...and why Necromancers?

TheShadowScout

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

Yes, they do more than just summoning corpses.
Just took a short look in the TES III Build Editor. There are two entries for a Necromancer Class in the NPC tab, Dedaenc and Goris, the maggot king.
Both utilize magickal defense (reflect, absorption, invisibility, dodge chance), CCs and debuffs (silence, burden, sleep, weary, drains, absorb attributes, calm, weaknesses to elements).
Dedaenc utilizes different poison attacks, while Goris uses frost and flame spells (in addition to increased mobility).

Beside that it's to expect that someone magickaly talented enough to raise the dead can also create a simply destruction spell.

Thanks for making anopther point in my case that necromancy is a mere specialization then!


But even here in this system, necromancy is considered a mere specialization of sorcery. As I keep pointing out.

So, following all that lore... and considering that necromancy is a specialization of conjuration... and that conjuration is represented by the sorcerors daedric summoning class skill line... it -would- make most sense to portray necromancy as "prestige class" option for sorcerors, yes?
Which would give you "necromancers" that can... utilize daedric magica defense, dark magic CCs and destruction (staff) spells... sounds about right to me...

Is that the same book that ends with "So, at any rate, I know whereof I speak when I say to you: sorcery and necromancy—there IS a difference."?

Indeed, it says "necromancy—is a subset of the art of conjuration, albeit inherently distasteful and degrading", only to continue with "However, to infer from this that all sorcerers are de facto necromancers as well is false, misleading, and libelous."

So you can either push your agenda and argument that one sorcerer says necromancy is degrading part of summoning, and summoning is part of the sorcery that sorcerers do.

Or you can get the insight that, although it's a subset of summoning, just like fire/ice/lightning are subsets of destruction, necromancy is not what every sorcerer practises. Just take a look at how the classes are split now. Sorcs with lightning, DK with fire, Wardens with ice. Your argument already falls short here, since you could say "it's all just part of destruction magick, we don't need these classes, they are mere specialisations of that school."
Just like in "fire magick is a subset of the art of destruction. However, to infer that all destruction users are de facto fire mages is false."

True enough - but all those fire, lighting and ice spells -are- technically past of the destruction school - or will be, once that school is established on a general basis, which will likely happen sometime after ESO but before all the other TES games, riiight?
(And yes, the powers that be could have decided to set up the system classless, but choose otherwise. I have no issue with that choice of theirs, and won't foolishly try to make a case how they ought to rebuild everything as some on the forums do on occasion - ship, sailed, sunk, long time)

So, in the times of ESO, the schools of magic are not yet universally how magic is taught, so instead of one "destruction" scool combining all these spells, they are learned in various other corners... fire spells split between staff, mages guild and dragonknight skills, lightning between staff and sorceror studies, ice between staff and warden training...

Still, while it is quite true that not every destruction user is a fire mage... every fire mage would be a destruction user by the shad astula system of classification (which we know from the lore will become the prevalent system for the magic schools we encounter in all the other TES games set in the future from an ESO point of view) would you not have to agree?

So I am saying, according to the explaination of master Fyr in that book... not every sorceror is a necromancer, as there IS a difference... but what about the reverse you seem very reluctant to touch upon in your argument?

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

If you go with route a) I can only wonder where, oh where, are my necromancy skills in the sorcerer class trees?
If you go with route b) you're backed up by the current class design of designated but not exclusionary subsets of a main magicka "school", that get's additional spells from other schools as well.

I think it's only logical to go with b) since it's the the conclusion from the book and it's how this game is layed out.

I am not saying "necromancy is a part of summoning and thus all sorcerors should have necromancy skills", I am saying "necromancy is a subset of summoning and thus it would make more sense to offer it as prestige class for those sorcerors who wish to specialize instead of making it a seperate class entirely".
Not every sorceror studies this particular subset, but every necromancer does specialize in it - thus they become known as "necromancer"
Just like not every destruction user studies the subset of fire magic, but every fire mage does indeed and through it becomes known as "pyromancer"

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Now, in the other TES games, players had free spell selection. They could with enough effort learn whatever they choose to study, in some of the games they could even learn -everything- if they put in the effort, learn every spell available in the game.

But that does not mean all the other skills are part of the "necromancer package" - that package would include -only- those skills noone but dedicated necromancers can learn to use...

