| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I've been spending a lot of time reading about what people think about Pathfinder Second Edition. I've playtested... I believe it's 6 modules now (Edit: actually my GMtells me it's been 5, they're kinda blurring together at this point), as one of those few players crazy enough to stick with Colette after the frankly insane number of TPK's (here's to hopeing Level 7 is the lucky number). And as you'd expect, I have quite a lot of complaints, recommended changes, and views on controversial elements of the game, both as a player and as someone who regularly GM's Pathfinder 1e.
But that's not what this thread is about. What this thread is about is a comment I read a couple days ago on Giant in the Playground's Forums (complements to Rhyden for bringing this up there) is the fact that the very first proper page to the rulebook -- the introduction to the playtest itself -- describes Pathfinder as a Sword and Sorcery game.
Using these playtest rules, you can build any kind of sword and sorcery story imaginable to explore with your friends, family, and acquaintances whose love for imagination and camaraderie matches your own.
At first, I thought it was just a hilarious mistake, I mean I can totally understand a page like this being rewritten a couple dozen times to make it sound right, only for them to realize about a month later that they accidentally referred to their game by the wrong genre. But now, looking back on this page and the problems I keep seeing crop up in the playtest I am no longer convinced this was a mistake.
Pathfinder was never a Sword and Sorcery game. Dungeons & Dragons stopped being an S&S long before 3rd Edition dropped. Both of these games, while still pulling some inspiration from S&S have been quite clearly High Fantasy games even with 5e's lower power level.
There was always this aura of awe and fantasy to Pathfinder. A halfling rogue sneaking into the Dragon's hoard and stealing the crown jewel of the pile without being detected. A barbarian being caught unarmed and fighting off a small army with only a jawbone he picked up off the ground. These stories were not just common in Pathfinder, they were basically inevitable. A party of level 20 characters WOULD change the world. Not might, not could, but would.
Even Paizo's own Adventure Paths for 2e lie firmly closer to High Fantasy then S&S. Even having failed the modules before the story could really unfold, it's obvious that the main conflict in Doomsday Dawn is far beyond the normal reaches of S&S. Archlord's Envy was set in a place that can only be described as High Magic, High Fantasy. Even Raiders of Shrieking Peak and The Rose Street Revenge had more fantastical elements to them than you would expect in a traditional Sword and Sorcery setting.
Yet just about every change to the rules themselves reflects this decision to make 2e a Swords and Sorcery game. The fact that a perfectly optimized character has barely above a 50% success chance at their best skill before modifiers. The complete decimation of the spell list compared to 1e. The fact that enemys "At Level" are considered difficult encounters. The increased impact of chance on just about everything. The removal of fun, iconic abilities from just about all classes. The increased grittiness of combat (we once had a character nearly die due to a single point of bleed damage becasue we couldn't get rid of it).
All of these things work if your goal is to create low stakes, low power Sword and Sorcery game. However, I like most of the gamers I know at my college would rather play Pathfinder, a High Fantasy game.