Necromancer

MADMANMIKE · Unread post by **MADMANMIKE** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 1:19 pm

..Somehow the OCC Abilities & Bonuses section got misplaced when it was adapted from Rifts; In both Africa and Mystic Russia the Necromancer is listed as having a base of 2D4x10 Plus PE with 2D6 additional per level.

..They start with 12 spells, six necro and six related, and Russian necros start with 2 bone spells. I personally add the bone spells to the plain list and use them all for any necromancer. One of my favorite OCC's, it's never been better since the Rifts Book of Magic.

-Mike >8]

Vidynn · Unread post by **Vidynn** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:02 pm

this has been clarified in the old style FAQ

MADMANMIKE · Unread post by **MADMANMIKE** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:10 pm

..I expected as much, but am less than enthusiastic about perusing that convoluted conglomoration of obvious answers to mostly stupid questions...

-Mike <8]

Vidynn · Unread post by **Vidynn** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:11 pm

MADMANMIKE · Unread post by **MADMANMIKE** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:17 pm

Vidynn wrote:huh?

Sorry, forgot english isn't your first language.

..The FAQ is more trouble than it's worth. Overflowing with stupid questions.

I expected as much,

..I thought so..

but am less than enthusiastic

..I don't look forward to..

about perusing

..Going through...

that convoluted

..that mixed up, or jumbled, perhaps disorganized?

conglomoration

..Collection, in a messy manner.

of obvious answers to mostly stupid questions...

..I think that part speaks for itself.

-Mike >8]

Vidynn · Unread post by **Vidynn** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:20 pm

are you in a bad mood today, Mike?

anyway, I wrote that cause I always look into the FAQ first before bringing up topics which have been answered thousands of times. okay, the old style FAQ isnt really good, but still a lot of answers can be found in there. In my opinion more people should do this, then you dont have to write about the Necromancer again and again and again.

cheers,
Vid

MADMANMIKE · Unread post by **MADMANMIKE** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:45 pm

..No, sorry if I came off that way, it was actually kinda funny the way I wrote it the first time, harkening back to the old Wizard of Oz.

..But like Jester said, he did a search and found something, so he came here. Rather than point him to the FAQ, which granted he didn't mention having looked at before he posted the question but never the less is like I said convoluted, I just answered his question. Generally on these boards you may have noticed that's how these threads go. Simple question, simple answer, done.

..I didn't mean offence when I translated my words for you. They are uncommon.

-Mike >8]

Vidynn · Unread post by **Vidynn** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:52 pm

no offence taken, actually, I smiled at your words cause you really said simple things in a complicated way. but looking at your answer to KromeLizard in the other Thread (KS) I thought you are moody Mike.

cheers, Vid

MADMANMIKE · Unread post by **MADMANMIKE** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 4:35 pm

Vidynn wrote:no offence taken, actually, I smiled at your words cause you really said simple things in a complicated way. but looking at your answer to KromeLizard in the other Thread (KS) I thought you are moody Mike.

cheers, Vid

..Ah, well, I'm of more than one mind; the thread with my comment to Kromey was a delicate situation. I have lost patience with the whining from people who readily admit they have no legs to stand on.

..And to be honest, when I replied to Kromey's post I had just read an email stating that although I worked 63 hours last week, I would only be paid for 36 of them because the incompetent new guy that was handed my promotion didn't bother to download Saturday's sales with my hours. So I was in a bad way then, but after some smooth talking with a lady in payroll she's agreed to pay me on good faith.

-Mike

Vidynn · Unread post by **Vidynn** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:24 am

mmh I thought of something like that.

anyway, good luck and always try to get paid for your work!!

Vid

Borast · Unread post by **Borast** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:16 am

MADMANMIKE wrote:
Vidynn wrote:huh?
Sorry, forgot english isn't your first language.
>KA-snip<
-Mike >8]

Mikie...stop teasing the poor boy...his English seems fine so far...

MADMANMIKE · Unread post by **MADMANMIKE** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 2:53 pm

Borast wrote:
MADMANMIKE wrote:
Vidynn wrote:huh?
Sorry, forgot english isn't your first language.
>KA-snip<
-Mike >8]

Mikie...stop teasing the poor boy...his English seems fine so far...

..Indoobatably.

-Mike >8]

Vidynn · Unread post by **Vidynn** » Sat Aug 28, 2004 10:48 am

Borast wrote:Mikie...stop teasing the poor boy...his English seems fine so far...

thanks Borast..I try my best!

though "boy" is far from the truth, Im 32 already...