[loramin]

Originally Posted by DrKvothe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the time you'll save recovering from a near wipe or that extra kill you're able to get every so often make a difference to largely offset the exp bonus

This "fact" is commonly repeated, but if you crunch the numbers (as Vexenu did in the thread he linked earlier) it turns out that:

Originally Posted by Vexenu

So ultimately the math tells us that the Iksar is indeed the more efficient Necro race for any time over 25ish minutes. However, despite this advantage they will level slower than the Erudite, because their efficiency increases are not sufficient to offset the XP penalty. It roughly works out to a 5% efficiency advantage for Iksars, at the cost of a 20% XP penalty (Erudite needs an extra 3 min of med time per level to offset Iksar regen advantage; 3/60 = 5%).

So if you agree with Vexenu's math that means that instead of:

Originally Posted by DrKvothe [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now let's say ... it takes a non-iksar 200 hours to get to 60 and an iksar 210 hours to get to 60 (just making up numbers). I would prefer to spend 210 hours on a noticeably stronger character than 200 hours with a noticeably inferior one.

The actual numbers (assuming 200 hours = level 60) would be more like non-Iksar: 200 hours vs. 230 hours.

I still agree with your basic logic for someone's main (or even their primary alt), but if we're talking about an alt that a person spends an hour on a week, then we're talking four years before hitting 60 as a non-Iksar vs. 4.6-ish years for the Iksar (with the non-Iksar being ahead in levels for the entire four years that player played them).

So if I just want to play a necromancer occasionally, and thus I'm not worried about having the best Necromancer possible at level 60, then a non-Iksar looks very appealing, because my alt who's (basically) never going to make it to 60 is going to get new fun spells faster with a non-Iksar.