Talk:Suffering

It's stubbed because there's no Nightfall trainer. --Fyren 04:06, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Useful in combination...
According to the notes, Suffering is useful in combination with Well of Darkness. I can't see any connection between the two skills other than that they're both curses and AoE spells. In my opinion this is a useless note. Oh and by the way, it's still in the "Missing nightfall trainer location" category, although the trainer is added now.. Aganon 07:00, 23 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Well of Darkness requires a hex to function, Suffering is a fast casting, fast recharging, mass hexer that lasts a long time and will likely hit an area the size of the well. --Kale Ironfist 07:05, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Mole
Is it me or does the icon skeleton look like he has a mole or something? -- Elisa Angelstine (talk) 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Cover hex note?
I understand that using suffering as a cover hex is great due to its AoE nature, but, the article suggests that the skill doesn't have much use at less than 3 curses (because it then does 0 degen) unless you're using it as a cover hex. I find that to be quite useless because even if it is AoE, a cover hex that lasts for 9 seconds or less and costs 15 energy for nothing but a cover seems pointless. Just use paracitic bond. It will be better at that point. Perhaps the note should be changed to smply say "This skill has no practical uses at under 3 curses." But Im not sure if thats even worth it as that is fairly obvious. Maybe the note is warrented, I don't know, Whats everyone else's oppinion? Shadowshear 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a stupid note. I propose changing it to "At 2 or lower Curses, this skill is good for a laugh." [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 00:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no purpose whatsoever to noting that a skill is less useful at low attribute levels. The editor may have intended to point out that this literally does nothing at 2- Curses, as opposed to most skills which have some minor effect even at rank 0. However, this sort of observation is what the progression table and full/concise descriptions are for. I am removing the note. -- AudreyChandler 00:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)