a level 20 character you DON'T have enough money to have 4 level 19 shields even if that's your only equpment. That's no other single rune in your entire inventory....
Who says you need to have 4 of the level 19, 2 is likely enough, and you have more than enough funds to have some of the level 13 and 16 items which are practically free at that level and still quite useful.
Money is not a good argument as it varies a lot from campaign to campaign. The treasure by level table p508 is incremental, not cummulative. Typically a level 20 character will have more than enough funds.
Until in the statblock you show me a level for the item, like every other item has, or a general rule that says items are at the level of the ability that makes them, then the item has no level.
That is very odd thinking that the item doesn't have a level.
The impulse have a level
Any impulse you use is the same level you are.
and
Impulses are magical
Armor in Earth has a duration and can be dismissed, so it is an ongoing magical effect. Unlike say Wall of Stone which is permanent.
The level of Armour of Earth Impulse is the Kineticist level.
That Armour of Earth is a magical effect and armor at the same time is perfectly reasonable.
You said 4, not me.
Even 2 are above wealth.
Wrong a level 20 character has 112000gp from this table so they can get 2. And as I say the point is moot as the shield a few levels down is only a few hardness points down and works fine too.
Double your level DR at will, from as early as level 10,is simply TGTBT.
The Destructive block is actually above twice your level at level 10 it can block 26 not 20. You can get Double level DR with the lower level shield at level 10 - of which you can have many. So again clearly already in the game.
TGTBT is a matter of perpective. Certainly as a GM I have no problems with it.
Anyway we are circling so I'll stop replying unless something new comes up.
Cheers.
Another way to use Sacrifice Armor while regaining your armour quickly.
The Instant Armor Spell can allow you do don a replacement armor as one action. But it is a contigency so one once.
Instant armour the Knight Vigilant level 10 armor feat will do it in 3 actions.
Collapse Armour the level 2 Inventor feat will do it in one action once. But you need free hands.
The real problem with Sacrifice Armor is that having broken or even destroyed armor on your person probably means you need to spend a minute to take it off. So you are stuck with the AC penalty all that time.
What does this mean? None of these will really work. Which means if your GM sees Kineticist armor as cheese then Sacrifice Armor is only useful when you think the encounter is almost over, and the AC penalty is acceptable. Which means only a very few people will like it.
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.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.
Honestly I feel like this is just bait at this point.
I have made it very clear what part of this interaction I consider to be too good to be true. The fact that you can't understand what I wrote says more about you than it does about my argument.
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.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.
Honestly I feel like this is just bait at this point.
I have made it very clear what part of this interaction I consider to be too good to be true. The fact that you can't understand what I wrote says more about you than it does about my argument.
I know exactly what you are saying. You are saying the interaction is TGTBT. Stop speaking for me and saying what I do and do not understand. You wanna talk about posts being bait, yet here you are doing the same thing. Pot, meet kettle.
There is flawed reasoning behind that premise when both independently are functioning as intended and the only gray area behind them is their interaction, which is ultimately a GM call, mostly because Armor in Earth isn't well fleshed out for determining the specifics of things like Sacrifice Armor, as is a lot of other Kineticist effects. Because if it was, the particulars would be spelled out for us, meaning the RAW interaction would be clear. After all, an argument can be made that you aren't proficient in this armor that you summon onto yourself, despite them trying to implement text to circumvent this, or that you can't wear this armor over the other light armor you are probably wearing (though explorer's clothes are just fine). Plenty of things wrong with this feat besides the interaction with Sacrifice Armor.
Seriously, Armor in Earth is already designed to basically renew itself with the expenditure of a single action, so the idea that it's TGTBT for it to work with, well, anything that affects armor/objects (like Corrosive weapons and rust monsters), including Sacrifice Armor, has no basis there, since that is precisely the point behind it.
This is not an TGTBT/just fine but rather a "how to apply general rules to this specific case as RAW" argument. Tell me what y'all think:
RoE p26: "any runes that could apply to the stone armor are replicated onto it."
