Talk:"They're on Fire!"

Best skill ever? Fred The Second 03:19, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Cautery Signet ftw... --Jamie [[Image:Jamie.jpg|24px|(Talk Page)]] 03:23, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Heh, I wish they had used the wrong version of "They're" on purpose just to screw with people. I would have loved to have see this skill as "Their on Fire!"  --Rainith 11:14, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
 * their on fire is a beaurocrat skill of the grammer line. for 1-15 second, next time target foe uses a contraction, that foe is blinded and takes 15-60 humiliation damage. ;P --Honorable Sarah [[image:Honorable_Icon.gif]] 11:25, 28 July 2006 (CDT)
 * Actually I've never seen anyone write They're as their. Most lazy players write "They're" as "There" and "Their" as "There" as well. So skill would be "There on fire!". --Spura 12:52, 28 September 2006 (CDT)

Can't this skill just be named because "they are on fire"? Why does this have to be linked to something nostalgic. Let it go. doobnoob

Could this be a reference to that once very popular basketball video game, NBA Jam? Whenever a player made three shots in a row without the other team scoring, the announcer would go "HE'S ON FIRE!!" and until the other team scored, the "on fire" player would have super accurate shots. The basketball was surrounded in flames and left a smoke trail when it flew through the air. Arshay Duskbrow 02:13, 29 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I'd say it has to be...I mean, I'm not the only one who thinks the guy in skill icon looks more than a little like a basketball player, am I?DKS01 06:14, 29 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I still play that game on my Sega Dreamcast. Such a good game. --Mgrinshpon 06:13, 23 September 2006 (CDT
 * You're joking, right? "They're on fire" has meant that a group/team are doing very well, or are on a roll for YEARS! The dreamcast game merely uses that, it wasn't the origin.--86.20.80.219 11:11, 20 November 2006 (CST)

>.< extinguish is gonna get nerfed to hell soon if they ever want any of these fire skills to do anything (Not a fifty five 10:17, 21 September 2006 (CDT))

Does this skill make sense? "For 20 seconds, allies within earshot take 5...41% less damage from foes suffering from Burning." - I read that as if the foe is on fire, the ally takes 5..41% less damage from the foe, but the burning condition doesn't mention that allies get damaged from foes that are on fire. Is that an error in the description of burning, or me reading this wrong? I have no idea what you are talking about.-Onlyashadow 13:55, 21 September 2006 (CDT)
 * wait! I think I get it! You are misunderstanding, this skill reduces damage taken from players that are burning in combat and probably spells. the burning condition itself does not affect the damage output of that player.-Onlyashadow 13:57, 21 September 2006 (CDT)

Was changed to 10 Energy in the 9/22 Update. Makes it a bit more of a pain (if you have 16 Leadership), but it's manageable. --Zinger314 09:48, 23 September 2006 (CDT)
 * If it were 20 I would change primary for energy to use it, this skill rocks so much. (Not a fifty five 11:08, 21 November 2006 (CST))

This skill plus one or two Searing Flames elementalists and "Incoming!" = PvE EZ Mode. Protective Spirit? What's that? Seriously though, the amount of damage reduction is insane, if you throw in Watch Yourself, and other conditional armor shouts like SYG! and Shields Up! or wards, your monk probably won't need to lift a finger. --waywrong 22:03, 24 November 2006 (CST)
 * I would just like to say this is the *exact* build my Heroes use. PvE EZ mode indeed. Finished all the RoT master quests with barely a hiccup. --Macros 22:18, 18 January 2007 (CST)

Why the hell was that note added for? Not only it is clear that it affects all types of damage(so no need to point this out specifically) but also the note itself is very misleading. It insinuates that: a: There is a type of damage called spell damage b: you need spells to do non-physical damage and attackers only do physical damage

Unless someone explains why that note was needed I will remove it. --Spura 10:49, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * I suggest putting the note back in because I just read the whole talk page trying to find out if it reduced spell damage (like armor-ignoring damage from Shatter Enchantment).--Lodurr 01:25, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * WTF? Did you need a note when reading about shelter? or protective spirit? or shielding hands? If it says damage then it's all damage. I don't think skill pages should be places where we explain basics each time. Otherwise we need to add that same not to all skills that talk about damage. --Spura 06:30, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * "...take less damage from foes suffering from burning" isn't clear; it sounds like damage that they deal themselves via a weapon. Damage from a spell seems like it should be independant of its caster, once cast.  So yes, it's worth clarifying.  It's not just basics.  Take a look at the Protective Spirit page--it also has a clarification of the types of damage affected.--Lodurr 07:06, 4 January 2007 (CST)
 * The main reason that note is on the Protective Spirit page is because the wording of Protective Spirit is slightly inaccurate. -- BrianG 20:51, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Further test needed
Need someone to test this on hex damage like Backfire Lightblade 01:28, 25 December 2006 (CST)
 * Is Backfire a foe suffering from Burning? --Mira 05:06, 30 December 2006 (CST)
 * ... He means someone needs to test if you take less damage from a source such as the hex Backfire - an enemy mesmer hexes you with it, you set them on fire and use ToF!, then cast a spell and check for damage reduction. I don't know what you were thinking. :S Entropy 05:08, 30 December 2006 (CST)

