animal husbandry vs Necromancer

Hello all!

Animal husbandry being all about life (savage animals and the life in their veins), a necromancer specialized in the "undead" mastery would be, or not, able to tam and breed living creatures (mounts, pets,...), and if not, to "tam" undead creatures or demons?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dygz

Why not both??

Taleof2Cities

There's another very recent thread on this topic, @Reflet ... located HERE.

Jahlon

Reflet wrote: »

Hello all!

Animal husbandry being all about life (savage animals and the life in their veins), a necromancer specialized in the "undead" mastery would be, or not, able to tam and breed living creatures (mounts, pets,...), and if not, to "tam" undead creatures or demons?

Adventurer Classes have no bearing on Artisan Classes.

So if it is possible for an Artisan to do it, then any artisan can do it regardless of their adventuring class.

Reflet

Taleof2Cities wrote: »

There's another very recent thread on this topic, @Reflet ... located HERE.

Thanks for the link.

Dygz wrote: »

Why not both??

I make a difference between necromancer (with undead) and demonolgist (with demons) (if one archetype of the summoner class would fitt to it).

Jahlon wrote: »

Reflet wrote: »

Hello all!

Adventurer Classes have no bearing on Artisan Classes.

So if it is possible for an Artisan to do it, then any artisan can do it regardless of their adventuring class.

I don't see the point of not having special affinities (from class and/or race) in skills. Like wargs in Tolkien's wrold are more likely bound to orcs when horses are elves and men. So about our subject, a necromancer turned toward death (not life) has committed his time/life to the undeads' world when other didn't... expect if Intrepid studio implement a "faction system" to raise up and in which we would have a "undead faction" so everyone could invest time to raise it up and don't be KOS when passing near by undead creatures (certainly by paying the cost of being KOS by creatures of life faction of some sort).

Dygz

Ashes does not have a class called Demonologist - but that is beside the point.
As Jahlon said -

Animal Husbandry really has nothing to do with Archetype.
Summoners Control whatever the Summon; they don't tame them.
Taming is done via Animal Husbandry; not Summoning.

I think your "Undead faction" would more likely come from Social Organizations, rather than Artisan path or Archetype choice.

TheWolfofGar

Reflet wrote: »

I don't see the point of not having special affinities (from class and/or race) in skills. Like wargs in Tolkien's wrold are more likely bound to orcs when horses are elves and men. So about our subject, a necromancer turned toward death (not life) has committed his time/life to the undeads' world when other didn't... expect if Intrepid studio implement a "faction system" to raise up and in which we would have a "undead faction" so everyone could invest time to raise it up and don't be KOS when passing near by undead creatures (certainly by paying the cost of being KOS by creatures of life faction of some sort).

Ashes is specifically designed to move away from antiquated faction based pvp games, as those will inevitably devolve into majority single faction servers because people don't want to be on the losing side.

A life/Death faction would be antithetical to one of ashes core design pillars. you are welcome to rp with dark/undead looking mounts assuming they are present in game to fit a necromancer aesthetic however in no way should those mounts be locked to your specific class.

Another thing to consider is you may not be spending your time running your summoner with cleric secondary. there could be encounters where you'll want to swap your secondary archetype and run as a Wild Blade, Spellmancer etc. because you aren't locked into your secondary.

Blindside

Taming creatures to use as controllable combat pets (restricted to ranger primary archetype?) and mounts with unique skills would be a super fun system.

Halae

Blindside wrote: »

Taming creatures to use as controllable combat pets (restricted to ranger primary archetype?) and mounts with unique skills would be a super fun system.

We already have that system. It's the animal husbandry system. It has no link to any archetypes, Ranger or otherwise. Animal Husbandry will let you develop beasts of burden, mounts, battle pets, and probably cosmetic pets too, though they have to be tamed out in the wilderness to be trained and bred for various things.

Xenra

I could see knowledge of animal anatomy and what parts of their body is most durable being quite useful to a necromancer. Or being well versed in training animals you know how to make your beasts of burden acclimated to being around the undead. Often in fantasy living things are ill at ease around the undead so training your horse to not flee could be very valuable. As one who plans to be a necromancer with animal husbandry Im hoping to create some near macabre creatures boring undeath.

Reflet

Xenra wrote: »

I could see knowledge of animal anatomy and what parts of their body is most durable being quite useful to a necromancer. Or being well versed in training animals you know how to make your beasts of burden acclimated to being around the undead. Often in fantasy living things are ill at ease around the undead so training your horse to not flee could be very valuable. As one who plans to be a necromancer with animal husbandry Im hoping to create some near macabre creatures boring undeath.

In Vanguard saga of heroes, the necromancer had a skill to randomly take out of a corps some a body part to "fix" it into their animated pet in order to upgrade it.

Child Item