Core p580: "The level of an item with runes etched onto it is equal to the highest level among the base item and all runes etched on it."
This is talking about permanent items - or even consumable items. Not tangible magical effects.
At best, Armor in Earth has a Rank - like spells do. Which could be converted to a Level if needed for some reason.
This is not an TGTBT/just fine but rather a "how to apply general rules to this specific case as RAW" argument. Tell me what y'all think:
RoE p26: "any runes that could apply to the stone armor are replicated onto it."
Core p580: "The level of an item with runes etched onto it is equal to the highest level among the base item and all runes etched on it."
This is talking about permanent items - or even consumable items. Not tangible magical effects.
At best, Armor in Earth has a Rank - like spells do. Which could be converted to a Level if needed for some reason.
When the tangible magical effect is literally creating a "permanent item" (because nothing is ever said about what happens to it when the action is done, whether it is instantly equipped to you, if it's only temporary, falls apart after X amount of hours, requires taking off as normal, or can only have on instance at a time), it's a little hard to argue that said tangible magical effect isn't relevant to the discussion, especially since it's meant to mimic said permanent item.
How can it have a Rank if it's not a Spell? And it's only converted to a Counteract Level if an ability so requires it, with a DC equal to the Kineticist Class DC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
because nothing is ever said about what happens to it when the action is done, whether it is instantly equipped to you, if it's only temporary, falls apart after X amount of hours, requires taking off as normal, or can only have on instance at a time
Um...
The stone armor lasts for 10 minutes, and you can Dismiss this impulse.
I'd like to see you find a permanent item that can be Dismissed.
Armour in Earth is an Impulse. Impulses have levels not Ranks.
The stone armor lasts for 10 minutes, and you can Dismiss this impulse.I'd like to see you find a permanent item that can be Dismissed.Dismissed.
Why does the fact that an armour is only temporary has any rules implications for Sacrifice Armor?
It doesn't. Sacrifice Armor requires armour not an item, nor a permament item
It is not as if we are talking about Mage Armor which has an effect like armour or Chromatic Armor which just looks like armour. Armor in Earth says explicitly 5 times it is armour.
Do Wooden Fists stop being fists or free hands just because they are also weapons? No.
Entities can be multiple things at once.
Why does the fact that an armour is only temporary has any rules implications for Sacrifice Armor?
It doesn't. Sacrifice Armor requires armour not an item, nor a permament item
It is not as if we are talking about Mage Armor which has an effect like armour or Chromatic Armor which just looks like armour. Armor in Earth says explicitly 5 times it is armour.
Do Wooden Fists stop being fists or free hands just because they are also weapons? No.
Entities can be multiple things at once.
Flavor and description aren't what I am looking at when making a game balance determination. Yes, Armor in Earth is flavored as being armor. Stoneskin and Barkskin are flavored very similarly. Would they interact with Sacrifice Armor?
Mechanically, Armor in Earth is closer to Mountain Stance as far as the daily resource usage (none) and action cost needed to activate or reactivate it (one action). Would you allow 'breaking' Mountain Stance to Sacrifice Armor?
Part of the cost of Sacrifice Armor is that your armor becomes broken or destroyed. If that cost is completely negated and meaningless, then I am going to say that the cost of the ability has not been paid. That is my TGTBT argument regarding this. If Sacrifice Armor's cost has been paid, then show me the actual damage to your equipment. What meaningful sacrifice was made?
Nearly every other effect that creates temporary items says that it can't be used for things that require permanent items. Prestidigitation: the item created can't be sold or used as a tool, weapon, or spell component. Basic Scroll Cache: the item can't be used to learn the spell with - even though learning a spell from a scroll doesn't even consume the scroll.
