Guild Wars 2

So, I’m sure many of you out there are already knowledgeable about your class; the Ranger. However, for those that aren’t, let’s review a commonality that never really seems to see much discussion:

Why are so many builds that are considered effective for the Ranger condition based?

Well, there are many parts to this question, as it isn’t an immediately easy answer. First off, weapon availability. By this I mean, what weapons are condition heavy, and which weapons lean towards direct damage.

Greatsword – Direct
Longbow – Direct
Shortbow – Condition
Sword – Direct
Axe – Condition
Offhand Axe – Direct
Dagger – Condition
Torch – Condition
Warhorn – Direct

Wait, that’s about an even amount of options. Doesn’t that mean that Rangers performance should be equal for both options?

Well, unfortunately, that’s not necessarily the case. Which brings us to the next point:

Skill Coefficients. For a reference point, go to http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/List_of_ranger_skills and click on a skill, any skill you want. There will be a base damage value, and then next to it, in parenthesis, the decimal number is your skill coefficient. Take a look through some of these skill coefficients, and you will notice a trend; they are all pretty terrible.
Why does this matter?

Well, they are directly used in the damage formula for the game. Lower skill coefficients mean lower damage, and Ranger weapons compete for the title of lowest skill coefficients in the game.

Well, what about Condition Damage?

Ah, fortunately, Condition Damage is not tied in any way to skill coefficients. Condition damage has it’s own base values and scaling, which is standard for every class in the game. Let’s take an arbitrary example:

Swing your sword, and you hit for 500 damage.
Land a splitblade, which puts 5 bleeds on your opponent. With a similar/same amount of point investment, you do 100 damage per bleed stack per second, so 500 damage per second, plus the damage of landing all 5 splitblades, which is about 125 damage in this scenario, for a total of 625 damage in the same second that the direct damage occurred.

Why isn’t the direct damage doing more in the scenario?

Glad you asked. Direct damage isn’t doing more, because precision hasn’t been factored in, and neither has critical damage. See, Condition Damage is only reliant on itself for increasing Damage Per Second (condition duration increased Damage Over Time). Direct damage, however, can be bolstered through scoring critical hits. The result is that Direct Damage has a higher damage potential than Condition Damage, at the cost of requiring a larger stat investment that could otherwise be allocated elsewhere.

Wait, what’s the point of all of this again?

To explain why investing in Condition Damage could be viewed as having a more efficient stat investment per maximizing damage dealt. See, you can do more direct damage than condition damage if enough stats are allocated, but by allocating the same amount towards Condition Damage, you would also be able to invest into other offensive or defensive options that conditions benefit from, such as precision for more condition procs using traits and sigils, or toughness for incoming damage reduction, or even power for a dual output of conditions and direct damage.

In less words: By investing in Condition Damage, you are left with more points leftover to be able to allocate after optimizing the desired damage output than you are when investing in direct damage.

Wait, are you saying conditions are better to invest in as a ranger than direct damage?

No. Not at all. There are many situations in which conditions are not optimal. This is either created by the limitation of the condition cap; or the maximum stack of certain conditions that can be applied to a target, or just in general, needing to do more damage than what can be accomplished through conditions, or the target being a structure/object.

Wait, so if direct damage is stronger, why isn’t it better?

Simply put, doing the most damage possible isn’t everything. Particularly, against other players, toughness, vitality, and healing power are all important tools for the quest to be the most dominant player on the battlefield, and with condition damage, you have more opportunity to build defensively and offensively at the same time than you do with direct damage. Particularly, through condition damage, you an attain the most offensive and defensive at the same time build that you can possibly create.

So, where do pets fit into all of this?

Throughout all of this, pets are a static element. The same pet can be used by either somebody built for direct damage or somebody built for condition damage, so really the pet doesn’t factor much into the discussion. HOWEVER, players building for condition damage can also allocate stats towards beastmastery, which will increase the damage and durability of the pets in combat, which isn’t taking away from any of the damage done by the ranger player.

With everything factored in, rangers… no, not just rangers…. ANY class that has a viable source of condition output has more build options when using conditions as a primary source of damage.

tl;dr: Condition Damage requires less stat investment to reach its damage potential than building for direct damage, which is a huge bonus and deciding factor when it comes to choosing what to build for, since based on stat investment alone, investing in Condition Damage is more efficient per point invested, leaving more points to be invested elsewhere.

