|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about instead of looking up logical fallacies to throw around you think up an actual argument to my question about the Blanch?if I understand your argument correctly:
- the rules on blanches states:
“You can pour a vial of this dark liquid onto one melee weapon, one thrown weapon, or 10 pieces of ammunition.”
- why do the rules allow using higher grade (any grade?) on ammunition? unless we should be inferring something about how ammunition made from special materials is to workdo I have that correct?
if so my counter is:
- nothing is explicitly stated
- no, the designers are not implying anything (nor leaving anything for you to infer)
- this item is useful in many ways, not only the one you have singled out; as such, the rules are clear for all of the ways it can be used (even if you feel used this one way is saying more that what the words explicitly say)
You are convinently leaving out the actual part of the item that matters. This is the description of a Lesser blanch:
"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."
It explains the rules almost exactly like the rules for special material weapons, and has the caveat for ammunition. There is no reason for me to mention the many other ways the item is useful because they are irrelevant to the point: If the designers intended for the grade of ammunition to not matter why would they specifically specify it in this item?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and your argument is a clause in the blanches entry was intended by the designers to have broader consequences that are not stated anywhere else?
that’s a long way to go to infer something
so I’m sticking with:
- nothing is explicitly stated [about non-blanched items]
- no, the designers are [still] not implying anything (nor leaving anything for you to infer)
is there any chance that phrase means
- bolts for a crossbow (“ammunition for such a weapon”; i.e., not non-bolt ammunition for a crossbow)
- arrows for a bow (“ammunition for such a weapon”; i.e., not non-arrow ammunition for a bow)
- and so on
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're already making a "leap in logic" to apply your runes on normal attacks anyway. Like I mentioned, the rules only state "other relevant statistics" in the section of rules about Weapons, nowhere does it mention Runes. Relevant Statistics could only mean Traits for all you know. Who are you to assume what the designers intended by that?Weapons have stats. Runes alter those stats. "Some entries in the ranged weapons tables are followed by an entry indicating the type of ammunition that weapon launches. The damage die is determined by the weapon, not the ammunition."
"Damage Dice
Each weapon lists the damage die used for its damage roll. A standard weapon deals one die of damage, but a magical striking rune can increase the number of dice rolled, as can some special actions and spells. These additional dice use the same die size as the weapon or unarmed attack’s normal damage die." Seems like pretty simple logic... Not a leap. Not a hop. Maybe just logic?
Yet applying rules to ammunition when ammunition is included in those rules isn't logical?
What's the difference between that, and the implication that since Ammunition is literally priced out in the rules about special materials must mean it follows the same rules? Or the implication that since they made an item that follows those rules, it must be how it works normally?Because one is spelled out and one is an invention of yours? You require reading between the lines for your and mine tells you to add that damage...
To me it's pretty clear that Ammunition is intended to work the same way as weapons, since it's included in the same section as those rules. The fact you insist that that inclusion doesn't matter is the only leap in logic to me.
I still haven't seen anyone make an actual argument to explain why the Cold Iron Blanch would apply to ammunition if the designers intended for any low grade ammunition to work with any level of magic weapon. Why make an item cost 1700g for 10 uses, when you can buy 425 arrows instead?Why would We need to?
Because the item make no sense if the intent of the game design was what you say it was. It's entirely relevant to the conversation and you all keep disregarding it because it helps prove you wrong. You keep disregarding a lot of points I make, and only try to latch onto anything you can turn around and make it seem like I am reaching.
Honestly, it just seem to me that recently you have been intentionally arguing against every answer I have been trying to provide on these forums. I'm not here to prove people wrong, like you seem to be, I just want to help people understand the rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's entirely relevant to the conversation and you all keep disregarding it because it helps prove you wrong. You keep disregarding a lot of points I make, and only try to latch onto anything you can turn around and make it seem like I am reaching.
I don’t think that phrase means what you think it means
I certainly don’t think the designers used it as a venue for relaying some game concept which isn’t explicitly stated anywhere
"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."
Well, this quote doesn't really make a lot of sense on it's face as you aren't ever using the blanch for a particular weapon as you are specifically putting it on ammo before loading so no matter what, you'll be able to use the blanch on the ammo. It would need to say "or ammunition loaded in such a weapon". As it's inherently flawed, I'm assuming it needs errata.
It explains the rules almost exactly like the rules for special material weapons, and has the caveat for ammunition.
It doesn't though as you are never using the blanch on ammo for a particular weapon: It's JUST affecting the ammo and even if the effect is limited by the weapon firing it stays effective until shot or the duration ends. The way it's worded is that you can't even use it at all.
