Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 7629133" data-attributes="member: 58197">Personally, I would not dip cleric as long as there were new wizard spell levels to be had. I'm addicted to the stream of new toys, and cleric toys just aren't as much fun for me. However, the necromancer is a very good subclass to dip with; any time you have a high-level spell slot and nothing good to put in it, you can always convert it to MOAR ZOMBIES. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> So, if you're going to dip, I say put your 7th or 8th level in cleric. That will get you access to all the 1st-level cleric spells, plus medium armor and shield proficiency (a huge bonus for any wizard), and a nifty domain ability.The second level of cleric... well, Channel Divinity is nice, but you don't get much else for it and none of the CD options seem particularly necro-friendly. So I would leave that one to the very end.As far as buffing versus debuffing: In general, wizards are much better at debuffs. However, haste is an exception and a very good spell. If you're going skeletons, then get haste, no question - ranged attackers don't care if they can catch up to the enemy. If you go zombies, I think the case for slow is stronger, because it benefits the entire party including your undead. Keep in mind that it also cripples the enemy's offensive capabilities, so you're soaking less damage. You could also just prepare both and use whichever one seems better at the time. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Skeletons versus zombies - for the reasons I listed, I favor zombies, but I will freely admit that I have yet to test this out and they might be far less effective than I think.</blockquote>

Verification