You forgot to mention that same like with condi build you still deal some direct dmg then with direct dmg build you still deal some condi dmg. E.g. I use double bows power build, yes sbow with power build! And I can’t complain. While dealing way higher direct dmg with sbow (mainly thx to high crit chance and crit dmg), you still deal some conditions. It’s smth like half dmg from conditions. Also while having high direct dmg build you are still able to get decent toughness, in my case 2,8k. My 75% crit chance (95% with fury) with on crit health gaining sigil and food together with speed of nr1 attack provides you great healing.

I am not fun of condi builds, but I know the builds have their usage. In case of rangers, direct dmg builds works just as fine as condi builds. It’s all about players what fits them better.

dont forget to say that condition dmg ignores your enemys toughness/armor.

Same as conditions can be totally cleaned. The dmg mitigation would be another part of discussion. The game is designed, or I believe they try to do it, to achieve balance between these two sources of dmg. And I think it’s well balanced.

Reason is our only traited condition removal is in the toughness/condition tree. If you were to not go 30 in WS you need to up your healing power enough to make the initial heal of Healing Spring worth it for the condition removal and in order to get any other condition removal you’d need to run sigils (generosity etc) or rune sets (lyssa #6 , hoelbrak for reduction, etc), furthermore you would need to run a specific type of food (-40% condition duration food or the food that removes 1 condition on heal).

In other words, we’re quite literally forced to go 30 into WS to be competitive in this condition meta, especially if your enemy team or your enemy himself is a necromancer. Otherwise, you will melt. By doing this, our offensive power is already greatly diminished in the direct damage side of things, the only true option is to be able to go tanky and deal out condition damage. This is also a glimpse of what ranger will be like when the conditions are toned down. We may be severely hurt as we don’t have too many direct damage build options at all.

Now, if you’re in a team who carry alot of aoe condition removal then you may be set, but even then you don’t provide enough burst opportunity to be effective, there’s other classes that can fill that role alot better (warriors really especially since they have much better condition tolerance) and if anybody knows with the ranger, we sacrifice virtually ALL of our survivability to even get 70% of the burst that other classes can achieve.

If you read the sPvP forums, this is really the number one complaint people have with this game right now. The whole meta revolves around conditions, and since conditions need only one stat, classes that have strong condition options can get by with focusing on nothing but condition, toughness, and vitality.

I’d also like to get OP’s opinion on where they feel the Ranger ranks in overall condition effectiveness? I personally find them quite inferior to the other big condi classes (Warriors, Engineers, Necromancer). I still don’t know why shortbow has a directional requirement to apply bleeds for example. Bleed application for Necros and Engineers don’t have these requirements. Their bleeds last longer. Granted they may not shoot every 0.52 seconds though.

Arguably, ranger condy builds
Need 2 stats:

Condi/precision or condi/healing

actually you cant make that distinction , simply because you have spirits and sharpened edges /trait and utility/ that can make all weapons hybrid

Nice post, jcbroe!

Had a discussion with guildies about this—they are condition builds, but none are rangers. They claim that 2 stats are needed for their builds: crit % and condition damage. Still, direct damage benefits from 3 (power, crit % and crit dam).

For rangers, part of the problem is what Ryan points out. We are sort of forced (or strongly urged) to go for 30 in WS OR relatively high healing.

All that said, I think it is most useful to look at synergies among weapon sets and traits in evaluating the relative effectiveness of different builds (eg direct damage, condition). The OP does this, but I wonder whether people think good direct damage builds must have high burst. I don’t think they need to…

You can have very effective DD ranger builds that don’t rely on large bursts, but rather rely on sustained damage and pressure. The problem is its difficult to construct a build that has the defensive elements of sustain (toughness, healing) and solid DD stats (@2000 power, +40% crit , +40 crit damage). I’ve found that by building around our extensive evasion/dodging abilities we can forgo healing power and still be very survivable.

Enjoy it while we can:

“JonathanSharp

Game Design Lead

Next

Further down the Road

•We’re also looking to make conditions scale better in PvE/WvW leveling so that they’re more viable at different junctures in the level scale. "

Translation: Nerf incoming.

