Well if you don't have that much faith on Paizo not somehow objectifying women, would you rather they didn't have a woman on the cover at all?
Honestly I have never had a problem with my players one shotting a boss, or struggling for hours fighting mooks. Its all part of the game, you roll with it. I have had problems when I one shot them with a large crit weapon like a scythe from a low level monster that was a throw away creature who has now just killed a PC. And looking at that problem, I am much happier with what we have seen in PF2 than PF1, because it is less swingy that way.
I will pose an additional argument for just attribute modifiers instead of attribute scores, monsters and NPCs. Attribute scores make an additional unnecessary amount of math for the GM, especially if they are making a monster from scratch, stating up multiple NPCs, changing some of the stats of a monster by saying adding a template. It is just unnecessary amount of math and honestly page count on the stat block. And for those who need the nostalgia can always add it back to their game, because it doesn't have any effects mechanically. You want to roll 4d6 drop the lowest then put that through some math to see if you get a -2 to a +5 then go ahead, you can leave that in the character creation side of things. The rest of the game doesn't need the extra maths.
One of the many things that I felt that the first core rule book of Pathfinder failed to do was to make the all the downtime and rules outside of killing monsters in the dungeon all that interesting or even have any. So here are some ideas of things I would like to see in the core book if we could.
First I would like to see rules for settlements, kingdom building and mass combat. If they are baked in the game from the beginning I think they can open up a lot of gameplay that we have grown used to, like the Kingmaker AP.
Secondly I would like to see the Boon/Woe for NPCs to be there in the beginning. I think this is a great tool for world building and making the connections with NPCs mean something. This would bring some of the fame and infamy rules from ultimate intrigue in addition, to make the actions that the PCs have are going to affect them in the world they are in.
Finally I would like to see some more different trials for the overland travel that are not encounters. From simple things like armour straps breaking and getting wet, to potentially more dangerous things like the group being afflicted by a disease or curse
Anyway those are some ideas, what do you guys think?
Given the new edition coming around, I would chime in on a desire to see both clerics and wizards to be different from each other by what they specialise in. In PF1 they tried but it really didn't come across. This does somewhat come from the Warhammer roleplaying game but I think it makes sense here and I will elaborate what I mean. In Pf1 when you became a specialist wizard or a followed a specific god as a cleric all you got was 3-6 abilities that where often not all that impactful in the way one played the character and had no effect on the role playing side of the character. Universally I think both of school specialisation and domains should affect somewhat how the character looks, necromancers will look paler and more skeletal, those with the strength domain will look stronger and healthier. Secondly I think that school specialisations and domains should have an equal weight to spells on how a character acts in combat. Looking at the previous examples, I think necromancers would have all sorts of abilities that represent their ties to death, like abilities that allow them to resist effects and abilities that allow them to hurt the living or empower the death. The Strength domain would equally provide abilities that would mirror powers seen in comic book heroes for short periods of time, like being able to break a stone wall or leap dozens of feet in the air. Now while I don't think every necromancer or cleric of Irori should look, act and play the same I do think there should be marked differences. If a player says "I'm a cleric of Shelyn" there should be a marked expectation that is different from a player saying "I'm a cleric of Rovagug". And as a bonus I think that if done correctly people will stop seeing clerics as first aid kits on legs. In the same manner I think wizards should be distinguished from their specialisation more and thus if a player says "I'm a diviner" it should mean something to the group compared to them saying "I'm an transmuter", at least as much as what spells they have in their spell book.
Anyway those are my thoughts, what do you guys think?
So to those who are advocating that paladins are agents of law and good and that they heed the call of some higher source and that they are special, I have two questions. First do you role play this? Have you role played the fact that your character is special, unique and have to up hold this weight on their shoulders? Second question is it not easier to have this, all this that makes paladins special be a prestige class? Surely if it is hard and unique to be a paladin then it shouldn't be a starting class?
I would be up for making the paladin an archetype of the cavalier or call them herald or whatever. I think they have been given far too much time in the spot light, caused far too many problems in games and being a core class, they've eaten too much of the design space for something rarely played. If the entire playgroup groans or worse yet just flatly refuses to play with a paladin being announced then it just doesn't deserve to be in the core book.
I think that replacing alignments with codes would actually work a lot better, mostly because every time I play a lawful character I have to make the codes they live by from scratch anyway, and I have had to make the moral codes for some of my non-lawful characters too. Changing alignments to codes also allows for the introduction of a Motivation for the character, something that makes their world make sense or something they live by. Which I think tends to be ignored by many players and leads to the murder hobo trope.
I would love that they made poisons and diseases have more effects than just ability damage, and I would love if they made poisons have an effect for chronic exposure. To be fair I probably would make poisons far more complex than they need to be but I do think they are too simplistic the way they are and could do with a big reworking
Also a point to the lantern archon death squad, there is a simple solution and its called Blasphemy. Lantern Archon's light rays have a range of 30ft, blasphemy is 40ft. So your dragons and demon lords can just ready an action to cast it the moment the lantern archon deathsquad comes even close to them, or have it as a contingency spell.