Sword and Sorcery - is 2e not a sucessor to Pathfinder?


General Discussion


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.

Pathfinder Playtest Page 4 wrote:
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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Many of the Paizo staff are extremely fond of the swords-and-sorcery genre and while true, PF1 certainly is high fantasy, many/most of the APs, modules, novels, and comics pay homage to swords-and-sorcery roots. I don't think Paizo is in any way trying to turn PF2 into a swords-and-sandals, Conan-style game of swords-and-sorcery as the genre is commonly defined, but I do think they're trying to pull the game back a bit from the Fantasy Superhero Action Hour.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
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.

Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser were often led by their noses by powerful mages to do heroism far beyond their understanding. Conan rarely had a clear understanding of the magics he was facing, other than how he could stop them. Being "Sword and Sandals" does not imply a low-level to the threat.

Quote:
The Rose Street Revenge had more fantastical elements to them than you would expect in a traditional Sword and Sorcery setting.

Fighting sewer dwellers and an assassin's guild feels very S&S. Is it the undead?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I have to agree with you OP. I love Conan but Paizo doesn't even include an unarmored barbarian option so you can BE Conan (also the stat caps do not help as Conan is able to best multiple frost giants as well as a giant ape in single combat. I mean, come on! Even 5E has an unarmored barbarian option

But yeah I am sad to see that high fantasy is gone from PF2 and that means my enthusiasm has diminished for it quite a bit also, which is very sad


Noting that language in the introduction is a good observation. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say that the genre has completely shifted from High Fantasy to Sword & Sorcery...but I agree that it's taken a step (even a big one) in that direction.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

This would certainly explain the number of 'this is not the same game' / 'this is not the style of game I wanted from Pathfinder' reactions I've seen from passionate fans of 1st edition.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the OP.

Though I feel like the inverse is also happening at the same time. With +level being applied to everything, the tightness of the math, and the +- 10 crit rules, characters at higher levels DO in fact appear godlike to lower level challenges (ala high fantasy).

For me it has felt like the purpose and spirit of many of the changes/rules have been at odds with each other.

While the spell nerfs, stronger monsters at level, and normalized/generic characters make you have that gritty type of Sword and Sorcery feel (which I actually have enjoyed during actual playtesting to some extent)...

You also have situations where high level characters cannot fail low level challenges, cannot be hurt by low level monsters, etc.

Maybe these two things CAN be gelled together coherently and it just requires more tweaking. But part of me believes they really need to choose a specific focus.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lyricanna wrote:
the frankly insane number of TPK's (here's to hopeing Level 7 is the lucky number).

I've run 17 sessions of PF2 with 0 TPKs.

How are you getting so many?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Lyricanna wrote:
the frankly insane number of TPK's (here's to hopeing Level 7 is the lucky number).

I've run 17 sessions of PF2 with 0 TPKs.

How are you getting so many?

I've run 10 Doomsday Dawn sessions with 2 TPKs. Unoptimized characters (which really shouldn't be a problem for an introductory campaign), enemies critting very often (had a player go unconcious in round 1 of the sewer ooze fight to this), and generally the fact that I'm better at playing monsters tactically than they are at playing PCs tactically for some players are big reasons. Also, enforcing things like light levels, dropping weapons when you go unconcious, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Lyricanna wrote:
the frankly insane number of TPK's (here's to hopeing Level 7 is the lucky number).

I've run 17 sessions of PF2 with 0 TPKs.

How are you getting so many?

Currently at 8 game sessions and no PC has ever died.

I'm not sure how a TPK is even possible.

I am still in agreement with the OP though regarding the fact that I play Pathfinder because it's high-fantasy, not sword & sorcery.


This is an interesting thought. Not saying it is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is an interesting thing.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The way I see it, going from highest power level to lowest:

1. D&D 3.5
2. PF1
3. PF2
4. 5E
5. Old school eds.
6. Warhammer :)

PF2 is going down a notch from the crazy gonzo turn your badger into a dragon while you plane shift from your personal demiplane level, but is still above 5E's "yeah, well, the most we can do is swing swords and cast fireballs, yay" power level. Even the most powerful monsters in 5e feel uninspired and hardly interesting to fight compared to ones in PF2.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

5E Still has a high amount of luxury magic though. The elemental evil cantrips, warlock at will illusions, and other things of that nature keep the magic level in the world pretty high. The game is just mechanically boring.

