Guild Wars 2

Per the title, for what reason should this skill remain a split skill? I’ve played Sword/Dagger from 1-80 since the game first came out, and I remember a time when this skill was simply Flanking Strike and included both hits. Granted, it was awful because of how clunky it felt, how bad the pathing was, and how you were pseudo-rooted for the sword strike. Separating the skill, however, was unnecessary, and still leaves much to be desired because this skill makes no sense as a split skill.

So I’m going to go through EVERY SINGLE EXISTING SPLIT WEAPON SKILL IN THE GAME**

**I don’t have it in me to go over split skills on utilities, and underwater weapons are an affront to society

SKIP DOWN TO THE FLANKING STRIKE SECTION NOW, OR THE TL;DR IF YOU’RE LIKE ME AND DON’T WANT A QUICK OVERVIEW OF ALL THOSE SKILLS

(Format will be [Skill Name] – [What 2nd Part Does]: [Yes/No regarding intelligent design of splitting the skill and maybe some comments])

Guardian
Binding Blade – Pulls enemies in: Yes, you can let the damage tick, or go for a tactical pull
Orb of Light – Detonate for Aoe Heal: Yes, go for Aoe Heal or lower cooldown if not used
Shield of Absorption – Detonate For AoE Heal: Yes, you can wait it out for projectile blocking, or go for that heal sooner
Zealot’s Flame – Ranged Attack with multiple burning stacks at once: Yes
Engineer
Magnetic Shield – Push: Yes, reflect for ranged, push when melee gets up close
Static Shield – Ranged Attack with Daze: Yes, for when you’re not gonna get that melee stun you can at least daze a ranged opponent
Elementalist
Rock Barrier – Ranged Attack: Yes, sure there are more useful ones but the 2nd attack certainly serves a different purpose from the 1st
Magnetic Grasp – Leap Attack: Yes, you can use it to close the gap and capitalize on the immobilize from 1st or choose to not to and remain at range depending on weapon set
Ranger
Counter Attack – Ranged Attack with Cripple: Yes
Hornet Sting – Leap Attack: Yes
Mesmer
Illusionary Counter – Block+Clone vs. Blind Attack: Yes, and another that falls under the “if nothing else, do this” category
Illusionary Leap – Teleport + Immobilize: Yes
Illusionary Riposte – Block+Clone vs. Daze Attack: Yes
Temporal Curtain – Pull: Yes, take advantage of the swiftness/cripple/combo field and use the pull when an opportunity presents itself
Warrior
Counterblow – Adrenaline gain if not used: Yes, another “if nothing else, do this” but I can’t deny that the 2nd part of this skill serves a purpose distinct from the first and makes sense to be separately usable
Impale – Rip for burst damage: Yes, you choose to wait out more torment stacks, or go for the burst sooner
Riposte – Adrenaline Gain if not used: Yes
Thief
Cluster Bomb – Detonate for wider Aoe+more bleeds: Yes, there is a distinct difference in using the 2nd or allowing the 1st to play out
Infiltrator’s Strike – Teleport+Remove Condition: Yes, you use for mobility/condi clear, or let it expire if you’re needing to chase and teleporting back is counter-intuitive

HERE IS THE FLANKING STRIKE/LARCENOUS STRIKE SECTION

Here we are. 1st part: evade and stab. 2nd part: Stab…again…oh, but you rip a boon. The problem with this is that there’s no scenario in which you’d want to be more decisive about using the second skill, unlike every other split skill in existence. Both parts of this skill are head-on melee range attacks. Sure, the second strike does differ in that it rips a boon, but you’ll nearly always want to use this is soon as it’s available for the damage – the boon ripping is a bonus. Plenty of other skills have secondary effects without the need of splitting their skills (Pistol Whip is a good example).

Every other split skill I listed differs in that the 2nd skill is designed for a specific situation or timing that is otherwise impossible on a singular skill. In many cases, you may never want to use the 2nd skill so that you get the most benefit from the 1st. There is virtually no case in which you don’t want that Larcenous Strike to happen as soon as it can. The damage and getting your evade back is simply too valuable.

Currently, the only thing this skill is getting by being split is a somewhat variable skill delay when choosing to go for the Larcenous Strike. Sometimes, it happens immediately. Other times, there’s an awkward second or two where your Thief is presumably deciding what he/she wants for lunch.

