Cookie Cutter Builds

[Skandranon]

It seems like it, sorta.  I've built a mage to 60 and played with a hunter for a good long time, and I have NEVER found a mage (myself or someone else) to pick Combustion over Presence of Mind, in the usual fire/arcane build, on my PvP server.  Not once.[right][snapback]85111[/snapback][/right]

I do not know of any mages who have Combustion over PoM on Stormrage, either (although the concept has been kicked around as an Alterac Valley-specific build). I'm guessing savaughn meant to say 31 Arcane/20 Fire, which is indeed the most common mage build on the servers I've checked out (which is to say Stormrage, Tichondrius and Warsong).

20 Arcane is also not popular: people usually go 16, 18, 21, 28 or 31 points into arcane. I haven't seen anyone go for the power eighteen and then decide they need two points in improved mana shield or something.

There are at least five "cookie cutter" builds for mages:

31/20 arcane/fire
33/16 frost/arcane
28/23 frost/arcane
28/23 arcane/fire
30/21 fire/arcane

I know of at least five more builds that people use and are happy with, as well. Mages don't really cookie cutter as much as, say, hunters (though that may change with the talent redesign).

[mjdoom]

This is kind of random, but I want to try something new.

What are the cookie cutter builds for each class?  My goal is to make a bunch of "test" chars, and try builds that no one uses because they are not "viable".  I have an entire week of no fiancee next week, so I have some time on my hands. :)
[right][snapback]85028[/snapback][/right]

If you want to be a little crazy why don't you just build a class on one talent tree. Maybe something like a straight Frost mage (no arcane) or even to take GG's idea a bit farther; a beast only hunter...

[Pesmerga]

If you want to be a little crazy why don't you just build a class on one talent tree.  Maybe something like a straight Frost mage (no arcane) or even to take GG's idea a bit farther; a beast only hunter...
[right][snapback]85143[/snapback][/right]

Not a bad idea :)

[Kevin]

If you want to be a little crazy why don't you just build a class on one talent tree.  Maybe something like a straight Frost mage (no arcane) or even to take GG's idea a bit farther; a beast only hunter...
[right][snapback]85143[/snapback][/right]

That got me to thinking. Do all trees have the same total points you can place? And the answer is of course no. So how much does this lend to cookie cutter choices? Does it impact it? First number is total points you could spend, number paranthesis is total talents in that tree.

Mage: Fire 48 (15), Frost 48 (16), Arcane 49 (15)
Druid: Balance 56 (16), Feral 57 (18), Restoration 57 (15)
Paladin: Holy 51 (15), Protection 52 (14), Retribution 51 (13)
Priest: Discipline 50 (15), Holy 52 (14), Shadow 48 (15)
Rogue: Assassination 55 (16), Combat 63 (19), 55 (18)
Shaman: Elemental 51 (15), Enhancement 57 (19), 55 (14)
Warlock: Affliction 49 (17), Demonology 52 (17), Destruction 53 (16)
Warrior: Arms 59 (18), Fury 60 (17), Protection 53 (17)
Hunter (current): Marksmanship 51 (14), Survival 60 (17), Beast 52 (15)
Hunter (new): Marksmanship 51 (14), Survival 48 (16), Beast 49 (16)

I realize some of the cookie cutter comes from the tree layouts as well. Most arms warriors look alike because 4 of the talents and 20 of the possible points are weapon specialties, 5 and 25 if you count 2 handers in that. So that is more like 45 over 15 talents if you take just one weapon mastery along with 2H spec. If you start looking at useless/marginal talents, such as improved thunder clap in arms, it gets even simpler with some of the choices. Really arms warriors due to where talents are have to choose which weapon spec they want, or you can take no weapon skills and get to 31 while maxing every other skill in the tree.

So the system does lend itself in more than just that one case as well, to cookie cutters.

