Talk:Troll Unguent

"200 Health for 5 energy (3 energy with 10 points in expertise)." Am I missing something? At max you get +9 regen for 10 seconds, that's 90hp, right, not 200? Or does something else factor in? I'm probably sounding like an idiot right now. :) --Midk 05:50, 20 Aug 2005 (EST)


 * One pip of health regen is two health per second. One pip of energy regen is one energy every three seconds.  --Fyren 06:28, 20 Aug 2005 (EST)

I removed the skill versus spell note. While it's true, it doesn't particular belong to this article any more than every other non-spell skill in the game. --Fyren 16:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The note should read "most effective against *pressure*", the opposite of a spike. Regen is no more efficient against degen than waiting for it to end and then casting a direct heal (like Orison) would be! -Flypaper


 * Ah, but what if the degen would kill them? Regen will slow down the amount of time it takes for people to die. It can easily to over powered, but is general more energy effient than straight spike healing. Lionfire

I disagree. As long as you are low in health, you are vulneable to spikes. A spike heal takes away that vulnerability straight away, while regeneration (though not useless) leaves you vulnerable for at least a couple of seconds. I can see this skill working on a ranger, who is often the last target and takes maybe a few hits that he can heal himself (given the time) but other characters like casters and fighters are either more vulnerable to interrupts or need the healing fast instead of over time (often both). So the most energy efficient doesn't always mean the best.

One more thin, at +8 regeneration, it takes 13 seconds to give you 160 health. That's very, VERY slow IMO. I tried it, and it doesn't work for me.


 * What math are you doing? 8pips, 16hp per second. Interestingly, 13 * 16 does not equal 160. Just going to say... --Skax459 21:22, 3 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Three seconds to activate. --Fyren 00:16, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

Imo, It's important to compare as well as to contrast. You could compare the heal-over-time of regen to the spike-heal of things like Heal Other. But, I think it's also necessary to keep in mind that often, you won't be using just one or the other - a mix of regen and straight healing is more effective than either alone, except in maybe PvP where teams are generally all-spike or all-pressure. Like the notes (used to?) say, "Rangers should use this skill often - it is energy-efficient and saves your Monks a lot of trouble." Which is true. 10 seconds of strong regen easily covers damage from most single enemies, unless they're using IAS or powerful conditions like Burning. Nevertheless, even under moderate to heavy (but not gank-level) fire, using regen in combination with straight healing is still a good idea. There's a reason things like Mystic Regeneration and Mending are ever-popular...regen seems like a weak substitute to straight heals such as Signet of Pious Light or Healing Signet, but the trick to maximizing efficiency is to use both in conjunction. (T/C) 00:28, 4 May 2007 (CDT)

I always hesitate before interrupting this skill on ranger bosses, just because the activation time is so pathetic. I vote for 10 energy/2 second activation. 71.236.221.219 05:39, 6 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Is there anything wrong with the current time? &mdash; Skuld 05:43, 6 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Yes, it takes far too long to activate to be effective. If you're taking heavy fire and use this skill you'll either be fully healed by a monk or dead.


 * If you're using this under heavy fire instead of running the hell away, theres something wrong.. +8 health regen doesn't keep anyone under heavy fire alive &mdash; Skuld 06:00, 6 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Exactly. It's a bad skill made even less desirable with a long activation. If you're going to run out of combat when taking damage you will, again, either be killed or healed already. If using this for the sake of helping the monks, it's a waste. Your time would be better spent attacking enemys and not using this when you take minor damage, as a single LoD will usually help there. The only worth I see in this skill is speeding up the regeneration process if your party has nearly wiped out and you've managed to escape. 71.236.221.219 06:30, 6 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, it's like healing signet. You don't use it under heavy fire, you find some place safe to use it then go back into the battle. M s4 10:06, 6 May 2007 (CDT)


 * No, my point is it is fine, you don't heal yourself, its to provide relief against pressure, or a self heal if you're away from your monks. If you're never gonna leave your monks, then you don't need this &mdash; Skuld 12:06, 6 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Pretty Standard on most rangers. Combined with a defensive stance usually provides pretty good coverage. All Gankers birng this, wonder why :P. Readem (talk *contribs ) 19:00, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