This skill has no place being split, but it should also be fluid to use – unlike its stuttering behavior from before the split. Therefore, I suggest this skill be merged back into one skill, Flanking Strike, but be changed into a more fluid attack that feels more like Leaping Death Blossom to use (both strikes happen during the evade).

TL;DR Flanking Strike is the only split skill that does not reflect the apparent design philosophy surrounding split skills

I’m really confused as to why you think this would be a positive change for Flanking Strike…
Even if, for some reason, it was made back into a single skill with no split, the total cast time would have to remain unchanged to maintain the current balance state, so it’s not like the ability would go off quicker to help you get the damage you’re looking for.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, if it WERE to be made into a single skill, you wouldn’t be able to FS, then blink somewhere or move to change targets before LS (which is a great option for PvP Thieves, as you most likely want to rip a boon from a Guardian over another Thief).

All in all, I – as well as what I assume is a large part of the Thief audience – would probably not like them to condense FS and LS back into one again… Very little upside (if any) while removing an element of skill and mastery.

nope,flanking strike and lac strike are good as they are now,no changes need there.There are more pressing matters thant that anyway.

Pentalic.5409:

I’m really confused as to why you think this would be a positive change for Flanking Strike…
Even if, for some reason, it was made back into a single skill with no split, the total cast time would have to remain unchanged to maintain the current balance state, so it’s not like the ability would go off quicker to help you get the damage you’re looking for.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, if it WERE to be made into a single skill, you wouldn’t be able to FS, then blink somewhere or move to change targets before LS (which is a great option for PvP Thieves, as you most likely want to rip a boon from a Guardian over another Thief).

All in all, I – as well as what I assume is a large part of the Thief audience – would probably not like them to condense FS and LS back into one again… Very little upside (if any) while removing an element of skill and mastery.

Conversely, I’m not sure why it wouldn’t be a positive change as long as it wasn’t literally reverted to the previous form, which was clunky for reasons I’ve explained.

I don’t have any issue with the current cast time, either. Think of it this way: right now, you have the evade taking place with the dagger strike at the end. Having both strikes take place without changing the cast time only means that the dagger strike would have to take place more towards the beginning, and the sword strike would happen where the dagger strike currently takes place.

As for the combo, I’m not entirely sure what value is lost over using a skill, teleporting, and using something that could have happened by simply timing a teleport with the first skill. I’m not suggesting losing the boon steal, and I would argue teleporting into a LS is no more complex than teleporting into a CnD or #1 skill attack. You’d even have the evade on when you went for the boon steal, so it’d just be a safer entry than the current form of the skill.

I see very little, if any, downside to merging the skill to feel more fluid to use. I’m not entirely sure what elements of skill and mastery are lost by merging a skill that is barely more complex than an auto-attack chain, and certainly nowhere near on par with the complexity of all the other split skills. Every other split skill’s second half serves a distinctly different purpose than the first, and in many cases may encourage you not to use it at all – which is what makes these skills more complex to use. FS/LS lacks this defining trait because there is no scenario in which you don’t want to hit your opponent with the LS.

Sandrox.9524:

nope,flanking strike and lac strike are good as they are now,no changes need there.There are more pressing matters thant that anyway.

…Because? I’m not arguing that there are more important things to address, such as current survivability/damage in regards to what some of the other professions are dealing out with similar/less sacrifice. However, this alone is not reason enough to invalidate something that could use some improvement when the time comes.

I prefer the split. It can allow for multiple evades with no nearby target (to avoid ranged effects, etc.) at a lower initiative cost than if it were bumped up back to its full cost. As someone mentioned above, I also like being able to save its second skill to use on a separate target; I find myself frequently using FS on classes without blocks or aegis to get LS and then using it to finish a guard, war, or engineer with unblockable burst damage that steals a boon, too.

Ravoku.1852:

Sandrox.9524:

nope,flanking strike and lac strike are good as they are now,no changes need there.There are more pressing matters thant that anyway.

…Because? I’m not arguing that there are more important things to address, such as current survivability/damage in regards to what some of the other professions are dealing out with similar/less sacrifice. However, this alone is not reason enough to invalidate something that could use some improvement when the time comes.

