Necromancer - DS Shredder

So I created this page because I felt a notable build was missing under necromancer for dungeons especially given the viability of this build. As noted in the video guides, both Brazil and Spoj feature this build in their respective necromancer guides. In addition, in pugs this build is vastly superior as the ideal conditions that allow Dagger/X to outdamage this build, which is at the minimum perfectly maintained 25 might stacks, is rarely ever met. As you can see here: [1] and in the thread in general, DEKeyz has done the math that shows that the personal DPS of this build is at least greater than that of the dagger one. This is in addition to the much greater survivability of this build (you are constantly in Death Shroud and can be right out of melee range) and the greater vulnerability that this build applies. So to conclude, more damage, more survivability, more group utility given that you are in a group that cannot maintain high might and vulnerability stacks and fury.

As to the (in my opinion) funny name of the build, chullster from the guildwars2guru forums was the originator of this build to my knowledge, and in order to honor and credit him, I maintained the name on this page.

Now open to suggestions. MoonKK (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This build should have Dagger Mainhand Swap when you're attempting to build up DS. Axe is terrible for actual damage, we only use it to proc Axe Training and then go into Death Shroud.

--Neko (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that but initially disliked the idea as it locks you out of access to DS for one of your weapon sets and in a pinch, if you enter DS on the dagger set, you'll be doing the least amount of damage that DS can do. I guess in essence, having axe be both mainhands adds flexibility to freely go in and out of DS while having dagger can almost act as having like double DS cooldowns in some situations. Of course, for bosses you've got no reliable way to build DS back up in which case dagger seems sort of required. If dagger mainhand is put in, I'd assume we're going axe/focus and dagger/warhorn (as less time is usually spent on the warhorn set due to the longer cooldown of Locust Swarm and so you're less likely to be on the dagger at any given point when you activate DS), and the only question is whether this would be considered mainbuild or variant. MoonKK (talk) 08:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
So after a little more consideration, I guess having dagger/warhorn as a secondary set basically just changes the rotation and usage of the build. You would only swap to it when you need to refill life force and it cuts Locust Swarm out of the general rotation. To still maximize on Locust Swarm, I guess you could quickly swap sets right after DS ends and use it so that the cooldowns for weapon sets and DS line up. Otherwise, be in axe/focus in order to jump to DS at any time and not find yourself stuck on the dagger set when DS is needed. MoonKK (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so the two sets would be Axe/Warhorn and Dagger/Focus. You would camp Dagger/Focus using Reaper's Touch as it comes off cooldown and autoattacking. When DS and weapon swap are off cooldown or you have enough life force to enter, weapon swap, use Locust Swarm, and start Life Blasting in DS until it runs out. Afterward, use Locust Swarm if it is off cooldown, otherwise swap back to Dagger/Focus and build until DS and weapon swap are off cooldown again. Is this the general usage then? And is Ghastly Claws worth incorporating anywhere. I don't know how the DPS for that compares in relation to Life Blast and dagger autoattack, MoonKK (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Additional usage tips: while Life Blasting, use Life Transfer before the 50% threshold in order to keep the 5% damage bonus. Use Blood is Power whenever it is off cooldown. Save wells to spam if possible right before entrance into DS. Use skill 5 in DS for AoE damage if that's needed. MoonKK (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

So any other opinions? Dagger mainhand into the main build or no? MoonKK (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Won't you lack cleave damage with axe? DS attacks pierce, but that's not the same. But I'm no hardcore PvE player so have no clue about this :P --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 08:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Well it doesn't really matter if axe doesn't cleave and dagger does because you'll never be attacking with axe and will always be in DS while on the axe set (if having dagger as another mainhand). Otherwise, you're right, while just having axe out and DS on cooldown, this build would be basically mediocre single target only. If this build had no axe, Dagger/X build would be superior so there's no point using a dagger in a 30/10/0/0/30 build (Personal DPS of this build is about 5064 compared to Dagger/X which is 4552. If you used a dagger instead of axe, the 5064 number would drop by more than 10%). Functionally, DS pierce and dagger cleave act about the same. Dagger cleaves horizontally in front of your character more while Life Blast extends vertically much more. In the end though, enemies would likely stack up onto you so cleaving with both attacks would act the same. Because there always exists a straight line between two points, and because dagger only hits up to two, the cleave/pierce ability of the two weapons should be about the same. I feel dagger is much easier to hit multiple opponents with, but every instance in which dagger cleaves, Life blast can as well whereas the opposite cannot be said for dagger. MoonKK (talk) 10:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. For now, I'm going to add dagger in as a mainhand weapon and change the usage accordingly. Something I'm not sure of though is whether Axe skill 2 should be incorporated into the rotation because I don't know how the DPS of that skill compares in relation to DS and dagger auto attack. I think it's more than dagger autoattack but less than Life blast but I'm not sure. MoonKK (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ghastly Claws[edit]