Right, but this isn't other games. In ESO each class has skills that derive from different schools (destr., resto, alteration...). But that doesn't mean that all that has to be inherent to necromancy as a school per se. Why? Because every class draws from different schools. It is not as easy as saying "Templars represent the restoration school and they use nothing else, DKs are the fire mages and nothing else".

Indeed ESO isn't other TES games. It was made with a different system, thus we have classes.
And ESO classes are packing several "archetypes" into their makeup, drawing from what would be different schools in later TES games.

Dragonknight is not all "fire mage" - you can run it that way, but you can just as well leave the fiery spells remain unused and go with a "dragon wanabe" setup, or an "earth magic" mix. Templar has the "healer" option, or you can go with a "holy lance" build or an "purifying light" DPS setup.
Et cetera.

But someone was arguing that necromancers -do- include all kinds of things... to which I presented a counterargument as I disagree, and am more in line with your point of view that each of those skill lines is different drawn together to form one "class" for ESO.

Now, the two arguments are kinda like... someone had argued at the planning stage of ESO that there ought to be a "pyromancer" class that should include dragon magic and earth magic, and I would be the one saying that the fire magic is a skill line only and dragon magic or earth magic are not be part of what a pyromancer does.
And then we'd agree to make a dragonknight class that combined all three.

...

And yes. That point of view of mine means there -could- be a "gravesinger" class made with a necromancy skill line to play with corpses and spirits of the dead, and two other skill lines, perhaps a plant-based disease line and a wind magic line or mysticism-derived support magic line... but it would be "more" then a mere necromancer, just like dragonknights are more then mere pyromancers, yes? And thus not called "necromancer" as a class.
Necromancy alone on the other hand is -still- only a skill line and not a class. And a necromancer might be someone who specializes in this skill line, but just like a dragonknight who specializes in fire magic might be a pyromancer, but that does not mean all dragonknights are pyromancers as a class, right?

Now, as I was also saying, I do NOT think that adding such a class is the best way to implement player necromancy this at this point.

Since it would vex a lot of people, just like I felt vexed when they brought back the warden they had dropped in their pre-launch deliberations... when I had already played the game with only four options all this time. (and had two characters that I totally would have made wardens from their intended backstory had the class been available from the start, thus feeling cheated that I had to kinds redo them anew - after already playing a dozend characters through ESO...)

And thus I am arguing for making necromancy -one- possible specialization, one "prestige class", among a bunch of options for everyone.

So, I would love to see sorcerors have a bunch of options to specialize in. I offered three in my suggestion, but that's just a proof of concept idea I came up with... letting sorcerors specialize in caster (warlock) pets (necromancer) and stamina support (spellsword). There could be way more options, which would make me happy... and of course, all the other classes ought to get new options as well, thus creating opportunities to not only cater to the necromancer fans, but also letting people who like other things play more then what we have right now, be it illusionists or shamans, witch-hunters or gladiators... I mean, since we have to have classes, would it not be good to have even more options to diversify characters?
But since these options would have to be refitted to the game, would it not be good to have them be refit-able to all the characters people play as well, no matter if newly created or played since launch. And since the powers that be are on record saying they do not intend to ever add class change tokens...

I am trying to think in line with the suits at ZOS - what has the most chance to be implemented? Whatever gains them the best chance at more profit, i would think, yes? Why offer a product that only a small portion of the player base will get excited about when they could make one that everyone will want? They would almost certainly pack something like this into an expansion, would it not make sense to cast the net as wide as possible if they want to catch people paying them for it?

I won't convince the necro-lovers who want a full class for their death mages.
That's okay, I can agree not to agree.
But I will still argue my point.

And so far noone has managed to bring me any argument that would make me think adding yet another new class to vex me and the other old hands at ESO who have been playing since summer '14 is the right way to go about adding necromancy to the ESO options.

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

TheShadowScout wrote: »

Every mage can use fire spells, be it through learning them in the destruction school of magic in other TES games, or by racking up their destro weapon line and grabbing a fire staff in ESO. Dragonknights can learn extra fire magic in ESO, since the powers that be decided this games magic sysem would be different from the schools of magic system of other TES games, to allow them to add more "awesome" class skills without things getting too unbalanced.

If every mage can use "fire spells", e.g. through learning or bc the devs decided so, what does someone stop from putting spell X into other classes as well? If there are no mag schools like in other tes games, then why limit a new class to one when other classes are not? I feel you argument against yourself in this.
And if it's the "but flame belongs to DK and ice to wardens, we already divided the elements to classes", then explain to me why templars and NB share the same "magic dmg" main component in their skills and why every class picks skills from magick schools that other classes get their spells from as well?
Classes are more than "Templar uses restoration and nothing else", their skills (or schools) overlap and expand far from the first look of e.g. "DK is a fire mage and nothing else".

