Targeted Structural Audit of Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster

What follows is a representative example of a Targeted Structural Audit deliverable. Detailed audit modules and supporting evidence are included in full client deliverables.

Targeted Structural Audit

1. Engagement Snapshot

Product Audited: Pathfinder Player Core (Remaster)
Publisher: Paizo Inc.
Publication Year: 2023
Format Audited: Core Rulebook (Remaster)
Subsystem / Section Audited: Craft Downtime Activity and Supporting Framework (Craft activity, Formulas, Crafting skill feats, Pricing/Level tables)
Declared Design Intent (inferred): Enable characters to create items from raw materials, providing an optional specialization that delivers two distinct benefits: better gear access through downtime investment, and cost savings compared to standard purchasing.
Audit Type: Targeted Structural Audit

Audit Question:

Does the Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Crafting subsystem, as written, structurally deliver its two stated specialization benefits — better gear access and cost savings — without relying on undocumented external dependencies or compensatory GM labor?

Scope Notes:

Included: Craft downtime procedure, setup requirements, DC determination language, formula interaction, material requirements, and economic resolution via the Income Earned table.

Excluded: Item design balance, item lists, settlement availability rules outside the Craft activity text, and any GM guidance not directly embedded in the subsystem’s procedure.

Reading This Report:

This targeted audit uses functional verdicts to evaluate subsystem integrity. For orientation on how subsystem-level verdicts relate to product-level tier placement, see “Reading Targeted Audit Verdicts” in the Structural Audit Methodology.

2. Executive Verdict (Subsystem-Scoped)

Verdict: Delivers with structural debt

The Craft subsystem fulfills its intended role of enabling build specialization through item creation only by incurring structural debt. Audit 2 found a critical external dependency on GM-controlled market availability and rarity, meaning the subsystem’s main benefit exists only if the GM restricts regular purchasing. Audit 6 found that the internal economic loop is misaligned—the setup period guarantees an opportunity-cost loss compared to the standard Earn Income path, making crafting structurally inferior when items can be purchased. Audits 1 and 3 show that key operational elements require cross-reference to external resolution systems (Level-Based DC table, rarity modifiers) and rely on GM market management rather than defined procedures. Consequently, the subsystem delivers specialization only when the GM maintains specific market conditions, not through self-contained procedural framework.

This verdict applies only to the audited subsystem and does not constitute a product-level assessment.

3. Signature Findings

  • The subsystem externalizes its core resolution procedure. DC determination follows a documented formula (level lookup + rarity modifier) that exists outside the subsystem boundary, requiring cross-reference to universal tables rather than self-contained execution.
  • Crafting does not transform materials into items. It converts GM-controlled item scarcity into player downtime expenditure, with “raw materials” serving as currency placeholders rather than a distinct resource layer
  • Specialization investment produces structural penalties. The mandatory setup tax ensures crafters pay more in total value than non-specialists to acquire identical items
  • The subsystem cannot operate as a closed system. Its core variables (DCs, material availability, item access gates) originate outside its rules boundary and require ongoing GM context injection to function

4. Defined Terms & Analytical Frame

Structural Debt: A subsystem functions only when supplemented by ongoing, undocumented GM labor that substitutes for missing or incomplete procedures.

Closed-System Operation: A subsystem is considered closed when all core variables required for resolution are internally defined and procedurally generated by the subsystem itself rather than imported through adjudication.

5. Methodology & Coverage Boundaries

Subsystem Boundary Definition

The audited subsystem includes the Craft downtime activity procedure, entry requirements, formula interaction rules, material requirements, and economic resolution using the Income Earned table. It excludes item design, settlement availability systems outside the Craft text, and narrative or campaign-layer economic assumptions.

Coverage Model Used: Exhaustive within boundary

All procedures and decision points inside the defined subsystem were analyzed.

Claim Scope

Findings apply only to the Craft subsystem’s structure. No claims are made about overall game economy, campaign pacing, or product-wide design quality.

6. Structural Analysis

Structural Clarity & Flow

Entry Clarity: ✓ Pass. The entry criteria (Feats: Alchemical/Magical Crafting; Proficiency: Trained/Expert/Master/Legendary) are explicitly defined in the stat block (p. 237).

Procedural Sequence: ⚠ Caution. The procedure sequence is legible but disjointed. The user must reference the “Income Earned” table (p. 229) to resolve the Craft activity, but the specific mechanics of how to apply that table (using Character Level vs. Task Level) are buried in the paragraph text rather than the table itself.

Ambiguity Check: ⚠ Caution. DC determination follows a documented procedure (Level-Based DC table + rarity modifiers: Uncommon +2, Rare +5, Unique +10), but this formula lives outside the subsystem boundary in the core resolution system. The phrase “other circumstances” retains some adjudication space beyond the base formula.

External Dependencies & Completeness

Dependency Check: ✗ Critical Fail. The subsystem contains a fatal “undocumented external dependency”: Market Availability.

Evidence: The stated benefit of Crafting is ostensibly to acquire items. However, the activity requires “raw materials worth at least half the item’s Price.” If these materials are available, the finished item is typically also available for purchase (as both are “Common”).

