Firebrand (Town Killing)

[alex1234321]

This isn't my original concept, but here is my take on it.

Firebrand - Town Killing

Summary: You are a pyromaniac who wants to burn all the criminals.

Attack: Powerful
Defense: None
Unique: No
Priority: 3 (dousing), 5 (ignition)

Abilities:
- Douse one player in gasoline during the day.
- Select yourself at night to ignite all doused targets.

Attributes:
- You may not ignite players doused by other Firebrands or Arsonists unless you also doused them.
- If igniting would otherwise kill two or more Town members, you will instead burn yourself and your Last Will.
- If you target someone who you doused previously they will become undoused.
- You may not ignite on Night 1, nor may you ignite twice in a row.

Investigative Results:
Sheriff: You see no evidence of wrongdoing. Your target seems innocent.
Investigator: Bodyguard/Godfather/Arsonist/Firebrand
Consigliere: Your target uses fire for good. They must be a Firebrand.

Goal: Lynch every criminal and evildoer.

Victory Conditions: Same as Town

Notifications:
You have chosen to douse [player] tonight.
You have instead chosen to douse [player] tonight.
You have chosen to ignite all doused targets.
You realized you were about to burn your allies! You burned yourself instead!

Mechanics:
- You are not informed of being doused, regardless of the source.
- If you ignite, you will only kill targets who you doused. You will not kill players who were doused by someone else unless you also doused them.
- Players may be doused by you, other Firebrands, Arsonists, or any combination of those roles.
- You may only ignite once and do not passively douse visitors.
- Players who you ignite will appear to be killed by a Firebrand.
- All other mechanics are identical to those of Arsonist.

Achievements:
Ember - One win as a Firebrand. (20 MP)
Flame - 5 wins as a Firebrand. (20 MP)
Burn - 10 wins as a Firebrand. (40 MP)
Incinerate - 25 wins as a Firebrand. (100 MP)
Payback - Ignite an Arsonist. (20 MP)
Extermination - Kill all remaining evil roles in a game. (40 MP)
Gateway to Hell - Ignite three evil roles in one game. (100 MP)

Additional Information:
None

Lore:
The firefighter watched as yet another house burned down in the village of Salem. It seemed to be happening more often. A crowd of concerned residence would show up at the fire station in the middle of the night, he would walk outside ad smell the burning ashes from miles away, and by the time he got to the house it would already be leveled to dust. He tried everything to stop it. Fire alarms weren't loud enough. Fire extinguishers never seemed to work properly. On one fateful night, the firefighter heard as residents all over town were woken up to burning wood in their own homes. Frantically, he ran from house to house, not even trying to put out the fires but just hoping to save as many lives as possible. In the end, few were spared. Among the casualties included the Mayor of the town, the Doctor, and the Sheriff. But not all the deaths were true-hearted townspeople. The Mafia was decimated, and the Serial Killer was also burned to death. In the pile of rubble and dead bodies, the firefighter had a new idea. Rather than trying to stop the fires, he would start them. But he would do it in a controlled manner and make sure to spare all the innocent residents of the village. He would fight fire with fire. The Firebrand was ready to burn.

[MR60G0LD]

A single use good arsonist... I am conflicted on what to think, I like the idea but at the same time it is just a weaker arsonist on the town side which isn't the most creative.

It is balanced but the 2 town member thing could be used a suicidal confirmation, after 2 nights, reveal yourself as the firebrand if you feel you aren't safe, say who you doused, if you die and your will is burnt then the town will know that those 2 are confirmed town. Sure its not the most optimal play but it has its uses.

For now I'll say its a good role as I still don't know what to think of it as it isn't really a new role if you think about it, but its not bad by any means.

[Soulshade55r]

- If igniting would otherwise kill two or more Town members, you will instead burn yourself and your will.

My main issue.
I disagree with Tk self death guilt, I get you wanna prevent a FB burining and ruining the towns wincon, but i wouldn't see how vet killing a few players or jailor executing a important role (also hindering the jailors kpn) is any different really. Not like it would change much, just whisper a confirmed your will before igniting and that will effect is literally pointless

Otherwise this role is pretty fine? I always think Town Killing should be risk vs reward, this goes more into the intense side of things which is fine.

Firebrand seems like it would be a fairly good fake claim, I'm just against the whole self death guilt.

[alex1234321]

- If igniting would otherwise kill two or more Town members, you will instead burn yourself and your will.

My main issue.
I disagree with Tk self death guilt, I get you wanna prevent a FB burining and ruining the towns wincon, but i wouldn't see how vet killing a few players or jailor executing a important role (also hindering the jailors kpn) is any different really. Not like it would change much, just whisper a confirmed your will before igniting and that will effect is literally pointless

Otherwise this role is pretty fine? I always think Town Killing should be risk vs reward, this goes more into the intense side of things which is fine.

Firebrand seems like it would be a fairly good fake claim, I'm just against the whole self death guilt.