Read it again. Simplifyed:
"Every mage can use a flame staff, but DKs get extra flame... every mage can use an ice staff, but wardens get extra ice"

There is nothing stopping them from making any kind of new "spell X" staffyness... but until they do, the "spell X" is not gonna be available for everyone due to them choosing a different system to make ESO then the "lean what you want" system of other TES games.
There also is nothing saying "fire belongs only to DKs" - they just get extra skills.

And the argument is reversed.
I am not saying "DK is a fire mage and nothing else" I am saying "pyromancy is fire magic and nothing else" and "necromancy is a death magic and nothing else".
And that a DK who would specialize in fire magic might be a pyromancer, just like a sorceror who would specialize in death magic would be a necromancer... and am arguing against the idea that a "necromancer" is an entire class on its own, which others try to build a case for by claiming that disease and decay magic also belongs to "necromancy" somehow, which would be like saying draconic power somehow belons to pyromancy as well...

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

No reason to limit a new class down to only one tiny subset of a school.

No reason to make a tiny subset of a school into an new class!

Instead take a bunch of tiny subsets and make them all into several new "prestige class" options, that the existing classes can specialize in, so that everyone can enjoy some new skills, so that everyone can expand their existing characters classes, both old characters and new ones, instead of making one very specific class for the necromancy-lovers alone!
That's my argument in a nutshell anyhow.

The rest is just refuting the "but necromancers in other universes also come with disease magic... but necromancers in other settings also use ice magic... but necromancers this, but necromancers that..." arguments in saying that no, in ESO "necromancer" is only the "specializes in that death magic subset of conjuration" and nothing else.

altemriel

because sload (datamined)

Chilly-McFreeze

@TheShadowScout

I don't have much time so I keep it short for now.

"and won't foolishly try to make a case how they ought to rebuild everything as some on the forums do on occasion - ship, sailed, sunk, long time"
Aren't you doing exactly that with your concept of prestige classes? I get your reasoning for it, to catch older players as well as more diversity. But there are a couple things I'd like to adress by that.
- we don't know how many "older players" refuse to start a new character if a new class comes out. I'm sure a lot of long time players made a warden as well.
- a prestige class is like an exclusive world skill line. It's harder to balance since it has to work in addition of already existing strengths and weaknesses of classes. A new class is easier to balance since you can set limits and powers without having the same effect that world skill lines would have and that CPs have now: granting power/ utility/ etc. for everyone in the same way without consideration of specific strength's/ weaknesses. Therefore being either underwhelming or OP. Also it falls short of a whole class with 3 lines. In short:
it's just taking away a skill line and adding another, what I think is severely hard to balance if you take a look at the overall class ability
- as for making ZOS more money. In addition to the first thought, ZOS likes to add grinds to bind you to this game, to make you log in at least once a day (stable, hirelings, writs, grind for gear, shards, books etc.), to make the game look healthy and for some statistics to show of at the next conference. Granting prestige classes to everyone would merely be a present. Get it, use it, good. But I expect Zeni to rather go the way "add new class, let them grind it up again, have our servers full".

"And ESO classes are packing several "archetypes" into their makeup, drawing from what would be different schools in later TES games." and "That point of view of mine means there -could- be a "gravesinger" class made with a necromancy skill line to play with corpses and spirits of the dead, and two other skill lines, perhaps a plant-based disease line and a wind magic line or mysticism-derived support magic line... but it would be "more" then a mere necromancer," and "No reason to make a tiny subset of a school into an new class!"

Yes, indeed, I agree on this train of thoughts. And honestly, I couldn't care less if they call it necromancer, gravesinger or whatever. This thread might got hung up in this, but I believe the people that want a "necromancer class" are seeing it the same. They want something that makes them able to raise the dead. No matter the class name, no matter how you call the skill lines, just a new fleshed out class. Couldn't care less where you call on the other skill lines lore-wise.


TL;DR:

This discussion shouldn't resolve about semantics and how a new class would be called.
I think there are pro and cons on prestige classes but, as far as I know ZOS, the chances to add them are small, more likely to go the new-class way.

TheShadowScout

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

"and won't foolishly try to make a case how they ought to rebuild everything as some on the forums do on occasion - ship, sailed, sunk, long time"
Aren't you doing exactly that with your concept of prestige classes?