PF2 does feel closer to swords and sorcery for sure. I'd mentioned that magic seems like parlor tricks in another thread, and that is about what you expect from swords and sorcery magic. You really need all casters to be expert deceivers to pull off this sort of magic though, and that isn't part of the basic caster kit.

While it's possible that the regression to swords and sorcery is deliberate, there are too many artifacts left over from PF1 that are conspicuously high magic effects with such limited in world value that their inclusion seems at odds with both high magic and swords and sorcery.

I could understand Paizo looking at the large amount of players who locked the class levels at some level below the max in order to preserve a type of game world, but lowering the cap just means lowering the variety of game worlds the system can mechanically support. This seems like a poor plan.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

The way I see it, going from highest power level to lowest:

1. D&D 3.5
2. PF1
3. PF2
4. 5E
5. Old school eds.
6. Warhammer :)

PF2 is going down a notch from the crazy gonzo turn your badger into a dragon while you plane shift from your personal demiplane level, but is still above 5E's "yeah, well, the most we can do is swing swords and cast fireballs, yay" power level. Even the most powerful monsters in 5e feel uninspired and hardly interesting to fight compared to ones in PF2.

I'm not sure how you put "old school eds" at such a low level, at least considering the magic.

In BECMI/RC you could spam Wish with only having to worry about your GM being an arse - no other cost. Oh, and you had rules for becoming and playing gods. Immortals at full power would have very little to worry about from any character in any other edition considering they have "Immune to Mortal Magic" as an ability.

The caster/martial divide in 2e was arguably more unbalanced than later editions. 3e had lots of anti-RAI but (often questionably) RAW legal ways of building ridiculous characters but 1e and 2e spells are often way more powerful than later ones. Two spells could render you immune to all physical damage, mundane or magical. One 6th level spell grants you a ridiculous amount of SLAs and immunities to spells and conditions and elements. Shapechange, though more expensive than 3.x, was as bad as it has ever been in terms of power.
2e casters would have a field day with P2 and 5e, and barring the really stupid cheese could do well in 3.5.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
JulianW wrote:
This would certainly explain the number of 'this is not the same game' / 'this is not the style of game I wanted from Pathfinder' reactions I've seen from passionate fans of 1st edition.

It certainly explains my feeling. If I wanted a low-fantasy, swords and sorcery game, I'm sure there's a lot of great ones out there. I could play E6/E8 in PF1, or play a noncaster in 5e, or play one of any number OSR games. The reason I don't do any of those things is because I actually like high fantasy.

The very reason I play and GM Pathfinder is to tell tales of mighty heroes changing the fates of cities, nations, even worlds. I want my players to feel like their characters are special, and I want to feel special when I play. I'm already a small cog in a big world in real life, so when I play a fantasy TTRPG I don't want to replicate that.

I know there are people that do want that "grim and gritty high RP low power" type game, but why does it have to be Pathfinder? Why does the one game that I find properly scratches my itch for high-fantasy play have to brought down to sword and sorcery? Especially glaring given that variant rulesets like the aforementioned E6/E8 cater to that style of play already. Why should the existence of people who would prefer S&S mean that the whole game be cut down to that for everyone, as opposed to what already worked in 1e?


Gorbacz wrote:

The way I see it, going from highest power level to lowest:

1. D&D 3.5
2. PF1
3. PF2
4. 5E
5. Old school eds.
6. Warhammer :)

PF2 is going down a notch from the crazy gonzo turn your badger into a dragon while you plane shift from your personal demiplane level, but is still above 5E's "yeah, well, the most we can do is swing swords and cast fireballs, yay" power level. Even the most powerful monsters in 5e feel uninspired and hardly interesting to fight compared to ones in PF2.

Other than moving Old School Editions up to the very top, I can't really argue.

I think both the Masters and Immortals boxes could outstrip 3.5 s far as raw character power.


Gorbacz wrote:
PF2 is going down a notch from the crazy gonzo turn your badger into a dragon while you plane shift from your personal demiplane level, but is still above 5E's "yeah, well, the most we can do is swing swords and cast fireballs, yay" power level.

5th Ed still has some crazy magic/spells, not low magic (and some say magic is too ubiquitous). I would like a return to S&S action, but, +Level is not conducive to that style.