I have Ghastly Claws in the usage rotation. At the very least the damage is on par with dagger autoattack but it gives you a bit more life force as well and maybe inches you into Death Shroud a tiny bit sooner. I'm still curious if anyone knows if this is worth using at all or whether it is better to skip it altogether. MoonKK (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Did some testing by using one chain of dagger auto attack and one use of Ghastly claws, both of which take about the same amount of time to execute (2.1 seconds for dagger auto attack chain and 2.25 seconds for Ghastly Claws). There was a pretty clear difference at the end that Ghastly Claws did more damage than the dagger chain, so at the very least it is worth using over dagger auto attack when possible. Using the same method, Life Blast was much stronger than Ghastly claws, killing a target in 7 life blasts whereas the same target died after 4 ghastly claws. So the usage should be accurate for how to maximize damage. MoonKK (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Reaper's Precision[edit]

Honestly I think Reaper's Precision is just a terrible trait. I mean 1% life force every third critical hit? It seems like the life force gain from that is absolutely negligible and having Weakening Shroud there could offer better damage and access to weakness. Any opinions on this? When gaining life force from Reaper's Precision, is something still better than nothing? And would that something be worth taking over Weakening Shroud? MoonKK (talk) 11:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Afaik that trait has no ICD, so it can be pretty nice for a DS build especially with wells and Warhorn #5 -
Death Perception Death Perception
Death Perception
Increases critical-hit chance while in death shroud.
Stat-Icon-Precision.pngCritical Chance Increase: 50%
affects every skill not just the DS ones, so if you enter DS after casting WH #5 and your wells it's going to be pretty impossible not to score a critical hit with them, and all of these are AoE skills. Also, if you feel like it's ready to be rated I can move it up to Testing :P --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 09:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
So I guess your answer is the "something is still better than nothing." I mean yeah, Weakening Shroud is basically negligible damage too. At least Reaper's Precision clearly has synergy with the aims of the build, even if it's underwhelming. Yea, it doesn't look like there's much more discussion build-wise. It's the exact same as Spoj's guide but its a little different from Brazil's, but Spoj is the clearly the bigger necromancer expert so I'm gonna have to go with him. Time to Testing. MoonKK (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
So I guess your answer is the "something is still better than nothing." - that's a fitting TL;DR :D --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 20:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Axe/Focus + Dagger/Warhorn[edit]

I think that the Weapons setup should be changed to Axe/Focus + Dagger/Warhorn rather then Axe/Warhorn + Dagger/Focus. It makes more sense to have it this way as the range of the offhand weapons match that of the mainhand. Also it allows Locust swarm to be activated while you move in for some dagger 1 chains to get some extra dps. Daniel(talk) 11:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable MoonKK (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to Good category?[edit]

