Sorc Guide Reposted pt 1

[Aspenor]

I would still petition you consider a GENERAL build to include MT and IMT and save the spell focus for the crowd control build.

Nah, it's been considered, and rejected.

MT and IMT are wastes of feats for most sorcerors.

[Steadfast]

What are some suggested enhancement lines to take for this build? We're trying a 32-point build human version (true neutral, 8 Str, 12 Dex, 16 Con, 10 Int, 8 Wis, 18 Cha).

Thank you,

Steadfast

[Aspenor]

What are some suggested enhancement lines to take for this build? We're trying a 32-point build human version (true neutral, 8 Str, 12 Dex, 16 Con, 10 Int, 8 Wis, 18 Cha).

Thank you,

Steadfast

Sorry it's taken me so long to post enhancements. I'll get to it ASAP.

[Katianara]

No, I did those assumption knowing that 'a specific focus nets a sorcerer a 10% greater chance to fully land that type of spell.' Sure, it's a matter of preference, but I let the SP to the nuker. IMO, the generalist gain more from the Spell focuses as he will need to recast again less often... and some CC are emergency "Oh ****, I'm about to die!!" Recasting is not ressource efficient for the other party members, mostly the cleric. It's a matter of preferences, but I think many generalist sorc will come to the same conclusion as I.

You just changed your argument from one of efficiency, to safety, so that doesn't count either

And a generalist should have the mana, not the specialization.

It comes down to whether it is worth it to trade ~150 spellpoints for a 10% greater chance for one school of spells to not be saved against.

It isn't, and saying that IMT and MT are wastes when compared to a +2 to your save DC on a certain school is silly.

Nah, it's been considered, and rejected.

MT and IMT are wastes of feats for most sorcerors.

You should probably stop declaring yourself an authority on sorcerers and just stick to helpful suggestions.

[Aspenor]

You just changed your argument from one of efficiency, to safety, so that doesn't count either

And a generalist should have the mana, not the specialization.

It comes down to whether it is worth it to trade ~150 spellpoints for a 10% greater chance for one school of spells to not be saved against.

It isn't, and saying that IMT and MT are wastes when compared to a +2 to your save DC on a certain school is silly.



You should probably stop declaring yourself an authority on sorcerers and just stick to helpful suggestions.

Or maybe you should open your mind and just drop it. This is MY thread. You don't have to read it.

[Aspenor]

And a generalist should have the mana, not the specialization.

I refuse to invest in pointless feats. Hence, no MT or IMT on a sorceror.

You argue that "a generalist should have the mana feats!!" just because YOU have them, and because it'd hurt your feelings to be wrong.

You have to think in terms of marginal benefit vs marginal cost, and you obviously aren't.

[Aspenor]

Y

It comes down to whether it is worth it to trade ~150 spellpoints for a 10% greater chance for one school of spells to not be saved against.

It isn't, and saying that IMT and MT are wastes when compared to a +2 to your save DC on a certain school is silly.



You should probably stop declaring yourself an authority on sorcerers and just stick to helpful suggestions.

ROFL

You have an awful high opinion of your opinion, don't you. Notice all the other people in this thread that all agree that MT and IMT are less useful than spell foci and spell penetration feats?

Yes, higher DCs on certain spells ARE worth 150 mana points. Mana is not the end-all-be-all of a sorceror.

And just for the record, I am the ultimate authority on arcane casters, in all respects.

[Aspenor]

If you manage your mana well most end bosses will burn and die quickely with a maximized/extended or empowered/extended firewall. Having both is a waste of mana and overkill. Pick one or the other but dont waste a feat on both.

My response to this is that "most" end bosses is not enough for me.

Also, if you can manage your mana, you can turn on the maximize&empower at any fight you wish and end it in less than 6 seconds.

I can see *maybe* changing empower for a spell penetration feat, but SP feats can be a bit redundant and unnecessary with the right loot.

[jkm]

What are some suggested enhancement lines to take for this build? We're trying a 32-point build human version (true neutral, 8 Str, 12 Dex, 16 Con, 10 Int, 8 Wis, 18 Cha).

Thank you,

Steadfast

if you are going to roll a human go

8 str
8 dex
18 con
8 int
8 wis
18 cha

that way with 2 +3 tomes you are looking at a 34 cha and a 28 con

[jkm]

this MT and IMT argument is going no where. what we really need to do in the guide is break it up by level of the player. MT and IMT are not needed by expert players who carry SS rings and have every piece of optimum gear there is. they are very much needed by the person running their first time sorc/wiz because they are going to make bad decisions (like trying to hold a skelly) and MT/IMT will help lessen the sting.

so it would be better to talk about feats in terms of the players skill level with the understanding that unlike stats and skills, these can be changed.

beginner
MT
extend
IMT
maximize
heighten

experienced
MT
extend
empower
maximize
heighten

or

MT/Spell Pen
extend
maximize
heighten
enlarge/SF

or

MT/Spell pen
maximize
heighten
SF1
SF2

or whatever...

[Varis]

ROFL

You have an awful high opinion of your opinion, don't you. Notice all the other people in this thread that all agree that MT and IMT are less useful than spell foci and spell penetration feats?

Yes, higher DCs on certain spells ARE worth 150 mana points. Mana is not the end-all-be-all of a sorceror.

And just for the record, I am the ultimate authority on arcane casters, in all respects.

what are you talking about Aspenor? No, not everyone thinks that MT and IMT are less useful then spell foci or spell penetration items. You are an experience caster like many others here but if you are going to make a guide for new sorcerers without the input from other opinions you are indeed arrogant.

Oh wait... this is "your" thread. My bad, I must have missed the fanboys, yes sayers and compliments only sign. I'm suprised you have not banned me from your thread and forums yet...

[Fennario]

Here's my take on the whole MT/IMT thing since I have been on both sides of the fence.

I have a Human that I have been playing since release. At level 14 wiith a 32 Cha, Dragonblooded IV, and a PoP X, he had 1808 spellpoints. Now I had always been one of those who loved looking up and seeing that huge SP pool. Since day one, my battle cry was: max Cha, and max those SPs. It was a big thing for me, and really hard to let go of.

After I started playing with Finger of Death, I decided to swap out one of them just to see how useful a Spell Focus School really was. Well, it didn't take long before another shard and 100,000 gold was given to Fred. There was NO question on how much more effecient my favorite character had become.

I am now sitting at 1658 spellpoints. Do I miss looking up and not seeing 1800+ spellpoints? Absolutely. I feel the withdrawl symptoms when I am standing around Stormreach from time to time. But, when I am in the heat of battle, I wouldn't trade my Spell Focus education back for anything. Well, at least not for 150 Sps anyway.

I understand completely it can be hard to let go of MT/IMT. Its just one of those things. But if you just try swapping out one of them, you will see the light like I did.

Now if I could only hit the +3 tome lottery, and get to 34 Cha.

[wiglin]

I agree with Varis that if a build is called a general build then MT and IMT fit more with the theme of a general build. Once you take Spell focus anything you have now by nature of the feat become a little more specialized in one area.

MT and IMT regardless of weather they are needed or not fit better with a general sorcerer because sp will help all spells. I agree that with an already huge magic pool that sorcerers can get by without taking MT and IMT, but that is play style.

This is my opinion: MT and IMT fit better with the theme of a general sorcerer build then any spell focus feat.

This is why: More sp will benefit the sorcerer that is still getting a feel for the job better than the spell focus line. Choosing spell focus and then saying you are a general sorcerer build is a little contradicting.

General: a little bit of everything more sp lets you do that.
Spell Focus: pick your flavor and do it well.

As a sorcerer I would not take MT and IMT. I agree that they are not needed and the spell focus line are more effective, BUT at the point you are no longer a generalist build.

[Fennario]

this MT and IMT argument is going no where. what we really need to do in the guide is break it up by level of the player. MT and IMT are not needed by expert players who carry SS rings and have every piece of optimum gear there is. they are very much needed by the person running their first time sorc/wiz because they are going to make bad decisions (like trying to hold a skelly) and MT/IMT will help lessen the sting.

so it would be better to talk about feats in terms of the players skill level with the understanding that unlike stats and skills, these can be changed.

beginner
MT
extend
IMT
maximize
heighten

experienced
MT
extend
empower
maximize
heighten

or

MT/Spell Pen
extend
maximize
heighten
enlarge/SF

or

MT/Spell pen
maximize
heighten
SF1
SF2

or whatever...

Never looked at it that way. Agreed. Great thought.

[Aspenor]

what are you talking about Aspenor? No, not everyone thinks that MT and IMT are less useful then spell foci or spell penetration items. You are an experience caster like many others here but if you are going to make a guide for new sorcerers without the input from other opinions you are indeed arrogant.

Oh wait... this is "your" thread. My bad, I must have missed the fanboys, yes sayers and compliments only sign. I'm suprised you have not banned me from your thread and forums yet...

If you haven't figured out that I am proudly arrogant about arcane casters, I'll say it a different way:

There are hundreds of different ways to skin a cat. My way just happens to be the best.

[Katianara]

ITT Aspenor calls everyone arrogant for disagreeing with him.

You know, if you'd like to refute a point about why a 10% greater chance to land a spell is better than 10% more mana, I'd be happy to look at the numbers.

If you're just going to go ROFLING@ULMAO, I don't see what you hope to accomplish here.

[Aspenor]

ITT Aspenor calls everyone arrogant for disagreeing with him.

hmmmmm

This is false, I didn't call anybody else arrogant. I called myself arrogant, because I am, and I don't care.

/washes my hands

[Borror0]

You just changed your argument from one of efficiency, to safety, so that doesn't count either

And a generalist should have the mana, not the specialization.

It comes down to whether it is worth it to trade ~150 spellpoints for a 10% greater chance for one school of spells to not be saved against.

It isn't, and saying that IMT and MT are wastes when compared to a +2 to your save DC on a certain school is silly.

Ok, read what you said earlier: Spell Focus is as mana efficient as having Mt and IMT, right?

Now, with the MTsm oyu have to cast again and in the other, it lands perfectly. I know which one I'd pick. I won't try to argue you on the mana efficiency, but come on, it's better to one cast one.

I do agree that it would be better to have MTs as this bguild is under the "generalist" rag, but let's face it, a sorc cannot focus on CC as much a wizard would. So, a generalist is a CC sorc that was clever enough to take nukes for the end fights.

[Steadfast]

if you are going to roll a human go

8 str
8 dex
18 con
8 int
8 wis
18 cha

that way with 2 +3 tomes you are looking at a 34 cha and a 28 con

We went with 10 int to be able to go with three skills (concentration, jump, and UMD) per the original build. This means we can go with 9 dex / 17 con or 12 dex / 16 con (unless we drop to two skills).

I've never come across a +3 tome and I'm not counting on one for this build, never mind two.

Steadfast

[jkm]

if you drop con to 17 you can still get a 26 with a +2 tome. that gives you 3 points for int (i normally run an odd number on int and eat a +1 tome at 1st level)...