Talk:Burning

I just ran into a few Destroyers in Raven's Point Dungeon which are "immune to burning". What's going on here?

They're made of lava mebbeh? BlazeRick 10:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wouldnt "They're on Fire!" count as a skill that exclusively deals with burning?--Justice 06:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

there on fire wouldnt work because there not on fire there just immune to it so it wouldnt trigger --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:116.240.249.216 (talk).

um? sorry i wasnt answering a question i was asking my own sepperate one. will just add it to the small list of skills the specificaly target burning.--Justice 05:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If 'They're on Fire!' did actually cause burning, at first you're character would be lying. Eryops3 00:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"exclusive effects for burning"

What differentiates an exclusive effect for burning as opposes to a non-exclusive effect for burning? For example, "They're On Fire!" is listed as having such an exclusive effect, because "it does nothing if they aren't burning". But then again, the same is true for Glowing Signet. I am confused. Vili 00:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

your right on that. Who ever started that list missed alot of skills that should be on it. I added "they're on fire!". To me any skill that does nothing but specifically targets burning belongs on the list.--Justice 06:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

changed my mind on "definition". Any skill that says the word burning without implying application of buring probably fits on that list.--Justice 06:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that the note should be removed...this article already contains a list of skills that cause, remove, prevent, or benefit from burning. Why are we working to reproduce an incomplete copy in the notes section? --Belker 19:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Justice 08:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just bringing this section back up...If no one is opposed, I am going to remove that section from the notes. As said above it's missing a lot of skills, but more importantly we already lists the skills that cause, prevent, remove and benefit from Burning above? Agreed? ~Celestia 07:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Avatar, Spirits, and Jets

So why is avatar of melandru only listed here, blind, and disease as a skill that prevents a specific condition? Also, why does poison have a note that talks about poison spouts, jets, and darts but this page does not as flame jets, flame darts, and flame spouts clearly exist? Finally, I'm fairly certain that spirits can be... effected? (or is that affected?)... by other conditions aside from burning such as weakness and cracked armor. I know they're not fleshy, but I swear I've given a spirit at least weakness before... can anyone cofirm/refute this? I'm fairly certain that they can't be given deep wound, but what about the other not-fleshy-requiring conditions? ---- Timeoffire45 04:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

forget the spirit bit - i'm an idiot. I must be imagining things... the rest still stands, though -- Timeoffire45 04:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. Eryops3 00:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Skills that benefit from burning

Spear of Fury would be one, no? I mean it benefits from conditions. 00:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)→ alistic ←

If you said that, you'd have to add every skill in the game that benefited from having conditions. I'd normally give a list, but that'd take a little long :P--Iggy The Iguana 13:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Anomaly Note

So I don't start a revert war (because I, personally, want to take it down), I'm confused about the anomaly note that was placed at the bottom of the page. It states that burning does not affect skills dependent upon fire damage (as mentioned, Ice Prison), nor is it affected by Winter. I'm confused. Burning does not inflict damage: it inflicts degeneration. Insofar as I've ever seen, degeneration is untyped health loss... If the person who put the note up wants to justify themselves (or someone else wants to justify it for them) I'd be more than willing to listen, but right now I'm of the mind that it's rather, well, unimportant. -- Timeoffire45 rawr 18:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't be afraid to edit, it's clearly a bad note so let's remove it? --Venomoth 18:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not a bad note. 90% of people think that burning causes fire damage. Maybe it should not be listed as an anomaly, but it should be noted. I disagree with removing it completely. (However, I think Timeoffire/Venomoth proceeded appropriately in being bold.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So how do we feel about this, then: put up something in the notes--possibly in the section that states that burning deals 7 pips of health degeneration, since that deals with the damage from burning--that states in no uncertain terms that burning does not inflict fire damage itself? 206.212.42.62 23:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Uups. Switched computers, lol. -- Timeoffire45 rawr 23:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

So, I put something in there. If anyone thinks it can be phrased more succinctly or thinks they can better word it, feel free to run with it, lol. -- Timeoffire45 rawr 23:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Two of the notes suggest why there is confusion on the topic: burning is shown in-game as a set of flames on the NPC/spirit and the text descriptions of skills often use on fire rather than burning. I have re-ordered and combined the relevant notes accordingly.

I believe that ANet's unnecessarily contradictory visual and poetic imagery could reasonably called an anomaly. However, the more important point is that burning is heavy degeneration dressed up to look pretty; it's not damage and it's not affected by things that influence fire.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)