what about lifesteal?  :: S oqed Hozi ::  11:00, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * Life stealing is not damage. &mdash; Skuld 11:05, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Added a damage clarification note. If you're going to get two people every week looking for clarification in the Talk page, then it's clearly worth adding to the article. Also, it's still unknown how it affects hexes like Backfire and Spoil Victor that cause damage conditionally over a long duration--whether its damage is reduced for the whole duration because the caster was on fire when he cast it, or whether it can be cast and later have the conditional damage reduced because his caster just caught on fire. Overall, it's a tricky skill.--Lodurr 14:38, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * Backfire is damage, spoil victor is lose health, if there is any confusion just consult the damage article &mdash; Skuld 14:42, 8 January 2007 (CST)
 * I though SV was lifestealing? --Rickyvantof 08:34, 2 May 2007 (CDT)
 * "Life stealing is not damage. — Skuld 11:05, 8 January 2007 (CST)" -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 08:36, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

Update
Updated skill duration, recharge time, damage reduction per feb 9th permanent skill change. This got hit pretty hard....41% dr to 29% dr X_X --Nightslayer 17:01, 9 February 2007 (CST)


 * Erf. Half duration (but at least half recharge too), but still 10 energy.  A Paragon primary will be stressed to keep this up all the time unless they also plan on using energy management skills (shouts/echo/chants only way to have enough energy otherwise).  As it is based on Leadership, no other primary class should even bother bringing this skill.  Now I wonder if even a Paragon should.  Queen Schmuck 20:20, 9 February 2007 (CST)


 * It's a shame what they did to this skill, but it was a bit overpowering in the right groups. Pair up with a Searing Flames ele or two and your entire party would be taking 50% damage for the duration of a fight. Unforunately with the nerf this is the only sort of group where it will really be useful, unless you focus on keeping a particularly nasty enemy burning. As to the recharge it's not so bad, as it's only going to cost you 3-5energy a go, and with an adrenal shout or chant that should leave you with enough energy to keep this up. However I noticed one nice bonus: This will now synergise better with Blazing Finale. RossMM 18:23, 11 February 2007 (CST)


 * Actually, IMO it's *improved* the shout. Reducing the recharge means that it's easier to use it as the trigger to keep up Mending Refrain etc, you use it in a Leadership based build anyway, so the energy isn't an issue, and if energy is a problem, I just spam Go For The Eyes! 172.141.193.204 05:55, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

Icon looks like
This skill icon looks like... a bald guy with red skin standing 10 feet in front of a fire. Seriously, can we leave all completely useless trivia of the icon off the page please? I've seen the burning monk, this isn't that pic. I've heard about the Blue Man Group, this isn't them while in a performance, but the skill icon does look much closer to that than it does to the poor monk. And this looks way to non-descript to say it looks like any previous/current/future basketball player, unless your only req for that is it has a bald head and eyes. Queen Schmuck 20:44, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, no I think that's obviously an african-american man in the flames, but still.--Nog64Talk [[Image:Yaaaay.png|19px]] 20:50, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Looks more Indo-African to me. So yeah, 100% all speculative, which is why it doesn't belong on the page.  Queen Schmuck 20:59, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 * The man in the picture has a pretty distinct Negroid facial make up. Other than the obvious though... not much can be said about it. I think it's a stretch to include names of players. -Auron [[Image:Elit Druin.jpg|19px||My Talk]] 21:04, 9 April 2007 (CDT)
 * That could account for as many as 1billion people, so saying it must be a basketball player seems a stretch to me. RossMM 17:10, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Even though "This skill is most likely a tribute to Midway's NBA Jam series."? &mdash; Skuld 06:20, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm not sure what point you were making, Skuld. My point was that it's a stretch saying it's a basketball player based on facial features alone. If there is something else, such as the line "They're on fire!" being a common utterance in the game, then the trivia is likely accurate, but as I haven't played it I can't comment on that. RossMM 13:58, 22 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Burning man perhaps?