RamboJesus's page

I would like to compile (with the help of the forums) a list of apps that people use from the app store to assist or enrich their tabletop gaming experience. Pretty simply list some apps that you guys like and use.

I'll start

I like

Candy dice
Dice bag
DnD scribe

Apparently there was an anti-paragraph-break spell too.

Lol I'm sorry I'm on my Zune HD xD

Just to remember those guys who wonder why the autor sometimes posts poison... it's the guy who had a certain thread about rogues a while ago.

Let's feed the troll!!!

Launches an Arrow IV at Turkina... best way to deal with the clan stravags is from afar.

Orders hi McKenna battleship to power up it's NPPCs

I am not a troll my rogue thread I wholeheartedly wanted to be a good discussion and this thread is truthfully what happened and I am a bit upset about spending two hours on a char prior to playing and not even being given the opportunity to play it.

(The DM allowed me NO say in this entire thing whatsoever) Well basically what happened was that our group made their way into the underdark cleared a few rooms and then we ended the session so we went back to the entrance (outside the entrance to the under dark) sealed the entrance there so no baddies would come and crawl up on us then we made another wall using stoneshape to further prevent them from getting to us on either side. A pretty good defense for a few hours rest I think... but the DM decided that a cr 20+ baddie was going to come attack us and it magically phased through the walls an killed every player except for my barbarian. I was also running and EK which I much preferred to the barbarian. The cleric and rogue player wanted to reroll so they were fine with dying and im ok with that to an extent. So I said well my EK just uses Ddoor to gtfo, and the DM said antimagic field, and I said thats only a 10ft magic radius and he says well... in 3.5 there are artifacts that span an entire metropolis with anti magic field. Ok fair enough I suppose, so I said well they just run away, but wrong again turns out that a bunch of drow who were ""spying" on us from the previous rooms that we completely cleared TWICE, can see through walls and somehow magically sealed the only escape route we had. THEN he said well your barbarian wakes up in the forest he lives in with no memory of what just happened, and I was like well I want to get my memory back so I tried to get a sorcerer to dispel magic on me thinking it may have been a magic effect, NOPE. I then went to a temple and got healed NOPE they even used the spell HEAL, so then I went to the mages guild to do research on a monster that could do such a thing and I didn't find anything. The DM says that this is a perfectly legit call, but I say otherwise...

So you guys are fine with a DM just simply killing off one (or more) of your characters in the group? just because they wanted to?

The top two things I believe a DM should never do are the following

1. Take control of the players characters, as a DM yeah you have all the power in the world literally... you created it. Just don't tell a player his character fought a cr 20 creature and died, when the player wasn't even allowed to have any say in it whatsoever.

2. Rule number two don't ever put your players in a situation that basically has no chance of survival, ESPECIALLY if they weren't doing anything stupid to deserve it. Like really?

Do you guys agree with me or what?
Also list some other things you think DMs should NEVER do.

I would love to agree and say, "Play what you will."

As a matter of fact I do.

However the poster of this thread made this to prove to the group that rogue was useless so they would ban me from playing one.

This right here is just straight up lies.

And if you have only one PC to do the job?

That is an unrealistic scenario but you only get one PC to do the job? Id probably take a Bard... And if anyone disagrees clearly there was a fail somewhere along the way in making the bard a jack-of-all trades.

RamboJesus wrote:

Daniel Moyer wrote:

Robert Young wrote:

Are we really discussing how a plumber is a better plumber than an electrician? Or am I lost again?

Nah, they're saying the plumber is useless because the electrician knows more about wiring, since plumbing is obviously pointless.

No, no, no, I am attempting to explain that the electrician is a better electrician than the handyman and the plumber is a better plumber than the handyman. So therefore if you only need wiring and plumbing done why the hell would you want a handyman who is clearly inferior to both in their respective specialties.