I also want an unarmoured option for the Barbarian, and Paladin!


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
any kind of sword and sorcery story imaginable

I imagine this was written by someone whose definition of "sword and sorcery" was different from yours. They may have meant that "stories involving swords and sorcery", for example.

Wikipedia suggests that traditionally, S&S tends to be more personal stories of a hero going adventuring for money or fun and trying to survive, whereas High Fantasy tends to be about heroes trying to save the world from evil without abandoning their own morality.

High Fantasy doesn't need to be about high-powered characters. Elric is Swords and Sorcery. Frodo is High Fantasy.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Can someone explain Swords and Sorcery compared to High Fantasy?

Some people say that Pathfinder 1E characters were "super heroes", like it's a bad thing. Imo, they weren't super heroic enough, it could have been more so. Does it really bother someone that a character can fly at 3rd level? For me, as long as there is an acceptable cost, it doesn't.

I'm not looking for a gritty game, I'm looking for a game where you can do amazing things, even a low levels. I don't want to wait until level 15 to "play the character I want to play".

For example, the PF1 kineticist could have been allowed to gain many of their powers an entire spell level early, it would have been more fun.

I think players want to play the character they want at level 1, that's why PF1 classes like Alchemists, Shapeshifter, and Hunter were so popular, at level 1 you get to play what you want without waiting.

I'm really shocked that they'd hire D&D 4E professionals to work on PF2. No wonder it feels like 4E, with their nerfed spells and abilities. If we wanted to play 4E, we would have played 4E, not rejected it and played Pathfinder!

I think Lyricanna might have hit the nail on the head, maybe this is why PF2 feels so wrong.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber

Was PF2e aiming at a more "Swords & Sorcery" feel than a high magic feel?

Despite many requests (I suppose I should take another opportunity to link to my thread from five weeks ago where I ask for design goals, and eventually try to dig some up), we haven't really heard much in the way of design goals for PF2e. We've heard some "here's this mechanic and here's what it's trying to do", but almost no overall design goals.

So, while PF2e feeling much more magic limited is an observation we can make, is that what they were trying to do? Or is this a side effect (perhaps an unintended side effect) of an attempt to balance the caster/martial disparity? We don't really know.


Perhaps it's a symptom of over correction?


It seems more to be focused on boosting predictability rather than reducing power. End result is more or less the same, but a look at power balancing probably would have turned up balance rather than general disarray.

Jason S wrote:


I'm really shocked that they'd hire D&D 4E professionals to work on PF2. No wonder it feels like 4E, with their nerfed spells and abilities. If we wanted to play 4E, we would have played 4E, not rejected it and played Pathfinder!

Is that true, or metaphorical? I've finally talked my group around to trying this system in our Monday game, if this is true and they figure it out, there's no chance I could hold them to it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ErichAD wrote:
Jason S wrote:


I'm really shocked that they'd hire D&D 4E professionals to work on PF2. No wonder it feels like 4E, with their nerfed spells and abilities. If we wanted to play 4E, we would have played 4E, not rejected it and played Pathfinder!
Is that true, or metaphorical? I've finally talked my group around to trying this system in our Monday game, if this is true and they figure it out, there's no chance I could hold them to it.

It's true. People who worked on D&D 4th edition are also working on Pathfinder 2.

But if you don't want a system designed by a person who worked on 4th edition, you can try D&D 5th edition... wait, I meant 13th Age... wait wait! Shadows of the Demon Lord... no I mean Star Wars Saga edition.. um, TORG?... Alternity?... Paranoia!... 3rd edition with the Epic Level Handbook... AH!!!! HOW CAN IT BE THAT THE DESIGNERS OF 4TH EDITION COULD HAVE CREATED SO MANY GREAT GAMES?


I assume a mocking tone is just your internet persona, so I'll try not to take it too personally. I'm glad you've been impressed by their games and follow the developers enough to know who works on what. Thanks for answering my question.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
EberronHoward wrote:
ErichAD wrote:
Jason S wrote:


I'm really shocked that they'd hire D&D 4E professionals to work on PF2. No wonder it feels like 4E, with their nerfed spells and abilities. If we wanted to play 4E, we would have played 4E, not rejected it and played Pathfinder!
Is that true, or metaphorical? I've finally talked my group around to trying this system in our Monday game, if this is true and they figure it out, there's no chance I could hold them to it.

