Flesh-mancy seems to be a bit weak...

Discussion in 'Dungeons of Dredmor General' started by Misterstone, Sep 9, 2011.

  1. Kablooie

    Kablooie Member

    I like the concept of Fleshsmithing as well and am a bit disappointed at it's issues. Myself, I would propose the following changes:

    Meatshield - Instead of adding to hit points and regen, it should increase blocking and (especially) damage absorption. This ability doesn't stack nor increases in proportion to Magic Power. After absorbing X amount of damage it disappears. Give it a cooldown.

    Fleshbore - This skill tree needs some punch and this is the spell that should do it. It should do moderate damage at low levels and increase in proportion to Magic Power. At high levels it should be nasty.

    Knit Tissue - Increase the healing a bit, make it proportional to Magic Power. Either have it a)cast multiple times but the debuff stacks, or b)cooldown.

    Corpus Burst - The "chain reaction" thing is a nice idea :). Any creature killed by this skill ALSO bursts a turn or so later. Note that this ability should also have the potential to wound/kill the caster and pets.

    Zombyfycation - It's understandable why Golemancy has the best pets. Fleshsmithing should be close behind, though (IMO, Dr. Frankenstein would have been a Fleshsmith, not a Golemancer). Just improve the pet (increase HP, Burliness, and Damage Absorption). Optionally, instead of a Zomby, have the creature be an undead version of the original one killed, loyal to the caster, but with a zomby's vulnerabilities and resistances.

    Miasmatic Putrefaction - Change the Toxic damage type to Putrefication, and creatures caught within the cloud either can potentially become stunned or confused (the latter being a state where they randomly move around, attack the nearest creature, run in fear, or just stand there).

    . . . or maybe I've just watched Jeffery Combs in The Re-Animator too many times . . . .
  2. Haldurson

    Haldurson Member

    Actually, since he was working with inanimate (i.e. dead) flesh, the monster was, essentially, a Golem, by the definition of the word.

    I would think that a prime difference between a Golemancer and a Fleshmancer would simply have to be that Fleshmancers work with living flesh. I'm not sure what the devs had in mind, but Frankenstein's monster was a classical Golem. Heck, one of the earliest Robot stories "R.U.R." was inspired by the Golem legend.
    Kablooie likes this.
  3. Kablooie

    Kablooie Member

    It's debatable, certainly. I would draw the line at the actual base material used - flesh versus artificial or normally inanimate matter. I think Shelley's Creature was closer to a form of Undead. So were the creatures created by Dr. West in the Re-Animator. Flesh restored to a state of being animate through an unnatural or forbidden process. The original golems were created from matter that was not only inanimate, but had never been animate - in other words, wasn't flesh. They were constructed from dust, mud, wood, or stone. Then again, it was said that Man was created from similar materials (at least, dust or clay).

    The Dev's granted the Fleshsmith the ability to create an Undead creature - the Zomby - from the flesh of fallen foes. You could possibly describe it as a Golem; that's practically including all Undead as it's subset. Then it gets interesting debating the nature of the Vampyr . . . . . ;)

    Fun to parse, although a bit of thread hijack.