Dadnir.5038

You can always use a "supportive" pet and get spiritual reprieve as a second heal if you miss guardian's F2. You can even have "3" heal by taking Jacaranda or 2 heal and an power invul with brown bear. I'm surprised nobody even suggested to use a supportive pet...

I am not sure that there really is a need for symetry. Thief is mainly about damage avoidance so I think his health pool being low is thematically ok. Between ranger and engineer, I'd say ranger would thematically be the one with the highest health pool thanks to being "invigorated by nature". Engineer is an odd one, I wouldn't have found it strange to see him wearing an heavy armor, for me he would have suited the heavy armor/medium health pool slot while revenant could probably have taken a medium armor slot and even a high health pool slot (having it's vitality pumped up by it's bound to the mists).

1- Like KrHome said is true, guardian's mobility was always there as untaped potential. It's hard to advocate for a nerf. 2- I agree that runes of the trapper need to go, the potential of the 6th bonus is really to high. 3- Immob uptime itself is way higher than it used to be in the core game where the condition was tightly checked by the devs. I don't know why they've increased access so much to this condition but the effect show now and it's... well... not very enjoyable. 4- Weaver and, in fact, elementalist in general, have the right to exist in sPvP. They have their counters (anything that break/steal/corrupt/rip their boons and poison them, counter them).

> @"Teratus.2859" said: > Necro's have the worst mobility in the game.. it is their biggest weakness as a class. That's arguable. The necromancer have access to 2 way to have 25% move speed (dagger trait/locust signet), relatively good sources of swiftness, wurm and spectral walk and a movement skill per e-spec. Not to forget that there exist runesets that grant 25% move speed. It's not over the top, but I wouldn't say mesmer, guardian or revenant are better off in the mobility departement. I'd say that the necromancer lag behind when it come to gaps closer, not in pure mobility. It make it frustrating for a necromancer to chase after a foe, it make him vulnerable to kitting, but that's all. Devs tried to cover this "flaw" with skills that pull the foe and conditions that keep the foe close to the necromancer but the dynamic of the final result just can't hold a candle to a simple yet very effective leap or teleport.

> @"pdrowboi.2870" said: > Rune of tormenting? The necromancer isn't that good at applying torment, sure it can seem overwhelming in WvW but it's mainly because there is a lot of scourges. Mesmer (with scepter) is a lot more reliable when it come to benefiting from this runeset since your clone applying torment proc the heal. All in all rune of tormenting's gain for the scourge is not really worth taking BB, If it's to solo play you'll probably gain more survivability out of the 2 other traits and a more fitting rune than out of BB. If it's in a group, and you got a healer backing you, BB is fine and you probably don't need the runeset anyway.

What is this video supposed to show? A scourge using sand swell to not even move 900 yard? A scourge out running an engi that's crippled (sure the engi have superspeed but he catch up pretty well)?

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > > @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said: > > > > @"KrHome.1920" said: > > > > Every class can pick speed rune and every class with traps can benefit from trapper rune. Fun fact: trevor plays a class that can use traps and that can benefit from trapper runes. So his class is the one that comes closer to thief than dh ever could, as it has more mobility than dh and traps on top. > > > > > > This is not true at all. Rangers cannot benefit from the Trap Rune in the same way that DHs can. I'll explain why: > > > > > > 1. DHs have mechanisms like pulls and teleports to be able to make offensive use of the traps. They also have Maw which seals a person into the trap duration so they can't just leave the damage pit once it triggers. The DH also has double symbols and Sword of Justice to stack on the AoE burst. The DH also has front loaded defenses to be able to aggressively burst with the traps, to ensure the opponent is taking a lot more damage from the burst than the DH is taking. > > > 2. The Ranger has no pulls, no teleports, no big CC pit to seal a person into its traps. Upon the traps just dealing bad damage in general, the Ranger also has little to no big AoE damage to stack onto its trap stack. The Ranger gets less than half of the burst potential with traps that a DH gets, and it has to utilize traps 100% defensively through baiting people into them, rather than being able to go offensive with them through use of pulls and teleports. This doesn't work out so well in middle to high tiers. Better players will obviously avoid the Ranger traps, and due to this they become rather useless when you're talking 1500+ play. > > > 3. The largest role that Rangers play right now is to side node, which means they DO NOT want to be stealthing and bailing nodes often. And the trap burst potential on Ranger is not enough to warrant trying to utilize a trap burst build in the way that DHs do it, especially because they have no pulls or cc pits or ports make it practical. > > > > The ranger do have a pull thought (_Path of scar (axe off hand)_ ), a lot of mobility (_Swoop (GS 1000)_, _Swoop (SB bird 1200)_, _monarch leap (sword 600)_ ) as well as a CC pit (_spike trap_, _frost trap_ and to add to the fun _entangle_ and/or F2 taunt _Beastly warden_). I do think _Whirling defense (axe off-hand)_ do hurt quite a lot as an aoe, _worldly impact/Primal cry_ aren't kind either. > > > > I do agree that core ranger might lag behind DH in these aspects, but Soulbeast hardly do. > > Let me clear a few things up on this: > > 1. Path of Scars is not a reliable pull. It's actually extremely difficult to hit with. It's also not a favorable thing to take a power damage based off-hand on a condi trap build. > 2. Yes, Greatsword gets a mobility leap on #3. But Soulbeasts don't use birds or gazelle anymore for mobility because they can no longer swap pets while in combat. They have to use Smokescale for Smoke Assault and the F2 stealthing to be able to survive, and they have to stay on Smokescale and not swap or they risk getting stuck with bird or gazelle which has no Smoke Assault or stealth field. > 3. Monarch Leap doesn't count as a mobility skill. I've explained this several times in other threads and I've seen other Rangers do the same. Look, Monarch Leap has funky animations. A person with Swiftness that is running alongside of a Ranger using Monarch Leap, ends up outpacing the person using Monarch Leap. The animations are too clunky and stoppy on Monarch Leap. > 4. My good bro, Spike Trap is not even comparable to Dragon's Maw. A single stun break gets you up an out of Spike Trap immediately because it is a 1 strike knockdown. Dragon's Maw is a literal CC pit where you get trapped in a big bucket of invisible wall around you and cannot get out unless you have stab stacks to cross the wall. > 5. Axe 5, WI, all of those things are only useful on a power build, which wouldn't be bringing condition based traps. You're dodging the point. Your arguments were just flawed here. I don't disagree with the fact that trapper runes need to be either removed or have the 6th bonus reworked at the very least, I 100% agree with that. But downplaying your biased profession with arguments like "nobody use that" or "you can't even compare it to the goody of the other profession" hurt more your credibility than anything. Keep the heat of your fight on the runes. I certainly don't want to see the superspeed/stealth on trap kept in the game.

> @"Trevor Boyer.6524" said: > > @"KrHome.1920" said: > > Every class can pick speed rune and every class with traps can benefit from trapper rune. Fun fact: trevor plays a class that can use traps and that can benefit from trapper runes. So his class is the one that comes closer to thief than dh ever could, as it has more mobility than dh and traps on top. > > This is not true at all. Rangers cannot benefit from the Trap Rune in the same way that DHs can. I'll explain why: > > 1. DHs have mechanisms like pulls and teleports to be able to make offensive use of the traps. They also have Maw which seals a person into the trap duration so they can't just leave the damage pit once it triggers. The DH also has double symbols and Sword of Justice to stack on the AoE burst. The DH also has front loaded defenses to be able to aggressively burst with the traps, to ensure the opponent is taking a lot more damage from the burst than the DH is taking. > 2. The Ranger has no pulls, no teleports, no big CC pit to seal a person into its traps. Upon the traps just dealing bad damage in general, the Ranger also has little to no big AoE damage to stack onto its trap stack. The Ranger gets less than half of the burst potential with traps that a DH gets, and it has to utilize traps 100% defensively through baiting people into them, rather than being able to go offensive with them through use of pulls and teleports. This doesn't work out so well in middle to high tiers. Better players will obviously avoid the Ranger traps, and due to this they become rather useless when you're talking 1500+ play. > 3. The largest role that Rangers play right now is to side node, which means they DO NOT want to be stealthing and bailing nodes often. And the trap burst potential on Ranger is not enough to warrant trying to utilize a trap burst build in the way that DHs do it, especially because they have no pulls or cc pits or ports make it practical. The ranger do have a pull thought (_Path of scar (axe off hand)_ ), a lot of mobility (_Swoop (GS 1000)_, _Swoop (SB bird 1200)_, _monarch leap (sword 600)_ ) as well as a CC pit (_spike trap_, _frost trap_ and to add to the fun _entangle_ and/or F2 taunt _Beastly warden_). I do think _Whirling defense (axe off-hand)_ do hurt quite a lot as an aoe, _worldly impact/Primal cry_ aren't kind either. I do agree that core ranger might lag behind DH in these aspects, but Soulbeast hardly do.

> @"silent killer.5732" said: > To all of yous who wants necro nerfs even though the necro is not even in the top tier conversations in the eyes of the good players. In behalf of all necros I would like to say we are willing and ready to lose our shroud. But we want aegis and stealth in return. And we want telepot so we can run away when things went south. We already gave up the shroud with scourge and got barrier to act as an aegis. Just need a set of _traps_ on top of that and, with the help of runes of the trapper, we will be close.

> @"Yasai.3549" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > Mirage got it's second dodge removed because he can generate shards that give him dodge frame. > > Just remove the shard thing and bring back the 2nd dodge. > > That's like a more cumbersome way to get dodges over something like Riposting Shadows or Agility Signet or one of the myriad of ways for Thief to get endurance. Indeed, but in practice it mean that you technically have more dodges. > So should Endurance gain just be removed in general? > > I mean for the case of Riposting Shadows, removing it to reduce skill bloat could allow it to bear a lower cost. Doesn't make sense, you're comparing apple and orange here. The shard/mirror directly give the evade frame when used, they don't provide endurance. But most of all, they increase significantly the number of evade frames the mirage have over core mesmer, which create an effect called "powercreep". On the other hand, riposting shadow being a core ability, it is hard to qualify any of it's effects as "powercreep". > Endurance gain removal from DD would definitely hurt it's playstyle no? Here, you are not wrong. DD indeed is powercrept on dodge, though it does have a tradeoff in some limitations related to it's mobility now. (I won't argue whether it's a proper tradeoff or not. Afterall, this is the mesmer subforum not the thief's subforum.) > Why would yu wish this onto another Espec then? > Why would I wish ANet to remove clumsy bundles that are a pitiful excuse for the loss of 50 point of endurance (the second dodge)? I think the way I changed your question is enough of an answer in itself, right? NB.: The same way I'm all for revenant "healing orbs" and scourge's "magical sand" being replaced by anything else that's not as clumsy to use. Beware, this is my own opinion, you can totally be in love with such mechanisms if it's your taste, but, personally, I don't. I'd rather have a simple effect that don't require balance than an unnecessarily complex effect that require balance and end up crippling core mechanisms for the sake of keeping them in game.

> @"Fueki.4753" said: > Also, those poll options don't fit your question. > "Should it be left alone?" is a _yes or no_ question. > Absolutely! And my answer would be "yes" because the devs already proved that they can make things worse. Better be left alone than benefiting from the wrong kind of attention.

> @"Leonidrex.5649" said: > its power meta bruh I'm pretty sure, even if GW2's devs were to remove all condi amulet and condi runeset some players would still believe that it's a condi meta.

Mirage got it's second dodge removed because he can generate shards that give him dodge frame. Just remove the shard thing and bring back the 2nd dodge.

> @"Gogdarth.6741" said: > It's fitting that a necromancer subforum just doesn't let a silly bait thread die peacefully, but still. To the grave... and beyond! Well objectively the thread was enlivened by Arheundel, it would have died out without him.

Well, a "support" is supposed to be good at either boon, healing or both. Anything with a good rate of boon removal and a bit of poison should be able to take down a true bonafid "support". Necromancer is probably the most qualified to counter "supports". Revenant and thief have the option to build for it. In a more limited way, Spellbreaker and mesmer's design place them as a semi counter for "support" specs. Now, players have to be willing to build for it in order to counter "support" and that's the hardest part, because while you'll be able to counter them, it doesn't mean you'll be able to fare well against other kind of builds. It almost feel like there is a kind of "balance" shenanigan involved.

> @"Gogdarth.6741" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > > @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said: > > > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > > > If mesmer without _glamor_ trait is a joke what is necromancer without _spectral_ and _well_ trait? > > > > > > At least when spectral mastery was deleted some spectral skills got buffed. > > > > Every single glamour skills had there CD shaved by 20% baseline when they removed the trait. On another hand some spectral skill got changes for which it's arguable whether they are nerf or buff while other were just left alone losing even the CD reduction when they removed _spectral mastery_ trait. I mean, yeah, a bunch of change can make people feel good when they delete a trait, but a baseline CD reduction for all skills is far from being bad either. > > The trait used to grant resistance on every Glamour skill use, giving you an actual source for this boon. It also was in support traitline and aoe. > > In short, rip boonsupport, enjoy your STM lobotomy lmao https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Glamour_Mastery/history Edit: Ah!, You mean that: https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Temporal_Enchanter

> @"Lincolnbeard.1735" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > If mesmer without _glamor_ trait is a joke what is necromancer without _spectral_ and _well_ trait? > > At least when spectral mastery was deleted some spectral skills got buffed. Every single glamour skills had there CD shaved by 20% baseline when they removed the trait. On another hand some spectral skill got changes for which it's arguable whether they are nerf or buff while other were just left alone losing even the CD reduction when they removed _spectral mastery_ trait. I mean, yeah, a bunch of change can make people feel good when they delete a trait, but a baseline CD reduction for all skills is far from being bad either.

