About the Rune limitation on Precious Materials

The entire idea of needing high-grade ammunition or it can't carry stronger enchantments is a bankrupt one, whether a developer said it or not, because it creates an odd situation in which the arrows you buy for 1 copper each don't have any restrictions at all on what they can carry from your magical bow to your enemy, but drastically more expensive ammunition (the cheapest being 400 times the price, if I recall correctly) can't.

There's no gain to making the more expensive weaponry option more expensive by an even wider margin like that.

No, it's the reverse.

Getting to enjoy precious materials weaknesses is gated by the need to purchase higher grades to keep enjoying the best runes.

For some inexplicable reason that's not true for ranged weapons. Well, inexplicable unless you assume it was an honest mistake.

Almost nowhere else can a high level character get the same relative benefit for relatively much less money. If monsters got to save against precious materials weaknesses, for instance, the 44 gp arrow would have a low low save DC that made it useless at high level.

NOTHING in the design of PF2 suggests and implies ammunition were intended to be exempt from the same cost structure as melee weapons, and more generally that the devs intended ammunition to be an exception from the game's highly regimented balance.

Investigator [Forensic Medicine] with the medic archetype...

Sure, that works.

I am pretty sure Mark said in an interview that steel weapons were 100% steel so counted as high grade for rune purposes.

That would work.

You could absolutely say weapons made out of wood etc are high grade already from the start.

It would mean ignoring the single sentence in the rulebook that implies you start out with low-grade wood... but there would be zero difference in practical play, so go for it.

The whole point of the 'grades' seems to be to make 'precious material weapons' more precious and unusual rather than 'standard issue for all mid-level adventurers.' Assuming this is the actual intent, requiring higher grade arrows fits right in...

Ayup.

It should be stated that enforcing the same restrictions for Archers as for every other warrior makes it horribly expensive for archers, but that's not a good argument against the notion.

requiring higher grade arrows fits right in...

For some inexplicable reason that's not true for ranged weapons.

Having to pay for every piece of ammunition used can make up the perceived difference in price between "I had to buy a higher-grade precious material because I use a melee weapon" and "I can buy the lowest grade ammunition and that still works"

Requiring ammunition to also be higher grade puts ammunition users in the equivalent position to if precious material melee weapons decayed into dust after 10 attacks are rolled with them and have to be replaced.

NOTHING in the design of PF2 suggests and implies ammunition were intended to be exempt from the same cost structure as melee weapons

Except the whole having to buy a separate, consumable item or you can't even use your weapon in the first place.

It should be stated that enforcing the same restrictions for Archers as for every other warrior makes it horribly expensive for archers, but that's not a good argument against the notion.

Since there isn't enough gained by way of being an archer rather than a melee warrior, yes it is a good argument against the notion. There's an entire sidebar in the book about how you shouldn't stick to RAW if what RAW is saying to you is something that causes a problematic repercussion or doesn't work as intended. It is there for situations like this where what you think is the intent of the printed rule boils down to "players will never actually use this rule element because the cost is unfairly high relative to the benefits"

You still keep avoiding the main question:

How can you defend a rule that impacts archers of different levels so drastically different.

No other PF2 rule works like this.

Having a 5th level Archer having to pay through the nose to enjoy a benefit appropriate for her level (say +5 damage against Fey)...

...but letting the level 15 Archer pay exactly the same, now trivial, amount to enjoy the same benefit (now +15 damage against Fey).

It sure isn't a rule that feels like written for Pathfinder 2.

If you want Archers to pay less you can absolutely say so. But defending this broken rule just because it leads to a desirable end result is not what I expected of you, nobledrake.

It would make much more sense if you,agreed the rules break the PF2 mold, and then stated how you don't want to gimp archers by saddling them with exorbitant ammunition costs.

For instance, you could adopt my suggested houserule: that ranged weapons made out of precious materials confer their benefits onto ammunition.

This would allow the Archer to use regular arrows, and still gain extra damage against Fey if using a cold iron bow. For many groups, this would mean no administration at all. It would also mean Archers of any level would be bound to the same cost restraints as a Swordsman.

It would level the playing field. It would simplify the game. It would remain balanced.

You still keep avoiding the main question:

How can you defend a rule that impacts archers of different levels so drastically different.

No other PF2 rule works like this.

Having a 5th level Archer having to pay through the nose to enjoy a benefit appropriate for her level (say +5 damage against Fey)...

...but letting the level 15 Archer pay exactly the same, now trivial, amount to enjoy the same benefit (now +15 damage against Fey).

It sure isn't a rule that feels like written for Pathfinder 2.

If you want Archers to pay less you can absolutely say so. But defending this broken rule just because it leads to a desirable end result is not what I expected of you, nobledrake.

It would make much more sense if you,agreed the rules break the PF2 mold, and then stated how you don't want to gimp archers by saddling them with exorbitant ammunition costs.

For instance, you could adopt my suggested houserule: that ranged weapons made out of precious materials confer their benefits onto ammunition.

This would allow the Archer to use regular arrows, and still gain extra damage against Fey if using a cold iron bow. For many groups, this would mean no administration at all. It would also mean Archers of any level would be bound to the same cost restraints as a Swordsman.

It would level the playing field. It would simplify the game. It would remain balanced.

The same way that a potion of Haste at level 9 is extremely expensive for an extra strike that does like 20 damage per round.

While a potion of Haste at level 19 is pennies and it gives you an extra strike that does like 50 damage per round.

If we want to "perfectly balance" ammunition and melee, do you also suggest that poisons on arrows magically teleport to your next arrow if your attack missed?

Edit:

You want to make 10 arrows cost as much as a permanent item?

Add: "Precious material arrows, or higher than normal grade ammunition, doesn't break on use"

Regardless if you hit or miss, at the end of the encounter you can always go and retrieve the ammunition you paid for.

Costs the same, lasts the same.

And getting Continual Recovery benefits your party MUCH more at level 4 than a measly +2 to Religion.

You're speaking utility. Some players increase Religion (or Athletics, or whatever) before Medicine because they play a Cleric (or Barbarian or whatever).

And buying Wands because you don't have a Medic in your party doesn't sound preposterous to me. If you lack one important thing, using a part of your gold to completely remove the need is a nice use of your gold.

Kennethray wrote:

I am pretty sure Mark said in an interview that steel weapons were 100% steel so counted as high grade for rune purposes.

That would work.

You could absolutely say weapons made out of wood etc are high grade already from the start.

It would mean ignoring the single sentence in the rulebook that implies you start out with low-grade wood... but there would be zero difference in practical play, so go for it.

What line is that sir? CRB says that the materials with the precious trait are the only ones with the limitations.

You still keep avoiding the main question:

How can you defend a rule that impacts archers of different levels so drastically different.