..it gives you more control,look at the ranger sword auto attack,it is so kittenty cause you cant have real control over it.

DeceiverX.8361:

I prefer the split. It can allow for multiple evades with no nearby target (to avoid ranged effects, etc.) at a lower initiative cost than if it were bumped up back to its full cost. As someone mentioned above, I also like being able to save its second skill to use on a separate target; I find myself frequently using FS on classes without blocks or aegis to get LS and then using it to finish a guard, war, or engineer with unblockable burst damage that steals a boon, too.

Yeah, you would need to be more timely with your evades so as not to drain your initiative as quickly, but I’m also not a huge fan of evade spamming, which would be discouraged if anyone concerned about any skillful application of FS.

I personally find saving it to be useful in very rare situations like that, and it’s not enough for me to want it to remain split. That being said, I understand what you like about it and respect your take on it.

Sandrox.9524:

Ravoku.1852:

Sandrox.9524:

nope,flanking strike and lac strike are good as they are now,no changes need there.There are more pressing matters thant that anyway.

…Because? I’m not arguing that there are more important things to address, such as current survivability/damage in regards to what some of the other professions are dealing out with similar/less sacrifice. However, this alone is not reason enough to invalidate something that could use some improvement when the time comes.

..it gives you more control,look at the ranger sword auto attack,it is so kittenty cause you cant have real control over it.

The thing is that the situations where any amount of control is useful are few and far between. There’s also a world of difference between this and the ranger sword autos. The sword autos are not, strictly speaking, a split skill in the sense FS is. It’s a chain attack. I’m aware one of the main reasons the ranger sword autos have no control is because it kinda roots you in place, just like FS used to. I also explicitly suggested that a re-merged FS not have that old rooted effect, and should just perform the strikes during the evade. Therefore, the issues of ranger sword autos do not apply in this circumstance.

Ravoku.1852:

DeceiverX.8361:

I prefer the split. It can allow for multiple evades with no nearby target (to avoid ranged effects, etc.) at a lower initiative cost than if it were bumped up back to its full cost. As someone mentioned above, I also like being able to save its second skill to use on a separate target; I find myself frequently using FS on classes without blocks or aegis to get LS and then using it to finish a guard, war, or engineer with unblockable burst damage that steals a boon, too.

Yeah, you would need to be more timely with your evades so as not to drain your initiative as quickly, but I’m also not a huge fan of evade spamming, which would be discouraged if anyone concerned about any skillful application of FS.

I personally find saving it to be useful in very rare situations like that, and it’s not enough for me to want it to remain split. That being said, I understand what you like about it and respect your take on it.

I’m referring to more or less a case where such spamming is absolutely necessary, like in out-numbered situations against, say, a ranger and mesmer at long range and a hammer warrior in your face; not dodging RF/shatters and the CC of the warrior is going to get you killed, and the lower cost of evades is pretty much necessary when being hit by a bombardment of must-dodge attacks. Having no immunities, blocks, etc. puts the thief in a position where it needs such a prolonged defensive option through this kind of evade spamming in an outnumbered situation.

Arguing for the contrary really just puts the thief into a deeper role of only being able to +1 fights than it already is, which is being heavily out-classed by a variety of roles and classes at the moment.

Ravoku.1852:

Sandrox.9524:

Ravoku.1852:

Sandrox.9524:

nope,flanking strike and lac strike are good as they are now,no changes need there.There are more pressing matters thant that anyway.

…Because? I’m not arguing that there are more important things to address, such as current survivability/damage in regards to what some of the other professions are dealing out with similar/less sacrifice. However, this alone is not reason enough to invalidate something that could use some improvement when the time comes.

..it gives you more control,look at the ranger sword auto attack,it is so kittenty cause you cant have real control over it.

The thing is that the situations where any amount of control is useful are few and far between. There’s also a world of difference between this and the ranger sword autos. The sword autos are not, strictly speaking, a split skill in the sense FS is. It’s a chain attack. I’m aware one of the main reasons the ranger sword autos have no control is because it kinda roots you in place, just like FS used to. I also explicitly suggested that a re-merged FS not have that old rooted effect, and should just perform the strikes during the evade. Therefore, the issues of ranger sword autos do not apply in this circumstance.

having this long attack it will root you and the comparison is spot on cause imagine making ranger auto attack a non root attack,ppl would undoubtly play sword more.Same goes with thief FS it will force you to do an animation which roots you cause it is a long-complex animation….GW2 is fun and uinque cause you have 100% control over your character unlike other mmos that some skills just root you in place.