It's interesting to note how massive the survival tree was changed. 12 fewer points and one less talent. Though I'm wondering how long it will take the griping to have both preperation and counterattack in the tree now. :)

[Brista]

Garrote's already weaker than the other openings, and it still doesn't get all it's ticks in most of the time.  The talent makes it worse - not better.  If I use Garrote anymore, even on a super-armored boss, it's just to laugh.  It's just never worth it, especially considering how often it gets kicked off to the debuff limit (yay, that's changing!).
[right][snapback]85098[/snapback][/right]

OK, let's take this statement:

It's just never worth it

One of the problems with any discussions of this game is that there is a fair amount of jockeying for position that takes place where posters claim their class, skills and playing enjoyment is utterly hopeless in the (realistic) expectation that if enough people complain then they will get a boost

That then permeates through to more serious discussions when intelligent people who should know better repeat spurious arguments which are made for the purpose of influencing developers

Here's the maths for level 60, untalented:

Garotte: 438 damage (can't crit, not reduced by armour), 1 combo point
Ambush: 290 damage + 250% weapon damage (can crit, reduced by armour), 1 combo point
Cheap shot: 4 sec stun, 2 combo points

Now some things are immune to stun so cheap shot is a useless opener on them

So it's a simple question of whether Ambush is ever surpassed by Garotte.

Let's say that the 250% damage component of Ambush is approximately enough to bring it close to the 438 Garotte damage

The maths is very simply does chance to crit outweigh armour reduction? With some bosses that's clearly not going to be so, especially on any Rogue without Improved Ambush. When a boss's armour reaches 50% reduction then 438 unreduced damage will beat 438 halved damage (doubled on crit) whenever it doesn't crit. When a boss's armour surpasses 50% reduction a 438 Garotte always beats a 438 base damage Crit Ambush

There are significant enough advantages with Garotte (low initial aggro, not reduced by armour) that it clearly is worth using sometimes. If you personally never use it, you are playing sub-optimally

As for the Improved Garotte talent it improves damage from 438 to 525.6 damage if the target lasts for 24 seconds or more - something that is reasonably easy to predict

Saying Garotte is never worth using is a disappointing post from you, Quark, your maths is better than that. Sure it may not be worth using if you have pressure for debuff slots or lightly armoured creatures or short fights or talents that boost Ambush but that's situationally, not never. Saying wrong statements just because all the other whiney Rogues on the Rogue forum say them too is beneath you. It makes you sound as if the maths of 438/18 *0.9 * 24 was too difficult for you to work out

There seem to have been too many posts which are rehashes of dumb, over-dramatised attitudes recently: "paladins are noobs because they beat me", "omg I'm gonna quit WoW cos Hunters are getting 2% more life".

This isn't the Blizzard official forums. The etiquette here is still
1. Think
2. Post
isn't it?

[NotSoDarklord]

Here's the maths for level 60, untalented:

Garotte: 438 damage (can't crit, not reduced by armour), 1 combo point
Ambush: 290 damage + 250% weapon damage (can crit, reduced by armour), 1 combo point
Cheap shot: 4 sec stun, 2 combo points
[right][snapback]85156[/snapback][/right]

You made the comparisons for level 60 versions of these skills. Yet to do not offer any reasoning for why angarrote could EVER be a better choice at level 60. I can't think of a situation in which improved garotte might be better. If you are afraid of stealing aggro then there are steps you can take to make sure that the ambush doesn't kill you when it crits for large damage

It's easy to say that there is a use for garrotte us rogues just suck not knowing it... but damned if you're going to bother to think of one. (and yes garotte is ~ok when leveling, level 60 examples would be nice)

[Treesh]

So it's a simple question of whether Ambush is ever surpassed by Garotte. There are significant enough advantages with Garotte (low initial aggro, not reduced by armour) that it clearly is worth using sometimes. If you personally never use it, you are playing sub-optimally

As for the Improved Garotte talent it improves damage from 438 to 525.6 damage if the target lasts for 24 seconds or more - something that is reasonably easy to predict
[right][snapback]85156[/snapback][/right]

Before being capped, Eth did actually have use for Garotte. Those +3 and above elites she would fight either with Taranna or with a full 5 man group. Garotte was the most consistent damage dealer for her on those bigger critters (didn't want to open with cheap shot sometimes because the critters needed to be moved around and such by the tank). She had full points in precision and murder so garotte was more likely to connect than her sinister strikes, backstabs and regular attacks. And because Eth was lower level than those critters (and they had the higher armor too), her melee attacks did piddly amounts of damage. In those cases, both garotte and rupture actually dealt more damage through the fights than her other melee skills. Yes, it's situational, but a lot of stuff in this game is.

Edit: NSD snuck in a post on me. I do agree with him. Growing up, garotte did have its uses. At 60? A cheap shot or ambush is usually better for an opener.

