Feedback talk:User/Raine Valen/Skill suggestions/Elementalist/Fire Magic

Reason?

Why do you want to change these firemagic skills btw? or nerf them. (Frizz 19:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC))

Fire magic is probably the most boring, one-dimensional attribute in the game right now. It literally has a dozen or so skills that all do just about the exact same thing. In fact, the att basically boils down into two things things:

• Damage
  • Targeted AoE DoT
  • PB AoE DoT
  • Targeted AoE
  • PB AoE
  • Single-target damage
• Energy management.

There are a couple of skills that do one thing in addition to that (Meteor is a knockdown, Mark of Rodgort burns stuff, and... I think that's all), but it's a pretty sad attribute, especially since caster atts are supposed to be versatile.

I understand that giving Fire the ability to do lots of things in addition to damage would be bad, so I'm trying to limit the attribute's utility. What I am adding, though, are different ways for Fire eles to do damage, with skills like Breath of Fire. There's simply no reason (or excuse) for there to be 8 different AoE DoT skills in the attribute. is for Raine, etc. 21:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Bed of Coals

Giving the fire ele an AoE snare on top of the allready AoE heavy damage they have is in my eyes, not the way to go Deshiba 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Conjure Flame

The "inflicts burning with an attack skill" is troubling. It would be an enchantment that would make a ton off suff from ranger and the likes overpowered. Think Needling Shot (infinate burning). Think Barrage, which is extremely troublesome with your update, it would make barage do burning to a large number of foes the way incendiary arrow now does, without having to spec points in wilderness.Deshiba 14:20 21 September 2010 (GMT+1)

Restore Conditions is basically the ultimate counter to a ranger. "Oh did you want to kill that guy I think I'll heal him to full" -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 14:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty narrow point of vieuw, Area's such as Random Arenas do not have the luxury of Restore Conditions. And the Effect of his new Conjure flame will make it so that it will completely exhaust a prot monk if it removes the burning. 14:40 21 September 2010 (UTC)

14 dps is not scary. Especially given the monk buffs. — Raine Valen 15:03, 21 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at Protection Prayers (Air of Enchantment and Shield Guardian would rape barrage gloriously)? Or Healing Prayers (Healer's Covenant plus Extinguish is hardcore)? Or Needling Shot (it's an interrupt!)?

By the time you've specced enough Fire Magic to get 2 seconds of Burning, you'd've been better off speccing it in Wilderness Survival for either of the two nonelite preps that inflict AoE burning and do more damage than this in most cases. On top of that, you're not out of 15 energy, you can run runes for it, and you get other useful skills for your spec. Even then, those skills are still worse than Apply Poison.

Conjure Barrage would be a waste of attribute points, tbh. Especially considering that you'd have to run a zealous bow to make up for the lower expertise you'd be running, except that you couldn't because Conjure is picky like that.

tl;dr it's not as strong as Ignite Barrage, which isn't as strong as Apply Barrage. — Raine Valen 15:03, 21 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Any statement made about the conjure was in the way rangers currently work.(not your updated versions)Deshiba 15:45 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Elemental Flame

The health gain should be based on how many hexes were removed. Too strong otherwise. King Neoterikos 10:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A 10-energy, 8-recharge regen-esque spell that heals for 150 over 5 seconds at 15 spec and ends if a water ele looks at you funny is too strong? is for Raine, etc. 10:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be willing to make the health gain conditional if it didn't have the current drawback. Here, I'll do a couple more drafts. is for Raine, etc. 10:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The current effect is incorrect if I'm not mistaking, it's an ench not a hex. I have to disagree with your changes. EF has an original idea and while a skill removing water hexes may be a good thing for pvp it makes it absolute trash for pve. In PvE i'd rather keep the functionality and get a fixed maintainable duration (for fragility purposes for instance). Ruine Eternelle 09:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Flame Djin's Haste

I have to Object strongly to the rework you did on it. The way you propose it to be is a stronger version of a skill allready in excistence, burning speed. Basicly what you did is switch the burning drawback for a recharge, and make it do damage on ending in stead of burning (which is basicly damage). I feel it is a too insignificant difference for it to be a seperate skill. Deshiba 14:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Burning speed will also be reworked. Also, the damage here is applied initially, not on end. — Raine Valen 15:10, 21 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Searing Flames

Inflicting burning is what it is supposed to do, removing this from the description in such a way that you could cast it and it does nothing, is unacceptable for an ELITE. And on top of the high chance that it does nothing, it gives you an aditional exhaustion penalty, that just makes it a bad skill. Deshiba 14:36 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This skill is basically a conditional incendiary bonds, except it has an unlimited number of targets and does damage immediately. On a KotH, Rodgort's -> Searing Flames would pretty much explode everything. That's elite-worthy. — Raine Valen 14:50, 21 Sep 2010 (UTC)

