| CombatDoctor |
Hi,
I've been having an on and off debate with one of my players about an interaction between a pair of feats that is ambiguous/grey area, that he believes is rules-legal, and that I do not.
Armor in Earth lets a Kineticist spend an action to create "medium armor" that suppresses your worn armor but replicates any applicable runes.
Sacrifice Armor lets a Champion (or Sentinel, in this case) use their reaction to break (or destroy) their armor to reduce the damage by "twice your armor's level".
Points of contention
- Armor in Earth gives armor that does not have an explicit "armor level". It could be 1st (or 3rd) since the feat can be obtained that level, or it could be PC level, or it could be the level of the runes replicated.
- Encounter power balance involving what equates to an semi-permanent resourceless temp hp shield vs limited healing such as Lay on Hands, Battle Medicine, Fresh Produce, etc. Assuming, say, 15th level, one can spend 1 action and 1 reaction for (basically) 30 free hp every turn, all day.
- Investment costs (namely 2 feats and a dedication) is a valid counterbalance to the above point, when compared to the other methods.
My player is asserting that this should be allowed based on the text of the rules; I am asserting that it is extremely unbalanced and was not intended by Paizo, so it should not be permitted. What do other people think?