Baptor1337's page

Hello everyone, first time posting here.

So since, gosh like 1998, I've been running games in Forgotten Realms. Most of you know the Realms went through some serious issues around 2008 and is really only now recovering from those dark days.

I've run many many stories there and still have affection for the setting, despite its flaws.

However I'm more and more interested in Pathfinder - Golarion more specifically.

Many people I've seen seem to equate Forgotten Realms and Golarion on roughly the same page.

But Pathfinder/Golarion has a certain je ne sais quoi about it that I cannot place. Maybe its in the art? I love looking at Pathfinder art - there seems to be something more adventurous, dare I say a kind of comic book or pulp fiction to the art compared to the Realms art we are seeing now which is more subdued.

So I'm really interested in running a game there, embracing this pulp fiction like element - but I always keep thinking I'll be missing something by leaving the setting I know so well.

So now to my purpose - has anyone here left Forgotten Realms for Pathfinder/Golarion? Why did you do it? Did it go well? Please share any and all experiences or even just general thoughts or tips.

Interesting spells. I hate to almost hijack here, but what does (PEACH please) mean? I've seen it several times on the boards but do not know its meaning.

This whole thing reminds me of monopoly.

Monopoly is probably one of the best board games ever made. It's my personal favorite.

Yet most people I know don't like Monopoly. They claim it's too slow, or too long, or too imbalanced. 99% further questioning leads to the revelation that the reason they don't like it is because they haven't been playing by the rules.

Seriously, most people don't know the real rules to Monopoly. They play based on something their parents taught them, who were taught by their parents, and so forth, and never opening a rulebook.

When played properly, by the rules, its a wonderful game.

It seems to me much of the confusion here is a lack of proper understanding of the rules. When properly enforced, the sorcerer and wizard are more or less balanced. (As balanced as anything gets in d20)

I still prefer sorcerers mechanically, and I suppose since the Sage bloodline exists I can't complain too much. I also still think when the chips are down the sorcerer has an edge over the wizard too.

But all this arguing has brought up a lot of neglected rules and new rules I'd never heard of. Taken together it makes a strong case. Thanks everyone for responding, I've heard all I need.

Of course you can keep fighting if you like as well. :)

Gosh, this thread has had a lot of responses. Thanks for all the opinions, it's been educational. I had no idea some of these items existed.

This isn't to say that wizards are bad, just that truly potent wizards only come about in fairly specific circumstances. The player playing the wizard obviously has to be looking for every opportunity to play up their character's strengths, but the rest of the party, and the DM, have to be willing participants in that quest as well. The wizard requires time and opportunity, and neither of those are things entirely in the hands of a single player. Spontaneous casters, on the other hand, while limited in their spell selection, have a lot easier time using it effectively in the field under a wide range of conditions; even clerics and druids get spontaneous casting that allows them a decent amount of flexibility in the field.

Agreed. This is what I've been saying all along. Wizards have enormous potential to be the greatest of casters, but that potential is only exploited in highly specific circumstances, none of which can be guaranteed in a campaign. The DM may not go along with your scouting plan, or may thwart your divinations with counter-spells. Telling a Sorcerer, "Sure, you've got a hundred fireballs, but there's gonna come a day when you face a locked door without Knock, and ooooo you'll be sorry!" is just a lame argument. Of course there will be the occasional barrier the Sorc's list doesn't have a solution for, but that's why he travels with a party full of adventurers with useful skills. No one should be able to handle every situation on his own.

I like to use the toolbox vs multi-tool analogy, since I never watched much MASH.

A sorc is a lot like those fancy electric multi tools. Provided the job requires one of those tools, it makes the job a ton easier. The problem comes when you meet a job not designed for the tool. You can improvise and still get the job done, but it wasn't optimal.

The Wizard is a lot like a toolbox. Sure, the tools are manual and it may be easier to do with an electric multi-tool, but you can still get the job done provided you packed the right tools for the job. The problem comes when you don't know what job you need to prepare for. You can improvise and still get the job done, but it wasn't optimal.

