From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Isn't the Necromancer elite skill Plague a form?Migrainey 16:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Death Shroud[edit]

Isn't this a mode (or a game mechanic), and not a skill? Then we should either change the description of form or remove Death Shroud.--Mark, User talk:Markisbeest het Beest 17:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you take forms as a skill type, then a form is, as said in the article, a skill that changes the shape or form of the caster. This would mean that Death Shroud, the skill, is a form. If we do it the other way, where a form is the actual shape, then we would need articles for each form as well as for each skill that changes form. That would mean effectively double articles for each skill that changes form. Imo, that would be bad, so it's best to keep it as it is in the article, and edit the article lightly to start with something like
Forms are a skill type which change the shape, or form, of the caster. The new shape can grant the user a variety of new abilities from increased damage to invulnerability.
which would do the trick and make it the same as the other skill type articles. If other people agree someone can go and slot that into the article if they want. Thering 19:00, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps shape is slightly misinforming, would it sound better if appearance was used? Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 19:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. Yes, shape is insufficient. Form is the best word i can think of, but it would be better to use another word. Lets check the thesaurus. Yeah, appearance seems to be one of the best, it just seems to imply that it's not an actual physical change Thering 19:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


Before there's another revert, if the sentence was like the following, a comma would be necessary. A form, a skill that allows the user to change shape, grants the user a variety [...].-- Shew 22:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahem... Commas can be used as Pauses, but whatever... I prefer to see this, "A form, a skill that allows the user to change shape, granting the user a variety of new abilities from increased damage to invulnerability." Granting, instead of grants. :-) Ariyen 22:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
No. In that case a colon (:) would be used. A comma is never used that way in formal prose. Shew's usage would be correct, however. --KOKUOU 00:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, granting is wrong. You wouldn't say "A form granting the user a variety of new abilites from increased damage..." and so you don't say it with another clause added in between the subject(form) and the verb(grants). When you can use granting would be in, "A form is a skill that allows the user to change shape, granting ...", as "granting" is no longer the verb of the first clause, which is now "is". Also, commas can be used for pauses, but only after certain adverbs (like however and therefore). Ahh, beaten to it by Kokuou Thering 00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Sent you an email on this. Other than that, It will stay until we can all agree on something that'd work. Ariyen 20:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes you did email me, and then we passed some emails back and forth, and then you sent me this email
"You don't remove things between two commas, that's not a clause in the sentence used. Ask English teachers and please don't email me again with your nonsense. I've also talked with English teachers who say I am right and you are wrong. good day and again please don't email me as I will not respond and block you.."
I'm not able to email you again, so i'll reply here. The sentence being discussed was
"A form, a skill that changes a person's shape, granting increased abilities.", and I was showing how it was wrong. I said remove the clause between the commas and it doesn't make sense. The thing between the commas is an appositive phrase or clause -
"An apposite phrase is a type of dependent clause that further defines the subject (or object) of a sentence." taken from this page . From the same page, "An apposite phrase is one that can often be dropped without damaging the structure of the sentence or badly obscuring the meaning." I was trying to imply that, as the sentence makes no sense when the apposite is removed, it's probably wrong (although this is not a hard grammatical rule). If you decide to say why you think i'm wrong, then you can reply here - if you email me i'll just post it here myself. If anyone wants to see the emails i'll forward them onto you Thering 23:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
@Thering: You're wasting your time trying to explain, so save yourself the aggravation. :)
@Ariyen: The usage of the comma in your above example is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Your constant misuse of commas and other punctuation, as well as your frequent employment of sentence fragments, leads me only to conclude that you did not, in fact, as any English teachers about your usage. And in the off chance that you did, then those teachers are woefully unqualified and shouldn't be teaching English. Don't get me wrong, I'm the biggest backer of language descriptivism there is, but I prefer correct punctuation, spelling, and grammar on the official wiki, of which, obviously, your grasp is quite tenuous. By all means, continue fixing away, but don't be surprised if you get called out on it again if they happen to "fix" your "fixing". --KOKUOU 21:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I did in fact ask English teachers - you're the one who claims I didn't. Keep leachuring me - you're not from America, so you don't know and you don't know me. You're only doing drama. Secondly to Thering, I asked you to not respond - that includes here - see reason? drama. Like I said above, It will stay until something is fixed. It's not going to solve anything to write up walls of text as you two are only showing a poor side. Thank you. Ariyen 23:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
@kokuou: Yeah, I'm not going to try again. I'm only getting denials with no attempted explaination as to why i'm wrong.
@Ariyen: You didn't ask me not to reply, you asked not to be emailed. I only replied here anyway because of how annoyed I was at your sudden rudeness, so I'm sorry if i offended you in some way in one of my emails. Thering 00:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I was rude, but I didn't receive such nice emails to begin with. I'd dealt better and I do with some, when I'm not treated like an idiot and more so feel the respect that the person is only trying to help. However, to me the sentence was not in the form of "An apposite phrase"... Sorry. Some sentences may seem that way, but aren't. I can't remember one of the examples, but I had asked that same English teacher who taught about commas and their usage, the dos and don'ts... I had asked her on facebook in a message and gotten a response. I don't share outside messages here, to lessen the drama, but I've told what I was told and that sentence both sections go with the "form" and are not to be used as "An apposite phrase". That's why I wanted you, Thering, to ask an English Teacher (they can be found online) and see what they say - not to prove anyone right or wrong, but they'd know better than a "backer" would. They teach English every day in America to countless children and so they'd be the best to know. On a better note, I am please with the new wordings on the form page and I have no issue with what was written. So, this is pretty much "dead" anyway. Ariyen 01:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Please, let us end this conversation. This goes for Thering, Ariyen, and Kokuou (an anyone else for that matter). This was a simple grammatical error on my behalf, what I thought was correct was in fact an incorrect way to use a comma. I also don't want to see anymore rebuttals: "well I was just trying to...", enough please, before this leads into personal assaults. All parties should walk away. Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 01:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that the wording is now good. I had stopped editing it myself anyway to not start a revert war. I'm also happy that you've said something more than it's wrong. In this case it no longer matters, but in future you need to use (non anecdotal) evidence. I'm not going to say anything further because we now agree that the wording is good and I really don't want to create any more drama. Also so you know, i read your apology after the post i made in my user talk page. I'm sure that we are both sorry for creating any drama, and we have both apologised to each other. Again, I'm sorry for any rudeness on my part. I will not post again on this subject for any reason, as venom recommends, and i hope that we can get on better in future. Thering 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Definition and listed skills[edit]

