This is what I've been running on my hero lately and it's been working like a charm. Rickyvantof 17:01, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Anyone? Rickyvantof 18:08, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Please? Rickyvantof 18:30, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Is anyone there? Rickyvantof 19:34, 7 March 2008 (EST)

I've run similar things on my Heroes. It isn't horribly bad. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 19:34, 7 March 2008 (EST)

In fact, it's quite awesome.Trust me.Rickyvantof 19:36, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Personally, it works quite well. I run it a little different, but nevertheless it works. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 19:38, 7 March 2008 (EST)
What do you run?Rickyvantof 19:42, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Spiteful Spirit Barbs Mark of Pain Rip Enchantment Signet of Lost Souls Splinter Weapon Ancestor's Rage Resurrection Signet

--GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 19:43, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Oh, yeah. I use my Rt Channeling/Restoration hybrid for Splinter/Ancestor's(Got nerft, btw). Rickyvantof 19:47, 7 March 2008 (EST)
Ancestor's still does some decent damage. Either way, it's pretty decent. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 19:48, 7 March 2008 (EST)

only problem i see with the build is hero AI - they're awful Cursers. Also, needs moar Enfeebling Blood, especially considering the change. 00:00, 8 March 2008 (EST)

i'd say Enfeebling Blood for defile defnses, AoE 66% damage reduction for 1 energy is much better than minor anti-block on a single character--Goldenstar 00:11, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Not a fan of Mark of Pain on the SS bar. Physicals kill things way too quickly (in the right setup) for Mark of Pain to deal any noticable damage. After this past update Weaken Armor is a stronger candidate in that slot for physical support. And I agree with adding Enfeebling Blood.Racthoh 02:24, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Hmm. Enfeebling Blood should be a variant. When I run this, my warrior has "SY!"so damage reduction isn't that necessary. Also, Mark of Pain is very powerful and armor ignoring and whatnot. Weaken armor is in variants and I'll put enfeebling blood in there aswell. Hope you can live with that. Thanks for feedback anyway. Rickyvantof 05:28, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Bump. For great justice. ɟoʇuɐʌRigor Mortisʎʞɔıɹ 09:37, 8 March 2008 (EST)

if it is supporting physical characters, wouldn't a Order of theVampire necro go well in a team with it?Arc 24:04, March 19, 2008

OotV or OoP both work, yeah. Although it's not really super good or anything. What you'd want is an MM to provide with enough physical attackers. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 02:20, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Bump bumpbump bump

Bump ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Almost a copy of Sabway's SS Necro. — Abedeus User Abedeus Sig 09:48, 12 March 2008 (EDT)
Whom's way? ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 10:37, 12 March 2008 (EDT) <--- Sabway and frankly sab's is a bit better imo. This one has no Hard res, Sup rune = no no in HM and GoLE + SolS is overkill, SoLS alone seems to be enough. 09:24, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Riiiiight...... ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 12:10, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
Hi Sabway! Anyways should leave barbs or mark of pain as optional. Suffering, Enfeebling Blood, Foul Feast, or title skills are a good idea for additional support. Sup rune isn't really needed, people can run it if they want, leave it at 12+1+1.--Relyk 22:04, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
I can see a decent(if not good) team build coming out of this with a good warrior build, assassin build, derv build, and an Minion Master, although it may be inferior to Sabway's. Arc 22:16, March 17, 2008

What's with the GoLE hate?

Build:N/E Softening Bile really, it's not that uncommon to use it on a necro bar. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 03:50, 27 March 2008 (EDT)

Guess they don't like it since the nerf...Styxx HLFrans 03:55, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
I guess... ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 03:56, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
It's not that uncommon, but in this instance (and the instance of what you linked to), it sucks. A hero neither needs nor is able to effectively use a GvG hexer build. Moloch 04:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Glyph of Lesser Energy seems strictly worse to me than Signet of Lost Souls (at these attributes). My questions is: what's with all the GoLE love? I favor this build being moved to N/Any and making the e-mgmt SoLS and/or optional GoLE for those humans who lack the ability to use SoLS effectively. --War_Pig5 14:00, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Massive's Vote

It's kinda hard to run SS/Arcane Echo on a N/Rt. Also, this is primarily a support character, not a SS nuker. --GoD Sig3GuildofDeals 07:08, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Energy Management