The issue is that you want to limit swing. A vigilante can go from killing 2 townies to 3 scum and that’s a pretty wide range. Firebrand can kill unlimited townies or unlimited scum and the point of the guilt is to limit that on at least one side. Might make the role OP but the slowness should counterbalance that.

Also having a limiting mechanic encourages the FB to take more risk. Knowing that you can’t kill more than one townie you might feel better about dousing 2-3 people which encourages different types of strategies.

[EtherealEnder]

but i wouldn't see how vet killing a few players or jailor executing a important role (also hindering the jailors kpn) is any different really.

the differences are that vet can't 100% control who they kill since it relies on visits. i personally think jailor guilt could be harsher somehow anyway

[syjfwbaobfwl]

but i wouldn't see how vet killing a few players or jailor executing a important role (also hindering the jailors kpn) is any different really.

the differences are that vet can't 100% control who they kill since it relies on visits. i personally think jailor guilt could be harsher somehow anyway

The last thing we need is games being more reliant on how good the jailor is

[alex1234321]

but i wouldn't see how vet killing a few players or jailor executing a important role (also hindering the jailors kpn) is any different really.

the differences are that vet can't 100% control who they kill since it relies on visits. i personally think jailor guilt could be harsher somehow anyway

The last thing we need is games being more reliant on how good the jailor is

Would firebrand make the game more reliant on jailor? If anything since it's a pretty strong TK with a powerful attack it would reduce reliance on Jailor.

[syjfwbaobfwl]

but i wouldn't see how vet killing a few players or jailor executing a important role (also hindering the jailors kpn) is any different really.

the differences are that vet can't 100% control who they kill since it relies on visits. i personally think jailor guilt could be harsher somehow anyway

The last thing we need is games being more reliant on how good the jailor is

Would firebrand make the game more reliant on jailor? If anything since it's a pretty strong TK with a powerful attack it would reduce reliance on Jailor.

No I meant that jailor shouldnt have more punishing guilt

[Soulshade55r]

- If igniting would otherwise kill two or more Town members, you will instead burn yourself and your will.

My main issue.
I disagree with Tk self death guilt, I get you wanna prevent a FB burining and ruining the towns wincon, but i wouldn't see how vet killing a few players or jailor executing a important role (also hindering the jailors kpn) is any different really. Not like it would change much, just whisper a confirmed your will before igniting and that will effect is literally pointless

Otherwise this role is pretty fine? I always think Town Killing should be risk vs reward, this goes more into the intense side of things which is fine.

Firebrand seems like it would be a fairly good fake claim, I'm just against the whole self death guilt.

The issue is that you want to limit swing. A vigilante can go from killing 2 townies to 3 scum and that’s a pretty wide range. Firebrand can kill unlimited townies or unlimited scum and the point of the guilt is to limit that on at least one side. Might make the role OP but the slowness should counterbalance that.

Also having a limiting mechanic encourages the FB to take more risk. Knowing that you can’t kill more than one townie you might feel better about dousing 2-3 people which encourages different types of strategies.

So let the firebrand know if they had too many town targets, they can easily whisper the confirmed town members such as the jailor before they ignite confirming which town members are likely to be good if they die.

Either way firebrands going to have issues with confirming town members so the only solution i see is it having a guilt-less ignite or accepting that its going to confirm town members. It's going to be swingy eitherway you put it.

[alex1234321]

- If igniting would otherwise kill two or more Town members, you will instead burn yourself and your will.

My main issue.
I disagree with Tk self death guilt, I get you wanna prevent a FB burining and ruining the towns wincon, but i wouldn't see how vet killing a few players or jailor executing a important role (also hindering the jailors kpn) is any different really. Not like it would change much, just whisper a confirmed your will before igniting and that will effect is literally pointless

Otherwise this role is pretty fine? I always think Town Killing should be risk vs reward, this goes more into the intense side of things which is fine.

Firebrand seems like it would be a fairly good fake claim, I'm just against the whole self death guilt.

The issue is that you want to limit swing. A vigilante can go from killing 2 townies to 3 scum and that’s a pretty wide range. Firebrand can kill unlimited townies or unlimited scum and the point of the guilt is to limit that on at least one side. Might make the role OP but the slowness should counterbalance that.

Also having a limiting mechanic encourages the FB to take more risk. Knowing that you can’t kill more than one townie you might feel better about dousing 2-3 people which encourages different types of strategies.

So let the firebrand know if they had too many town targets, they can easily whisper the confirmed town members such as the jailor before they ignite confirming which town members are likely to be good if they die.

Either way firebrands going to have issues with confirming town members so the only solution i see is it having a guilt-less ignite or accepting that its going to confirm town members. It's going to be swingy eitherway you put it.

In order to confirm townies it would have to douse two townies, which would normally take place N2 and N3, then it ignites N4 and the townies are confirmed D5. But you just unnecessarily lost one of your members which is worse than confirming two players and also it's so late in the game that it probably doesn't matter that they're "confirmed" now.