Return of Reckoning

I've been running this build recently (not really, still need r40 - using IR instead of GMM:
RoR.builders - Sword Master

Mostly running for being an off-tank and 1v1s/solo roam. Using 4 piece ruin and anni shoulders with the defense proc sword.
1 question: is EA better than PE?

You're not grabbing Crashing Wave? I'd argue that the CC of a knockdown is one of the biggest things you can bring as an offtank (or have in solo combat). If you're dead-set on getting VB I'd sooner skip GWM and get CW instead, it's just too valuable. I suggest you try it out, speccing CW on RoR was an eye opener for me, rarely used it on live as it was a 13pt ability. Since you can get CW AND ED/WW you should be abusing the hell out of that fact.

EA - first damage tick on application+1 sec, ticks every 1 sec, 4 ticks for ~115 each (with 500 STR), scales with STR, can crit, tied to a normal balance ability, deals spirit damage.
PE - first damage tick on application, ticks every 3 sec, 4 ticks for ~130 each, doesn't scale with STR, can't crit, tied to blade enchantment procs, deals spirit damage.

They perform different roles. PE is stronger in an ED build because of a few factors:

- Every tick of ED procs blade enchantments which proc PE which will deal damage immediatelly so you're getting extra proc damage during your ED channel in addition to Blurring Shock's shock and any group buffs you might have. So more burst.
- Proper use of EA requires you to start your dance (rotation) with Ensorcelled Blow, a normal balance attack every cycle. However in an ED build you will be using BA and optimal utilisation of the tactic is spending as much time as possible in improved and perfect balance. To achieve that you'll be skipping normal balance attacks with an off-gcd Sudden Shift. Not to mention that the low value of normal balance attacks compared to improved and perfect balance attacks (damage, utility) means the optimal way to play is to skip normal balance as often as possible.

EA is stronger in non-ED builds because:

- Non-ED builds tend to have less burst so pressure damage is king. And EA is king of pressure damage, it ticks every seconds, scales with STR and can crit so it will always be good constant damage and makes up for the lower damage/utility on normal balance attacks.
- Since you are proccing blade enchantments less the instant proc value of PE goes down.
- Skipping normal balance is not as important, you won't be abusing the free damage of ED as a perfect balance attack and the free crit BA gives.

However if you're running a survivability build and your offensive stats are low (STR and crit that EA takes advantage of) PE might outperform the damage of EA and enables you to freely skip normal balance. You'll have to weigh the pros and cons to decide which is better for you. I suggest not running both as it's a bit counter-productive.

Btw, keep in mind the defensive sword proc doesn't stack with bonuses of defensive abilities (EF, WoDS).

Edit: Same info from a different source: https://taugrim.com/2009/08/16/war-swor ... cs-part-2/
Edit2: Mixed up VB and PD...

Where does it state that PE deals spirit damage? It only says it deals x amount of damage over 9 secs.

The tooltips are good but not perfect. Iirc the implementation was guided by the testing in this blog post: https://taugrim.com/2009/08/16/war-swor ... cs-part-2/

shaggyboomboom wrote:Where does it state that PE deals spirit damage? It only says it deals x amount of damage over 9 secs.

Spoiler:

It doesn't state it anywhere, but it does deal spirit damage and it has been tested.

On a random mob in Praag: without WoH 21 of PE's damage gets mitigated. With WoH 2 of PE's damage gets mitigated. But don't believe me, go test it out.

The only SM dot tactic that deals physical damage (out of CoT, EA, PE and DI) is DI.

Would like to see some hard numbers of PE->EA in ED build, if not its just theorycrafting.

1. ED build usually means you're dps and str specced, i.e it benefits more from str scaling and crit.

2. Makes no sense to SS through normal balance as those abilities have low ap cost compared to improved balance, and the only time you need to SS is when you dont have AP and need ED for finishing off targets (usually after 1 rotation applying necessary debuffs). I.E you SS through improved balance.

3. PE 25% chance to proc, EA 100% chance to proc.

4. Snb offensive SM is less effective after proc meta nerf.

IMO PE is only usable as scenario score table fluff dmg or extra dmg on top of EA in a more offensive specc replacing rugged tactic. (Then you need guardbot)

Ugle wrote:Would like to see some hard numbers of PE->EA in ED build, if not its just theorycrafting.

I doubt anyone would be able to provide meaningful numbers with no decent way of exporting combat stats and even then the results would likely be flawed because of how dynamic PvP is. The matter of fact is that even if you provide me with numbers in a perfectly set up situation it still is just that, a perfect-world situation with very little impact on real-world situations. While numbers pulled straight out from a 6v6 heavily depend on who you're facing, the player, group comp, lag, battleground, etc... So you'd have to generalise, which is in my opinion the same thing as theorycrafting.

I merely gave examples and my opinion on the two tactics, however you're free to provide us with said hard numbers so we may judge them.

Ugle wrote:1. ED build usually means you're dps and str specced, i.e it benefits more from str scaling and crit.

