Paladin95

Slarty has a nice list of these in Strategy Central, but how exactly are they factored into damage? Either it isn't straight-up multiplication or there's about three times more physical resistance out there than I thought (i.e. about 60-80%).

If Vempele's report is accurate, that applies to both Ornks and Serviles. The Ornks wandering around everywhere else (like the Southforge Gate) are fair game, though, and actually do provide some decent exp. at that very early stage. Personally, I'm going with "don't kill them" because getting hunted down by 500+ hp Guards with Acid Batons for about 10 exp. doesn't appeal to me.

The problem is that at level 11 I'm got only 1 exp. a piece, and killing two makes the area hostile.

Originally Posted By: Thuryl You can pretty much blame DV for that. That's not ironic at all. >.> *Looks at thread-starter*

The previous comment about magic was meant in an entirely comparative sense. A solo Agent in G3 is nowhere near a Shaping-oriented character, but Servile turtle mages and Infiltrators in G4 tend to work at least as well as their Shaping focused counterparts. The changes in leveling mechanics and the item boosts available to Shaping skills contribute to that.

Originally Posted By: Slarty I'm not really sure why you, personally acting every turn is less boring than your creations acting every turn. But that's me. The PC provides diversity with many different possible actions per turn. Not getting them involved tends to make the game a bit more redundant, which wears on me by the 80th area or so. A lot of that's probably my obsession with killing anything and everything red. I totally agree that we're talking about very similar characters. They're both obscenely powerful and let you play the plot however you want. In that sense my preference is purely personal. On the other hand, G4 makes magic much more powerful, making the build a little less awe inspiring. My S.T. is doing fine all the way to Dillame, but I'm still reminded of beastly Serviles and mind control Infiltrators. Maybe when G5 comes out for PC I'll have this much fun again.

I find trouncing late-game enemies with ease fun, so I disagree with your last statement. What I find boring is hiding around a corner doing nothing. Pumping Magic Shaping and Intelligence make a difference early, but by the end of the game we're talking about essentially the same character minus one Reaper Baton and plus a couple overpowered creations. In that case I'll call the creations overkill 99% of the time and Madness Gems just as good the other 1%.

Fair. Then let me say that this build is uniquely qualified to capitalize on the broken shaping mechanics via its lack of need for large essence reserves and its minimal early investment in attacking skills. While those are also true of a deadweight shaper, that build makes everything up to San Ru a royal pain and everything after that boring.

True. Even my no-canister Warrior became good after he got two Wingbolts for the fens. The biggest difference is that I know the missile Shocktrooper isn't the best build. Well-built Serviles and Infiltrators just work better. I just started another G4 Shocktrooper run to see if I can make it more efficient, but I think I'll still be fairly underwhelmed. Should I drop the single point in Fire Shaping for an early Cryoa companion? EDIT: Scratch that. I forgot Cryoas only take a Fire Shaping of 2 in G4. >.>

I did run a Missile Shocktrooper as my very first G4 build. It worked out well enough, but the sheer domination just wasn't there. Final battle was still anticlimactic, but a lot of the missions leading up to it were far more difficult. Perhaps I was putting too much stake in Fire Shaping.