Exactly, it used to be good as a split skill but now it’s just kitten because it only swaps when you hit an enemy. So you’ll have to land 2 hits in a row. 2 hits with huge tells. This is just useless and makes the second skill utterly useless. It’s unblockable? Who cares! If you land the first hit you won’t need it to be unblockable and they can still avoid it. If the first hit is blocked you won;‘t be able to hit with an unblockable hit. It’s utterly useless like this.

DeceiverX.8361:

Ravoku.1852:

DeceiverX.8361:

I prefer the split. It can allow for multiple evades with no nearby target (to avoid ranged effects, etc.) at a lower initiative cost than if it were bumped up back to its full cost. As someone mentioned above, I also like being able to save its second skill to use on a separate target; I find myself frequently using FS on classes without blocks or aegis to get LS and then using it to finish a guard, war, or engineer with unblockable burst damage that steals a boon, too.

Yeah, you would need to be more timely with your evades so as not to drain your initiative as quickly, but I’m also not a huge fan of evade spamming, which would be discouraged if anyone concerned about any skillful application of FS.

I personally find saving it to be useful in very rare situations like that, and it’s not enough for me to want it to remain split. That being said, I understand what you like about it and respect your take on it.

I’m referring to more or less a case where such spamming is absolutely necessary, like in out-numbered situations against, say, a ranger and mesmer at long range and a hammer warrior in your face; not dodging RF/shatters and the CC of the warrior is going to get you killed, and the lower cost of evades is pretty much necessary when being hit by a bombardment of must-dodge attacks. Having no immunities, blocks, etc. puts the thief in a position where it needs such a prolonged defensive option through this kind of evade spamming in an outnumbered situation.

Arguing for the contrary really just puts the thief into a deeper role of only being able to +1 fights than it already is, which is being heavily out-classed by a variety of roles and classes at the moment.

In that particular situation, not dodging those will get you killed, sure. However, if you actually plan on killing anyone in that situation and not just running away, you’re going to be cycling that flanking strike and using the full initiative cost anyways. Spamming it already drains you as it is since the Larcenous Strike is only 1 initiative. What can hurt is skill delay resulting from larcenous being a different skill.

One of the larger reasons thief is more +1 fights at the moment has to do more with some of the damage certain classes have just started to put out since specializations, especially compared to what sword thief puts out.

Sandrox.9524:

Ravoku.1852:

Sandrox.9524:

Ravoku.1852:

Sandrox.9524:

nope,flanking strike and lac strike are good as they are now,no changes need there.There are more pressing matters thant that anyway.

…Because? I’m not arguing that there are more important things to address, such as current survivability/damage in regards to what some of the other professions are dealing out with similar/less sacrifice. However, this alone is not reason enough to invalidate something that could use some improvement when the time comes.

..it gives you more control,look at the ranger sword auto attack,it is so kittenty cause you cant have real control over it.

The thing is that the situations where any amount of control is useful are few and far between. There’s also a world of difference between this and the ranger sword autos. The sword autos are not, strictly speaking, a split skill in the sense FS is. It’s a chain attack. I’m aware one of the main reasons the ranger sword autos have no control is because it kinda roots you in place, just like FS used to. I also explicitly suggested that a re-merged FS not have that old rooted effect, and should just perform the strikes during the evade. Therefore, the issues of ranger sword autos do not apply in this circumstance.

having this long attack it will root you and the comparison is spot on cause imagine making ranger auto attack a non root attack,ppl would undoubtly play sword more.Same goes with thief FS it will force you to do an animation which roots you cause it is a long-complex animation….GW2 is fun and uinque cause you have 100% control over your character unlike other mmos that some skills just root you in place.

Except that I’ve said on multiple occasions that a re-merged FS should not include a rooted animation, but instead have the dagger strike take place sooner with the sword strike right at the end of the evade frame