Why is it evreyone says clerics make better necromancers

[InvaderGrim]

I get that they can heal undead but other than that i dont see it.

[raubrey]

They can raise/summon undead.

[InvaderGrim]

Originally posted by raubrey:

They can raise/summon undead.

So can undead bloodline and cleric misses out on high level necromancer spells.

[raubrey]

Originally posted by InvaderGrim:

Originally posted by raubrey:

They can raise/summon undead.

So can undead bloodline and cleric misses out on high level necromancer spells.

I'm not saying one is better, I'm saying why people mention cleric for the LV 3 Animate Dead and heals (including channeling), which I thought was the question.

[InvaderGrim]

Originally posted by raubrey:

Originally posted by InvaderGrim:

So can undead bloodline and cleric misses out on high level necromancer spells.

I'm not saying one is better, I'm saying why people mention cleric for the LV 3 Animate Dead and heals, which I thought was the question.

Its just it doesnt make sense to me thats all.They can heal undead and as you said summon undead but miss out on high level necromancey spells. Where as undead bloodline is there and can do the same stuff and gets better necromancy spells and can make spells that otherwise wouldn't effect undead effect them.Its just that the assetion never made much sense to me and was assuming it was somthing besides that. Sorry for the rant it just confuses me.

[AzureTheGamerKobold]

Clerics do make better Necromancers in general, now might not be as true in kingmaker but in table top? generally speaking they do make better necromancers do to the following.

1: Channel energy, don't confuse turn undead and channel energy... they are not the same. Channel energy is insanely powerful as you can both heal your undead and DAMAGE your opponents it's really strong and arent many ways to deal with it.

2: They get access to animate dead spells much earlier

3: they can buff their undead out the wazoo while also healing them

This is probably the top 3 reasons... now a necromancer sorcerer is going to do more straight up damage, but a Cleric still gets access to most of the more important necromancy spells including HARM if you want to focus on undead a cleric is generally better. A sorc or wizard isn't terrible but they are more about insta kill spells, and damage and less about their undead.

If you pit a cleric's undead and a wizard or sorc's undead against each other the cleric will ALWASY win...

and a bonus...

4: Cleric can ear full plate, melee, and buff himself into a deadly force to be reckoned with.

Edit:

main reason that the cleric isn't quite as good in kingmaker as table top is do to undead not being permanent. If they were permanent it would be a no contest the cleric would win every time.

[raubrey]

Originally posted by InvaderGrim:

Originally posted by raubrey:

I'm not saying one is better, I'm saying why people mention cleric for the LV 3 Animate Dead and heals, which I thought was the question.

Its just it doesnt make sense to me thats all.They can heal undead and as you said summon undead but miss out on high level necromancey spells. Where as undead bloodline is there and can do the same stuff and gets better necromancy spells and can make spells that otherwise wouldn't effect undead effect them.Its just that the assetion never made much sense to me and was assuming it was somthing besides that.sorry for the rant it just confuses me.

I don't know. I didn't know you were comparing or I wouldn't have answered. But it's a good question.

I'm not fond of the class personally (just because they usually are overrated hype in games. I can see the use here though.).

Otherwise, from a glance, certain cleric builds seem to have access faster to the 3 major summon spells, the channelling alone is superb (no need for necro spells casts) and then they are generally tankier...certainly better than a wiz or sorc...But as for your Inquisitor...I haven't used it enough to even compare.

Edit: The headband for channel energy works on undead too. It's 2d6 which is rather substantial for even 1 tick of channel.

[InvaderGrim]

Originally posted by AzureTheGamerKobold:

Clerics do make better Necromancers in general, now might not be as true in kingmaker but in table top? generally speaking they do make better necromancers do to the following.

1: Channel energy, don't confuse turn undead and channel energy... they are not the same. Channel energy is insanely powerful as you can both heal your undead and DAMAGE your opponents it's really strong and arent many ways to deal with it.

2: They get access to animate dead spells much earlier

3: they can buff their undead out the wazoo while also healing them

This is probably the top 3 reasons... now a necromancer sorcerer is going to do more straight up damage, but a Cleric still gets access to most of the more important necromancy spells including HARM if you want to focus on undead a cleric is generally better. A sorc or wizard isn't terrible but they are more about insta kill spells, and damage and less about their undead.

If you pit a cleric's undead and a wizard or sorc's undead against each other the cleric will ALWASY win...

and a bonus...

4: Cleric can ear full plate, melee, and buff himself into a deadly force to be reckoned with.

Thank you.So if im understanding correctly the big reason is they get undead sooner and are better at buffing them.Where as wizard/sorcerer are more about damage.I have to ask since i dont know about the pnp sadly but that seems a bit strange that a cleric be better at this then someone who had dedicated themselves to it such as a straight up necromancer.One more thing how are inguisiters at it?.

