|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see no object stat on Armor in Earth : no broken threshold, no hp, no hardness.
So, it seems that, in spite of being described as an armor, it is not an object and cannot be broken or destroyed.
Thus I would not allow it to be used for Sacrifice Armor since it could be used an infinite amount of times.
But maybe I'm missing some key info on armor created through Impulses (I do not have the book).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sacrifice Armor wasn't written with the intention of using temporary magically created armor to fuel the ability. That smells like cheese.
You couldn't use Sacrifice Armor with Mage Armor either. Or Drakeheart Mutagen.
Mechanically, Kineticist impulses are closer to spells than they are to permanent items. Even ones that are flavored as creating items such as Armor in Earth and Hardwood Armor. That is more of a spell effect than a permanent item.
And therefore, IMO, not a valid fuel for Sacrifice Armor. Even if it did have HP and broken threshold.
Because yes, allowing the interaction means that the ability could be used permanently. When your armor gets broken, just use the impulse again to recreate the armor good as new. And that is most definitely not how Sacrifice Armor's cost and benefit balance was designed.
Now, in the interest of making both abilities work, I would allow the character to fuel Sacrifice Armor with their actual armor that they are wearing. And they can still use their Armor in Earth impulse armor during the fight - though when their actual armor gets destroyed, its runes won't be available to be replicated to the impulse armor.
Sacrifice Armor wasn't written with the intention of using temporary magically created armor to fuel the ability. That smells like cheese.
You couldn't use Sacrifice Armor with Mage Armor either. Or Drakeheart Mutagen.
Mechanically, Kineticist impulses are closer to spells than they are to permanent items. Even ones that are flavored as creating items such as Armor in Earth and Hardwood Armor. That is more of a spell effect than a permanent item.
And therefore, IMO, not a valid fuel for Sacrifice Armor. Even if it did have HP and broken threshold.
Because yes, allowing the interaction means that the ability could be used permanently. When your armor gets broken, just use the impulse again to recreate the armor good as new. And that is most definitely not how Sacrifice Armor's cost and benefit balance was designed.
Now, in the interest of making both abilities work, I would allow the character to fuel Sacrifice Armor with their actual armor that they are wearing. And they can still use their Armor in Earth impulse armor during the fight - though when their actual armor gets destroyed, its runes won't be available to be replicated to the impulse armor.
While I get your point, I'd like to point out metal carapace and hardwood armor and their interaction with Shield Block (and Destructive Block).
Both impulses specifically say you can use Shield Block with it, so I'm not entirely sure the argument of temporary items not being intended to be used as "fuel" for abilities holds much ground.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see no object stat on Armor in Earth : no broken threshold, no hp, no hardness.
So, it seems that, in spite of being described as an armor, it is not an object and cannot be broken or destroyed.
Thus I would not allow it to be used for Sacrifice Armor since it could be used an infinite amount of times.
But maybe I'm missing some key info on armor created through Impulses (I do not have the book).
I don't think logic holds up. No armor AFAIK lists those stats. Instead, if you need to figure it out, you need to reference the materials section of the CRB, page 577:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=729
Armor is considered an "ordinary" item for that table, as opposed to a thin item or a structure. Stone armor would therefore have hardness 7, 28 HP, 14 BT.
There's a slight contradiction in Treasure Vault, though:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2359
Says stone had hardness 7, 24 HP, and 14 BT. Also says you can't make plate armor out of stone, but obviously Armor in Earth's specific trumps that general. Sacrifice Armor doesn't really reference hardness or hit points anyway.
So Armor in Earth seems to meet these standards as much as amy other armor. I also think there's not a good RAW argument to prevent using the impulse level.
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.
But kudos to your player for finding a legit OP interaction. There aren't many of those left.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the arguments for RAW, but IMO, Armor Sacrifice is already a bad feat, so it finally having a helpful use here shouldn't be met with constant nerfbats and banhammers just because it can be used to reduce damage/crits.
Given that Kineticist is already pretty squishy and has not much defensive support, with this requiring a specific build for it to work, I don't see how this is either gamebreaking or obviously unintended.
Maybe there is some broke build for this, but honestly, I just don't see it, and nobody has propped one up on the boards or anything, so...what gives?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see the arguments for RAW, but IMO, Armor Sacrifice is already a bad feat, so it finally having a helpful use here shouldn't be met with constant nerfbats and banhammers just because it can be used to reduce damage/crits.