I don't believe necros have the DPS, utility, or support required to be considered a great build. This may be the best a necro can output as far as builds go, but I think the entire profession isn't balanced to the point where it is on par with other "great" dungeon professions. If there are no mathematical objections I will change the tag in a few days. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 20:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose it just goes by what constitutes "great." If considered strictly within the context of what a necromancer can do, then it's no doubt great. If compared with builds across all classes, then besides for the meta classes, it's almost like by definition, if the class is never even considered for speed runs, they can't possibly even have a "great" build. Meaning necromancers, rangers, and engineers would have no great builds by this definition of "great." It doesn't apply to this build specifically, but I think we should judge builds within the effectiveness of their class because it just gets too subjective when comparing builds cross profession. What I mean by that isn't to say it's hard to compare this with GS guardian (and clearly GS guardian is better), but at what point is the class itself "good" vs "great."
I hope it's accurate in saying that the rating system and the wiki itself is based on the pvxwiki for gw1. Going with that assumption, I'd just like to point out that pvxwiki builds were always considered within the context of their class. Towards the end of the game, basically the only competent party for rolling hard mode consisted solely of necromancers, mesmers, and rituatlists, and having an elementalist or ranger or something was just suboptimal for vanquishing or the Guild Wars Beyond quests. That didn't mean though that the wiki didn't have "great" builds for them; they just weren't the meta and were (in my opinion) fairly evaluated in context of the class. So splinter barrage was the best a ranger could do in PvE, and so that warranted a "great" even though in comparison to other builds, it had absolutely no spot on a team.
I think the difficulty with GW2 and categorizing is just how little build variety there is in PvE. Just a cursory glance at the dungeon section, and basically all those builds look like meta builds to me, save for some of the specialized or offshoot builds (like the warrior build for legendary shaman and the pure axe variant). And if they aren't meta for speed runs, they are at least the meta for the class.
So to just sum up, I think we need a more defined definition of how to evaluate great or good builds. In relation to other classes, or just in relation to its own class? If it's the latter, then definitely stick this build in great. If its the former, then I don't think a single necromancer, ranger, or engineer build belongs in great and most mesmer builds would only be good as well I feel. *sorry formatting* MoonKK (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The dungeon section specifically (and hopefully all categories eventually) will consider each build against each other and not within it's own profession. The category should show the meta builds regardless of profession. This can lead to multiple same profession meta builds and many professions failing to achieve meta.
Reasoning: It is unfair to new players to assume this necro build is as good as the actual meta builds. It is unfair for argumentative purposes (But I found it on metabattle!) and therefore tarnishes our reputation. It is also unfair to the many players that play dungeons regularly and simply want an efficient team.
This doesn't mean it's a bad build. It should simply be accurately rated to other builds. When someone picks this build up because it's the best they could find for their profession, they should know this is the best they could do and where they stand on the hierarchy (I will get into great vs good in a later paragraph).
This set up also benefits ANet in showing how their classes stack up by the community's standards. If we were to ask DnT where they classified classes, we would assume (with their many months and now even years of practice) that they have a good understanding how each build stacks up with each other. That directly translates to our rating, specifically for the Dungeon category.
If we are scoring these builds, we should see
  1. Mechanics brought to the table (Reflect, Stealth, DPS, Weakness, etc -- each of these also having their own level of importance to the overall run, e.g. reflects don't matter as much in some instances as they do in others)
  2. Ease of use -- Okay they might bring reflection (continuing our example) but do they bring it as easily as another class? Is it better to drop a Wall of Reflect wherever you want or a Feedback in a specific location? Does Feedback cover more projectiles or will a Wall suffice?
  3. Effectiveness -- Well okay both classes bring reflect, but which one can upkeep it better over the long run? Are they both equally effective at this? A better example would be stealthing Thief vs Engi. A thief can effectively stealth without worrying too much about enemies, whereas an Engi has a harder time maintaining this in some cases.
So let's start listing what the good qualities are that this class brings to the table. We already know it's DPS is less than great for AoE situations, and that it can't provide Reflect, Stealth, or great amounts of Condi Clear for the party. So really I think it's not even a great build, but just a good one. A great build would be Phalanx Strength warrior, because it can actually be the best build if your party fails to get 25 might (somethign that doesn't happen in the meta, but does happen in pugs). A necro even in niche situations isn't a great build. It's simply good imo. But we can deliberate on this point more (I think it's healthy to keep this discussion going).
So TL;DR -- MetaBattle was based off pvxwiki but it does not adhere to all the old rules. In this case specifically it will not judge each class on it's own level of effectiveness. This is unfair to both the player base and ANet. There are some classes which will be better than others, it is not our job to try and equalize the playfield (or else we'd have to nerf some of the better builds), it is ANet's. It is also up to the dedicated players to show that there may be new and better ways to play professions which brings them up to par. Sadly in the case of the Necro, Ranger, and Engi I'm afraid those qualities don't mesh with the current Dungeon meta. Great builds are builds that are as effective or even more effective than Meta builds in non-meta environments, such as a pug that fails to reach full might will benefit the best from a Phalanx Warrior not a Necro, Ranger, Engi. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 14:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. My main concern was how builds are evaluated. I don't think anyone would argue that necromancers, rangers, or engineers have any builds worthy of being great in PvE. I just think it should be defined somewhere that when evaluating effectiveness, it is in relation to the entire scope of the game mode as a whole and not just in relation to profession. MoonKK (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
The thing is with PvE there are a lot of people that only play 1 character. But they will still want to be efficient and have a good build for that character. And in PvE their isn't competition between classes like their is in PvP/WvW. In PvE you make your character and have 5,000 hours on it, dungeon master, legendaries, world completion, ascended armor, fractal lvl 50, living world etc. That stuff is largely irreverent to your class and you never really hit a point where my class is bad and I can't do this. While in PvP due to the Meta and inherent competition, there will be competition between the classes. A good comparison would be you take a group of 5 magi Rangers into Arah P2. You will beat it eventually and once you beat it you are done, you won. Now if take that same team in ranked arena and try to win as 5 magi Rangers. You will get face rekted so hard and constantly lose, and you will continue to lose because of the bar set by competition. So that's why in GW1 PvX builds were compared within their own profession in PvE.
Also Meta =/= the best build. Meta = Meta, Great = Great, Good = Good. What we actually need to do is make two new categories of Great Meta builds and Good Meta builds. A good example of this in GW1 is this Searing Flames build. It's both a Meta build and a Good build. But how could it be Meta and at the same time not be the best build for Ele. Well this this is the best PvE build for Ele, it's Meta and Great and also overpowed as fuck. It does the healing of 4 monks with half the effort of a single monk. But you didn't roll an Ele for Healing you want to burn all the things. So this build is much better than Searing Flames build but not Meta. It isn't Meta because it isn't a Meta build but it's still a better build. In GW2 we will hardly have this problem because the way builds work and the culture of the community (there is Berserker post on reddit every week). But it does mean we can have a class like ranger that has 0 Meta builds. A a great build that's the best possible for them. Even though it's not a build that makes sense in the traditional way (no pew pew = QQ) and is outclassed by similar build from entirely different classe. And still keep a good build that is more traditional but still is as efficient as it can be.
So basically what I'm saying in PvE/Dungeons. We should have the Meta builds in Meta. The Great builds for the class in Great. And the Good builds for the class in Good.
While in WvW/PvP we will have the Meta builds in Meta, the Great builds in Great, and the Good builds in Good.
Nice and simple and helps keep the visibility of the better builds up without putting them into Meta Category. --Human icon.png Dantes (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
While my personally opinion is that I agree with Dante more on the fact that we should evaluate builds by class, ultimately any way of rating is fine by me and there's merits to both points. The only thing I want to see is not only consistency in the rating, but also having a rules page or something where the specific stance is defined, whether it's judging by class exclusively, or cross-class. MoonKK (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I can see the merits of including "the best build for a class" in great, but overall I have a few complaints with that approach. Namely, it pretends to be something it's not. In the case of Necro's for dungeons, they simply are not great. Yes you can finish a run in 1hr or in 5mins, both "win", but if we were to score them by how quickly they won, some groups would come in last. If the margin is small, then you can have meta and great (for dungeons), but if the margin really falls off, we should move it down to good. Ultimately if a build is less than half as effective as a meta/great build, it should be trashed. Thankfully Necro's are not that bad (from what I understand). But it's relatively easy to compare scores in dungeons. You check DPS charts, you check encounters and what special abilities they have, you check how quickly they can help the party move through the instance. Frankly their best known for "tanking", condis, and weakness application (which I'm told was nerfed as well sadly). They can't compete with the better classes for DPS (I will try to get numbers on this so we can directly compare them, it might be they're better now hopefully with sinister gear or what not), skipping mechanics, AoE mechanics, etc.

