Preliminary Enchantress Guide

[the Langolier]

My point is not about SP, but about the oddity in calling something an "Enchantress" that is clearly advertised as being simply 'a-Sorceress-who-happens-to-use-Enchant-among-a-collection-of-other-attacks'.

...but what are you talking about? This build puts 60 skill points into one form of attack. Yea, by the time you get to 99, you can max two more skills for a second attack + mastery. Realistically, however, a build should be complete around level 80-85. Beyond that, getting level ups are just for the sake of getting level ups. So, at this level you'll have 20 more skill points for a secondary attack - big whoop. Or can we not call poison necros with PD, PE, PN poison necros anymore; Leaper barbs with Leap, LA, mastery leaper barbs anymore; Fireball sorcs with FBolt, FBall, mastery fireball sorcs anymore; Hammerdins with whatever-the-hell-hammerdins-max hammerdins anymore...

I stick to my argument. Suggestions about sets or uniques are in themselves a guide killer IMO.

Exactly. That is why we need an item guide that lists every set item, unique item, runeword, or other good magic items and then mention every build that each specific item is good for, and why.

On second thought, maybe not. Maybe that is why some specific items are listed in repsective guides to let the readers know what sort of modifiers are desirable so they might see that a bow charged with exploding arrow might be worthwhile.

[WarBlade]

...but what are you talking about?  This build puts 60 skill points into one form of attack.  Yea, by the time you get to 99, you can max two more skills for a second attack + mastery.

Or consider your options with the defensive skills and let's face it; Enchant works well with putting a Sorceress into melee. To me a name like "Enchantress" defines the character. She's an Enchant specialist. Adding other attacks is taking a generalist and calling it a specialist.

Exactly.  That is why we need an item guide that lists every set item, unique item, runeword, or other good magic items and then mention every build that each specific item is good for, and why.

On second thought, maybe not.  Maybe that is why some specific items are listed in repsective guides to let the readers know what sort of modifiers are desirable so they might see that a bow charged with exploding arrow might be worthwhile.

"to let the readers know what sort of modifiers are desirable" <<< And there it is. One tiny spark of light in a paragraph of meandering pretzel logic. Why not just focus on 'letting readers know what sort of modifiers are desirable' and why without delving primarily focusing on particular items? My feeling is that naming the item first and the real meat of the idea second is just plain backwards. I say get rid of words like "Hexfire" and just talk about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of things like +Skills, ITD etc.

[Chaerophon]

I say get rid of words like "Hexfire" and just talk about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of things like +Skills, ITD etc.

Certain items are, in fact, superior for such a build. If experience has shown the effectiveness of a given item, why should the author not share his or her perspective? So long as there is also a general mention of desirable attributes to go along with these more specific examples, I don't see the problem.

Mongojerry is NOT making your classic Dii.net guide. He is NOT telling you to "get this item", or that you "need" anything. He IS making some informed suggestions as to what works well, and I don't see the harm in it. The purpose of a guide should be exactly as the name suggests: to GUIDE the player in making an effective character. In my opinion, a good guide will point out certain items that have proven quite effective in making such a character. It will not tell you that you NEED them. It is the weight of Mongo's experience and the fact that he has actually tried these weapons that is intended to benefit the more casual player.

Final note: since when is less information better? Why should he hide information that he has obtained through hours upon hours of playtesting? Seems like backwards reasoning to me.

[BellaStrega]

Yes, it killed the guide so badly that I started an Enchantress sorceress after reading it.

[MongoJerry]

WarBlade, I appreciate your suggestions. I really do. But I don't appreciate the tone of your responses. The guide is called the "Preliminary Enchantress Guide" for good reason. I want to get feedback and suggestions from people, and in fact this is the third reworking of the guide I've made after getting excellent suggestions from readers at the Amazon Basin. I posted the guide here to get some more feedback and some different perspectives. Some portions of your feedback are quite valid and I appreciate those comments, but I think your general pan of what has been put forward as a preliminary document is unwarrented. Now, to discuss your specific suggestions.

I got as far as the first sentence and already started hating it. The quoted sentence while immediately throwing a challege out in the open (with a boast) looks like it heralds something that only a *ahem* "UB3R l337 D00D LOLOL!!!111" (If you'll pardon my AOLish) could appreciate.

It's funny that you hated the first sentence, because so did I when I wrote it. The first paragraph was something I wrote as a placeholder until I came up with something better. It's something I'll definitely work on before final publication. If you're wondering, though, the idea of the first sentence was to attract the average bnetter who wants to build powerful characters and yet doesn't have the time to do magic finding runs to get l33t equipment. I wanted to emphasize right off the bat that enchantresses aren't grossly underpowered characters like the characters whose adventures I've written up previously. They're viable on their own and very powerful in a party. I'll see what I can do to rework the first paragraph.