Nope.
I am not saying they ought to -rebuild- the system they have into a new one with more options.
I am suggesting new things to -add- to the system they have to expand our options.

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

I get your reasoning for it, to catch older players as well as more diversity. But there are a couple things I'd like to adress by that.
- we don't know how many "older players" refuse to start a new character if a new class comes out. I'm sure a lot of long time players made a warden as well.

True. I was one of them. But I was feeling resentful about it, about having to play through all the content once again on character thirteen and fourteen... (and no, I can't just grind them to 50 and call it quits, I want all those skill points and lorebooks, and riding, and...) and about having to make new characters for the warden class when I had two characters made with a "nature" fluff idea and setup that I would have made wardens had the class been available at launch... and now had to kinda remake them as wardens, and feel cheated for the effort I put into the old ones...

I just think it might be better to find a way to add new options without bringing people who have supported this game since summer 2014 such resentment and vexation!

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

- a prestige class is like an exclusive world skill line. It's harder to balance since it has to work in addition of already existing strengths and weaknesses of classes. A new class is easier to balance since you can set limits and powers without having the same effect that world skill lines would have and that CPs have now: granting power/ utility/ etc. for everyone in the same way without consideration of specific strength's/ weaknesses. Therefore being either underwhelming or OP. Also it falls short of a whole class with 3 lines. In short:
it's just taking away a skill line and adding another, what I think is severely hard to balance if you take a look at the overall class ability

Actually that is not quite the case.

A "prestige class" following my idea would be adding a fourth skill line to an existing class (and changing the class name into the new specialization, and maybe also some visual effect distinctions). Thus the balance can be maintained by tailoring all the possible options of the prestige class skill line to the base class loadout...

...whereas a world skill line of guild skill line is -you are quite correct there- much harder to balance since it must be judged for interations with -all- class skills, with every classes strengths and weaknesses...

...

I wouldn't mind new world skill lines either. But they ought to be way more "generic" then class skill level... more akin to the legerdemain passive line, methinks. An altheticism line perhaps, where you can spend skill points for better running, better swimming or better jumping. A stealth support passive line, perhaps. Maybe even options for generic magica build and stamina setup support. Stuff like that... but, that would be a different discussion, yes?

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

- as for making ZOS more money. In addition to the first thought, ZOS likes to add grinds to bind you to this game, to make you log in at least once a day (stable, hirelings, writs, grind for gear, shards, books etc.), to make the game look healthy and for some statistics to show of at the next conference. Granting prestige classes to everyone would merely be a present. Get it, use it, good. But I expect Zeni to rather go the way "add new class, let them grind it up again, have our servers full".

Like I keep saying...
...what's more grind, doing -one- new class, or doing one new skill line for -every single one- of the prestige class choices? You still need to max and morph those new skills after all... and thats in addition to everything people might go into making multiple base class characters if they want to run various prestige class characters...
...and if each base class had the three choices... you would need to play with fifteen characters to enjoy and try out all the prestige classes... though you could reset the morph and grind anew, that way you could only ever have one ready, not all...
...and if they get to be refitted to the characters you maybe have been playing for long and started to appreciate... would that not be -more- motivation to spend crowns for costumes and stuff? it would for me, and I doubt I can be the only one who'd think so...

Of course, for someone with few characters, it would make no difference if they had to start a new character for a new class, or a new character to try out a different specialization.
But for old hands, who already have a dozend characters... it would be a -huge- difference if they can refit prestige classes to their existing three sorcerors, or if they have to make yet another new character to enjoy those new skills...

...I am just trying to come up with options that are best for most. Not just pushing my own personal preferences...

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

"And ESO classes are packing several "archetypes" into their makeup, drawing from what would be different schools in later TES games." and "That point of view of mine means there -could- be a "gravesinger" class made with a necromancy skill line to play with corpses and spirits of the dead, and two other skill lines, perhaps a plant-based disease line and a wind magic line or mysticism-derived support magic line... but it would be "more" then a mere necromancer," and "No reason to make a tiny subset of a school into an new class!"

Yes, indeed, I agree on this train of thoughts. And honestly, I couldn't care less if they call it necromancer, gravesinger or whatever. This thread might got hung up in this, but I believe the people that want a "necromancer class" are seeing it the same. They want something that makes them able to raise the dead. No matter the class name, no matter how you call the skill lines, just a new fleshed out class. Couldn't care less where you call on the other skill lines lore-wise.