No other PF2 rule works like this.

Having a 5th level Archer having to pay through the nose to enjoy a benefit appropriate for her level (say +5 damage against Fey)...

...but letting the level 15 Archer pay exactly the same, now trivial, amount to enjoy the same benefit (now +15 damage against Fey).

It sure isn't a rule that feels like written for Pathfinder 2.

If you want Archers to pay less you can absolutely say so. But defending this broken rule just because it leads to a desirable end result is not what I expected of you, nobledrake.

It would make much more sense if you,agreed the rules break the PF2 mold, and then stated how you don't want to gimp archers by saddling them with exorbitant ammunition costs.

For instance, you could adopt my suggested houserule: that ranged weapons made out of precious materials confer their benefits onto ammunition.

This would allow the Archer to use regular arrows, and still gain extra damage against Fey if using a cold iron bow. For many groups, this would mean no administration at all. It would also mean Archers of any level would be bound to the same cost restraints as a Swordsman.

It would level the playing field. It would simplify the game. It would remain balanced.

Why do you always seem to go these extremes for something that is a non-factor?

The few times special materials come up it is useful, but that is fairly rare. You are making it out like this is some kind of rule that is greatly imbalancing the game and causing enormous balance problems. It isn't. It is literally does nothing.

You're making this mountain out of this molehill.

As far as a the difference between an archer a melee, it is cheaper to just buy a Holy Rune to get the extra damage. Much, much cheaper.

And precious material and good weakness don't stack. It would cost any character 1400 gold one time to get a weakness as good or better than a special material.

So maybe, just maybe the designers saw this and decided cheap special material ammunition would encourage at least someone to use special materials for magic items. As it stands right now it is far smarter to spend the 1400 gold on a Holy Rune than to ever buy a special material weapon.

How can you defend a rule that impacts archers of different levels so drastically different.

No other PF2 rule works like this.

The answer is 3 parts: 1) the issue you are playing up is a non-issue as being equal/identical is not the only way to be fair. 2) Everything with a cost works exactly like this, it's not a weird outlier like you're treating it. 3) It's not actually being treated different at different levels as the cost continues to accumulate.

A 5th level archer might need to pay 40 gp for all the special material ammunition they need to get by, but the same archer by 15th level could need to pay 3,200 gp for all the special material ammunition they've needed, and still need, to get by (for a breakdown, this value could be arrived at via 20 adamantine arrows to face golems with, and 100 mixed cold iron and/or silver arrows for various other threats).

Having a 5th level Archer having to pay through the nose to enjoy a benefit appropriate for her level (say +5 damage against Fey)...

It is very inconsistent that you keep phrasing your opinion as if it is too expensive for a character to use the current rules to start with, and your "solution" is to make it even more expensive.

If you want Archers to pay less you can absolutely say so.

They don't pay less.

But defending this broken rule just because it leads to a desirable end result is not what I expected of you, nobledrake.

The rule is not broken, and your personal attack shenanigans are unwelcome. Debate my points without making digs at my character, or stop responding to me.

It would make much more sense if you,agreed the rules break the PF2 mold, and then stated how you don't want to gimp archers by saddling them with exorbitant ammunition costs.

It doesn't matter that the rule breaks the "PF2 mold" - because it is, at current at least, what the book says. It is the "PF2 mold" ammunition-based weapons are treated differently than melee and thrown weapons.

This would allow the Archer to use regular arrows, and still gain extra damage against Fey if using a cold iron bow. For many groups, this would mean no administration at all. It would also mean Archers of any level would be bound to the same cost restraints as a Swordsman.

It also negates the actual advantage (though it is a minor one) that an ammunition-based weapon has over a melee weapon - which is not the cost, because ammunition is more expensive than not needing ammunition - that changing materials in order to affect different weaknesses or bypass different resistances only requires drawing a different ammunition rather than spending the Actions to change weapons.

It would level the playing field. It would simplify the game. It would remain balanced.

More work for roughly the same result - as the playing field is already level, the game is already just as simple, and already balanced - is also known by the name "wasted effort."

Zapp wrote:

And getting Continual Recovery benefits your party MUCH more at level 4 than a measly +2 to Religion.

You're speaking utility. Some players increase Religion (or Athletics, or whatever) before Medicine because they play a Cleric (or Barbarian or whatever).

And buying Wands because you don't have a Medic in your party doesn't sound preposterous to me. If you lack one important thing, using a part of your gold to completely remove the need is a nice use of your gold.

I'll add, buying wands even with a medic in the party is a reasonable idea. Battle Medicine is a niche use, and not guaranteed to bring the desired results, while wands have more flexibility and better consistency in the short term.

Depending on context, a +2 to Religion can be vastly more beneficial than Continual Recovery.

Why do you always seem to go these extremes for something that is a non-factor?

The few times special materials come up it is useful, but that is fairly rare. You are making it out like this is some kind of rule that is greatly imbalancing the game and causing enormous balance problems. It isn't. It is literally does nothing.

You're making this mountain out of this molehill.

As far as a the difference between an archer a melee, it is cheaper to just buy a Holy Rune to get the extra damage. Much, much cheaper.

And precious material and good weakness don't stack. It would cost any character 1400 gold one time to get a weakness as good or better than a special material.

So maybe, just maybe the designers saw this and decided cheap special material ammunition would encourage at least someone to use special materials for magic items. As it stands right now it is far smarter to spend the 1400 gold on a Holy Rune than to ever buy a special material weapon.

Sigh. Another reply that ignores the question.

You're essentially saying that precious materials are worthless and better alternatives exist.

But this is just another attempt to not answer the question.

Just because a game feature might not be the strongest choice does not mean we should overlook a wonky design. And it brings hope to my heart that the dev team might repair precious items for ranged warriors.

Does this mean I actively like the cost structure?

No.

But if we accept the way the game is designed, it is obviously a hole in that design to allow high level archers to enjoy the same benefit as melee warriors without having to pay the cost.

So far none of you have responded to this. All you're doing is point fingers elsewhere, away from this.

But this is the only thing I'm discussing! Am I saying you don't have a point when you show the cost structure to be very high? No. I'm just saying this is irrelevant for the topic being discussed.

So maybe if you start actually discussing the issue, you might discover I'm certainly not making mountains over mole hills.

What I am doing however, is pointing out that so far none of your arguments actually address the issue. You merely buy the flawed design to achieve other ends.

How about we achieve those ends by addressing those problems separately and directly, instead of they way you're doing it now, by bundling together at least two separate issues, huh?

PS. I should probably explain what I want out of you. Do I need you to stop using the rules as written? No. I just want you to stop denying this is a break from how the rest of the game is designed.

More work for roughly the same result - as the playing field is already level, the game is already just as simple, and already balanced - is also known by the name "wasted effort."