So that is my spiel for necro specifically. For instance, I would be okay saying Engi is great, becuase it does bring a close amount of DPS, can stealth the party, has reflection/projectile absorb abilities, etc. but at the cost of "ease-of-use". So it works almost as well, but not as efficiently, and I can agree with that even. But somehow for Necro, I really feel bad encouraging people to think their class is the best. I have sympathetic memories for those that only have one class, there was many a times my main was horribly rejected in PvE, WvW, and PvP. But I think a smart player can still figure out what the "best" build for their specific profession is by looking at the list. We can also include profession guides that showcase the best builds for each category and a small paragraph explaining it (like an intro guide to your profession or something) « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 21:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, looking at this guide by DEKeyz from the last summer (without Sinister update therefore) we get this rough set up of DPS with only one warrior in party:
Class DPS
Thief 12 k
Ele 10 k
War 9,5 k
Ranger 8,25 k
Engi 8 k
Guard 7,75 k
Mesmer 7,25 k
Necro 7,25 k
So from a DPS only perspective, a Necro is somewher abouts as good as a Mesmer/Guard. It's in the range. It's 25-40% less DPS than the top three classes. Remember a Warrior increases everyone's DPS (so one is definitely important, more as a DPS class are still better than a Necro), an Ele brings the conjures/FGS which speed up most fights/runs, a Thief stealths a party to skip a lot of trash and can blind mobs very easily. The top three all have great mobility, DPS, and decent reflect/projectile absorb. That's why they're meta, but let's try to fit Necro into great at least. Guardian brings 100% reflect/projectile absorb, great condi removal, good aegis for big hits, a decent amount of blinds for aoe and doesn't require the mesmer's "ramp up" for clones to be out to be effective in DPS. The wall is also better than focus, though Guard loses to feedback in some instances, and it's easier to maintain perma reflect/absorb on guard. That's how guard gets the "meta"/great for those specific instances where condi removal/reflects are needed for efficiency. Mesmer really just has portal to speed things up, in some hands this is extremely helpful to parties. Mostly I would rank this good/great. I could also fit Ranger/Engi into great even though they bring 15-33% less DPS (the main aspect of dungeons apart from running past mobs), but honestly re-looking at this I would put them in "good", as borderline great. Necro at this point... That is rough. I don't know what they can bring to the table apart from their dismal DPS. Hopefully someone does a Sinister DPS check and finds a way for it to fit in champ fights that last 30 seconds or less. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 22:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is arguing that necromancer is good in pve so we can settle that one now. But for other classes then, there's a bit more debate as to what is "great" or not. In cross-class comparisons, for instance, you would say that engineers could be great and I would say that they aren't. In single class comparisons, engineer would have to by definition have some sort of build that would be "great" and most optimal for it. This is just to illustrate the point of the potential for much more subjectivities of classification when comparing cross-class. Of course these issues could theoretically exist when comparing within classes as well, but since build diversity is so limited in PvE, maxing damage through stats, traits, and weapons are basically the dominant build of every class so there's little potential conflict. This is in conjunction with the fact that there are much less variables to compare and control for inter-class. My biggest point, though, is that whatever direction this wiki chooses to pursue, let it be boldly and clearly defined so that all know to follow that rule. I think that's what needs to be established first before discussion of what builds are good or great can really be done, because if everyone is grading on a different criteria, there will just be a lot of mess. MoonKK (talk) 03:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry if this has been already said, but afair is the necro with the dagger/x build in the moderate damage category, which is recommended for efficient party setups. However the ds shredder build is the recommended pug build. It even gets worse the more efficient other party members are, since your might generation is unneeded and death perception loses it's usefulness with perma-fury/spotter/banner of discipline present. Thus it is at max a good build for dungeons. Fredor
This build will be moved down to good (possibly trashed in the future) and I'm moving the site-wide discussion to the community portal's talk page. « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 13:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Nah, that is too harsh. It is still a nice build, not the most efficient but certainly playable. The only problem I see, is that it only buffs yourself, but that doesn't mean that it has to be trashed. Especially since there is still the option to move it to the general section of necromancer builds Fredor