Given that Kineticist is already pretty squishy and has not much defensive support, with this requiring a specific build for it to work, I don't see how this is either gamebreaking or obviously unintended.
Maybe there is some broke build for this, but honestly, I just don't see it, and nobody has propped one up on the boards or anything, so...what gives?
Geokinecists are not squishy. Armored in Earth provides full plate with armor specialization for damage resistance, and the Impulse Junction means they'll usually have a +1 circumstance bonus above any fighter without a shield. They have maxed Con for HP comparable to any front line martial. Calcifying Sand, Spike Skin, Lava Leap, and Rebirth in Living Stone all add significant damage procs or deductions as well.
|
|
I can see the arguments for RAW, but IMO, Armor Sacrifice is already a bad feat, so it finally having a helpful use here shouldn't be met with constant nerfbats and banhammers just because it can be used to reduce damage/crits.
Given that Kineticist is already pretty squishy and has not much defensive support, with this requiring a specific build for it to work, I don't see how this is either gamebreaking or obviously unintended.
Maybe there is some broke build for this, but honestly, I just don't see it, and nobody has propped one up on the boards or anything, so...what gives?
I see what you mean. But we are on the Rules forum. Arguments for RAW are really important here, though your point is good and welcome to help GMs and players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both impulses specifically say you can use Shield Block with it, so I'm not entirely sure the argument of temporary items not being intended to be used as "fuel" for abilities holds much ground.
Exactly. Both impulses specifically say that you can use Shield Block with them.
Which is why you can Shield Block with them.
That is the same reason that you can Shield Block with the Shield Cantrip too.
Now, a more interesting and ambiguous question is if you can Shield Bash with the shield of Hardwood Armor or Armored in Earth. You can't shield bash with the Shield cantrip.
But regardless of that, Sacrifice Armor does not say that you can sacrifice an Impulse effect instead of an actual item.
It is an impulse effect that creates an item though. It has all the same stats as any other suit of armor. The only real difference is it will crumble after 10 minutes and it can replicate the runs of a lighter armor underneath it, but even that is basically how heavy armor works. (You keep the runes on the padded armor, which lets you keep their potency bonus when you sleep.)
I think you really just need to call balance/too good to be true to prevent this, because any rules argument against it feels quite weak. Now,for balance? I'd point to the 18th level inventor feat Negate Damage as a comparable ability. 15 damage repeatedly and 50 on stable, vs 36 damage twice that can be restored with one action. That feels too good to be true for a 1st level and an 8th level feat compared to an 18th level feat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is an impulse effect that creates an item though. It has all the same stats as any other suit of armor. The only real difference is it will crumble after 10 minutes
That 'only real difference' is the very point. The fact that it is a temporary construct of magic - not a permanent item.
I maintain that Armor in Earth doesn't create an armor item any more than Weapon Infusion creates a weapon item. In both cases as far as game mechanics go it is a magical effect. Not an item.
I can see no object stat on Armor in Earth : no broken threshold, no hp, no hardness.
So, it seems that, in spite of being described as an armor, it is not an object and cannot be broken or destroyed.
It is fairly easy to go to the material table and work it out. Which is actually what the armour rules tells you to do anyway.
So that line of reasoning doesn't work. There are enough rules to cover it. Either treating it as light stone which is a shade under steel, or stone with is a bit over.
I think you really just need to call balance/too good to be true to prevent this, because any rules argument against it feels quite weak. Now,for balance? I'd point to the 18th level inventor feat Negate Damage as a comparable ability. 15 damage repeatedly and 50 on stable, vs 36 damage twice that can be restored with one action. That feels too good to be true for a 1st level and an 8th level feat compared to an 18th level feat.
Really? TGTBT?
I don't see it. It is a feat that few people are using and now a couple of people might. You get an improvement over a sturdy shield in terms of damage blocked. But the armour is automatically broken - something a shield is possibly not. Then you are left with a significant status penalty to your AC till you spend the action to recreate it.
Seems fine to me. I really don't understand this obsession with balance for minor changes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you really just need to call balance/too good to be true to prevent this, because any rules argument against it feels quite weak. Now,for balance? I'd point to the 18th level inventor feat Negate Damage as a comparable ability. 15 damage repeatedly and 50 on stable, vs 36 damage twice that can be restored with one action. That feels too good to be true for a 1st level and an 8th level feat compared to an 18th level feat.Really? TGTBT?