You can keep Troll Unguent on for 10 seconds out of 13. I think it's great, but the cast time really should be reduced by 1 sec. -- Aozora 03:23, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Or have the recharge changed to 8 seconds, like most of primary specific self heals.
 * ARG Ether Feast gets a buff and us rangers STILL have a sucky self heal. They can heal themselves the same amount of hp in 1/4 second now that takes us 13 SECONDS. Am I missing Something here!? Should be reduced to 1 second cast, 10 energy; or 8 second recharge, though I like the 1 second cast. If I had 1 gold for every time my troll unguent was interupted, I'd have every elite armor for my Ranger... --Lann 19:16, 28 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, troll is "fairly" hard to interrupt with a 75% blocking stance, seeing as it's not a spell or a chant, however I will always prefer resto heals, or command shouts (Never Surrender) over this. +4 regen is considerably less than +8, if you had troll at 10 wilderness... However the instant cast trumps troll for me. 40 less heal total, to change 3 second cast to instant cast. Works for me.76.174.13.77 11:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Now Maintainable
Hah...--69.133.105.149 20:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This was a much needed buff. Though the cast time is still prone to interuption...--[[Image:Lann-sf2.jpg|19px]] Lann 21:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Better. Toxin 22:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * When a skill is already the standard on everyone's bar, and it gets a buff, that's not "much needed." Randvek 02:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * /agree--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 02:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... let's think about this... Q: Why is this standard on everyone's bar? A: Because there's NOTHING ELSE TO USE! All there is is a couple Beastmastery skills, one is a spirit that barely does anything anyway, one is a pet buff that is completely mediocre, one's elite, and 1 still needs a pet, and it needs to have more health than you. Then in Wilderness Survival there's only 2 others: 1 is elite, a stance (no blocking in meantime), and conditional, the other is easily interrupted, which is even WORSE than 3 second cast --Gimmethegepgun 02:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and there's a crappy PvE only that hardly heals at all --Gimmethegepgun 02:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * /truthagree Zulu Inuoe 03:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Random buff. Woulda been nicer if he'd changed one of the other mechanics of this skill that made it crappy...... Mr IP 03:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Such as the activation time.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 03:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

u idiots! this skill is unstrippable and you get high regen, and costs only 5 energy. in pve i use this very often, and so many experienced rangers.


 * Sign your comments. If your an experienced ranger, you would have high enough expertise to use this skill if it cost 10 or even 15 energy, for the exchange of a 1 sec cast time. I would rather it cost 10 energy, last 10 seconds, and have a 1 sec cast time than be prone to mes/ranger/sin/shock interuption. --[[Image:Lann-sf2.jpg|19px]] Lann 12:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * /agree, didn't need maintainable, only activation time is a problem. Anyway, higher energy can be compensated by expertise,
 * The activation time is not a problem. Ask some heavy GvG people why so many people have come out against lowering the cast time. Hint: it would completely imba Ranger splits. 128.252.78.81 19:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would trade a 3 sec duration for a 8 sec lasting troll unguent and a 1 sec cast time. @ User128. Btw, rangers have no dw. --[[Image:Lann-sf2.jpg|19px]] Lann 21:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why the hell was one of the most staple ranger skills in the game voted LAME? is there something wrong here? 72.196.144.22 02:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently the long cast is lonnnnnnnnnng. Mr IP 03:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The recharge is a bit long, but it's not a bad skill. It doesn't deserve LAME by any means. It's still the best heal that a non /Mo ranger has.--Joseph Leito 01:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * --[[Image:Takisig.jpg]] Taki Fujiko 19:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Rarely gets interrupted when i PVP, and it's never been interrupted in PVE for me(But few of my PVE builds use it). Considering how well Rangers block, the only real threat to this is a mesmer with one of the very few spells that interrupts non-spells.--D N A 00:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I also use this skill very often in PvE. It only gets consistantly interrupted by either a mesmer with cry of frustration (as mentioned above), or an interrupt ranger. This skill is very good for a warrior or ranger to have simply because they're not usually targeted for interrupts, and it adds to their tanking ability. Due to the energy cost and duration a warrior can keep this up constantly without their energy depleting. Also: this skill is invaulable for a spam ranger because with 13 expertise it only costs 2 energy rather than the 10 needed for healing breeze. Well, that's my 2-cents on this topic. I personally vote that the LAME tag be removed due to it being "lame" in only 1 respect, with advantages (It's not removable and not subject to spell-only interrupts) to counter the disadvantage. Cynn 05:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Its a great skill for rangers, but in PVP you almost always have to use blocking or its a prime interrupt target for rangers or other interrupters. The two second change wouldn't be imba IMO. I really only play arenas anymore so maybe in other places what Darkside says may be true.--[[Image:AlariSig.jpg]] 05:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If this had 2 sec CT it would be better than Heal Sig. So my vote is no. Expertise lowers energy cost to 2-3, and you gain a bit energy while casting it also. It's easy to cover from weapon-based interrupts with Natural Stride. If you need more 'decent' healing for a Ranger, go Mo secondary or whatever, or you can even use even Healing Spring. Most of time when you play, either PvE or PvP, you're going to have Monks backing you up anyways. J Striker 05:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Those people who are saying this isn't as a good a heal as "other-profession-skill-x" are missing the point - healing is *outside* of the ranger remit, and therefore will be more difficult to use. Rangers aren't supposed to be self-sufficient healers, in the same way that Heal Sig has a ridiculous double damage penalty, or aura of restoration having such a conditional heal. Also this skill is clearly not lame, even if just for the simple fact that it is so energy efficient and is brought on so many ranger bars. 90.206.12.118 18:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ummm, Wilderness Survival.--[[Image:AlariSig.jpg]] 18:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

in addition: i use this often BEFORE battles, or simply in running buils with some degen, it's really nice. i have no idea why there is a LAME tag. also consider that the ranger is a RANGEd attacker, therefore is he more outside battle. ah i just love rangers tbh.