Hard nope.

If you want to argue archers are deliberately balanced to find special materials benefits impossibly expensive at level 5, and then balanced to find the same benefits (relative to their level) completely trivial at level 15, feel free to go ahead.

But you can't.

It is obvious rangers are at the same balance relative to melee warriors at every level when we look at the situation before special materials.

It is equally obvious that Paizo considers the level 5 costs to be appropriate for access to special materials to Rangers. (You and I might think these costs are too high, but that should not change the fact we agree Paizo thinks they are appropriate)

What remains to be discussed is why the same doesn't apply to level 15 rangers.

To me, the answer is loud and clear - it's an honest mistake, a hole in the rules, that the grade of your ammunition doesn't limit the runes on your ranged weapon, identical to how the grade of your melee weapon limits your melee runes.

After all, it's only now, a full year after release, we're having this discussion. (If you're aware of an earlier thread discussing this specific issue, feel free to link to it!) That suggests it is far from an obvious mistake, which in turn increases the likelyhood it simply wasn't caught during playtest.

Does this mean I defend the costs? No.

It only means I'm pointing out what should have been uncontroversial and obvious. Agree to this, and we have no beef. I certainly understand that you won't want to use any rule that makes it considerably more expensive to be an Archer. But currently, you won't even admit the benefits of my suggested house rule, which is highly illogical.

What remains to be discussed is why the same doesn't apply to level 15 rangers.

You are still not actually making any sense.

Let's put some actual numbers to this to create a real comparison, rather than a knee-jerk reaction to an idea. We'll compare a longsword-wielding melee character to a shortbow-using ranged character and the costs the incur throughout a campaign that happens to feature enough creatures with precious material vulnerability to exploit.

1st level: The swordsman pays 1 gp for his first sword. The archer spends 3 gp for his first bow, and 2 sp for his first stock of 20 arrows. Let's assume that over the course of the encounters necessary to level up, the archer fires an average of 2 arrows per round, has combats that last 4 rounds, and has 10 combat encounters per level. That means the archer needs to spend another 6 sp on arrows just to cover getting to 2nd level.

4th level: The need for precious materials has already become clear and the players both decide to invest as quickly as possible without selling any found treasures. Now that their individual share of treasure is 50 gp or thereabouts, the pick up cold iron.

The swordsman pays 44 gp, bringing their total weapon costs to 45 gp. The archer spends 40 gp on their first 10-pack of precious material arrows, bringing their total weapon costs to 45 gp 4 sp before we cover however much ammunition will be needed for current level. Let's be super-conservative and say that only 2 out of 10 encounters per level benefit from precious material arrows. So the archer has to buy another set of 10 precious material arrows, and still needs 60 normal arrows. So their actual total weapon costs are 86 gp (ignore that this is outside the money usually available at this level, as that's just more evidence that archers don't need their costs raised overall).

10th level: The swordsman upgrades their sword to standard grade for 924 gp, bringing their total weapon spending up to 969 gp. The archer, keeping up with their ammunition needs over the levels, has bought another 100 precious material arrows for 400 gp, so their total right now is only 489 gp 6 sp. A higher ratio of encounters that benefit from precious material arrows, however, would already balance out the cost entirely - as would using more ammunition than these incredible conservative numbers.

But for comparison, let's trim off the last 20 precious material arrows we paid low-grade prices for and replace them with standard-grade costs: that would put the archer's current weapon costs at 2,169 gp 6 sp.

And when we get to the point that the swordsman has spent 9,901 gp on their precious material longsword, how much would the archer have spent at the above conservative rates? If all the precious arrows can be low-grade that's 973 gp 4 sp. If all the precious arrows have to match grade that's 27,333 gp 4 sp.

In one case our scenario that is very favorable to the ammunition-using character because ammunition use is extremely low, the RAW actually favor the archer by roughly 9,000 gp. If the scenario featured heavier ammunition use it'd actually balance out the costs despite the appearance of getting a discount. The costs would also be a lot nearer to each other if we were looking at adamantine arrows rather than cold iron or silver (or even better, both). Yet with the same scenario, one that heavily favors the ammunition using character, the idea that ammunition "needs" to cost more to "fix" the cost differential actually results in a cost gap of around 17,400 gp - a way bigger difference than we already have. And if we went with a less-ammunition-favoring scenario, tossing in adamantine arrows and also upping the ammunition used by the character, that gap would get bigger and bigger.

note: I think the math above is actually under spent for standard arrows by a few silver here and there because I accidentally rounded off the 64 arrows per level to 60 once I started tracking the 16 precious material arrows per level.

But currently, you won't even admit the benefits of my suggested house rule, which is highly illogical.

To me, there are no benefits to your house rule because it is entirely without purpose. It's illogical that you keep treating your own opinion as somehow superior such that everyone has to agree there's a reason behind your house rule. The reality is that you see a reason for it, and I don't. I'm not obligated to talk about the pros and cons of your house rule just because you brought it up - especially not outside of the house-rule forum.

If you think that means we have "beef" - that's a you thing, not a me thing.

You are STILL avoiding the issue.

Obviously Paizo's intent is for those costs to stay exorbitantly high throughout the game. (Obviously these costs become relatively cheaper as you level up before each bump, just like a melee warrior that waits until maybe level 6 before jumping on the "cold iron bandwagon" gets away with relatively less costs)

They just don't make the costs high for some level but not for another level, not unless there's a reason for it. If archers were stronger relative to melee warriors and spellcasters at 4th level, that could explain why access to special materials is so expensive for 4th level archers. If archers were weaker relative to melee warriors at 14th level, that could explain why they can afford to purchase a "golf bag quiver" of every special material to enjoy nearly every monster's weakness.

But none of that is true.

It is obvious that ranged fire are supposed to pay through the nose for special materials ammunition. At all levels. I don't like it, but it would be a house rule to suggest otherwise.

And why are you spending so much time on a scenario that in no way supports your position?

How can you ignore the fact no sane player will actually purchase special materials as a level 4 archer? I mean, your example is founded on a lie. It's a theoretical construct with no applicability in practical play.

You keep avoiding the question: how can you think the level 4 archer is fair and balanced in the same game where the level 14 ranger gets the same relative benefit for much less cost?? You keep arguing the cost needs to be cheap for the cost to even out vs melee at the end, as if that's the criteria for a balanced game.

News flash: it's not. The criteria for a balanced game is if melee and ranged are "equal" at level N, where N is every value between 1 and 20 (inclusive)!

Having a rule that clearly shafts level 4 archers vs level 18 archers makes no sense. While my personal preference would be that the level 18 situation applied to archers of every level, it is clear Paizo thinks ranged fire is so powerful (or flexible) special materials need to be severely curtailed for archers. The only thing I'm absolutely convinced of is that they never intended to severely curtail special materials only to low-level archers.