I don't see it. It is a feat that few people are using and now a couple of people might. You get an improvement over a sturdy shield in terms of damage blocked. But the armour is automatically broken - something a shield is possibly not. Then you are left with a significant status penalty to your AC till you spend the action to recreate it.
Seems fine to me. I really don't understand this obsession with balance for minor changes.
Anything that smells like cheese reminds me of the madness that were overoptimized rules-loops- based PF1 PCs. I will nuke it from orbit if I can and only allow it on a case by case basis while wearing a hazmat armor.
And PF2 gives the GM full and absolute power to just say NO.
I would encourage the player to put their creativity in tactics, not in builds.
- 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.
I'd be pretty upset if that was all the damage a level 20 creature was doing. However I'd note that a Champion can get a hardness 22 shield at level 20 blocking 3 times per turn. So what is your balance problem?
Shield Ally for +2 hardness and 50% BT and HP to a level 19 Sturdy Shield. They can improve that further too.Quick Shield Block for an extra reaction
Divine Reflexes for an extra Champions reaction
Shield of Reckoning just so it is clear this is a Champions reaction. So that Champion is doing huge amounts with this shield
Then there are Barbarians you can just have 15 points of resistance at that level.
Yes it has a cost - the extra action and the penalty after the first attack. It is like being slowed every round. That is a significant penalty. There is no way of picking up Paragons Guard for this armour.
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
Nothing especially insightful there IMHO. Twitter is a terrible platform. So painful to read disjointed information like that. Why do people keep using it?
The RAW issue I see is that there's no way to set a level for the armor.
There's no good RAW argument that the armor created is the same level* as the impulse, nor to the opposite, nor to being a set number like "level 3 because at level 3 the impulse gets something extra".
*We know for a fact from Alchemist that an ability creating an item doesn't mean that the item is automatically at the level of the ability.
So, to me that sounds exactly like something that's 100% on the GM and not covered by RAW.
If we start really splitting hairs on definitions the whole game falls apart. It is not that tightly worded.
The level of the impulse is the level of the effect and that effect is an armour. It is reasonably clear. Unless there is some other factor that should be enough.
So if a GM thinks that 40 damage reduction at level 20 for an action is ok, he can rule it that way. If not, he can as easily overule it.
I don't think there is a significant rules problem here. But fair enough if a GM wants to ban it then he should.
Personally:
To give some context with similar abilities, armor inventor can gain a 50dr reaction once/twice per combat at level 18 at the expense of not being able to use any other Unstable action for the whole combat as well. So to give 40 with just an extra action cost seems kinda overkill to me personally.A similar setup with the recyclable shields and Bastion, with similar feat investments, would give 20-22 dr but with 2 action cost instead of 1, which feels more inline.
What combo are do you mean is this a Destructive Block combo? Anyway using that will push the Champions up to blocking 44 damage at level 20. Plus the shield will have 160BT and 320 from Shield Paragon. That is pretty solid.
It is not just one action. It is a reaction , leaving you vulnerable -3 AC till you spend another action on your turn. People really hate that feature of the metal kineticist armour. It is two actions. There is no way you can do more than one per round. Where as the Shield blocks are much more flexible in what they can do and can trigger 3 times ín a round, and probably won't leave you vulnerable.
Which at level 20 it's 11 hardness
A sturdy shield is a metal steel shield with 20 base hardness at level 19, a Champion the class we are talking about can easily take a feat for +2 hardness and +50% BT HP- why are you choosing to gimp yourself?
- 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).
OK so lets talk more about balance.
Your argument about kineticists competing reaction is mute as most competitive players will find a way to get another reaction. There are several reasonable options in class.A Champion Kineticist is spending 3 feats to get this combo. Sacrifice Armor, Kineticist Dedication, Through the Gate. Comes on line at level 8 It costs 2 actions to get into the armour, but you can do that before combat. Of course stealth is out after that. Champions certainly have a lot of other good reactions, and will eventually get a second reaction (more with shields).
A Kineticist Sentinel is spending 2 extra feats to get this Sential Dedication and Sacrifice Armor. Note that Armour in Earth already gives you all the cool stuff Sentinel gets just for free in the impulse so it is largely a wasted feat. Comes online at level 10.
The level 7 sturdy shield has Hardness 10, HP 80, and BT 40.
The level 10 sturdy shield has Hardness 13, HP 104, and BT 52.
So at level 10 it is blocking 20 damage versus 13 for a regular shield block that anyone can do for the low price of using a regular shield block?
Given that alternative Champion is blocking with their shield 15, HP 156 BT 78 of just having a Shield Ally (one feat or part of the core class) and with 2 Bastion feats Bastion Dedication, Destructive Block can block 30 damage, probably 3 times per encounter. For non Champions it is still 26 damage blocked twice per encounter.
Should players not get some value for investing in feats? It is only an issue if the GM only does one attack per turn. It is trival for the GM to respond tactically with multiple attacks against weakened defences.
It is an impulse effect that creates an item though. It has all the same stats as any other suit of armor. The only real difference is it will crumble after 10 minutesThat 'only real difference' is the very point. The fact that it is a temporary construct of magic - not a permanent item.
I maintain that Armor in Earth doesn't create an armor item any more than Weapon Infusion creates a weapon item. In both cases as far as game mechanics go it is a magical effect. Not an item.
Weapon infusions don't have bulk or tell you how many hands they take up, which are the equivalent characteristics of weapons anaglous to bulk, acp, speed penalty, a strength rating, a category... all of which Armor in Earth has. Heck, it even says "any runes that could apply to the stone armor are replicated onto it." If the Stone armor isn't technically armor, then no armor runes could possibly be replicated onto it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon infusions don't have bulk or tell you how many hands they take up, which are the equivalent characteristics of weapons anaglous to bulk, acp, speed penalty, a strength rating, a category... all of which Armor in Earth has.
It has to have those stats in order to behave the same way that armor does. That doesn't mean that it is categorized as an armor item.
There are other differences as well. For example, when damaged, it does not need to be repaired.
Heck, it even says "any runes that could apply to the stone armor are replicated onto it." If the Stone armor isn't technically armor, then no armor runes could possibly be replicated onto it.
Yes it can. Because the effect says that the runes can be replicated onto them.
-----
Really? TGTBT?
Yes. TGTBT.
If the Sacrifice Armor ability is supposed to be used repeatedly during a combat because you can for one action re-create your armor after it is destroyed, then it would work that way before Rage of Elements was released.
Allowing crazy combo interactions like this is bad for the game balance as a whole.
If Sacrifice Armor is unused because it is too weak, then it needs buffed. By itself. Not as an interaction byproduct of something completely unrelated and only available to one class.
Really? TGTBT?Yes. TGTBT.
Totally your choice to make.
I'd like to note that today I had a player drop out of a game I was playing in, because the GM keep ruling out options that are in the rules.
I like my rules to be clear and precise and not constantly falling back to GM decisions. To avoid these sorts of scenarios.
If I was the GM I instead ask myself. Is this a major problem? If its not and the rules is clear then I allow it.I try to give the player as much control as possible. Now if on the next campaign everyone is doing it then I'll simply ask them to make another choice as we have done this one to death.
If the Sacrifice Armor ability is supposed to be used repeatedly during a combat because you can for one action re-create your armor after it is destroyed, then it would work that way before Rage of Elements was released.
I guess at this point I should mention Quick Repair the level 1 feat which will repair in 1 action, when you are legendary in crafting so level 15. So we don't even need to be a Kineticist. This combo is available to everyone. In fact one person in the party with crafting makes this a team option.
Allowing crazy combo interactions like this is bad for the game balance as a whole.
If Sacrifice Armor is unused because it is too weak, then it needs buffed. By itself. Not as an interaction byproduct of something completely unrelated and only available to one class.
I have to let my players innovate it is part of why they play.
There are still 50% of the feats/spells in the game which just don't get used because they are terribly weak or don't have a good flavour. I'm OK with someone coming up with a reason to use it. It still has its weaknesses.
RAW it is 3 actions to do so in-combat. Because while it's now only 1 action to repair the shield instead of 10minutes, you still require both hands and the item to be in a "stable surface" to do so.
So, "free action drop shield+weapon, 1 action repair, 2 actions to pick up your stuff"
2 free hands yes. The rest of that I would see as a GM being deliberately obstructive. Legendary crafting is one action - let the game work. Quick Repair is clearly supposed to be a combat action.