There is no reason for me to mention the many other ways the item is useful because they are irrelevant to the point
All the reasons are irrelevant: even if you 100% proved the intent of the blanch, that in no way proves the intent of the interaction of ammo, precious materials and runes. All you have is conjecture and assumptions.
Honestly, it just seem to me that recently you have been intentionally arguing against every answer I have been trying to provide on these forums.
You are thinking a bit too highly of yourself. I really don't think too much on who I'm debating with: what matters to me is if I agree with what you are saying or not. I don't even recall any particular debate offhand without looking. I'm just not that interested in any particular poster. If I've been debating you a lot, then you've been posting a lot of things I disagree with: it's that simple.
I'm not here to prove people wrong, like you seem to be, I just want to help people understand the rules.
LOL That's interesting is that's what I'm doing. I think you are clearly giving people wrong information about rules that do not exist. I'd rather give my point of view, post rule quote to back that up and let others follow the info if they wish: I wouldn't want them to come in here and just think that you need higher grade ammo without seeing that it's not actually in the rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I too am trying to help people understand the rules.
As they are written.
Not as someone infers they should be interpreted.
In a prior post, I quoted many of the related rules.
No where in there is anything which supports the claim that what a piece of ammunition is or is not made out of limits the benefits of the fundamental runes of the ranged weapon which fires that ammunition.
Low-grade items ... can hold runes of up to 8th level. Standard-grade items ... can hold runes of up to 15th level. High-grade items ... can be used to Craft magic items of any level holding any runes.
Arrow: These projectiles are the ammunition for bows. The shaft of an arrow is made of wood. It is stabilized in flight by fletching at one end and bears a metal head on the other.
Bolt: Shorter than traditional arrows but similar in construction, bolts are the ammunition used by crossbows.
Sling Bullet: These are small metal balls, typically either iron or lead, designed to be used as ammunition in slings.
I’m not seeing what you’re seeing.
Runes are not etched on ammunition.A ranged weapon with fundamental runes etched on it will:
- gain an item bonus to attack rolls made with that ranged weapon (weapon potency rune)
- deal multiple weapon damage dice (striking rune)
And no where do the rules state what the ammunition is or is not made of limits or modifies that; and these benefits also apply if it is magic ammunition fired from that ranged weapon.
The claim that this:
Low-grade items ... can hold runes of up to 8th level. Standard-grade items ... can hold runes of up to 15th level. High-grade items ... can be used to Craft magic items of any level holding any runes.
somehow applies to items that do not have runes etched on them ... I cannot connect those dots
I can see how one could think that there are dots there which should be connected
yet the rules do not explicitly state anything like that
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad someone finally has a well thought out argument. Here's my rebuttal...We had this discussion a while back about ammunition. It comes down to how you see things.
One camp is of the mind it is unfair that a ranged weapon user can access special material arrows so cheap when a melee weapon user has to pay so much. So they apply the rule for fundamental and property runes equally to ammunition.
Argument against this is ammunition is destroyed and has no fundamental and property runes on it, so why should they have to pay the same amount. Also in PF1 it was far more expensive to make a magical special material weapon that was permanent than ammunition. So some of us think low grade material ammunition works just fine. The cost is irrelevant given ammunition was cheaper in PF1 as well.
The designers have not made it clear. So you can go with either argument for your table if you can get consensus.
Personally, I make it so low grade ammunition works with a high end bow. Special ammunition is already extremely expensive, so you will likely never get it. Ammunition is destroyed after use and ranged weapons do less damage than melee as it is with a half-strength bonus at best for damage and an often lower damage die. It allows the ranged weapon user a fairly cheap type of ammunition that gives some kind of bonus.
I wouldn't spend much time debating it as each camp is firmly on their side unwilling to budge. Just go with what you and your group prefer and don't worry about it until the designers clarify.
Funny how the first thing you considered to be a "well thought out argument" doesn't actually argue what the rules are saying, but rather what they should be based on balance and the cost of the different options. This is a rules forum, not a balance / general forum. Yes, there's the general rules of "too good to be true" and "too bad to be true", but things have to get really extreme for that to kick in as a valid rule rather than a houserule.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just came across this post from Mark Seifter on his discord. For those who don't know, he's one of the writers for the Core Rule Book. He describes ignoring the rule for ammo, like you guys are saying is the "intended" way it was written, as being too good to be true.
Also note that this post was made a year ago, well before the Cold Iron Blanch was released, showing that it was indeed the intent of the designers that Ammunition follows the same rules as they laid out in the Blanch rules.
