From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search



Wouldn't it be all nice if all these were arranged into a table? - Lucian User Lucian.png 1:55, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The skills that cause them or the conditions themselves? EiveTalk 02:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Condition type in first column and skills in second? - Xu Davella 08:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The guardian profession can remove conditions, and some racial skills can remove them as well.[edit]

Is it just me that thinks this statement needs re-wording? It makes it seem like the guardian is the only profession that can remove conditions with is wrong. I know the guardian may be the best at condition removal and deserve a special mention but anyway, thoughs? --RaGingIMP 14:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Consistency rant[edit]

  • Bleed, blind, burning, immobilized - verbs
  • Vulnerability, poison, fear, weakness, blackout - nouns
  • Chilled, crippled - adjectives

*sigh* (Xu Davella 13:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

What's your suggestion then? All verbs, all nouns or all adjectives? :P Though it has to be in a present form me-thinks. As these conditions are, if you have them, happening 'right now'. Ge4ce-Talk-Contribs 13:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I was sighing because anet wrote the conditions. Can't change them. If I had my way they'd all be used as adjectives: Burned, blinded, bleeding wound, poisoned, weakened, blacked out, frightened, vulnerable (Xu Davella 14:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC))
Been there, done that. There's not a lot we can do about it. :< - Infinite - talk 16:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Burning, blind, and immobilized are already adjectives. "Burned" would be something completely different and "bleeding" is the adjective, adding "wound" changes the condition to a modified noun. I hope the developers make the names consistent, but if they don't, there's nothing we can really do about it, other than post a suggestion in the feedback space on GWW. –~=Ϛρѧякγ AHHH! (τѧιк) ←♥– 20:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Wow I so need to go back to school and stop talking out of my ass. Thanks for clearing that up. :D (Xu Davella 09:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC))


May as well discuss this here: what colors do we want to associate with conditions, and which color (same or different) do we want to implement for Boons? I was thinking light brown for conditions and pale green or blue for boons. Aqua (T|C) 00:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's fine (temporarily), that color scheme would make sense to people who have played the original. What color would we associate the other effects with? –~=Ϛρѧякγ AHHH! (τѧιк) ←♥– 01:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Grey, maybe faint purple? Aqua (T|C) 03:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Wow those colours look really good Aqua! ( 01:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC))

Specifically specifically specifically[edit]

moved from Talk:Stun

Is it really that necessary to put "specifically" in the headers? Can we remove them from the condition pages? Cirdan User cirdan signature.png 06:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that's been playing on my mind for a while, just couldn't be assed changing them. :D --Xu Davella 08:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Could you please more specifically explain your issue with them? User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K When Needed 18:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"Specifically" is required in (but not limited to): removal/breaking sections and transferable effects' (all conditions are transferable, boons unknown afaik) application sections. –~=Ϛρѧякγ AHHH! (τѧιк) ←♥– 18:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't get what the difference is. If a skill has the ability to cause a condition, how does a skill that specifically cause a condition differ? Either it causes a condition or it doesn't. --Xu Davella 13:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
For the record I'm against the usage of the word too.
The ability to be concise is a virtue. User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K When Needed 13:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
"Specifically" almost makes it sound like causing the condition is the only thing the skill does, which certainly hasn't been how we've been using it. I'm for removal. Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 14:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Specifically is a condensed way of writing "specifically state that...". Choose your poison. Aqua (T|C) 15:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
No poison. Neither specifically or the longer alternative.
I plan on living, not dying. User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K When Needed 15:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
The word specifically is redundant in the way we use it at this time. - Infinite - talk 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It's there because there are skills that inflict, remove, and react with effects in general, which, though they still do inflict/remove those effects, are more fitting to belong on Boon, Condition, or Effect. I suppose part of each effect page could state that the lists only show the skills that specifically react with that effect. –~=Ϛρѧякγ AHHH! (τѧιк) ←♥– 18:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
To me, it implies that these skills 'only' cause the conditions. Unless we need to differentiate between skills that only cause the condition and skills that do other things in addition to the condition, "specifically" is just redundant and pointless. It makes the page more difficult to read the page imho. Cirdan User cirdan signature.png 06:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Remove. This bugged me on Wiki the First (and it bugged TEF, too). --Riddle 07:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
@sparky. I mean no offense, but I still don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you dumb it down just one more level, please? Like, give examples of how it would be misleading if the word was removed?. :) --Xu Davella 12:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Example, example, another example. Basically I believe Sparky means skills like those. In GW2, Putrid Mark and Corrupt Boon are good examples of this. - Infinite - talk 14:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Irrelevant. How many skills assign a random condition? All conditions? What about things like Plague? Does that 'specifically' inflict a condition or not, due to it applying more than one? 'Specifically' doesn't make things clearer; it has the opposite effect. It's one of those things that makes life awkward for no tangible benefit. User A F K When Needed Signature Icon.jpg A F K When Needed 20:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
"Capable of applying directly" would be accurate, but fuck that is long. - Infinite - talk 20:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
We could put a note to that effect at the top of each application section, and an accordingly modified sentence for removal and interaction sections. –~=Ϛρѧякγ AHHH! (τѧιк) ←♥– 22:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This is getting more complicated than it was before this discussion happened. Does "skills that inflict blindness" and "skills that grant swiftness" not suffice? --Xu Davella 09:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? --Xu Davella 23:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that system alone is enough to classify lists of skills. - Infinite - talk 10:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I know this died down, but; can we assume consensus on removing "specifically" from sections as to not create unnecessary confusion? - Infinite - talk 01:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes please. --Xu Davella 07:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Now it looks much better...[edit]

