Isn't the point of ArPen to be better lategame? Since AD is non-multiplicative (unlike AP), penetration is optimal for the late game. And since assassins tend to have big base damages they can make use of penetration early on they are often better off using penetration marks. Penetration quints suck tho, so full penetration rune pages aren't any good.
AD is taken for last-hitting and people who build crit, e.g. marksmen. The reasoning behind armor pen on assassins is absolutely correct. Of particular note are people who build %pen like Last Whisper or Black Cleaver: flat pen applies after %, so the effect is effectively multiplied. However, one nit-pick: armor pen is actually more effective early, because base armor scales with level. Your highest damage spike comes at level 9, when the base damage on your main ability is at rank 5 but the enemy team's armor hasn't yet caught up.
Yeah, what matter to me is the early/mid game impact these Runes have, thanks for confirming my suspicions ^^
Good point on the Crit/LS, Ekki, although I know that instinctively, it did not cross my mind when figuring out which Runes to use, so thanks!
Good point on the Crit/LS, Ekki, although I know that instinctively, it did not cross my mind when figuring out which Runes to use, so thanks!
|
|
Most of the times I've seen it, the discussion of arpen vs ad in assassins is a matter of champion damage vs minion damage. Since minions don't have armor, arpen is a "wasted stat" on them. So by running arpen instead of ad you're reducing your waveclear and lasthit efficiency. This usually boils down to minion damage not being too important so you run 9xarpen marks and 3xad quints.
You need to log in before commenting.
Honestly, I feel like I deal more damage early on with the combination of the two rather than pure AD. What's your take on this?