And what's with all the entries on non-Enchant attack types? Once a Sorceress devotes half her power to Frozen Orb or Inferno or whatever other attack she's lost her claim to the name of Enchantress IMO, simply because half the time she won't even be using Enchant!

This is the part of your discussion where I get concerned that you might not have read the guide but instead just glanced at the guide's titles and headings. Inferno, FO, Firewall, Hydra, and Meteor were only briefly mentioned as variations that people might like to try while 95% of the guide was spent discussing builds, tactics, equipment, and mercenaries for ranged and/or melee enchantresses. Whether you consider someone who casts a spell as a suplemental attack an "enchantress" or not is purely a matter of semantics. In the guide, I call any character who spends 62 points to fully power up Enchant and uses that Enchant to power herself and her party up an enchantress. Perhaps your definition of a player who never uses any suplemental spell (only powers up a cold armor, for example) would be best described by the more restrictive term "fighter mage" or "fighter enchantress."

Wonderful.  Reading a 'guide' that gives little clue as to what mods are useful and why, prefering instead to list specific names to hunt for.

Couched in your attacking tone is a reasonable suggestion. I got carried away by D2 terms I'm so familiar with and didn't translate them into ordinary English for the benefit of the newer players I'd like to reach. Thanks for the suggestion, and I'll change it to something like "Incidentally, you can buy a 3-socket Tower Shield with +20% block from the Act 1 hell shops and place three perfect diamonds in it" or something like that. I would have appreciated your suggestion more, however, if you had been less antagonistic when discussing it.

Ok try this. Here's a guide that seeks to educate. Instead it ventures a few names and gives vague reasons why said names might be handy. Does this educate? Not in my opinion. Personally any guide worth it's mettle that mentions anything about items will focus on attributes first and . . .

It's interesting that you'd say that, and again I'm forced to wonder if you've actually read the guide, since for all the items, I describe in detail the important mods on the item for the enchantress. On reflection, I do see that even though I mention exploding arrows and bolts in the paragraphs above the discussion of specific bows, it'd probably be good to mention that all of the bows in the list have exploding arrows or bolts. Perhaps I could rework the paragraphs describing the weapons to emphasize their mods a little more. I'll look into it.

. . . perhaps not even bother to name items that can easily be looked up on AS.

I heartily disagree with this suggestion, however, as most players don't spend as much time surfing through the AS as much as we do, only know about the uber l33t items that they must have, and don't know about the other quite useful items that people often discard. I've had literally dozens of conversations with bneters in regular games and in trading games who have never even heard of a Demon Machine much less what it does, despite it's being the most powerful weapon a ranged enchantress can equip herself with. I also want to reach out to those people who don't have good equipment and say, "Hey! You can use that Raven Claw that people always throw away and make a nice weapon out of it!" You'll notice that I only mentioned very common items that most people can get their hands on. In fact, not one of the items I mentioned was an elite item. I want to show people that they can make a viable enchantress without having all of the best equipment available. (Well, OK, I mentioned Warshrike and Gimmershred which are elite throwing weapons, but I only included them because it was the only way to shut up a couple of AB readers who insisted I mention them in the Thrower Enchantress section).

Once again, I'd like to thank you for your comments and suggestions. I think they'll help improve the guide significantly. However, I would appreciate it if you would be more constructive with your criticism in the future and withhold your more scathing remarks. It takes a lot more than you may realize to write these kinds of things. This guide is the product of hours of work and months of playtesting and experimentation. If you're going to pan something that someone has written, it may be wise to do more than "skip much and skim a little."

[Casperi]

Did you include the Druid's wolves and grizzly in your list of castable minions? They can be enchanted as well.

[MongoJerry]

Why not use (or suggest) Berserk to deal with fire immunes? As I remember correctly (unless this changed), Berserk converts ALL damage, even elemental, to magical type. With a fast weapon, this could easily be used to take care of any fire immunes; it's hard to find monsters that are immune to both (even such bosses are rare). And the runeword itself is not that hard to get. Of course, slap me if berserk works differently now and it wouldn't work

*Slap!* Well, I don't know if it's working differently, but I understood that Berserk converts only the physical damage to magic damage and the other elements remain as they were. If that's the case, then there's not much benefit to using Berserk specifically against fire immunes (yeah, yeah, against solo monsters it might do more damage but then your defence goes to 0 and that's all too much to discuss in a guide that's already very long). The original Grizabella used Berserk against Fire/Physical immune bosses and it took a *long* time to kill them. I suspect that that wouldn't have been the case if her Enchant had been converted to magic damage.

