I'm curious how having a problem with /ˈdiːmən/ and /ˈdiːmən/ and not with /koʊm/, /bɑm/, and /tuːm/ makes us silly.

And you might have a point about JJ saying it's pronounced /ˈdeɪːmən/ IF a pronunciation guide were included in the Bestiary (eg how they helpfully point out that coup de grace is "coo day grahs" in the Core Rulebook), rather than a forum post. Do they consider the Off-Topic Discussions board required reading? Wouldn't that make it On-Topic?

"Daemon" is an alternate form of "Demon". Same pronunciation, same definition. Using the "two" words for two different races is like having an Aethereal Plane that's distinct from the Ethereal Plane, or Magick users who are different from Magic users.
I cannot see any reason for both in Pathfinder unless it's either a demonic plot to cause chaos and confusion, or a daemonic plot to cause linguists to commit suicide.

Looking in the playtest Bestiary, there are no Daemons listed, which means maybe now's the time to give them a different name? Please. I'm tired of having to refer to them as "Daemons with an 'A'" every time they come up in conversation.

Paladins generally can't travel with Evil characters at all, due to the Code of Conduct; only exception is when facing a far greater evil, and even that carries some restrictions and requirements. And if your friend plays Paladin as "kill evil on sight", he's probably not going to go for the nuances of that exception.
So either your paladin friend needs to branch out and play something else, or the rest of the party can't play evil.

Lantern of Revealing (30k GP) gives a 25ft radius Invisibility Purge while lit (so basically unlimited use). Wayfinder of Revelation (8k GP) gives a once-a-day 40 ft radius for six rounds.

no, if it were simply a matter of a completely terrible character, that's doable in any rule set. In PF1, you could make a character in a full-caster class who's incapable of casting spells. My point is that PF2 has nothing in the rules that prevents someone from somehow harming people with a spell that's meant to heal them. PF1 has numerous examples of spells or abilities that set a minimum for a modifier so that negative values can't cause absurd results.
(Non-standard stat generation, yes, but this isn't some third party supplement or a house rule. This is doable with rules they felt worthy enough of an entire page in the book. And it takes at most a sentence to resolve.)

EDIT: The point of this thread is not to lambast PF2 as terrible; my current opinion of PF2 is neither "it's terrible" nor relevant. The point of this thread is to highlight certain "anti-absurdity" rules that PF1 had but seem to be missing in PF2, so that the designers see them. (Another of the anti-absurdity rules I can't find in the playtest: minimum damage from Str/Dex penalties. In PF1, if penalties to your damage were sufficient to reduce it to 0 or less, the attack instead did one non-lethal.)

"Hard to do" is not "impossible". Also, as I said, "4d6 drop lowest" explicitly removes the +2 wis that Clerics get.

I'm aware that no one is going to seriously make such a character. I'm saying the rules don't prevent it from happening, as opposed to PF1 where
1) spells have a minimum attribute to cast them.
2) most healing spells or abilities add the class/caster level, which can never be negative, rather than attribute modifiers.
3) the few healing effects I could find that use attribute modifiers set a minimum of 0 or +1.

Note: This is not "argh, Clerics are terrible"; judging particular classes is for other people. "Failure Cleric" refers to what is possible from the following.

1) There is no rule in PF2 stating a minimum attribute for spellcasting. In contrast, PF1 required your casting attribute be at least 10+slvl to cast a spell.
2) Unheightened Heal gives 1d8 + casting modifier healing, or just the modifier in the "mass" casting.
3) Heal does not have a rule specifying a minimum amount of healing.

Modifiers can be negative. You could potentially have a Cleric (or other divine caster) with Wisdom less than 10 who hurts people when they cast Heal. Also, because Harm is an exact mirror of Heal, the same Cleric would heal people with Harm.

If there is in fact a rule somewhere that contradicts the above, please point it out; if not, could they be added? (And no, the "starting at 10 and only having one possible -2 that is negated by the class ability boost" doesn't count. There's a sidebar about optional flaws and an entire page about roll "4d6 drop lowest" generation (which explicitly removes the class ability boost).)

guessing it might be that "inured" sounds and looks like "injured", but I'd still like to know why it was panned.