So therefore are you saying that rather than have your character be a Handyman (rogue) you should have two PC's a plumber (ie. Bard) & a electrician (ie. Barbarian) ?

Yes that is what I am saying because what the electrician lacks in the knowledge of unclogging pipes the plumber makes up for, and vice versa, a handyman on the other hand can't do either one of their jobs as well as they can. So if I had to pick between an electrician and a handyman, a plumber and a handyman, OR a PLUMBER and an ELECTRICIAN im gonna take the plumber and electrician.

RamboJesus wrote:

Xum wrote:

I think you should take a better look at the class, cause a class that gets, sneak, trapfinding, uncanny dodge, 8 skill point, d8 mediumk BAB AND may CHOOSE a feat everylevel is even a little overpowered to me, and everybody else besides you it seems.

I suppose you also think that a class that has D12 hit die, full bab, jacked will and fort save,trap sense, damage reduction, a bite attack, uncanny dodge, fast movement, the ability to panic everyone within 30yds, and the ability to opportunity attack someone just for the lols AND other miscellaneous abilities is underpowered?

Actually I think the barbarians are underpowered, yes.

But your argument is false. You said EVERY class adds more to a party than the rogue, and I fail to see that. Really do. Even in your "combat only" scenario.

I don't think you realized it, but I was pointing out the absurdity in your judgement of how underpowered a class was that is blatantly a very good class when it is actually used.

Robert Young wrote:

Are we really discussing how a plumber is a better plumber than an electrician? Or am I lost again?

Nah, they're saying the plumber is useless because the electrician knows more about wiring, since plumbing is obviously pointless.

No, no, no, I am attempting to explain that the electrician is a better electrician than the handyman and the plumber is a better plumber than the handyman. So therefore if you only need wiring and plumbing done why the hell would you want a handyman who is clearly inferior to both in their respective specialties.

I think you should take a better look at the class, cause a class that gets, sneak, trapfinding, uncanny dodge, 8 skill point, d8 mediumk BAB AND may CHOOSE a feat everylevel is even a little overpowered to me, and everybody else besides you it seems.

I suppose you also think that a class that has D12 hit die, full bab, jacked will and fort save,trap sense, damage reduction, a bite attack, uncanny dodge, fast movement, the ability to panic everyone within 30yds, and the ability to opportunity attack someone just for the lols AND other miscellaneous abilities is underpowered?

Are you suggesting that all these classes are superior in ability to fight to the Rogue, or are you just pointing out that there are other classes that can fill the same role and still contribute to combat as well?

Im pointing out that other classes can do what a rogue is supposed to do while being able to contribute more to the party than the rogue can. When was the last time you saw a rogue playing a lute to inspire his teammates to do extraordinary things? or counterspell that fireball that was going to make your cleric cry?

Rogues may very well have their place, and they very well may not. I forgot for a bit that this game is incredibly subjective as are all Tabletop RPGs. From my experience and my own beliefs of what a party should be comprised of a rogue is simply a choice that hinders your party or four that needs the bare essentials. The reason for this being is because the rogue has no synergy within the group. The bard makes the wizard better and in turn makes the bard better, or the cleric healing the fighter makes the cleric better. When you buff a rogue you don't get crap. You don't get anything in return, and anything a rogue is meant to do another class in your party can likely do. Now speaking of the rogue as a complimentary class hell yeah the rogues are quite nice to have. I still would not pick a rogue over a monk or ranger or druid or paladin or barbarian or sorcerer or oh wait I've run out of other classes...

Mods please lock this thread, as it has been raped of any meaning that it originally was intended to relay.

Classes are OK if they can provide gaming entertainment appropriate to player expectations.

In other words - if a player wants to play a sneaky skilled class with OK combat abilities and lots of cool little things, then Pathfinder Rogue is just great and will provide such player with much entertainment.

If the player is looking for a damage powerhouse who can kill things better than a Fighter, well that's not a class for him

But, since the first reason is why most people play Rogues, my call is that Rogue is a well designed class that meets the usual expectations.

Rangers, monks, and bards are sneaky like a rogue and can also contribute much to the parties combat abilitiy, and to a lesser extent sorcerers and wizards can also be sneaky.

Carnivorous_Bean wrote:

If I were going to participate in this conversation, my first question would be ....

What is 'useless' in a role-playing game? Is the 'use' of a character measured only by their damage output relative to other potential character builds?

Or are these characters characters in a story - a tale of heroism and villainy, squalor and wonder, mystery and peril, that you and your gaming group are telling cooperatively together?

And in the latter case, does it matter if one character does more damage than the other, if the tale you are telling is worth telling?

Thank you. I was hoping someone was going to post something other than the "my character can beat up your character" crap.

Play the character you'll have fun playing.

Yeah that works if your party doesn't care if they complete the adventure but if you don't have proper group composition you will have no chance of completing the adventure, sure I have a lot more fun playing a real barbarian but instead I have to tank so I can't be what I would consider a real barbarian.

Ok you guys win, Rogues are quite clearly superior combatants than all other classes and they are superior OOC characters also. Geez why ever would I think the Rogue class was sup bar boy what a fool I am.

Even a troll knows that sneak attacking is not only conditional to flanking.

I never said it was did i? and the only other way to get a sneak attack (lets leave out arcane trickster and a few other rare occasions.) is to be able to have the target denied her dex bonus to ac.

RamboJesus wrote:

Name another class that is pretty close to useless in combat when the encounter isn't tailor made for them. Meaning of course that in order to be fairly useful in combat a rogue MUST be able to sneak attack. Do any other classes have a mechanic like that? Where they can be utterly prevented from using a core class mechanic in A LOT of situations.

Somebody doesn't know what he's talking about! The Rogue in pathfinder can sneak attack just about everything. The only exceptions now are elementals, oozes and incorporeals... not really a long list...

In addition in pathfinder they also have their talents making them capable of gaining extra feats (much like the fighter) moving better, bleeding opponent's out, and making perception checks for traps without stopping and actively looking for them.

Include the increase to HD and they become quite the alternative to the fighter in the damage department, while not quite up to the fighter's possible standards in the AC or hp department.

Yes they won't quite hit the upper damage marks that a fighter can, but at the same time, they won't be sitting around soaking up fireballs like the fighter will and can still out maneuver the fighter easily, especially with having more skills.

Yeah the rogues can sneak attack just about everything. Maybe I just run my baddies differently than you other DMs beacuse my baddies tend to avoid being flanked...

Name another class that is pretty close to useless in combat when the encounter isn't tailor made for them. Meaning of course that in order to be fairly useful in combat a rogue MUST be able to sneak attack. Do any other classes have a mechanic like that? Where they can be utterly prevented from using a core class mechanic in A LOT of situations.

RamboJesus wrote:

Moorluck wrote:

I don't get the rogue hate. I have ran groups where every member had at least 1 level in rogue, none of them were forced to do that. And not a one of them regreted it either. Any class can be replaced by another, I ran a wizard that was the groups primary fighter, with the Swordmage PrC. If you don't like the class then don't play it, doesn't mean it's broken, just means it's not your style of play. I don't expect my current PC, a Rog/Rngr to deal as much damage as the groups fighter, his other talents and skills more than make him one of the most valuable members of the group. Yes if the spellcasters wanted to they could do some of what he does, sometimes better. But it would be at the cost of burning those oh so valuable spells of theirs, where Rory can do it all day long.

Bard.

Not quite the same. Bards I have also played and enjoyed, but a Bard once again cannot do everything a Rogue can. Just as a rogue cannot do everything a bard can.

Can you give me some particulars as to what useful things a rogue can do that a bard cannot?

Plz don't think I'm arguing I genuinely think I'm missing the magic thing a rogue does that prevents him from being obsolete.

