Well, depending on what kind of buffs we get in 2.6.6, this build might become much, much stronger.
Fire Slam won’t benefit from our Fjord Cutter, but it will benefit from the buffed Peak and Destruction Bracer. It would also benefit from our revised BK Wedding Band, and our revised Fury of the Ancients (if you run MOTE6+IK2). So, yeah, it won’t be as strong as Pro-Slam, but it will be much improved over its current iteration if we get our desired buffs (particularly List 2).
And if you’re running LON, well, that’s gonna be much stronger as well. I’m guessing you run Leorics or Andy’s + Cinder Coat + Magefist + Destruction Bracers + Axe of Sankis + Pig Sticker, and probably Cube Peak. Rings are–what? Band of Might, CoE, and Zodiac?
If you take Zodiac and PoC and stack CDR, you can probably get perma-IP, and possibly close to perma-COTA if you take that as well. Hmm. Will be interesting to see where that goes next Season.
It is a build that suits my preferred playstyle as much as possible rather than being efficient.
Skills are Cleave, SS, Leap, Ground Stomp, War Cry and Berserker.
Equipped items: Peak, Cindercoat, Leorics, Bracers of Destruction, St Archew’s Gage, Lut Socks and Ess of Johan, the rest are ‘filler ancients’. It is a non-seasonal char, so LoN is equipped in the ring slots.
Cube: Furnace, Nemesis and Unity.
I could use Band of Might instead of Unity, which would be a rather large defensive boost, but I don’t like to be funneled in a playstyle where I have to use Leap or Ground Stomp all x seconds. I much rather prefer it if the flow of gameplay and the time when I use skills come naturally.
Berserker does not have 100% uptime, not even close, but I prefer it that way, because I have to choose when I use it, which makes using it much more interesting.
Ess of Johan is my all time favorite legendary item, although its internal cooldown could be reduced or removed to make it proc more often.
I could use Furious Charge with the Dreadnought rune (which gives Furious Charge 3 charges) instead of Leap with Lut Socks, because FC would give better manuverability and more freedom on when to use the skill compared to Leap with the 2 second window from Lut Socks, but I just kinda like the fantasy of leaping with brutal force a lot. I just think it is sad that Leap only has one charge, henche my proposal for giving it 2 default charges and one additional one via a rune that I suggested in this thread. It would make the use of Leap so much more useful as both a tool of engagement but also as a tool for escaping, and also a lot more enjoyable.
I also like builds that use Primary skills and do not just spam their main resource spending skill all the time, because it creates an interesting ebb and flow of the resource that you have to manage and a more interesting and satisfying rotation on how to use your skills, hench I use Cleave.
=================================
That build is not really efficient when you compare it to others and it certainly isn’t competitive, but for me it is a ton of fun when I want to play it. I wish D3 would support all builds that follow a basic build structure instead of predetermined set-meta builds, but that ship has long sailed since it would require a complete redesign of the itemization, but that build is as close as it gets to what I would like to play under optimal circumstances…
=================================
I also have a LoN Hammer of the Ancients builds that uses Revenge, which synergizes very well with the more close combat of HotE, that also is a ton of fun…
I’m really hoping for the buffs. I’m also hoping if we don’t get them, free and rage don’t get too discouraged. Even if we don’t get them this patch, seeing all the talk has been good, and will hopefully proc the change eventually.
Honestly, I wouldn’t mind waiting a while longer since I feel like it might take the devs a good bit of time to make more substantial changes to Barb. If tomorrow we were told “we’re working on it, but it won’t be ready till August” , that would significantly increase my hopes of getting some good results.
The current patch notes are, to put it mildly, beyond disappointing.
I’m going to contact Nev directly and ask for clarification. Giving us Mortick’s but nothing else? That’s like throwing a bone to a starving dog except, whoops, the bone is made of rubber.
No need. Most of your answer lies in the patch notes. It’s important for us to balance what we can do with how many resources we have available to do them, and to do as much as we can for as many players as we can. For this patch, we focused on items as many players as possible could use, with a couple noted exceptions that were long-standing requests. Mortick’s Brace was a good fit for this, because we agree Barbs needed a significant boost.
We wanted to make sure to include something for Barbs, but that doesn’t mean we are done forever. I have a blog coming soon™ (I hate using this because memes, but it applies here as it’s working its way through various approvals and still needs localization) that will explain more of what you can expect from patch to patch in the future. Please bear with me. Transparency takes time and a lot of coordination.
Wow. Mortick’s Brace. Yep, that’s all the Barb class needs for perfect balance.
Wait, there are players that can’t play Barbarian? And by that logic, we’ll never get buffs to a single class or class specific item ever again, right?
Thanks for the reply, Nev, but this doesn’t add up.
Mortick’s Brace doesn’t offer Barbs a significant boost. It does very little to only a few of our builds. At best, it’s a lateral move: we swap current items for Mortick’s and gain the same exact bonus.
I think you can understand our frustration: This patch has nothing of substance in it for Barbs. These items address none of our concerns or problems.
That’s completely understandable, and I also understand that your hands are often tied–we all have bosses, after all. But I think we need some clarification here:
Are Barbs going to get additional buffs?
Even if we have to wait a Season or two, that’s fine. We’re willing to wait if it means getting meaningful buffs. But we’ve been on the backburner too long–the data in our proposal paints that picture clear as day. So do the various data analyses that we’ve done Season after Season.
I literally cannot promise you’ll get everything you want or have proposed, and honestly, that would be a bit unfair to ask of anyone. Some changes proposed might be literally impossible, or pose such significant engineering risks that we can’t pursue them. As an example, we’ve encountered cases where what might be one great change to the game is such a risk it means we can’t add three other things, either because of the work involved adding it or testing issues arising. There’s dozens of factors that go into class balance requests, feedback, changes, and bugs that I cannot begin to list here (largely because I have a lot of other work to do today with the PTR live, my apologies).
Please wait for the communication I’ve already mentioned. I know you all have been more than patient. But I’m asking for a little bit more while I work within the limitations I have to get you the information you’re asking for.
That’s completely understandable. Our proposal was always split for this reason. List 1 is just inflated numbers on existing items. It represents what we need in order to deal meaningful damage with our builds.
List 2 is, of course, the dream list–the stuff that would truly fix all our problems, but that we’re less likely to get for the reasons you mention in your response.
Regardless, we need buffs. Please know that our frustration isn’t directed at you–we’re not looking to shoot the messenger! But I feel comfortable speaking for the Barb community when I say that this patch as it currently stands feels like a slap in the face.
That’s completely reasonable. I certainly don’t want to add more stress to the pile, and I appreciate the assurance that we will get the info we want.
How difficult is it in general to change the percent modifiers for a given set bonus? It seems that a simple solution to underoerformibg sets is to give a simple numbers boost. In this scenario, no game mechanics are being changed and it would be a seemingly straightfoward, albeit inelegant solution.
That is why I said it wasn’t “barb-centric”. I would say in general that some 6 piece class sets underperform in comparison to alternate choices. I am not a programmer but in some cases a simple number change can help remedy the problem to increase build diversity.
" when replying to the blue