So, in support of ammo following special material rules are:
1. The cost of ammo is explicitly laid out inside the rules for Special Material Weapons.
2. Cold Iron Blanch, an item that came out after, follows those rules.
3. A literal writer of the rules agrees that this is how it should work.
Now you can continue to say that's not how it's written, and I don't agree, but I can see it's not clear and should be clarified. But to say that the intent is that ammo ignores those rules is just plain wrong. It's very important to differentiate RAW and RAI. If a minor typo or unclear writing in the book changes the RAW, but it's clear what RAI is, that gives GMs a clear guidance as to make their own decisions on how to run their games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. I use the automatic bonus progression rule in my games so I've never had to think too hard about this question. I started this thread thinking it would be ludicrous to require higher level materials for ammo to access the benefits of higher level bow runes, but I've been completely persuaded. What seems damning to me is that no one seems to be willing even to try to respond to this argument:
You are convinently leaving out the actual part of the item that matters. This is the description of a Lesser blanch:
"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."
It explains the rules almost exactly like the rules for special material weapons, and has the caveat for ammunition. There is no reason for me to mention the many other ways the item is useful because they are irrelevant to the point: If the designers intended for the grade of ammunition to not matter why would they specifically specify it in this item?
I just cannot imagine a world in which it makes sense to write "...on a magic weapon up to 8th level, or ammunition for such a weapon" if you can use that ammunition for weapons of higher level. Why would it be written that way otherwise? What purpose would such a clause serve? Barring a halfway plausible explanation, that just seems completely dispositive here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. I use the automatic bonus progression rule in my games so I've never had to think too hard about this question. I started this thread thinking it would be ludicrous to require higher level materials for ammo to access the benefits of higher level bow runes, but I've been completely persuaded. What seems damning to me is that no one seems to be willing even to try to respond to this argument:
I just cannot imagine a world in which it makes sense to write "...on a magic weapon up to 8th level, or ammunition for such a weapon" if you can use that ammunition for weapons of higher level. Why would it be written that way otherwise? What purpose would such a clause serve? Barring a halfway plausible explanation, that just seems completely dispositive here.You are convinently leaving out the actual part of the item that matters. This is the description of a Lesser blanch:
"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."
It explains the rules almost exactly like the rules for special material weapons, and has the caveat for ammunition. There is no reason for me to mention the many other ways the item is useful because they are irrelevant to the point: If the designers intended for the grade of ammunition to not matter why would they specifically specify it in this item?
Many people have responded to that argument. The consistent answer being that that's an item that works that way. As far as I'm aware no one argued that iron blanch works any differently than you described. Not one. Whether intentional or not, this is very much a misrepresentation of the opposition's argument.
What you quoted doesn't change the rules on precious material weapons, which are NOT worded "almost exactly like" the rules quoted above, as the quoted post claims. This limitation is nowhere in the text. Therefore, by RAW it doesn't work that way. You can't pull from one item to explain how another similar, yet in many ways very different item, works.Personally I will admit that the evidence suggests RAI is probably for higher grade ammunition to be required to trigger weaknesses with higher level bows, and personally I've never argued one way or the other in terms of balance. However, the rules still don't say that.
Many people have responded to that argument. The consistent answer being that that's an item that works that way.
But if it is just about that item, why the word "so" ? The formula of "x, so y" would make sense if there is a preexisting rule according to which y would follow from x, but it seems like an extremely odd way of communicating some idiosyncratic property of just this sole item (not to mention the oddity of giving the item a weird special deviation rule in the first place). As an enthymeme, it only makes sense with the implied minor premise that ammunition must be made with sufficiently pure materials in order to be usable with higher level magic items.
It just seems to me like the natural reading of the "so" clause is that its author presumed that the restriction on ammo precious material quality existed. That seems much more probable than the alternative.
If there was a written rule that said "Atlanta Boulevard is a one-way street, so you can turn left on red," would it make sense to read that as "this is just a statement about what you can do on Atlanta Boulevard, nothing else"? Or would it make more sense to read that and think "hmm, seems like a street needs to be one-way in order for you to be allowed to turn left on red" ?
Personally I will admit that the evidence suggests RAI is probably for higher grade ammunition to be required to trigger weaknesses with higher level bows, and personally I've never argued one way or the other in terms of balance. However, the rules still don't say that.
I agree that the rules don't strictly establish this requirement on their own. My read is that there is enough ambiguity, however, that the clear and obvious intent should be controlling, but I don't have a strong opinion about that and could perhaps be convinced otherwise. I agree that the balance arguments one way or the other aren't super relevant -- and I'd note that it is a complete non-issue in my games because of the auto progression rule and I haven't noticed any crazy imbalances, and I would think that that variant rule would have to be more unbalanced than ruling incorrectly on this issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That discord conversation that was just quoted was fresh in my mind when I replied to this thread originally, but let's please remember that comments made on Arcane Mark aren't official answers and shouldn't be cited as such, and at least include some disclaimer to that effect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That discord conversation that was just quoted was fresh in my mind when I replied to this thread originally, but let's please remember that comments made on Arcane Mark aren't official answers and shouldn't be cited as such, and at least include some disclaimer to that effect.