Yes, you could make the argument that if an ability's temporary item doesn't say that it can't be used for something that then it can - but I don't think that is the intent or balance point that the game is created around. That type of argument is why I am not overly thrilled with the new wording of metamagic like Warden's Reload where it now specifies that 'last action' has to be during the same turn. It means that anywhere that doesn't get updated - or worse, if that phrase ever gets left off - means that someone is going to argue that omitting it was intentional and that therefore you can use this spellshape ability across rounds.
Simply omitting a restriction that is common to pretty much everything else in the game is not - by itself - grounds for arguing that the ability should work the way that you want. I think I have mentioned that before - the "exception proves the rule" idea. You also have to consider the balance implications and why nearly everything in the game has that particular restriction.
Armor in Earth doesn't state that mechanically it is a permanent item. Or even an armor item. Impulses instead very clearly state in their general rules that they are magical effects. So Armor in Earth is a temporary magical effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to abandon that cost argument. That is the core of my entire stand on this.
If an ability requires damaging or destroying an item, then using a temporary item created with no cost doesn't qualify.
The cost of one action to replace is not equivalent to the cost of repairing the item after it is damaged. Repairing your armor requires taking it off (which costs time), repairing it (which costs time), and putting it back on (which costs time).
Quick Repair and Legendary proficiency in Crafting will let you reduce that repair time cost to one action. But that still isn't accounting for the time of removing and putting the armor back on. It isn't something that you are going to be doing during battle. Haphazard Repair on an Armor Innovation comes close, but even that interacts with the Unstable action trait. So even that isn't going to let the Sacrifice Armor ability be used repeatedly in the same battle.
And that seems to be what people are wanting this to be able to do. Use Sacrifice Armor repeatedly in the same battle. It wasn't designed with that as an option. Maybe it is a bit weak as a result.
But I am not going to use one weak feat to justify a general precedent of treating a temporary magic effect as though it was instead a permanent item.
Now, you can certainly disagree with me on that. Perhaps you are fine with the further shenanigans that people are going to find. How about creating Hardwood Armor, taking it off, then trying to sell it? Only the shield disintegrates when you let go of it. You have 10 minutes to sell the armor and nothing in the effect says that you can't.
Flavor and description aren't what I am looking at when making a game balance determination. Yes, Armor in Earth is flavored as being armor. Stoneskin and Barkskin are flavored very similarly. Would they interact with Sacrifice Armor?Why does the fact that an armour is only temporary has any rules implications for Sacrifice Armor?
It doesn't. Sacrifice Armor requires armour not an item, nor a permament item
It is not as if we are talking about Mage Armor which has an effect like armour or Chromatic Armor which just looks like armour. Armor in Earth says explicitly 5 times it is armour.
Do Wooden Fists stop being fists or free hands just because they are also weapons? No.
Entities can be multiple things at once.
That comparison is without merit. Neither Stoneskin or Barkskin say armor. Armour in Earth, Metal Carapace and Hardwood Armor do. Not just in the title or in the descriptive text (for those who like that argument) but multiple times in clear mechanical parts. Even to the extent that they mention they can be broken.
TGTBT
I won't complain about this. That is absolutely a reasonable opinion.
But I am not going to use one weak feat to justify a general precedent of treating a temporary magic effect as though it was instead a permanent item.As Gortle points out in his latest post, the Kineticist rules do indeed treat these impulse-generated armors (or effects if you prefer) as items. They can be broken. It says so right in the description of two of them.
Where?
Stone encases you like armor. The stone armor is medium armor but uses your highest armor proficiency. The stone armor's statistics are: AC Bonus +4; Dex Cap +1; Check Penalty –2; Speed Penalty –10 feet; Strength 16; Bulk 1; Group plate. You gain its armor specialization effect. Any bonuses, runes, and magical abilities of your actual armor are suppressed, but any runes that could apply to the stone armor are replicated onto it. The stone armor lasts for 10 minutes, and you can Dismiss this impulse. If you use this impulse again, any existing one ends.
Level (3rd) The armor becomes heavy armor. Its AC Bonus becomes +5, and it gains the bulwark armor trait.
