Avatar of Fire,how could it be used effectively?

"

dspair wrote:

"

AusterlitZ wrote:

the ability to convert 75% (worst case scenario) to 100% of physical or cold damage to fire is useless?

It's not useless because?..

If it was Avatar of Lightning, that would be interesting. Shock stacking with EK? Shock stacking with... everything? Yes please.

1.Burn damage cannot be reflected
2.You can boost burn damage by increasing the initial fire damage or boosting the burning damage separately
3.No other form of damage can be increased by so many gems/passives.
4.Ele prolif is devastating with it.

Lighting damage gives you nothing but dps,no utility whats so ever at least cold has the advantage of chilling/freezing mobs

Good question, the keystone does convert you other damage sources to fire but also cuts their contribution to total damage by half, so you need a lot of increased fire damage to cover it.

Let's say your freezing pulse does 100 damage and you got +50% elemental damage and +50% spell damage.
Without avatar you will do 200 cold damage.
With avatar of fire you will do only 100 fire damage, so you need another 100% fire damage just to catch up to you previous dps, any damage that wasn't converted 'falls off'.

However, if you utilize cold to fire gem you lose nothing and can apply any cold nodes at hand to further boost damage if you got no more fire nodes available, seems like we got a lot more fire spells now. Too bad cold spells do mediocre chunks of damage, to use ignite we need big hitters.

But the skill avatar will shine with will be infernal blow, just imagine it, WED nodes and WED gem applying on ALL damage you do, instead of just half. That will be some serious power right there.

lightning arrow converts 50% to lightning.... which would be converted to 25% fire right?

"

cryptc wrote:

I want "Avatar of Cold" and "Avatar of Lightning" !

sry that would be broken as helll

"

Ludvator2 wrote:

another big thing is that with 100% cold skill conversion (assuming it is additive with CtF) final damage should be equally boosted by both cold and fire damage passives/mods, right?

yes

fire is the less interesting element imho..
cold and lightning is more interesting.
Burning is nice but well, it's inferior to direct damage today.

That's why Avatar of Fire does exist, and not Avatar of Light/Cold.

"

Malone wrote:

fire is the less interesting element imho..
cold and lightning is more interesting.
Burning is nice but well, it's inferior to direct damage today.

That's why Avatar of Fire does exist, and not Avatar of Light/Cold.

Burn can reach really high DOT and you don't take reflect damage from it ;)

And don't forget that avatar of fire was removed a year ago and they needed one year of thinking about it to make it somehow balanced (it was removed because it was simply OP...)

"

Ludvator2 wrote:

another big thing is that with 100% cold skill conversion (assuming it is additive with CtF) final damage should be equally boosted by both cold and fire damage passives/mods, right?

Right.

Avatar of fire can exist in this form because there is a cold to fire gem to complete the conversion. You could say avatars of lightning/cold would be good only with glacial, LS and LA. Otherwise straight lightning or cold spells would always be more effective then converted ones. Flame totem that does only half of its damage as lightning probably wouldn't even be able to shock.

ahhh burning arrow with 100% fire damage, to stronk <3<3

"

Sony_Black wrote:

"

Malone wrote:

fire is the less interesting element imho..
cold and lightning is more interesting.
Burning is nice but well, it's inferior to direct damage today.

That's why Avatar of Fire does exist, and not Avatar of Light/Cold.

Burn can reach really high DOT and you don't take reflect damage from it ;)

And don't forget that avatar of fire was removed a year ago and they needed one year of thinking about it to make it somehow balanced (it was removed because it was simply OP...)

I had a burning discharger ( before it got nerfed like hell by GGG ) and it was very effective.
But, reflect apart, direct damage is still more effective and safer globally.