And if used as an argument, perhaps they should include the exact question he is responding to. Context is important, even if the answer might seem to have a clear attached question.
|
|
That discord conversation that was just quoted was fresh in my mind when I replied to this thread originally, but let's please remember that comments made on Arcane Mark aren't official answers and shouldn't be cited as such, and at least include some disclaimer to that effect.
The arguments against me in this thread are:
-The rule is written in a way that allows any ammo to work with any weapon.-The rule is intentionally written this way.
-To infer otherwise is bad.
And I disagree with all these points. The thought that ammo doesn't count as a weapon aside, one should not claim that RAW is the intened way to play is rediculous, especially with all the errata we have had and all the obscure rules that can be interpreted different ways. Trying to figure out the intent behind an ambiguous rule is the best way to go, especially with how silent devs are on the forums. I have put forth Mark's post to prove intent, and it's up to individual GMs to take that info and decide for themselves how they should run it.
And if used as an argument, perhaps they should include the exact question he is responding to. Context is important, even if the answer might seem to have a clear attached question.
The question was "Hey @Mark Seifter, if I wanna fire adamantine arrows from a +2 bow, do the adamantine arrows need to be standard-grade?" Here is the link to the post.
Here is the link to the post.
*shrug* Need a log in for that and I'm not about to do that. I'll look a it when Mark posts it someplace I can read it without making a special account to see it: you know like a place the game company runs that provides a public forum... I guess it might help those that already have access.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how comments on Discord are canon, but comments on Reddit are illegitimate.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The question was "Hey @Mark Seifter, if I wanna fire adamantine arrows from a +2 bow, do the adamantine arrows need to be standard-grade?" Here is the link to the post.
I do appreciate the link, thank you.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how comments on Discord are canon, but comments on Reddit are illegitimate.
Sure, because that comment saying "Yes" on the PF2 subreddit with no further explanation should be equal to a fully explained reply on a Discord channel dedicated to asking a specific developer questions about the game.
Seriously guys, not all third party resources are equal in validity. I trust Mark's Discord over random dev postings on reddit any day (especially when those posts are literally just one word).
Also like I said, I am using his post to prove the intent of the rule not the RAW. He even acknowledged in that post that the text is ambiguous.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
That discord conversation that was just quoted was fresh in my mind when I replied to this thread originally, but let's please remember that comments made on Arcane Mark aren't official answers and shouldn't be cited as such, and at least include some disclaimer to that effect.The arguments against me in this thread are:
-The rule is written in a way that allows any ammo to work with any weapon.
-The rule is intentionally written this way.
-To infer otherwise is bad.And I disagree with all these points. The thought that ammo doesn't count as a weapon aside, one should not claim that RAW is the intened way to play is rediculous, especially with all the errata we have had and all the obscure rules that can be interpreted different ways. Trying to figure out the intent behind an ambiguous rule is the best way to go, especially with how silent devs are on the forums. I have put forth Mark's post to prove intent, and it's up to individual GMs to take that info and decide for themselves how they should run it.
And if used as an argument, perhaps they should include the exact question he is responding to. Context is important, even if the answer might seem to have a clear attached question.The question was "Hey @Mark Seifter, if I wanna fire adamantine arrows from a +2 bow, do the adamantine arrows need to be standard-grade?" Here is the link to the post.
I don't even think this has been thought about very well. Even if a dev were to come out and say, "You need to have standard grade for a +2 bow" I would not run it that way. No one in my group is going to spend that much gold on items that will be used up. Way too much coin for a disposable item. Same as no one in my groups buys disposable ammunition. None of it is good enough or necessary to success.
So I would say if the devs decide that ammunition costs that much, no one will ever buy it or use it as it would be an utter waste of coin.
I think a lot more thought needs to be put into any clarification of a rule for special material ammunition. The cost-benefit has to be something attractive to the players or why even put it in the game. It's waste of text at that point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how comments on Discord are canon, but comments on Reddit are illegitimate.Sure, because that comment saying "Yes" on the PF2 subreddit with no further explanation should be equal to a fully explained reply on a Discord channel dedicated to asking a specific developer questions about the game.
Seriously guys, not all third party resources are equal in validity. I trust Mark's Discord over random dev postings on reddit any day (especially when those posts are literally just one word).
Also like I said, I am using his post to prove the intent of the rule not the RAW. He even acknowledged in that post that the text is ambiguous.
