Runescroll of Fortitude

[darthsuo]

Why does nobody ever mention Runescroll of Fortitude II when they talk about tanking consumables?

I know it was bugged and giving only +165 stam, but 4.0.6 fixed that.

Is there some other reason why it shouldn't be used?

[bldavis]

most of us run with priests

but if you dont have a priest of any spec, by all means use this!
it is a great addition

[Vuarnet]

most of us run with priests

but if you dont have a priest of any spec, by all means use this!
it is a great addition

...or a warrior, or a lock, or a beast hunter...there's lots of ways to get that juicy stam buff nowadays. But certainly, by all means, if you're not running with any of the above, the runescroll is a great addition and should not be overlooked. While it's never an issue for the raids I'm on, I've got a guildie who keeps those plus the "cheap kings" drums buff (since he's a LW) on hand just in case we ever get into a pug heroic that can't/won't cover most/all of the buffs...rare, but it happens.

I suppose the biggest reason people don't mention the runescroll is #1) assumption the buff will be covered by a player, and #2) it's simply overlooked because of #1. There's certainly no reason it should not be used if the stam buff is not being covered by an actual player ability (and imo that logic applied even before the 4.0.6 fix).

[Gaxby]

Since when did a Druid mention Blessing of Kings or a Paladin mention Mark of the Wild? Same thing.

[Addi]

The Scroll of Stamina IX counts as a Guardian Elixir.

[Koatanga]

We have a lock, but the felhound is usually out, not the imp. We have a hunter, but he's not BM. No warrior.

I like the runescroll for the fort buff, but I really hate spending 80g every time we wipe.