Lich vs clarity 2

[Troxx]

This may sound weird but hear me out before answering the following question:

Do any necromancers 49-59 ever settle for c2 when grouped with an enchanter? Assuming also you don't have a toon in group that can toss you a regen.

C2: 11mana/tick
Lich: 20mana/tick, -32hp a tick.

Being iksar and now 56, that regen mitigates the damage lost to 22 standing and 16 sitting. Having chloro/regrowth mitigates it by an additional 10/15. Assuming no regen buff, lich really only gives you an additional 9 mana a tick at the cost of losing points which then need to be healed or or tapped back - and those taps don't really break the 2:1 mana/heal ratio.

Pros for lich:
-not using it wastes your health regen potential. Unless you are tossing out heals, sitting at 100% health means wasted regen and thus wasted potential mana (dps/utility)
-9 more mana per tick, as above 90 more mana a minute to kill with
-in a mana feeding role, the faster you generate it the faster you can deal it.

Pros for using c2:
-mana used on more efficient damage spells vs using less efficient taps
-more flexibility with healing - less tapping required
-for the non iksar at level 56, not having to deal with 26 lost sitting 29 lost standing for only 9 extra mana/tick which equates to the difference of (at best) 18-20 (spec alteration) tap potential which doesn't even cover the *cost* of lich.
-maximizing tap efficiency without outside hp buffs is more challenging as you have to drop to reasonably low hp values (720 less than your max) to optimize self healing

Obviously this decision is more complicated 49-55 and for non iksar necros. They pay a steeper price in terms of lich health lost. It's less complicated for the iksar and any time you start tossing hp regen effects into the equation. Furthermore, this discussion is irrelevant when soloing or at level 60 when Demi lich allows for a 20 mana/tick advantage over c2.

So back to the question:

Do any of you or have any of you ever opted for c2 over lich when grouped with a level 54+ enchanter between levels 49-59?

If so (or not) care to discuss why?

Please bear in mind I'm not advocating for it, just curious. I haven't taken clarity over the lich line since clarity (higher lv cast) vs call of bones.

[syztem]

ive always played a necro and to some extent, a shaman, basically your health is an extension of the mana bar. so you aren't meant to really have full hp always, get to half and use a lifetap over time spell etc go full on lich. if you aren't really doing much mana spending wise then c2 would probably be fine.

[Troxx]

I find myself utilizing my health bar for much more than just lich (ie heals). Like I said though - I've never opted for c2 over lich, but situationally I would be very tempted if I weren't an iksar.

[syztem]

yeah for iksars, once your like 50+ just sit regen with lich is pretty damn good and you lose hp way slower then another race/standing. i think i would find myself popping between lich/c2 constantly if i were to use c2, just for times when you had to spend a lot of mana and wanted it back fast. i have never really raided end content on a necro, so i know they twitch/patch heal a lot. i have a soul well clicky staff on my necro with beads so he can stay full hp indefinitely.

[Pyrion]

I usually prefer C spells to lich type spells. As you said, the added mana is usually expended regaining the lost HPs. And if you are in a healing role (which you should always be in a group, at least partially), C is clearly superior.

That said, for necros both methods work about equally well, so even without C i am happy.

[Crawdad]

When would you take c over c2? Never. Sitting at full health as necro is like sitting at full mana for any other class, you're wasting resources. Buff or pump someone, root rot another mob, etc... you're squandering a major perk of the class. I can't see c2 as anything other than being lazy. So I guess it has a place for when you want to just goof around.

[articnv]

The only tiem i take c2 over lich si when i just got rezed...other wise a necro should never be full of mana. Tap isnt efficent mana wise buts its mroe efficent then dots that never runa full course, i spend my mana in groups twitchign ccign and patch healing, unless i m the puller in chardok cause we have no monk :P then i have more mana then normal cause i chain pulling singles most of the time :P

[PoptartOnRye]

Here is one scenario that I think is pretty common for a necromancer utilizing all the tools at their disposal.

Assuming you're a 56-59 Iksar who is sitting for the duration, Bond of Death/Shadowbond will deal 720 damage, heal someone else for 500, and heal you for 76 (after Lich eats it's share of 144) for a cost of 370 mana.

Vexing/Shadowbond will deal 1110 damage, heal someone else for 500, and heal you for 355 (after Lich eats it's share of 144) for a cost of 505 mana.

Over the 9 tick duration that your leech dot is running, C2 returns 99 mana, and Lich returns 180. Once you cast Shadowbond you're going to have to tap, regardless of whether you have C2 or Lich running. With Lich your leech spell will end with more mana in your tank, and you're less likely to waste the incoming health because your hp bar was lower to begin with, thus netting the most efficiency out of the inefficient leech spell you were going to have to cast regardless. But remember this inefficient spell combo is now healing 2 players while simultaneously damaging the enemy, really not a bad deal after all, and Lich helps make sure you get the most out of it.

[Mirakk82]

I played a Dark Elf Necromancer back in the day, and am leveling an Iksar Necromancer now. I can tell you that as a Dark Elf, I was never even once tempted to not use lich. The mana return is so much better, and it's not like I felt like I was losing health and couldn't get it back so I was at any kind of disadvantage.