I see nothing about being broken.
Hardwood Armor and Metal Carapace mention the word Broken - in regards to the shield that they create.
Metal Carapace also says that the armor 'shatters' if you take a critical hit - and also defines what that word means: that the impulse effect ends.
And as for an armor breaking effect that one character can use on another (such as that of an Ankrav) would you allow that ability to damage or destroy Mage Armor? How about Drakeheart Mutagen? Mountain Stance?
Even if the ruling is that the ability for a creature to destroy armor applies to Kineticist armors, do you prevent the Kineticist from spending one action on their next turn to re-create it with no additional resource cost? Mage Armor at least costs a spell slot each time.
Hardwood Armor and Metal Carapace mention the word Broken - in regards to the shield that they create.
Yes an actual item created by the impulse.
And as for an armor breaking effect that one character can use on another (such as that of an Ankrav) would you allow that ability to damage or destroy Mage Armor? How about Drakeheart Mutagen? Mountain Stance?
Ankrav could damage these kinetic armours yes. You keep throwing up straw men of the same type. None of the others are armours at all. Just items bonuses to AC. The only one you could argue about is the one with armor in the name.
Even if the ruling is that the ability for a creature to destroy armor applies to Kineticist armors, do you prevent the Kineticist from spending one action on their next turn to re-create it with no additional resource cost? Mage Armor at least costs a spell slot each time.
I don't stop it. I'm not so curmudgeonly to even try. This is what the Kineticist does after all. They will have a status penalty to their AC till they dismiss and recreate it. It is OK. Hit them again.
Again I have demonstrated the same power level of ability already exists in the game. You can swap a shield as an action and use it in Destructive Block. From levels 1-16 you can get shields that will give higher than double your level damage resistance. Yes it costs bulk and gp and it has practical limits. But is is there.Oh no someone found a cool use for a power you didn't expect. Lets ban it. No. It doesn't break the game. Let people have their fun.
But I am not going to use one weak feat to justify a general precedent of treating a temporary magic effect as though it was instead a permanent item.As Gortle points out in his latest post, the Kineticist rules do indeed treat these impulse-generated armors (or effects if you prefer) as items. They can be broken. It says so right in the description of two of them.Where?
Stone encases you like armor. The stone armor is medium armor but uses your highest armor proficiency. The stone armor's statistics are: AC Bonus +4; Dex Cap +1; Check Penalty –2; Speed Penalty –10 feet; Strength 16; Bulk 1; Group plate. You gain its armor specialization effect. Any bonuses, runes, and magical abilities of your actual armor are suppressed, but any runes that could apply to the stone armor are replicated onto it. The stone armor lasts for 10 minutes, and you can Dismiss this impulse. If you use this impulse again, any existing one ends.
Level (3rd) The armor becomes heavy armor. Its AC Bonus becomes +5, and it gains the bulwark armor trait.
I see nothing about being broken.
Hardwood Armor and Metal Carapace mention the word Broken - in regards to the shield that they create.
Metal Carapace also says that the armor 'shatters' if you take a critical hit - and also defines what that word means: that the impulse effect ends.
And as for an armor breaking effect that one character can use on another (such as that of an Ankrav) would you allow that ability to damage or destroy Mage Armor? How about Drakeheart Mutagen? Mountain Stance?
Even if the ruling is that the ability for a creature to destroy armor applies to Kineticist armors, do you prevent the Kineticist from spending one action on their next turn to re-create it with no additional resource cost? Mage Armor at least costs a spell slot each time.
The same could be said for Full Plate, Breastplate, Leather Armor, etc. These things don't exactly have their HP, Hardness, etc. laid out in their statblocks. (Neither do weapons, though there are general rules regarding them.) Really, the only label missing for this ability (which is coincidentally the same label that Sacrifice Armor keys off of) is the item level of said object, which has two pretty simple GM FIAT solutions to them:
1. It takes the level of the Kineticist making the effect (which it has to in order for its Heightened effect to kick in).