... in tables. 11:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"duplicating those lists here doesn't make sense"[edit]

explain please. Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 04:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Each of the different condition pages already has a full list of skills which cause that condition which Aqua no doubt copied and pasted to create the list on this page. I know from the few skill detail updates I did the other day they haven't been fully kept up to date with PAX East changes - people miss it or forget to or don't know to. If those lists are duplicated here it is even more likely that the information will end up out of date. The list of skills which apply conditions is long which reduces its usefulness and interest and that's without a full listing of skills, let alone the traits, from the game.
I think the page is best left to those skills and traits which deal with all conditions and keep the listings for specific conditions on the specific condition pages. -- aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 06:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The general conditions article should at most list skills that apply/remove/abuse multiple condition, or random ones. Specific conditions are specifically covered on their specific and individual articles. - Infinite - talk 12:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
"Each of the different condition pages already has a full list of skills" and each of the conditions page has a description of the condition. Should we remove the table based on this logic?
"they haven't been fully kept up to date with PAX East changes" this is what what links here can be used for. Easily finding pages that link to it to ensure they are changed.
"The general conditions article should at most list skills that apply/remove/abuse multiple condition" I doubt that anyone would be able to put forth anything that only pertained to multiples. For instance, we'd have to remove mending since it only pertains to a single condition.
While I agree that a lengthy list is lengthy, it was also hidden making it not lengthy for those that did not wish to view it. It did not make any sense to have a header about skills that remove conditions without having a header about skills that apply conditions. Although I am content with the instruction to view the individual page. Thanks for the explanations. Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 13:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
We don't really have any skills confirmed to just apply conditions in general, other than through transferring. –~=Ϛρѧякγ AHHH! (τѧιк) ←♥– 00:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


And other generics... When a trait (hell, anything) says that it affects all things under broad category X, should we document them on the individual pages and on the main page or only the main page only? Aqua (T|C) 02:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It depends. If someone is looking for a way to inflict blindness on someone, and that particular skill isn't mentioned on that page, then they wont be getting all of the information that they're looking for. On the other hand, it's more concise to add it to a single page so then the skill isn't on every other one. --Xu Davella 04:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
That changes all conditions rather than listing all so I'd expect it on this page. If you want to go to the trouble of listing it on the individual pages go ahead, but I'm not sure it is valuable, and it duplicates things. -- aspectacle User Aspectacle.png 04:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I would list it on the individual pages, because if somebody wants for example Glyph of Elemental Power to more effective he will look for this information on the Glyph of Elemental Power page und not the Glyph page. | Corvus 11:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Well of power[edit]

it benefits from the conditions, according to the description "turn Conditions into Boons" which i call, each conditions gets replaced with a boon (random or not, it gets replaced). by that, for each condition, you get one boon. which i call benefits from conditions. Zora Diem 18:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Good catch. :) Aqua (T|C) 18:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


This page has bleeding as being able to be stacked up to 25 times on a target, but the Bleeding page has it as a max of 9, which is right? Victor6267 User Roaring Taco Black Moa Chick.png 04:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone has a source for 25, it is most definitely 9, as per the last official source. - Infinite - talk 13:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Daze and stun[edit]