Structural Gap: The rules do not define “Raw Materials” as a distinct game object. They are currency-equivalents. Therefore, the only reason to Craft (functionally) is if the finished item is unavailable but the raw materials are available. This distinction is not defined by rules; it is purely a GM adjudication (The “GM Fiat” Dependency).

Formula Dependency: The Remaster reduces formula dependency (allowing setup without one at a higher time cost), but relies on “Common” rarity. Access to “Uncommon” or “Rare” items—the primary incentive for a specialized crafter—is explicitly gated behind GM permission (“The GM might allow you to invent…”), not structural rules.

Friction & Compensatory Labor

GM Friction: Moderate. The GM must cross-reference the Level-Based DC table and apply rarity modifiers for each item crafted, rather than resolving within the subsystem text. The phrase “other circumstances” requires additional judgment for edge cases. While not arbitrary DC invention, this creates ongoing cross-reference overhead.

Compensatory Labor: Confirmed. To make this subsystem rewarding, the GM must actively break the game’s economy by artificially restricting the purchase of items while simultaneously allowing the purchase of raw materials. Without this manual market manipulation, the subsystem penalizes the player (see Audit 6). The DC cross-reference requirement is procedurally defined but creates friction through external dependency rather than subsystem closure.

Incentive & Economy Analysis

Incentive Structure: ✗ Structural Fail. The math of the subsystem actively punishes the user for participating in it compared to the generic alternative (“Earn Income” + “Buy”).

The “Setup Tax”: Crafting requires a Setup Period (2 days, or 1 day with a formula) where zero value is generated.
The Rate: After setup, the character reduces the item’s cost at the exact same rate as the “Income Earned” table (p. 237: “determined using the Income Earned table… using your own level”).

Comparison:

Path A (Crafting): Spend 1–2 days (Loss) + Spend X Days (Earn Income Rate) + Pay 50% Gold.

Path B (Work & Buy): Spend 1–2 days (Earn Income) + Spend X Days (Earn Income) + Pay 100% Gold.

Result: Because Path A loses the income from the first 1–2 days, Crafting is mathematically always more expensive (in Total Value of Time + Gold) than buying the item directly, assuming the item is purchasable.

Verdict on Specialization

The subsystem fails to deliver “build specialization” benefits. A character with the “Magical Crafting” feat pays more (via opportunity cost) to make a sword than a generic character pays to buy it.

7. Structural Assessment

Independent Operation Domain:

The subsystem runs on its own procedures only at the edges. Entry conditions (feat prerequisites and proficiency tiers) are clearly defined and verifiable. Once a DC is supplied from outside, the time-to-value conversion follows the Income Earned table without further judgment. Critical success benefits trigger automatically from roll outcomes. Formula acquisition for Common items (purchase or reverse-engineer) works independently without GM input.

External Scaffolding Dependencies:

The subsystem’s core resolution depends on four things the rules never define procedurally. First, DC generation requires cross-reference to the Level-Based DC table and rarity adjustment formulas (Uncommon +2, Rare +5, Unique +10), which exist outside the subsystem boundary. The “other circumstances” clause adds adjudication requirements beyond the base formula. Second, the rules treat raw materials and finished goods as distinct categories but never define what makes them different in play, leaving the GM to invent that distinction independently of gold-piece accounting. Third, access to Uncommon and Rare formulas — the primary incentive for a dedicated crafter — is gated behind GM permission rather than any defined acquisition procedure. Fourth, market availability (why this item can be bought but not that one) has no structural definition anywhere in the subsystem.

Ongoing GM Load:

Every craft attempt generates the same three labor costs for the GM. The GM must cross-reference external tables (Level-Based DCs, rarity modifiers) for each craft attempt. The GM must track and enforce which items are purchasable and which aren’t, even when both are Common and the same level, with no documented criteria for that distinction. And the GM must either restrict markets enough to make crafting worth doing or accept that the subsystem is actively penalizing the player who invested in it. None of these costs decrease over time. They recur every attempt with no procedure to absorb them.

Predictable Failure Points:

If the GM allows consistent market access — all Common items available for purchase — the subsystem becomes a pure penalty. Crafters lose one to two days of income for no mechanical gain. If the GM restricts markets to protect the crafter’s investment, that restriction has to be maintained indefinitely with no documented criteria for where to draw the line, producing an economy where identical items follow different rules for no stated reason. The deeper problem is that players discover this inversion after they’ve already invested in the build, at which point there’s no documented correction path. The GM has no signal that the calibration is off until a player notices their specialized character is outperformed by someone who did nothing.

8. Recommendations Scope

This report does not provide redesigns or implementation details.

9. Out-of-Scope Declaration

This audit evaluates subsystem structure only. It does not evaluate:

  • Playtest outcomes or table experience
  • Item or option balance
  • Writing quality or thematic cohesion
  • Fun, pacing, or preference judgments
  • Comparative system ranking
  • Content rewrites or mechanical redesign