Zapp

PS. I prefer to hand-wave ammunition usage. I am convinced the cumulative cost of mundane arrows was of exactly zero concern to the developers when they balanced archers vs melee warriors. And by zero I don't mean "a little". I mean "no concern whatsoever". Not having to pay for arrows does not make the archer even the teeniest bit overpowered. Null. Nought. Not even an atom overpowered.

I would never play an archer if I had to track mundane ammunition. Ugh, what a drag - and for zero purpose, since all ammo tracking does is create a risk (however remote) you'll actually run out, and the ranger is definitely not balanced with running-out-of-ammo in mind. So why then track it if it isn't supposed to ever happen? Why do boring administration for no gain whatsoever?

My suggested house rule not only lets you hand-wave special materials ammunition (since it no longer carries a significant cost), it does so without unbalancing the melee-ranged calibration. In fact, it makes for a BETTER balance than the RAW! :)

Of course you don't HAVE to say anything to my suggestion. However, the way you're phrasing it makes it seem like I want to force you. That's just antagonistic and unnecessary. It's just that it solves all the issues and makes the game cleaner and simpler, so it would have been nice if you agreed it is an interesting approach, even if you said you don't have a problem with the RAW and so don't need a houserule.

You are STILL avoiding the issue.

Obviously Paizo's intent is for those costs to stay exorbitantly high throughout the game. (Obviously these costs become relatively cheaper as you level up before each bump, just like a melee warrior that waits until maybe level 6 before jumping on the "cold iron bandwagon" gets away with relatively less costs)

They just don't make the costs high for some level but not for another level, not unless there's a reason for it. If archers were stronger relative to melee warriors and spellcasters at 4th level, that could explain why access to special materials is so expensive for 4th level archers. If archers were weaker relative to melee warriors at 14th level, that could explain why they can afford to purchase a "golf bag quiver" of every special material to enjoy nearly every monster's weakness.

But none of that is true.

It is obvious that ranged fire are supposed to pay through the nose for special materials ammunition. At all levels. I don't like it, but it would be a house rule to suggest otherwise.

And why are you spending so much time on a scenario that in no way supports your position?

How can you ignore the fact no sane player will actually purchase special materials as a level 4 archer? I mean, your example is founded on a lie. It's a theoretical construct with no applicability in practical play.

You keep avoiding the question: how can you think the level 4 archer is fair and balanced in the same game where the level 14 ranger gets the same relative benefit for much less cost?? You keep arguing the cost needs to be cheap for the cost to even out vs melee at the end, as if that's the criteria for a balanced game.

News flash: it's not. The criteria for a balanced game is if melee and ranged are "equal" at level N, where N is every value between 1 and 20 (inclusive)!

Having a rule that clearly shafts level 4 archers vs level 18 archers makes no sense. While my personal preference would be that the level 18 situation applied to archers of every...

You are creating problem that doesn't exist for some reason. I don't know why. It's a niche corner case that you're building up into something extreme.

I see nothing in the rules to indicate your opinion is correct other than your assumption the designers didn't know what they were doing in regards to ammunition.

There is no support in your interpretation of the rules at RAW or RAI. And no support from a game developer at the moment.

If you want to impose this penalty on ammunition on your archers in your campaigns, have at it. But at this point it is a house rule.

If you impose that rule, then your players are better off getting a holy rune for 1400 gold which works for 1d6 damage against all evil creatures and activates good damage weakness on every single creature with it from devils to demons to raksasha.

You're just discouraging the only class that might have a reason to purchase cost effective precious material ammunition from doing so. If that is your intent because you perceive an imbalance, then have at it. But from the perspective you're taking on this, it's easy to see that a holy rune is cheaper than a precious material weapon and everyone should get one over a precious material weapon except for users of cheap, disposable ammunition.

I can see why the designers left precious material ammunition cheap at higher level because no one has any reason whatsoever to purchase a special material weapon when a holy rune affects more types of creatures weaknesses than precious material weapons or ammunition.

With the cost of transferring runes being only 10%, it's cheaper to have a good bow with a holy rune you can move to another bow if needed to than to spend money on a precious material arrow.

Maybe the designers saw this and instead of rewriting the entire rule-set, just left it as is so weapons using disposable ammunition might have one advantage over melee weapons.

You keep focusing on archers, but this helps dart users, sling users, and crossbow users who could use a boost from cheap special material ammo. Leaving this little wonky design issue as you refer to it in the game gives users of ranged weapons a unique reason to use special material ammo that no martial weapon user would ever bother to buy over a simple holy rune.

Sometimes when you write a huge set of rules and you figure out it doesn't work very well save for a handful of weapons, you just leave it as is you didn't waste time writing pointless rules.

It's not ideal, but sometimes it happens. As far as precious materials go, only archer and ammunition weapon users have any reason to buy anything made of precious materials as it gets more cost effective at higher level. I would leave that little perk as it is for the moment. It's only useful in a handful of cases and if they bother to buy the ammo, it will give them a little feeling of power here and there. Same way you feel about incap spells for casters. Let the ammunition users shine on occasion if they even bother to buy the arrows in the first place.

You are STILL avoiding the issue.

Obviously Paizo's intent is for those costs to stay exorbitantly high throughout the game. (Obviously these costs become relatively cheaper as you level up before each bump, just like a melee warrior that waits until maybe level 6 before jumping on the "cold iron bandwagon" gets away with relatively less costs)

They just don't make the costs high for some level but not for another level, not unless there's a reason for it. If archers were stronger relative to melee warriors and spellcasters at 4th level, that could explain why access to special materials is so expensive for 4th level archers. If archers were weaker relative to melee warriors at 14th level, that could explain why they can afford to purchase a "golf bag quiver" of every special material to enjoy nearly every monster's weakness.

But none of that is true.

It is obvious that ranged fire are supposed to pay through the nose for special materials ammunition. At all levels. I don't like it, but it would be a house rule to suggest otherwise.

And why are you spending so much time on a scenario that in no way supports your position?

How can you ignore the fact no sane player will actually purchase special materials as a level 4 archer? I mean, your example is founded on a lie. It's a theoretical construct with no applicability in practical play.

You keep avoiding the question: how can you think the level 4 archer is fair and balanced in the same game where the level 14 ranger gets the same relative benefit for much less cost?? You keep arguing the cost needs to be cheap for the cost to even out vs melee at the end, as if that's the criteria for a balanced game.

News flash: it's not. The criteria for a balanced game is if melee and ranged are "equal" at level N, where N is every value between 1 and 20 (inclusive)!

Having a rule that clearly shafts level 4 archers vs level 18 archers makes no sense. While my personal preference would be that the level 18 situation applied to archers of every...

ehmmm where and why is that clear anywhere?

