Talk:Glowing Gaze

I love this skill. I've been running it on FC fire ele with elemental attunment - you don't even have to wait 10 seconds for the thing to recharge and you can do pretty well with no attunements at all with immolate and fireball &mdash; Skuld 10:44, 24 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Hmm....Mark of Rodgort -> Spam all on-target fire spells until left with 5-10 energy -> Mind Blast -> Glowing Gaze -> Mind Blast = Roasted very well done. >> Trace 20:26, 24 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Why would you use mind blast if you probably have less energy than your target? Each nightfall fire elite is better than mind burn. RolandOfGilead 07:42, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Sorry, got confused myself with all those Minds and Burns and Blasts flying around :) RolandOfGilead 07:44, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

this was probably added to provided added energy management to the ele.--Life Infusion 20:47, 28 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Since when does ANet use the wording "on fire?" It's always been "burning." Tarinoc 13:33, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * "They're on Fire!"--Silk Weaker
 * For 20 seconds, allies within earshot take 5...41% less damage from foes suffering from Burning. So what if the name of the skill has "on fire" in it. I'm obviously talking about descriptions. Tarinoc 18:32, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Immolate, Bed of Coals, Steam...etc －Sora 14:25, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Wow. Thanks for pointing those out, Sora. I really thought "on fire" was a new, inconsistent word choice. Guess not. Tarinoc 14:51, 6 October 2006 (CDT)


 * Searing Flames + Glowing Gaze = Awesomeness. --The King Tarosian 14:04, 16 November 2006 (CST)


 * I personally prefer Immolate + Glowing Gaze. it costs less energy overall and frees up an elite slot for Mind Blast. Wiseblade 10:13, 20 November 2006


 * But mind blast sucks. No reason to take the above other a warrior, SF is AoE thats why it is used :] &mdash; Skuld 05:20, 20 November 2006 (CST)