OamuTheMonk's page

I think you need to address this as a balance question instead. Things like Lay on Hands or Shield may have similar net effects, but can't be repeated endlessly throughout the same fight.

This is indeed the crux of my counter-argument: that this combo would be unfairly balanced, if allowed at the PC level or level of runes.

- It can easily be abused, having zero resource usage or time restrictions.
- It is extremely action efficient: all it costs is your 3rd action (so you still get two blasts, a blast + move, a 2 action activity, etc) and a reaction (which goes from "used occasionally" to "used almost every turn", unless kineticists get a competing reaction I'm not aware of).
- It allows a kineticist to "do it all, but more": they can already have min-maxed AC (+5 AiE +1 dex +3 runes) and 13hp/level that can deal 5d8 (? Am I doing the math right?) damage in melee OR at 30ft range, fulfilling the tank, the melee striker, and the ranged striker roles. Being able to negate a significant flat amount of damage every turn lets them be their own healers, too. A level 20 creature's high strike damage is 44 damage on average. If they can negate 40 of that damage, but every turn, and by themselves, even if they can only do it once a turn, that dramatically shifts the balance of power between the PCs and the foes.

A while ago, I read one of the PF2E designer's design philosophy on how they balance class abilities, and I thought that was extremely enlightening regarding PF2E as a whole. I kept those concepts in mind when considering his proposal. The two posts I found relevant are linked:
https://twitter.com/MichaelJSayre1/status/1654546857278984192
https://twitter.com/MichaelJSayre1/status/1654547311895404545

Two of the measurements that I use for class evaluation are TAE (total action efficiency) and TTK (time to kill).

TAE is a measurement of a character's performance in a variety of different situations while functioning as part of a 4-person party. It asks questions like-

"How many actions did it take to do the thing this class is trying to do? How many supporting actions did it require from other party members to do it? How consistently can it do the thing?"

These ideas in particular are what I parrot in the earlier part of this post.

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?

Candlejake wrote:

The gunslinger has "improved initiative" as a general feat, which i assume means incredible initiative. This doesnt Stack with the pistoleros "ten paces" as both are circumstance bonuses

If we're talking about the ZakZak pregen, RAW, Improved Initiative doesn't exist in PFS-2e. Several have said they assume it means Improved Initiative. Why would it mean that, when it makes no sense in conjunction with Ten Paces? Barring an errata from Paizo, I would hope GM's would allow a legitimate PFS-2e General Feat to replace one that simply doesn't exist as currently written.

On a related topic, Ten Paces requires a one-handed weapon, yet inexplicably ZakZak doesn't have one. It makes no sense to introduce the Gunslinger class in a shiny new One-Shot with a pregen who can't take advantage of his own abilities. Hopefully, GMs allow players to swap out for an appropriate weapon, if desired.

With luck, Paizo will have an errata available before too long.

Definitely hoping for an errata soon. I'm planning on running this on the 7th for some PF2E newbies, and I just skimmed the four sheets. Zakzak's character concept makes great sense, as a goblin using a goblin gun, the flingflenser. The only issue is that that's a 2 handed weapon, which doesn't work with Pistolero; definitely more of a Vanguard.

In addition, Booker's sheet gives him a dwarven scattergun, also 2H, but his art piece has him wielding what looks closer to be a 1H gun. Maybe they decided to swap Ways after the art was done? Would definitely like some clarification.