Does an Amulet of Natural Armor stack with a creature's Natural Armor bonus? For instance, if a minotaur were to wear an Amulet of Natural Armor, would it stack with his "racial" Natural Armor by being a minotaur?
I have a player who insists it does, adding that the Amulet of Natural Armor is like an Enhancement bonus on armor for instance. However, in reading the description of an Amulet of Natural Armor I cannot find anything that suggests this. My initial reaction was they do not stack...if a creature had a higher Natural Armor from a racial ability, then wearing an Amulet of Natural Armor would do nothing...Kind of like someone casting Mage Armor on someone with Plate Mail.
Any help would be appreciated....
|
No, it shouldn't stack together. Its like wearing armor and having mage armor cast upon you, you take whichever bonus is higher and the other is ignored until the item is removed.
It goes that was for pretty much any bonus type(natural, deflection, divine, ect) except for dodge bonuses. I think that racial and manuever bonuses fall into that category too, though that is off my head and I don't have the book open in front of me.
An amulet of natural armor basically works like the spell Barkskin, in magic item form. And Barkskin provides an Enhancement bonus to Natural Armor.
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.
EDIT: Better than that, the description for the Amulet of Natural Armor itself says that it grants an Enhancement bonus.
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.
|
|
I just looked up the two rules mentioned above, and while he is correct that barkskin provides an enhancement bonus specifically above that of the creatures normal bonus the amulet doesn't state that. In my campaign I wouldn't allow the two to stack, but that reference does bring up a valid argument for the opposite so I would say it would be up to the DM.
This could be a good point of debate simply because natural armor on most creatures would likely be considered a 'racial bonus' which does stack.
(From the SRD)
Bonus Types: Usually, a bonus has a type that indicates how the spell grants the bonus. The important aspect of bonus types is that two bonuses of the same type don’t generally stack. With the exception of dodge bonuses, most circumstance bonuses, and racial bonuses, only the better bonus works (see Combining Magical Effects, below). The same principle applies to penalties—a character taking two or more penalties of the same type applies only the worst one.
Stacking Effects: Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes usually do not stack with themselves.
More generally, two bonuses of the same type don’t stack even if they come from different spells (or from effects other than spells; see Bonus Types, above).
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths: In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies.
No, it shouldn't stack together. Its like wearing armor and having mage armor cast upon you, you take whichever bonus is higher and the other is ignored until the item is removed.
Actually, it'd be more like wearing armor and having Magic Vestment cast on you, since it provides an enhancement bonus to natural armor, not just a flat natural armor bonus.
The natural armour bonus of monsters is untyped. The amulet provides an enhancement bonus to natural armour.
Untyped bonus's always stack with typed. So an amulet stacks with a creature that already has a natural armour bonus.
|
It is quite clear (both explicitly, from the item description, and implicitly, from the source spell description) that these stack.
It's also not exactly game-breaking to let (say) a 9th level caster raise someone's AC by 3. It hardly makes anyone immune to damage. Even without taking into account touch attacks, incorporeal attacks, area effects, grapple, trip, etc, the opponents can just magically increase their weapon bonuses.
And don't forget, the fighter-types are raising their attack bonuses by 3 times that rate, before you even consider feats; heck, even a wizard raises his attack rolls by 150% the rate that barkskin can raise an enemy AC!
When you cast Magic Vestment (caster level 8) on a suit of full plate, you don't make the wearer choose between the +2 enhancement bonus OR the +8 armour bonus, do you?
No, because they stack; one ENHANCES the other.
Disallowing the combo above (on the grounds that the recipient already had a natural armour score) would make about as much sense as disallowing Bull Strength to be cast on a creature with a Strength score....
The only things that do not stack as far as I can tell from the rules are like bonuses such as two morale bonuses to hit and the like. If you armor bonuses are not the same type then they stack. Mage Armor in the spell says it acts as armor so it does not stack with armor for instance. Things that aren't clearly typed in this manner do cause confusion, but any gm will assign it a category until some posting makes it clear. In your example; I see no reason why they would not add.
An enhancement bonus stacks with anything except another enhancement bonus to the same property, in this case natural armour. Thus if I play a lizardfolk with +5 natural armour and buy an Amulet of Natural Armor, I can give myself even more natural armour. It makes for a lot of armor class but then I did pay a level adjustment to get to be a lizardfolk and a lot of money to get the amulet.
Creative Director
|
In the 3.0 rules, bonuses to natural armor from amulets, barkskin, and other magical sources did not stack with a creature's natural armor. As a result, amulets of natural armor rarely appeared in adventures as part of a monster's gear.
To address this fact, in the 3.5 rules, the bonus granted from an amulet of natural armor, barkskin, and similar sources is now treated as an enhancement bonus to existing natural armor. Thus, a monster with a natural armor bonus could wear and benefit from an amulet of natural armor.
This can certainly impact the difficulty of an encounter, but no more so than having a monster with high natural armor wear a suit of armor or wield a shield. In many cases, monsters can't wield shields, and even wearing armor is unusual (or just plain silly; an iron golem can wear a suit of plate mail and gain a +8 AC bonus, but it looks goofy); for these monsters, the amulet of natural armor is now a viable option.
In the 3.0 rules, bonuses to natural armor from amulets, barkskin, and other magical sources did not stack with a creature's natural armor. As a result, amulets of natural armor rarely appeared in adventures as part of a monster's gear.
To address this fact, in the 3.5 rules, the bonus granted from an amulet of natural armor, barkskin, and similar sources is now treated as an enhancement bonus to existing natural armor. Thus, a monster with a natural armor bonus could wear and benefit from an amulet of natural armor.
This can certainly impact the difficulty of an encounter, but no more so than having a monster with high natural armor wear a suit of armor or wield a shield. In many cases, monsters can't wield shields, and even wearing armor is unusual (or just plain silly; an iron golem can wear a suit of plate mail and gain a +8 AC bonus, but it looks goofy); for these monsters, the amulet of natural armor is now a viable option.
Thanks for the help guys, I think I was remembering back to my 3.0 days, lol. I realize now that the two should stack!