Talk:Rune of Absorption

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Global or Not?[edit]

Is this rune global or specific to that piece of armor only? Barinthus 04:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This rune affects every hit you take, thus it is not specific to that armor. -- Frozzen User_Frozzen_sig.PNG 04:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Has this updated? Stories told back 'in the day' always spoke about putting this in the chest peice ("Good rule of thumb is to always put your absorb rune in your armor. Rune only affects that one specific part of the body so always put it where you get hit the most, namely the chest.". Now the official wiki claims it's global? --Czar 23:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Frozzen's a player like you or me, not ANet. I think in this case it's local, not global, but I'm not positive. Calor (t) 23:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I read here at Damage reduction "Runes of Absorption: -1 (minor), -2 (major), -3 (superior) vs. physical damage, non-stacking (global)" Wow... how about that. --Czar 00:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Useless in pvp?[edit]

Does anyone think these are useless for pvp cuz no one hits warriors with physical? (except noobs but they won't be able to kill u lol) --Atomisk 19:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A lot of stuff in GW is useless for PvP. Forsaken Insignia for instance, since every dervish uses enchantments anyway. Paddymew 20:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Counters life drain from vampiric weapon! Eles shouldn't hurt you much anyway since you're using elemental shield set, sentinels' insignias, or both. But yeah, you should already be saturated by all these runes, not including the attribute ones. Ox rider 10:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing the point[edit]

Am I missing the point to this rune? When you are on the receiving end on 60, 70, 80 or even 90 damage, what good is -3 going to do? If I get hit by a Charr for 87 damage instead of 90 those 3 hitpoints aren't really going to matter are they? --Stu 18:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to look at the big picture. Every little thing will add up including all other bonuses in your armor, your shield, any defensive skills, and any skills your allies use on you. You can look at it similarly with the +HP mods. Sure, a rune of vitae adds only +10HP, but when you have it on several pieces of armor, +30HP mods on your hand gear, it all adds up and you might have 600+ HP in total. --8765 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope I'm still missing the point :( I can see how every little helps with regards to rune of vitae because they stack. So five of the gives an extra 50hp. However -3 damage I dont see the point of. Isn't it like having an extra 3 hit points? In which case wouldn't you be better to have a rune of vitae which is 7 more than the rune of adsorption? What is it I'm missing?

You can't compare total HP to damage reduction in that way. While you would get +10 HP using a vitae instead of an absorption, that -3 adds up, and would be more beneficial than a single vitae rune in the long run. You also shouldn't look at a single hit, but rather a series of hits. For PvE, physical damage is usually what wipes your team. For a tanking warrior, they have a +20 vs physical armor bonus, which is nicely supported by a flat -3 physical damage, and possibly another -2 from your shield. On top of that, there's lots of protection spells offered by your monk support. If you use more +armor runes instead of survivor runes, don't be surprised if you see several zeros popup while tanking. That's something all +HP can't offer. But in the end, it really depends on what you're fighting and you should choose your gear accordingly. --8765 02:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
If you look at it this way perhaps: Every time you are hit while wearing this rune instead of a vitae, you reduce damage by 3. After being hit the fourth time, with total damage recieved having been reduced by 12, it will have gained in on the vitae rune already. So if you expect to be taking physical damage more than three times during a fight between heals, this is superior to a vitae. Paddymew 20:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
When you also factor in that warriors will have an armor level of 100 to 116 vs physical damage, that will already have reduced a lot of your physical damage taken. So it's unlikely you'll take more than 20 damage from *most* physical hits. Dropping -3 off of that amounts to 15% damage reduction, which adds up to a lot of saved health if you get hit frequently (which tanks are supposed to). The dilemma however is this rune's effectiveness in normal mode as opposed to hard mode. In hard mode, the enemies attack faster, which means more hits, which means more damage absorbed in the same time span. However, they also deal more damage per hit, which means less percentage of damage reduction per hit. So you wind up robbing peter to pay paul when you use it in hard mode. The rune seems to work best in normal mode, when you couple it with other sources of damage reduction, and insignia that add armor against elemental damage to make you resist multiple damage types. The skill Defy Pain, Dreadnought's or Sentinel's insignia, and a Rune of Superior Absorbtion tend to synergize very well. A second suit with Survivor's insignia and runes of Vitae is more helpful against degen-heavy foes, smiters, and life-stealers, since damage reduction and armor buffs won't really help against them as much. 174.98.171.204 16:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Weren't these worth a lot, back in the day? So they lowered in price when HM was introduced...?Tong2 21:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
All rune prices dropped like a rock after the Rune Trader appeared. But yes, this was a VERY valuble rune pre-Trader. :)
I know I'm late, but think about this, once you get hit by 4 hits (should happen in an instant if you run into mobs alone) a superior absorption rune has instantly become more beneficial than a vitae. Not only that, vitae would only prolong the time taken until you need to heal, this actually REDUCES the amount of healing needed (thus, reducing monk energy problems). In a long fight, you might take up to 100+ hits (or more, if monsters are interested in you). 300+ hp PREVENTED (or think of it as a 300 hp health gain) speaks for itself. 114.77.108.48 07:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
dont forget, for solo farming mobs like raptors, griffins, aatxes, smites etc, knight's, superior absorption+ defy pain means u are taking only 0 floats with the occasional bleed dmg.Nibelhim 14:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Stacking[edit]

I see that two Warrior Rune of Superior Absorption are not stacking with eachother, but what is with a Warrior Rune of Superior Absorption combined with a Warrior Rune of Major Absorption? 81.206.253.73 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

When a rune says non-stacking, it means that only the highest bonus counts, and only one of them. Guildwarsrunner 09:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Cheap[edit]

I'm curious why these runes are always going for a song at the trader. From all the arguments above, it would seem that they should be pretty useful, but obviously not many people think so. -- Hong 08:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking the same thing also. Seems useful to me. — Eloc 23:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
drops of rare runes were increased sometime around the release of Sorrow's Furnace. Before Sup Absorption was flat 100k at the trader at all times. Finding one was your lucky day. Same for sup vigor, 100k no exceptions. So they raised droprates on these runes, and within weeks the trader price dropped to a manageable 30k for either. When 55 and 600 were introduced, warriors lost their spot as #1 farming class, making both vigor and absorption pretty much worthless while all monk sup runes rose to over 50k a piece. With the release of heroes, necro runes became more valuable, while the release of mercenaries mostly boosted the price of mesmer runes. Before mercs, mesmer runes were invariably 100g for 5 long years. Yea it was a pretty fun time when looking back at the evolution of rune prices. =)94.229.155.181 21:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Lot of history right here, I still remember finding my first Sup Absorption, but it didn't salvage out :( (back in the day when it was only a chance to salvage) 216.147.135.217 06:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)