[3.9][HC/SC] Soulrend Trickster - Fast mapper with great defenses (League starter/All content)
" Even slower proj is stupid. Why would you slow down the projectile and lose more multipliers? Only SPELL damage modifiers/chaos apply to the DoT. All the more damage on slower proj goes to waste, for what, 1 extra reapply in the time you would just recast anyway? Clearly you don't know what you're talking about either. |
|
Please update skill tree.
|
|
meep
แก้ไขล่าสุดโดย DamageIncorporated#7815 เมื่อ 12 มี.ค. 2019 20:09:02
|
|
" https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/1894471/page/1 Read up, pal. |
|
Build can already be played, or not the best idea?
|
|
" Thanks buddy dude pal |
|
If im reading the soulrend correctly it can apply the dot multiple times as it passes through an enemy. So the slower it goes the more "ticks" it will get.
But essentially if you cast fast enough there shouldnt be any downtime on the dot. So either you get fast enough cast speed or you want a slow projectile no? |
|
I have a couple questions, first why do you prefer trickster over occultist? and also what does that build use to keep mana to spam skills?
IGN: hyrenfreak
|
|
" You would want a slow projectile if the projectile damage on the gem actually benefited the gem. Let's say you're absolutely against the duration scaling, efficacy, by itself, is 40+% MORE damage, on top of whatever allegedly little the skill duration does. Slower projectiles slows your projectile so it's ticking the dot for slightly longer (assuming the monster doesn't move), the entire 'more' multiplier on the gem is absolutely wasted, so you're slotting a gem that effectively says '%less projectile speed' as its only modifier. แก้ไขล่าสุดโดย xemath#7523 เมื่อ 8 มี.ค. 2019 23:20:47
|
|
I get what ure saying that projectile dng does nothing. But lets say a slower proj gem makes the dot tick 2 times instead of 1. That in itself is a 100% more multiplier. This is just all hypothetical but that would be how it works right? Im not saying its worth going for cus its probably not
|
|