Posted by SphereMaker(IMM) on October 25, 1999 at 15:29:15:
In Reply to: Re: I believe... posted by petro on October 25, 1999 at 12:48:34:
> > Now, a good question would be, why, if the above paragraph is true, would a conjurer not have a high exp penalty? They can gate (tess), summon (nightgaunt), heal and sanc themselves and others (archons), maladic others (devils and flash), cast offensive spells (elementals and magic missile), fight well (auto-rescuing angels), and spy on people (clar). Unfortunately most of those things cannot be done by the conjurer him/herself and many of the operations are risky. For example, Tesseract is much riskier to use than Gate, you can conjure hideous things, but they can also eat you (the conjurer) alive. There are a lot of drawbacks to the class despite the bells and whistles. > This argument about giving conjurers an xp penalty can be used on virtually all the mage classes. What about Necromancers? They can do practically all of the above, Um, no. They have no Gate equivalent, they can only summon players within the same area (though they can also summon NPCs), they cannot sanct themselves (and in fact cannot be healed or sanct'd after becoming a Lich), and have no divination spells (a la clair-). > plus can control more charmies than a conjurer (granted the conjurers charmies do more) and when get to Lich are uberpowerful. Based on your arguement, shouldn't a necro have a penalty? Based on my refutation above, no. Although once becoming a Lich they DO have a huge xp penalty. Assuming they survive the Becoming.