We know for a fact that Daze is a condition, which was sourced literally way too long ago by Malchior (who has utilized official sources to reveal such information). I am also going to assume (but not yet document) that Stun is a condition as well. Can we finally move at least Daze into its correct effect category? - Infinite - talk 11:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I took the liberty of documenting Daze as the condition it is, but I left Stun alone for now. - Infinite - talk 13:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I forgot that there was a dev who commented on Daze, too. Reverting immediately. - Infinite - talk 13:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you guys going to...[edit]

...change the information according to the latest blogs and beta?Yumiko ^,~ 17:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

   Bleed: Inflicts X damage per second. (Stacks intensity.)
   Poison: Inflicts X damage per second. Reduces outgoing heals by 33%. (Stacks duration now.)
   Burning: Inflicts X damage per second. (Stacks duration now.)
   Cripple: 50% movement-speed reduction.
   Chill: 66% movement-speed reduction. 66% skill cooldown increase.
   Immobilize: 100% movement-speed reduction.
   Weakness: Attacks result in a glancing blow 50% of the time and endurance regeneration is slowed.
   Vulnerable: Lowered the amount of armor it reduces, but allowed it to stack so that it creates moments of super-high vulnerability for damage spiking.
   Blind: Your next hit misses.
   Fear: You flee from your opponent.
   Confusion: Inflicts X damage each time a foe attacks. (New condition; stacks intensity.)

Use this from the latest Guild Wars 2 blog entry or i'll do it.Yumiko ^,~ 02:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Drop Antidote and Automated Response[edit]

Although I'm not sure I think that players cannot pick up items that they have dropped/thrown, if this is correct "Drop Antidote" should say allies only rather than "both".

The wording on Automated Response trait dose not clearly say that it removes conditions; only that the engineer becomes immune from new conditions. I could it's description in three ways: a) Conditions are removed at 25% health. No new conditions. b) Conditions lose their effects as long as health stays below 25%. No new conditions. c) Conditions remain on but no new conditions can be added.

Anyone know? - User:Arkankaz 17:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Becoming immune to conditions in GW1 meant that you lost all conditions and you could not receive new ones while effect lasted. Mediggo 18:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing up that bit. In this video if you go to 6:11 min in you can see the packs of bandages dropped from the Supply Crate have white circles around them from the perspective of the engineer player recording the video. With AOE spells white means that walking over them is neither good or bad, so it seems you cant pick them back up for a benefit. User:Arkankaz 19:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


With such a ballooning TOC, it would be nice to place it on the right. But this wiki doesn't have the TOC right template I believe. Previously Unsigned 03:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Table vs list[edit]

Yeah, I can't see how THIS is better then 'bulky' table as Aquadrizzt called it. Tables are imo clearer to read and they match the way pages of conditions are built (except bleeding and blind) Gorribal 20:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I find the tables are easier to scan, and it's easier to see the profession of the skill you're looking at. Manifold User Manifold Neptune.jpg 23:15, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The tables make editing significantly more difficult; they also break with large tables of contents and the tables as they were lacked any sort of ToC use. Making the collapsible just made it all more annoying. Aqua (T|C) 15:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

More categories[edit]

Should we make additional categories for skills that stack in intensity/duration/no stacking? ~ Bow User Bow Sig.png | 22:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


I really hate these long lists. They visually cause some confusion and obscure the facts. Isn't this easier to read when you condense vertical space by 2/3?

Guardian tango icon 20px.png Guardian
Signet of Resolve.png
 Signet of Resolve – removes one every 10 seconds while passive  
Smite Condition.png
 Smite Condition – removes one The preceding unsigned comment was added by Llandale (talkcontribs).

Skill lists on condition sub pages and calculation details[edit]

1st: I know that collecting all the information is the topmost priority at the moment, but I think the skill lists should be more informative. Like adding durations of the conditions each skill inflicts and in the case of bleeding it should also consist the "stack size" of bleeding.