Sorry for posting in an ancient topic, but I did a slight rehash of this character and saw some interesting results. I was also a no-canister Loyalist on Torment, but I did abuse Tolleran and Orois Blaze. Those boosts turned out to be unnecessary. First, my strength was base 5 for most of the game. The Ornkskin Gloves boosted that to 7, and I very rarely had to deal with encumbrance. That may be because of my willingness to go through an area once to kill everything then returning to get all the items. I played the first Island as a solo Shaper. It was hard, but focusing almost exclusively on Dex made for rather hard-hitting crystals. Missile Weapons was saved for training in San Ru. A single extra point in Magic Shaping turned into an Artila to help with the Warped Creator. During this time I also pumped my Mech and Leadership to 8 and 7, respectively. I invested one more point in Leadership before the Acidic Valley to get Thihn's Ghost boost with Infiltrator items. Endurance wasn't touched. Thihn got me to four, then the Ornksin Gloves, Symbiotic Cloak, and Gruesome Charm led to a net of 6. The base of three caused me a few pains early on, but the purchase of two points of Daze alleviated most of my problems. I brought Blessing Magic to three early on, never to be touched again. The points that saved on Strength and Endurance went to Intelligence for creations. Three Vlish that I ASAP on Harmony finished the game with me. Some minmaxing led in an endgame where they cost about 110 essence each and were pumping out ~130 damage per attack. They were created with a Magic Shaping skill of 2. In the meantime, I raised my Battle Shaping skill to 4 and created a single Thahd Shade to deflect hits. I definitely could have gotten away with 3, saving points for more important boosts. It was also minmaxed to take 188 essence when I met Kyrik and then replaced with two 152-essence Rotghroths. The Full-Stone Bracelet and the Black Peal Talisman gave them starting stats of 17, which the Creator's Belt made 19 (21 for Int). At this point the game was no longer a challenge. After training my magic skills in Dhonal's Keep, I was casting long enough lasting Mass Energizes to take out the Monastery of Tears with high-aggression and relative ease. The Symbiotic Cloak and Farsight Chitin made my Reaper Baton hits deadly. While I apparently didn't boost them quite as much as DV, the stun usually meant at least a turn without attacking when the enemy wasn't straight-up killed. On the occasions this wasn't good enough, Icy Crystals filled the void. For fun I went to Orois Blaze for Create Gazer and Tolleran to boost my Intelligence to 21. The Gazer meant game over. I resolved not to let my Shaper fight Ahkari Blaze at all. He died in two rounds. Being a loyalist, I didn't have access to the Agent's Shelter or the Shaper's Boon. Instead, I used the Essence Aegis and the Infiltrator's Ring. In retrospect I could have saved a lot of hassle by making the Ring first, but it turned out well enough. Long story short, this build is broken in G3. By minmaxing effectively, you can create a Shaper that can dominate the battlefield but doesn't actually need to. By Dhonal I was using fewer thorns than I was finding because my creations dished out so much damage, yet the occasional swarm had absolutely no chance in the face of crystals, thorns, and Null Wands. My conclusion is that this build is not better than a Mental Magic and Battle Magic heavy shaper, just more practical. I've always found pumping Battle Magic, Leadership, and Mechanics early leaves my Shaper horribly vulnerable and usually low on essence. The Missile route is more efficient, and about as difficult, early on. Also, using missiles means I never had to worry about essence and spell energy in battle after Harmony. I always had at least 80 essence to spare, and saw that grow to almost 200 by Gull Island in spite of my additions to my Vlish. The game was virtually stress free and extremely satisfying. The same tactics rarely worked for any two challenges, but I always had the tactics available for a given situation. I applaud this character build and wish it were as effective in G4.

Quote: >~2000 years before G1: -A Sucia Island tribe discovers how to alter and create living things using magic. -Declares war on other tribes to build empire. -During this war Heustess is accidentally effectively made immortal. Becomes self-proclaimed guardian of his home. -Due to to reckless shaping that created many diseases and monsters. Most of the tribe perished. The rest fled the island to the mainland to eventually become the Shapers. 2000-500 years before G1: The other inhabitants of the island eventually die out. Changing those dates to reflect something like 4000 years doesn't introduce any contradictions. Maybe the surviving tribesman migrated west before eventually founding the society that became the Shapers and only later began settling the eastern world again. This is all rationalizations, of course, but it's as likely as anything.

You could probably beat the game if you pump Battle Shaping and Intelligence like all get out, but it will be a pain. Thahd Shades are still my favorite G3 battle creation.

Each point of strength and melee weapons should add 1-3 raw damage to your attacks (pre-resist). Honestly, by the end of the first island you'll be getting so little damage out of your Guardian's attacks you'd be better off with a deadweight shaper.

