well look at the bright side at least you will have plenty of money after selling it.

So by the description you need to have natural armor to use the amulet. So, if the character doesn't have natural armor they cannot use the item. All the item does is add a enchantment bonus to the natural armor of the user from +1 to +5.

That's clearly wrong, as even if a natural armor enhancement required an natural armor score to begin with (it doesn't) the amulet is made with Barkskin so would follow the same rules.

For confirmation, see basically any NPC wearing an AoNA in any published book.

For example

or here

Other threads have covered the same question with the same answer.

Here

or here

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

GotAFarmYet? wrote:

So by the description you need to have natural armor to use the amulet. So, if the character doesn't have natural armor they cannot use the item. All the item does is add a enchantment bonus to the natural armor of the user from +1 to +5.

That's clearly wrong, as even if a natural armor enhancement required an natural armor score to begin with (it doesn't) the amulet is made with Barkskin so would follow the same rules.

For confirmation, see basically any NPC wearing an AoNA in any published book.

For example

or here

Other threads have covered the same question with the same answer.

Here

or here

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

LOL,

That is amazing!

I will also agree the rule for natural armor doesn't say if you all have one at +0 or not. It simple doesn't state anything about people without out natural armor race trait. The thing everyone avoided is when did you pay the 1 RP to have natural Armor +0 that was not offered to any class or race. So if they are wearing the Amulet their skin hardens, what is the penalty for that.
This amulet, usually containing some type of magically preserved monster hide or other natural armor. I would make their skin resemble the material when they use it, it would only be fair they got a racial trait for free after all. Skin is not natural armor like scales or a shell, but what ever its a game

But is still looks like people are basing how a magic item should work because of a spell. I can buy that as possible because then the magic item is basically a spell on a item.

Lets start by looking a few things up

Amulet of Natural Armor
This amulet, usually containing some type of magically preserved monster hide or other natural armor—such as bone, horn, carapace, or beast scales—toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet.

So by the description you need to have natural armor to use the amulet. So, if the character doesn't have natural armor they cannot use the item. All the item does is add a enchantment bonus to the natural armor of the user from +1 to +5.

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

Right... They did not make this one to clear. Ok you have to have a tough hide to start with, or natural armor. Anything that add to AC can add to Natural armor bonuses, including spells. Wearing armor over natural armor also adds the armors bonus, the armor cannot be another set of natural armor though. and it doesn't help against touch attacks.

Ok,
Now for the question:

Seraphem wrote:

Gm recently made a ruling based on some questionable wording of the Natural Armor rules and various effects, that unless something that grants an Enhancement Bonus to Nat Armor explicitly says you have an effective bonus of +0 like with Barkskin or Ironskin, then you need to have at least 1 Natural Armor before any enhancement bonuses apply. The object in question was an amulet of natural armor.

I would say he is right YOU need to have natural Armor to use the amulet, lots of races have...

your wrong.

GotAFarmYet? wrote:

Lets start by looking a few things up

Amulet of Natural Armor
This amulet, usually containing some type of magically preserved monster hide or other natural armor—such as bone, horn, carapace, or beast scales—toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet.

So by the description you need to have natural armor to use the amulet. So, if the character doesn't have natural armor they cannot use the item. All the item does is add a enchantment bonus to the natural armor of the user from +1 to +5.

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

Right... They did not make this one to clear. Ok you have to have a tough hide to start with, or natural armor. Anything that add to AC can add to Natural armor bonuses, including spells. Wearing armor over natural armor also adds the armors bonus, the armor cannot be another set of natural armor though. and it doesn't help against touch attacks.

Ok,
Now for the question:

Seraphem wrote:

Gm recently made a ruling based on some questionable wording of the Natural Armor rules and various effects, that unless something that grants an Enhancement Bonus to Nat Armor explicitly says you have an effective bonus of +0 like with Barkskin or Ironskin, then you need to have at least 1 Natural Armor before any enhancement bonuses apply. The object in question was an amulet of natural armor.

I would say he is right YOU need to have natural Armor to use the

...

How so you have no argument or present any facts to support your statement. You have basically stated nothing

vhok wrote:

GotAFarmYet? wrote:

Lets start by looking a few things up

Amulet of Natural Armor
This amulet, usually containing some type of magically preserved monster hide or other natural armor—such as bone, horn, carapace, or beast scales—toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet.