NargofWoV.4267:

Enjoy it while we can:

“JonathanSharp

Game Design Lead

Next

Further down the Road

•We’re also looking to make conditions scale better in PvE/WvW leveling so that they’re more viable at different junctures in the level scale. "

Translation: Nerf incoming.

Doesn’t he mean that it’ll buff conditions in PvE/WvW, where they’re weaker, as opposed to their dominance in PvP. Also, since it’ll be a universal change, unless they add in profession specific coefficients, this will affect everyone.

I disagree with you. The weakness of condition damage comes from the fact, that it deals with more random elements, then direct damage does. Like condition removal, opponents negative condition duration, damage over time, and the attention to various condition types. These are variables that direct damage doesn’t have to deal with. Direct damage can’t be removed, there is no permanent damage reduction against direct damage, you can deal a lot of damage over a shorter period of time, and it simply just requires you to hit your target. Condition damage should really be called “complicated damage”.

NargofWoV.4267:

Enjoy it while we can:

“JonathanSharp

Game Design Lead

Next

Further down the Road

•We’re also looking to make conditions scale better in PvE/WvW leveling so that they’re more viable at different junctures in the level scale. "

Translation: Nerf incoming.

How does his statement translate into “nerf incoming”? I see a combination of words that make it seem like a buff to conditions is coming, like “scale better” and “more viable” in his statement.

honestly the best stat combo for spirits is carrion with shortbow

Good post. As others have mentioned, there are more variables involved than this suggests, but it is a good summary of the two damage types and how the system works. It is likely the upcoming changes will impact this current state of affairs, and all of this will need to be reevaluated fairly soon.

Personally, I prefer conditions over direct damage, largely due to this inefficiency and because I feel it dovetails well with the Ranger’s few strengths, and definitely suits my playstyle more. I do think that both options should be equally viable for Rangers however, and would hope that this is made so not simply by nerfing one of them…we’ll see before long just what is going to happen on this front. I am not hopeful.

ItIsFinished.9462:

NargofWoV.4267:

Enjoy it while we can:

“JonathanSharp

Game Design Lead

Next

Further down the Road

•We’re also looking to make conditions scale better in PvE/WvW leveling so that they’re more viable at different junctures in the level scale. "

Translation: Nerf incoming.

How does his statement translate into “nerf incoming”? I see a combination of words that make it seem like a buff to conditions is coming, like “scale better” and “more viable” in his statement.

Have you not paid attention to the way Anet words things, if not go re read their description of the nerf to our Waterfeild. Hint: It sounds very much like a buff.

Edit: Also, I believe the original Dev posting was over on the Warrior forum, and it was on the discussion of Condition Builds being OP. Dev jumped in with the first notice that Cond. was being looked into. To busy at the moment to re look it up.

Kasama.8941:

I disagree with you. The weakness of condition damage comes from the fact, that it deals with more random elements, then direct damage does. Like condition removal, opponents negative condition duration, damage over time, and the attention to various condition types. These are variables that direct damage doesn’t have to deal with. Direct damage can’t be removed, there is no permanent damage reduction against direct damage, you can deal a lot of damage over a shorter period of time, and it simply just requires you to hit your target. Condition damage should really be called “complicated damage”.

Those are all very good points. I am in no way trying to devalue them with this next statement, when I say that I was only evaluating the differences of the two damage types on a stat allocation basis.

The only point I’m going to nitpick with is when you say there is no permanent damage reduction against direct damage, just because toughness is that permanent damage reduction, unless I’ve misunderstood what you meant.

Other than that, I’d have to say that it’s a very good evaluation of the pros of direct damage that condition damage has trouble with.

Ok, found it… Here :

“JonathanSharp

Game Design Lead

Thanks guys!

We’re being very mindful about the way the Sigil of Para fix will hit Warriors. We’ve already got another balance patch brewing, and we’re being very careful to watch all the classes and see how they feel after we shave down the condition spam classes slightly.

As others have said, once we bring down the conditions that “hold down” some of the physical based classes, they will feel stronger. We’re aware of that!

Thanks again for the feedback!"

Now, I guess the question is, are Rangers a “Condition Spam Class” or a “physical based class”?

Great write up OP. Well put together.

@Ryan and Bredin;
Darn! I knew I was forgetting my point about how useful Empathic Bond was, which only helps to build towards conditions. Oh well, now that we’re at this point, I’ll make the convenient excuse that I didn’t include it because the value placed on Empathic Bond is subjective.