I don't get the rogue hate. I have ran groups where every member had at least 1 level in rogue, none of them were forced to do that. And not a one of them regreted it either. Any class can be replaced by another, I ran a wizard that was the groups primary fighter, with the Swordmage PrC. If you don't like the class then don't play it, doesn't mean it's broken, just means it's not your style of play. I don't expect my current PC, a Rog/Rngr to deal as much damage as the groups fighter, his other talents and skills more than make him one of the most valuable members of the group. Yes if the spellcasters wanted to they could do some of what he does, sometimes better. But it would be at the cost of burning those oh so valuable spells of theirs, where Rory can do it all day long.

Bard.

rogues do make excellent scouts/spies. bluff, diplomacy, disable device, disguise, linguistics, perception, sense motive, stealth, and UMD are all class skills useful to scouts/spies, and a rogue has enough skill points to take all those skills at the same time. yes, the bard and ranger are also good at this, but that doesn't take anything away from the rogue. skills are basically unlimited use resources, and the rogue gets more of them than any other class. you haven't exactly given any concrete examples of who you think makes a better scout.

*Dons his cloak of fire resistance.* Bard.

My reason for creating this thread was to discuss what exactly the rogues job in the party was. I was under the impression that it was meant to be a heavy single target damage dealer, and also a good scout/trap disabler. The problem with this is that in its two jobs it is not the superior choice in either, not even close really. So what I wanted to know is if you had a party of four characters why would anyone ever want to choose rogue? because in my opinion choosing to play a rogue is knowingly gimping your party, and lets assume that all the characters are equally optimized and the players are all at the same skill level. Rogues are sub-par. Also would anyone like to share what they think the optimum four character party would be? because it certainly is not cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard.

RamboJesus wrote:

I have to agree with you to an extent on that one, but it is a fact that rogues are inferior combatants opposed to other classes like fighters and monks (which is ok im not saying they should be on par with them.)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

......

Oh, you were serious? You thought monks outperformed rogues in combat? Wow... mind showing a little math on that?

(Sorry, just woke up, please forgive my crabbiness lol)

Have you never heard of the DPR olympics? Here I will gladly show you the math

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/theDPROlympicsOrImNotTheMechanicHereIronsidesIMostlyJustHurtPeop le&page=1

RamboJesus wrote:

Urizen wrote:

My halfling rogue I played last night says differently. Flank and stab, flank and stab, flank and stab. Stand right there, Pally. Flank, and stab. Dodge. Evade. Miss me, suckaz! Suck on my steel, biatches! This is not the gold purse you're looking for. Lick my boots for postmortem damage while you're at it.

Stealthily slinks out of the thread. "oooh, shiny!"

Yeah that works at level 3.... come back at level 10 and up and find out what happens to rogues who engage in melee...

Actually, at level 2 for the moment. But if you're standing face to face in melee at level 10 with the BBEG, then your rogue deserves to die for being stupid. In the meantime, I live to stab another day and kick the dogs. :P

Amen to that xD

My halfling rogue I played last night says differently. Flank and stab, flank and stab, flank and stab. Stand right there, Pally. Flank, and stab. Dodge. Evade. Miss me, suckaz! Suck on my steel, biatches! This is not the gold purse you're looking for. Lick my boots for postmortem damage while you're at it.

Stealthily slinks out of the thread. "oooh, shiny!"

Yeah that works at level 3.... come back at level 10 and up and find out what happens to rogues who engage in melee...

I have a rogue one of my players use in the adventure path that I am running who used his extremely high stealth skill to sneak up on an 11th level wizard, Eirdrinnier from Second Darkness, and gain sneak damage on him. On the first round of combat after the surprise round he gained the edge on Eirdrinnier again and gained sneak damage again effectively taking out an 11th level sorcerer in two rounds. He also uses the opportunist rogue talent to great effectiveness. That my friend is what makes a Rogue very ideal in my mind.

Could you at least please state the context in which this "battle" took place? because if the wizard was at a bar getting S*** faced and was totally off his rocker I could understand a rogue sneak attacking him otherwise it is hard to imagine... Without the context in which it took place.

RamboJesus wrote:

Pirate wrote:

Yarr...

I think it's sad that some people think the only thing that matters is the average per round damage output of a class. There's more to RPing than that. To say that not being able to dish out as much damage as a fighter (whose main purpose IS to take and dish out damage) makes the small child in me cry.

(I know that many involved in these arguments do not believe this and simply enjoy arguing and testing their number-crunching skills and still know that each class is good to play for other reasons than to deal damage... but still. seriously?)

Just my thoughts on the matter.

*shakes head and walks away*

Rogues aren't useful in combat or out of combat...

Considering that I have played and DM'd rouges that formed the cornerstone of a party, both in and out of combat, I'd say the problem isn't the class.... it's the player.

I have to agree with you to an extent on that one, but it is a fact that rogues are inferior combatants opposed to other classes like fighters and monks (which is ok im not saying they should be on par with them.)They are also inferior to disabling traps, most of the time you can get the guy who has disable device to pick a mechanical lock or the wizard to dispel magic on magical traps... If worst comes to worse buff your tank and send him into the room running all about the place, or perhaps just mage hand objects around the room into random things there are many ways to "safely" and i use the term loosely to disable traps without even using he disable device skill.

Yarr...

I think it's sad that some people think the only thing that matters is the average per round damage output of a class. There's more to RPing than that. To say that not being able to dish out as much damage as a fighter (whose main purpose IS to take and dish out damage) makes the small child in me cry.

(I know that many involved in these arguments do not believe this and simply enjoy arguing and testing their number-crunching skills and still know that each class is good to play for other reasons than to deal damage... but still. seriously?)

Just my thoughts on the matter.

*shakes head and walks away*

Rogues aren't useful in combat or out of combat...

Are rogues as bad as they apprear? They don't deal damage like other melee classes and they are also inferior trap monkeys so ops yell me what is there purpose?
And are they as useless as they seem or is our rogue just retarded?

Rogues at a glance look ok but in practice they are bad. They don't do well in combat compared fighters barbs etc they also don't disable device all that well compared to the groups ability to open doors and activate traps. Discuss plox

Ok so the game is going... well bad our rogue is retarded and because he played a rogue I was essentially forced to play this barbarian who is doing a lot of damage, also I have opened more doors than the rogue and "disabled" more traps... he is utterly useless he decided to charge the baddie instead of ranging and getting a sneak attack... on the flat footed baddie he then choose to stay in melee with it after he got cut down to 30hp instead of withdrawing and getting healed... OMG DOES ANYONE PLAY WITH PEOPLE THIS BAD?

If someone could actually post an actual character build I would really appreciate it or a link... something like a 7 barb 3 fighter of 8 barb 2 fighter something like that

Thanks a lot for your reply quandary!

Anyone who says that shield bashing with a spiked shield that has the bashing special ability doesn't do damage as though it was three size categories larger is just plain silly. I shall explain my thought process in two ways with the rules as written and the quote "logic" behind it.

Okay. First we have the bashing special ability that says when the shield uses its shield bash it deals damage as though it were two size categories larger? Alright that is simple enough right? a 1d4 damage shield bash with a heavy shield now does 1d8. Alright now lets say we wanna put some shield spikes on this bad boy, we can do it. Shield spikes say that they and I quote directly from the book (pg 153.) "Increase damage dealt by a shield bash as if the shield were designed for a creature one size category larger than you." from this we can surmise that a heavy shield that once did a unimpressive 1d4 dmg now does a still unimpressive 1d6 dmg, but hey whats this? My shield strikes as though it were THREE size categories larger now hey that 1d4 dmg is now a whopping 2d6 damage ALRIGHT! WOOOOH WHOOOOO!

Part Two: Logic. The logical explanation behind what the bashing special ability is that it makes you strike with a much greater momentum than what your character could otherwise do. Meaning it makes you hit a lot harder. Now shield spikes. What spikes do is rather simple they poke things, and logic would dictate that the harder you poke something the more damage its going to do to it. Here lets think you get poked in the chest with a quarterstaff, you think hey that s&+$ hurts! Yeah it does trust me I know. Then you think HEY! lets attach a pointy thing to it! YEAH NOW IT WILL MESS SOME STUFF UP! then when you get poked in the chest with that pointy stick you DIE! so tell me how attaching spikes to a shield that hits even harder than normal wouldnt do more damage?

Thank you both for your replies hopefully I will get more, but I do have a few questions

1. How does having 3 levels of fighter give me full movement in mithral full plate? Yes at level 3 I would have armor training 1 but that doesnt increase my speed and mithral would just bring the full plate down to medium which would give me 30 movement speed but that has nothing to do with my levels in fighter.

2. Why half orc? it seems like a rather bad choice for this build, as with a half elf I will get my two favored classes my +2 bonus to con or str and I will get skill focus bonus to perception and I will be immune to magical sleep and get a +2 saving bonuses on enchantment spells and effects.

3. Why falchion? I'm assuming because of the crit? but I think for tanking I would need a shield? I suppose I could crunch some numbers and really figure it out... I would probably have done it anyway xD

Also my group composition is me a rogue ( hes really bad) A cleric and a sorcerer, to give you guys some more to go on we are going to be fighting in the underdark a lot... meaning lots of drow and undead and incorporeal baddies who want to om nomz me!

how important is out of combat stuff? because if your main concern is straight damage, fighter is actually better. a 2 level barb dip would still allow you to easily call yourself a barbarian, but at level 10 a straight fighter outdamages a straight barbarian.

out of combat stuff is why im choosing barbarian because we need a tank but frankly our rogue is literally retarded like... you would have to meet this person to understand how retarded he is.

I want to use a barbarian for an upcoming game. The game is level 10. Stats are 13,13,14,16,16,17 (These were rolled they are unmodified and in no particular order) He needs to be a meat shield and do as much damage as possible. Ok optimizers GOOOOO! I was thinking of taking a 2 lvl fighter dip also for the two bonus feats but w/e u guys think is bestest I wanna know ur opinions I do have a build in mind however.

Brutesquad07 wrote:

Nubzcrymore wrote:

Well simply put this gives the guy two greatswords worth of damage with no penalty to attack at 11th level, that doesn't seem a little overpowered to you? Yes he gives up some feats but there is no ammount of feats you can take right now that allows you to TWF with 2 greatswords.

Monkey Grip + Oversized 2-weapon Fighting. 2 Greatswords Dual Wield. Same damage output. Not that I am advocating it, just pointing it out.

it is not the same damage output as dual wielding greatswords its MORE if i have to explain that part you should not even be on this thread due to your exceptional ignorance.

That is sarcasm right?

Nubzcrymore wrote:

Well simply put this gives the guy two greatswords worth of damage with no penalty to attack at 11th level, that doesn't seem a little overpowered to you? Yes he gives up some feats but there is no ammount of feats you can take right now that allows you to TWF with 2 greatswords.

Monkey Grip + Oversized 2-weapon Fighting. 2 Greatswords Dual Wield. Same damage output. Not that I am advocating it, just pointing it out.

it is not the same damage output as dual wielding greatswords its MORE if i have to explain that part you should not even be on this thread due to your exceptional ignorance.

This is how this combo kinda makes the game silly... TWF with shields that each do 2d6+(str)+(fighter special)+(weapon spec)+(shield bonus)+(power attack)+(Shield spike enhancement bonus) This is fairly good damage... Not to mention the part where you still retain your shield bonus (No I'm not retarded you only get one shield bonus to AC I know.)