So by the description you need to have natural armor to use the amulet. So, if the character doesn't have natural armor they cannot use the item. All the item does is add a enchantment bonus to the natural armor of the user from +1 to +5.

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

Right... They did not make this one to clear. Ok you have to have a tough hide to start with, or natural armor. Anything that add to AC can add to Natural armor bonuses, including spells. Wearing armor over natural armor also adds the armors bonus, the armor cannot be another set of natural armor though. and it doesn't help against touch attacks.

Ok,
Now for the question:

Seraphem wrote:

Gm recently made a ruling based on some questionable wording of the Natural Armor rules and various effects, that unless something that grants an Enhancement Bonus to Nat Armor explicitly says you have an effective bonus of +0 like with Barkskin or Ironskin, then you need to have at least 1 Natural Armor before any enhancement bonuses apply. The object in question was an amulet of natural armor.

I would say he is right YOU need to have

...

giving arguments to you seems like screaming at a wall so i didn't bother.

@ vhok
Really All I did was present what was in the books and made a opinion on it. Jakken present how it was handled in other posts and placed example of how it work.

I agreed with Jakken that if it is a spelled item then it was possible but it should have a side effect to those without natural armor. Either case it is a unwritten rule or even a House rule to consider everyone has a natural armor without paying for it.

@ vhok

Really All I did was present what was in the books and made a opinion on it. Jakken present how it was handled in other posts and placed example of how it work.

I agreed with Jakken that if it is a spelled item then it was possible but it should have a side effect to those without natural armor. Either case it is a unwritten rule or even a House rule to consider everyone has a natural armor without paying for it.

its a house rule to use a rule that's written in spells so people know that races without natural armor have a natural armor value of +0 and therefore can use enhancement bonuses to natural armor. house rule.... house rule...

screaming at a wall.

How so you have no argument or present any facts to support your statement. You have basically stated nothing

Because the argument was already made, you decided to discard it writhing a wall of text that basically says "I refuse that a general rule is a general rule".

its a house rule to use a rule that's written in spells so people know that races without natural armor have a natural armor value of +0 and therefore can use enhancement bonuses to natural armor. house rule.... house rule...

screaming at a wall.

A rule repeated in several spells, and none of them says that it is a rule limited to that spell.

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

Nowhere it says "for this spell".

If we accept your logic, the Natural Armor Increase of the Dragon disciple does nothing unless you are a member of a race with a natural armor of +1 or more (none of those in the CRB where that prestige class appears) as it says "At 1st, 4th, and 7th level, a dragon disciple
gains an increase to the character’s existing natural armor (if any)".
As you say that a natural armor of 0 is actually a natural armor of - (non existing stat) it is not possible to add something to it.

Another example is the Homunculus

This creature does not have any natural armor and yet it can be modified in the following way.

Toughened Hide: By adding diamond dust and cold iron to the homunculus, a crafter can increase its natural armor bonus to AC by 1, 2, or 3. Price: +1,000 gp (+1), +4,000 gp (+2), or +9,000 gp (+3).

This only works if we treat it's natural armor as being 0 instead of -

For confirmation, see basically any NPC wearing an AoNA in any published book.

For example

or here

Feel like this part here is pretty irrefutable. The characters/creatures officially created by the designers and writers follow the more intuitive side of this argument (more intuitive in my opinion). Why twist semantics and make an overly-long argument to oppose not only 99% of players in the game, but also the designers of the game on an issue that's so minor that it's almost negligible?

Gm recently made a ruling based on some questionable wording of the Natural Armor rules and various effects, that unless something that grants an Enhancement Bonus to Nat Armor explicitly says you have an effective bonus of +0 like with Barkskin or Ironskin, then you need to have at least 1 Natural Armor before any enhancement bonuses apply. The object in question was an amulet of natural armor.

Is there any place in the rules that can point out if this is or is not the case explicitly?

Yeah this seems like a case of your GM either not understanding the rules or just wanting to deny bonuses.

Everybody is treated as having natural armor bonus of +0 if they do not otherwise have natural armor. An amulet of natural armor works just fine for everyone.

If nothing else, look at an example of high level NPCs., like this one. Either Paizo published an NPC that couldn't use the item they included, or you don't need to have natural armor to use the amulet.

Seraphem wrote:

Gm recently made a ruling based on some questionable wording of the Natural Armor rules and various effects, that unless something that grants an Enhancement Bonus to Nat Armor explicitly says you have an effective bonus of +0 like with Barkskin or Ironskin, then you need to have at least 1 Natural Armor before any enhancement bonuses apply. The object in question was an amulet of natural armor.

Is there any place in the rules that can point out if this is or is not the case explicitly?

Yeah this seems like a case of your GM either not understanding the rules or just wanting to deny bonuses.

Everybody is treated as having natural armor bonus of +0 if they do not otherwise have natural armor. An amulet of natural armor works just fine for everyone.

If nothing else, look at an example of high level NPCs., like this one. Either Paizo published an NPC that couldn't use the item they included, or you don't need to have natural armor to use the amulet.

I think there are some very limited exceptions. Incorporeal creatures can't have natural armor bonuses to AC, maybe there are other cases.

BTW, it is another thing that support other creatures having a natural armor class of 0 when it is not listed, as the incorporeal description calls specifically that the creature as no natural armor bonus. If that was the norm there wouldn't be the need to call that out.

An incorporeal creature has no natural armor bonus, but it has a deflection bonus equal to its Charisma bonus (always at least +1, even if the creature’s Charisma score does not normally provide a bonus).

Creatures have a natural armor of 0.

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

Is a general rule. The barskin spell is merely reminding us of that fact.

Compare that to the magic vestment spell which uses this language.

An outfit of regular clothing counts as armor that grants no AC bonus for the purpose of this spell.

Or the more explicit language in the haste spell that haste increases your ability to jump.

This increase counts as an enhancement bonus, and it affects the creature’s jumping distance as normal for increased speed.

Lots of a spells refer to general rules as reminders. A few spells make specific rules for the purpose of that spell (i.e. magic vestment).

Well I would like to thank you guys that brought this back to a discussion level
Thank You

Now for the Magic Item I will admit I read the description wrong and missed one important point, and was wrong about the AoNA

toughens the wearer’s body and flesh  the point being Flesh.

It states it magically increases the toughness of the Flesh. As you all point out in a MAGIC spell, “A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0”. That follows logic, so in terms of Magic this is all a valid argument and I agree with it.

In terms of characters and Classes does it stand as valid?
Does the Natural Armor of +0 apply to characters without paying the creation fee RP or whatever when we develop the character?

What is Natural Armor:
A natural armor bonus improves armor class resulting from a creature’s naturally tough hide. Natural armor bonuses stack with all other bonuses to armor class (even with armor bonuses) except other natural armor bonuses. Some magical effects (such as the barkskin spell) grant an enhancement bonus to the creature’s existing natural armor bonus, which has the effect of increasing the natural armor’s overall bonus to armor class. A natural armor bonus doesn’t apply against touch attacks.
Seems they are talking more of Monsters and Creatures than Player Characters. Either way the rule does not support or deny the statement “A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0”. An example is if you have a natural Armor of +0 then why can you not take the Improved Natural Armor Feat. Saying because it is for Monsters does not apply if you state everyone has a Natural Armor Rating of 0. The feat description would allow it. It would allow it the same way a spells description allows a everyone to have NA.

Diego Rossi
The Dragon Disciple example actually fits my statement that there should be a Cost to have it. You pay for the prestige class as part of the character development. At the very lease it is a part of the Class Features which means you can simply say anyone selecting this class develops Natural Armor. It also has a hand in Magic going back to the first point of Magic allows it.
Lord Kailas
The Homunculus is a magic construct and can follow the rules in magic that state they can have a NA of +0.

RAWmonger
In terms of Magic I agree with you 100% and that is the issue now.

Everyone has only brought up that according to Magics Descriptions in spells. The descriptions are there to explain how the spell operates and the rules that they allow you to modify while under that spell. They could be considered Rules for Magic but are not always general rules. If you apply the same logic, then the Feat I mentioned also works for everyone and I doubt you all will agree to that.

Improved Natural Armor is an artifact from older versions of the game. D&D 3.0 didn't have the rule solidified that "A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0." It was assumed to be true by some, but others thought you had to have a positive natural armor to benefit from things like barkskin or an amulet of natural armor. That text was added in 3.5 to end the argument and Pathfinder was largely copy and pasted from 3.5. But as we've seen, inconsistencies trickled down.

So yes, technically anyone, with a Con 13, can take the improved natural armor feat, but that's just because the rules changed and solidified over time and other text didn't always change to match the new paradigm. Improved Natural Armor is probably intended to require a natural armor of +1 or more, but no one ever bothered to go and make that change in the actual rules. PFS sidestepped the issue just by making that feat not a legal choice for PCs.

I am not sure how far you can generalize the statement in Barkskin, as you would only look it up if casting that spell or creating a magic item that has that spell as a prerequisite.

On that basis, the Amulet of Natural Armor should work for any creature (as confirmed by numerous NPC stat blocks), but I would not go so far as to say anyone can qualify for the Improved Natural Armor feat.

The location of the addition is because of the timing of that text in the life of the product. It needed to be added to 3.5 from 3.0 and that was just the most convenient place for them to stick it. Since, the amulet of natural armor is based on the barkskin spell, it's assumed you'd research one when making the other. Maybe not the best game design, but it made sense in context.

Thanks Melkiador,
At least things make sense now.

Personally to resolve the conflict is that as a spell or spell based Item under the laws of magic its works. There is not Natural Armor +0 outside of magic. As for the Classes that allow it you don't have to have natural armor if the class features add it, as you pay for it in the build of the character. I also would not allow the feat to go to anyone out side of monsters that have a Natural Armor.

I would say that the fact that dwarves and half orcs have special racial feats to get natural armor suggests that the improved natural armor feat should not be generally available.

Improved Natural Armor is a monster feat, so we're already in muddy waters.

I just can't understand any argument as to why the amulet wouldn't work.

enhancement: noun. an increase or improvement in quality, value, or extent.

What is a human's natural armor bonus? They receive neither a bonus or a penalty, so the numerical value is 0.

And what happens when you increase 0 by +1? It becomes the value 1.

There is no such ruling anywhere that would suggest otherwise, unlike the values for Strength, Constitution and Intelligence in the case of incorporeal creatures, constructs or mindless ones. If no natural armor meant "--" instead of "0", there would be some kind of written explanation declaring such. Since we don't have that, we're just left with basic math.

Thanks Melkiador,

At least things make sense now.

Personally to resolve the conflict is that as a spell or spell based Item under the laws of magic its works. There is not Natural Armor +0 outside of magic. As for the Classes that allow it you don't have to have natural armor if the class features add it, as you pay for it in the build of the character. I also would not allow the feat to go to anyone out side of monsters that have a Natural Armor.

You seem to be distinguishing things in a way that Pathfinder does not. It doesn't matter if an enhancement is magic based or not it gets treated the same way. This is why the enhancement bonus from masterwork doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus for being a magic weapon. They are treated the same.

A bonus to natural armor is the same way it doesn't matter if it's from magic or not, it either applies or it doesn't.

Improved natural armor is worse then dodge so it doesn't bother me at all that by raw anyone can take it.

You seem to be distinguishing things in a way that Pathfinder does not. It doesn't matter if an enhancement is magic based or not it gets treated the same way. This is why the enhancement bonus from masterwork doesn't stack with the enhancement bonus for being a magic weapon. They are treated the same.

A bonus to natural armor is the same way it doesn't matter if it's from magic or not, it either applies or it doesn't.

Improved natural armor is worse then dodge so it doesn't bother me at all that by raw anyone can take it.

No I just found many contradictory entries. It all came down to poor editing and a changing rule system a few times

Amulet of Natural Armor
This amulet, usually containing some type of magically preserved monster hide or other natural armor—such as bone, horn, carapace, or beast scales—toughens the wearer’s body and flesh, giving him an enhancement bonus to his natural armor from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet.

If it had been written:
Amulet of Natural Armor
This amulet, usually containing some type of magically preserved monster hide or other natural armor—such as bone, horn, carapace, or beast scales. This material magically gives the wearer an enhancement bonus to his armor class from +1 to +5, depending on the kind of amulet.

And none of this would have ever happened.
Natural Armor would basically been a Monster Trait, that shows in a few Classes

So the problem with that last bit is that armor bonuses don't stack. So the amulet of natural armor +1 (which costs 2k) would not stack with the +1 on your magic armor (which costs 1k).

I get what you're saying, but the problem is that because natural armor has "leaked", you could say, into a few player races and classes, you now have to be as absolutely consistent as possible about item and ability interactions (are you an experienced 5E player, perhaps, where they make very clear from WHERE armor class is derived, whether it be plate mail or leather or natural armor?). I need to know if my Changeling Witch, who already starts with +1 natural armor, but who also chose the Iceplant hex, has +2 or +3 in the end to her natural armor, and if an amulet (or just the barkskin spell, since I believe that's a patron spell) also stacks.

TL;DR: feature creep in 3.x? Yep. Need for greater clarity as a result? Also yep.

I'd be very leery about disallowing a member of the Big 6 in the game. It's a staple item for martial characters to keep their AC up.

Probably the most obvious link is that Barkskin is used to create an Amulet of Natural Armor.

No I just found many contradictory entries. It all came down to poor editing and a changing rule system a few times

Poor editing I'll agree with.

I've never considered natural armor to be a "monster trait" because barkskin and the associated amulet of natural armor have been around since the 3.0 edition of the D&D player's handbook. These are the things that introduced me to the idea of natural armor and its always been a player option. In earlier editions barkskin just gave armor and the armor it gave you didn't stack with other kinds of armor (it was basically a scaling version of mage armor).

The only inconsistency I see is the improved natural armor feat and so I did some research. This feat only fails to make sense because pathfinder changed it's pre-reqs. into something that is otherwise inconsistent with the way natural armor works. The pre-pathfinder version of the feat is as follows.

Improved Natural Armor

[General]
Your skin is even tougher than that of most of your kind.
Prerequisite: Racially granted natural armor.
Benefit: Your racially granted natural armor bonus increases by +1.
Special: A character can gain this feat multiple times. Each
time the character gains this feat, his natural armor improves by
an additional +1.

The book this feat comes out if was a splatbook that added a bunch of new options for PC races. So, it was absolutely intended for players to take.

However, in this case the question is "Does your race grant you natural armor?" if the answer is yes then you can take the feat, otherwise you can't. It doesn't matter if you're getting natural armor from another source (such as a class or feat). In fact it doesn't even matter if your natural armor is +0 or +10, all that matters is if you get natural armor from your race. The pathfinder version of the feat tries to be less restrictive, but because of the way it was edited, it makes it more widely available then was intended.

The Faerun quote is interesting. The OGL version only says, “Natural Armor, Con 13”, so I assume that’s where Paizo got it.

The Faerun quote is interesting. The OGL version only says, “Natural Armor, Con 13”, so I assume that’s where Paizo got it.

yeah, I found the pathfinder wording on the hyperlink d20srd but there wasn't a reference to where it came from so I dug around further until I found a reference to the feat coming from races of ferun.

Improved natural armor doesn't seem to be part of the original OGL System Reference Documentation

While it seems that races of faerun was the original printing of the feat, prior to pathfinder it was reprinted in Monster Manual III and the 3.5 Monster Manual. Wotc not paizo seems to be the source of the poor editing. As in these sources it lists the pre-requisites as Natural armor and con 13.

This is another case of pathfinder just copying and pasting something from an earlier source.

Good investigating, LK.

Regardless, as LK mentioned earlier, it's not really a big deal to let PCs take that feat anyway. It's slightly worse than dodge, except you can take it multiple times. I don't think it would break anyone's game to allow it, so I don't think we need to jump through any hoops to make it not work.

Good investigating, LK.

Regardless, as LK mentioned earlier, it's not really a big deal to let PCs take that feat anyway. It's slightly worse than dodge, except you can take it multiple times. I don't think it would break anyone's game to allow it, so I don't think we need to jump through any hoops to make it not work.

I can Agree to all that, and thanks LK.

No if anyone needs to run the hoops or roasted over the fire it is the Editing staff at Pathfinders. The game is so large now that all the little errors are starting to get out of hand. It now is requiring too many house rules or assumptions to make it work.

Paizo has never really been great at rule writing. Most of the core rules are just copy and pasted from open source, with little house rules added here and there. And they are extremely reluctant to correct or address mistakes, sometimes with good reason, as it's time intensive and not always a good return on investment.

Paizo does a better job in the areas of storytelling and world building. That seems to be where their focus is.