Talk: A/R PvE Promise Assassin

This build is fail. see Dwarven Promise Spiker 209.173.126.163 10:44, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

To be honest, this bar would not work to well for PvE. Atleast 95% (Assumption) of PvE is just groups of 5 or 6 foes, even more. Death Blossom spam would work a lot better than this.Zeecron 19:15, 27 February 2008 (EST)

This is horribly bad. 2 attack chains and Assassin's Promise, end of story. --GuildofDeals 19:16, 27 February 2008 (EST)

??? Please... elaborate.--68.102.139.94 22:23, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Suggestion:

Probably more damaging, LR gives defense boost and IAS at the same time, recharge countered by AP auto-recharge. Probably best bar since BLS nerf killed that other LR dagger chainer (it was very fun to play). — Rapta (talk|contribs) 23:38, 27 February 2008 (EST)

/agreed I made the build, and I'll also change skills accordingly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.102.139.94 (contribs) 08:32, 28 February 2008.

Try the attributes as follows: <pvxbig> [build prof=Ass/Ranger Crit=8+1 Dagger=12+1+1 Deadly=10+1][Assassin's Promise][Unsuspecting Strike][Lotus Strike][Twisting Fangs][Black Spider Strike][Blades of Steel][Lightning Reflexes][Resurrection Signet][/build] </pvxbig> See if that works out any better for you. Selket Shadowdancer 07:39, 28 February 2008 (EST)

If this is not a hero build, use PvE-only skills, please. There's a reason why they're PvE-only, that's because they're ZOMFG OVERPOWERED. Rickyvantof 07:57, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Some suggestions as to what you think should go in the bar would go a long way. Selket Shadowdancer 07:59, 28 February 2008 (EST)

I'll list it as a variant for PvE, but could someone move this to A/R Promise Assassin (I have no clue). I believe this could fill a spot in RA as of now :DSneakysmith12 17:04, 28 February 2008 (EST)

No AoE, i'd run it like this:

But that's just me--Goldenstar 21:28, 2 March 2008 (EST)

Nah, you'd rather: A. make sure your single target is dead, so you're certain AP gets triggered, and B. Death Blossom's AoE will damage other foes, indeed, but that could drop their health so low that Unsuspecting Strike's bonus damage won't trigger on them. It's better right now. -StarSeeker | My talk 10:56, 3 March 2008 (EST)

To be honest, if I've taken more than 10% health off of other foes just by killing 1 of them, I wouldn't be too bothered about losing 50-60 damage against one of those other foes. - zomg! PANIC! 11:03, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Against weaker enemies, probably yeah. I was thinking of tougher stuff... So it depends on the situation. Variant worthy, I guess. -StarSeeker | My talk 12:50, 3 March 2008 (EST)

Votes

As stated in rapta's vote "Needlessly low"... please do explainSneakysmith12 20:51, 4 March 2008 (EST)

If the voters do not wish to do so, then this should probably be placed on the Noticeboard. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 19:52, 5 March 2008 (EST)

To User:Crossfirexiv, CD/CA isn't "better" in this case because they work exactly the same as LR in an AP build, except they require hitting crits to maintain and are shatter-able. That's why LR is here to begin with. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:03, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Rapta, you need a reason, now that all of the votes you refer to are gone. -Shen 21:09, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Please, explain. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:18, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Never mind. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:21, 5 March 2008 (EST)

(EC)I'm assuming you meant to address the previous votes when you start off with "Above votes are needlessly low and flawed". -Shen 21:21, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I should read more. -Shen 21:22, 5 March 2008 (EST)

I went ahead and added some comments anyways. No problem. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (EST)

When you say "able to spam Unsuspecting more = even more damage", you assume this is attacking a different (new) target. Which is to say, casting AP again, which means the lag is more significant. Furthermore, the bonus damage from Unsuspecting is a good bit lower. -Shen 21:39, 5 March 2008 (EST)