I don't doubt that the people who want necromancy do see it exactly this way.
But just as many want to never see that option for player characters, as you can see from all those "no, its against the lore" comments in every "give us necromacy" discussion. (they are still wrong tho, its no more against the lore then murder, and the player already did at least one necromantic ritual in the quest to save abner tharn...)
And even more people want something else instead... Illusionists, Spellswords, Warlocks, Gladiators, whatever... and couldn't care less about necromancers.

I am saying, give all the people who want new options a bunch of prestige classes to refit to every character, old or new, with necromancer one of them, but also illusionist, and all the others, that way you make a -lot- of ESO players happy.

You are saying... what? Make a necromancer class, make the necromancer fans happy, do nothing for the illusionist fans, the gladiator fans, the warlock fans, the shaman fans, the whatever fans, and vex all the necro-haters?

I mean, I can see why the necromancer fans are like "give us necromancers to play, and just fu... uhm, forget about everyone else..."

...

Somehow I am still convinced my suggestion might be the better path for the common good...

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

This discussion shouldn't resolve about semantics and how a new class would be called.
I think there are pro and cons on prestige classes but, as far as I know ZOS, the chances to add them are small, more likely to go the new-class way.

Possibly.
It certainly would be easier for them to go with the simple then to make something neat and elaborate...

I still think that making a little extra effort to make ESO as good as it can be then settling for mediocre options is the way to go.
Its not my decision to make.
But my opinion to state.

Chilly-McFreeze

We could argue back and forth if adding a fourth class skill line is something realistic or even if it's something ZOS considers. For all we know they were fine with adding another class after several years. Even if that class existed back in alpha and was cut out of the game back then. If that is what ZOS would do, I'd be fine with it. If they would add it as a whole class, I'd be even more happy. Only options I dislike are necromancy as a world skill line or the status quo until the serves are finally shut down.

I'd say I can go along with most things you wrote, but there is one part that really bothers me.
"You are saying... what? Make a necromancer class, make the necromancer fans happy, do nothing for the illusionist fans, the gladiator fans, the warlock fans, the shaman fans, the whatever fans, and vex all the necro-haters?"

Is that a strawman yet? Never did I (or anyone else in the comments I read) said something like that. It's not an either/ or thing here. That was bad and you should feel bad for trying to put that on me. If people want a gladiator class, I say "go for it". Make threads about it, push your agenda. Same goes for every class someone thinks is missing. TBH with the shoehorning into the class system, there is a lot of missing "options". And yet I don't even get what that stuff about "necro-haters" is. Why would someone oppose more options? It's not like they are forced to create another alt if they don't like the class. That's some weird stuff you said there.

DuckNoodles

Monk class! Would be better!

SilverIce58

DuckNoodles wrote: »

Monk class! Would be better!

Nobody wants a monk class. People just want hand-to-hand weapon line.

srnekro

Yeah @Chilly-McFreeze I am totally with you.

TheShadowScout

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

I'd say I can go along with most things you wrote, but there is one part that really bothers me.
"You are saying... what? Make a necromancer class, make the necromancer fans happy, do nothing for the illusionist fans, the gladiator fans, the warlock fans, the shaman fans, the whatever fans, and vex all the necro-haters?"

Is that a strawman yet? Never did I (or anyone else in the comments I read) said something like that. It's not an either/ or thing here...

...unless you start to consider that the people at ZOS only have limited resources, just like anyone else in this imperfect world.

So, when you say "make it a necromancer class" you are in effect saying "spend a class sized portion of your resources on necromancer, leaving nothing for anyone else".
I on the other hand say, "spend the resources on some things that cover a wider range", which does of course mean less of it will be spent on nercomancing - just a skill line worth, not a class worth.

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

And yet I don't even get what that stuff about "necro-haters" is...

...then you have not been paying attention, perhaps?

Gothren wrote: »

do we really need another topic on this. lord almighty.

Chufu wrote: »

No no no necromancers!

Thank you.

dday3six wrote: »

I’m not the biggest lore nerd, but it needs to matter at some point.