@Chopps; If we’re going that route, I’d actually argue that it’s Condi/Toughness. It’s a more widely available stat combination, that also allows you to pick up precision, healing power, or vitality, and overall is the combination that probably has the most variation.

@Everybody;

Here is another way of looking at it:

These are the damage stats we can invest into;

Power
Precision
Critical Damage
Condition Damage
Condition Duration

When it comes to maximizing DPS, direct damage needs Power, Precision, and Critical Damage. For Damage Over Time, no additional stat investment is required.

For maximizing the DPS of condition damage, you need; Condition Damage. For Damage Over Time, you need an additional investment of Condition Duration.

Based on investment values alone, condition damage is the better investment because it requires less stat investment to be effective.

However, as previously pointed out, this doesn’t take into consideration the requirements and hard counters to either of the types of damage.

Also, I forget the users name, but from the spvp forums, there was an argument of why shorter condition were better than long lasting conditions. Basically, the point was made that being able to reapply 2 second bleeds over and over is better than being about to apply them on a long duration due to the nature of condition removal in this game.

Because condition removal in the game is very tied to cooldowns, whether it be passive or active, the chances of having your damage removed is actually lower for low duration conditions than high ones. Take for example, ranger Torch. Torch 4 can apply a long duration burn, which, for most players, will be cleansed almost immediately if they get hit by it, making the skill do almost no damage unless the person lacks the removal to get rid of it.

However, skills like Bonfire and Flame Trap reapply 1s/2s burns over and over, and even though overall the damage over time is lower, the DPS is safer because the chance that a 1s or 2s long condition is going to be removed is much lower than a 10 second long condition.

That’s just an interesting perspective I found on the actual benefits of condition duration.

NargofWoV.4267:

Ok, found it… Here :

“JonathanSharp

Game Design Lead

Thanks guys!

We’re being very mindful about the way the Sigil of Para fix will hit Warriors. We’ve already got another balance patch brewing, and we’re being very careful to watch all the classes and see how they feel after we shave down the condition spam classes slightly.

As others have said, once we bring down the conditions that “hold down” some of the physical based classes, they will feel stronger. We’re aware of that!

Thanks again for the feedback!"

Now, I guess the question is, are Rangers a “Condition Spam Class” or a “physical based class”?

Thanks for the support of the thread, I actually wanted to respond to this quote you brought though cuz I think I have an idea on it.

Rangers are a condition class, but they aren’t a condition spam class, at least not in comparison to how Engineers and Necros are. Both of those classes have access to literally every single condition, and necros particularly are very capable of just putting every skill on cooldown on recharge and having that be an effective source of damage. Engineers are capable of doing the same thing, but their skills require a tad bit more positioning, they have a slightly lower output, and they require a lot more actions per minute to accomplish.

Rangers on the other hand, don’t really spam conditions. The flanking clause of the shortbow prevents the mindless bleed stacking spam, and besides that, our weapons autos don’t even apply conditions. If anything, Splitblade might get a longer cooldown since it has the capability of being a very decent damage output skill on a very short cooldown.

Based on what the community thinks, spamming aside, I’ve seen players saying that the ranger trap build would be what they want the other classes output to be balanced around.

That doesn’t mean that’s what will happen, but I guess credit where credit is due, especially since the particular person I’m think of is streamer who absolutely hates rangers spirit build, which makes him seem like he hates the class entirely at times.

jcbroe.4329:

Kasama.8941:

I disagree with you. The weakness of condition damage comes from the fact, that it deals with more random elements, then direct damage does. Like condition removal, opponents negative condition duration, damage over time, and the attention to various condition types. These are variables that direct damage doesn’t have to deal with. Direct damage can’t be removed, there is no permanent damage reduction against direct damage, you can deal a lot of damage over a shorter period of time, and it simply just requires you to hit your target. Condition damage should really be called “complicated damage”.

Those are all very good points. I am in no way trying to devalue them with this next statement, when I say that I was only evaluating the differences of the two damage types on a stat allocation basis.

The only point I’m going to nitpick with is when you say there is no permanent damage reduction against direct damage, just because toughness is that permanent damage reduction, unless I’ve misunderstood what you meant.

Other than that, I’d have to say that it’s a very good evaluation of the pros of direct damage that condition damage has trouble with.