It's true. People who worked on D&D 4th edition are also working on Pathfinder 2.

But if you don't want a system designed by a person who worked on 4th edition, you can try D&D 5th edition... wait, I meant 13th Age... wait wait! Shadows of the Demon Lord... no I mean Star Wars Saga edition.. um, TORG?... Alternity?... Paranoia!... 3rd edition with the Epic Level Handbook... AH!!!! HOW CAN IT BE THAT THE DESIGNERS OF 4TH EDITION COULD HAVE CREATED SO MANY GREAT GAMES?

"Great", is in the eye of the beholder, the only ones out of your list I would touch are SWSE (house ruled, strip out the stupid +Heroic level garbage) and 5th Ed (with 3rd Ed/PF1 crunch added).

The Epic Level Handbook is perhaps one of the silliest products ever released for the game, to me, aside from a few cool monsters (Abominations, atropal, etc) and some fluff (LeShay destroyed the previous multiverse, the one that Aboleths come from).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

Pick any creative person you like, and you can find something they did that you don't like. Hell, I even remember hearing a piece by Brahms on the radio that seriously underwhelmed me, and Brahms was a friggin' genius.

Yes, Paizo employs some designers who worked on 4e. They've been at Paizo for many years. So what? This doesn't mean everything they do is going to be like 4e.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

'Sword & Sorcery' is only a narrow, well-defined genre to a niche audience of Fantasy Literature fans.
For the rest of the world 'Swords & Sorcery' means everything from Lord of The Rings, Harry Potter, King Arthur, Game of Thrones, Skyrim, Dark Souls - literally almost any Fantasy story.
Paizo are writing for a mainstream audience, so they're using it in the general sense.

PF2 may or may not end up being to a given person's taste but I don't think this throw-away phrase is telling us anything about any change of direction or tone for the game.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

2e isn't S&S, it's a tabletop MMORPG. Everything is squished and normalized, you lose hp every fight, there are no skill specialists anymore. Everything is a fight and every fight causes you to take damage. There are no more tactics, no more planning, no more useful skills or consumable items.

They took the creativity out of the game and it's not fun anymore.

I'll either be picking up 5e or sticking with 3.5/PF and the unchained action economy.

I started playing PF1e during the playtest because I was disappointed by the video game feel of 4th edition - and now Paizo has decided to turn 2e into the very thing their original playerbase was fleeing in the first place.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the OP is splitting hairs... hairs that only a tiny fraction of genre fans care about.

It's really only been in the past 10 years or so that fans and scholars of popular literature have split categories into smaller and smaller and smaller sub-genres.

Outside of very serious scholars and scholar-wannabes of genre fiction, "Swords & Sorcery" means "medieval fantasy with magic." And that perfectly describes the D&D family of RPGs.

That spans everything from Lord of the Rings, to Conan the Barbarian, to the Elirc Saga, to the Chronicles of Morgaine, to Earthsea, to the Dragonlance Chronicles, to Darkover, to the Dragonriders of Pern, to A Song of Ice and Fire.

Please keep in mind that the people who hang out on Internet messageboards are a very small minority of fans, many of whom have out-of-the-mainstream opinions. Myself included.


Haladir wrote:

I think the OP is splitting hairs... hairs that only a tiny fraction of genre fans care about.

It's really only been in the past 10 years or so that fans and scholars of popular literature have split categories into smaller and smaller and smaller sub-genres.

Outside of very serious scholars and scholar-wannabes of genre fiction, "Swords & Sorcery" means "medieval fantasy with magic." And that perfectly describes the D&D family of RPGs.

That spans everything from Lord of the Rings, to Conan the Barbarian, to the Elirc Saga, to the Chronicles of Morgaine, to Earthsea, to the Dragonlance Chronicles, to Darkover, to the Dragonriders of Pern, to A Song of Ice and Fire.

Please keep in mind that the people who hang out on Internet messageboards are a very small minority of fans, many of whom have out-of-the-mainstream opinions. Myself included.

Well, more than 10 years. I think Sword and Sorcery was coined in the 60s, with basically the same meaning - Conan as opposed to Tolkien. Both of which could be described as "medieval fantasy with magic" to people not interested in the genre, but which definitely have different appeal to those who do like fantasy. The target audience probably does have at least some idea of different fantasy sub-genres and which they prefer.

