That's why I use Gladiator's Bane on my merc and he rarely dies and tanks very well with infrequent pots feeding.

Being chilled would but a damper on the IAS treachery party I would think, and that happens a lot without CBF on your merc. One thing with either armor though is that they don't have the ever useful Cannot Be Frozen feature. I can't remember if that takes into account fade or not as I didn't read the whole thing. There is a big statistical comparison on another site (is it okay to link outside sites here?) where someone broke down the numbers in a very detailed and comprehensive way and the conclusion IIRC is that treachery is superior to fortitude. I would never invest any significant resources to make a fortitude for a merc unless I had nothing else to use them on. You should not even consider fort unless the cost is meaningless to you, or you made a non-eth fort to use on a melee character but are not currently using it for that.

This makes him more vulnerable to getting killed by a boss when he is cursed if the boss decides to spam attacks that are threatening, or when tanking extra strong aura enchanted packs with high physical damage.įort is more consistent (arguably weaker than treachery when fade does proc), but is WAY more expensive.

On my sorc, my merc probably has like 30-40% fade uptime with treachery since I tend to kill things quickly and teleport a lot, so he rarely gets hit. I think they also tend to ignore the chill effect of the ice bolts from chilling armor, which is minor but does sometimes help. All of those comparisons seem to assume 100% uptime on the treachery fade, which is far from reality.

Diablo 2 treachery merc