2. It takes the level of the strongest rune that is replicated onto the armor (which is a rule for determining a given armor's item level).
We can argue as to which one of these is actually correct, but they both have their pros and cons (though the first one seems more in-line with what's intended IMO), and I don't think there will be an extreme difference between the two unless the game is being played way outside of its intended scope.
The Ankrav ability would definitely work on the Stone Armor effect since it behaves in all ways like armor, and doesn't have much exceptions to how it functions when combined with other items. Really, it's broken by RAW, since unless you are wearing Explorer's Clothing, attempting to use this while wearing the likes of Leather Armor or higher wouldn't function (because you can't wear 2 armors simultaneously unless it says otherwise), and the feat doesn't provide an exception, even though this would result in the feat being TBTBT. Whereas the other options you mention do not reference armor in any fashion, either functioning as or being a stand-in for armor. They simply provide an Item Bonus to AC, impose a Max Dex Bonus cap onto your character, and potentially limit your movement or give some other benefit, which is cited in each option.
The Ankrav ability likewise wouldn't work on, say, Draconic Scales from the Dragon Disciple dedication, or the Animal Skin from Animal Barbarians, etc. It would instead apply to the Explorer's Clothing they are wearing, which can still result in breaking equipment and losing AC as a result of those being broken. Bracers of Armor is a little different, but since it doesn't take an Armor slot, it's hard to justify that the Ankrav ability could reasonably affect it.
If a complaint is "this ability shouldn't constantly be reused," putting a cooldown on the ability (say, 1 minute,) should be a simple fix, but given that one isn't implemented, and it instead has text clarifying what happens when reused within the 10 minute duration cited, it's not exactly valid to complain about, since it seems they have already taken some consideration into this sort of activity being a possibility.
As Gortle points out in his latest post, the Kineticist rules do indeed treat these impulse-generated armors (or effects if you prefer) as items. They can be broken. It says so right in the description of two of them.Where?Metal carapace: "The shield crumbles to flakes of rust if it becomes broken or leaves your grasp."
Hardwood armor: "The shield decays in an instant if it becomes broken or leaves your grasp."
The shield can be broken. Because the effect says that it can be.
Where does the Impulse effect say that the armor can be broken?
Ankrav could damage these kinetic armours yes. You keep throwing up straw men of the same type. None of the others are armours at all. Just items bonuses to AC.
And as for an armor breaking effect that one character can use on another (such as that of an Ankrav) would you allow that ability to damage or destroy Mage Armor? How about Drakeheart Mutagen? Mountain Stance?
I've never heard of a strawman defense. It is my position that Kineticist armors are magical effects that create something resembling an item but are not mechanically classified as an Armor item.
So yes, I am claiming that Armor in Earth is exactly as much an Armor as Mage Armor is. Which is that it is not an Armor item at all. It is a magical effect. So when Sacrifice Armor or any other ability requires an Armor item, a magical effect is not going to qualify. Neither are the non-magical effects of Drakeheart Mutagen or Mountain Stance.
Oh no someone found a cool use for a power you didn't expect. Lets ban it. No. It doesn't break the game. Let people have their fun.
This is the rules forum. In a game I would probably allow it with the clear understanding that this is a one-off houserule that doesn't set a precedent.
I am absolutely arguing this case purely for the principle of the matter. I thought I made that fairly clear when I acknowledge that Sacrifice Armor is a pretty weak feat. I just don't want to buff Sacrifice Armor with a general ruling on the nature of Kineticist Impulses being anything other than magical effects.
edit: On thinking about this, in an actual game I would probably buff Sacrifice Armor in some other way. Again, this particular interaction only works for Kineticist characters. Everyone should be able to have their fun.
1. It takes the level of the Kineticist making the effect (which it has to in order for its Heightened effect to kick in).
2. It takes the level of the strongest rune that is replicated onto the armor (which is a rule for determining a given armor's item level).