Spoilers: Meridia is a large part of the main story, and she loathes the Undead, Vampires, and Nercomancers. It’s bad enough that by some miracle she’ll ignore the present of Vampirism in the MC. Lore bills Meridia’s mythos in a very particular light. That has to account for something.
...
It’s not about the moral ambiguity of player choice. It’s about a narrative conflict. Being able to be a ‘bad guy’ for the sake of player role play doesn’t wash away the canonical motivations a character. Meridia, who’s sole purpose is to eradicate Undead and Necromancy, wouldn’t overlook her champion being a Nercomancer. I can barely stomach that she overlooks Vampirism in the player character, and that direct exposure to her light doesn’t dust them outright.

I’m a purist for consistency in fictional works, and plot holes like ignoring character motivation is a sign of poor writing, imo.

CyborgPlatypus wrote: »

No more pet classes. Please

josiahva wrote: »

Hell with that, NO MORE PETS! Find a class that people actually have to use their own skills rather than relying on pets.

Kwik1 wrote: »

Plz no on the Necromancer. This class is overdone in every other MMO and it gets tiring. In fact NO MORE PETS period. We have plenty as is and they need a make over anyway...

...that that's just the ones from -this- discussion

As I said, I don't agree with them (that would be silly, seeing how I am on record proposing necromancer as "class morph" since way back when) - but I do not pretend everyone would love necromancy either.

Chilly-McFreeze wrote: »

We could argue back and forth if adding a fourth class skill line is something realistic or even if it's something ZOS considers. For all we know they were fine with adding another class after several years. Even if that class existed back in alpha and was cut out of the game back then. If that is what ZOS would do, I'd be fine with it. If they would add it as a whole class, I'd be even more happy. Only options I dislike are necromancy as a world skill line or the status quo until the serves are finally shut down...

Now -that- I can agree with!

I want change, I want improvements, I want more options!
I think it would make a very bad world skill line, difficult to balance. Same for a guild skill line.
But I also think it would not be such a great thing as yet another new class.
Thus the "prestige class" inspired concept of mine. More options for -everyone-!

But I think we can just as well stop arguining about it at this point, as everything has been said, all positions argued, and just agree to have different opinions, yes?

Twenty0zTsunami

Would love to see it as a new class.

Could have a damaging caster aspect, with undead pets. As well as a sort of "black guard" anti-paladin melee/tank class aspect. Even a support/heal line. Draining your own life to heal your party members, while draining the life of enemies to keep yourself alive.

srnekro

@TheShadowScout



Having different opinions is great. It's what make us human. But having a different opinion and respect other different opinions instead of vomiting loads of texts on others people opinion, is even greater. You should try it

Iccotak

wow, this thread became such a productive conversation...not at all full of snark

TheShadowScout

srnekro wrote: »

Having different opinions is great. It's what make us human. But having a different opinion and respect other different opinions instead of vomiting loads of texts on others people opinion, is even greater. You should try it

So you are saying... what exactly?
That if I dare to have a different opinion then you I should keep quiet about it out of "respect" for your opinion?
That only those who agree with your opinion should post in your threads?
That argument from different points of view, discussion of different opinions is a bad thing?

No thanks to that.
I remember too well the stories my grandmother told me of a time here when people who had different opinions then one group had to keep quiet, or else. Not gonna do it.

I respect that you have your opinion. I respect that you state your point.
I have a different opinion. And I reserve the right to state a counterpoint. In detail, if needs be.
I can agree to disagree, but I will not agree to hold my tongue (or typefinger, as the case may be).

If you think I "need help" just because I dare speak up for -my opinion- when it doesn't match -your opinion-... then you are part of the problem.

srnekro

@TheShadowScout I am saying that it is impossible to reason with you, because you are always stuck on the same argument instead of adding something "constructible ".Therefore, instead of you wasting anyone's time here on this thread, I suggest you stick your head on your own thread instead.

And Yes @Iccotak is right. I don't want to succumb this thread to this.

Let's not lose any focus folks.

Sooner or later, ESO will add a class focused on debuffs, or at least another class. Let''s hope that it will be Necromancers.

srnekro

Don't let the recent fallen go to their final rest in vain. Raise them up, and let them avenge themselves. Let them stand up for themselves! Ask Zos for a Necromancer CLASS today!

SilverIce58

srnekro wrote: »

Don't let the recent fallen go to their final rest in vain. Raise them up, and let them avenge themselves. Let them stand up for themselves! Ask Zos for a Necromancer CLASS today!

Are you just gonna keep bringing this thread back everytime it's not on the front page?

ForsakenSin

SilverIce58 wrote: »

srnekro wrote: »

Don't let the recent fallen go to their final rest in vain. Raise them up, and let them avenge themselves. Let them stand up for themselves! Ask Zos for a Necromancer CLASS today!

