atromancy vs. necromancy?

#1el3ctr0nic47Posted 11/25/2011 5:49:30 AM
anyone know the pros and cons of going to the respective trees?

i'm trying to decide how to distribute my skills accordingly and depending on which path way i go i'll either be a high elf or a dark elf

if i go down the atromancy path, i'll become a full elemental mage, while if i go down the necromancy path i'll just either take the fire or lightning path on the destruction tree
#2Ian_Ad_VitaePosted 11/25/2011 5:50:47 AM
You probably don't want to couple Necromancy with Lightning path.

The last perk in lightning magic branch is the one that disintegrates enemies, which means you can't reanimate the body.
I've just read a book about Stockholm Syndrome.
It started off badly but, by the end, I really liked it.
#3KudZuPosted 11/25/2011 5:54:00 AM
Atronachs can be summoned anywhere, but there are only three choices.

Undead can only be used on a corpse, but they are more flexible because you can put the equipment you want them to use on the corpse before summoning them. This is especially useful once you get the master spell Dead Thrall. You have to be careful not to lose your gear, though, since sometimes they disappear when fast traveling.

Overall, Atronachs are easier to use and maintain, but Undead are potentially more powerful if you take the time to manually equip a corpse before summoning.

Personally I prefer Atronachs because making the Undead useful is really time consuming and tedious, and Atronachs are almost as powerful anyway.
#4MitzkriegPosted 11/25/2011 6:03:48 AM
Don't forget draemora lords! I read a few places that they fall into the atromancy category, but not 100% myself if the perks affect them. There's no thrall spell for them, but they have been, hands down, the best part of being a caster type. Storm is great for ranged damage, and I've been wanting to try out the undead thralls but those lords are hard to beat
XBL- Mitzkrieg