Talk:Grenth's Balance

Does this work on current health or max health? I guess current health. 01:48, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * Yes, it's current health. --84.175.97.94 03:49, 8 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * I'm not sure about that any more. After some experiments with Demonic Flesh and Grenth's Balance it looks like it actually compares max health. That combination would've been pretty powerful... --84.175.123.80 02:59, 10 Jul 2005 (EST)


 * OK, this skill now officially confuses me. It seems to take both actual and max health in account. It definitely doesn't just compare either of both. When using Demonic Flesh (lowers actual health, but increases max health) I lose health when using Grenth's balance and the mob is healed. But when Using Grenth's Balance on the same kind of mob, without Demonic Flesh just after taking some damage I gain health and the mob is damaged. --84.175.123.80 08:11, 10 Jul 2005 (EST)

I cleared this up.

Last night I cast this spell on some lowly critter by mistake and got a nice jolt: -173 HP (Grenth's Balance) was floating over my head. :) --Karlos 09:53, 20 October 2005 (EST)

Does this count as Damage?
My hunch is it doesn't, which means it behaves like lifestealing (though could be "donating" as well).

The two cases (target lose health vs caster lose health) should both be tested. -PanSola 23:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure it's not damage. I remember seeing it go through a prot spirit before, that was some random PvP match a long time ago.   --Fyren 08:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen when using it it's not damage it's just a health loss or it's Life Stealing (aka unblockable, unnegatable damage) Third[[Image:Vampiric_Bite.jpg|20px]]

Could this work on % instead of numbers?
Lately I've been playing around with this skill, and I've found that at times it almost looks like the life percentages are equalized (and yes I tried this with levels other than my own) - can anyone confirm this? --hellochar 16:21, 23 June 2006 (MT)
 * No, this works as the description describes (besides the one or two caveats mentioned in the notes). --68.142.14.40 16:30, 23 June 2006 (CDT)
 * I've tried this on some practice dummies and the condition npc's on the Isle of Nameless. This is what I did:
 * I got my health down to 180 max (with runes). I took Grenth's Balance and used it on the dummy to see if it could be useful (ie. low max health -> high damage output). All it showed was a little yellow -0 above the dummy. Strange, because I thought this was based on numbers (I had a guy with high max health, down to very little using infuse health, then steal health with Grenth's Balance, which actually healed a high number, somewhere around 280 with about 580 max health, but I can't actually reproduce that yet). Just my guess. 62.165.96.134 13:30, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
 * If you're at full health, Grenth's will never do anything. Also note the description says "up to your maximum health."  --Fyren 13:44, 11 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Yes, that's it. It is somehow funny. If you are 1HP under your max, you may take a lot of damage if you cast if over a enemy with very low HP, but if you are at full health, Grenth's Balance does nothing but showing a red -0 and a yellow -0 over you and your enemy. Mithran 14:03, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I use this skill on my warrior for those high HP bosses like Shiro. I have a max health of 1300, and he has something like 6000. I take a lot of damage and get down to one hundred or so (around 10%), I use this and Shiro has around 75% health and I have full health, so no.

Lethal Balancing?
Can this skill kill someone if their life is lower than "the difference"? Or will it just leave them at 1 like all the other skills that I wish didn't?-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 11:16, 23 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Such a scenario is impossible, since this skill uses current health, not maximum. &mdash;Tanaric 14:14, 23 October 2006 (CDT)

"If target foe has more health than you, you gain half the difference (up to your maximum health), and that foe loses an equal amount"
 * So is the article wrong or are you wrong?-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 08:12, 24 October 2006 (CDT)

Like what would happen here: What would happen to the target?-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 08:16, 24 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Nvm it;'s probably me reading it wrong.-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 08:16, 24 October 2006 (CDT)
 * -Caster---Target-
 * (P'-')p"3000 HP, lowered to 1"   Q(-_-Q)"490 HP, full"


 * The difference between your two healths is 489. so you gain 245 (244?) health and your target will lose the same amount. --JP 09:03, 24 October 2006 (CDT)

So at best he will always be left off with one?-Onlyashadow, Top 100 Guild 09:45, 24 October 2006 (CDT)


 * From my understanding yes. But beware if you have more health than the target you lose the health! (as per notes on article page). --JP 13:24, 24 October 2006 (CDT)

Ok, I will do my best to explain the three possible scenarios it will work with. Scenario 1: The right side of the scale Your max health is 1000. Your current health is 200. Their max health is 1000. Their current health is 1000.

Now if you were to use Grenth's Balance on the enemy, your health will be rounded up to 600 while theirs gets lowered to 600.

Scenario 2: The opposite side of the scale.

You have 900 health. Your max health is 1000. They have 100 health. Their max is 1000.

Using it here would LOWER your health to 500 while RAISING THEIRS to 500.

Scenario 3: The Limit

You have 450 health out of 500. They have 900 health out of 1000.

This time you will be at 500 health out of 500. BUT the enemy will be down to only 850 out of 1000.

This should clear things up. Darkobra

Latest Note
I'm not sure I agree with the addition of "Previous Versions of this skill . . . " note. As I understood policy, the wiki exists to document the state of the game today, not how it was yesterday. Also, I don't think it belongs under the "This skill works best if . . ." heading. My preference would be to simply strike the note totally, but wanted to ask for some consensus. thanks! ScionOfErixalimar 01:11, 14 December 2006 (CST)

Well guess I were wrong when I understood "notes" as lesser known things about the skill that could be of interest to some. Sure it is yesterday, but try reading Signet of Ghostly Might. I would assume the notes I added about previous history use of this skill is much the same.

So either Signet of Ghostly Might needs a pruning as well for its notes, or the current notes I added is of interest to some, or what point am I missing? Readding the info for now. Taoh Rihze 03:22, 14 December 2006 (CST)
 * Removed both. We don't track history like that.  Most people aren't looking for such info and people tend to keep adding notes about whatever the most recent patch change to something is, usually making their notes time-sensitive, so we just don't do it at all.  For things like ghostly might, maybe something could be stuck into trivia (it definitely doesn't fall into notes), but the GB note is more about the GvG change than GB.  --Fyren 08:50, 14 December 2006 (CST)

Lyssa's Balance?
How are Grenth's Balance and Lyssa's Balance AT ALL related spare for their names??? That isn't reason enough to relate them... Their uses are ENTIRELY different... = / EXCEPT in the fact that they each trigger/used best when the caster has fewer of something (Enchantments/health) than the target - Even so, the relationship is miniscule. I think that should be removed. = / Pestilence 22:33, 13 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Agreed. The connection is a bit stretched.Cyrogenic 20:59, 14 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Well remove it then :P --Blue.rellik 10:28, 19 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Similar name and similar trigger effect

caster losing health is a
The skill description reads "If target foe has more Health than you..." and does not anywhere imply the caster losing health. I don't see where current behavior would be "correct" wrt. skill description. And then, game behaviour differs from skill description, which constitutes a bug, and it should be marked as such. 134.130.4.46 14:08, 16 July 2007 (CDT)


 * there. fixed. it isn't really a bug, it's an inaccurate description. - Skakid9090 14:11, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * A wrong description is a bug, IMHO. But since the notes now clearly say the description is wrong, I'll be quiet. Thanks. 134.130.4.46 19:55, 17 July 2007 (CDT)