Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnomish Elite
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I keep hearing be an Iksar or don't bother with a necro. Is this really that big of an advantage? I really don't like the look of the Iksar, don't want to be hated absolutely everywhere (although hated in most spots may not be a huge issue depending on the answer to my above question), and just won't enjoy the experience.
|
Ripped straight from Sesserdrix's guide:
Iksar is the ideal min-max race for a necromancer. Iksars have the ability to forage, they have additional AC, but most importantly, they have regeneration. Regeneration as a bonus to a necromancer is difficult to compare to any other racial. It is something that creeps up on you as a necromancer, as you don't really notice it until you're 49+. What is so good about regeneration is that it curbs off your HP loss from your lich spells. These spells reduce your HP and give you a lot of Mana. To curb the HP loss, you use lifetaps to get your health back. But using lifetaps is very low damage for the high mana it costs, resulting in low efficiency. This means that having regeneration allows you to use less mana on lifetaps, and more mana on efficient damage, which results in you killing more enemies in the same amount of time.
Iksars get an experience penalty, but in return for that penalty, you get a power that no other necromancer has, or ever can rival with gear, that makes you kill more stuff. I cannot stress to you enough how big a deal being an Iksar is, and how irreplaceable the regeneration trait is. I played Uteunayr up to level 60 as a Dark Elf, and rolled a second necromancer, Sesserdrix, just because of regeneration. I urge you that if you care about producing the best output you can, that you should go Iksar.