My problem with "bolstered" is that it sounds like something the character would be able to voluntarily lower, similar to spell resistance/immunity and saving throws in PF1.

Advanced Maneuver/Trickery/Arcana all say "half your level"; Advanced Dogma says "equal to your actual level". Not sure if this is a mistake or if Clerics are meant to be an exception.

The problem comes from the people who skip those sections to just read the one class or the one spell, trust me it happens. shudders...

Not sure why the rules should cater to people who can't be bothered to read them. "Oh, you didn't know you could do this because you didn't read where it says you can? Maybe you should try READING, then."

Also agree that there's plenty of redundancy that could be fixed. Could collapse Basic Dogma/Maneuver/Trickery/Arcana/Whatever into

(or whatever the writers come up with)

Prereq: any Multiclass Dedication feat
When you take this feat, chose a class for which you possess the Multiclass Dedication feat. You gain a level 1 or 2 feat belonging to that class.
Special: You can select this feat more than once. It's effects do not stack. Each time you select this feat, it applies to a different class.

and Advanced Dogma/Maneuver/Trickery/Arcana/Whatever into

Prereq: Basic Outside Training

When you take this feat, chose a class for which you possess Basic Outside Training. Gain one feat from that class. For the purposes of meeting its prerequisites, your level in the selected class is equal to half your level.
Special: You can select this feat more than once. Each time you select it, you gain a new feat from the selected class.

HOLD UP: why is Advanced Dogma "equal to your actual level" when the other three are "equal to half your level"? Is this a typo or intentional? This is an example of why the rampant redundancy is bad: I'm desensitized from reading the same text over and over that almost missed an exception.

Special: If the selected class is Cleric, your level in that class is instead equal to your actual level.

Qazyr wrote:

16 means you need some exceptional stats (how many characters do you have with two or more 16+ attributes?)

In the playtest, there is only 1 possible character build that doesn't have at least 2 16+ stats by level 5 (starting with 18 12 12 12 12 12, literally trying to avoid having a 16 in a second stat as much as possible). Even then and if you keep trying to avoid more 16s as much as possible, you still have 20 16 14 14 14 14 at level 10).

I suppose I'm still in the PF1/3.5 mindset, wherein the characters have a single "god-stat" that every attribute increase goes into, and then the other five are at most 14s from level 1 to 20. Sounds like PF2 characters will become considerably more super-human (or -elven, or -dwarven, etc) than PF1.

Is there really a point to the Basic Arcana and Advanced Arcana feats, if all they do is allow you to pick another feat? Wouldn't it be more efficient to just add a clause to Wizard Dedication
"At level 4 and above, you may take Wizard feats (as a Wizard of half your level) instead of your base class's."
Otherwise, you end up with every class requiring two feats that all follow the same template.

Also, not really a fan of the Int 16 requirement for Wizard Dedication. 5E is bad enough with requiring 13 in the stat; 16 means you need some exceptional stats (how many characters do you have with two or more 16+ attributes?) or you're limited to only classes that share the same focus. RE: needing to be a "prodigy" to pick up a new class so quickly, two things:
1) Leveling up during a time skip. High stat requirement makes no such allowances.
2) Who's to say the character didn't have the basic training earlier, and is only now progressed to the point of being able to use it effectively? "My master wielded sword and spell together, and taught me to do the same. What is this 'multiclassing' you speak of?"

The Corrosive abilities didn't exist when the Arcane Archer was written. For the Magus, I suspect the decision to leave them out was based on power balance. You can get both Corrosive and Corrosive Burst using the Magus FCB if you are a Gnome.

Except Magus (UM, 2011) also predates Corrosive (UE, 2012) (honestly curious why it took three years to add Corrosive and complete the quartet of enhancements).