There is a mechanical form and a visual form. This one seems to merely adress three confirmed forms and some visual forms (they change the PC into something else, visually). What is typical for the confirmed form skills, however, is that they double health and lock the last 5 skills on a skill bar, whilst replacing the first 5 with new weapon skills (with the exception being Death Shroud, because we cannot confirm the doubled health for it at this point in time). This contradicts skills such as Mist Form, which merely changes your appearance for 3 seconds, which may explain why it has not yet been confirmed an actual form skill. This article needs to get sorted out in terms of which forms are mechanical form skills and which forms are merely visual form skills and appoint the differences, as well as list as such.
The confusion first arose here, at the talk page for a skill which follows the typical form mechanics as they have been confirmed. - Infinite - talk 18:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. there are several types of forms. These skills that mechanically behave the same should all be grouped. --Moto Saxon 18:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The skills and other effects gained when in a form could also be tied environmental weapon mechanics. Do characters retain their weapon Power in a form or when using environmental weapons? Mediggo 06:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


Don't rampage act like a form? like people said in that article, it would, form doesn't necessary mean it's changing the users appearance? Take Shadow Form from Guild Wars 1 as an example, it was before the Skill type "Forms" came to Guild wars 1, and i'd consider that a form. Rampage does like Tornado and Lich Form does, it Changes the skillbar, they locks the rightside of the bar making u forced to use your weaponskills (5 skills). i'd add it there anyways.. Zora Diem 14:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider shadow form a form unless you actually become a shadow. A form is something that transforms you from your "normal" state into something else. Generally associated to a physical change. Venom20 User Venom20-icon-0602-sm-black.png 18:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Form is ambiguous depending on what you notice first; there's the physically-altered state form and the double health, no access to utility skills form. All forms so far are a combination of the two, even Rampage (I believe you change to an altered version of yourself, where you fight without a weapon). - Infinite - talk 19:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and shadow forms was different not because it couldn't change your appearance. Shadow form was different because it was an enchantment. It could still be removed. Though the options for removing it were rather limited. The dervish avatars and the Norn blessing were both considered to be form skills for the simple reason that there was no skill that could remove the effect. Only one of those group of skills actually changed your physical appearance. The other one just change the appearance of your skill bar. Rampage shares the exact same mechanic as most of the other forms listed. The only ones that really stand out from the others are mist form and vapor form. Those skills may be able to change your physical appearance, but their actual mechanics are far simpler. 03:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing skill???[edit]

Shouldn't the Asura battle golem suit be in this section as well? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

It is likely that Golem Battlesuit spawns an environmental weapon/vehicle. Of course, all weapons and such could be considered giving you a certain "form" of skills. Gotta wait for the game to release to confirm such things. Mediggo 22:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

profession mechanics[edit]

Do all Forms disable the profession mechanics? I want to make a Norn Ranger, but i fear, that the ranger is the most problematic combintion with Forms. If i cant switch, support or let my pet attack (what would at least be identical to other disabled mechanics), there is a high chance, that my pet is down after leaving the form (especially if it follows me into the enemygroup while using stealth as leopard). So i fear, that my ranger would be in a disadvantage to other professions, a thought i cannot stand... Greetings, --Naruuu 12:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe a rangers pet is removed from combat when you enter a form. -- Fey User Fey Zeal Blue Sylvari Tango.png 10:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Mist and Vapor Form[edit]

ArenaNet has stated that, unlike Guild Wars 1 where skills were programmed independently, skills in Guild Wars 2 use common mechanics. From a programming viewpoint all form skills seem to use a common mechanic that locks the skill bar, may give 0 to 5 (unlocked) replacement skills (IE. 0 skills in Mist/Vapor/Whirlpool case, 3 skills in Tornado case, 5 skills in Rampage case), may change stats (IE. doubled hp in Tornado case, doubled power in Rampage case) and may change appearance (Rampage seems not to change appearance) and may apply boons/effects.

If you consider Whirlpool a form then Mist Form and Vapor Form should also be considered since they work exactly the same (locked skill bar, 0 replacement skills, no stat change and all change appearance).

I'm going to leave this open for discussion and, if it is the consensus, wait for someone else to re-add Mist and Vapor back to the page since i don't want to enter a revert war. 14:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

They are not transforms because they are not identified as such. I don't care how they act, they are not called transforms, thus they are not transforms.
Not transforms:
Clear enough? —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 14:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Oops you're completely right, never noticed that Transform was an actual skill category, i assumed it was simply a wiki categorization. I take back my point. 14:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for sounding harsh, it's just that I've had to make this argument before. No worries. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 14:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Does this remove weapons / sigils?[edit]

More to the point, will Become the Bear (for example) lose the effect of bleeding duration sigil I have on my sword??


Transform a type of effect and a game mechanic. Transform skills provide a transform effect. It could use elaboration considered it's used everywhere in the game. It's also what the transform-like skills give.--Relyk ~ talk < 15:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)