Are you just gonna keep bringing this thread back everytime it's not on the front page?

Ps by you posting that, you just contribute to what you were against

SilverIce58

ForsakenSin wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

srnekro wrote: »

Don't let the recent fallen go to their final rest in vain. Raise them up, and let them avenge themselves. Let them stand up for themselves! Ask Zos for a Necromancer CLASS today!

Are you just gonna keep bringing this thread back everytime it's not on the front page?

Ps by you posting that, you just contribute to what you were against

Yeah I know, but figured someone else might comment anyway and we'd be back to where we started.

srnekro

ForsakenSin wrote: »

SilverIce58 wrote: »

srnekro wrote: »

Don't let the recent fallen go to their final rest in vain. Raise them up, and let them avenge themselves. Let them stand up for themselves! Ask Zos for a Necromancer CLASS today!

Are you just gonna keep bringing this thread back everytime it's not on the front page?

Ps by you posting that, you just contribute to what you were against

Yes

srnekro

I really fail to see reason on this hatred towards Necromancer becoming a class.

I understand people don't want to creating a new character, but they are not forced to, right? If you won't want to create, then just don't. I would love to create a new character to level up all over again, despite having 8 or 10 maxed chars if this new one would be a Necromancer. I would create a new eso account or wipe out clean my existing one just to create a Necromancer. To those who just don't want to create a new one, then just don't. Leave us be.

I will not even acknowledge the fact that "Necros are evil so they don't fit in as a class". Elder Scrolls is known to let us do whatever we want,and in this particular era that ESO is in, Necromancy is not entirely banned. And to the evil concept, I will just give a shout-out to the thieves guild and dark brotherhood, whatever you say or think, they ARE evil that's it.
Shout-out to kill friendly npcs if you want.
Shout-out to the good Necromancer NPCs that are out there, and the thousand quests that implies to do Necromancy even if it considered "evil".

And finally, the skill line thingy and not a class. I just don't see how they would fit, raise skeleton, zombies, flesh atronachs, bone Colossus, ghosts and wraiths, lichs , animated bone constructs ( Undead Menagerie for example), a lot of DoT spells such as poisons and diseases alike, and that sort of "death magic"(is referenced through the game, but nothing on concrete) that creates ghostly hands and weapons out of fin air to crash and CC our opponents, and the synphones and manipulating of life force (health, magica and stamina) of your opponents and maybe even buff us and our allies, debuffing and crippling our enemies, in just ONE skill line, I just can't. IF they create three world skill lines, one to dot, other to minions and other to direct damage/buffs, then yes sure, but they would be more useful on a class.

And let's not forget that the main goal of Zos and any other company we have at the moment is to make money above all else. And I repeat, ABOVE ALL ELSE.

And by the way ZOS, if you are reading this by any chance, all this Necromantic comsmecti things that you are ejecting on the crown store so far, are nice and all, and I apreciate despite not buyng any of that, because it just doesn't fill the hole, you know? I hope you are not expecting to put a personality that just rises a skeleton for half a second to fill the hole on the people hearts that wants to summon a horde of them and send them to battle.

Just a thought tho

Ectheliontnacil

Necromancers would be awesome for sure! I think it would be my new main class!

usmguy1234

All the hate.

SilverIce58

@srnekro and what if a Necromancer class got added, and it's absolutely nothing like you imagined?

When I say "nothing like you imagined" I don't mean it in a positive manner, so don't spin it as such.

srnekro

Ectheliontnacil wrote: »

Necromancers would be awesome for sure! I think it would be my new main class!

Same brother

srnekro

SilverIce58 wrote: »

@srnekro and what if a Necromancer class got added, and it's absolutely nothing like you imagined?

When I say "nothing like you imagined" I don't mean it in a positive manner, so don't spin it as such.

Well, tbh w/ you m8.

For start, it's hard. I love all forms of Necromancer, AS LONG AS THEY RISE THE DEAD. That said, as long as ESO's Necromancer can reanimate my enemies, summon skeletons (that's the main goal, here), flesh atronoacth and a bone colossus, and have a ton of dot for that matter, it's fine by me.

It's hard to imagine a Necromancer without those things. About the lack of damage that might have, well it will bother me ofc, I don't want to be the last of dps on both PvP and PvE, or be completlyu useless for that matter. But those things would not stop me playing as one.

