What jungle item for tanks, Rangers useless now?

ValyrianBlade··6 votes·1,313 views

So the 25% CDR on smite from Rangers trailblazer has been removed, supposedly because it was meant as a catchup item and instead was used to extend leads.

First, I call bull. Rangers trailblazer was never intended as a catch up item, it was intended for farm centered junglers who didn't gank enough to make use of the champion smites and also didn't have enough safety to counter jungle effectively - most notably your tank junglers.

This change removed half of the effectiveness of this item for tanks though. Most tank junglers clear through AOE damage - they don't need an aoe smite because their AOE damage will clear the small monsters faster than they can clear the large monster anyways once you finish your first clear. They also don't really need the aoe stun once you get in to the game a bit as the camps don't damage them much.

The item served 2 purposes:

  1. faster smites, meaning more jungle buffs and faster clears. Meaning faster gold income and advantages ganking via the free oracles, toad armour, etc...
  2. 15% missing health and mana Regen; this is still useful but is nothing special.

Think of it this way, I can now get a champion smite instead of Rangers trailblazer, and my only loss is 15% of missing health/mana. My gain is a more likely successful gank, snowballing myself and my laner. Even if I only pull off 1 ASSIST that I wouldn't have gotten without a champion smite, the extra gold will be worth more than enough health and mana potions to make up for the lost Regen from Rangers trailblazer.

From what I'm seeing, diversity has been removed. The only way to jungle now is with a champion smite, and the only reason to have a champion smite is to gank more. Despite all this talk of diversity, tankier junglers are less viable than ever (excluding those who can use poachers).

So on that note, chilling smite or challenging smite on tank junglers? And are there any exceptions who would still use trailblazer?

14 Comments

DrCyanide4 votes

The tank item was always the Juggernaut upgrade, not the smite itself.

The problem with Trailblazer us it was best on everyone not named Warwick. Poachers knife was/is a joke, and the other smites effectively had their cooldowns made twice as long by the fact that you could use it while ganking. Rangers Trailblazer still gives the AoE clear and health/mana return, but it's cooldown is being brought more in line so it's not the only item any jungler gets.

You should have arguments to keep with item 3725 , augments to get item 3709 , and arguments to getitem 3717 . I'm not convinced that item 3721 is worth it yet.

ValyrianBlade1 votes

I really disagree with the argument that the other smites effectively have twice the cooldown because you can use them during ganks. That's basically implying that having the option to smite a champion is a disadvantage - which it very clearly is not. It would imply that we could put a champion smite on Rangers and that would have fixed the issue because you have it less for camps due to using it on champions - you can always choose to not use it on a champion.

I don't see any reason why 15% missing health and mana Regen is ever more valuable than the ability to deal true damage to a champion, or apply a considerable slow on them.

Narasimha3 votes

When you smite a camp, you're guaranteed all the bonuses and gold. Unless you somehow STILL die, in which case you're either too low anyway or you did something kind of impressive. When you smite a champion, you're not guaranteed a kill. If I smite someone, and they get away, I've set myself back a whole minute.

ValyrianBlade1 votes

How in the hell does this have upvotes? Are league players really this stupid? ???

CHOICE IS A GOOD THING. Having the ability to smite champions is an advantage. Arguing that you get to smite camps less when you have a champion camp is INVALID AND STUPID. You can CHOOSE to not smite a champion and instead smite a camp. Someone with trailblazers can ONLY smite camps. As I said, this arguments logic implies that adding a champion smite to Rangers would have been a nerf - if anyone actually thinks that, you really need to go back to school.

Smiting a champion doesn't guarantee a kill, true. No one says you have to smite a champion between smiting each camp though. You can always choose to not smite champions at all. There is no downside, explicit or implicit, to having the CHOICE to smite a champion instead of a camp. If you smite a champion and don't get the kill, yes you burned a 60sec summoner more than someone without a champion smite would have, but you burned it to raise your probability of success in the gank. The fact that it failed thereafter doesn't suddenly mean the champion smite reduces your ability to farm the jungle - it only means you burned abilities you shouldn't have in an unsuccessful gank. It would be like saying if you used your ultimate for a gank and didn't get a kill, your a whole ultimate behind in jungle farm - you could have used your ultimate to clear a camp easier instead. Oh wait, when was the last time someone used their ultimate to clear a jungle camp (outside of ultimates like dr mundos).

EffectFX1 votes

No one said choice is a bad thing. But just because skirmisher/stalker can smite people doesn't make trailblazers useless. There's a lot of usefulness to be had in an AOE smite that stuns the mobs and heals you.

ValyrianBlade1 votes

The first post did, and I quote: " and the other smites effectively had their cooldowns made twice as long by the fact that you could use it while ganking".

The follow up defended it by saying he was set back by 1 min.

The comment is just wrong - as discussed and you seem aware.

EffectFX1 votes

Not every champion needs a slow or a little bonus damage/champion reduction. Some champions just want to clear camps safely and quickly.

Gigahappytown3 votes

trailblazer was for people who had no sustain or bad clears in the new jungle ie jarmar IV sejuani

Also the trailblazer nerf was needed also the majority of tank junglers have cc so chilling smite should not be a option Its either trailblazer or sabre bruh

Knight Devout2 votes

The new Challenging Smite deals true damage PER SECOND, and is not affected by autoattack. Unless you are Shyvana, Mundo, or another low CC/ Unreliable CC champion, you usually want to pick Challenging for the extra damage and damage reduction. Especially if you have cc, because the extra autoattacks you deal will make sure you burn the target for the whole duration.

ValyrianBlade1 votes

Makes sense. I think you'd also have to include the lanes you're ganking for. If you have an ahri mid and a Morgana support, the chilling smite will really help them land their cc skillshots and practically guarantee successful ganks, whereas bonus true damage won't stop the enemy from escaping if they're fast enough :p

Knight Devout1 votes

But again, if they connect in the first place, and you deal enough autoattacks (2 in 3 seconds) to burn them for 6 to 7 seconds, then the damage you deal is quite strong. Assuming you burn for 6 seconds at level 3, that's 140 true damage on top of what you already do.

EffectFX1 votes

Why in the world do people think losing 15 seconds makes trailblazer useless?

ValyrianBlade1 votes

It's not that it's worthless, it's that the champion smite options are obviously superior now.

EffectFX1 votes

Except for the part where it lets you clear camps much quicker and safer.

More from Gameplay

More by ValyrianBlade