To me, what's "clear" is that they are supposed to pay "through the nose" at early levels and then can relatively cheaply benefit from that.

As i said above, all and every indication of consumables make them hard to get at their level but relatively cheap as you level up.

That's the expected outcome.

Again, potion of haste does way more for you at level 15 and is way more affordable by then, than say, level 8.

Why should ammunition be treated opposite than any other consumable?

b)
melee and ranged are balanced, but different. Melee does more damage. Ranged needs less strides. Melee doesnt wastes poisons, ranged can fire multiple poisons. Melee pays only once for precious materials, but pays a lot, ranged pays for every single strike with them, succesful or not, but pays less per shot.

balanced =/= identical

c)every single consumable "shafts" level 4 characters and "benefits" of a level 18 character.

Having a talisman that gives you a free ability once but costs 100gp will help level 4 and level 18 the same, but level 18 can spam those, while level 4 cant even buy it.

Obviously Paizo's intent is...

No. Full stop.

You can not claim that Paizo's intent is "obvious".

It's your opinion that their intent is to make archers spend "pay through the nose" even though there's no text in the book that actually says ammunition needs to be higher quality - and it's my opinion that it is much more probable that the intent is for archers to potentially end up paying just as much as melee characters if they use a lot of precious material ammunition than it is that the intent is for them to have to pay literally prohibitive amounts for lesser benefit (melee covering all the cold iron, silver, and adamantine Strike opportunities they could ever need with 37,800 gp or less, and that same amount spent on ammunition meaning a whopping 30 arrows that would count - if you were right - at high level). You can't just go "nuh uh, I'm definitely right" and have that be actually accurate.

And why are you spending so much time on a scenario that in no way supports your position?

My scenario was deliberate picked to be unquestionably not the result of me cherry picking the perfect circumstances that favor my position, as a means to try and keep the conversation focused on actual points not on "but why you argue wrong?" types of questions like this one.

how can you think the level 4 archer is fair and balanced in the same game where the level 14 ranger gets the same relative benefit for much less cost??

I can think this because, as I've repeatedly said and you keep just zapping right past: ammunition costs are cumulative.

The level 14 ranger isn't getting "much less cost." If a level 4 archer has paid out 80 gp for silver arrows, and a level 14 archer has paid out 1200 gp for silver arrows, it's not relevant that each 40 gp set of arrows is a smaller percentage of the character's total wealth - the character is still spending a huge portion of their wealth on ammunition.

So why then track it if it isn't supposed to ever happen?

Let's break this down a different way:

If we assume that Paizo is aware that it's possible to not have to track ammunition in a game, such as by either having ammunition be recoverable after use, or simply writing a rule along the lines of how a spell component pouch works for ammunition, and we see that they have written the rule that ammunition is tracked, what can we conclude?

Here's my answer to that question: that running out of ammunition is supposed to happen. Especially since the book initially read as though it was only magical ammunition that was destroyed on use and errata was issued to clarify that yes, all ammunition is destroyed on use.

In fact, it makes for a BETTER balance than the RAW! :)

That is an opinion, not a fact. And this attitude of yours wherein all your opinions are facts and everyone else's opinions are just opinions (or worse, get dismissed as not real or directly insulted) makes it very difficult to take your points seriously rather than think you're deliberately agitating other posters.

Here are my thoughts.

All basic items made are considered High-grade. As per special material rules.

"When you Craft an item that incorporates a precious material, your initial raw materials for the item must include that material; at least 10% of the investment must be of the material for low-grade, at least 25% for standard-grade, and all of it for high-grade."

Standard items such as weapons/armor would be made from iron/steel/wood/leather. These materials are easy to come by and are quite common. They would incredibly easy to be made completely from the one material needed.

If someone made a basic item that was not pure it would be considered Shoddy. A sword that is all rusted is a shoddy weapon. The Iron is no longer pure.

Shoddy Items - Pg 273 "Improvised or of dubious make, shoddy items are never available for purchase except for in the most desperate of communities. When available, a shoddy item usually costs half the Price of a standard item, though you can never sell one in any case."

As for the ranged argument I keep seeing. I think everyone keeps ignoring the fact that ranged combatants are usually safe from melee combat. I say that is a pretty big upside to having to buy a batch of precious material arrows.

Running out of ammunition should happen. You need to manage inventory. You need to prioritize targets. If a ranged character ran out of ammunition then they planned poorly. Ammunition does not weigh a ton, you can have 100 arrows for 1 bulk.

I don't see why anyone would have to buy/craft anything over low grade ammunition. You do not put runes on the ammunition. The Runes are going on the ranged weapon itself. So the rune threshold does not apply. Keep in mind striking adds damage dice to weapon damage. Ammunition does not have damage dice. The weapon does.

The new lost omens book seems to point out that (unfortunately) special material ammunition needs to be of specific grade to be used by higher level magical bows.

the text on the new weapon blanch has text like:

The blanch provides low-grade cold iron, so you can use it on a magic weapon up to 8th level, or ammunition for such a weapon. It lasts for 1 minute.

The blanch provides standard-grade cold iron, so you can use it on a magic weapon up to 15th level, or ammunition for such a weapon. It lasts for 10 minutes.

p.s.
this is completely different compared to the "old" silversheen btw (You can slather this silvery paste onto one melee weapon, one thrown weapon, or 10 pieces of ammunition. Silversheen spoils quickly, so once you open a vial, you must use it all at once, rather than saving it. For the next hour, the weapon or ammunition counts as silver instead of its normal precious material (such as cold iron) for any physical damage it deals.)

The new lost omens book seems to point out that (unfortunately) special material ammunition needs to be of specific grade to be used by higher level magical bows.

the text on the new weapon blanch has text like:

The blanch provides low-grade cold iron, so you can use it on a magic weapon up to 8th level, or ammunition for such a weapon. It lasts for 1 minute.

The blanch provides standard-grade cold iron, so you can use it on a magic weapon up to 15th level, or ammunition for such a weapon. It lasts for 10 minutes.

p.s.
this is completely different compared to the "old" silversheen btw (You can slather this silvery paste onto one melee weapon, one thrown weapon, or 10 pieces of ammunition. Silversheen spoils quickly, so once you open a vial, you must use it all at once, rather than saving it. For the next hour, the weapon or ammunition counts as silver instead of its normal precious material (such as cold iron) for any physical damage it deals.)

Definitely sounds like the 'new' PF2e blanch is more like the Silversheen* consumable (old or new) than the 'old' PF1e blanch, which was much better for arrows than for melee weapons because it only worked for one hit but had an otherwise unlimited duration (every PF1e archer should have had a supply of cold iron arrows coated with Silver Weapon Blanch handy for nearly any of your 'outsider encounter' needs).

*Not to be confused with the PF1e Silversheen Special Material.

The new lost omens book seems to point out that (unfortunately) special material ammunition needs to be of specific grade to be used by higher level magical bows.

the text on the new weapon blanch has text like:

The blanch provides low-grade cold iron, so you can use it on a magic weapon up to 8th level, or ammunition for such a weapon. It lasts for 1 minute.

The blanch provides standard-grade cold iron, so you can use it on a magic weapon up to 15th level, or ammunition for such a weapon. It lasts for 10 minutes.

p.s.
this is completely different compared to the "old" silversheen btw (You can slather this silvery paste onto one melee weapon, one thrown weapon, or 10 pieces of ammunition. Silversheen spoils quickly, so once you open a vial, you must use it all at once, rather than saving it. For the next hour, the weapon or ammunition counts as silver instead of its normal precious material (such as cold iron) for any physical damage it deals.)

I won't run it his way until they clarify it with an errata or a main book.

My players have used special material ammunition one time even with me allowing it at low-grade cost. If it costs a lot, they will never use it as it is completely unnecessary to kill things. The damage bonus isn't worth the cost of paying a high amount of money for ammunition.

That's why I didn't get the handwringing over this for ammunition. You could never pick up a piece of special material ammunition from 1 to 20 and not even notice at all. Even the martials with melee weapons bought cold iron weapons to kill a night hag one time, but don't even bother with greater striking runes as it doesn't come up enough to matter and they kill things so fast without it that using special materials would be like adding a 10 mph to a Ferrari. Sure, you go faster, but most of the time you won't need it or notice it.

I know this isn't where this thread was going, but no one has mentioned this at all in this thread.

Adamantine Weapons treat objects as if they had half hardness, unless their hardness is greater than the weapon.

The three tiers of hardness listed in the books are Thin Items, Standard Items and Structures, and the examples of these are Shields, Armor and Walls, respectively. The tier in which a weapon lands would probably be based on its weapon, for example a Dagger would be Thin while a Bastard Sword would likely be a standard item.

Regardless, the lowest hardness Adamantine can be is 10, meaning not only can it bypass Adamantine resistances but it also lowers most object's hardness, especially if you can Reinforce the hardness in some way. Adamantine armor would also help against Corrosive Runes, and other effects at high level that cause damage to Armor.

Cold Iron and Silver armor also sickens creatures with a weakness to them when they critically fail to strike the wearer.

Sure they are niche uses, but they all have a use outside ammunition like everyone seems to think.

I know this isn't where this thread was going, but no one has mentioned this at all in this thread.

Adamantine Weapons treat objects as if they had half hardness, unless their hardness is greater than the weapon.

The three tiers of hardness listed in the books are Thin Items, Standard Items and Structures, and the examples of these are Shields, Armor and Walls, respectively. The tier in which a weapon lands would probably be based on its weapon, for example a Dagger would be Thin while a Bastard Sword would likely be a standard item.

Regardless, the lowest hardness Adamantine can be is 10, meaning not only can it bypass Adamantine resistances but it also lowers most object's hardness, especially if you can Reinforce the hardness in some way. Adamantine armor would also help against Corrosive Runes, and other effects at high level that cause damage to Armor.

Cold Iron and Silver armor also sickens creatures with a weakness to them when they critically fail to strike the wearer.

Sure they are niche uses, but they all have a use outside ammunition like everyone seems to think.

Worth the price? None of my players would touch precious material items given the cost. Better to keep building up striking and potency runes or other better items.

We've sold all the precious material items except for one adamantine sword that we did not know had to have material upgraded to gain better runes because its grade wasn't listed in the module it was in.

We've sold all the precious material items except for one adamantine sword that we did not know had to have material upgraded to gain better runes because its grade wasn't listed in the module it was in.

Though I don't recall where, there is a rule in the books that states that special material items that don't declare their grade default to the lowest grade that the rules allow for an item of that level. The rule even stated something to the effect of "grade is only mentioned when the item in question is an exception to this rule.

For example, a +2 adamantine longsword, being level 10, must be at least standard-grade and would be listed simply as a +2 adamantine longsword. However, a +1 dagger (typically only a level 2 item) made from high-grade adamantine might be listed as a +1 high-grade adamantine dagger.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

We've sold all the precious material items except for one adamantine sword that we did not know had to have material upgraded to gain better runes because its grade wasn't listed in the module it was in.

Though I don't recall where, there is a rule in the books that states that special material items that don't declare their grade default to the lowest grade that the rules allow for an item of that level. The rule even stated something to the effect of "grade is only mentioned when the item in question is an exception to this rule.

For example, a +2 adamantine longsword, being level 10, must be at least standard-grade and would be listed simply as a +2 adamantine longsword. However, a +1 dagger (typically only a level 2 item) made from high-grade adamantine might be listed as a +1 high-grade adamantine dagger.

Ah. Makes sense. I didn't feel like changing it after he had been using it for 14 or 15 levels. He probably would have sold it if I had. There is not a lot of gold in APs or it doesn't seem like there has been. Right now they are saving up for Apex Items.

There is not a lot of gold in APs or it doesn't seem like there has been. Right now they are saving up for Apex Items.

Seems to be the opposite for me in Extinction Curse (at least at the low levels so far). My players still have 1E's loot everything mentality. I recently audited their characters to see where they fell along the treasure tables and, much to my surprise, they're consistently two levels ahead in terms of material wealth. And that's just from the stuff the module clearly states to give out.

Worth the price?

Special Material weapons and armor are slightly more expensive in price than Magic Items of that level. You should consider them replacements for magic items, for the martial character that don't really need magic that much.

Low Grade Cold Iron and Silver Weapon: 40g(+10% per bulk) at level 2
Hat of Disguise: 30g at level 2

Low Grade Cold Iron and Silver Armor: 140g(+10% per bulk) at level 5
Boots of Elvenkind: 145g at level 5

Standard Grade Cold Iron and Silver Weapon: 880g(+10% per bulk) at level 10
Clandestine Cloak (Greater): 900g at level 10

Standard Grade Cold Iron and Silver Armor: 1200g(+10% per bulk)
Adamantine Weapon: 1400g(+10% per bulk) at level 11
Alchemist Goggles (Greater): 1400g at level 11

Adamantine Armor: 1,600g(+10% per bulk) at level 12
Cloak of Elvenkind (Greater): 1750g at level 12

So for a weapon or armor (not a shield), the main benefit is being able to put better runes on it, right? Does this mean that regular steel or wooden weapons and armor can't have runes higher than 8th level? Or does this rune restriction only apply to equipment made of special materials?

The rune restriction applies to all materials, it's just that the upgrade of non-precious materials cost zero extra.

So if you have a "normal" club, that's actually "low-grade wood" and you can only put a +1 rune on it.

In order to put a +2 rune on it, you need to upgrade the wood grade. This costs zero gold, so you can just ignore everything about this.

The value is in explaining that there's no strange exception to the general rule here.

Wood works just like cold iron. Both need their grade upped to hold better runes. Upgrading wood costs 0 gold, upgrading cold iron costs 880-44 gp.

Didn't think you could upgrade materials.

Didn't think you could upgrade materials.

RAW, you can upgrade your Precious Material items only:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 578 1.1

Only an expert crafter can create a low-grade item, only a master can create a standard-grade item, and only a legendary crafter can create a high-grade item. In addition, to Craft with a precious material, your character level must be equal to or greater than that of the material.

Low-grade items can be used in the creation of magic items of up to 8th level, and they can hold runes of up to 8th level. Standard-grade items can be used to create magic items of up to 15th level and can hold runes of up to 15th level. High-grade items use the purest form of the precious material, and can be used to Craft magic items of any level holding any runes. Using purer forms of common materials is so relatively inexpensive that the Price is included in any magic item.

When you Craft an item that incorporates a precious material, your initial raw materials for the item must include that material; at least 10% of the investment must be of the material for low-grade, at least 25% for standard-grade, and all of it for high-grade. For instance, a low-grade silver object of 1 Bulk costs 20 gp. Of the 10 gp of raw materials you provide when you start to Craft the item, at least 1 gp must be silver. The raw materials you spend to complete the item don’t have to consist of the precious material, though the GM might rule otherwise in certain cases.

After creating an item with a precious material, you can use Craft to improve its grade, paying the Price difference and providing a sufficient amount of the precious material.

Needless to say, there is a whole lot of ambiguity on non-precious material items...

Didn't think you could upgrade materials.

You don't, and you can't. Zapp is just off on some conspiracy that's unfounded and has groups forced to transfer everything to and from Runestones every four or so levels in order to pay 0 gold and waste two weeks worth of downtime whenever they upgrade to the "unspoken/undefined" level tier of regular materials for Weapons, Ammo, Armor, or Magic Items.

It's nonsense, for non-precious/special materials there is no such thing as quality and any/all wood, steel or other weapon material that's not listed as precious can accept any level Runes.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

There is not a lot of gold in APs or it doesn't seem like there has been. Right now they are saving up for Apex Items.

Seems to be the opposite for me in Extinction Curse (at least at the low levels so far). My players still have 1E's loot everything mentality. I recently audited their characters to see where they fell along the treasure tables and, much to my surprise, they're consistently two levels ahead in terms of material wealth. And that's just from the stuff the module clearly states to give out.

I have 5 characters in Extinction Curse. They have been able to upgrade weapons and armor with appropriate runes. If they have enough they may do cold iron if their gold catches up.

Ravingdork wrote:

Didn't think you could upgrade materials.

RAW, you can upgrade your Precious Material items only:

Chapter 11: Crafting & Treasure / Materials / Precious Materials / Crafting with Precious Materials wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 578 1.1

Only an expert crafter can create a low-grade item, only a master can create a standard-grade item, and only a legendary crafter can create a high-grade item. In addition, to Craft with a precious material, your character level must be equal to or greater than that of the material.

Low-grade items can be used in the creation of magic items of up to 8th level, and they can hold runes of up to 8th level. Standard-grade items can be used to create magic items of up to 15th level and can hold runes of up to 15th level. High-grade items use the purest form of the precious material, and can be used to Craft magic items of any level holding any runes. Using purer forms of common materials is so relatively inexpensive that the Price is included in any magic item.

When you Craft an item that incorporates a precious material, your initial raw materials for the item must include that material; at least 10% of the investment must be of the material for low-grade, at least 25% for standard-grade, and all of it for high-grade. For instance, a low-grade silver object of 1 Bulk costs 20 gp. Of the 10 gp of raw materials you provide when you start to Craft the item, at least 1 gp must be silver. The raw materials you spend to complete the item don’t have to consist of the precious material, though the GM might rule otherwise in certain cases.

After creating an item with a precious material, you can use Craft to improve its grade, paying the Price difference and providing a sufficient amount of the precious material.

Needless to say, there is a whole lot of ambiguity on non-precious material items...

Paizo should be doing clean up on some of these rules like Crafting and general unnecessary rules in subsections of the book that allow rules lawyers to sow confusion that likely wasn't intended.

Ravingdork wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

There is not a lot of gold in APs or it doesn't seem like there has been. Right now they are saving up for Apex Items.

Seems to be the opposite for me in Extinction Curse (at least at the low levels so far). My players still have 1E's loot everything mentality. I recently audited their characters to see where they fell along the treasure tables and, much to my surprise, they're consistently two levels ahead in terms of material wealth. And that's just from the stuff the module clearly states to give out.

I have 5 characters in Extinction Curse. They have been able to upgrade weapons and armor with appropriate runes. If they have enough they may do cold iron if their gold catches up.

How much extra treasure are you throwing their way, out of curiosity? That could be skewing things given the AP is intended for a party of four.

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Didn't think you could upgrade materials.

RAW, you can upgrade your Precious Material items only:

Chapter 11: Crafting & Treasure / Materials / Precious Materials / Crafting with Precious Materials wrote:

Source Core Rulebook pg. 578 1.1

Only an expert crafter can create a low-grade item, only a master can create a standard-grade item, and only a legendary crafter can create a high-grade item. In addition, to Craft with a precious material, your character level must be equal to or greater than that of the material.

Low-grade items can be used in the creation of magic items of up to 8th level, and they can hold runes of up to 8th level. Standard-grade items can be used to create magic items of up to 15th level and can hold runes of up to 15th level. High-grade items use the purest form of the precious material, and can be used to Craft magic items of any level holding any runes. Using purer forms of common materials is so relatively inexpensive that the Price is included in any magic item.

When you Craft an item that incorporates a precious material, your initial raw materials for the item must include that material; at least 10% of the investment must be of the material for low-grade, at least 25% for standard-grade, and all of it for high-grade. For instance, a low-grade silver object of 1 Bulk costs 20 gp. Of the 10 gp of raw materials you provide when you start to Craft the item, at least 1 gp must be silver. The raw materials you spend to complete the item don’t have to consist of the precious material, though the GM might rule otherwise in certain cases.

After creating an item with a precious material, you can use Craft to improve its grade, paying the Price difference and providing a sufficient amount of the precious material.

Needless to say, there is a whole lot of ambiguity on non-precious material items...

Paizo should be doing clean up on some of these rules like Crafting and general unnecessary rules in subsections of the book that allow rules lawyers to sow confusion that likely wasn't intended.