[Brista]

You made the comparisons for level 60 versions of these skills. Yet to do not offer any reasoning for why angarrote could EVER be a better choice at level 60.  I can't think of a situation in which improved garotte might be better.  If you are afraid of stealing aggro then there are steps you can take to make sure that the ambush doesn't kill you when it crits for large damage

It's easy to say that there is a use for garrotte us rogues just suck not knowing it... but damned if you're going to bother to think of one.  (and yes garotte is ~ok when leveling, level 60 examples would be nice)
[right][snapback]85157[/snapback][/right]

I realised this flaw in my argument shortly after I posted

Here's the example, as included in my amended post. Where boss armour > 50% and weapon damage * 250% = 148, Garotte beats crit Ambush

[Quark]

Garotte: 438 damage (can't crit, not reduced by armour), 1 combo point
Ambush: 290 damage + 250% weapon damage (can crit, reduced by armour), 1 combo point
[right][snapback]85156[/snapback][/right]

My Lifeforce Dirk gave me more damage with Ambush than Garrote - and that's a reward from Zul'Ferrak. Why go with a DoT that might not get to it's listed damage and takes up a debuff slot? If you're worried about Ambush aggro, wait an extra second or two.

I'm telling you, I seriously can't think of a single endgame example where Garrote beats Ambush. Especially if you have even a half-decent dagger. The only use I can imagine for it is giving another player a DoT in PvP to prevent stealth ...

Yes, there are theoretical situations where Garrote can surpass Ambush damage. But this isn't mathcraft, and I haven't seen one of those situations yet.

Edit: okay, I thought of two cases where Garrote beats Ambush. One - PvP versus Warriors. They can have so much armor and +def that my Ambush won't crit and will do middling damage. But, frankly, I'd rather stun Warriors. Two - if you're somehow in stealth and disarmed - Garrote doesn't take a Melee Weapon.

[Bob the Beholder]

My Lifeforce Dirk gave me more damage with Ambush than Garrote - and that's a reward from Zul'Ferrak.  Why go with a DoT that might not get to it's listed damage and takes up a debuff slot?  If you're worried about Ambush aggro, wait an extra second or two.

I'm telling you, I seriously can't think of a single endgame example where Garrote beats Ambush.  Especially if you have even a half-decent dagger.  The only use I can imagine for it is giving another player a DoT in PvP to prevent stealth ...

Yes, there are theoretical situations where Garrote can surpass Ambush damage.  But this isn't mathcraft, and I haven't seen one of those situations yet.

Edit: okay, I thought of two cases where Garrote beats Ambush.  One - PvP versus Warriors.  They can have so much armor and +def that my Ambush won't crit and will do middling damage.  But, frankly, I'd rather stun Warriors.  Two - if you're somehow in stealth and disarmed - Garrote doesn't take a Melee Weapon.
[right][snapback]85197[/snapback][/right]

The warrior PvP thing is only one I could think of. I've never played a rogue (past level 13), but one of my friends has had a 60 rogue on a PvP server for a good long while, and I've heard him comment that Garrote is useful and in some way or another fairly powerful against warriors and paladins. I'm not entirely sure how he accomplished it, however (garrote/crippling poison for a DoT kite? Garrote, and then going straight into kidney shot/blind powder/whatever? I dunno), but I'll probably ask him sometime.

[Trien]

Druids:

The "cookie cutter" build: 9/11/31. Popular build which includes the nice healing talents for instances and increases PvP survivability. My current talent setup is as such.

9 in Balance. Usually includes 5 in Nature's Grasp + Improved. The rest can vary depending on playstyle
11 in Feral to get Feral Charge. 5 Ferocity, 2 Imp. Bash, 3 Sharpened Claws.
31 in Restoration to get Innervate at 31 points and Nature's Swiftness at 21 points. Allocation here can vary somewhat, depending on PvE vs PvP focus. Typically 5 Imp MotW. 5 in Furor for rage on shifting (for instant bash or feral charge). Add the 21 and 31 point prereqs, and you're left with 8 points which typically go into the Imp. Regrowth, Imp. Healing Touch, Imp. Rejuvenation, and/or Subtlety slots.

The "swift" or "swift^3" build: 9/21/21. Slightly harder hitting, and the extra stealth speed and abilities are preferred by those who like a more roguelike playstyle.

