REMOVE or KEEP item 6 undead charm upgrade

[sauruman]

#6 - Address the fact that Word of Terris is not effective for a necromancer who solos, or who does not have a class who can debuff the mob in their group. (currently being evaluated) - Most likely this will be considered as part of the class re-envisioning
Having a spell line that is completely dependant on outside help from a few specific classes is not characteristic of the Necromancer. While many necros feel that the appropriate adjustment would be specifically to address the MR adjust portion of the spell that was previously reduced from -100 MR to no adjustment, we are leaving the request open for you to consider other solutions to the core issue stated above. Also of note is the lack of undead mobs to charm. For example, of 5 different themes in LDoN, 3 of them are populated with undead, and only 1 theme has undead that are charmable. Also not all instances of that theme have the charmable mob in them. While this is not a class issue, and more a content issue, it deserves mention in this context.

[sauruman]

replace. Who charms with the caps? Mobs would have to hit well over 1k a hit charmed for me to bother.

[Felicite]

Sadly 1. I have a 70 Enchanter with Total Domination 3, 250 pre-buff CHA and I don't charm with her.. so why would I charm with me.

I know there was a time when this was useful, and challenging and hence fun. But I think with the mobs of today.. the very mobs that forced the "charm nerf".. I don't expect SOE will tip the scales enough to make this possible again.

[Sarnath Creed]

1 - We could really use looking into on other areas, instead of charm spells. Charm kiting isnt as useful to us due to length of cast time, volitile spell duration, and mana cost. Having a high level charm would only add a higher mana cost, longer cast time, and more of a headache when the charm breaks after 2 ticks and your being beat on by 2 mobs and your next cast gets interupted at second 3 of 15.

[Xelgadis]

Remove.

There isn't anywhere near adequate undead content that is charmable. The content that is charmable is in places I tend to tribute slum in- therefore don't care.. Besides, my Minion of Discord focused pet is a better pet than most shit in the game that I can charm.

[Jebasiz]

Would be nice to charm stuff in Illsalin..well atleast fun. I'd like a cap increase to 73.

[Felicite]

Originally posted by Jebasiz@Dec 9 2005, 10:46 AM
Would be nice to charm stuff in Illsalin..well atleast fun. I'd like a cap increase to 73.
*giggles*

Slot Description
1: Charm up to level 69

Mana: 910 Skill: Alteration
Casting Time: 5 Recast Time: 2.25
Fizzle Time: 2.25 Resist: Magic
Range: 200 Location: Any
Time of Day: Any Deletable: No
Dot Stacking: Yes Interruptable: Yes
Short Buff Box: No Target Type: Single
Spell Type: Detrimental Category: Charm
Source: Live 11/16
yes.. that's the level 70 Enchanter Charm "True Name"

[Jebasiz]

SO! I wanna charm level 73 mobs! *hugs* felicite =D. I don't care what other people can or can't do. I know what I'd like to be able to do.

[rarefy]

Remove charm and give us a better undead mez & slow that actually works on mobs over level 70.

[Xelgadis]

Most of our utility spells require external help (debuffs) in order to be remotely effective. Allowing us to debuff magic would bring enchanters up in arms, moreso than shamans. Either fixing the resist modifiers on existing spells, or some other way would be nice- but it all still falls back on my previous post in this thread (ie. don't care enough atm to really be bothered with it).

Ultimate problem is; no matter how you try to fix this issue, you're going to piss off enchanters, which will get them screaming bloody murder to the devs so they can get similar changes etc. But, to be quite honest, if they really have retarded shit like "there needs to be another zone like Old Sebilis" on their top 10 like I hear, they need to seriously reevaluate what their -class- issues are.

Class and content are 2 different beasts altogether. Undead utility (charm, in the case of this thread) is really a content issue moreso than a class issue. In which case, it doesn't belong on our list.