The way you described it: Deals 30...102...120 fire damage to these foes and 5...25...30 damage to adjacent foes. Only affects Burning foes. It reads like it does nothing Unless foes are burning. But you defend it like it's an Earthquake with an aditional Shockwave conditional type damage. If so could you please rephrase it XD Or should i see it as a Phoenix type spell...Deshiba 15:03 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It does only affect burning foes. If you're a fire ele and are having trouble meeting that requirement, you are doing something horribly, horribly wrong. It has that requirement so that you have to do something (like cast Rodgort's or apply Mark of Rodgort or throw Incendiary Bonds up) before you can obliterate stuff with Searing Flames (which, on its own, is largely uncounterable). — Raine Valen 15:07, 21 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Exactly my point, the full potential of searing flames as you would have it would be limited extremely by having burning on it. Since Mark of Rodgort requires Fire Damage before it does Burning it is not a viable combination with SF. Rodgort't on its own is limited to adjacent so sf would only affect adjacent and would be limited to 150 damage. And in combination with incendiary bond Incendiary bonds is the one that is more worthy of being elite between those two. Deshiba 15:17 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Mark of Rodgort causes SF to deal damage immediately, but I'm not positive.

Rodgort's has "nearby" range. Searing Flames has "nearby" range.

Let's say there are 3 burning foes adjacent to each other. Searing Flames hits each of them for 120, then each foe and every adjacent foe takes 30 damage. That means that it deals another 30 damage to each foe for each adjacent foe, for a grand total of 210 damage to each. Let's say you're playing KotH and there's 7 adjacent foes: you deal 330 damage to each. Let's say you're in PvE and there's 22 adjacent foes: you deal 780 damage to each. It's an AoE effect that creates another AoE effect on each foe struck, so the damage multiplies pretty quickly. — Raine Valen 15:28, 21 Sep 2010 (UTC)

It's a vicious cycle, Mark of rodgort needs fire damage to apply burning, Searing flames (your version) needs burning to do damage. In the current Mark mechanic (without a secondary source of fire damage) your version of SF would not do any damage.

True I am out of synch with the current Rodgorts invocation. it is nearby range my bad.

It would be devastating on the Adjacent level, IF you could get that many players to suffer from burning reliably. The fact that it would be an elite that needs other skills to function properly just doesnt sit right by me. Deshiba 15:45 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Incendiary Bonds

Kudos on this one. The punishment for Balling is pretty gruesome on this one. The combination of this skill and Mark of Rodgort is easily fathomed. I can see this working. Deshiba 14:36 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lava Arrows

A one quarter second spammable interrupt, has no business on an ele. This would make it a better and less conditional skill then power return. It is simply OP in the hands of a Mind Blast Ele. Deshiba 14:36 21 September 2010 (UTC)

99% of fire eles wouldn't bother with this (a 10e projectile interrupt with no fast casting) in balanced builds because other party members, like rangers, mesmers, and even warriors would have better disruptive options. The only time this skill would see play at all, I think, would be in cases where no on else can take interrupts (like in a dervsmite or some such).

Also, Mind Blast won't exist as it does now. — Raine Valen 14:47, 21 Sep 2010 (UTC)

Hmm could be so, but so far i have not seen your updated version of mind blast. And in the case of GVG with the dual fire ele split build, i can easily see one of them dropping Meteor for your updated Lava Arrows. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deshiba (talk) at 15:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC).

The important part of Mind Blast is that it won't be obscene energy management. — Raine Valen 15:34, 21 Sep 2010 (UTC)

That would help a lot, if that is the case it's not so bad just a tad rough maybe. A bit sad that it would be a pretty good interrupt that is not a mesmer skill. Deshiba 15:45 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Breath of Fire

Nice one--Ruine Eternelle 09:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! That was one of my favorites, too. ♥ — Raine Valen 22:12, 8 Sep 2020 (UTC) 22:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Liquid Flame

If I am not mistaking, the damage would be an initial effect, and the hex would therefore have no effect? That's how it works in-game for most hexes anyway? If the initial damage works won't it be too strong in PvE? Ruine Eternelle 09:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It's been almost ten years since I worked on this, but looking at it now, it seems that my original intent was that it did damage initially, and the hex would do nothing *except spread* (dealing the initial damage on new targets) for one second. In all honesty, it might be too strong in PvE, but I've never done a design with PvE in mind, really. — Raine Valen 22:14, 8 Sep 2020 (UTC) 22:14, 8 September 2020 (UTC)