[raubrey]

Make sure you get info from someone who has done it in-game. (Inquisitor/Cleric/Arcane) The differences in paper to here can be significant. Also a cleric can't wear plate w/o adding the feat.

[AzureTheGamerKobold]

Originally posted by SoundofSilence:

Why not just do a mystic theurge and get the best of both worlds?

Generally if you ask people they will say the MT is bad do to it's slow scaling, as in you are 3 levels behind a pure caster. You CAN do like 7 wizard/3 cleric/ 10 MT and i think get 9th level spells BUT your cleric spells would be useless for offense do to lack of a decent wisdom, so it has to be just for buffing and support which isn't terrible but you also lose out on alot of caster levels as well.

Is it unviable? nah i think it can work BUT just go in knowing it's far from optimal.

[1ttffsse]

1.) mystic theurge is trap -> sure you are good at very late levels but by then the game is done or you may never reach 17+ before that you will be lagging severely behind a dedicated single class caster
2.) for melee necromancer knights, sure cleric or magus is probably the right choice (with undead bloodline in terms of magus for the frontline survivability)
3.) for ranged it is more tricky or you have more options as in sure the negative energy ecclesitheurge has access to negative energy channel, has a negative energy phylactery for the channel and is very favorable build for a necromancer, but a Thessalonian wizard is good too, or a sorcerer in arcane! bloodline. I say arcane instead of undead as in the arcane bloodline you will be taking the most feats to maximize, empower and boost your nuke spells, and necro nuke spells at least the aoe ones come quite late after the 6th tier but are very good.

[AzureTheGamerKobold]

personally i feel the Thessalonian Wizard is a Trap to... yea sounds great on paper ooo extra spell per day--- but honestly? you completely lose access to 2 schools of magic. This is NOT true of a normal specialist... who can still memorize opposition school spells if he has to allbeit at a cost of 2 slots. I wouldn't ever personally use that archtype... because while i MAY never use an opposition spell the chance i might need it is there and i prefer being able to still cast those spells if i have to.

I really don't care for that achtype... sounds cool and edgey but that's about as far as its uses go...

[solthusx]

Originally posted by raubrey:

Make sure you get info from someone who has done it in-game. (Inquisitor/Cleric/Arcane) The differences in paper to here can be significant. Also a cleric can't wear plate w/o adding the feat.

Unless I'm forgetting something, regular clerics should have heavy armour proficiency by default. Its only the archetype Tristian uses that can't wear armour.

[raubrey]

Originally posted by solthusx:

Originally posted by raubrey:

Make sure you get info from someone who has done it in-game. (Inquisitor/Cleric/Arcane) The differences in paper to here can be significant. Also a cleric can't wear plate w/o adding the feat.

Unless I'm forgetting something, regular clerics should have heavy armour proficiency by default. Its only the archetype Tristian uses that can't wear armour.

My cleric can't wear it either.

General Cleric with Healing/Fire Domains.

That's why I said what I said. Not to be offensive but I too was expecting to wear heavy armor. That's only one of several differences I've seen.

[VladK02]

it doesnt matter who is better necro. Most necro spells are junk, period.

AoE control sorc will kill a necro, cleric or sorc, in pvp any time of the day. Simply throw down cirocco or something simular, and watch summons, and the cleric, and the sorc, drop dead due to low reflex saves.

Most of the necro spells require touch or ray attack, which is just...garbage.... and the good stuff like horrid wilting or whatever is not worse then evocation, but not better either.

Being a necro is just gimping yourself. For the lols, for the roleplay - absolutely, go for it. But its not 'good'

having said that, tough call who is better. Cleric is better then sorc, because at high levels sorc will only have a few spells to choose from, and cleric has access to full spell list and can prepare...But specialist necro wizard vs cleric? tough call.

main thing is that death ward and flames of the salamander protect vs most, if not all, of the necro school's main spells and spell effects, ability damage, level drains, all that stuff, so i recon cleric gets the advantage simply due to having that buff.

Cleric also has higher fort and higher wisdom saves, when it comes down to it. Assuming number of casts is equal, summons will cancel each other out, i doubt high-level necro stuff will kill the cleric in one shot, and after spells are expended, cleric can always use his hammer to cave the sorc's head in.

I dunno. tough call who is better. i keep having flashbacks to drow clerics fron neverwinter nights, simular ruleset, those were a pain to deal with.

[solthusx]

Originally posted by raubrey:

Originally posted by solthusx:

Unless I'm forgetting something, regular clerics should have heavy armour proficiency by default. Its only the archetype Tristian uses that can't wear armour.

My cleric can't wear it either.

General Cleric with Healing/Fire Domains.

That's why I said what I said. Not to be offensive but I too was expecting to wear heavy armor. That's only one of several differences I've seen.

Turns out I did forget something; Pathfinder clerics can only wear light and medium armour. I thought heavy armour was an option because Harrim could wear plate armour. That's actually because he took heavy armour proficiency as one of his feats.