You mean “Yes you can.”? I agree, totally indecipherable. It’s not like it came from the lead designer either....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how comments on Discord are canon, but comments on Reddit are illegitimate.Sure, because that comment saying "Yes" on the PF2 subreddit with no further explanation should be equal to a fully explained reply on a Discord channel dedicated to asking a specific developer questions about the game.
Seriously guys, not all third party resources are equal in validity. I trust Mark's Discord over random dev postings on reddit any day (especially when those posts are literally just one word).
Also like I said, I am using his post to prove the intent of the rule not the RAW. He even acknowledged in that post that the text is ambiguous.
You mean “Yes you can.”? I agree, totally indecipherable. It’s not like it came from the lead designer either....
IMO, they are equally as valid... Until I see it here and it says official OR it's in an errata document, it's as equally as worthless as a way to figure out RAW. Now, it can be a way to figure out the RAI of that individual DEV but those do not mean they will translate into the RAI of the whole team: I've talked to Mark of other subjects [nested bonus types] and Mark advocated for doing it in a different way than the group did: as such, individuals statements are just off the cuff replies unless they state they aren't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mean “Yes you can.”? I agree, totally indecipherable. It’s not like it came from the lead designer either....Funny how comments on Discord are canon, but comments on Reddit are illegitimate.Sure, because that comment saying "Yes" on the PF2 subreddit with no further explanation should be equal to a fully explained reply on a Discord channel dedicated to asking a specific developer questions about the game.
Seriously guys, not all third party resources are equal in validity. I trust Mark's Discord over random dev postings on reddit any day (especially when those posts are literally just one word).
Also like I said, I am using his post to prove the intent of the rule not the RAW. He even acknowledged in that post that the text is ambiguous.
Please don't tell me we're back on this, which, btw, was very clearly lacking context if someone read the thread. I thought you were just pointing out the hypocrisy. A very valid point, since, as Mark has said many times before: his statements aren't to be taken as official rulings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought you were just pointing out the hypocrisy.
That’s exactly the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAI seems clear enough go me, and to be honest that's what should matter, not the RAW. The same rules for weapons are intended to apply to ammo. As to whether you should allow it at your table, it comes down to whether you think Archer's need a buff to get closer to their PF1 versions. (I don't, but do what feels right for your group.)
RAI seems clear enough go me, and to be honest that's what should matter, not the RAW. The same rules for weapons are intended to apply to ammo. As to whether you should allow it at your table, it comes down to whether you think Archer's need a buff to get closer to their PF1 versions. (I don't, but do what feels right for your group.)
I don't follow RAI or RAW. I analyze rules in terms of cost-benefit to player as well as balance and other metrics. If the cost isn't worth the benefit, then I adjust the rule.
Right now the cost isn't worth the benefit if I run disposable ammo like a permanent weapon. I hope they think of an errata or clarification that makes it attractive for a player to purchase special material ammunition, while at the same time not trivializing it.
All I know for sure is at the moment even with me running special material ammo in a very generous fashion, no one even bothers to purchase it. You don't run into creatures that require it often enough to warrant the purchase. Everyone is saving to upgrade weapons and armor and upgrade their stat boosting item as soon as they reach the appropriate level. No one is interested in wasting coin on even cheap disposable special material ammunition.
This is likely a low priority item to Paizo because their metrics show that special material ammunition just isn't that important to PF2 players.
|
|
RAI seems clear enough go me, and to be honest that's what should matter, not the RAW. The same rules for weapons are intended to apply to ammo. As to whether you should allow it at your table, it comes down to whether you think Archer's need a buff to get closer to their PF1 versions. (I don't, but do what feels right for your group.)I don't follow RAI or RAW. I analyze rules in terms of cost-benefit to player as well as balance and other metrics. If the cost isn't worth the benefit, then I adjust the rule.
Right now the cost isn't worth the benefit if I run disposable ammo like a permanent weapon. I hope they think of an errata or clarification that makes it attractive for a player to purchase special material ammunition, while at the same time not trivializing it.
All I know for sure is at the moment even with me running special material ammo in a very generous fashion, no one even bothers to purchase it. You don't run into creatures that require it often enough to warrant the purchase. Everyone is saving to upgrade weapons and armor and upgrade their stat boosting item as soon as they reach the appropriate level. No one is interested in wasting coin on even cheap disposable special material ammunition.
This is likely a low priority item to Paizo because their metrics show that special material ammunition just isn't that important to PF2 players.
It's totally in your rights to run how you like. I thank you for putting forth your opinion on the matter and how you think it should be fixed.
Others in this thread on the other hand aren't contributing to this conversation by claiming that the rules are the rules and we shouldn't be inferring intent and so on, without providing any other reasons than that. And that's what I'm upset about.
