Archive talk:P/W Charge Paragon

Opinions? --Edru viransu //QQ about me /sysop 17:02, 8 December 2007 (CET)

Build:P/W Shouting Centurion Lol, could have just added your opinions to improve this imo. Unreal Havoc  17:25, 8 December 2007 (CET)
 * An AB build with a lot of skills devoted to self-defense and a GvG midliner with no self-defense skills, the same build? --Edru viransu //QQ about me /sysop 17:30, 8 December 2007 (CET)
 * Only three skills that are different. Could have been added as a variant quite easily through simple discussion. Looks to me as if you looked at what I built and decided to go and make it yourself with powers as an admin. But hey looks can be decieving. [[Image:UnrealHavocSig.jpg|19px]]Unreal Havoc  17:35, 8 December 2007 (CET)
 * Other useage & goal with that build. So not a Variant imho. Looks good Edru, nothing I would change. --Grobilikesmudkips 17:47, 8 December 2007 (CET)
 * As long as no one comes crying to me "See Charge Paragon" IDC TBH. [[Image:UnrealHavocSig.jpg|19px]]Unreal Havoc  17:50, 8 December 2007 (CET)

Looks to me as if you looked at what I built and decided to go and make it yourself with powers as an admin.-Unreal Havoc. That's quite an accusation. I'm still iffy on the usefulness of Charge (someone please educate me), but the differences between the two could not be more crucial in determining the efficacy of the build. Enduring Harmony was just a bad choice, as was the exclusion of Anthem of Flame.  Shen (contribs) 03:44, 9 December 2007 (CET)
 * Basically the purpose this build is mainly intended for is to allow your warriors to frenzy constantly(or nearly so) and be harder to kite, as well as all the other things paragons usually do. --Edru viransu //QQ about me /sysop 04:08, 9 December 2007 (CET)
 * Though the qualm I've got may or may not be applicable. Wouldn't kiting targets draw warriors with them, away from a stationary Para? Then the earshot range poses a problem. Course, you'd be under the speed boost too, but the idea of chasing after a teammate to tag'em with charge isn't appealing. Eh, I've never GvG'ed before, what do I know. [[Image:Shogunshen_Sig.jpg|19px]] Shen (contribs) 04:13, 9 December 2007 (CET)
 * If you're attacking the same target and assisting in spikes then you'd be in range. [[Image:UnrealHavocSig.jpg|19px]]Unreal Havoc  04:43, 9 December 2007 (CET)
 * Allrighty then. [[Image:Shogunshen_Sig.jpg|19px]] Shen (contribs) 15:11, 9 December 2007 (CET)
 * Don't underestimate the power of Charge on monks, it gives them breathen too. - [[Image:Unexist sig.jpg|20px]]Unexist  19:02, 9 December 2007 (CET)

I made a similar build with similar concept, it really does work well. charge does so much for your team, more than some realise. It has my vote. Unreal Havoc  00:23, 13 December 2007 (CET)
 * Heh, that was the build which inspired me to make this one. --Edru viransu //<font color="Red">QQ about me /sysop 00:26, 13 December 2007 (CET)

Is the major rune here really necessary...? What's wrong with just having 12? -Evernix 17:47, 10 January 2008 (EST)
 * No, it's not absolutely necessary, but the decision about whether to run a major on a para is not a matter of whether +1 spear is essential, but rather whether the +25 health of running a minor instead is. and, on a para, like on a ranger, it doesn't really matter whether you have 25 more health. You can afford to run a major. &mdash; Edru / QQ  18:49, 10 January 2008 (EST)

why not run INCOMING? you can make it have less downtime with command, and a tad extra hp?68.227.202.180 20:30, October 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an archived build, it was archived before Incoming was even changed :/ --<font color="Black">Frosty  [[Image:Frostcharge.jpg|19px]] 20:50, October 15, 2009 (UTC)

Unarchive?
Possible unarchive with a few changes? 00:17, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Incoming is much better --<font color="Black">Frosty  [[Image:Frostcharge.jpg|19px]] 00:27, March 2, 2010 (UTC)