GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

Talk:Grasping Ghoul

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Crippling Attack[edit source]

Is it really "Grippling Attack" (with a g)? I assume that's typo and it is "Crippling Attack" (with a c). We should list that as a Monster skill. --Tetris L 23:21, 5 Sep 2005 (EST)

Crippling Attack! Actually all they do is cripple you, die and explode--Ollj 13:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Other Ghouls?[edit source]

I wonder if Ghoul is a species. They have their own Collector Item Ghoul's Collar, which according to ANet's system, implies that Ghoul is a species. Also, the fact that the Grasping Ghoul has that Grasping name prefix implies to me that there are other Ghouls. Has anybody ever come across an other Ghoul type? Are there any Ghouls in UW/FoW that I missed? The Prima guide lists a "Fallen Ghoul". Anybody spotted one of those? --Tetris L 07:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

According to this guide the "Fallen Ghouls" used to be part of the initial phase of the Tombs. The part that is nowadays Defeating the Unworthy. Looks like this part has changed at some point during beta, and the Fallen Ghould has been removed from the game? --Tetris L 09:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The change occured AFTER the game was released, not during beta. I'd say Ghoul is a species, currently with only one type in the game (the other type got removed). -PanSola 09:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and I don't think they take double damage from Holy, which would rule Ghoul out as being a sub-species of Undead. Not completely sure, but that's my recollection. -PanSola 09:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC) (Edit: apparently I remembered wrong d-: )
I'm almost 100% sure Ghouls are undead, i.e. they do take double damage from holy dmg. They drop Decayed Orr Emblems (which is caracteristic for undead) and they are part of the undead plague that terrorizes Kryta. I'll test it tonight with my Monk. --Tetris L 10:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
What are you gus talking about?! :)
Ghoul are undead obviously, and yes they take double damage from Banish.
Ghouls are not a species simply because they drop a salvage item. Who made that system? Obviously not Arena Net, because there are "Arcanist Wrappings" which obviously do not make Forgotten Arcanists into a species by themselves. --Karlos 10:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. /me slaps his forehead. Ghoul's Collars are Salvage Items, not Collectible's. Salvage Items (unlike Collectibles) are no indication for a species. One thing is for sure: There are several sub-species among the Undead. I think we should do some organized testing in order to pin down the categories. Testing according the following criteria:

  1. What Collectibles are dropped? Decayed Orr Emblems, Skeletal Limbs or something else?
  2. What Crafting Materials are dropped? (Skeletons drop Bones, whereas some other Undead don't)
  3. Do they have flesh? Do they bleed? (Skeletons and Ghosts don't, whereas Ghouls and Zombies do)
  4. Do they leave a corpse? (Skeletons and Ghosts don't, whereas Ghouls and Zombies do (to be confirmed))
  5. ... more to be added (general appearance and behaviour) ...
Another question to ask is: If they leave a corpse, can it be exploited? I seem to recall that the undead in pre-searing, Raging Cadavers and... I can't remember the other one, that left corpses but I couldn't exploit them with my necro. --Rainith 12:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Ghouls and Zombies do leave corpses that can be exploited. I just test again. But Raging Cadavers are Skeletons, and Skeletons don't leave any exploitable corpses behind. --Tetris L 16:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Umm, I did make that suggestion (categorizing by in game behavior) before when you were trying to categorize them by sub-species. I think that categorization (by actual in-game differences) is the more mysterious one and the one that means something. The sub-species categorization to me seems less valuable because: a) The erratic nature of how ANet handles this (Smoke Phantoms come out of dead bodies, yet are not undead?) and b) It's hard to figure out.
To answer some of your questions:
  1. All the undead in kryta drop emblems. All the undead in the Fissure drop limbs. Henche my original categorization of the skeleton army as something different.
  2. All the undead in Kryta (including the fleshy ones), drop bones as crafting materials, while all the undead in the Fissure drop glittering dust.
  3. This is the tricky part. My guess is that if the creature has flesh, even if undead, then it can leave a corpse and it can bleed and "rot." This would place the Executioners and Ghouls in a separate bracket than the skeletal undead in terms of interest to the reader. And for the love of Vizier Khilbron, THERE ARE NO ZOMBIES IN THE GAME.
  4. We need to agree on this site on a definition of the undead. Is it a semantic one (things that were dead but are now back to life) or a game one (things that take double damage from holy attacks). We need to reach this agreement and stay there. I personally think we should take the game defintion, take out ghosts and smoke phantoms and move on.
--Karlos 19:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Ditto the game definition. BTW, according to game def, what are ghosts and smoke phantoms? Is it the "Phantom" species? -PanSola 21:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
My thoughts:
  • I agree we should use the in-game definiton of Undead. If it doesn't take double damage from holy attacks, it's not undead. Period.
  • I also agree that we should try to sort the sub-categories of Undead by what you call "in-game difference". So "species" in case of the Undead does not means species in a biological meaning. A Hellhound is obviously a different biological species that a Ghould, but they share the same in-game characteristics (bleed, leave corpse, drop the same collectibles, etc), so I see no reason why we should put them in different categories.
  • There are no Zombies in the game? What about the Zombie Warlock then? ;) What alternative term would you suggest for fleshy undead? Seriously, I think that "Zombie" is a good term for a fleshy undead, to seperate them from Skeletons (corporeal, non-fleshy, no corpse) and Ghosts (non-corporeal, non-fleshy, no corpse). Ghouls, Executioners, Hellhounds, .... they could all go under "Zombies".
  • I agree that we should come to a decision about this soon. We've been discussing this at length on several talk pages now, but have no real conclusion yet.
--Tetris L 06:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Aha! So, that's the zomie you're talking about? That's a skeleton (look at his picture), he is a Zombie MAKING Warlock because he animates bone minions. He is not a zombie himself, he is above all that. :P If you (Tetris) want to call Executioners (the only fleshy shambling undead in the game) zombies, that's fine, but it's not what the game does. So, if we do use that name for them, we'd have to say it's our division.
As for sub-speciesization (killing Lunarbunny), I agree. If it bleeds and can be poisoned then it's fleshy, even if you can't see an ounce of flesh on it. :) --Karlos 10:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm willing to test it again, but I'm pretty sure Zombie Warlocks are not Skeletons. They are fleshy. Executioners are definetly not the only fleshy undead. Ghouls are fleshy too, Hellhounds are, and I think Bone Dragons, Necrid Horsemen and Damned Clerics are too (to be confirmed). These are all "Zombies" according to my definition. --Tetris L 11:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Which you are entitled to. :) If we do establish that all these critters fall under the ame category, we will quibble over their combined name. Tell then, let us test and find out. I would suggest the talk:Undead page for conducting the test. --Karlos 13:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Hellhounds DO NOT bleed guys. Ghouls, Zombie Warlocks, Damned Clerics, Executioners, Necrid Riders, and the Bone Dragons all bleed. Hellhounds and the various skeletons don't, nor do wraiths. Hellhounds use bleeding attacks on you though. --Gildan Bladeborn 03:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Back to the original question whether there are other ghouls besides Grasping Ghouls. What about Grasp of Insanity? They look a bit like a ghoul to me, and they move like one. I think these might be ghouls (although they don't use Nibble). I can't think of a way to verify it though. --Tetris L 04:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Research Results[edit source]

  • Standard AL: 54 (Fire, Water, Air, Earth)
  • AL vs physical: 74 (Slash, Blunt)

-PanSola 17:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

--Fisherman's Friend 01:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistancies[edit source]

Several other articles around the sight don't have the ghouls' profession as warrior, someone might like to change this.

How about you? ;) — Skuld 07:45, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Starcraft Inspired?[edit source]

Looks like Zerglings to me.

ORLY? RT | Talk 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
ORLY!? v2 --Warwick sig.JPG Warwick (Talk)/(Contr.) 13:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)