> @"Armen.1483" said: > > @"Lily.1935" said: > > Chronomancer doesn't need to also be a tank. They are fantastic as a DPS support and a highly desired elite spec. They could afford to give that role up to the Warriors, Guardians, Scrappers and Reapers. > > You can tank raids with any class. Among your mentioned all except for reaper can be great tanks, firebrand tank makes it to have a healer and a tank at the same time. Scrapper is same, you can go scourge tank too, but it is a lil worse and warrior does a great job at tanking too at some raid encounters with low pressure. Chrono tank is not the only option to tank nowdays. It is just common in pug runs, because people read outdated forum posts and are just unaware about the current meta at raids. Only thing you need for tanking is enough tougness and there are only very few fights where I can think of chrono tank being the only option. Do yourself a favor, go tank with a heal firebrand, you will thank me later. > True, the issue isn't "tanking" but "tanking efficiently". Anything can tank, but the dps sacrifice made in order to tank have to be supported by tools that make it worth it to be competitive for the spot. Thought, I would even say that reaper probably can be a great tank on some encounters based on team composition. For example, against Slothasor in a team low on condi cleanse, you could probably have a reaper tanking while drawing conditions on him to send them back on the boss.

> @"kybraga.7103" said: > Main thing I'll say Necromancer needs reconsidered in Life Force generation, it never got considered in instances where damage was gutted across the board. Skills like Spectral Walk, Spectral Armor, Grasp, Reaper's Touch, etc. The numbers could be toned down a _little bit_. I'm sorry to have to say that you're wrong here. The issue is not LF generation, LF gen is high simply because the necromancer need LF for both damage and defense. To work properly, the necromancer need a relatively high LF gen just like the warrior need a relatively high rage gen. If you consider that the increase of survivability is due to damage being gutted, what the necromancer need is a reduction to it's LF pool, not it's LF gen. Because reducing the LF pool effectively reduce the number of hit he can take while in shroud. While reducing the LF gen effectively impair the necromancer's ability to go through it's skill rotation. The focus of what you suggest is equivalent to focusing on elementalist's attunment CD to balance it's survivability. Yes, by increasing it's attunment CD you'll end up reducing it's survivability but you'll also hurt it's whole gameplay dynamic.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > Look at scourge, its built to be a condi dps spec. > > It was even that, its just anet changed their minds when people changed their minds because getting scourge to work at the time without being too oppressive meant it needed a rework, then it did get one and support scourge was deemed too oppressive too in SPVP. It is not built to be a condi spec, it's built to be a support through barrier and boon corruption. Yes, boon corruption isn't especially effective in PvE but it was/is needed to keep in check boons in sPvP/WvW. One of the main design of the necromancer, even if it doesn't work all that well based on the gamemode, is to support it's allies through weakening their foes, it's one of the main reason, the necromancer is light on the boon sharing department. Technically, the scourge traitline have 2/3rd of it's traits dedicated to support, _punishment_ are mainly about support even shades are a way to use shroud in a "suppory" way (yes it's clumsy but true nonetheless). ANet didn't change their mind to make it more of a support spec, in fact GW2's devs were influenced by players that said that it wouldn't be able to take a spot as a support without relatively high dps pre PoF release. Which is the main reason why we've had to suffer through so much balance "tweaks" since the devs kinda overdid it as a result.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > You know, you just have to put your marks under your foes' feet and it's basically instant. Why talk about delay? You got an aoe that put 2 bleed every 4 seconds for 8s (16s at 100% bleed duration), 2 poison (8s) on a 16s CD and fear. A condi reaper have basically 3 marks applying 8s (16s) bleeds, if it wasn't for OP _lingering curse_, the staff wouldn't need much to enter an healthy rotation. It's just that this trait make scepter so strong that it outshine everything else. In fact the trait is so strong that we are at a point that there is a high probability that we would end up being disapointed by the performance of an elite spec condi weapon compared to scepter. > > > > Let's face it: "+50% scepter condi duration and 200 extra condition damage while wielding a scepter". GW2 devs just can't introduce a weapon with balanced numbers that can compete with a weapon that have such a trait supporting it. _I thought that it was obvious for everyone._ > > It would help too if we could get multiple charges on staff to compete with scepter and yes having scepter trait on staff would help too, especially since some targets move heavily, thus negating all the benefits of well effect from staff. > > I'm also semi worried now. You mentioned scepter trait, well they could end up nerfing scepter trait and leaving everything underwhelming in conditions and say there everything is equal. > They could, that is if necromancer wasn't already near the bottom when it come to condition damage potential. (well that isn't exactly true, however on a single target that don't have boons that can be corrupted into a damaging condition it's true) NB.: the condi necromancer is difficult to balance, it's theoretical effectiveness is huge yet can't achieve it unless he face the proper foe within the proper environment.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > > @"Dadnir.5038" said: > > The scepter is overwhelming other necromancer's condi weapon mainly due to it's OP trait. Staff could compete against scepter if it had a trait half as strong as _lingering curse_. Even just removing the "scepter only" restriction on the extra condition damage of the _lingering curse_ trait would go a long way to make staff more competitive against scepter. Make _mark of blood_ apply 4 bleed instead of 2 in PvE only and the staff become automatically part of the condi necromancer's rotation. I mean, the staff really isn't far behind the untraited scepter. > > I dunno isn-t the dmg kinda underwhelming on staff due to amount of conditions on it and the cd it has? they might end up needing to touch staff to make it less delayed for pve, since its considered a support weapon and all. You know, you just have to put your marks under your foes' feet and it's basically instant. Why talk about delay? You got an aoe that put 2 bleed every 4 seconds for 8s (16s at 100% bleed duration), 2 poison (8s) on a 16s CD and fear. A condi reaper have basically 3 marks applying 8s (16s) bleeds, if it wasn't for OP _lingering curse_, the staff wouldn't need much to enter an healthy rotation. It's just that this trait make scepter so strong that it outshine everything else. In fact the trait is so strong that we are at a point that there is a high probability that we would end up being disapointed by the performance of an elite spec condi weapon compared to scepter. Let's face it: "+50% scepter condi duration and 200 extra condition damage while wielding a scepter". GW2 devs just can't introduce a weapon with balanced numbers that can compete with a weapon that have such a trait supporting it. _I thought that it was obvious for everyone._

> @"Sigmoid.7082" said: > Necro literally has a single strong condi weapon in sceptre. Another main hand weapon that doesn't overlap with it would be good. It's why I say mace or sword. The scepter is overwhelming other necromancer's condi weapon mainly due to it's OP trait. Staff could compete against scepter if it had a trait half as strong as _lingering curse_. Even just removing the "scepter only" restriction on the extra condition damage of the _lingering curse_ trait would go a long way to make staff more competitive against scepter. Make _mark of blood_ apply 4 bleed instead of 2 in PvE only and the staff become automatically part of the condi necromancer's rotation. I mean, the staff really isn't far behind the untraited scepter.

> @"Axl.8924" said: > Thats the reason though, what dadnir said: Reaper is already covering melee type and scourge covers aoe. I didn't say scourge cover aoe. Technically both repaer and scourge can be said to cover aoe, reaper at melee range and scourge at long range. I wouldn't bet against another e-spec heavy on aoe, the devs seem to like this design on the necromancer and there are still some "traditional" kind of aoe that the necromancer have yet to get (like the "impact" type that is mainly found on elementalist).

> @"snoow.1694" said: > Neither the condition „Burn“ nor Rune of the Trapper are currently overpowered... _Runes of the trapper_ is a pending issue. It was to strong alongside ranger's traps and the result was that ranger's traps got nerfed. After that it ended being to strong alongside thief's traps and the result is that thiefs traps ended up being nerfed and then directly changed to "preparations". Now it's to strong alongside DH traps and you're basically saying the issue isn't the runes... Let's imagine that EoD give the necromancer an elite spec with traps, how much are you willing to bet that alongside _runes of the trapper_ it would be balanced? Come on just imagine necromancer with superspeed and stealth... Other examples: thematically, traps fit both mesmer and engineer so I wouldn't be surprised to see trap given to them in elite spec (mind traps for mesmers and mechanic traps for engi). Just imagine them with extra access to superspeed and stealth. For both it wouldn't hurt thematically at all, but balance wise it wouldn't be less of a nightmare than mirage was with it's seemingly endless dodge. From the very begining, this runeset is a balance issue, the fact that it wasn't changed yet is what's surprising.