Move to general section?[edit]

This build is only beneficial to yourself and not to your party. It can be played in dungeons, but should not be played in them since it gets worse the better organized the groups is. Thus I would recommend to move it to the general section since it should only be played in open world scenarios and dungeon runs with very uncoordinated pugs. Fredor (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree; it seems like this would be "great" in general and maybe only "good" in dungeons, but right now I think our general section needs a sort of overhaul and redefinition of what "General" means. Right now, all there is over there are specialized running and mob tagging builds which don't seem like general use at all and the "Dungeons" section actually contains the builds that are general use. MoonKK (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, seems that only two people care. Then I'll wait until tomorrow and then move it. Fredor (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Moved the build as promised, but couldn't figure out how to change the main page Fredor (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The main page takes time to adjust, it'll show up in general in a couple of hours. But for "General" I think it's Great. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 11:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah why not. /Fixed Fredor (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The effectiveness of the build[edit]

I don't play GW2 alot, and I only have 3 characters at level 80 (necromancer, warrior, engineer) I also din't play GW, so maybe I'm wrong on this subject but: I think that this build should be in the 'great' or atleast 'good' category of the dungeon builds. The reason being the following, Necromancers aren't good for 'competitive' speedrunning, solely because they are a selfish class, Nike said that if necros gave banners and warriors din't, necros would replace warriors. With that said, I don't think the majority of the playerbase does 'competitive' dungeon runs, from what I see, there are plenty of casual dungeon runners who don't properly stack might and vulnerability. Which brings me to this build: I think this build is the best direct damage Necromancer build for casual runs and other PvE content (and with some minor changes WvW), it provides some survivability trough ranged damage and DS, it gives you acess to amazing damage buffs: 25 stacks of might all by yourself, over 15 stacks of vulnerability and 100% crit chance on DS. Aditionaly, the argument 'But its not the best dungeon build for a competitive dungeon clear' dosen't matter because as it was already pointed out, the necromancer is the worst class for those dungeon clears. For those clears you have elementalists, thiefs, warriors and mesmers/guardians so the 'best necromancer build for competitive dungeons' shouldn't even be a thing, since necros aren't part of the dungeon speed clear meta. So the only thing necros are good for in the dungeon enviorment are casual runs, and for those runs, this build is the better than the dagger/x one.

