User talk:Honorable Sarah/W/Mo Endurance Warrior

Discussion
i've been using this (in various incarnations) for almost 7 months, and i hadn't seen anything like it posted. --Honorable Sarah 13:04, 2 June 2006 (CDT)

Build Name
The rename should be something along the lines of "W/Mo Endurance Warrior", or something plain and boring like that. &mdash; Rapta   (talk|contribs) 00:18, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * ok, you and skuld come up with a name, because this conflicting instructions isn't good for my health. original name was W/Mo Energetic Enduring Warrior, then skuld suggested it should be energy something, so i changed it to W/Mo Energetic Warrior, now you want endurance something. a pox on naming conventions! :p --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:54, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I think Energetic Warrior sounds just fine. It's energy-based. 'Enduring' doesn't work so well because while it's quite vigorous in its use of energy based skills, it doesn't have a lot of damage mitigation (dolyak, watch yourself, damage-avoiding stances, etc). Hence, IMO, Energetic > Enduring. --Eudas 11:55, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * a build focused on Warrior's Endurance = W/Mo Endurance Warrior. makes sense, but conflicts with Endure Pain... anyway, you three come up with a name, and change it. i'm unconcerned. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 12:03, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Meh, we have a build called Lightning Hammer, and it's a R/W, not even close to the actual skill, Lightning Hammer under Air Magic. I'll move this to Endurance Warrior for now. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 20:31, 20 July 2006 (CDT)

Energy per second table
Is there any point to having the table include bows? Warrior's Endurance only activates on a melee attack, or so the skill description says. Anyone experience otherwise? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.103.77 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * i threw it in ther for comparison sake. but your right, it's not really applicable. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 09:28, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Build Testing

 * Good:
 * Eudas 00:21, 20 July 2006 (CDT) I just ran this build (-resurrect +sprint) for alliance battles, and it works great. i was able to keep my mana up, my life up (relatively; severe pvp degen got me several times), and my attack cycles were awesome; there was always 1 skill ready to use at any given time. I'm going to try this out some more in PVE but it looks great.
 * Good build. &mdash; Rapta  [[image:Rapta_Icon1.gif|19px]] (talk|contribs) 20:30, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Rewrite/Stub:
 * &mdash; Skuld  (Rename as energy warrior or something)
 * Delete:

It seems we need to redo the delete builds vs not delete builds discussion. But the right place for that is one of the build pages. No matter how the discussion goes, please let us be consisten and include votes to delete on some builds and votes to move to unfavored on others. --Xeeron 07:24, 20 June 2006 (CDT)

Attributes
im not sure, but isnt 12 Str 10 Swordsmanship and 8 Healing Prayers impossible to achieve? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.213.107.102 &bull; contribs) 20 June 2006.
 * add up the points. 97 (12) + 61 (10)+ 37 (8) = 195 +5 spare points --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 03:43, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

Runes and Equipment
What would you think about changing the Swordsmanship rune from a minor +1 to a major +2? That'd give you an even 12 swordsmanship with only a very minor impact on hp. --Eudas 11:33, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * i actually recently did this after switching to Victo's Bulwark instead of Tanzit's Defender. tanzit's is the best looking sheild, but the stats are just not as good. now if i could get some kind person to give me a a Strongroot's Shelter in even trade for my victo....--Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:42, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah I looked at your recommendations, Strongroot's shield looks like the best option. If you look at where the boss spawns, he's real close to a town so it'd be fairly easy to farm it... --Eudas 11:57, 20 July 2006 (CDT)

Flourish
What about using Flourish instead of Warrior's Endurance? Pros/Cons? Discuss. --Eudas 23:18, 19 July 2006 (CDT)
 * flourish requires you have 5 energy at the end of your chain, and a boat load of rechaging skills, warriors endurance is basically free energy for doing what you do anyways, hit things. ;)--Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 00:12, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, with gladiator's armor, one has ~25 energy, plus you could use one of those +5 ene swords for more. My thought process was that you could go power attack, leviathan sweep, griffon sweep, flourish... that gives you 18 mana, and recharges your attack skills. 18 is enough to use the attack skills again, by which time you'll have regained 2 mana (even with 1 pip regen) for flourish again, and the cycle can go on infinitely instead of being lost when the elite stance wears out. you gain about 10 seconds of continuous damage instead of having to switch to berserker's. i was primarily wondering if the designer had already crunched these particular numbers and come to the conclusion that this build was superior to the flourish variant, or if it just hadn't occurred to them, or what... was also soliciting advice from people in case maybe there was something I just wasn't seeing... --Eudas 00:24, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * i am the designer. having used both skills, flourish is very hard to time properly. longer skills like Pure Strike work better, but you still have to be careful about energy and timimgs, something you may not be able to do in the height of melee. additionally, stances grant additional absorption from most sheilds. --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 01:21, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * ok, that solves the discussion as far as i'm concerned, then. thanks for the response! --Eudas 11:30, 20 July 2006 (CDT)
 * final note, Flourish works better with hammer chains, which have longer recycle times, then warrior's endurance, which depends on the attack speed.  --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 12:03, 20 July 2006 (CDT)

Wild Blow
I like the build, but i think maybe you can swap Power Attack with Wild Blow, since block and evade stance are the killer of this build. -- Cwingnam2000 09:07, 1 September 2006 (CDT)

Vigorous Spirit
Vigorous Spirit is far more efficient than Live Vicariously, why not use it instead? --Darkvivi

This is the way I see it:

Vigorous: Pro: cheaper to maintain. only takes 5 mana every 30 seconds instead of 1 pip regen for maintenance. Con: interrupts your DPS by requiring constant recasts every 30 seconds. Pro: More hp/proc. Pro: also triggers on spell casting.

Live Vicariously: Pro: easier to maintain. cast once, and then forget about it (unless it gets shattered) con: takes 1 pip energy regen away from a build that uses a lot of energy. this is, however, largely mitigated by the presence of Warrior's Endurance.

It honestly probably matters very little which one you use. Use your favorite. I edited the article and put it in the "Variants" section. What I'm more concerned about is that this build went through untested status for quite some time, was generally considered ready for tested status, and now Skuld's marked it untested again... seems kind of random and arbitrary to me. --Eudas 11:21, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Untested is related to rate-a-build, the thing up there is the old yes/no/delete thing &mdash; Skuld 11:23, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Pretend like you're talking to someone who's not an Admin, and doesn't constantly read up all the stuff on this wiki's maintenance/standards/templates. Then, stop pretending. :) Could you be more exhaustive/elaborate in your explanation? --Eudas 11:25, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Sorry >_< Talk:W/Mo_Endurance_Warrior is the old thing that was use before the tested and untested templates, and favor/unfavour categories and the whole builds organisation. Add to add the new thing (top of the page maybe?) &mdash; Skuld 11:28, 15 September 2006 (CDT)
 * You could add it if you want, but IMO the build is just fine and will likely be voted through to tested pretty quickly. --Eudas 11:38, 15 September 2006 (CDT)