All of the above. Each of those require three points in the skill for their corresponding base creations (Fyora for Cryoa, etc.). They also require a higher shaping skill.

The population of the world has increased ever more quickly since the end of WWII. Since then, the scale of militaries and wars has been generally on the decline, and the typical standard of living has improved significantly. Obviously, population growth is not innately linked to more war and suffering. Thus, your burden is to show that environmental damage is more immoral than destruction of the individual (mental magic) and slow, painful death (battle magic).

Alright, first, my case. The ultimate breach of morality is the destruction of the individual. All cognitive and decision-making processes are inherently flawed in that they cannot plausibly take proper account of all contributing factors. For example, neither of our cases is perfect and unbeatable in this debate because neither of us knows the exact response of the other in advance. However, if we were to share our different perspectives on the topic both of us would gain the tools to create better cases in the future. This pooling of understanding is why the individual is so valuable. Further, I contend that any creature capable of making a decision (whether logically or instinctively) and somehow expressing elements of that decision (linguistically, as in humans, or through other visual and auditory displays, as in animals) can potentially contribute to this process. Because the targets of magical attacks we are discussing possess the ability to react to said attacks, they are obviously capable of both deciding to respond (logically or instinctively) and also of communicating this decision through the action of responding. Thus, all targets we are discussing are able to contribute to the aforementioned mutual benefit. While any means of killing obviously destroys the individual, mental magic is most egregious because it directly targets the mechanism that generates individuality. While hurling fire or lightning are as much a means to death as charming or terrorizing, taking control of the mind contains the additional action of completely eradicating the individual prior to death. This direct targeting of the self is why mental magic is the least moral form of attack. Turn the contention that preventing the subject from "realiz[ing] what they are doing" makes mental magic more moral. That the subject is ignorant of their actions is a further example of the complete destruction of their cognitive processes. Lack of realization represents a complete sacrifice of the individual over the the controlling party, which makes mental magic horribly immoral on the basis that it totally wipes out the ability to think, act, or react as a distinct entity. Turn the contention that the suffering inflicted by acid or lightning clouds makes battle magic immoral. That battle magic can inflict slow, painful deaths makes it more moral. The imminent and known approach of death leads to the ultimate expression of the self. If the subject is suffering and knows that they will die, this becomes the context in which all their decisions are made and expressed - a context in which the burdens of life (and society in particular) are removed and the true self is laid bare for the world to see. The suffering imposed by battle magic in fact makes it more moral because the final acts of the target reveal their innermost identity. EDIT: Grammar.

Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba Originally Posted By: Paladin95 Sharon's Ring is the only artifact worth getting. You have forgotten about the emerald chestguard. Dikiyoba. So I did. The Puresteel Soulblade isn't crafted - one of the Gazers in Benerrii-Uss takes some of your primary stats in exchange for it.

I've always been partial to pumping mech to ~12, but it's not necessary to complete the game. I think the highest leadership you'll ever need is 10 after items. If you plan ahead for when to get leadership-boosting items, you can get away with about 8. If you plan on powergaming the Awakened for exp., go for the 10 hard points early. Sharon's Ring is the only artifact worth getting. The Agent's Shelter is better than the All-Protector, the Guardian Claymore is better than the Shaped Blade, and you can get great armors with less penalty to hit than the Shaped Breastplate. Don't save gemstones and emeralds for the collection quest. The merchant who wants them gives you less than you can sell them for, and very little exp.

November-December - Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. "Justice" was way overused by both sides and those rounds turned into a debate about whose definition of "Justice" was better. A few people tried to throw something like "the proper application of punishment" in there but failed to show why their position was more "proper." A lot of people said "democracy," but that turned into an argument about whether a broad sample group produced better policies than a "pure ballot box." January-February - Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court to prosecute crimes against humanity. This will be sovereignty vs. justice in 80% of the rounds. I'll be running cosmopolitanism just so I don't shoot myself. But on topic, we've shown that mind control is immoral, but not answered the question of whether it is more or less immoral than outright killing. Since the main thread of the mind control debate turned out to be the value of the individual, and because that value was more or less judged important, I'm going to take mental magic as the least moral form of attack.