Personally, I'm guessing (and it is just a guess) that mundane material grades were originally intended to be in the game but were dropped as a needless complication: Unfortunately, the general material grade requirement for runes was missed because it is in the 'Precious Materials' section (seriously, if this was intended to be a general rule, you'd think it would at least get a mention in the Rune section).

Unfortunately, it seems like we might have to wait for the 2nd printing to clean this all up...

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

There is not a lot of gold in APs or it doesn't seem like there has been. Right now they are saving up for Apex Items.

Seems to be the opposite for me in Extinction Curse (at least at the low levels so far). My players still have 1E's loot everything mentality. I recently audited their characters to see where they fell along the treasure tables and, much to my surprise, they're consistently two levels ahead in terms of material wealth. And that's just from the stuff the module clearly states to give out.

I have 5 characters in Extinction Curse. They have been able to upgrade weapons and armor with appropriate runes. If they have enough they may do cold iron if their gold catches up.

How much extra treasure are you throwing their way, out of curiosity? That could be skewing things given the AP is intended for a party of four.

No extra treasure. I usually only make adjustments if I see it having a severe impact on performance. That's why I don't worry about precious materials or make a huge issue out of cheap ammunition. Precious materials are nice, but it doesn't impact performance enough for my players to seek it out for an occasional advantage.

You don't, and you can't. Zapp is just off on some conspiracy that's unfounded and has groups forced to transfer everything to and from Runestones every four or so levels in order to pay 0 gold and waste two weeks worth of downtime whenever they upgrade to the "unspoken/undefined" level tier of regular materials for Weapons, Ammo, Armor, or Magic Items.

It's nonsense, for non-precious/special materials there is no such thing as quality and any/all wood, steel or other weapon material that's not listed as precious can accept any level Runes.

The only nonsense here is yours, and the only conspiracy is you conspiring against me.

I literally said, and let me put it in bold for you:

you can just ignore everything about this.

My answers to the OP are:

Does this mean that regular steel or wooden weapons and armor can't have runes higher than 8th level?

No

Precious materials are super overpriced for what they provide already and with the price scaling, they become extremely unattractive compared to just basic materials.

No. If you wish to keep enjoying cold iron and silver weaknesses even when you apply +2 and +3 runes, you need to pay up.

Nobody's forcing you. Feel free to either
a) stick to +1 runes for your cold iron sword, that deals +20 damage against a Balor
or
b) switch back to regular steel swords for that +3 rune, with no extra damage

The choice is yours. "Extremely unattractive" is your opinion only, and is not shared by all players.

Whether you think a regular +3 sword is using "high grade steel" or not doesn't matter, but it helps explain the "Does this mean that regular steel or wooden weapons and armor can't have runes higher than 8th level?" question.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

There is not a lot of gold in APs or it doesn't seem like there has been. Right now they are saving up for Apex Items.

Seems to be the opposite for me in Extinction Curse (at least at the low levels so far). My players still have 1E's loot everything mentality. I recently audited their characters to see where they fell along the treasure tables and, much to my surprise, they're consistently two levels ahead in terms of material wealth. And that's just from the stuff the module clearly states to give out.

I too run EC for five players. They always feel extremely cash strapped. The module only hands out a single weapon run at the indicated level, making the players repeatedly experience the frustration of going away buying them only to then find several copies...!

Example (from memory, could be off):

They find a single +1 rune at level 2.
The players that don't get it spend all their gold on +1 runes.
The adventure drops several +1 runes at the next level.

ಠ_ಠ

Then, later on, the Fighter has detected this pattern, and so at level ~12 decides against purchasing a Greating Striking rune, instead opting to upgrade the grade of his Cold Iron Halberd.

And now the adventure only features a single opponent with a +2 Greater Striking weapon, and that encounter ends diplomatically without them fighting/looting her. Followed by loads of dinosaur fighting, with no shoppe and with no Greater Striking monsters...

ಠ_ಠ

In summary, the treasure structure doesn't work well in Pathfinder 2. Purchasing Striking runes is so much better than anything else that you buy it without question as soon as you can afford to. Nothing else compares.

This means that around levels 4, 12, 19 (?) martial characters are effectively broke, and other items of and around those levels could just as well not be in the shoppe.

Saying "but use the ABP variant in the GMG" is not the answer. The answer is that Paizo needed one more iteration of their rules, because the core rule just isn't good enough.

Ravingdork wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

There is not a lot of gold in APs or it doesn't seem like there has been. Right now they are saving up for Apex Items.

Seems to be the opposite for me in Extinction Curse (at least at the low levels so far). My players still have 1E's loot everything mentality. I recently audited their characters to see where they fell along the treasure tables and, much to my surprise, they're consistently two levels ahead in terms of material wealth. And that's just from the stuff the module clearly states to give out.

I too run EC for five players. They always feel extremely cash strapped. The module only hands out a single weapon run at the indicated level, making the players repeatedly experience the frustration of going away buying them only to then find several copies...!

Example (from memory, could be off):

They find a single +1 rune at level 2.
The players that don't get it spend all their gold on +1 runes.
The adventure drops several +1 runes at the next level.

ಠ_ಠ

Then, later on, the Fighter has detected this pattern, and so at level ~12 decides against purchasing a Greating Striking rune, instead opting to upgrade the grade of his Cold Iron Halberd.

And now the adventure only features a single opponent with a +2 Greater Striking weapon, and that encounter ends diplomatically without them fighting/looting her. Followed by loads of dinosaur fighting, with no shoppe and with no Greater Striking monsters...

ಠ_ಠ

In summary, the treasure structure doesn't work well in Pathfinder 2. Purchasing Striking runes is so much better than anything else that you buy it without question as soon as you can afford to. Nothing else compares.

This means that around levels 4, 12, 19 (?) martial characters are effectively broke, and other items of and around those levels could just as well not be in the shoppe.

Saying "but use the ABP variant in the GMG" is not the answer. The answer is that Paizo needed one more iteration of their rules,...

I agree striking and potency runes are absolutely the highest value upgrades every situation except where you might fight a constant stream requiring a special material.

PF1 was similar as everyone boosted their + first and then keen, then everything else.

Armor was even was get +1 then boost fortification as high as possible, then maybe the + bonus. Avoiding crits was more valuable than AC in PF1.

That part doesn't bother me. My players would hate a game where they didn't have something to look forward to buy. They do sometimes miss all the stat enhancing items they used to pick up and all the negate every possible danger in the game items like freedom of movement rings and maxed out rings of protection. I do not miss the magic item christmas tree at all.

Though besides getting the base level of armor, save bonuses, and weapons there isn't much else they want other than key skill items and invisibility items like greater cloak of elevenkind.

My players would hate a game where they didn't have something to look forward to buy.

Nobody has argued for such a game.