Talk:Weakness

I was under the impression that weakness lowered attack damage by 66% as opposed to 90%.


 * Changed. The GW site itself says 66% and I've never seen a source say anything else.  --Fyren 11:44, 21 Aug 2005 (EST)

Melee attacks, Physical weapon attacks, any weapon attacks, or all Attacks?
This affects ranged attacks? Huh. I was under the (probably mistaken) impression it was only melee attacks. --207.172.212.167 11:24, 11 February 2006 (CST)
 * It makes perfect sense to me to affect bow attacks, which is not melee. As to whether it affects wand/staff attacks or Smite, that is an interesting question (since I don't have much faith in the technical accuracy of skill descriptions) -PanSola 11:37, 11 February 2006 (CST)

Ok just tested it. It does affect wand attacks. However Smite is not affected. -PanSola 11:48, 11 February 2006 (CST)

Attack skills
Anyway, I thought it important to note on weakness that attack skills aren't reduced by weakness. This has been my experience with weakness. I do about as much damage with a max sword with weakness as I do with a candycane. If someone believes elsewise, please discuss. StatMan 20:34, 4 January 2007 (CST)

19 Jan 07 update
After some simple testing, it looks like if the -1 attributes puts you below a weapon's requirement (ie, your allocated attribute matches the item's minimum requirement), you will fail the req check. Also, damage reduction is still in the neighborhood of 66%. --Bob III 22:26, 19 January 2007 (CST)


 * Is it possible to get attributes at -1 ? Nytemyre 12:36, 20 January 2007 (CST)


 * Based on a) the listed attribute level and b) the damage done by Lightning Orb, no. Gale can fail at 5 mastery when weakened, and if you increase your attribute from 0 to 1 while weakened, it will correctly fall back down to 0. So the -1 appears to work exactly as one could expect. Sigh. --Bob III 03:37, 21 January 2007 (CST)

Ah. Hm. Only temporary, eh? ^^;; --Bob III 05:03, 21 January 2007 (CST)


 * It is, till it is confirmed on the permanent release date. -- Xeon 05:07, 21 January 2007 (CST)


 * Hope it stays, so its not only for damage dealers. ` 81.59.104.10 15:09, 24 January 2007 (CST)

If you press K while weakened, does it show the original attribute level or the weakened one? VegaObscura 03:55, 22 January 2007 (CST)


 * The weakened... if you have no runes on an attribute, it will be red.

monsters
Does anyone see any problems with this and the monsters? all the monsters i can think of suppress the req of their skills or wielded items. 58.107.53.89 10:39, 2 February 2007 (CST)
 * Good luck testing that one

Bug?
I'm using a Fire Barrager right now and I have spent no points in Wilderness Survival, but I got a minor rune on my armor. With and without weakness on me I have an attribute level of 1. It seems that the effect of Weakness is calculated first and then capped at 0, so you don't get into negative numbers. After that Runes are applied. Bug or not? ANet could have done this on purpose. -Khan Reaper Kerensky 17:17, 13 February 2007 (CST)


 * It wouldn't make a difference either way. 132.203.83.38 17:22, 13 February 2007 (CST)
 * That's just because the rune makes the number green. Try it with one attribute point and take off the armor witha rune, It should showa  red zero.&mdash;[[Image:Cheese.jpg|50x19px]]  Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 21:25, 21 May 2007 (CDT)

Soul Reaping
Lol, that'd be funny fi there was a bug that made this work on soul reaping for necros. Necros iwth no soul reaping (or /n) would be losing energy...lolz.&mdash; Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 21:26, 21 May 2007 (CDT)
 * That would make necroes sad...or sloooow casting for mesmers maybe? Heh, all negative primary attributes would be funny.--[[image:Necromancer-icon-small.png]]Skax459 19:03, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Ranger w/ expertise making skills cost MORE, or monks healing in negatives from Divine Favor. And energy storage..lol.&mdash;[[Image:Cheese.jpg|50x19px]] Cheese Slaya  ( Talk ) 19:06, 22 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Enemies GAIN armor from Strength. The list goes on --Gimmethegepgun 19:27, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Needs a buff
by a lot. -anon