What would really grind my gear, is if they don't implemate the Necromancer at all or add it as a world skill line.

As long as ESO implement the Necromancer, and as long as it has summoning skeletons and have dots, fine by me

However, if by any chance they do implement the Necromancer, and don't correspond nothing like this, then yes, I will be outraged, and yes ofcourse I will complain here in the forums and flood with even more spam.

All I ask is a NECROMANCER AS CLASS, and you can't have a Necromancer without skeletons and dots.

SilverIce58

Well, tbh w/ you m8.

Seeing as how they've added the Psijic Order skill with an ult, 5 skills, and 5 passives, it only seems the same that they'd do the same for necromancy if it got added. I'd say, 2 summoning skills, 2 types of damage with one being direct, and one being a dot that heals too, and then the 5th being a cc. The ult would probably be a flesh atronach or bone collosai.

To add in a class, ZOS would make one of the lines a dps role, one a healing role, and one a tank role. Much like Warden is.

inthecoconut

I know as little about ES lore as is probably humanly possible. I swear I run through this game blind and deaf, and I have no idea what is happening anywhere, even if its happening right in front of me.

I just like to bash stuff over the head until it dies. Have something you want killed? I don't need to know why, just point me in the right direction and it'll get done.

The bashing bit isn't really the important part, its more so the everything-gets-dead part that I focus on. So when I'm not bashing things to death, I'm thinking about different, more effective ways to bash them. Sometimes it doesn't even involve bashing. It could be stabbing. Or slashing. Or if I want to make things different, maybe even burning. The point I am trying to stress is that the method isn't as important, so long as the thing in front of me dies.

So at first I was against the idea of a Necromancer, because it sort of runs counter to my everything-needs-to-die philosophy once you start raising them back from the dead. But then I thought about it and it almost seemed kind of poetic. Normally I don't stop to smell the roses, but I can't deny the certain irony in bashing something to death and then raising said bashed-thing only to use it to bash other things.

So in the end, I support Necromancy, as it would be a nice addition to my arsenal of death and destruction.

srnekro

SilverIce58 wrote: »

Well, tbh w/ you m8.

Seeing as how they've added the Psijic Order skill with an ult, 5 skills, and 5 passives, it only seems the same that they'd do the same for necromancy if it got added. I'd say, 2 summoning skills, 2 types of damage with one being direct, and one being a dot that heals too, and then the 5th being a cc. The ult would probably be a flesh atronach or bone collosai.

To add in a class, ZOS would make one of the lines a dps role, one a healing role, and one a tank role. Much like Warden is.

Yes.

"Flesh Master" focused on disease damage, DoTs, summoning "flesh minions" like zombies and flesh atronach, and maybe buffs. Would be focused on tanking.

Bone Lord. Focused on magic/stamina damage, summoning skeletons, bone colossus and a Lich, buffering minions, summoning constructs and direct damage. Would be dps.

Spiritual Dextersity. Focused on CC, debuffs, direct damage and/or healing abilities and summoning ghosts and wraiths.

The amazing thing is, with morphs, you could decide if you would want a pet focus build making mostly of them permanent, or not, making them temporary. Plus deciding if you want stamina or magica damage with it.

It would be an excellent class to add to the game. And remember, this is a MMORPG, it will have more classes in the future. I just want the Necromancer to be one of them.

srnekro

inthecoconut wrote: »

I know as little about ES lore as is probably humanly possible. I swear I run through this game blind and deaf, and I have no idea what is happening anywhere, even if its happening right in front of me.

I just like to bash stuff over the head until it dies. Have something you want killed? I don't need to know why, just point me in the right direction and it'll get done.

The bashing bit isn't really the important part, its more so the everything-gets-dead part that I focus on. So when I'm not bashing things to death, I'm thinking about different, more effective ways to bash them. Sometimes it doesn't even involve bashing. It could be stabbing. Or slashing. Or if I want to make things different, maybe even burning. The point I am trying to stress is that the method isn't as important, so long as the thing in front of me dies.

So at first I was against the idea of a Necromancer, because it sort of runs counter to my everything-needs-to-die philosophy once you start raising them back from the dead. But then I thought about it and it almost seemed kind of poetic. Normally I don't stop to smell the roses, but I can't deny the certain irony in bashing something to death and then raising said bashed-thing only to use it to bash other things.

So in the end, I support Necromancy, as it would be a nice addition to my arsenal of death and destruction.

Beautiful haha

Aisle9

Did you just necroed your own thread ?