9 in Balance, as above. 3 into Swiftshifting for full benefit.
21 in Feral to hit Feline Swiftness. Usually includes Feral Charge. Many go with bear faerie fire to be able to keep it on a rogue when fighting them, some with cat faerie fire to be able to destealth a rogue while they are stealthing.
21 in Restoration to hit Nature's Swiftness.

My druid grew up with a swift-like build until the healing demands got too much and I respecced to place more into Restoration. However, that often involved odd group situations, and our understanding of agro control was much less then than now, so I could likely get along well with a swift build today, were it not for innervate being sought after in the 40-man raids. Losing the +50% Regrowth crit rate will also hurt for PvP when you're trying to pull off that last second heal to keep yourself alive.

[Brista]

My Lifeforce Dirk gave me more damage with Ambush than Garrote - and that's a reward from Zul'Ferrak.  Why go with a DoT that might not get to it's listed damage and takes up a debuff slot?  If you're worried about Ambush aggro, wait an extra second or two.

I'm telling you, I seriously can't think of a single endgame example where Garrote beats Ambush.  Especially if you have even a half-decent dagger.  The only use I can imagine for it is giving another player a DoT in PvP to prevent stealth ...

Yes, there are theoretical situations where Garrote can surpass Ambush damage.  But this isn't mathcraft, and I haven't seen one of those situations yet.

Edit: okay, I thought of two cases where Garrote beats Ambush.  One - PvP versus Warriors.  They can have so much armor and +def that my Ambush won't crit and will do middling damage.  But, frankly, I'd rather stun Warriors.  Two - if you're somehow in stealth and disarmed - Garrote doesn't take a Melee Weapon.
[right][snapback]85197[/snapback][/right]

Apologies Quark, my previous maths was wrong. Patch 1.4 added in attack power to Ambush:

Ambush, Backstab, Ghostly Strike, and Riposte now properly increase the attack power contribution by the percent modifier.

http://www.wow-europe.com/en/patchnotes/pa...22-04-2005.html

So basically Garrotte got sidelined when they buffed Ambush. From a big picture viewpoint that's undesireable but it hardly seems something for a Rogue to complain about

[Drasca]

I realize some of the cookie cutter comes from the tree layouts as well.  Most arms warriors look alike because 4 of the talents and 20 of the possible points are weapon specialties,[right][snapback]85148[/snapback][/right]

The same is true of warlock talent trees, once you realize which talents are either useless or completely dysfunctional. The rest is personal preference.

Destruction locks don't take improved shadow bolt because why would they ever want to use Shadow bolt when their best nukes are fire? Otherwise, it's a completely situational PvE talent.

Suppression is situational too, but at 60+ raid levels, it can be worth investing in.

Then there are talents which simply don't work or work extermely marginally, like improved Curse of Agony / Weakness, or pyroclasm which rarely works, or aftermath which takes a debuff slot and only sometimes works-- pure pvp talent.

Once locks learn which talents don't work, they're only going to use the ones that do--but advanced warlocks do go beyond that too and invest in crazy schemes. I've got improved firestone, and I'd like to try fully maxed improved enslave demon so I may attempt doomguard cripple on onyxia. Maybe one day....

[TheWesson]

Well, on the general topic of (avoiding) cookie cutter builds, I'm planning my mage with 31 or more in Arcane.

The final Arcane talent - 35% more damage for all spells, while costing 35% more mana, for 15 seconds, seems useful and fun. In fact, very little in the Arcane tree seems useless.- except, maybe, Arcane Meditation, since mages aren't usually spirit-oriented (or so I hear.) They throw massive damage, run dry, and then drink, is the plan I see so far.

Anyhow, this is my first mage, so we'll see how it goes.

theWesson

[Quark]

Apologies Quark, my previous maths was wrong. Patch 1.4 added in attack power to Ambush:
[right][snapback]85208[/snapback][/right]

In that case I also apologize, since I rushed through reading your post before heading back out :(. I should have noticed that :(

Shouldn't respond to something you haven't fully digested ...

[Brista]

In that case I also apologize, since I rushed through reading your post before heading back out :(.  I should have noticed that :(

Shouldn't respond to something you haven't fully digested ...
[right][snapback]85218[/snapback][/right]

No apology necessary - I should check my facts better before I go into a tirade :blush: