Talk:Ghoul - Revision history

Ion frigate: /* Usefulness of this paragraph in strategy section */

2014-02-06T09:05:49Z

‎Usefulness of this paragraph in strategy section

And into at 01:29, 6 February 2014

2014-02-06T01:29:13Z

And into at 01:28, 6 February 2014

2014-02-06T01:28:41Z

And into at 03:45, 4 February 2014

2014-02-04T03:45:20Z

MoogleDan: Reply to MadSimon

2013-03-06T03:12:18Z

Reply to MadSimon

MadSimon: Created page with "Where should Saprovore be linking to? Secondly, does anyone think the redirects for the innate abilities are less than consistent? --~~~~"

2013-03-06T02:48:24Z

Created page with "Where should Saprovore be linking to? Secondly, does anyone think the redirects for the innate abilities are less than consistent? --~~~~"

New page

Where should Saprovore be linking to? Secondly, does anyone think the redirects for the innate abilities are less than consistent? --[[User:MadSimon|MadSimon]] 03:48, 6 March 2013 (CET)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:05, 6 February 2014
Line 24:		Line 24:

	Yours, and into		Yours, and into
		+
		+	:I used 'resilience' to mean durability in combat, which is affected by both offense and defense (dead monsters don't hit you). It could potentially stand to be rephrased, but the point is that finding yourself with zero MP next to a wolf isn't the death sentence it can be to a DEFE.
		+	:Their low Int is well worth noting - it's the worst in the game: you're not going to be getting good spells usefully castable without throwing (almost) everything into it. While they can get around hunger costs, there's nothing that 'offsets' the effect low Int has on spell power, other than getting lucky with enhancers or +Int items (which is true of any race).
		+	:You're also way overestimating the impact that rotting has on ghouls - they have high base HP, so losing about 10% of that to rot isn't horrible. And they can stuff themselves silly on every passing corpse, generally undoing most or all of the rot in the process. Rot is a nasty thing for other races because it's hard to fix and accumulates. Ghouls have neither of these issues.
		+	:"Hunger costs are never an issue" is a mantra you see a lot, but it comes from a misunderstanding of the way they work. Hunger costs are an issue, they just aren't in an obvious fashion. Functioning correctly, they don't penalize you, they restrict you. When a spell is costing you 200+ hunger to cast, you don't spam it. Races that can get around hunger costs can get spells online a bit sooner, and that's an advantage. -[[User:Ion frigate\|Ion frigate]] ([[User talk:Ion frigate\|talk]]) 10:05, 6 February 2014 (CET)

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 Okay, cleaned up, condensed, and tried to clarify. I worry there might be a bit more info than needed here, especially with god recommendations (which generally depend more on background than species choice, except perhaps for "this God does *not* work well")... Anyway, I left it in for now.
 Yours, and into
@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 I am fine with the first two sentences, but I don't think the focus on hunger costs is particularly helpful or true. Hunger cost is very seldom an issue for any casting background. In fact I'd say hunger costs from spells are worse for ghouls than most other species, because any amount of rotting usually matters more than having to occasionally eat some permafood. The low intelligence and lower than average magic pool is a bit of a drag but can be offset by other things. The phrase "unarmed abilities give them better resilience" is a bit misleading as well; the things that make ghouls good at unarmed combat (claws and good aptitude for it) do not increase their ability to withstand damage.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:28, 6 February 2014
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Yours, and into		Yours, and into
		+
		+
		+	==Usefulness of this paragraph in strategy section==
		+
		+	Some text was restored in this paragraph:
		+
		+	"Ghouls can also make for competent casters. Their aptitudes for it are not as bad as they first appear: they are good at Ice and Earth Magic, and generally passable at most other things. They are, however, held back by their low intelligence: those who want to make a serious Ghoul caster will want to pick a spellcasting background and devote their stat increases to nothing but Int. However, their ability to eat any and all corpses makes hunger costs less of an issue (partially offsetting the low Int), while their good HP and unarmed abilities give them better resilience than most casters."
		+
		+	I am fine with the first two sentences, but I don't think the focus on hunger costs is particularly helpful or true. Hunger cost is very seldom an issue for any casting background. In fact I'd say hunger costs from spells are worse for ghouls than most other species, because any amount of rotting usually matters more than having to occasionally eat some permafood. The low intelligence and lower than average magic pool is a bit of a drag but can be offset by other things. The phrase "unarmed abilities give them better resilience" is a bit misleading as well; the things that make ghouls good at unarmed combat (claws and good aptitude for it) do not increase their ability to withstand damage.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:45, 4 February 2014
Line 8:		Line 8:

	:Does that all make sense? I'd be up for an overhaul if some better system could be devised. --[[User:MoogleDan\|MoogleDan]] 04:12, 6 March 2013 (CET)		:Does that all make sense? I'd be up for an overhaul if some better system could be devised. --[[User:MoogleDan\|MoogleDan]] 04:12, 6 March 2013 (CET)
		+
		+
		+	Okay, cleaned up, condensed, and tried to clarify. I worry there might be a bit more info than needed here, especially with god recommendations (which generally depend more on background than species choice, except perhaps for "this God does not work well")... Anyway, I left it in for now.
		+
		+	Yours, and into

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:12, 6 March 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Where should Saprovore be linking to? Secondly, does anyone think the redirects for the innate abilities are less than consistent? --[[User:MadSimon\|MadSimon]] 03:48, 6 March 2013 (CET)		Where should Saprovore be linking to? Secondly, does anyone think the redirects for the innate abilities are less than consistent? --[[User:MadSimon\|MadSimon]] 03:48, 6 March 2013 (CET)
		+
		+	:We have an existing [[Saprovore]] page that that link should direct to... As it stands, our policy on mutations is a bit wonky:
		+	:*We have a great big page for [[good mutations]] and [[bad mutations]], which should ideally be based on the game's definitions (different mutation sources call for "good", "bad", or "random" mutations). However, when it was first put together, it had a few thrown in the wrong place because although they aren't really 100% beneficial, the game still considers them good. These two pages should ideally contain all the mutations you could theoretically get with any character.
		+	:*[[Demonspawn mutations]], [[draconian mutations]], and [[Jiyva mutations]] all get their own pages, since those are distinct sets acquirable through specific conditions. Those are logical enough.
		+	:*Species mutations that are completely unique to one species generally get explained on the species' own page. [[Deep dwarf]] damage shaving, for instance, gets fully explained there.
		+	:*Since Saprovore is a mutation that several species have innately, but which cannot be acquired through any source of mutation, I figure giving it its own page makes sense. That way we only have to explain it in-depth once, and each of the appropriate species can just link to it.
		+
		+	:Does that all make sense? I'd be up for an overhaul if some better system could be devised. --[[User:MoogleDan\|MoogleDan]] 04:12, 6 March 2013 (CET)