I have a player in my game who has taken the improved natural armor feat from the Bestiary three times. I like to play by RAW. Is it allowable for a pc to take a feat from the Bestiary?
Normally PCs do not qualify for the feat as they do not have natural armour.
The bestiary defaults to off limits to PCs so the answer to that is 'ask your DM'.
if you do want to limit your player i would tell them they can only take it a number of times equal to their Con modifier, if he has already gone past that then tell them they cant take it anymore unless their con goes up.
i personally don't see a problem with taking improved natural armor, there are ways to get around it and remember every time he takes it he isn't taking an offensive feat.
There are like 3 other feats that basically give you +1 AC each (dodge, shield focus, ironhide). And while those 3 feats have more limiting requirements, I wouldn't mind a player spending 3 feats for +3 AC. As others have said, there are more power- and useful feats he's not getting instead.
Thanks everyone. I don't have a problem with him taking it really, I just wondered it if was allowed under Pathfinder rules. This player is always pushing the boundaries of legality, which is fine,as long as he stays on the side of legal.
|
Technically, by RAW, he cannot take Improved Natural Armor at all. It is defined as a monster feat, and thus by RAW is not available to PCs.
If you want to allow PCs to take monster feats (something that many posters on these boards are perfectly okay with, as the feats themselves are balanced), the Character needs to meet the perquisites of the feat: he must have a natural armor bonus.
Assuming he's one of the Core races or one of the Zero HD Monster races from the Bestiary/Bestiary 2, he has a base natural armor of "N/A" (unless he's a kobold). In D&D 3.5, this was understood to be the same as having a natural armor of "+0", but this is no longer the case in pathfinder, so he does not meet the prerequisites of the feat.
You as the GM may of course house rule this; stacking the Improved Natural Armor feat is an incredible waste of feats generally speaking, even for turtle-fighters or dodge-monks; there are much better ways of increasing AC.
Alternatively, if he is a Dwarf or a Half-Orc, he may take a feat from the APG that gives him a +1 natural armor bonus, or he could play a kobold.
Incidentally, having an Amulet of Natural Armor does not allow the PC to take Improved Natural Armor, either, and not because the bonus comes from a magic item - using items to meet the perquisites of feats is perfectly legal by RAW, just remember that the feat turns off if the character no longer meet the requirements.
The Amulet of Natural Armor does not work in this case because it doesn't grant a natural armor bonus, it grants a enhancement bonus to natural armor. The flip side, of course, is that the amulet stacks with the feat, which is nice if he can figure out how to get it.
EDIT: again, as others and myself have repeatedly said, there is nothing mechanically wrong with letting a player take this feat over and over and over again; far from unbalancing, it's actually a bad idea on the whole, as there are much better feat choices.
It's just that you asked if it was allowed under RAW, and it's not (it's several layers of not, actually,as I've explained). Fair and balanced? yes. Reasonable house rule? definitely. But not allowed under strict RAW.
Technically, by RAW, he cannot take Improved Natural Armor at all. It is defined as a monster feat, and thus by RAW is not available to PCs.
The monster feat chapter does not state that PCs cannot take them. In fact it states that player characters might qualify for them. That is the most RAW there is, but the should be heavily weighed by the GM.
Assuming he's one of the Core races or one of the Zero HD Monster races from the Bestiary/Bestiary 2, he has a base natural armor of "N/A" (unless he's a kobold). In D&D 3.5, this was understood to be the same as having a natural armor of "+0", but this is no longer the case in pathfinder, so he does not meet the prerequisites of the feat.
Where has this been stated (or even implied)?
If the natural armor bonus of normal characters are "N/A" then amulet of natural armor shouldn't have any affect. It is similar to the fact that you are unable to put an armor enhancement bonus on a normal piece of clothing.I don't disagree that the character need to have a natural armor bonus of +1 or more to take the feat. Having natural armor +0 does not constitute having natural armor.
Technically, by RAW, he cannot take Improved Natural Armor at all. It is defined as a monster feat, and thus by RAW is not available to PCs.
If you want to allow PCs to take monster feats (something that many posters on these boards are perfectly okay with, as the feats themselves are balanced), the Character needs to meet the perquisites of the feat: he must have a natural armor bonus.
Assuming he's one of the Core races or one of the Zero HD Monster races from the Bestiary/Bestiary 2, he has a base natural armor of "N/A" (unless he's a kobold). In D&D 3.5, this was understood to be the same as having a natural armor of "+0", but this is no longer the case in pathfinder, so he does not meet the prerequisites of the feat.
You as the GM may of course house rule this; stacking the Improved Natural Armor feat is an incredible waste of feats generally speaking, even for turtle-fighters or dodge-monks; there are much better ways of increasing AC.
Alternatively, if he is a Dwarf or a Half-Orc, he may take a feat from the APG that gives him a +1 natural armor bonus, or he could play a kobold.
Incidentally, having an Amulet of Natural Armor does not allow the PC to take Improved Natural Armor, either, and not because the bonus comes from a magic item - using items to meet the perquisites of feats is perfectly legal by RAW, just remember that the feat turns off if the character no longer meet the requirements.
The Amulet of Natural Armor does not work in this case because it doesn't grant a natural armor bonus, it grants a enhancement bonus to natural armor. The flip side, of course, is that the amulet stacks with the feat, which is nice if he can figure out how to get it.
EDIT: again, as others and myself have repeatedly said, there is nothing mechanically wrong with letting a player take this feat over and over and over again; far from unbalancing, it's actually a bad idea on the whole, as there are much better feat choices....
I agree on a lot of what you say, especially about him needing natural,armor to begin with. I am leaning towards not allowing it. I just wanted to get other peoples opinions on it. Thank you very much.
I would suggest just having him switch the feats from what he has to the other ones that people have mentioned that help raise AC. This way he keeps his AC just with a different (more legal) feat name.
Unless he has all those feats already, which could cause a new different issue.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If the natural armor bonus of normal characters are "N/A" then amulet of natural armor shouldn't have any affect. It is similar to the fact that you are unable to put an armor enhancement bonus on a normal piece of clothing.
That is my understanding as well. One of the distinctions between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder is the way the amulet of natural armor does not increase the AC of a PFRPG character who didn't already have a natural armor bonus to its AC.
That is my understanding as well. One of the distinctions between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder is the way the amulet of natural armor does not increase the AC of a PFRPG character who didn't already have a natural armor bonus to its AC.
...!! Seriously?
If the natural armor bonus of normal characters are "N/A" then amulet of natural armor shouldn't have any affect. It is similar to the fact that you are unable to put an armor enhancement bonus on a normal piece of clothing.That is my understanding as well. One of the distinctions between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder is the way the amulet of natural armor does not increase the AC of a PFRPG character who didn't already have a natural armor bonus to its AC.
Yes it does. Under the description of the barkskin spell, which is used to make an amulet of natural armor, it states that "A creature without a natural armor bonus has an effective natural armor bonus of +0."
I very much doubt that to be true, since I seen quite a few NPC's with no natural armor and an amulet of natural armor. It is just that the feat says you need natural armor to take the feat, it is like saying you need to wear armor, in this case your robe of armor +0 wouldnt count either.
I just cross-referenced this with published NPCs in the Serpent Skull adventure path. In the second part (Racing to Ruin) on page 14 is a human barbarian with a +1 bonus to AC from natural armor that comes from his amulet of natural armor +1.
|
|
One of the distinctions between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder is the way the amulet of natural armor does not increase the AC of a PFRPG character who didn't already have a natural armor bonus to its AC.
I'm pretty sure that's just plain wrong. Also, I'm pretty sure you can't give a page reference to back up your statement.
Players have a natural armor of +0. An amulet of natural armor is an enhancment bonus to natural armor. As is the spell Barkskin. An enhancement bonus has no effect on something that is not there to enhance. +1 to Talynonyx
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.
And, it is unusual for players to take feats from the Bestiary. I think that it even says (either in the CORE or bestiary) that it is up to DM discretion if this is allowed at your game.
|
Yes it does. Under the description of the barkskin spell, which is used to make an amulet of natural armor, it states that "A creature without a natural armor bonus has an effective natural armor bonus of +0."If the natural armor bonus of normal characters are "N/A" then amulet of natural armor shouldn't have any affect. It is similar to the fact that you are unable to put an armor enhancement bonus on a normal piece of clothing.That is my understanding as well. One of the distinctions between D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder is the way the amulet of natural armor does not increase the AC of a PFRPG character who didn't already have a natural armor bonus to its AC.
I agree that the amulet of natural armor works as intended and as applied to many published NPCs.
edit: Having an effective natural armour bonus for the purpose of barkskin is not the same as having actual natural armour for the purpose of feat prerequisites.
And, it is unusual for players to take feats from the Bestiary. I think that it even says (either in the CORE or bestiary) that it is up to DM discretion if this is allowed at your game.
The Monster Feats appendix says that some player characters might qualify for the feats therein, though most of them apply to monsters (Bestiary p. 314). In most cases it's not a legal source for PFS.