PDA

View Full Version : Is this accurate to classic?

MrSparkle001
10-16-2011, 02:01 PM
http://strategywiki.org/wiki/EverQuest/Character_classes/Necromancer/Pet

I'm having a very hard time remembering things about the classic necromancer, like the max level of summoned pets, what skills they have etc.

This doesn't seem accurate to me, but it's all I can find. There's just no info on classic out there.

Does anyone have accurate necro pet info for classic? For instance I don't think the level 16 pet is max level 15, and I think it gets double attack, but I just can't remember.
Lazortag
10-16-2011, 02:06 PM
It says "pet level", not "max pet level". It's definitely inaccurate since the level 1 necro pet was allowed to be higher than level 1.
MrSparkle001
10-16-2011, 02:16 PM
It says "pet level", not "max pet level". It's definitely inaccurate since the level 1 necro pet was allowed to be higher than level 1.

Well the level 4 spell is accurate, since it can be level 5. The others I don't know. Restless Bones so far has only summoned up to level 15 after thirteen tries. Is that just bad luck, or is that the max level?

It cons "looks kind of dangerous" to me (that's one level below at level 16 right?) and it's only doing 16 damage max, so either something is wrong with the pet or I'm not remember things properly. If max damage is 20 for a level 16 pet, this one should be doing 18 damage. My max level 12 pet did 16 damage, and it was level 11.

EDIT: I just got a level 16 pet that does 20 damaeg, and read that "looks kind of dangerous" could be two levels lower, so that previous pet was probably level 14. That's what happens when you haven't played in almost a decade: You don't remember crap.

It's possible that list is pretty accurate for classic.
SoulLeech
10-16-2011, 02:50 PM
Little tangent here...

It's fascinating to me to witness how knowledge can come to be lost so quickly. I feel like we tend to think that everything we could want to know will always be no more than a google away, but clearly, that just isn't true.

It gives a renewed appreciation for those folks who take the time to curate seemingly worthless factoids.