Paizo might not have been using it that way intentionally and it's easy to read too much into it.

More, I'd say that the OP is putting too much emphasis on the power level of high fantasy vs S&S. There's a lot about some styles of PF/D&D play that have always linked it to S&S - PCs as treasure seekers or mercenaries, for example. The epic quest tends to more of a high fantasy thing and that's also well supported.
Much high fantasy has a larger scope, but not necessarily higher power levels, so I don't think that distinction really applies. Are the characters in LotR really more powerful than Conan?
Pretty much any D&D style RPG characters really crank the power scale up in comparison to most classic fantasy - in any subgenre. (There are exceptions of course, but I don't think they're particularly subgenre limited.)


rknop wrote:

Pick any creative person you like, and you can find something they did that you don't like. Hell, I even remember hearing a piece by Brahms on the radio that seriously underwhelmed me, and Brahms was a friggin' genius.

Yes, Paizo employs some designers who worked on 4e. They've been at Paizo for many years. So what? This doesn't mean everything they do is going to be like 4e.

That's perfectly fair. The only major problem I've had with Pathfinder design was the 2015 errata stuff which seemed deliberately pointed at making the game less flexible for players but easier for the developers. Unless they hired a bunch of 4e devs in 2013 or 2014 I wouldn't think there was a correlation between them and a quality drop.

Even then you're still right. People improve and a creator of any value should produce things with enough variety that most won't appreciate all their work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason S wrote:
Some people say that Pathfinder 1E characters were "super heroes", like it's a bad thing. Imo, they weren't super heroic enough, it could have been more so. Does it really bother someone that a character can fly at 3rd level? For me, as long as there is an acceptable cost, it doesn't.

I don't mind that there were "super heroes" in Pathfinder First Edition. What bothers me is that those "super heroes" often amounted to the Flash, Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, and...oh right, Superman. Superman being able to surpass each of the others in their areas of strength. Faster than the Flash, stronger than Wonder Woman, even better at firing arrows than Green Arrow (not that they ever needed to...but they were better if they ever needed to show off). I don't mind optimized characters being more powerful than less optimized characters but Pathfinder First Edition went too far. This resulted in me balancing the system on the fly as GM...which diverted some of my focus away from other aspects of the game.

Now I do think that the playtest went too far in the pursuit of balance... But I suspect that they started with their strictest rulesets so that each change was removing a restriction rather than adding a new one. Think of it as bartering - start with the most unreasonable bid and work your way down to a compromise.


In no certain terms, the devs have more or less confirmed that.

I believe they said they intentionally went with the most radical direction, intentionally over correcting some things. It appears resonance was the first thing they decided to work on. I suspect we get upgrades to that sooner than an update on any of the class, skill, or ancestry changes.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

In no certain terms, the devs have more or less confirmed that.

I believe they said they intentionally went with the most radical direction, intentionally over correcting some things. It appears resonance was the first thing they decided to work on. I suspect we get upgrades to that sooner than an update on any of the class, skill, or ancestry changes.

Yeah, it sure does feel like they dramatically over corrected in many regards. My big three problems with PF2 all seem like that (resonance, magic nerfs, restrictive classes). But as mentioned, attempts towards balance also went too hard. I'm hoping they have enough time to re-calibrate all the things they overdid, but I'm not so sure, considering we'll need to be able to test the fixes to see if they're too much or too little. And then possibly need to correct the fixes to those fixes as things get dialed in.

I continue to believe that defaulting to the most radical changes was a huge mistake. It gives a bad first impression and spooks the players who came to PF1 because of a dislike of the dramatic changes made for 4th-edition. It also can lead to a disjointed system where different aspects are all swinging wildly in different directions, which I think is somewhat the case for PF2. And it risks simply not feeling like pathfinder anymore. It's not a fatal mistake, it can still be corrected, but I think they made their job harder by not being a bit more moderate with their decisions.

Scarab Sages

Please don't speak for others. You can give us feedback for your gaming group, but talking like you're speaking for all the gamers in your college is obviously not so, and renders everything you have to say suspect.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Sword and Sorcery - is 2e not a sucessor to Pathfinder? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion