>3B) Some players have made the argument that 3) is because
>ranking a necromancer is especially hard.

While I would also agree that necromancers are hard to rank, I was referring more to what Nepenthe was talking about involving the play style of necromancers. My argument is that the less-skilled players get kicked around as a necromancer probably more than any other class in the in the low-mid ranges, and get frustrated by it.

And sure, when you add the fact that nobody wants them in a group because they have the least of any class in terms of ranking-applicabe skills, that's going to weed out the people who can't get groups by offering intangibles.

>There's little question in my mind that a human Spectre before
>the recent changes was the most lethal combination available.

Most lethal defined how? Likely to die from? I guess I can buy that. But on the other hand, bash followed by pincer/cranial is all it takes to kill a lot of characters. At least against a spectre you can quaff a teleport potion and have a chance at getting your gear back.

Personally, when I'm bothering to carry things to keep me alive, I'm far more worried about getting that killed-before-my-next-command effect Nepenthe mentioned than I am about having to flee and quaff because a spectre put me to sleep.

If the warrior doesn't kill me before I can run, then my odds of survival are good. So the spectre has a greater chance of ultimately sealing the kill, which is another reason their ratio would be high. But if my options upon being surprised are

1> 80% chance of losing 1/3 of a con and keeping my gear
2> 40% chance of losing 1/3 of a con and losing my gear

I'll take 1 thank you very much and then use the time I didn't waste regearing to go kill the necro.

(Yes I know these numbers are just made up and mean absolutely nothing... but you get the idea).

> If midbie necromancers are so impossible to rank that it prohibits
> most of the playerbase from attempting the class, I'm willing to
>look at it in the interest of class diversity.

Well I personally like necromancers being rare, but if you want more diversity then yeah, give them some ranking spells around 25 or so. And that might help some, but I think it's just an inherent (and good) part of necromancers that they're tough to play right, but deadly when they are.