Tl;Dr: There are meta builds for only 5 classes because they belong in the meta, the necro dosent belong in the meta, so he shouldn't have a meta build, but since this is the best necro build for non organised clears it should be in the great/good category. -- Opop

A few days ago I and a few others decided to move that build to the general section since it is in the dungeon section only a medium to good build, where it is a great build in the "general" open pve and pug section. You are right that necromancers aren't meta, but only because one class isn't considered that doesn't make each and every build a great build. Especially an egoistical like this one which wastes just so many buffs you get from a good group. Fredor (talk) 14:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I din't say that 'each and every' build should be in the 'great' classification, I said that this necromancer build should be in the great/good rating of the dungeon category because its the best build for the type of dungeon clears the necromancer belongs (casual/pug) I did not know however, that the general category was the one designated for casual runs/pugs. Now that I do know I agree that there is no point in puting this build in the dungeon category, seeing that its meant for the best builds in an extremely well organised group, and despite the fact that necromancers are not used in those the dagger/x build is the most effective one in said enviorments. -- Opop
General is not the same as Dungeon PUG. In fact it has nothing to do with dungeons, it's about open world content like map completion or farming. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 08:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Well we described it as open world pve / pug dungeon build and since there is no tag for both of them we moved it up there where it is better placed. Do we need a new dungen subcategory like casual dungeons? Fredor (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
No, that would be an overkill. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 12:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
We could change the meaning. However I'm planning to move General to "Other" and place in order from the top: Dungeons (PuG), Speed Clears (Solo/Duo, 3P, and 5P are prefixes for the build's usage in the team), World Boss, and Other (general). It seems we really need two dungeon categories if we want to continue "respecting" necro in dungeons and giving speed clear/hardcore players the proper platform for them as well. But we can still keep figuring it out, maybe there's a better option then mixing the two sections together « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 12:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Well we could simply add a speedclear category to the "This is a great build designed for dungeons" infoboxes. Then we could have on the mainpage a dungeon section with all dungeon builds and a speedclearing section calles META with only the most efficient dungeon build_per_class. Fredor (talk) 13:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That's confusing and overcomplicated IMO. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 13:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Nah, one subcategory for max dmg output build like they are played in organised groups and one subcategory for ALL the dungeon builds shouldn't make that much trouble. Fredor (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be a good change, there are some builds (like the warrior phalanx strength) that are not optimal for coordinated dungeon runs (the build in question becomes useless if there is an elementalist who can properly stack might, something that is a given in coordinated runs) but its a great build in pugs, because it offers the support that is not present in those clears. In my hopinion, the best way to categorize the dungeon section would be:Meta Builds (the best builds used by the meta classes (elementalist, warrior, guardian, thief, mesmer))Great Organised Builds (builds that are not the meta ones but are very close, like the Pure Axe Warrior build)Great Pug Builds (builds that are very usefull in the casual dungeon enviorment, like this build or the phalanx strength one)Good Organised Builds (builds that still work in coordinated groups, but there are better options, like the dagger/x build for the necromancer, since the build itself dosent provide anything to the party other than damage)Good Pug Builds (builds that work in the pug enviorment because they offer something to the party, like the S/A LB Spotter for the ranger, which offers crit chance)
Well that is a bit much if you ask me. Two subcategories should be sufficient. One for the maxed dps builds and one for all of them where we can put the DS Shredder, Fractal Hammer, Pure Axe EA etc. Btw S/A-LB Spotter isn't a pug build. It has a decent damage and a high amount of group support if played well. A GS or LB only ranger is a pug build Fredor (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
It feels unnecessary. I need gold so I've recently started doing dungeons again, mostly pugging. We're often capping on might and vulnerability simply because many are using the right build. PUG does not mean terrible players with bad builds. Sometimes we only have ~21 stacks of might but I wouldn't make an entire section because of that. Cross-referencing might do the job: in the build info we could add lines such as "if you have x eles consider switching to y build", no need to overdo it. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 16:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Then move back the shredder and give him the mediocre rating it deserves Fredor (talk) 16:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I posted this in the Dagger/X build as well, but after some empirical DPS testing, I found that this build loses out in terms of damage even in solo situations. I'm just gonna have a rough copy and paste over here. MoonKK (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So now that this exists: [2] I was testing the DPS of this build and how it compares to the 30/10/0/0/30 variation. If my rotations are correct and trials were unbiased, then this spec actually blows the other spec out of the water in terms of damage. I don't know how to do formatting with tables, but I guess that my raw results showed that the DPS of the Dagger/X build was about 3850 compared to 3250 of the DS build, which apparently contradicts some of the math that previously said the DS build was superior in personal DPS. All tests were done in the Mists, so I had to use the zerker amulet with vitality and there were no ascended stats, so those numbers are by no means the DPS the build would have in PvE. They do however still show the relative standings of the builds in single target cases.
Another thing interesting result in empirical testing was that Superior runes of strength with force and strength sigils outdamaged scholar runes with force and accuracy runes and force and frailty runes, even given 100% scholar rune 6th bonus up time. Of course, this result would change if might was permanently capped, but at least solo DPS-wise, strength runes + strength sigil is better than scholar runes even with 100% bonus uptime. The numbers were something like 3850 for strength runes with force and strength sigils vs 3700 for scholar runes with force and frailty sigils. Even if the numbers themselves aren't accurate, I'm pretty confident in the relative standings of the numbers. That is, that in personal instances, strength runes are better than scholar runes, and that Dagger/X does more damage than the DS build in all instances. In fact, 30/25/0/15/0 life steal build does more damage than 30/10/0/0/30.
The skills I used for the dagger build were blood is power, signet of spite, and well of suffering. I used blood is power, well of corruption, and well of suffering for the DS build, and followed the rotations listed on the two pages, except for the DS build where I found DPS was greater if you only life blasted to 50% of your life force rather than waiting for it to all run out simply because the the DPS boosting utilities were off cooldown for much too long if you life blasted until the end.
So in summary, my empirical tests show that the DPS of this build is at least 15% higher than the DS build, and that strength runes are better than scholar in all solo cases. MoonKK (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Move or not to move. That is the question[edit]

