1.3 The Community's Molten Strike, Face Melting Build!! 1h+shield and 2h variants available
In Rampage i've played a marauder with molten strike.. the build is almost identic to this one.. but i used Aegis Aurora instead of Lioneye's shield. it was pretty awesome.i reached like 20K dps with AOF. and i used dual curse
to counter the fire rezilient critters. Revert the loot changes. Remove the stupid archnemsis.
|
|
Re-designing this build is going to be fun!!! Ill see about getting a preliminary one up maybe tomorrow. There has been a significant drop in block nodes but overall what LOOKS to be a very significant raise in damage. I still need to compare the numbers. Also now it may be better to start as a Templar, will check both variants.
GGG has stated that the released tree is not final so there may be another release, mostly affecting the duelist section, in the future. Also changes to the build may depend on how the reactional melee skills will function. update: Have a few variants for the build and the one I am leaning towards involves dropping block nodes all together... that Templar start is looking more and more promising. Last edited by Kartikdon#5867 on Dec 4, 2014, 11:37:11 PM
|
|
One question about 'Deals 120% of base damage'. I'm not entirely shure at what point this modifier applies. Especially in combination with %xx of Physical damage added as cold/fire/lightning damage and +xx added damage from gear.
Last edited by kahzin#4293 on Dec 6, 2014, 1:50:33 PM
|
|
Hey, would you mind posting some new skill tree ideas? I have some myself, I am even considering starting as a ranger.
Was thinking something along these lines to maximise % max life, there is a lot of 1h/shield/sword nodes available on the way, seems pretty flexible: https://poebuilder.com/character/AAAAAgEAxthYY4zPPfxfP_ZI7w4UIHk5fuIaPoIH8kHSIZ7N6dXZfM9-rY12rFBH8i826AHnpzAyfoZgKaVOKrZBQzEbyITvYSEaVWSjBS1673TtYEsYkbyfFE38S3zZ9zLqGEp945-Hdmeg_MXdDVuvpDnQgUfiIuIVICzpTZIj9qOK7g5W-o19_lQNzStQHM49D8T2cqnAGlnzrKonL5BVGjjjahZv-tJmnjbpJKoUcfjr5FGLTygql3ljF9d-wQcbqpVmBLFMYA== Would probably take the 3 endu charges and a 4th one from Oak for cwdt+enduring cry. http://i.imgur.com/8fqgfAh.png Last edited by rinleezwins#0151 on Dec 10, 2014, 11:29:59 AM
|
|
ill post something this evening
|
|
This build really helped me out. I got a 2h Kaom's primacy axe and pretty much breezed through merciless and lower level maps.
It would be awesome, if you could update this thread for 1.3 (and include a 2h build). |
|
1.3 builds posted (please note these are not fully optimized)
!!!WELCOME BACK THREE DRAGONS!! Last edited by Kartikdon#5867 on Dec 13, 2014, 3:41:17 PM
|
|
" |
|
Gear for Kartikbond to evaluate
|
|
I was recently theorycrafting a tanky crit molten strike build.
It would get capped spell block from: - saffell's frame (24% block, 70%-80% spell block conversion (min required: 72%) - stone of lazhwar (50% spell block conversion) - rainbowstrides (20% spell block conversion) - tempest shield (4% block) - 20% inc. block chance from the tree (with a legacy saffell's you can drop this to 17%, or switch to Gang's Momentum or some rare armour boots) - 7% spell block from the witch starting area To deal with attacks it would rely on a high armour rating, coming from: - armour values from helmet, gloves, chestpiece and maybe a doryani's invitation, and a bit from saffell's frame - ~272% inc. armour and 270% inc. shield defences from the tree - a surgeon's granite flask of iron skin (relying on frequent crits for high uptime) - the flask effect nodes from the witch tree And also it would have misc. mitigation from: - the Unyielding notable (reduces crit damage) - the Soul of Steel notable (flat 4% phys mitigation) - 7 endurance charges totalling 28% phys mitigation - +4 max all res from saffell's frame (+5 from legacy saffell's) - +1 max fire res from the tree It's a bit of a twink build, but none of these items are obscenely expensive. Here's my proposed 117pt tree: Let me know what you guys think. Is there enough dps potential left in this build after these defensive choices? Quod efficax non stultum
|
|