Not everything in life is black and white. Not every SM is either WW+defensive or ED+offensive build. An ED build is decent even when not fully offensive specced because of the inherent damage from GWM, crit scaling from BA and good base damage on ED. You don't HAVE to go loldps with an ED build to be decent assist damage compared to other tanks. And in fact, I'd argue you're losing more than you're gaining if you're not balancing your offensive and defensive stats because of your diminished usefulness as a tank.

Ugle wrote:2. Makes no sense to SS through normal balance as those abilities have low ap cost compared to improved balance, and the only time you need to SS is when you dont have AP and need ED for finishing off targets (usually after 1 rotation applying necessary debuffs). I.E you SS through improved balance.

On the contrary, it makes no sense to skip improved balance as opposed to normal balance. Improved balance attacks all have a secondary effect, most of them are very useful. Normal balance attacks are all mostly damage, the only useful one would be SS if specced for it. So from that standpoint, seen in a vacuum, improved balance attacks have an edge. You also don't need to be spamming WoH and EF/QI cost 35AP, same as normal balance attacks.

Furthermore if you're slotting BA or PD you want to be making use of them and they provide no bonus in normal balance, skipping it seems logical and optimal.

Ugle wrote:3. PE 25% chance to proc, EA 100% chance to proc.

You're comparing a proc with an effect that isn't a proc which seems a backwards way of doing things. It would be smarter to compare uptime, you'd have to calculate how many attacks you do per second (or per 9 sec, seems easier) on average to see PE's uptime (which lasts 9 sec) and then compare it to the assumed 100% EA uptime. I'd guess that PE has a near 100% uptime as well. Of course neither proc chance nor uptime tells the whole story because of different durations and damage. So you'd still need to set cycles and compare the total damage per several cycles to see which one ends up doing more damage, initial ticks from PE included.

One thing to note is that if you're skipping improved balance and starting your chain off with EB you'll be cutting EA short on non-ED cycles forcing you to either wait 1-2 sec or lose damage. That's because of the non-ED cycle only taking 2 GCDs and EA lasting 5 sec and doing damage on proc+1sec. While with PE you're not losing damage since it deals damage on application. In fact, isn't your whole rotation clunkier if you're skipping improved balance since you can't really ignore applying WoH and QI can you? Which leads to more waiting around/not using SS when you can't skip normal balance in order to apply WoH/QI.

Ugle wrote:4. Snb offensive SM is less effective after proc meta nerf.

IMO PE is only usable as scenario score table fluff dmg or extra dmg on top of EA in a more offensive specc replacing rugged tactic. (Then you need guardbot)

And yet EA is somehow not a scenario scoreboard fluff? I guess you're saying that because of PE proccing off AoE, but with how you already pointed out WoH has a high AP cost and isn't likely to be spammed and GW is simply a waste of immunities I don't see fluff AoE damage being what most SMs do.

I'd argue EA is more of a fluff tactic since it's a simple fire and forget DOT while PE actually deals direct damage which is it's main purpose and benefit.

Whenever the madness with QE ends I'll give you and the rest of the "EA+skipping improved balance" proponents the benefit of the doubt and give it a go for a few weeks. I'll do my best anyway.

Edit: I should stop engaging in meaningful discussion with anyone who doesn't agree with the baseline statement that using Sudden Shift as often as possible is the optimal way of playing an SM. Note that as such all my posts are written with that fact in mind. (Not saying that applies to you, Ugle.)

The reason for me requesting hard numbers is that your post comes off as a statement of facts rather than your opinion based on theorycrafting (or experience).

Offensive specced is not the same as loldps, it means you are more specced towards offense than with a balanced specc both in gear, mastery and tactics. In such a situation you will have more than 500 str, and that needs to be taken into account on the str scaling benefit of EA. Taken out of my ass (also known as from my memory) a EA crit does between 300- 400 dmg with ~700 str ( wich is stackable even with a offensive and fairly balanced specc, see my definition)

As for the usage of SS, it is higly situational, and in a situation when you need burst you usually dont need the secondary beneficial effects of the improved balance skills, making your argument void. (Typically after doing a couple of rotations that means your AP will be depleted and SS is the easiest way to go to perfect balance and free burst). In a defensive situation SS has other uses. In this context however, we were talking offensive situation.

Other than that I can agree all dot tactics can be counted as fluff dmg to various extents. Spamming aoe with PE being the extreme.

Edit: and yes for me personally SS is seldom off cooldown

Yes, it's not playing SM to it's fullest if you don't spam SS all the time.

There is so many variations why you are using SS every single time in your rotations, either basic normal -> perfect / perfect -> improved -> perfect back rotation / improved -> perfect rotation.

It all depends what the situation is for you, eagle flight is a skill when you have very squishy guard getting nuked BW/Slayer you need to keep that +25% parry on you, so you don't melt with him. Other thing is because u need blurring shock on target you need fast rotation to perfect from the start, even when u are running towards enemy you should move to improved to start with WoH/snare on targets.

Last thing is usually you always run out of action pts, so you will want to spend alot of skills from perfect stance.

I'm wondering if it's possible to make a hybrid build for SM. Y'know, sword and shield who is a decent tank but can also deal a fair amount of damage (though obviously not as much compared to an all-out DPS path).