I'll concede to this. It's pretty much true. However, to carry the analogy further, I use my power-tool 50 times more often than the toolbox, since the power-tool does most of what I need (mainly with screws) and does it quickly. In the rare even I need a strange tool that only my toolbox has, its a pain to both find and use. I also find that if I didn't have it, I could easily borrow one from a friend, which is the same point I made in my last paragraph: that's what your party is there for!

There have been lots of people chiming in with "Wizards can scribe scrolls, craft wands, or buy pearls of power to compensate!" Allow me a moment for rebuttal:

1. Trying to prove a class isn't ineffective because certain magic items can make it effective proves it is inherently ineffective.

2. It has also been proven through many posts here that similar items exist for Sorcerers (rings of spell knowledge, mneumonic robes, etc). On an even playing field, we are left with the same problem between the classes. The Wizard now has more spells, but the Sorcerer also has more known, so it makes little difference.

3. What should matter is who is more powerful naked in a cell? The answer is hands-down a Sorcerer, who is not only more powerful in the buff but also has no need for a spellbook or component pouch, both of which a wizard needs to cast ANY spells at all (and worse if he had Arcane Bond before getting naked).

When PF first came out the Wizard held an undeniable edge. These days, I think the balance of power has swung pretty hard in the other direction, especially as you move into higher levels.

The fact of the matter is that pretty much every book has increased sorcerer power.

This. The problem still exists IMHO in a PHB game only, but if you let the scope of Pathfinder products in, the Wizard is a pointless class. What with the new items, feats, and racial traits, the Sorcerer can have so many spells known at his disposal that the disparity between the classes becomes non-existent in the Sorcerer's favor. The Wizard has received little love from the newer material compared to the Sorcerer. (The bonus spell known from Advanced Races is particularly horrific)

In the end, the wizard as is suffers greatly under the oppression of the sorcerer. I am not "pro-Sorcerer" here, I think it's a travesty. I wish there was a way to balance the two, where wizards and sorcerers could remain unique classes but not with such a disparity between them. Perhaps a different spell list is the answer, which someone suggested, and which 4e did. Perhaps a different casting system. This was, as some may note, the actual subject of the OP: how to fix the problem.

I good DM, will usually ask for the wizard & cleric spell list at the being of the game.

Then throw in some opportunity for these spell to be useful to the group.
Sometime, they pick up on this, sometimes they don't and the spells are not used.

At least that how i do it, since old school, all caster use to work that way.

I know it's not the opinion of everyone here, but to me, if you've got to alter your game just to make a class viable, that class is broken.

Well, except humans get a ton of knowns. Anyone using Paragon Surge can get a ton. And there's now a Robe that lets you have a spellbook/scrolls and use them to essentially spontaneously know a spell for one casting (without consuming any resources beyond the daily use).

Sorcerers are pretty good now. Though I like the school benefits of Wizards a lot more.

You've got to be kidding. I just looked that up, and you're right. Human Sorcerers can get a bonus spell known as a Favored Class every level? Ridiculous. That just makes Sorcs even better than I previously mentioned. Way better.

Making Wizards capable of minor spontaneous spellcasting no longer seems as broken an idea as I once thought.

I haven't played many casters before this one, but my understanding is sorcerers tend to make better blasters than wizards, being able to choose spells on the fly and make better use of metamagic feats. Personally, I prefer battlefield control (pits, web, illusions, summons, etc.) and buffs to help my allies win. I think that's where wizards shine, as a force multiplier.

I see what your're getting at here, but my point remains. If you want to build a caster around certain spells, such as the controller you mentioned who uses things like web, stinking cloud, summons, etc. You could just make a Sorcerer who has those spells and have tons of them. Nowhere does it say Sorcs are good only for blasting.

If I wanted to make an Enchanter under the RAW, for example, I would make a Sorcerer and simply select the best enchantments/illusions I could find, and possible a bloodline that augmented them. Such an "Enchanter" would almost certainly outclass the wizard specialist of the same name. Am I wrong?

I had thought about the scrolls. It would certainly take time to build up, but you could do it.

Leaving slots open? I hate to sound like a newb, but I've played (mostly DM) for many years and never heard of this rule. I'm sure it exists, but I'm shocked my players never found it and used it as wizards. So, you can leave slots open and stick spells into them later?

Oh, and yes I'm serious. I've had plenty of players play successful wizards in my games, but they've never really been any better than a Sorcerer would have. For example I had a guy play an Evoker from 1-19. He was quite good at strategy and using area-effect damage spells. For all his brilliance, though, I could not help noticing he would have been that much more powerful if he had been a Sorcerer with a bunch of evocations. In many cases I've noticed that about the wizards my players have. They develop their caster around a specific set of spells and get very good at them. So for my money I say a Sorcerer is much better.

Here's the thing, I love the concept of the Wizard class. I always have. Ever since my first wizard in AD&D (who was terrible because I did not know magic that well), I've loved them.

What I cant STAND, however, is spell preparation. Is it just me, or is the notion that the Wizard is the most versatile spell caster kind of a farce?

It's like you have the POTENTIAL to cast anything, but the bitter truth is you won't be able to.
Either you'll prepare a lot of combat spells and almost no utility and be essentially a poor Sorcerer.
Or you'll prepare a wide selection of potentially useful spells, have no combat usefulness, and maybe not even encounter a situation where said utility spells are needed.
Sure, I can prepare a knock instead of a scorching ray, but which is likely to be used in a given day? And don't we have rogues to pick locks?
The supposed versatility of the wizard is really a farce because while you might know every single spell, you are still limited to what you prepare in the morning, and who knows what a day may bring?

I'd love to let wizards set their "spells known" through preparation (kind of like the spell points variant) and cast spontaneously from that list, but as everyone knows, that kills the Sorcerer, and I like that class too. Any idea I think of will kill the Sorcerer.

I like both classes and wish to keep both, but Spell Prep is dragging me down.

Community, here's what I'd like to hear from you: Either a fix for the wizard to make them more useful (but not destroy the Sorc), or to hear stories of Wizards making Spell Prep shine and proving my argument wrong.

If you chime in as pro-Spell Prep, please give in-game examples, no theories. As I said, the wizard is powerful...in theory, but in practice I've only seen lackluster results.

Its a beautiful book and so well put together that I am seriously considering buying it. Trouble is that I am the kind of GM that houserules the heck out of his games, so SRDs and so forth are really all I ever need for reference.

So, knowing I will be houseruling out the wazzo to the point the book is nearly obsolete, is it still worth buying?

Thanks, this has helped me immensely. :)

Hey everyone,

I've been an avid fan of d20 since its debut with 3.0. I've made the moves to 3.5 and then PF smoothly. Rules are not really my big hangup. I'm willing to use just about any rules that work.

Story is very important to me. Since I started playing RPGs back in 1998, most of the games I've been in and almost all the games I've ever run have been set in the Forgotten Realms setting.

Now I love the Realms (obviously), but I have always wanted to make my own homebrew setting. I've tried a few times, mostly resulting in frustration and a return to a published setting.

I don't really play anymore but I'd love to take one last crack at making my own Setting. I've hit a few hurdles that keep stumping me and I thought I'd ask for some advice from those of you more experienced in this sort of thing.

The Setting I want to make is very standard high fantasy. Essentially a world that would include everything you can find in the PF rules, minus one or two things. I intend to put my own little twist on them, of course, hence the desire to write my own setting. The problem is that a great deal of excellent published settings (like FR) already do the "standard fantasy" thing and do it far better than I ever could. For example, every setting needs a good map, and I can't draw to save my life. Published settings have great maps. So, if my goal is to create such a standard setting, am I wasting my time with a homebrew? Should I just use a published setting and make adjustments? Are homebrews only good if you plan to do something so outside the box it won't work in the published settings?

Some of you swear by Homebrew, as in it's the only way to go. Some of you never use anything outside a Published Setting. Some of you do both. I am looking to hear points from every side.