Ghaldring

I'm sorry for making you think for yourself.

In theory, you don't need to add any endurance, because you can cast augmentation and essence armour to get oodles of health. In practice, you'd probably want to invest a few points, because tying up essence on two long term spells, and having to recast them every time you re-enter a zone, is annoying.

But maybe a better idea is that you save a few skill points, and if you find that you need endurance, invest in it.

Wow, you really do like following me about the forum belittling me with your snide one liners, don't you? Are you sure you don't have a crush on me? Sorry Thuryl, I don't bend that way.

There's nothing wrong with 'advice'. I'm all for giving newbies information and my own personal opinion about the game mechanics and gameplay so that they can make informed decisions when they develop their character (eg. How much leadership does the game require? Does dexterity give me more bang for the buck than melee? What are the advantages of melee vs. missile weapons?) but you're essentially asking for other people to tell you how to develop your character. And not even in a general sense, but down to the very last detail ("What I should put my sp in when I level, and my overal stat goal").

 

That's absurd, it kills half the fun of the game.

 

You're playing as a lifecrafter, yes? Well, you might want to check out the analysis made by veterans on this forum so that you are informed. Start here:

http://www.ironycentral.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=90941#Post90941

Wow, Nioca and me are in agreement for once. How novel.

I thought hardiness lowered encumbrance?

What the...?!

You want us to develop your character for you? 3/4's of the fun in an RPG is being responsible for your own character build, and developing a PC that is distinct and represents you.

I see nothing wrong with telling people the mechanics of certain skills, or even pointing out which skills are useless/useful, but giving you all the information you just asked for seems to defeat the purpose of playing an RPG. Think for yourself, for Christ's sake!

Wait as sec:

 

 

That's to be expected, given that A2 is the sequel to A1. But the Avernum trilogy should remain distinct and separate from the Geneforge series. I'm amazed that such a position isn't consensus on these forums.

 

 

So you're against the change in engines that occurred between A3 and A4?

Why don't you colour code the name for each item? Non magic = Green, Magic = Blue, Unique = Red.

*sigh*

 

Evnissyen:

 

 

I haven't taken offense. I'm irritated at continually having my views misrepresented, despite my repeated attempts to correct your misconceptions.

 

 

I've already explained several times as to why I don't fit the definition of a 'Luddite', yet you persist in painting me as anti-progress. If you have any intellectual integrity whatsoever, you'd stop doing this.

 

 

 

Style over substance fallacy. Despite my passionate style, my arguments are sound, and I haven't breached any of the forum rules.

 

 

Only to those whose powers of comprehension are failing them.

 

 

Yes I have. From my *first* post:

 

"The pseudo-3D graphics are hideous and reek of Geneforge (I actually enjoy Geneforge, but come on, why the blatant cross-over?)

 

and then:

 

"To put it simply, if it looks like a turd, then it's a turd. It doesn't matter how new and shiny said turd may be."

 

It's quite apparent that my main reason for disliking the Avernum 4/5 graphics is because I find them ugly. Even 'The Limper' picked up on this, replying with:

 

"Except, you know, none of the graphics look bad."

 

 

Geneforge importation is a legitimate complaint, because it detracts from Avernum's uniqueness. Avernum is no longer a distinct series, but some sort of Avergene hybrid.

 

 

I never made mention about 'correctness'.

 

 

There is tremendous irony is that statement. I'll let you figure out why. Hint: How can Avernum have its own personality when its graphics are imported from Geneforge?

Kelandon, I enjoyed reading your experiences regarding Geneforge 2. Geneforge 2 is good mindless fun! Perhaps the biggest difference between GF2 and GF3 is that attention is paid to small details in the former.

 

 

That's the worst build I can think of, and it's no wonder you found it boring. High leadership and mechanics really aren't necessary, and if you are going to specialise in Shaping, you should aim for something better than just a fyora and drayk. For me, a deadweight Shaper works well, as does a Shaper with a mix of Shaping and battle/mental magic.

 

 

Yes, Parry is overpowered, but if you focus purely on Parry you're going to bite the dust. Especially considering that there are many attacks which bypass parry (The Eyebeast at the Taker road was torture). Guardian's should have creation support.

 

 

Easss is a wimp. I find Learned Pinner to be the hardest sect leader.

 

 

Lovely. Try taking the Awakened or Taker pathway, it's quite enjoyable.

Safey:

 

If Drakon survival and well-being depended on negotiation, then they would negotiate, as demonstrated by the Trakovite ending.

 

The problem here is that such an opportunity was never offered to the Drakons (or even the Drayks/rebel serviles) by the Shapers. Even the relatively harmless Awakened serviles who attempted to negotiate with the Shapers were laughed at, before having their towns raised to the ground.

 

I remember a quote being made by a member on this forum, something along the lines of "The Drakons make achieving peace difficult, but the Shapers make it impossible." I think that this is a play on a similar quote made in reference to the Palestinian conflict, which is something along the lines of "The Palestinians make achieving peace difficult, but the Israelis make it impossible."

 

No matter how arrogant the Drakons may be, the fact still remains that the Shapers held all the aces, yet didn't even given the Drakons the opportunity to negotiate. Even if the Drakons had not been willing to negotiate and compromise, the rest of the Rebellion would most likely have turned against them and thus significantly reduced the power of the Rebel armies.

 

 

Actually, it was Greta. And they do grant you an audience (in fact several) before Ghaldring. They are also horrified when Salassadar mistreats human guests.

