GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

Hello there! We are conducting a survey to better understand the user experience in making a first edit. If you have ever made an edit on Gamepedia, please fill out the survey. Thank you!

Talk:Secondary professions for a Necromancer

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Mistake - Two Elites..[edit source]

"...Echo and Arcane Echo are very useful for multiple uses of the skill Spiteful Spirit,..." - quote from the article. "Echo" is an elite - and Spiteful Spirit also.. (so I deleted "s Echo and" and replaced "are" with "is")

Why reverting edits?[edit source]

I just want to know on what basis the edits from Special:Contributions/85.25.141.60 where reverted. An empty * looks ugly, so why did master Skuld do this without just remove the "Example Builds" at all??? --168.150.251.39 04:46, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

I'm backing the idea to remove 'Example Builds' if there is none mentioned. It is very easy to write in again if an example is actually vetted.
On a similar note, I'm touching up the N/E entry. I have never heard of the term 'necrotic burner' being used before, and the whole entry seems dated to me. I highly doubt Verata's Sacrifice can keep minions up for as long anymore, but I won't touch it for now--someone else who knows more about minion masters should check that. --Ufelder 05:29, 18 October 2006 (CDT)

Some of the example builds are...unfavored. Readem (talk*contribs) 18:32, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Yay for skuld, and his powerful RV abilities! Readem (talk*contribs) 18:35, 12 April 2007 (CDT)

Yet again, Skuld shows his magical power of RV to remove helpful negative advice to those that want to learn! Man, I wish I could do that! --Gimmethegepgun 14:36, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Another Revert[edit source]

What's wrong with a teleport toucher N/A? There's a perfectly viable build in the builds section for it as well...Jonisofsparta 14:47, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

Tell me why it is viable. — Skuld 14:54, 23 April 2007 (CDT)
I guess if this is mostly for PvE, you have a point. Doesn't work too bad in PvP though. Jonisofsparta 15:03, 23 April 2007 (CDT)

"this isn't documenting what people use, its listing good things"[edit source]

i wholeheartedly agree with this comments, and anyone who says two SS is worth less then one when facing a whole group of warriors in PvE needs their head forcibly removed from observer mode, and dropped back into the other 90% of the game. without a build section, guildwiki has a huge information gap surrounding skill combination, these articles need to have solid information on profession combinations. the elitist attitude and skeletal articles are not helping anyone. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 18:55, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Agree. M s4 23:05, 7 May 2007 (CDT)

Secondary profession crap and why we should not include it[edit source]

People look at these for good advice (and without the build section telling them to run life sheath whammos, we can have a better impact); therefore, these should be for good advice only. "Skills from the Tactics line such as "Shields Up!" can help the Necromancer and his teammates." You know what would help the necromancer and his teammates more? The Necromancer not listening to crap like that and actually bringing a useful bar instead of investing half his points into tactics for NO REASON AT ALL. Now, I'm going to go through all the secondary profession articles this week and weed out the crap; if anyone has good, solid advice, feel free to add it. But if it's crap like "LOL USE TACTICS FOR NO REASON," I request that you leave it out of the article. -Auron My Talk 01:56, 8 May 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I agree some of the information is not very good, but how do you suppose we weed out the good and the bad with as little bias as possible? Will it be to the discretion of a select few, will it be discussed publicy, and if it is so, will there be need for a system similar to the vetting procedure? M s4 07:59, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
Bias has nothing to do with it. Tactics on a necro simply sucks. All the bad advice should be removed so people don't think that running around as a N/W with shouts is awesome; similarly, the stuff that goes on skill pages should not go on secondary profession articles ("Serpent's Quickness can accelerate slow recharging spells." No shit? I had no idea!). -Auron My Talk 17:14, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
Why not just put in the proff guides favorable skills. For example: Useful skills for a necro include: (Reason why) We don't need to fiil in skills from EVERY prof either. Because as Auron said, we shouldn't tell people SQ is good on a nec... Readem (talk*contribs) 17:22, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
Well, just from looking secondaries for warrior, there is a suggestion saying that warriors could do well with melandru's resilience. I think that is a terrible idea, but maybe the author thinks differently. How could we settle that kind of conflict? I mean like i could continue to explain how many only conditions like blind, weakness, and cripple are specific for the frontline, but he might argue that MR allows the backline to not worry about them or something. I mean, oblivious people do exist in this wiki. How would we settle this kind of conflict? M s4 17:38, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
Melandru's Resilience < Mending Touch for conditions, especially on a warrior. We'd settle any conflict by pointing that out. Warriors have better things to spend elites on, and when a non-elite does a better job on the first place, telling people to use that elite is bad advice. Oblivious people might exist on the wiki, but until they are the majority, these secondary profession pages shouldn't be "warrior secondaries for dummies." -Auron My Talk 19:03, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
honestly, they probably should be "warrior secondaries for dummies.", because "warrior secondaries for Rank 15" has a much smaller audience. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 02:11, 9 May 2007 (CDT)
the point of the negative advices was to stave off prospective players from using a skill which is popular but underpowered (mending), or by wholeheartedly importing bars from other classes that perform poorly (SR nuker). --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 20:35, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
Yes, notice how I left the note about how much mending sucked on the W/Mo article? Telling people that mending sucks is not the same as telling people to use tactics on a necro or axes on sins. -Auron My Talk 22:26, 8 May 2007 (CDT)
Sarah, if you truly feel you must add what skills "Not" to use, then do it! Create a seperate page, and list all the skills you think people, shouldn't use. Don't put them on these articles, for it just clutters them. And btw, PvP is not so different from PvE. Mending Touch is a good condition removal, anywhere you go -_-. Axes sins, suck everywhere. Case dismissed. Readem (talk*contribs) 17:55, 9 May 2007 (CDT)


instead of telling why a secondary is good or not, how bout list what possibilities can go with it. Necros are not limited to just mm and ss. thats what people who dont play necro will say. theres the whole blood skills that no one mentions, aside blood renewal. how about a nec monk who can act as a condition diverter? or what about the meleemancer? yes i know it my profession, but it shouldnt be cut short. it has its advantages. Nec Ele can use low energy requiring fire along with the curses or death, or add to blood for tons of degen. dont say why something isnt usefull, say what it can be created into. thats what players are looking for. if you want to add in saying a nec rit is dumb or a necwar is weak, then place it on discuss, not on the actual page.-FilianBronse

this page is about secondary profession combinations, and their contrasts. blood vs death vs curses has no place here. --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 00:51, 2 June 2007 (CDT)
"And btw, PvP is not so different from PvE." I lol'd so hard. 69.159.200.89 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

delete[edit source]

see Category talk:Profession combinations#why delete --Honorable Sarah Honorable Icon.gif 22:37, 11 May 2007 (CDT)