Rimefang useful? 01/06/2014 08:32 PM CST
Looking to see if anyone has found Rimefang to be useful in their testing. My preliminary results are that the damage seems more consistent per pulse, both positively and negatively than fire rain. On the plus side, it moves with you, and seems more likely to stun, and there's no wind-up.

However, I just can't get past the fact that it only has the limited number of blades. In a full room of monsters, it exhausts itself on the first pulse and seems to take about a minute before it pulses again, vastly slower than the 18 seconds of fire rain. Yes, if some of the blades miss they'll pulse faster. But that's a pretty poor consolation prize.

Fire rain just seems blatantly superior, to the point that if I chose it I'd only consider using rimefang in an invasion situation where another mage was already casting fire rain.

Am I missing something here?
Reply
Re: Rimefang useful? 01/07/2014 03:21 PM CST
>>Am I missing something here?

With more mana the spell generates more blades per pulse.

Mazrian
Reply
Re: Rimefang useful? 01/08/2014 03:29 AM CST
Can't rain fire indoors, so there's that.


>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.
Reply
Re: Rimefang useful? 01/08/2014 08:53 PM CST
>With more mana the spell generates more blades per pulse.
FWIW, I was casting both Rimefang and Fire Rain at 12. Perhaps this spell could use a look at lower mana levels, as right now I don't feel that it's worth 2 spell slots at all. It would have to be dramatically more effective at higher levels for me to even consider it.

Which is a shame, because I was really hoping to like this one and take it over Fire Rain after the preview was over, based on character theme.

>Can't rain fire indoors, so there's that.
I'm not even sure it's worth the 12 mana per pulse to have it running at my skill level, to be honest, even if it were free. I'd be better off putting that mana into casting more TM or debilitating.
Reply
Re: Rimefang useful? 01/08/2014 09:44 PM CST
>I'm not even sure it's worth the 12 mana per pulse to have it running at my skill level, to be honest, even if it were free. I'd be better off putting that mana into casting more TM or debilitating.

If 12 mana is compromising your attunement, you maybe need some more skill to make real use of the spell. That said, I haven't had time to really test the spell's return-for-investment, myself, so I'm just blowing steam (ice?).



>Forgive my snark, but welcome to the life of a warrior mage.
Reply
Re: Rimefang useful? 01/09/2014 02:00 PM CST
>>It would have to be dramatically more effective at higher levels for me to even consider it.

It is much better at higher levels, for sure. For me it's totally worth it.


Mazrian
Reply
Re: Rimefang useful? 01/10/2014 06:16 PM CST
I like FR of course, but it has a severe limitation for hunting and invasions - i'm all for the fire though

I think it comes down to really how you combat and how you'd use it, and maybe your elemental flavor - if you're comparing ROS to Rimefang - do you engage things often, or let them come to you? If your a ranged user, ROS might be better if something ever makes to it to melee, if you charge ahead, prolly rimefang

I'd honestly consider pre reqs and stuff, you're not gonna have every spell, and feats take away slots too


They're handy to have, but you could prolly do more damage and learn better with targeted spells, instead of whittling it to ML
but also leaving it running for 15-20 minutes and not worrying about TM's handy too.



_________________________________
An agonizing pain fills you as you feel your tongue turn to powder in your mouth! Through a haze of uncertainty and loss, you realize that something you just said was very wrong.
Reply