Yeah, from the argument that destroying the individual is justified when it serves the good of society. That's right up there with arguing in favor of nuclear war because it controls population growth. lol I wish they would have more morality-based LD topics, though. The last two have both lacked a clear value that both sides can agree on. It kind of moves away from the value of the debate itself and into "Societal Welfare is better than Justice because Justice is a subset of Welfare." "No, Justice is better because it's more specific and limits to scope of the debate to a reasonable spectrum." Bleh.

Now, I could go with the "prove that the citizens in said totalitarian regimes are unhappy" angle, but even I recognize that as abuse. This is the problem with playing devil's advocate: you always lose.

Never made it to the tournament floor, because my soccer team miraculously made state semi-finals of the President's Cup. I liked how it ran, though. "So, your value of justice in important because justice supports democratic society?" "Yes." "Turn my opponent's entire case. The objective of any society is to obtain an enduring state of well-being for its citizens. Democracy cannot accomplish this. Thus, we must guide society on the path that leads to the destruction of democracy. Democracy is bad. Because my opponent's position supports democracy, it is also bad. You must favor negation of the resolution if societal welfare is to be achieved." Paraphrased, but funneh. Ahem... That you agree to the distinction between the immorality of concept and immorality of execution negates any point to the effect that manipulation of others is flawed because the manipulators make mistakes. Revolution is caused by the perception of class disparity which arises only because manipulators foolishly allow it to. By the simple act of denying the manipulated a standard of comparison - as in "1984" - this sentiment can be eradicated, leading the manipulated to remain indefinitely satisfied with their material wealth. Thus, the fact that unhappiness and revolution occur within manipulating societies is not evidence that the act of manipulation is itself immoral.

Haven't yet played G5 (PC'er), but G1 and G2 are the best, IMO. Both let you powergame effectively, stay loyal to a given sect (even the weakest alignment is winnable), or stay totally independent. Island hopping in G3 is annoying, but I also don't like the introduction of the ultimate rebel-loyalist choice. G4 is my favorite to play with solo characters, but the comparative lack of variety and the fact that "secret" actions somehow make the damaged party like you less are turn offs. They're all awesome games, just not quite equally so.

Originally Posted By: pitchblack But if you look at human history again, when are the manipulated usually happy with the short end of stick? Look at the English Revolution of the 1600's, the internal strife in the Roman empire right beofre it fell, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the October Revolution, the fall of the Soviet Union... I can go on if you want me to. The point is, even if people achieve a state of happiness for a short time with manipulators watching over them, they eventually grow discontent, and rebel. EDIT: I will admit that the manipulated leaders of all these rebellions eventually go back in the end to become the new manipulators, but all this does is continue the bloody cycle. EDIT 2: Man, I really would like to meet you in a debate tournament. That would be a fun round. : ) That would be fun. I love running squirrel cases, like a "democracy bad" neg on the last LD resolution. xD Anyway, revolution is always instigated by the next class down from the top. This is either a middle class or, more often, the lower class when the middle class ceases to exist (see: French Revolution, Russian Revolution). This is not because they are unhappy with what they have, but because they a) see that others are far better off and realize that revolution is the only means to upward mobility (see: George Orwell, your standard high school world history text). To be dissatisfied with the lot of others is entirely separate from dissatisfaction with one's own lot, and much more easily avoided by the manipulator. I cede that it is possible for the manipulators to make errors which upset the equilibrium and, thus, emotional stability of society, but human errors in execution do not make the act itself immoral. Public education is not inherently immoral, even if the occasional mistake is made which dooms a child to forever hate and defy the conventional wisdom there taught.