Fucking overkill. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:05, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Or maybe I'm using the wrong adjective here. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:05, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
GoLE can be optional/variant/removed. Be my guest. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 18:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Added FF in place of SoLS. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 18:57, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Isn't FF sort of E-management itself? Maybe plague sending would work instead of GoLE. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 19:00, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, but it does other stuff too. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
True. But I'd much rather keep SoLS and take something like Weaken Armor instead of GoLE, for more Physical Support, etc. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 19:03, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
idc, really. Nothing here's major. — Rapta Rapta Icon1 (talk|contribs) 19:05, 22 May 2008 (EDT)
Nope, just leave it as it is. WA is in variants anyway. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 19:07, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Moloch's vote

Build he suggests is a completely different aspect, he thinks his build is godmode. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 15:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Please read the entire vote. Moloch 15:42, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
It's hard to run the MoP Nuker on a hero. Read all the tags. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 15:44, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Again, please read the entire vote. Moloch 15:45, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
(EC)Yep. This is (and all other PvE builds on PvX that don't use PvE only skills) is mainly used on a hero (sabway, ettc.) ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 15:46, 8 June 2008 (EDT) the vote? Moloch 15:47, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Your reasoning doesn't suit your rating. With such arguments it should be at least rated Good. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 15:48, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Anyway, this is aimed at being a traditional SS Nuker with some helpful Curses that help meleers. Stop thinking your build is godmode, it's just another "Great" build. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 15:50, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Also lol at using defensive hexes in pve. If any, Reckless Haste would be nice to increase SS' damage output. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 15:52, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Ricky is probably correct, changed numbers. GoD is just being a griefer at this stage... in my opinion the "general" tag should be removed from this build, with "hero" left in. Also again I don't think that SS offers enough mileage when run in this fashion, on a hero, with physicals, and any sort of party discipline. I can think of several better elites. EDIT: Saw that stuff about "lol at defensive hexes", I assume you don't play very challenging content. Moloch 15:54, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
The build you're suggesting has a different purpose. This is a hybrid on SS and supportive melee Hexes. Yours is just pure supportive melee hexes. Point is that it works with Heroes and also with players. You aren't getting that, you think that this is trying to achieve what your build does, but they are completely different. You don't see me voting down Build: P/any Stunning Strike PvE because it's inferior to an Imbagon on players, do you? --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 15:58, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
First sentence of build: "This build provides support to any allied physical character." Seems to me that's what it's trying to do. If used as such, Spiteful Spirit isn't ideal.
Look. There are quite a NUMBER of reasons I'm not giving this a stellar vote. /E secondary is unneeded and hero would actually be stronger running SoLS. ESPECIALLY considering the number of 5e spells in the build. There's no defensive hex, well, no defense at all. SS elite is simply uninspired. STILL this WORKS WELL, but 4-4-3 is pretty generous. I would be tempted to edit this build but after all it's called "SS Physical Support"... Moloch 16:16, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
Innovation is whether its meta or not, so by your reckoning you should of given it 5 for innovation. The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 12:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, sticking SS on one member of every team conceivable certainly is new and original... Moloch 14:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
You think that anything that has Mark of Pain is practically inferior to your build. It's called being able to deal damage on its own. SS does good damage, Mark of Pain is just a bonus. Also, Mark of Pain is almost overexaggerated; it causes some intense scatter and the range is actually rather low. --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 14:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Could you at least try (and fail) to counter the issues raised (hint: it has to do with bad e-management, an elite unsuited to the team it's thought for and unsuited for hero use on the team it's thought for, artificially glued-on condition transferring with no removal, and inflexible build options) instead of whining at me for taking a modicum of pride in my own builds? Please? Moloch 14:09, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Please read what i said. Innovation DOES NOT MEAN new/original. The preceding awesome-sauce comment was added by Rawr. 14:15, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
Your vote also suggests that Weaken Knees is better than SS... Are you fucking joking? --File:GoD Wario Sig.JPG*Wah Wah Wah!* 14:20, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
I would expect a comment like that from you, yes. Actually contemplating the expectable mileage (and cost efficiency) of a skill that is theoretically, in another setting, doing great damage, doesn't seem like one of your strengths. At rawr: "Innovation: ... how new the idea behind this build is. ... new approach for dealing with a known task. ... prototype for ...", not applicable to either. Moloch 14:54, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Removed talk:


That Moloch person is really starting to annoy me. ɟoʇuɐʌʎʞɔıɹPanic srsbsns 05:51, 10 June 2008 (EDT)


shouldn't this be labeled for PvP since it basically is run all the time in PvP anyway? Most notably the Tainted Axe Heroway build that ever so uses barbs to get on every player's nerves. I've seen that build being run over and over. It's annoying, not impossible to beat, but with the combined might of Minions, Pets, and Axe RaO, I am Captain Planet!...ok I got carried away; the point being, this build is used in PvP...why not label it? (just make a note about the rune change from +3 to +1.)-- 12:39, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

reads like a general build, listed as a hero build & is level 16 attribute for this hero correct?