[LavCat]

So far just a comment and a question:

Most of my high level enchantress experience was in 1.09, but I did not find it impossible to solo fire immune monsters in hell. Difficult, yes, but rather fun. I would not dissuade folks as much as you do. I have tried damage reduction, but the best defense against fire immune monsters one cannot kill quickly is maxed (95%) resistance, maxed blocking, and (in our case) a big axe. If anything it should be easier in 1.10 with the big bonus to AR. With close to 10,000 AR there is little need for ITD. True, she did hell ancients in a basin game, but she was not hiding in a corner.

In recent days I have started a ladder enchantress. On reaching Lut (and after a number of countess runs) she bought a +3 staff and made leaf for herself. After defeating duriel she graciously allowed her lower level siblings to travel eastward in her place. My question (in reference to your section C1), is it not possible to buy level 30 skills such as fire mastery on a gray staff from Ormus?

Thank you, by the way, for your writing (even if I have to reply from the T1 line at work because of all the pictures).

[AtomicKitKat]

You and me both. :lol:

LavCat: Not too sure about that. Might be better odds than trying to find one with Warmth+Inferno+Mastery(I might have found a white one once, but that SoJ requirement for socketing items is just plain SICK. Damned dupers and hackers...)

[Brista]

The way staffmods work is that they can pick from 4 of the following which are next to each other

Level 1 skills
Level 6 skills
Level 12 skills
Level 18 skills
Level 24 skills
Level 30 skills

So Warmth (a level 1 skill) and Fire mastery (a level 30 skill) won't appear on the same staff

[Caaroid]

The problem is that by the time high level skills appear on the staves (depending on your char lev), they won't be white/gray (also depending on your char lev).

I never read the code, but it seems that ~ lev 21-24 white/gray items disappear from stores, whereas lev 30 skills only appear later.

[MongoJerry]

LavCat: Not too sure about that. Might be better odds than trying to find one with Warmth+Inferno+Mastery(I might have found a white one once, but that SoJ requirement for socketing items is just plain SICK. Damned dupers and hackers...)

You don't need Warmth on the staff, because +skills don't affect synergies. Plus the recipe for socketing white (normal quality) items is Ral+Amn+Perfect Amethyst.

LavCat, I believe Ormus only sells magic staves, but I'll look into it. Does anyone know if you could avoid getting all magic items by using a rushed mule character?

[AtomicKitKat]

Rushed mules? Yes. You can get sockets that way, but since Ormus only sells a certain kind of stave, you'd need around level 15 before he would put up "Enchant" staves.

I wasn't talking about Warmth for synergy purposes. I just wanted even more mana regen. :P

[GentlemanLoser]

Found it!

By Ferengi (Posted: Sep 12 2003, 08:07 AM - RE: obscure weredruid questions)

Kuko is a lot of fun, because of some interestingly different effects, Explosive bolts (i.e. always hit with splash damage) and 50% pierce. I used to do this for laughs on the Foothills, stand on a corner of high ground and watch monsters at a distance get blown up. It seems that whenever I hit a nearby monster and the 50% roll was made, an invisible arrow streaked away. If I was lucky, there was something in it's path and I could see the explosions.

Does this still work? Would this work with Enchant?

:)

[Erthshade]

The way staffmods work is that they can pick from 4 of the following which are next to each other

Level 1 skills
Level 6 skills
Level 12 skills
Level 18 skills
Level 24 skills
Level 30 skills

Does it work that way for all items which grant +individual skills, like druid pelts, barb helms and assassin claws? And would that mean I could get +3 Cyclone Armor (a level 12 skill, IIRC) and +3 Hurricane (level 30 skill) on the same pelt?

[WarBlade]

I criticisized the start of your guide.
Surprisingly, you agreed saying you didn't like it either. Then this . . .

This is the part of your discussion where I get concerned that you might not have read the guide but instead just glanced at the guide's titles and headings. Inferno, FO, Firewall, Hydra, and Meteor were only briefly mentioned as variations that people might like to try while 95% of the guide was spent discussing builds, tactics, equipment, and mercenaries for ranged and/or melee enchantresses. Whether you consider someone who casts a spell as a suplemental attack an "enchantress" or not is purely a matter of semantics. In the guide, I call any character who spends 62 points to fully power up Enchant and uses that Enchant to power herself and her party up an enchantress. Perhaps your definition of a player who never uses any suplemental spell (only powers up a cold armor, for example) would be best described by the more restrictive term "fighter mage" or "fighter enchantress."

Yes, there are obviously different interpretations as to what an "Enchantress" means to people. Is it not then wise to actually start at that point by posing the question of what she is and define the idea in as many interpretations as possible before explaining the rest?

My viewpoint is a far more purist viewpoint than yours it seems: A Sorceress who's entire being is based around the idea of enchantment, primarily focusing on the Enchant skill, with a secondary nod to those skills that operate in an enchanting fashion. eg. "She enchants her sword with fire and her armour with ice." Depending on how purist you want to go, "Some might also enchant their very aura to bleed off damage (ES) and call down bolts from the sky (TS)"
. . . all the while maintaining the theme of fire-and-forget spells.

You allude to definitions that present a generalist Sorceress that happens to put most of her points into the one skill highlighted by the name and move on to an "anything goes" philosophy. While I appreciate the move to an open-ended concept I also am left wondering why the potential result is even named in such a specific manner as "Enchantress".

So yeah, we quibble over the semantics, but that's a decent starting point right there IMO. Explore what "Enchantress" means and then role on with the guide.

[MongoJerry]

My viewpoint is a far more purist viewpoint than yours it seems: A Sorceress who's entire being is based around the idea of enchantment, primarily focusing on the Enchant skill, with a secondary nod to those skills that operate in an enchanting fashion. eg. "She enchants her sword with fire and her armour with ice." Depending on how purist you want to go, "Some might also enchant their very aura to bleed off damage (ES) and call down bolts from the sky (TS)"
. . . all the while maintaining the theme of fire-and-forget spells.

I've seen most people call this more narrow build a "fighter mage" rather than an "enchantress." An enchantress is one who runs around enchanting things. "Fighter mage" is a subset class of enchantress that involves a character who enters the fray and hacks or shoots stuff herself. Your definition is not more "pure." It is simply more narrow than the generally accepted usage of the relevant terms.

[LavCat]

You don't need Warmth on the staff, because +skills don't affect synergies.&nbsp; Plus the recipe for socketing white (normal quality) items is Ral+Amn+Perfect Amethyst.

LavCat, I believe Ormus only sells magic staves, but I'll look into it.&nbsp; Does anyone know if you could avoid getting all magic items by using a rushed mule character?

I'm actually replying to a few people here, but yes, Ormus will gladly sell gray staves to a character that is low enough.

My assassin would take offense at being called a rushed mule character, however! Even if she did not choose to face duriel herself, she has been progressing (slowly) though act 3 on her own, untwinked and unenchanted. Since she is at a level low enough she has been buying gifts and sending them back home. I must say a rogue at level 9 is not much help in jungles though.

But no, so far no level 30 skills from Ormus. I suspect it is correct that by the time level skills appear the staves will be all magic. Still, I thought it was better to test than to wonder and speculate.

[the Langolier]

An enchantress is a build. Builds are built around a characters skills and which skills they choose to develop. Hammerdins focus on blessed hammer, hydrasorcs on hydras, trapassin on traps, WW-barb on whirlwind, lightning-fury zons, jabazons, summonmancers, Werebears etc. etc. Every build is going to have "extra" skill points once one or two main skills are maxed out - these points are going somewhere, and that is what this particular guide addresses.

>eg. "She enchants her sword with fire and her armour with ice." Depending on how purist you want to go, "Some might also enchant their very aura to bleed off damage (ES) and call down bolts from the sky (TS)"
. . . all the while maintaining the theme of fire-and-forget spells.
[I]

Exactly, a theme, like a role. Not a build.

[whyBish]

.

Nice guide, and it has been a pleasure partying with you.

Some comments.

Please leave the first paragraph as it stands. It is not really a stretch to say that Enchant is the most improved skill in 1.10.
Look at the other candidates:
- Skels (yes they are uber now, but they weren't completely useless before)
- Holy Shock (Similar in boost to enchant, but only available to the player)
- Dragon Talon & Co. (Really not a skill improvement but a mechanics change, and again only available to the player)
- Blade skills (Nice boost with carrying portion of weapon damage, but their main feature was, and still is carrying procs)


As to mentioning specific items, I believe that this should also stay. Yes I like to know which mods etc. are useful, but I clean forgot about the demon machine, and didn't realise the speed advantage that it has for sorcs. Prior to reading the guide I thought that Kuko was the best possible bow for enchantresses.

Very interesting to see what backup skills can be mixed in with an enchantress build. I would be interested to see (as mentioned above) a section on what other player builds can be handy to team up with, you listed minion makers, but how do these compare and contrast with conviction pallies / lower resist necros etc. Also what players perform poorly with enchantresses (I assume spellcasters, particularly fire based ones?)

P.S. I hope you don't mind that I gave away a Kuko to a budding basin enchantress, sounds like you have a demon machine anyway :)