2nd: I'm curious about how the total damage of damaging conditions are calculated on the target if they are stacked. The damage depends on the Malice attribute which is individual for every char but the stack on the target could be inflicted by 20 different chars with different Malice values. While duration stacking is simple adding individual durations to one total, the damage calculation seems more complex. Does the Poison dps change because the 8 seconds from one char with 100 Malice ends and the poison from a char with 10 Malice starts? I think Bleeding can work this way, because all Bleeding damage works parallel and if one bleeding effect ends it just reduces the total dps. If poison works this way it would be negative. E.g. there are many chars which inflict low malice poison, while a specialist poisoner adds his poison to a very long stack. On the other hand, if the highest malice is used for the calculation, a char with high malice can open a high damaging poison stack which could be prolonged by other chars. So in theory the average could be the optimal calculation point: it prevents the extremes and takes the individual level of malice into account. I think this needs some testing to be sure about it. 23:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Boon/Condition Removal Order[edit]

For skills that remove conditions/boons, do they remove them in some systematic order? Kaon9029 03:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

On-Character Effect Images[edit]

I would love to see each condition page have an image of a character affected by that condition, since GW2 is so visual with their boons and conditions this would help! Konvay the Conveyer 14:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can get in the stress test tonight, do it yourself! This wiki is a community project, so don't shy away from making your own contributions. :) —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 15:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"Spread/Copy" Effects[edit]

I think we should have a section under the condition/boon page about skills that copy effects to foes/allies. MY main question is what state the new copies have, i.e. is the duration refreshed or the same as the original condition? Rather than start a new discussion on each of those skill pages, it makes sense to compile the facts on the umbrella page. 05:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Skills that remove conditions is incomplete[edit]

I'm not sure what else is missing, but I noticed the warrior shout "Shake it off!" isn't there, it is a break stun and removes 1 condition from yourself and nearby allies range 600. It is a utility. I would add it myself but I don't know anything about editing wiki >_>

Does % damage affect condition damage?[edit]

Does % damage traits such as bolt to heart (+20% damage when <25% health) affect condition damage (such as burning)?

Order of removal[edit]

When x conditions are removed, how does the game determine which ones to remove (if the player has more than x conditions)? Is it a similar system to GW1? Thanks. --Combatter 00:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Most recently applied, which is left to right iirc--Relyk ~ talk > 09:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
And reapplying conditions which stack (intensity or duration) don't move on top of other conditions. I.E. attacking with Bleeding Shot first, then using Aimed Shot and continuing auto-attack still leaves crippled as the most recently applied condition (unless bleeding was not in place when applying crippled, of course). Mediggo 09:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both. Very helpful. --Combatter 12:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
On the topic of re-applying stacking conditions. Say I am applied Bleeding first, then Burning, then Bleeding, again, and then I remove a condition, will Bleeding be removed or Burning? --Acandis 9:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
My guess is that it's the burning that's removed because the bleeding doesn't jump to the top of the stack. --Combatter 14:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Understanding the Tool Tip[edit]

When the tool tip for a condition says that it does 1000 damage for 5 sec, does it do 1000 dmg per second for a total of 5 sec (total = 5000 dmg) or does it do 1000 dmg across the 5 sec (e.g. 200 dmg per sec). I have read though many of the pages and cannot find this answer. Though I do understand that it only applies the dmg on the sec, not partial secs. Any help would be appreciated The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 00:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC).

If it's the same as direct damage, it would mean that is does 200 dmg per sec x 5 seconds = 1000dmg total. --Combatter 13:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
The damage listed on condition facts is total damage: base damage rate * duration * stacks. This is obvious if you compare two skills that apply different durations of a condition, like Burning Retreat and Flame Burst - the first skill has a base duration of 1s, the second has 5s, so the first one lists the base damage while the second lists 5x the base damage.
This damage number is also modified by your Condition Duration and Condition Damage attributes. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 14:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) at 15:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC).

"and a couple will have no change."[edit]

The phrase "and a couple will have no change." is in the opening paragraph talking about conditions. But as far as I know, none of the conditions react like this. And in fact all the listed conditions here stack either duration or intensity... so, am I missing something? ZenonSeth 16:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote the introduction--Relyk ~ talk > 22:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
That line was from the beta period, when Blind and Fear did not stack (e.g. if your target was already Blinded and you tried to Blind them again, the second Blind was wasted). —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


Slow seems to be missing from the list. -- 16:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Feedback 2016/09/02[edit]

Taunt is missing from List of conditions. --Nasurelin (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Added, thanks for the notice! —Ventriloquist 13:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)