I was referring to the comparison with negative condition duration. Having -60% condition duration is a permanent counter to condition damage. There is no permanent counter that gives you damage reduction against critical chance or critical damage. You could say that toughness is a permanent counter to direct damage, but toughness is also bad for condition damage, because almost all condition damage skills deals some form of direct damage as well. The Rangers shortbow auto-attack is a good example of this. Protection, weakness, and retaliation are really the only true counters to direct damage. However, it should be mentioned that condition damage continues to deal damage to a player, even when that player is dodging, or is out of hit range. While direct damage requires you to constantly hit a target, and is therefor more susceptible to damage denial like dodging, aegis, blind, and so on.

jcbroe.4329:

@Everybody;

Here is another way of looking at it:

These are the damage stats we can invest into;

Power
Precision
Critical Damage
Condition Damage
Condition Duration

When it comes to maximizing DPS, direct damage needs Power, Precision, and Critical Damage. For Damage Over Time, no additional stat investment is required.

For maximizing the DPS of condition damage, you need; Condition Damage. For Damage Over Time, you need an additional investment of Condition Duration.

Based on investment values alone, condition damage is the better investment because it requires less stat investment to be effective.

However, as previously pointed out, this doesn’t take into consideration the requirements and hard counters to either of the types of damage.

Also, I forget the users name, but from the spvp forums, there was an argument of why shorter condition were better than long lasting conditions. Basically, the point was made that being able to reapply 2 second bleeds over and over is better than being about to apply them on a long duration due to the nature of condition removal in this game.

Because condition removal in the game is very tied to cooldowns, whether it be passive or active, the chances of having your damage removed is actually lower for low duration conditions than high ones. Take for example, ranger Torch. Torch 4 can apply a long duration burn, which, for most players, will be cleansed almost immediately if they get hit by it, making the skill do almost no damage unless the person lacks the removal to get rid of it.

However, skills like Bonfire and Flame Trap reapply 1s/2s burns over and over, and even though overall the damage over time is lower, the DPS is safer because the chance that a 1s or 2s long condition is going to be removed is much lower than a 10 second long condition.

That’s just an interesting perspective I found on the actual benefits of condition duration.

Direct damage does not need critical damage, and critical chance is less important then condition duration is. Even if you only have 2200 power, 20% critical chance, and 15% critical damage, you still have a viable direct damage build. Condition damage requires more attention to build choices. Because of the hard counters to condition duration (Lemongrass Poultry Soup, Rune of Melandru, Rune of Hoelbrak, and Rune of the Sunless), you need more then +40% condition duration in a condition damage build, in the current meta. Next to this, you also need to be aware of all the condition damage types, as the more you have, the more damage you will deal. Burn, poison, and 10 stacks of bleed, deals a lot more damage then just 10 stacks of bleed alone. And because of this, you also rely more on multiple skills, meaning you’ll want some form of skill recharge reduction, so you can stack your conditions faster. Or in other words; auto-attacking with a direct damage build, is more powerful then auto-attacking with a condition damage build. Condition damage only becomes more powerful, when you can continuously keep conditions on a target.

Most posts seem to relate directly to PVP , and the effect of changes and abilities on PVP. I don’t play PVP.

I want Conditions to be more effective in PVE , specifically in Dungeons against large bosses. The current system where my conditions overwrite someone elses’ and decreases their effectiveness and my own , needs to change.

I shouldn’t be happy playing Conditions in PVE, and then somehow need to swap gear and traits to go into a Dungeon. Or, if that is the case, then provide a UI for me to do so easily, swap between character sets.

I agree, for PVE play in the open world I feel as though Conditions are a good fit for many classes. It allows you to take on a lot while playing Solo doing hearts, champions, veteran mobs etc.

The builds that need to focus on Power, Precision and Critical Damage cannot also focus on Vitality and Toughness, so you end up doing great damage…but once that damage is not enough you will go down.

In some classes, if you cannot afford to Trait into condition removal and you go up against two or more mobs which stack conditions, you will most likely also go down.

Those times when you are facing enemies that just deal direct damage, these total power/crit based builds seem to be almost godlike, however, with the speed at which they drop opponents.

The response that players need to learn how to dodge is not a valid response when you take the majority of the player base into account. The advice to just “stack power/precision/crit damage” will not work for I think 90% of the player base.

I think for that 90% a more condition oriented, and defensive trait and ability based build would be better.

Kasama.8941:

jcbroe.4329:

@Everybody;

Here is another way of looking at it:

These are the damage stats we can invest into;

Power
Precision
Critical Damage
Condition Damage
Condition Duration

When it comes to maximizing DPS, direct damage needs Power, Precision, and Critical Damage. For Damage Over Time, no additional stat investment is required.

For maximizing the DPS of condition damage, you need; Condition Damage. For Damage Over Time, you need an additional investment of Condition Duration.

Based on investment values alone, condition damage is the better investment because it requires less stat investment to be effective.

However, as previously pointed out, this doesn’t take into consideration the requirements and hard counters to either of the types of damage.

Also, I forget the users name, but from the spvp forums, there was an argument of why shorter condition were better than long lasting conditions. Basically, the point was made that being able to reapply 2 second bleeds over and over is better than being about to apply them on a long duration due to the nature of condition removal in this game.

Because condition removal in the game is very tied to cooldowns, whether it be passive or active, the chances of having your damage removed is actually lower for low duration conditions than high ones. Take for example, ranger Torch. Torch 4 can apply a long duration burn, which, for most players, will be cleansed almost immediately if they get hit by it, making the skill do almost no damage unless the person lacks the removal to get rid of it.

However, skills like Bonfire and Flame Trap reapply 1s/2s burns over and over, and even though overall the damage over time is lower, the DPS is safer because the chance that a 1s or 2s long condition is going to be removed is much lower than a 10 second long condition.

That’s just an interesting perspective I found on the actual benefits of condition duration.

Direct damage does not need critical damage, and critical chance is less important then condition duration is. Even if you only have 2200 power, 20% critical chance, and 15% critical damage, you still have a viable direct damage build. Condition damage requires more attention to build choices. Because of the hard counters to condition duration (Lemongrass Poultry Soup, Rune of Melandru, Rune of Hoelbrak, and Rune of the Sunless), you need more then +40% condition duration in a condition damage build, in the current meta. Next to this, you also need to be aware of all the condition damage types, as the more you have, the more damage you will deal. Burn, poison, and 10 stacks of bleed, deals a lot more damage then just 10 stacks of bleed alone. And because of this, you also rely more on multiple skills, meaning you’ll want some form of skill recharge reduction, so you can stack your conditions faster. Or in other words; auto-attacking with a direct damage build, is more powerful then auto-attacking with a condition damage build. Condition damage only becomes more powerful, when you can continuously keep conditions on a target.

I said it needs it to optimize damage, not just to be viable.

You’re also implying that I’m only addressing the WvW meta, and a very particularly high end meta where people are running the most condition counter centric options available to them.

I don’t see where at any point I’ve said that direct damage builds aren’t viable, or are less viable. The only thing I think I’ve said is that condition damage requires less stat investment than direct damage builds in order to achieve maximum optimization of damage output, particularly DPS wise.

Regardless, I have already acknowledged that you’re correct about the benefits of direct damage versus condition damage.

I don’t see why this has to be such a debate is all lol. This wasn’t even supposed to be a super serious, in depth topic for the ranger forum. I made the topic more so just because its a trial week period and it’s good to get some information out there for people.

I’ve already witnessed LOTS of new (hopefully they’re new at least….) ranger players on opposing teams in PvP or worlds in WvW that are just very inexperienced, both in the how the class works category as well as the importance of mobility in combat category.

So I just wanted to make a nice, lighthearted thread that shares information with people.

I found this thread while researching Condition Damage for Rangers in GW2. The 2 reasons that got me interested in the idea are:

1. How the Short Bow skills would greatly benefit from Condition Damage in gear and traits; and

2. How outrageously cheaper green Ravaging gear is, than any other green gear in the Trade Post, for a leveling Ranger!

So even if a Ranger—or even I myself as a Ranger—at level 80 would start looking away from Condition Damage for whatever reason, it still makes perfect sense to me to stick to Condition Damage while leveling; and there’s just simply no argument good enough against this path at this point, considering how much gold I can save while leveling and not relying on hours invested to craft my own gear, but simply buying it all for low prices in a few minutes.

Yeah, and put krait runes on your build with entangle. Very cheap and fine for leveling.