Arelith

The mummies would be pretty good if they didn't have that crippling 50% vulnerability to fire, one of the most, if not the most, common damage type on Arelith.

Peppermint wrote:So, here's what I'm planning:

I've a sheet here with 10 undead tiers per stream outlined (up from the previous five). I'll also be putting a bit of oomph into ESF Necromancy, in the form of an additional +1 to stats across the board (for a total of +4 compared to an unfocused necromancer). Finally, I intend to give mages Create Greater Undead as an ESF Necromancy perk.

I feel that should make progression feel a lot smoother, as well as make focused necromancers feel a little stronger than their unfocused counterparts.

This might take time. As y'all know, I work on Valve time when it comes to updates. But consider your concerns heard.

Any idea when we might see this change?

Mages aren't the best necromancers and never have been. it's always been clerics from P&P to 5e and NWN. Also giving mages the cleric spell just seems dumb. Can clerics get mords next? It's the best dispelling spell and if we're exchanging divine and arcane spells about as bonuses(on top of the bonuses the feats already give) seems only fair.

Vampires are currently in a fine place, Mummies could use some work.

Elementals are generally better, better stats and effects and what not on account of them being well... 1 summon to 3. they also tend to be higher level spells, no lvl 9 undead summon spell so they shouldn't be on par with it.

Now everything beneath the vampires and the dread mummies tend to be fairly useless as summons go. and I actually prefered the old EMD summon.

As for the old version of the undead spells... they were different as they allowed higher level of undead to be summoned. clerics got vampires and doom knights and such. mages got skelly chieftiens until EMD displaying clerics superiority in summoning undead. (PMS could get demi liches)

Summons shouldn't ever contend with fighters IMO. lvl 30 fighter class should never fear your summons for example. they've killed demon lords and ancient dragons. your vampires(a relatively weak monster in comparison) shouldn't even make them concerned. Because summons are on top of your class' power not taken away from it. every summon school be it conjuration or necromancy already has decent spells outside of summons, mages don't need more power over the fighter classes, they've got enough.

Quoth wrote:Mages aren't the best necromancers and never have been. it's always been clerics from P&P to 5e and NWN. Also giving mages the cleric spell just seems dumb. Can clerics get mords next? It's the best dispelling spell and if we're exchanging divine and arcane spells about as bonuses(on top of the bonuses the feats already give) seems only fair.

That's just not true, you pointed out "to 5e" yet in 5e wizards have a Necromancy path where they get Animate Dead for free as a path perk and clerics can only take it as a spell and it's the only undead "summoning" spell available to my knowledge, even in recent updates the clerics still don't have a necromancy path. Moreover in NWN you need to be an arcanist to gain access to Pale Master, a class that's the epitome of death and necromancy, with undead far superior to any Clerics undead, and it's a mage only (bards too technically, though they count as an arcane class) prestige class. Sure in NWN Clerics get Greater Undead and Wiz/Sorc don't, but Clerics can't be PM which is arguably, on paper, a stronger animator of the dead. In PnP, in my experience, necromancers were far more commonly wizards/mages and more powerful as them than clerics were.
As for free spells due to spell foci i'm of the opinion that other casters that can reach the 9th circle should get them too, but that's just me. Maybe not mords even with ESF: Abjuration, but something, you know.

Quoth wrote:Vampires are currently in a fine place, Mummies could use some work.

Having only seen them from the outside I cannot really comment on this, but as far as i've seen i'd agree.

Quoth wrote:Elementals are generally better, better stats and effects and what not on account of them being well... 1 summon to 3. they also tend to be higher level spells, no lvl 9 undead summon spell so they shouldn't be on par with it.

This holds true until you consider that Mummy Dust is a part of the undead stream, is considered one of the fabled "10th Level Spells", and all it does is make one of the 3 summons a slightly better version, though still over all at best barely only on par with SC XI in a 1 v 3 comparison.

Quoth wrote:Summons shouldn't ever contend with fighters IMO. lvl 30 fighter class should never fear your summons for example. they've killed demon lords and ancient dragons. your vampires(a relatively weak monster in comparison) shouldn't even make them concerned. Because summons are on top of your class' power not taken away from it. every summon school be it conjuration or necromancy already has decent spells outside of summons, mages don't need more power over the fighter classes, they've got enough.

I agree with this sentiment, though I think one of the main concerns for necromancers is their lacking viability in PvM. Sure a PC fighter should be superior to most, if not all, things summoned and they are, but if you focus your build on summoning something to do the dirty work for you in PvM then they should be capable of doing that. It's my understanding that currently in many cases, compared to an ESF: Conj with SC XI, for wiz/sorc necromancers they can't.

Orian_666 wrote:That's just not true, you pointed out "to 5e" yet in 5e wizards have a Necromancy path where they get Animate Dead for free as a path perk and clerics can only take it as a spell and it's the only undead "summoning" spell available to my knowledge, even in recent updates the clerics still don't have a necromancy path. Moreover in NWN you need to be an arcanist to gain access to Pale Master, a class that's the epitome of death and necromancy, with undead far superior to any Clerics undead, and it's a mage only (bards too technically, though they count as an arcane class) prestige class. Sure in NWN Clerics get Greater Undead and Wiz/Sorc don't, but Clerics can't be PM which is arguably, on paper, a stronger animator of the dead. In PnP, in my experience, necromancers were far more commonly wizards/mages and more powerful as them than clerics were.

I included the PM class which does get more powerful undead but only at lvl 40 servers, however i shall deter to your knowledge of the 5e

Orian_666 wrote:As for free spells due to spell foci i'm of the opinion that other casters that can reach the 9th circle should get them too, but that's just me. Maybe not mords even with ESF: Abjuration, but something, you know.

I was using an example, it's the best cleric undead summoning spell and mords is the best mage dispelling spell. even if it was only greater breach it'd be better than the current list of cleric dispelling spells.

Orian_666 wrote:This holds true until you consider that Mummy Dust is a part of the undead stream, is considered one of the fabled "10th Level Spells", and all it does is make one of the 3 summons a slightly better version, though still over all at best barely only on par with SC XI in a 1 v 3 comparison.

Oh i fully agree but that's also why i preferred the old version. it was a super buffed decent mummy summon that could tank the vault for you(back when there was a vault)

Orian_666 wrote:I agree with this sentiment, though I think one of the main concerns for necromancers is their lacking viability in PvM. Sure a PC fighter should be superior to most, if not all, things summoned and they are, but if you focus your build on summoning something to do the dirty work for you in PvM then they should be capable of doing that. It's my understanding that currently in many cases, compared to an ESF: Conj with SC XI, for wiz/sorc necromancers they can't.

they also have access to both spells however, vampires are good for pvp, huge sneak attacks and a lot of damage, now i agree that the undead needs work, the epic mummy dust itself as a summon should be changed so it's not just a buffed version of a lesser spell as it doesn't get away from being weaker than the SC spells however buffing the lower tiers or making new tiers for the spaces in between isn't going to fix that which is what they were originally asking for and what pep offered a +1 buff across the board for EPF isn't going to change them being feeble in comparison.

However the spells from 1-9 tiers shouldn't compare to the highest SC spell however EMD should be better but because of how the team has set it up it's rather pathetic.

Quoth wrote:Mages aren't the best necromancers and never have been. it's always been clerics from P&P to 5e and NWN.

Wrong.

P&P Clerics are not any better at making undead in P&P. They get the exact same spells wizards do (Animate Dead, Create Undead, Create Greater Undead), at the same level with the exception of animate dead. They also do not get Command Undead, which is required if you intend to make anything more powerful than skeletons or zombies. The only real advantage they have is Rebuke Undead, which is only of real value for dominating undead if you build in such a way that your spells are vastly less useful (High charisma, rather than high wisdom).

Clerics really have no inherent advantage over wizards, and you could argue are actually worse at creating undead, in PnP. The PM description from the Libris Mortis is completely made up by the writers of said book.

Wizard's don't get create greater undead in P&P. Just checked doesn't even get it in 5e which unlocks strogner and more powerful undead

The argument is undead aren't good enough and don't compare to SC, they do, but not the higher of SC but then they're a lower tier of spell which means they shouldn't compare. EMD could be improved to be better than it is and I agree with this however this is about pre EMD undead.

Quoth wrote:Wizard's don't get create greater undead in P&P.

Wrong.

The point is also that if you buff the undead -- By adding more progression tiers of undead creatures-- you allow necromancers to use undead for their entire lives, rather than mostly using the summon creature line. Presumably, if they could add more undead creation spells prior to haks existing, they will.

No absolutely right, my mistake must of missed it somehow.

The primary concern here is balancing necromancy as opposed to conjuration. Valid points have been made in this thread before about conjuration being overall better than necromancy, and that can be applied to all the caster classes across the available choices.

The argument that clerics should be better necromancers than arcanists does not hold up because:
a) with regards to P&P lore as Hunter already pointed out this is factually inaccurate.
b) this argument has no foundation in mechanical balance.
c) even if according to the lore this indeed were the case, it has been stated on numerous occasions that P&P/FR cannon does not dictate Arelith lore.
d) clerics are already superior melee fighters when compared to arcanists. They have no business being better spellcasters as well. If anything, the opposite should apply according to common sense.

The argument that vampires are already strong enough in PvP does not hold up because:
a) they are not particularly more powerful than some of the conjuration summons (especially when considering Gate summons and/or monolithic surges. EDK is straight up more powerful and it is an epic feat as well)
b) summons have some serious hard counters that savvy players will reach for during a PvP encounter (WoF anyone?).
c) if a mage defeats your character during a PvP encounter using mummy dust, there is a very strong possibility that they could have also done it more easily and in a more reliable alternative fashion anyway.
d) your character does not need to defeat summoned creatures in order to win a PvP encounter.

What a powerful resurrection. The update is still in the pipeline from what I hear, guys, already confirmed. Debating is meaningless.

Lock pls