So what are we doing with this build? It is clearly inferior to the dagger build dps wise but it is still a nice build. If we move it back to the dungeon section it would kinda need an ever lower score than the "Good" of the Dagger build. Or do we move it back to the good dungeon page and write a big disclaimer like "only good for unorganised pugs and maybee fractals if range is needed" Fredor (talk) 06:41, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This poor build gets moved so much :D We could do the disclaimer, but first let's wait for an opinion from SC. There is no reason to make a category for it, even if it's not as good as the other nec build, Good means it's between 3.75 and 4.75, there will always be some difference "between good and good". If it's better at something significant, which is self support I guess, then it's not Trash category. Btw why is it better for pugs than the other nec build? Dagger/X could drop the signet for BiP too, the only other source of might is spamming DS1 which is slow. I'm probably missing out on much but I don't play nec in PvE. --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 08:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that two categories isn't enough. The old pvxwiki had three categories but since we kinda scrapped meta für single builds we only have two left. We dropped bip at the dagger build because the signet was stronger with that setup. This setup is better in unorganised groups since it can maintain quite a good number of might stacks with bip, ds, str sigil and str rune, which the pugs won't do. It is also a bit tankier and benfits quite much from the +50% ds crit chance since you won't have fury or banners or spotter in said groups. At least that is the theory Fredor (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There is a meta rating for single builds in the dungeon category. We reverted that change a while ago xP « Chase ♥ ♥ ♥ » 12:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
/sigh Fredor (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Brah do you even frontpage? --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 13:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
[3] Fredor (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's what spoj told me:

For that DS build. I would only move it to dungeon if it is edited to use a proper rotation. The build itself is fine but the advice given to use it suggest a very suboptimal way to play. Life transfer should only ever be used for trash mob groups. I have a video of the regular rotation. With some clarification in the description. -- Jerem (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
it should now fit these criteria. thus i moved it Fredor (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay.. Let me give some critics... This build is shit, you took death magic to basicly only get 158 power?! With single vampiric presence you get more dps, AND EVEN MORE FOR YOUR WHOLE TEAM. You should just go dagger/x or watch Brazils build, if you still want to run axe, run AXE/FOCUS, DAGGER/WARHORN and use Axe Training to get 10% damage bonus in DS too!.. Who makes these builds?!

K nice job, it looks decent now, sorry for the rant before : )

June 23 variations[edit]

Hey, Let's start a discussion about optimizing the DS build with the new specializations.

For starters I think the axe is redundant, because "Unholy Fervor" states that "Axe skills deal additional dmg to vulnerable foes", so we no longer get the extra dmg modifier just for having an Axe equiped in DS. Because of that I think Staff should be the new go-to second weapon for the purpose of pre-casting Marks, and we need to decide weather Dagger/Warhorn or Dagger/Focus is gonna be better for default setup.

My suggestion is to go for Dagger/Focus for better Life Force management / dps increase, and possibly get the "Quickening Thurst" from Blood Magic to get some passive 25% MS going in case party doesn't provide swiftness.

Changes i would make after June 23 patch.[edit]

I rather go curses instead of blood magic.Reason why i could take master of corruptions and pick blood is power, which is far better than Signet of spite. Signet of Spite passive effect doesn't go through DS, so its useless for DS build. Also i dislike use my heal in an offensive way like Signet of Vamp, so i'd change to Consume conditions, which has great sinergy with Master of corruption trait.