3. It's 0 which is the level of a base armor like the vast majority of item creating effects regardless of the level of said effects.
---
All 3 are viable RAW readings of the ability.
Meaning that how this Impulse acts in a game is based solely on the GM with him staying strictly in RAW.
---
As for Destructive block it has been already shown that it takes a significant amount of resources to replicate the effect happening only 1-2 times per combat as opposed to at will. So not sure why you bring this up.
What HAS been shown is that if you try to match the unlimited nature of this(Using shield Impulses), you only get half the DR for an extra action cost.
That would make sense if it has an item level listed, but it doesn't. It could be 0. It could also not be 0. There is no rule that states what an item level is if it's not listed.
All 3 are viable RAW readings of the ability.That would make sense if it has an item level listed, but it doesn't. It could be 0. It could also not be 0. There is no rule that states what an item level is if it's not listed.
That is what "all 3 are viable RAW readings of the ability" means.
So it certainly sounds to me like you agree that a GM that says that 'the item level of a Kineticist Impulse armor is zero' is a valid reading of RAW.
If it's a level 0 armor and it gets a rune applied to it, it becomes a minimum level dictated by the rune.Is it now?
Runes aren't applied, they are "replicated".
Why do you think "replicated runes" are actual items with a level?
If "replicated" runes act as real items, then can you earn Infinite gold by extracting "replicated" runes out of a throwers bandolier (as an example)?
No, because extracting/transferring runes takes a day, and the armor lasts for 10 minutes, and renewing it simply destroys the old, meaning you have to restart the process.
There are plenty of other cheesy things about this ability, but this isn't one of them.
All 3 are viable RAW readings of the ability.That would make sense if it has an item level listed, but it doesn't. It could be 0. It could also not be 0. There is no rule that states what an item level is if it's not listed.That is what "all 3 are viable RAW readings of the ability" means.
So it certainly sounds to me like you agree that a GM that says that 'the item level of a Kineticist Impulse armor is zero' is a valid reading of RAW.
But there is no basis to state it is 0 when there is no rule that says "all items are level 0 unless told otherwise." It's a fair balance point, but also not based in any rules.
As Gortle points out in his latest post, the Kineticist rules do indeed treat these impulse-generated armors (or effects if you prefer) as items. They can be broken. It says so right in the description of two of them.Where?Metal carapace: "The shield crumbles to flakes of rust if it becomes broken or leaves your grasp."
Hardwood armor: "The shield decays in an instant if it becomes broken or leaves your grasp."The shield can be broken. Because the effect says that it can be.
Where does the Impulse effect say that the armor can be broken?
Following general armor rules, it doesn't need to say in the ability that it can be broken, since no other standard items have this sort of entry in them.
But there is no basis to state it is 0 when there is no rule that says "all items are level 0 unless told otherwise." It's a fair balance point, but also not based in any rules.Core book page 271, Item Level, arguably says exactly that. Full paragraph given for context, but my bold:
"Each item has an item level, which represents the item’s complexity and any magic used in its construction. Simpler items with a lower level are easier to construct, and you can’t Craft items that have a higher level than your own (page 243). If an item’s level isn’t listed, its level is 0. While characters can use items of any level, GMs should keep in mind that allowing characters access to items far above their current level may have a negative impact on the game."
Okay, this I can work with. Now I concede that point.
Whether the Armor in Earth should have an item level is still up for debate, but at least RAW is clear.
Core book page 271,
Reading further up in the chapter it is clearly talking about mundane items in this chapter. They don't even bother to have an item column in any of their tables.
I mean the rules already say An item's level indicates what level of adventurer the item is best suited for. That is already given by the impulse.
None of that matters as the Imulpses already have a level. The impulse list level based changes to the items created. For example Hardwood Armour says Level (+3) The shield's Hardness increases by 1, its HP by 4, and its BT by 2..
These items clearly have levels. It is not reasonable to distinguish between the level of the impulse and the level of the effect created.