2 free hands yes. The rest of that I would see as a GM being deliberately obstructive. Legendary crafting is one action - let the game work. Quick Repair is clearly supposed to be a combat action.RAW it is 3 actions to do so in-combat. Because while it's now only 1 action to repair the shield instead of 10minutes, you still require both hands and the item to be in a "stable surface" to do so.
So, "free action drop shield+weapon, 1 action repair, 2 actions to pick up your stuff"
in my games i've houseruled it as well to work in combat, but RAW I can't see "strapped in your hand" being a "stable surface" at all and certainly the "the hand wouldn't be free".
Either way, two hands still means that you would need to drop both shield and weapon before repairing it thus 3 actions.
And since this is the Rules forum, it does mean that RAW it is 3 actions to repair.
You have missed extra actions to drop prone onto the ground and get up afterwards.
Yes I get your point on this. I don't see it like that in games I've played. Reading Quick Repair like that basically means Quick Repair is never quick, and doesn't work in any significant game context and will need to be errated.
|
|
2 free hands yes. The rest of that I would see as a GM being deliberately obstructive. Legendary crafting is one action - let the game work. Quick Repair is clearly supposed to be a combat action.RAW it is 3 actions to do so in-combat. Because while it's now only 1 action to repair the shield instead of 10minutes, you still require both hands and the item to be in a "stable surface" to do so.
So, "free action drop shield+weapon, 1 action repair, 2 actions to pick up your stuff"
in my games i've houseruled it as well to work in combat, but RAW I can't see "strapped in your hand" being a "stable surface" at all and certainly the "the hand wouldn't be free".
Either way, two hands still means that you would need to drop both shield and weapon before repairing it thus 3 actions.
And since this is the Rules forum, it does mean that RAW it is 3 actions to repair.
You have missed extra actions to drop prone onto the ground and get up afterwards.
Yes I get your point on this. I don't see it like that in games I've played. Reading Quick Repair like that basically means Quick Repair is never quick, and doesn't work in any significant game context and will need to be errated.
I use the basic Quick Repair to be able to Repair and Refocus. Because when you have 10 minutes, you have 11.
I use the basic Quick Repair to be able to Repair and Refocus. Because when you have 10 minutes, you have 11.
and no one ever takes it again. TBTBT IMHO.
Weapon infusions don't have bulk or tell you how many hands they take up, which are the equivalent characteristics of weapons anaglous to bulk, acp, speed penalty, a strength rating, a category... all of which Armor in Earth has.It has to have those stats in order to behave the same way that armor does. That doesn't mean that it is categorized as an armor item.
There is no such thing as categorised as an armour item. It is called armour 5 times in the feat. You want it to not work and you are just trying tp rationalise it.
Which at level 20 it's 11 hardnessA sturdy shield is a metal steel shield with 20 base hardness at level 19, a Champion the class we are talking about can easily take a feat for +2 hardness and +50% BT HP- why are you choosing to gimp yourself?because that shield lasts for 2 shield blocks when you use destructive shield block.
and then you lose all of your shield related feats, abilities, and capstone level 20 feats.
I think you will find it will still be useful shield after 3 blocks. I'm seeing 3 to destroy it. But you can always equip another shield.
What we are talking here is vastly different, it's a renewable resource.
I'm not "choosing to gimp" i'm "forced to" to keep the comparisson valid.
Basically, you are comparing apples to oranges if you are not comparing renewable to renewable.
There is nothing exactly the same. But I have demonstrated that similar abilities are already in the game.
I mean if you think it is too strong OK fine for your table it is. But you are mostly arguing a judgement call here.
Really? TGTBT?Yes. TGTBT.
If the Sacrifice Armor ability is supposed to be used repeatedly during a combat because you can for one action re-create your armor after it is destroyed, then it would work that way before Rage of Elements was released.
Allowing crazy combo interactions like this is bad for the game balance as a whole.
If Sacrifice Armor is unused because it is too weak, then it needs buffed. By itself. Not as an interaction byproduct of something completely unrelated and only available to one class.
How is a feat that nobody would ever take because you have to break/destroy your armor to get a minor benefit falling under Too Good to Be True?
Really, the Kineticist is the only "reliable" way to make use of this (unless people are walking around with full sets of armor at maximum runes, and even that is problematic due to the donning and removing of armor taking time and help), otherwise it's about as dead of a feat as Armor Assist.
This sort of thing has already happened with the Magus and Psychic (or Fire Domain Cleric before that), letting the Magus Spellstrike with D8 Cantrip/Focus spells they didn't have access to before. The idea that new content can make combinations with old content is neither anything new nor bad for game balance, since now a Magus can take their higher level slots and, instead of burning them for damage spells, they can take some utility spells instead, since their Spellstrike combo doesn't need to get much stronger than that (as doing so is probably a waste of a limited slot by comparison).
It's unused both because it is too weak and because it is too impractical. If you break/destroy armor, it takes time to take off, time to repair, and even more time to put back on. The fastest you could do this is by spending 1 minute to remove the armor, 1 action to repair it, then 3 actions to don again via Greater Ready, assuming Heavy Armor. The earliest level you could do this is 15th, at which point you are facing things much harder than what Sacrifice Armor is expected to accomplish. Another problem is that there isn't much room for buffing or changing how it works.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is a feat that nobody would ever take because you have to break/destroy your armor to get a minor benefit falling under Too Good to Be True?
You are misreading what I wrote.
I am not saying that Sacrifice Armor is too good to be true.
I am saying that Armor in Earth being allowed to be used for abilities that require sacrificing an armor item is too good to be true.
The rest of your post is simply repeating my own arguments. Sacrifice Armor is a bit weak, the interaction with Armor in Earth is drastically more powerful than anything else the game allows to interact with Sacrifice Armor, and it is only available to one class. If you want to buff Sacrifice Armor, then do it in a way that is balanced for all characters, not just Kineticist. Quick Repair is fine.
How is a feat that nobody would ever take because you have to break/destroy your armor to get a minor benefit falling under Too Good to Be True?You are misreading what I wrote.
I am not saying that Sacrifice Armor is too good to be true.
I am saying that Armor in Earth being allowed to be used for abilities that require sacrificing an armor item is too good to be true.
The rest of your post is simply repeating my own arguments. Sacrifice Armor is a bit weak, the interaction with Armor in Earth is drastically more powerful than anything else the game allows to interact with Sacrifice Armor, and it is only available to one class. If you want to buff Sacrifice Armor, then do it in a way that is balanced for all characters, not just Kineticist. Quick Repair is fine.
There really is no fundamental difference in that stance because the one feat is only considered TGTBT when a separate feat is taken into consideration, meaning you believe Sacrifice Armor being used in a non-regular fashion is TGTBT. If Sacrifice Armor did not exist as a feat, you would not say that the Kineticist feat is TGTBT.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No other armour has its broken threshold in its stat block either, it's just a matter of judging based on material
IIRC Quick Repair is pretty good for the Automaton ancestry.
Which is the real reason it has to stay as one action at legendary, and 3 for master. Nerfing it by insisting on extra actions is very impactful on Inventors, and the various contruct ancestries and entities. It is a direct analogy to Battle Medicine. The game needs to stay balanced.
The text used to describe the ten minute craft repair activity should not stop the 3 action and 1 action version from working.
There is nothing exactly the same. But I have demonstrated that similar abilities are already in the game.I mean if you think it is too strong OK fine for your table it is. But you are mostly arguing a judgement call here.
but you haven't?
2 blocks per combat is vastly different than "any amount" of blocks per combat.
Especially when one comes at the cost of a 19th level equipment, a 20th level feat, and a 3rd level class option, and the other one comes from a 1st+10th level feat.
That is wrong. Destructive Block is one level 10 feat. Everyone I've seen with a shield has a second shield carried, and reequiping with another shield is a simple action. It is feasible to carry 3-4 shields by the bulk rules. 4-6 times in a combat is close enough. Especially when at the levels it start the destructive block with the shield is blocking more damage.
The equipment cost is fair criticism. But it's renewable and level appropriate. The destructive block tactic works fine with the relatively cheap and common level 7 sturdy shield.
if in your game abilities that are only usable twice per combat and require both 35% of your total wealth and a 20th level feat are suppossed to be on par with at will abilities that only require a 10th level feat, then sure, go ahead and rule it that way in your games.
I'm not seeing encounters go that long. Many are over in 3 rounds.
it's equally RAW to rule it as level 0 (base armor) and level 20 (impulse level)
I'm not going to agree with that statement. It is not reasonable. The level is clearly there.
If Paizo don't like it they should fix it. If your GM doesn't like it then don't play it. But it does technically work as it stand now.