Blood is power is useless in a good group so no sense in using that if you are not pugging. Consume conditions also became horrible untraited and even worse if traited. Fredor (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


Honestly i do not think that this build is in an way competeable with dagger/x. Especially with the extremly poor dps comoared to dagger/x Fredor (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

 ? Fredor (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
#done --Necromancer Icon Color.pngHanz(talk) 17:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I can agree it needs an update, but this is essentially the build that DNT proposes and the one Brazil says he's using in lvl 50 fractals; so given that: how was this archived? Also, what data/source is "extremely poor dps compared to dagger/x" based on? I probably missed it, but I couldn't find any (yet). I'm not saying dagger/x doesn't outdps this, but the 2 are very similar so the difference can't be very big... It's just that one is more self-sustained with regards to might/vuln/crit/survival and the other trades that away for an extremely minor dps buff if your party already takes care of everything for you, i.e. seems to me there is a place for both. --Ki (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Brazil's build is specifcally build to generate a huge amount of might stack on himself because the group isn't able to. Since he has to use might stacking gear the dps is lower than it can be. It should be around 8000+ iirc. The dagger build on the other hand has a dps of around 11000 as calculated here by Scootts. Thus the shroud build has been archived since it is quite inferior to dagger Fredor (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
A choice that is in line with the reality of running dungeons outside of organised guilds... Rune of Strength vs Rune of the Scholar isn't a straightforward pick as you're realistically not above 90% health at all times, the rest of the "might stacking gear" is arguable whether you need it or not. Then on to the real issue: DS build does not mean you have to sit in DS all day, you can equally just sit in dagger all day when things are going well; either losing out on the 1 skill on either focus or warhorn, or neither if you don't mind switching weapons as appropriate. In that case you lose out on about 10% dps (if I read your screenshot correctly). 10% loss that gains you the option of switching to DS when things get hairy (at a much smaller DPS loss compared to dagger/x) and providing more vuln, self-might and self-crit when you find yourself in a team that is slacking; circumstances that are very real for many people coming to sites like this for good/decent builds. After all, with a DS build, you can expect to reach fairly close to that theoretical 8k (say 7 or 6) more or less on your own, where dagger/x (and many meta builds from other classes) are going to struggle to get past 5k. In the end, I guess I thought we were past suggesting builds based on the needs of the 1% and instead at least had a place for builds that benefit the rest of the players more, but maybe I was wrong? --Ki (talk) 09:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Or better, you could play a team focused build instead of a self sufficient. You know to empahsize the principles that a party is build around. A build that actually uses it's traits all the time instead of one that wastes a whole line as a panic button. That is especially bad if said panic trigger is available to the dagger build albeit being only slighty worse. And yes only slightly, since the necromancer got a bunch of crit chance with curses and the might/vulnerability should be provided by a at least half working party. So no use of traiting into soul reaping except maybe for lich form duration and maybe a bit of piercing. So to sum it up, the shroud build has been archived because it not only does less damage, it also has nearly no advantage over the dagger build except maybe furthering a bad playstyle, which also affects the public image of the necromancer negativley. You are also exaggerated quite much with your misplaced reference of the 1%. We might have a high standard that is true, but we stick only to that to point new players into a good direction and not to further some kind of elitist agenda. That kind of elitist mindset is quite far from it actually. If we would do that, then sadly we would have to completly remove pve necromancer builds since they are quite far away from the offensive, defensive as well as support cababilities of all the other classes. Fredor (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say anything about elitism; I suggested you might be out of touch with the people that would benefit most from a site like this, there is quiet the difference. And let's be honest here: high standards are one thing, but when your standards are higher than DNT's, you might want to ask yourself which target audience you're actually aiming for... Finally, while I wasn't referring to elitism earlier, it deserves to be noted how your last sentence there speaks volumes on the topic.--Ki (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Higher standards than DnT? Do you even know why they promote the shroud build? They promote it imo because a high standard group outside of a guild will never even think about taking a necromancer with them and thus you are forced to play with bad pugs. That is the only reason why they created a self sufficient build in a world where the group should provide the utility. This is a build which diminishes the value of a necromancer greatly and thus should not be featured on the site imo. Now let's talk about elitism. The term "1%" was coined in the last recession and described the business elite which hogged all of the money and abused the system. To use this term for gw2 suggests that you are describing the speedclearing elitsts. If you are not using it to describe that, then mentioning it was not only misplaced but also misused. Furthermore you claim that my last sentence speaks volumes of my too high standards. Read again, I was merely stating a fact. A very sad fact, because I like both my necromancers very much, but also a true fact since the necromancer does not only poor dps but also has nothing of value that another partymember cannot contribute in a better way. Fredor (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)