 

 

Not always. At the gates to Quess-Uss, serviles and Drakons were working together. On the fourth island of Dhonal's isle, the serviles and drayks were in control. At Derenton Freehold, there was no attempt by the Drakons to take over.

 

 

Yep, some Drakons do demonstrate insensitivity, although I don't think that this is inherent to their race. I'd say it's more a product of having to fight a war of self-preservation, and also bitterness at the heavy losses suffered earlier in the war. They scapegoat other groups, behaviour which is common amongst humans in times of hardship and disaster.

 

 

As a collective, are Drakons more arrogant than humans? Perhaps. But their condescending views towards non-Drakons developed over time due to social factors, as is stated by the old Drayk in the Unbound vats.

I don't see the similarity? As things stood, the enemies (ie. Shapers) were at the gates, and the cyrodrayks were blocking the route the Drakons needed to use in order to reach the vats and complete the Unbound that would save the Rebellion.

 

But yeah, I do think the Drakons should have attempted to reason with the Cryodrayks before resorting to violence. I never said that all Drakons were perfect.

Why don't you integrate my information with yours, w-dueck, instead of just tacking it on the end? You're welcome to do so, as long as you mention me in the acknowledgements section.

The problem with the Cyrodrayks was that they expressed their grievances in such a way as to hinder the Rebellion. I do think that they have a legitimate complaint, but obstructing the path to the chambers of the Unbound which are being constructed to save the Rebellion is self-defeating.

Nioca:

 

Not the mainland Rebels. And the Rebellion is no longer an effective fighting force.

 

 

The Teutonic Knights still existed after the Battle of Tannenburg. Point?

 

 

From a Rebel perspective, having all independent Creation life snuffed out on the mainland sounds like a defeat. Losing an effective military force also sounds pretty disasterous.

 

 

Yeah, I'm sure that makes up for losing your foothold on the mainland. There's nothing quite like being back at square one, except minus Ghaldring, Ahkari Blaze, and Lilita, as well as scores of Drakons, Drayks and rebel humans and serviles.

Nioca:

 

Nope. The Drakon warleader came in and callously took control of Khima-uss. I don't dispute the Drakons taking control of military settlements, given that the rebellion acknowledges that they are the leaders of the war effort. But I do agree that the Drakons responsible should have handled that far more diplomatically, and been more sensitive to the needs of the serviles.

 

Which agrees with my previous statement:

The Drakon collective aren't exploiting serviles, they are cooperating with them, although admittedly the behaviour of some Drakons towards non-Drakons is overbearing and callous. Such behaviour has made the serviles distrust the Drakons as a whole, although they still have to admit that the Drakons are the last hope for the Rebellion.

 

 

Well, you were blaming the Drakons work on the Unbound for the failure of conventional tactics against the Shapers. But as you admit, there was also civil strife amongst the Drakons, which is an alternative explaination as to why conventional warfare might fail.

 

But then again, the Rebellion was failing long before the civil strife or the creation of the Unbound. After all, the Drakons began the Unbound project in response to getting severely beaten in conventional warfare. You may be putting the cart before the horse here, methinks.

 

 

That's probably why the Drakons took command of Khima-Uss, and built a Shaping Chamber? And why they fortified the areas surrounding the Drakon stronghold?

Nioca:

 

Hahah, yeah, having your main forces smashed on the mainland and being forced to retreat to an island fortress doesn't count as being defeated.

 

The destruction of the Rebellion on the mainland is the equivalent of what the Battle of Tannenburg was for the Teutonic Knights.

Nioca:

 

The Drakon collective aren't exploiting serviles, they are cooperating with them, although admittedly the behaviour of some Drakons towards non-Drakons is overbearing and callous. Such behaviour has made the serviles distrust the Drakons as a whole, although they still have to admit that the Drakons are the last hope for the Rebellion.

 

 

Did they? Wasn't there political upheaval, which would have hindered Ghaldring's attempts to support the non-Drakon half of the Rebellion?

 

Also, the switch from conventional warfare to the Unbound is rather sensible. If you are repeatedly getting beaten and suffering heavy losses in conventional warfare, then common sense tells you to employ asymmetrical tactics.

But the humans in Geneforge are capable of that, Safey.

Nioca:

 

Um, what? If anything, the rebel serviles seems to resent recent Drakon attitudes towards non-Drakon rebels.

 

Safey:

 

Those 'other ways' clearly didn't work, given that the Rebellion is smashed if you don't release the Unbound.

Nioca:

 

So now you're changing tack? Originally you were arguing that the Shapers were a national group. What happened to that argument?

 

But yeah, the Drakons are targeting the Shapers for destruction, although the weapon they use is (unfortunately) rather indiscriminant. Unbound are the equivalent of the modern day atom bomb.

feo:

 

If you can justify the association, I wouldn't worry about Godwin's law.

The Limper:

 

So? Shapers still don't count as a national group. And you've further hurt your case by admitting that what the Shaper's control isn't a nation-state in the modern sense of the word.

Nioca:

 

No? They are a particular caste within said nation that holds beliefs that would be considered hate crime in today's society. I'd equate the Shapers with the Nazi Party, or the Khmer Rouge. Granted, it's not a perfect analogy, since the Nazi Party and Khmer Rouge were political groups that held complete power, whereas Shapers are more along the lines of a self-perpetuating caste.

 

Perhaps a more adequate comparison is of the Shapers to the Inner Party in 1984. The Shapers are a class of society, upon which entry depends not upon heredity, but a combination of merit and the presence of particular bigoted beliefs.