I have put forth my opinions on the cost balance of special material ammo and how I believe it's intended to work as the rules state, but these opponents would rather disregard me completely and just claim "Rules are rules". I'm trying to have constructive arguments and they resort to claiming I'm intentionally strawmanning them and making rules up when I simply just have a different interpretation from them.
If the first reply to me was "Well RAW it works this other way, but I can see where you can come up with that opinion. It's up to the OP to determine which is right for them." we wouldn't be 76 posts into this issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAI seems clear enough go me, and to be honest that's what should matter, not the RAW. The same rules for weapons are intended to apply to ammo. As to whether you should allow it at your table, it comes down to whether you think Archer's need a buff to get closer to their PF1 versions. (I don't, but do what feels right for your group.)I don't follow RAI or RAW. I analyze rules in terms of cost-benefit to player as well as balance and other metrics. If the cost isn't worth the benefit, then I adjust the rule.
Right now the cost isn't worth the benefit if I run disposable ammo like a permanent weapon. I hope they think of an errata or clarification that makes it attractive for a player to purchase special material ammunition, while at the same time not trivializing it.
All I know for sure is at the moment even with me running special material ammo in a very generous fashion, no one even bothers to purchase it. You don't run into creatures that require it often enough to warrant the purchase. Everyone is saving to upgrade weapons and armor and upgrade their stat boosting item as soon as they reach the appropriate level. No one is interested in wasting coin on even cheap disposable special material ammunition.
This is likely a low priority item to Paizo because their metrics show that special material ammunition just isn't that important to PF2 players.
It's totally in your rights to run how you like. I thank you for putting forth your opinion on the matter and how you think it should be fixed.
Others in this thread on the other hand aren't contributing to this conversation by claiming that the rules are the rules and we shouldn't be inferring intent and so on, without providing any other reasons than that. And that's what I'm upset about.
I have put forth my opinions on the cost balance of special material ammo and how I believe it's intended to work as the rules state, but these opponents would rather disregard me...
I don't think it is 100% clear myself. I can see the merit of both arguments.
What I also wonder if it is actually an issue in anyone's campaign? Are players purchasing tons of cheap special material ammunition ruining encounters? If people are running it as very expensive to purchase special material ammunition, is anyone buying it?
I wouldn't mind the higher price if the ammunition was recoverable. Sort of like the black arrow in The Hobbit. It might be cool to purchase a few recoverable special material arrows or bolts making them feel precious for the expense. But the whole arrows are done when they hit makes special material ammunition feel not so special and like an excessive expense for something that you will use up quickly.
|
|
I tend to think in Society terms, since I'm a Venture Agent (which you can see when clicking on my name). This issue is subject to table variation in Society, and can cause issues when someone decides to purchase a bunch of low grade ammo that ends up useless when a GM says it doesn't work that way. This is why I'm usually so adamant about my stances when I get into arguments here; I think of the long term ramifications on the campaign as a whole. I also lean toward not making players overpowered, to avoid issues like we saw in 1e where players can kill hard mode bosses in one round. For example, here's a situation I experienced while GMing Gallowspire:
Sure this small thing isn't overpowered in and of itself, but it can snowball into something monstrous down the line if we just allow these small things to go un-noticed. Guns are almost out, and if we allow this for bows it will be allowed for gun, and we still have no real idea what shenanigans will be available in that book.
I tend to think in Society terms, since I'm a Venture Agent (which you can see when clicking on my name). This issue is subject to table variation in Society, and can cause issues when someone decides to purchase a bunch of low grade ammo that ends up useless when a GM says it doesn't work that way. This is why I'm usually so adamant about my stances when I get into arguments here; I think of the long term ramifications on the campaign as a whole. I also lean toward not making players overpowered, to avoid issues like we saw in 1e where players can kill hard mode bosses in one round. For example, here's a situation I experienced while GMing Gallowspire:
** spoiler omitted **Sure this small thing isn't overpowered in and of itself, but it can snowball into something monstrous down the line if we just allow these small things to go un-noticed. Guns are almost out, and if we allow this for bows it will be allowed for gun, and we still have no real idea what shenanigans will be available in that book.
What was that fighter's build?
I've seen barbarians do a ton of damage as well. 200 points in a round is very reachable at 18th level.
Still not nearly as bad as PF1 in terms of crazy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to think in Society terms, since I'm a Venture Agent (which you can see when clicking on my name). This issue is subject to table variation in Society, and can cause issues when someone decides to purchase a bunch of low grade ammo that ends up useless when a GM says it doesn't work that way. This is why I'm usually so adamant about my stances when I get into arguments here; I think of the long term ramifications on the campaign as a whole. I also lean toward not making players overpowered, to avoid issues like we saw in 1e where players can kill hard mode bosses in one round.
Sure this small thing isn't overpowered in and of itself, but it can snowball into something monstrous down the line if we just allow these small things to go un-noticed. Guns are almost out, and if we allow this for bows it will be allowed for gun, and we still have no real idea what shenanigans will be available in that book.
Funny... if we're talking about PFS, then I worry more about the long-term ramifications of ignoring the rules and doing what feels right to the individual GM based on their personal experience and what they think is "balanced". Sounds like a much bigger issue to me.
|
|
What was that fighter's build?
I've seen barbarians do a ton of damage as well. 200 points in a round is very reachable at 18th level.
Still not nearly as bad as PF1 in terms of crazy.
It was a shield bash build or something, and whenever he crit he got to make an attack of opportunity on the target. I also had a 13th level investigator kill a CR 19 dragon in one round too, but I don't like to talk about that.
Funny... if we're talking about PFS, then I worry more about the long-term ramifications of ignoring the rules and doing what feels right to the individual GM based on their personal experience and what they think is "balanced". Sounds like a much bigger issue to me.
We don't "make up" rules, but some GMs can interpret ambiguous rules differently. The Organized Play Foundation has a hard stance against making rulings for ambiguous rules. I can't change this, I am only a volunteer. What I can do is try to figure out how rules are supposed to work so that I can help break up any arguments that might arise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny... if we're talking about PFS, then I worry more about the long-term ramifications of ignoring the rules and doing what feels right to the individual GM based on their personal experience and what they think is "balanced". Sounds like a much bigger issue to me.We don't "make up" rules, but some GMs can interpret ambiguous rules differently. The Organized Play Foundation has a hard stance against making rulings for ambiguous rules. I can't change this, I am only a volunteer. What I can do is try to figure out how rules are supposed to work so that I can help break up any arguments that might arise.
I mean, that's a good goal to have, sure, but it has pretty much nothing to do with the message I was replying to, or with your approach to this thread, which is all but outright saying that what the rules say don't matter if you deem it problematic, and claiming that arguments based on the rules and not balance are irrelevant.
|
|
I mean, that's a good goal to have, sure, but it has pretty much nothing to do with the message I was replying to, or with your approach to this thread, which is all but outright saying that what the rules say don't matter if you deem it problematic, and claiming that arguments based on the rules and not balance are irrelevant.Funny... if we're talking about PFS, then I worry more about the long-term ramifications of ignoring the rules and doing what feels right to the individual GM based on their personal experience and what they think is "balanced". Sounds like a much bigger issue to me.We don't "make up" rules, but some GMs can interpret ambiguous rules differently. The Organized Play Foundation has a hard stance against making rulings for ambiguous rules. I can't change this, I am only a volunteer. What I can do is try to figure out how rules are supposed to work so that I can help break up any arguments that might arise.
And here we're back at "RAW is LAW" thinking. Yes, the rules only say "weapons" but the intent is obvious that ammo should be included as well. Take this example of Injury Poisons on the First Errata:
Page 550: Under Method of Exposure, in the Injury section, change the first sentence to read “An injury poison is activated by applying it to a weapon or ammunition, and it affects the target of the first Strike made using the poisoned item.” This explicitly allows you to poison ammunition as well as weapons.
Meanwhile the First Printing of the rule only mentioned "weapon". It's clear that in multiple places in the first printing that the developers forgot to specify Ammunition where it should have been specified, they just didn't find the Special Materials one when making the first errata.
Yet you're saying if I say "The RAW is a typo, it's meant to work a certain way, here's some evidence to support that as well as a developer saying the same." I am automatically in the wrong? What happens if the next errata comes out and fixes the issue so that RAW now reflects what I was saying RAI was? Will you come back to this thread and apologize, or just ignore it and move to the next RAW argument?
It's important to differentiate RAW and RAI so that people can have a full view of what to do for their personal games. If you can't see that then that's your problem, stop taking it out on us.
RAI seems clear enough go me, and to be honest that's what should matter, not the RAW. The same rules for weapons are intended to apply to ammo. As to whether you should allow it at your table, it comes down to whether you think Archer's need a buff to get closer to their PF1 versions. (I don't, but do what feels right for your group.)I don't follow RAI or RAW. I analyze rules in terms of cost-benefit to player as well as balance and other metrics. If the cost isn't worth the benefit, then I adjust the rule.
Right now the cost isn't worth the benefit if I run disposable ammo like a permanent weapon. I hope they think of an errata or clarification that makes it attractive for a player to purchase special material ammunition, while at the same time not trivializing it.
All I know for sure is at the moment even with me running special material ammo in a very generous fashion, no one even bothers to purchase it. You don't run into creatures that require it often enough to warrant the purchase. Everyone is saving to upgrade weapons and armor and upgrade their stat boosting item as soon as they reach the appropriate level. No one is interested in wasting coin on even cheap disposable special material ammunition.
This is likely a low priority item to Paizo because their metrics show that special material ammunition just isn't that important to PF2 players.
I think whether is worthwhile to purchase at either price point comes down to your build and how much you know about your enemy. If you're going into the World Wound and can count on fighting a lot of demons, it may very well be worth it. Especially if you play a high accuracy build that doesn't waste a lot of shots.
But even then, I'd be tempted to use a cold iron melee weapon instead.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a Monk Archer or Ranger is using flurry/hunted shot, they only need to hit with a single arrow to trigger weakness, so they could use one special material and one normal. They also benefit from a weapon with all their runes on it, rather than how melee fighters either have to make it a backup weapon, or hope they fight things weak to it. A fighter can dump all their money into a Cold Iron Greatsword, but it's just as good as a normal one against Devils. An archer on the other hand has the flexibility to use various different materials all on their single weapon. The cost of that flexibility is that the material isn't permanent.
I'm not sure what you mean about an Adventure path item. I am talking about an item from the Pathfinder Society Lost Omens book. And yes Silversheen is a thing, but I don't believe they will update it, it's been around for too long, so enjoy the basically free silver damage.
And I think you misunderstood what I was saying about the errata. Previously it was worded exactly how Special materials was worded, only affecting weapons, but then they fixed it to explicitly allow ammo. I was saying they worded it the same way in both cases, but only realized the mistake on the injury poisons, and not on the special materials. (I have actually changed my stance on the ammo=weapons argument and agree that it's not, and that errata proved it to me)
Another question I have posed that no one has answered, if grade doesn't matter for ammo, can I make high grade ammunition at all? Why not simply make a "Cold Iron Ammunition" item, set the level to 2 and the price at 40g for 10, like they did with normal ammunition? Instead they go out of their way to allow you to make low/standard/high grade ammo, when the higher grades have no benefit? It just makes no sense.
Another question I have posed that no one has answered, if grade doesn't matter for ammo, can I make high grade ammunition at all?
Of course grade matter for ammo: you can mage MAGIC ammo and the material limits the level of item you can make. So if you want to make a Starshot arrow, you need Standard-grade and for a Spellstrike Arrow (Type VIII) you need High-grade.
If a Monk Archer or Ranger is using flurry/hunted shot, they only need to hit with a single arrow to trigger weakness, so they could use one special material and one normal.
But it triggers on each hit so why would they only fire one special material arrow? If they expect to hit with a second arrow, why not make it trigger the weakness too?
|
|
Another question I have posed that no one has answered, if grade doesn't matter for ammo, can I make high grade ammunition at all?Of course grade matter for ammo: you can mage MAGIC ammo and the material limits the level of item you can make. So if you want to make a Starshot arrow, you need Standard-grade and for a Spellstrike Arrow (Type VIII) you need High-grade.
That doesn't explain why you can make it, that just explains something I can do with it. If it were intended only for magical arrows why isn't it mentioned anywhere in that section? Pricing is only mentioned in the special materials section, and nowhere else. Not to mention special material magic ammo isn't very conducive. Pricing for the magic ammo is per item, and pricing for the special material ammo is per 10. Do I have to buy 10 of them if I want it in special materials? Or do I divide by 10 and add that price to each consumable I buy? On that note, can I even buy a single special material arrow at all, or do I have to buy 10 at a time? These questions are not answered anywhere.
If a Monk Archer or Ranger is using flurry/hunted shot, they only need to hit with a single arrow to trigger weakness, so they could use one special material and one normal.But it triggers on each hit so why would they only fire one special material arrow? If they expect to hit with a second arrow, why not make it trigger the weakness too?
Flurry and hunted shot combine their strikes for weaknesses. Hitting with two arrows only triggers weakness once. That's the whole point of those abilities.
That doesn't explain why you can make it
Sure it does: for exactly the same reason as a non-magic arrow and that's to trigger weaknesses. Also pricing for special materials being in the special materials section... That seems obvious. As for 10 arrows equaling the cost of a weapons... It's no different than buying normal arrows [1 sp price for 10]: if your DM forbid you from buying individual arrows then sure expect them do the same for special material ones. I think most can figure out how to divide by 10 though as nothing says you MUST buy them by 10's only but what the cost is.
Flurry and hunted shot combine their strikes for weaknesses. Hitting with two arrows only triggers weakness once. That's the whole point of those abilities.
Misread that a bit, but then you're risking NOT triggering weaknesses because you tried to cheap out with a normal arrow. I think anyone wiling to buy the special material arrows isn't going to mix and match in that situation: I know I wouldn't.