Would be nice to get a designer's input on if they forgot to errata in Corrosive to the Magus list or if they intentionally didn't add it, but with 2E coming, probably not going to get an answer.

kwiqsilver wrote:

Rather than:

Success
Critical Success
Failure
Critical Failure

I think it would be more logical to list them in best -> worst (or worst -> best based on your POV) order:
C S
S
F
C F

There's already a thread about this from months ago where Mark explains why it's the way it is. Here's a summary:

Sometimes the Crit Effects are based on the normal effect. Example:

Failure: The target is flat-footed and enfeebled 1 for 1 round.
Critical Failure: As Success, but duration is 2 rounds.

So it's not about OCD aesthetics stuff, but logic readability of effects.

Except that if you're looking for a particular result, you're going to skip through and dismiss other, irrelevant, entries. Regardless of which entry comes first, I'm not going to read the standard success entry until the crit success entry tells me to.

I think I'd prefer a logical progression of effects, rather than any logical "readability".

Where is that thread, by the way? My argument may already have been made there; I don't know.

Simple solution:
If Deusvult is DM: rule 0 (DM Fiat) applies.
If someone else is DM: they can apply the Duck Test (if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck).

To be fair, with all this talk about rules bending and loophole abuse: this is part of what the DM's job is. The proper dialogue is:

Player: "Ha ha, I've found a loophole that I shall use to break the game!"
DM: "Nope. Doesn't happen."
Player: "But this rule and this rule say this and..."
DM: "Rule 0 says It. Doesn't. Happen."

If we wanted a game with a rigid, breakable rule system, we'd play computer games.

If that´s the case for you, yes you can act like the master of drinking. But you will get bored when the guys start singing real badly, messing with the lyrics and unable to notice how bad they sing.

I dunno about boredom: I've found that the most enjoyable part of drunkenness is when it happens to other people. Especially if they pass out. Then the mustache painting begins.

And I realize that my lvl 12 Alchemist can't out drink anyone who is likewise immune to poison. What you end up with is a stalemate.

The only differences between them as I can see is that drugs have a temporary positive effect, can cause addiction, and take longer to kill you. The important similarities are that they're non-organisms (so excluding diseases) THAT WILL KILL YOU if they get into your system. Oh and they don't kill you through hit point damage (so excluding weapons and corrosives).

I ask mainly because if alcohol (a drug according to GMG) can be considered a poison, then my lvl 12 Alchemist can out drink anyone living, including dwarves.

I always imagined the deities in D&D and Pathfinder had divine consorts (at least, those that wanted them). In D&D terms, the spouse was granted divine rank 0 (quasi-deity); he or she is immortal, but not much else. If two deities (DR 6+) were married, I'd expect their churches would merge into worshiping the pair, perhaps with combined domain selection for the clerics (ie. able to choose domains from either or both of their lists).

"Young male formerly-human demigod seeks wife. Must be Good, Chaotic preferred. If interested, contact via prayer." -Alkor, an ascended character of mine.

About Alchemists and Disable Device:
I don't know about traps, but from the Lockpicking aspect, it makes sense for an alchemist. A bit of powerful acid works just as well as a lock pick. And it doesn't need to be magical acid, so no use limit worries. And improving alchemists to fit the expert archetype (aka rogue) would be cool.

I definitely agree that the alchemist is too limited, and I find myself comparing it to the warlock as well.
1) The warlock gets unlimited eldritch blasts (or 14400/day without feats and not sleeping). The alchemist gets bombs level+int/day. They do roughly the same damage (alchemist is one die ahead at 20) and both are ranged touch. Advantage: warlock. The alchemist should get more.
2) The warlock gets twelve invocations by 20 (without feats). The alchemist gets six discoveries and one awesome discovery by 20. But as awesome as the grand discovery is, does it equal six invocations (up to three of which could equally as awesome (*cough*Dark Foresight*cough*)? Advantage: warlock. Either the alchemist should get discoveries more frequently, or maybe have a feat Extra Discovery?

As it sits in the playtest, I'm still looking forward to January when I'll finally get to try Pathfinder (been playing 3.5 up til now). I plan to play an alchemist. If they do improve the alchemist, I think the only thing that could give it competition for a favorite class is if they also add warlock to Pathfinder.