ArenaNet talk:Skill feedback/Monk/Spell Breaker

San Matteo's Issue -- 08:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Lol, with a enchanting mod, that would equate to being able to make an ally immune to half the classes (mesmer, elementalist, necromancer, some ritualist spells) and also being able to negate one of the most important functions of a ranger (interruption/dazed) and makes one of the most powerful conditions in the game (to casters anyway) do nothing. And this can be kept up 50% of the time. For 15 energy every 45 seconds. And when combined with arcane echo can make any monk basically invicible unless KD locked without any spells.Crimmastermind 09:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, plus or minus the actual behaviour of SF, nothing new. San Matteo 09:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I assumed this was a PvE only buff. Would be retarded in PvP. Misery 09:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * agree, may be only a buff related to pve. San Matteo 09:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would be okay in PvP since monks will get owned by sway anyway. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:96.233.0.7 (talk).

This buff is totally unnescessary. Sure Shadow Form currently is stronger than Spell Breaker for most cases, but Spell Breaker can be cast on another ally, doesn't leave the user at 30hp, it doesn't reduce damage dealt and on top of that it is in divine favor, which is much more useful than shadow arts imo. Spell Breaker was used in HA and it still is being used in several invincible farming builds. The suggested buff would make this skill way too powerful, however I think this skill may be changed slightly due to buffs/debuffs of several other skills and thus the meta change to builds using mostly physical attackers and signet users. Perhaps make Spell Breaker also give immunity to signets to make this a unique and practically unstrippable enchantment? 77.251.227.254 11:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First, tanks don't need to deal damage, they just need to prevent damage. Second, Spell Breaker doesn't work against attacks. Third, Shadow Form can be sustained indefinitely with the right build and it only causes health loss when it ends. -- Gordon Ecker 22:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You make a blunder, dear 77.251.227.254. Gordon Ecker has just cleared many points, but let me add this: unlike you think, damage prevention of SF is surely more useful in many cases respect to SB; the suggested buff is not only my idea but is the result of a careful analysis of the most four important magic skills (SB, SF, OF and VoS) by many people, accordingly to this, the requested buff is minimal respect to the buff that we should ask; this buff, identically to the buff received from SF, is intended primarily for pve, consequently his powerful have primary importance. San Matteo 08:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To compensate the buff received by Shadow Form may be useful make a plain buff to Spell Breaker as well
 * You're assuming too much.
 * First, izzy doesn't have a clue what he's doing, you're assuming the shadow form change was justified.
 * Secondly, Shadow Form is functionally broken, Spell Breaker is not. You can't compare the two.  ~Shard  [[Image:User Shard Sig Icon.png]] 00:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First, what Izzy does indicate or not makes no relevance to the debate we are having, as the debate on a hypothetical buff is not based on indications from Izzy but the context of skill's functionality that we face. Therefore not assume anything, i see objectively functionality of a skill and discuss it, and point enough.
 * You're assuming that i'm justifying the changes to SF, i don't, in the presence of these changes i simply propose leveling up SB in order to equalize its features to SF, and hope that we can do the same with the other two, OF and VoS.
 * Second, what is broken in regard to pve aspect of SF? What? You're incredibly wrong. Please, review the pve-side of SF because you don't know what we are talking, and this is very serious. San Matteo 07:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Spell Breaker is useless crap. It's useless in PvP because you still get owned by Wounding Strike, sway, and every single melee-based broken gimmick. Costs 15 energy too. It's useless in PvE since Shadow Form is just better. Buff the skill. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:96.233.7.140 (talk).

Lancy1214 Proposal
Lancy, sincerely, if here are an unpractical proposal is your, your proposal disrupt totally the functionality of SB. Please review why we discuss of a buff to SB and try to understand that remaining like that SB is too weak compared to SF. I hope that the argument is clear. San Matteo 08:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, untargetability (which is used by Obsidian Flesh) and spell failure (which is used by Spell Breaker) are different things. If a spell fails, its' energy cost is still expended and it still inflicts exhaustion, if applicable. If an attempt is made to cast a spell against an untargettable foe, no cost is paid an casting doesn't start (unless target becomes untargetable after casting has started, in which case the untargetability triggers failure). -- Gordon Ecker 09:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * San Matteo, what are you trying to say? How is this disrupting the total functionality of spell breaker? It is still "breaking spells" so to speak and I also discussed why im buffing it. Please read the "Issue" section under where I wrote the specific problems with this spell. And comparing this to Shadow Form is irrelevant as they both have two completely different functions (One being for self only, the other targeting other allies as well. And to Gordon, thanks for letting me know about that, I fixed it to fail, not targeted.--Lancy1214 19:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to tell you that your proposal would destroy the current capabilities of SB because, as you suggested, now we would only protection against two spells and not against an unlimited number of spells, and this is what is called nerf, not buff as you mistakenly believe. I read what you wrote and your proposal is not feasible because SB does not need such radical changes but on the contrary it needs substantial buff, and when we talk about buff we refer mainly to the length (the duration time, the recharge time, the cast time and the cost in energy) or additional capacity (not necessarily), certainly not a radical change as your. In addition, contrary to what you believe, SB and the other three main spells are all part of a class of very special abilities that covers protection against enemy spells, regardless of their class and their primary attribute, so are perfectly comparable with each other. I hope to have you clear ideas. San Matteo 22:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to bother making an argument because you've already made your mind set.--Lancy1214 23:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to make an argument then do it well, here we all have the mental flexibility sufficient to address any topic. San Matteo 07:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your skill change is a nerf to its actual function (making an ally invulnerable to spells for a certain period) in exchange for self-healing and energy management. Frankly, that fails. You do not want to spend an elite on shitty effect for energy management. Your change would actually be inferior to Prot Spirit, because that can be maintained and 2 spells failing every 12 seconds is quite frankly useless, so the only real effect is the energy management, since the self healing is worse than either ZB or WoH. However, you only gain a conditional 9 energy every 13 seconds (12 recharge +1/4 cast time +3/4 aftercast), which would equate to +2 energy regeneration. Now then, that 9 energy doesn't even cover the cost of having to apply Prot Spirit after your enchant stops 2 spells and the enemy laughs that you stopped parasitic bond twice and then proceeds to spike your target with impunity.
 * I would say that changing the use of a spell that big is only suitable for spells that no-one uses, or that have unbalancable effects or are exploitable. It is not needed for a spell that has good effect, but sucks due to recharge, short duration, long cast time etc. This spell only needs a duration buff or a recharge buff, not a complete rework that sucks just as bad (if not worse) as the original.Crimmastermind 23:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * now this is overpowered... 85.242.72.249 23:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * - - (Divine Favor) - Elite Spell. "For  seconds, enemy Spells targeted against target ally fail." imo... would give better tactical spell prevention instead of a random long duration. Anfunny 15:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)