From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I think the first line needs a bit of work. I can't think of something better. Something along the lines of "fill multiple roles besides DPS and healing". A person who thinks they have utility because they self heal and deal damage really isn't. Whereas a warrior who brings hamstring would have more utility than one that brought healing signet. Having both ranged and melee damage ability isn't utility either. Condition spreading isn't utility if the conditions are just for damage (bleeding, poison, disease, burning), but spreading cripple, blind, even deep wound (since it deals damage and prevents some healing) would count. I couldn't come up with a statement that said this that was concise enough for me. StatMan 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I had the same issue. I actually debated listing things that are utility and things that aren't, and I think I'll do that for now. ··· Danny Pew Pew 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm also not too sure on the classes you are listing. I've used an Elementalist for utility quite a bit, and it wasn't just as a blind bot (well, one build did have Stoning and Ash Blast). Although probably the best single class for utility is the ranger (snare, blind, interrupt, daze) and probably a few others ranger skills, I've never played one long. Perhaps also an assassin could be utilitarian, except most of their skills are melee or half spell range. StatMan 18:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I just brought up the Ranger because of its toolbox nature and the Ritualist because of its equally strong defensive and offensive roles. The Paragon might be worth mentioning since it's a toolbox character by nature, too, but I'd hardly think the Elementalist or Assassin, as they've been used in recent metas, are strong utility, except perhaps Air Eles. For the most part, Elementalists form the ranks of bitch roles and do so very well. However, removing any classes whatsoever would probably be best if a wording could be developed. ··· Danny Pew Pew 18:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

State on July 09[edit]

It is looking better. I might add something when I can agree with myself on adding it. StatMan 23:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard definition?[edit]

Do we have one for this? I'd say something like "non-damage effects of an offensive skill and non-healing effects of a defensive skill", but that feels too vague. I think part of the problem is that there isn't really a set definition, currently. :\ User Raine R.gif is for Raine, etc. 20:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

a utility skill should be both offensive and defensive, actually, so that definition fails quite miserably, no offense. =/ ··· Danny Pew Pew 07:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


See: talk:toolbox#merge.