Pathfinder 2E Can you suffer more than one condition?

[Filthy Lucre]

Howdy All,

Intuitively, from my 3.5 experience, the answer is "obviously yes" but I keep seeing places on message boards where people say you can only ever have a single condition at a given time. Can I get a rules clarification/reference page number?

 

[Morrus]

That’s definitely not a think I’ve discovered while playing PF2, and I suffered more than one condition just last week. If that’s not the case, I’d be interested in seeing a cite, too.

 

[kenada]

Howdy All,

Intuitively, from my 3.5 experience, the answer is "obviously yes" but I keep seeing places on message boards where people say you can only ever have a single condition at a given time. Can I get a rules clarification/reference page number?

It sounds like they’re confusing the rules on redundant conditions. You can’t have more than one of the same condition, but you can have several different ones. The example provided has someone with both the flat-footed and enfeebled 2 condition. It would be obviously silly if having one of those prevented or overwrote the other.

 

[CapnZapp]

Howdy All,

Intuitively, from my 3.5 experience, the answer is "obviously yes" but I keep seeing places on message boards where people say you can only ever have a single condition at a given time. Can I get a rules clarification/reference page number?

That’s definitely not a think I’ve discovered while playing PF2, and I suffered more than one condition just last week. If that’s not the case, I’d be interested in seeing a cite, too.

The quick answer is: obviously yes

When you ask for a rules page reference, however, that request might come across as reasonable, but it really is not.

The rules cannot be expected to state every truth. You need to look at this another way: if having one condition would block getting more, this would have been stated by the rules. The fact nothing is said means there is no rule against multiple conditions.

This all boils down to a very common fallacy when discussing rules:

You need to assume omissions are intentional, not accidental.

That's the only way to write rules when you think about it. If rules writers had to state everything that was true, rulebooks would have becom impossibly bloated.

So there is no rule stating you can have multiple conditions. Instead there is no rule stating you can't have multiple conditions. This can be very tricky, and you will simply have to accept that if that redditor is hell-bent on not accepting this, simply move on and let him or her remain wrong. There just is no way to persuade somebody that can't understand the above fallacy.

Best regards,
Zapp