I am a noob player, (going to get that out of the way first) and I've read several of the PVX wiki general/hero builds substituting +3 to an attribute to a +1 attribute if build is used as a hero. Is it recommended that I run this hero with stated attribute figures of 16 curses, strapped with the huge health penalty of -75, or am I to use a smaller curses attribute figure? As I read the discussion on the page, the previous contributor stated to fix the curses attribute figure, causing me pause and wondering if a smaller figure for hero use is more desirable.

As a solo (loner) player - I run with a 3 hero, 4 hench setup almost exclusively. I do not run HM (no surprise) but I have successfully beaten two out of 4 of the games so far- but I still feel like I'm merely scratching the surface in terms of game mechanics knowledge. Is a definitive answer available for the attribute question, and if this is a hero build why is the USAGE SECTION explaining what i must do to make this hero work correctly when my mind is scrambling to simply take care of my main character?

Is it correct to assume that this is a build that must be micromanaged? And what do some of you think about making a permanent heading/listing requirement to the PVX wiki builds stating something along the lines of : Requires micromanagement: YES/NO/PARTIAL/SUGGESTED or RECOMMENDED ? OR if one of the skills has an optional slot, one could state on the page (assuming death magic for a moment, and realizing this is just an example) Optional slot#1 Order of Undeath or Barbs - adding OoU requires PARTIAL micromanagement. *and possibly adding a short explanation as to why the AI rejects it. (possibly life loss in the example above with Order of Undeath)

Finally, (going to slip this one in as I am not having any joy finding results for a concise question I have) why do most builds avoid the idea of using character specific armor- opting instead to suggest using all survivor & vitae, and/or all or partial radiant & attunement to base armor for the builds? I know the builds are just good guidelines to follow, but I mitigate a lot of "would be" damage when using armor enhancement to my base instead of maxing out health and or energy.

I do realize that knowing your enemy is a key to in-game (and real life,) but even as i say that I think of arbor bay (in GW:Eye of the North) and the diversity of enemies from crazily heavy melee, to decimating caster attacks, heavy conditions and hexes, spirit crafters, all in a tightly compressed starting area (when entering from Vlox's Falls.)

Maybe that is why in the place of armor, it is simply suggested to get the most health and energy as possible- since the author's don't know specifically where and what foes you will encounter.

Sorry if this has strayed too much off-topic. If it is a problem, would someone be willing to aid me with my questions by pointing me in the proper discussion section? I am very grateful, and thank any contributor(s) to this discussion.

Thank you for your patience with my questions. Remoteluxury 22:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Those that sleep will arise first- then those that remain will follow.

As far as superior runes and minor runes go, it's personal preference, with the advantages for each side clear as day - higher health or more damage. I would tend towards higher health only because, in PvE with a physical-oriented team runnign alongside this, you'll have plenty of damage without supplementing the Curses attribute of this guy by two. The usage section was, I believe, designed when this build was tagged for use by humans as well as heroes. This hero should NOT need micromanagement - on the topic of skills needing player attention, it's simply necessary to read up on the skill itself. For example, some skills are used horribly by heroes due to updates or weird AI quirks. A micromanagement section on each and every hero build would be a convenient feature, I suppose, but all it takes is a quick look on the discussion page or on Guildwiki to find any problems the AI might have using a certain build. As far as Survivor and Vitae go, it's simply a rule of thumb. Personally, I run most all of my casters with Stalwart insignias on chest and legs and Survivor elsewhere, but it depends on what you think will be advantageous. Like you said yourself, the build page is just a guideline - a lot of times, the recommended equipment or recommended variants could be improved upon, but honestly, minor deviations like that won't matter a giant amount in PvE. A player running a team with this character decked out in Survivor's will hardly see a difference as opposed to a player running this guy with Tormentor's or Stalwart. If +armor will work better, use it, but remember that tactics, decent management of heroes, and good teambuilding is far more important than the staff head your hero uses or something like that. Sorry for wall of text and being a month late, but your questions were so thorough I had to say something. Empty Orchestra 02:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


This article has been merged with Build:N/any SS Support. Since people are frightened by long lists of optionals, we should give some bar suggestions in miniskillbar form at the bottom of the page (like, this 'this is good for physical support' etc). If anyone has suggestions please post here or on the build page. AthrunAthrun SigFeya 10:17, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

All the mainbar needs is SS & Enfeebling, really. Dok 23:06, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.5 unless otherwise noted.