how about 2 players and 6 heroes? CABOSE(LVPoW)"Hey chicka bum bum!" 19:07, 16 September 2008 (EDT)

1 player and 7 heroes is way more awesome imo. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 18:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Masochism is bad (well, in game), as you have soul reaping. (You could also probably get away with 10+1+1 soul reaping and buff your heals up a little bit.) Crits from GftE are only going to be, like, +5 in hard mode, whereas anthem envy is... a chunk more. (Too lazy to look up.) Major rune on the expel rit is a bad idea - the slight bonus to your heals isn't worth the -35 hp. ToF is probably unnecessary, and could potentially be used for another imba motivation thing. (Then again, incendiary spam might make it so there isn't much more imba the para can bring.) Finally, I count six heroes.

The main thing that cripples this, though, is that heroes can't be GDW-bots.

-- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 22:26, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Spamming two 10 energy spells every six seconds can drain even a necro with high SR quickly, spamming rit heals in between those casts drains energy even quicker.
GftE is pretty much just there to trigger Finale of Restoration and Chorus of Restoration. Envy could replace it, but at 1 spec it will only get +11 damage and due to the time it takes to cast it you'd probably get more damage with an autoattack. ToF works quite well though. It can be used to maintain the refrains between battles, synergizes a bit with Incendiary and also heals through Finale of Restoration.
Major rune on the rit is there to meet the break point on life. Not sure whether its worth it or not.
Thanks for pointing out that I only had six heroes. Lol, I guess my new name should be Teh Uber Failure.
And yeah, GDW would be awesome. — Teh Uber Pwnzer 22:51, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
Better? — Teh Uber Pwnzer 23:01, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
The major sacrifices 35 health so you can heal an additional 20 (at best) with life. Just an observation.
The thing I really hate about incendiary is the attributes - you want either 9, 12, or 13 expertise, 11 is pretty useless. I would recommend dumping expertise to 8 + 1 and putting the leftovers in command (it's not like it's not enough energy management, and hitting 12 would only drop ignite and savage to 5e each and drop you a couple seconds on throw dirt).
You have to remember that, yes, one autoattack from the ranger will outperform anthem envy, but that's only if he's the only one affected by it. In reality, even at 1 spec, anthem of envy is essentially a 1s cast attack skill that does +66 damage. (This is what makes paragons so fucking broken, btw - they scale insanely due to the fact that there's usually at least four people for them to affect.)
SoC is a bit of a meh skill - its only real use is to stop people interrupting the ghostly, because he's bad enough to not cancel-cast and/or work around being interrupted - and could easily be replaced. (Regardless, 1 command for SoC just makes the template a bit uglier. :P)
-- Armond WarbladeArmond sig image.png{{sysop}} 00:40, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Sure it is only 20 health, but its 20 health per person. When including the entire party, thats a difference of 160. The extra attribute also increases the amount healed by the other spells by a bit (5 on PwK, 8 on SL and 7 of MBaS). A few casts of the spells should make up for the lost health.
Each ranger gets 47 armor-ignoring bonus damage (EBSoH triggers once on the attack and once on Ignite Arrows for +30, OoP once for +13 and Winnowing for +4) and 15 bonus damage that is affected by armor (Ignite Arrows). The damage caused by ignite is AoE as well. It would be quite common to see these rangers hit for 70+. But, with command at six like you suggested, it is definitely more damage.
Finally, what do you suggest I put in the now open slot in the first Incendiary ranger? Another copy of GftE for more triggers on the motivation para's healing? Another copy of Envy for possibly more damage (would have to move GftE to #1 and Envy to #3)? Or something else entirely? — Teh Uber Pwnzer 19:56, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.