An MS/DB assassin can't run Unsuspecting as efficiently as this one can, is what I'm getting at. Even if you, say, miss your AP, you can use Unsuspecting + rest of your chain, with exception of BSS (unless someone else on your team has a hex, which is likely). — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:14, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Miss AP so the IAS and a great deal of energy is shot. I see your point about Unsuspecting, but what I mean to say is, that 20 damage certainly puts this below a DB spammer. If you get to the point where it is quite beneficial to be able to Unsuspecting on many targets, it's stupid not to take Death Blossom. -Shen 17:31, 6 March 2008 (EST)

The point is to not miss AP. Parts of your combo can be executed without AP's precasting. Also, Death Blossom can be equipped if needed, so the "no AoE damage" point is null. Also part of using AP is not being bad. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 18:07, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Realize I took "miss" to mean purposefully neglecting to use AP, whereas you use "miss" to mean have the skill recharge/energy part fail, due to hex removal/being bad. In any case, to say that you can still use some of your combo (indeed, even all of it) without using AP doesn't contribute to the discussion. If you miss AP, you are screwed, regardless. I don't mean to say this is a particularly negative aspect, only that it means nothing if you can use your combo, and have a severe energy deficit without AP. I hope you don't misunderstand me. Your logic is faulty on the second account. This can use DB once, only once, per target. We assume we have a target with a fairly high amount of HP, because otherwise, the 5 chain combo won't see optimal use. This would DB once, replacing BoS as the last attack skill. What you need to realize is that a general MS/DB spammer deals with a target having a similarly high amount of HP, and that means much more Death Blossom'ing, achieving AoE damage at a much higher frequency, as compared to this chain. -Shen 11:00, 8 March 2008 (EST)

The margin between that AoE and this AoE is very small. This has much higher concentrated damage on single targets. When it all comes together, the difference is usually minimal. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 13:12, 8 March 2008 (EST)

272 bonus damage (AP version) vs. 301 bonus damage (MS/DB version), each executing a 5-chain combo, the same number of dagger hits. Delayed Degeneration adds an extra 20 damage after BoS hits. So the moment after each has finished their combo, Moebius has executed Death Blossom twice, achieving decent AoE damage, and outpaced this in terms of single target damage. I'm not taking into account the 3/4 sec primer, either, though this can be quite fairly, and necessarily, equated with the noticeable gap in between the first MS and the second DB, given the condition that the MS/DB sin's combo hasn't put the target under 50% health. So then you might say after the conditions are stacked, that is, after the combo from both sins have been executed, the condition degeneration from the AP version puts this a bar up from MS/DB. This isn't the case. This AP sin simply can't do anything after executing the chain, whereas a MS sin can continue attacking. So in terms of AoE damage and single target damage, MS wins, though my single target spiel doesn't matter nearly as much as the AoE damage from Death Blossom; I just needed to see for myself whose assessment of single target damage is correct. Bottom line, your "much higher concentrated damage on single targets" statement is not true, so in effect, a MS sin gets single target damage of a greater caliber and two smacks of Death Blossom. -Shen 10:25, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

The other scenario would be Death Blossom instead of BoS, in which case, this is still inferior on both accounts. -Shen 10:32, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

Wrong again. The target would be dead and you would have moved on to the next target. And, again, the damage difference is minimal (as you've stated, oh wait, this might even have more damage, as you've stated). So it's been made obvious that this doesn't deserve the 1 or 0 effectiveness rating you seem to like to boast. A build that is able to dish out big single target damage and/or AoE damage, with better energy management as well, including being a build of its kind (again, no currently vetted build exploits this), should probably be voted on fairly. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 12:30, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

But when you get to the higher areas of PvE, this can't really get through those tougher foes. Why kill each individual creature when you can take them all down simultaneously with MS/DB? --GuildofDeals 12:32, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

A MS/DB can't solo them either. In either case, you need supporting damage from teammates anyways. If you need to camp a single enemy in PvE for such a long time, your party is probably bad (yes, bad in PvE. I went there). — Rapta (talk|contribs) 12:33, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

If "[t]he target would be dead and you would have moved on to the next target", then the Death Blossom spammer has higher damage output, so therefore, it can move onto another target, one already hit by DB's AoE. I have no idea what you mean to say. I'm not sure how you can say "this might even have more damage, as you've stated", because I been saying the opposite.-Shen 12:57, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

You stated it above that the "AP version puts this a bar up from the MS/DB". The AoE spread is not as dangerously huge as you make make it out to be, from a DB Assassin, and is roughly equivalent to that of this build when it all comes together (face it, you don't always hit 3+ enemies, even in PvE). And as you described either build, one outputs higher Single Target damage, one with AoE damage. So you can even say that these are incomparable. Sure, AoE damage is nice, but you can achieve it with both builds. And again, I've yet to state that this is superior to a generic Death Blossom Mobieus Strike build, but this is a perfectly viable alternative that is effective and fun to play. It's effective in most PvE areas. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 13:22, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

This doesn't have more single target damage. I said it doesn't, you're saying I am, and now I'm wrong? I'm going to be the mature one and wait for a third opinion. -Shen 20:07, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You said it does above, and I'm going by your words. And again, the issue at hand is this entire idea of "not MS/DB, so insta-trash". It's been discussed before. A lot of things are inferior to MS/DB. However, it doesn't mean it's horribad. The same can be said with every other build we have. Before this gets derailed again, take a look at your rating, rather than your comment. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Your logic is ludicrious. You agree that this is less damage. I'm saying this is less damage. Now you're telling me what I'm saying? My words were "in terms of AoE damage and single target damage, MS wins" That is unequivocal. And you're removing my vote based on what is either an apparent overlooking on your part of the words on the page, or your arbitrary judgment of what makes trash or not. I'll update my reason to get the point across. -Shen 20:19, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

There's no use of logic here. You stated it deals more damage in one point, and it deals less damage on another point. I removed the part that contradicted the other. And, if you do follow your logic, you're giving a rating that's much lower than an outstanding one, but only state a small difference (face it, they are different builds anyways). — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

"in terms of AoE damage and single target damage, MS wins". Stop making stuff up. -Shen 20:26, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

"after the conditions are stacked, that is, after the combo from both sins have been executed, the condition degeneration from the AP version puts this a bar up from MS/DB" Hm? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:28, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

"This isn't the case. This AP sin simply can't do anything after executing the chain, whereas a MS sin can continue attacking". To which you responded, "The target would be dead and you would have moved on to the next target. And, again, the damage difference is minimal". That refutes nothing. And you're admitting there is a damage difference. I don't know what in the world you are trying to say. -Shen 20:37, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

That refutes your "almost no single target damage" complaint as expressed by your rating. I never said that there was no damage difference, I was following what you said. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:39, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I never said that. I said it doesn't achieve single target damage of the same calibre. -Shen 20:40, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmm, and how big is this "calibre" of yours? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:41, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Can't weasel on semantics anymore. -Shen 20:45, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, it's pretty important. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:46, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You knew what I was talking about. -Shen 20:47, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Not really. Explain. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

If you don't disagree, I have nothing further to explain. -Shen 20:51, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually, you still need to explain this "calibre" statement. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:51, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

It's not as good as MS/DB. You'd think if you can't achieve AoE like MS can, you'd have greater single target damage, but that's not the case. -Shen 20:55, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Not what I was aiming for. There's a difference between "no AoE damage and single target damage" and "slightly lower AoE and single-target damage". — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Does that mean we're going off what's not on the main bar? -Shen 20:59, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

We're going off the entire build. Again, you're trying to avoid the issue being posed. This build is different than the MS/DB, we don't vet only MS/DB builds. Single target damage is important, and this has a lot of it.— Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:00, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You can't swing the scenario and say this has less less single target damage, then say this has less less AoE damage at the same time. Pick one. -Shen 21:03, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You were the one stating that, and now your statement's been clarified. This has both high AoE and single-target damage, based off a difference concept than your average Assassin carrying Moebius Strike and Death Blossom. Your vote reflects a build that outputs neither and unusable, which this isn't. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:08, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You don't vet a build just because it works. You vet a build based on how it compares with other builds that try to accomplish the same task. -Shen 21:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I beg to differ. Builds, especially in PvE, are based on variety and having a whole bunch of things come together and work properly and be effective. By your logic, every single build other than MS/DB belongs in trash. This accomplishes what it's designed to do well (rip single targets apart with fast attacks), and even you've admitted that it works. By that statement, you obviously don't know how a lot of the things work here. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:15, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

There've been Grenth's Grasp builds that get welled because they're inferior to cripshot. That's refuting your fallacious view of how things work here. Something viable is not something that just "works". -Shen 21:24, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

I don't see Cripshots running around in PvE very often, are you saying that you do? And what about, everything in the game, from running balanced when it's unfavorable to run balanced, pressure during spike meta, etc...? Being able to run different things that work well is the point here. From your narrow statements here, it's made quite obvious that you don't know what's viable. And a trash vote is definately not something that works nor viable. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:28, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

And for that matter, Ursans are pretty good, I heard. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:29, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

You aren't crafting a coherent argument. A trash vote means it doesn't perform up to par. Nothing further. -Shen 21:39, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

As I said, it's quite clear that you misunderstand the mechanics of a rating system as opposed to a simple checkbox. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:41, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

In addition to that, it's quite clear that you think that a build has to either fit your sort of "optimal section", and with only extreme voting taking place. By that logic above, a build is either 5-5-5 or trash. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 21:40, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

When you refuse to make a logical argument, and instead try to argue against my supposed "optimal selection" of builds, there's no cause for you to cry flawed logic. The point of this argument is nothing more than how well this build performs. You aren't grasping my reasons in my vote, nor have any of your reason refuting my vote demonstrated you have the knowledge to make an arbitrary decision, especially after you haven't waited for a third opinion. Twice. And in both these instances you seem to think you can strike my vote based on completely false and/or flawed premise. If you can't grasp my argument, nor provide your own refuting it, there's nothing to do but to wait for a third opinion. I didn't think I'd have to spell this out for you.

First case was when I'm saying this is inferior to MS/DB in both single target and AoE damage. To which you responded my reasoning was a direct contradiction of my post on the talk page. Firstly, using my rationale to cancel my rationale is an extremely weak reason to strike a vote. That is completely disregarding the factual basis required to strike a vote. Especially in this case, where you, in fact, agree with my rationale that you say is contradictory with what I said on the talk page. Realize how flawed your basis in removing my vote is here. Then, add to that your second mistake, as if removing a vote on such a ridiculous basis isn't bad enough; my contradictory stuff is actually not contradictory in any way; you make it so for no reason at all, you contradict yourself in saying my vote and talk page stuff is contradictory. Which, you know, it wasn't; we hopefully won't have to go back to establish this. So for whatever reason, you realize how ridiculous this is, then attempt to redirect your argument; your argument is that all my argument says is "anything not MS/DB blows". You say that it's wrong for me to say this isn't trash just because it's not MS/DB. I understand perfectly well what point you are trying to make. I understand you are saying we should keep this because it works fairly well. I understand, also, that your entire basis for having an argument that actually provides a reason to strike my vote is that this is not so far below MS/DB that it's trash. And here, you really need to rethink your argument.

Getting two or more Death Blossoms on one target is infinitely preferable to only one. Getting two or more Death Blossoms, and putting higher single target damage concurrently, that's like awesome. It's the AoE damage that makes Death Blossom spamming Death Blossom spamming; saying you won't always hit 3 targets tells how weak your argument is. But the gaping flaw in your argument that this is only "slightly" lower than a MS/DB's damage is your failure to notice where the Death Blossom is in the chains of each respective sin. You're going to need a near-full health guy for you to pull of the entire chain in this sin (which ends with DB, of course), whereas the standard sin hardly suffers from this inflexibility. The third attack, as opposed to the fifth, deals the damage. There is no basis for you to say this isn't trash because it's only slightly less effective than MS/DB, simply because it's more than only slightly. Well, then, we move onto the whole counter bit, which I detailed in my vote, but I need to explain more clearly. You're saying that this is better because you can't get shattered. At least you can still deal damage if CA is shattered; you're worthless if you get AP removed. You're also worthless is AP gets disrupted. To which you say this statement is flawed because you're just bad if you let KD get you, and that it's no different from letting Evisc get disrupted. In both these points you are incorrect. In places that can Knock you down, it's going to take a freakin god eye to be able to know when all the KD's are going off (more than one or two people are going to be able to, especially in EoTN areas). Secondly, letting AP get disrupted can't be likened to getting Evisc disrupted. You can't do jack squat if AP is. Your logic is terrible. Another reason this build fails is because it depends so heavily on lotus strike. Same problem D-slashers have with spamming SY, as compared to a Paragon. Sure the MS/DB can be countered, but not to the degree this sin can.

To reiterate: don't act without a legit premise. I was perfectly fine with waiting for a third opinion; you're the one who chose jump the gun and act irrationally. -Shen 17:35, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

A third opinion for what? There were many of these "third opinions" that resulted in votes that were actually fair. As what was already stated above, but you failed to read, don't be bad with AP, don't get interrupted. Your own failed judgment about KD's and whatnot, and D-Slashers as well. There's little that needs to be said here (wtf, Dslashers are bad now, by your logic). So really, you're quite hypocritical in saying anything like "your logic is terrible", when you're the culprit of fallacies yourself (as noted above, again, already). There is every basis (see every other build on this wiki) to say that this isn't just a random trash build. Your voting habits, again, propel you to vote either extremely high or extremely low on various builds, because of your laughable basis "this isn't X build". Again (damn, I hate repeating myself), we don't host only one build. Every single argument you've brought up thus far has been (this is not like MS sins, so it's obv. should be deleted). — Rapta (talk|contribs) 17:51, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

tl;dr: Stop thinking that it's a "me not grasping your argument" thing, because it's not. Stop using bad logic and poor reasons to vote something different down. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 17:54, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I never said D-slash was bad. You blatantly made that up. I was hoping to refer you to a build with the same problem I bring up. -Shen 18:04, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Hm? So anything that's likened to your flawed logic is immediately disproved because you conversely state it's somewhat different? Interesting. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 18:08, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

There's nothing flawed about it. I can put up my "I'm right, you're wrong" blinders too. There is nothing I imply in likening a build to another, for the purpose of giving a reference. You can keep saying there is, but there isn't. -Shen 16:26, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

If only that first sentence there was true. In this specific case, I'm stating things that are pretty obvious (in terms of flaws in logic). — Rapta (talk|contribs) 19:51, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmm... is it me or is Rapta's and Shogun (however you spell it) votes contradicting each other? I would like BOTH to review theirs just for my interest. We here are not trying to get builds to pass through but good builds to pass through. It is only a favor of mine to ask for your help in this endeavor. Sneakysmith12 00:22, 6 March 2008 (EST)

... what? — Rapta (talk|contribs) 00:30, 6 March 2008 (EST)

Except for the replacement of deaths charge with an attack skill this is just a rerun of the old relentless spiker build that was archived de to nerf of black lotus strike. Which isn't a really bad thing cause before the nerf it was an extremely fun build..... If this or something can make it viable would be a real kick. oopsey fergot to sign Ravskau 23:11, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

build:A/any Dwarven Promise Spiker. very different build, but a lot of the original "AP-based massive teleporting spiker" feel and fun.--Reason.decrystallized 20:38, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, like I'm saying, these type of builds are very much viable. It's a break off the MS/DB stuff and works well in PvE. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:40, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

My Opinion

<pvxbig> [build prof=A/R Crit=8+1 Dagger=12+1+1 Deadly=10+1 wil=2][Assassin's Promise][dryders defense][Unsuspecting Strike][Lotus Strike][death blossom][Black Spider Strike][critical agility][Resurrection Signet][/build] </pvxbig> Deep Wound FTL. Better energy management ftw. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Kinda overkill on energy with this bar, since the bar right now has fine energy management. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:46, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

OK... :( --- Ressmonkey (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Also, IAS from LR is very win. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:54, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Critical agility is win too, and dryders lasts longer, costs less, and gives bonus elemental armor. --- Ressmonkey (talk) 20:56, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, but that takes 2 slots. The CA suggestion is taken though, since it's in Variants already and the only difference is that it gets shattered. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 20:57, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

From AN

Still needs a third opinion. -Shen 18:52, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

What he means by KD being a main counter is that you only have 12 seconds to get the combo out: 3/4 after cast + getting to them + the entire combo = about 7 seconds. If you get KD in the chain, even if it doesn't interrupt a skill, you are two seconds behind MINIMUM. If it does catch a skill, you are shutdown much more than most other assassin builds, which can start up again in 2-6 seconds, this is shutdown for a full 45 seconds.--The Gates Assassin 22:27, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Erm, you don't cast AP prematurely. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 22:29, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

The problem with not precasting is that you have to either break your chain and mess up the spike or cast it after you finished the spike and have nothing left to finish off the mob. the hex dependency of BSS is also a little problematic. and, you will often fire off one last attack skill before casting AP, only to find that your attack skill + whatever your teammates did kill the mob before you could get AP off. on the other hand i would never, ever, cast AP before i was already standing next to the target in a build w/o shadow step, so the getting to them bit isn't really an issue.--Reason.decrystallized 05:52, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm... well here is a third opinion then Shen... sorry it took so long... how does it make sense to compare this build agaisnt MS/DS... usually they don't have Deep Wound... this build does... So saying that this build only has +272 damage vs +303 damage is horribly wrong. For instance lets take a 500 hp foe... that means that DW would take out 100 hp... as you can see... dw adds a substantial amount... during the spike (that means MS would still have 197 dmg to go where this has 128 to go). This damage is meant to be higher concentrated as in the average mob for PvE you will have casters in the back of warriors... so this can pick them off in a quick amount of time.

Also, you have to factor in bleeding... which while it is only there because its free with deep wound... it adds a bit of damage... about 6 tops over the rest of the spike... 122 to go.

That's your third opinion --Sneakysmith12 09:01, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Jagged Strike/Unsuspecting Strike->Golden Fang Strike-Critical Strike/Death Blossom->Moebius Strike->DB->MS... There's your Deep Wound, and Bleeding or big domage lead. I like how you're using Lightning Reflexes, but Moebius Blossom will generally be better because you've got more room for utility. Plus, Build:A/any_Dwarven_Promise_Spiker is better, imo, because it includes 2 knockdowns, and an in-and-out Shadow Step. This isn't that great of a spike and will be out DPSed by Moebius Blossom, while the Dwarven Promise Spiker can't really be compared to any other builds because of how original it is. I don't think this is trash-worthy, just not great. -Mike 12:42, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

This is closer to the other build than Blossom spammers. So really, this isn't comparable to the Death Blossom either. Also a major point is that there's quite a lot of things that can't be KD'ed in PvE. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 13:45, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

That doesn't mean you shouldn't take knockdowns in other areas. The main thing that separates the other build from MS/DB is the knockdowns. What's the point of making a PvE build if it wouldn't be imbalanced (in PvP)? This build looks like it's stuck between PvP and PvE, also known as AB, where spikes are good and the players are as bad as the games AI. -Mike 14:02, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

This bar can just as easily slot in other attacks, as the other one can slot out the attacks. They're both built on the premise of slaughtering enemies quickly and killing the next one. — Rapta (talk|contribs) 14:06, 20 June 2008 (EDT)