Agreed -5 is a tad harsh.

+1 gain with very small aoe and -5 for bigger aoe. If the idea is just for making bigger aoe for party, might as well tweak that ability range cone instead? no need for this shaping just for measly +1 and -5 penalty. Looks exactly like some of the many useless subclass design where penalty outweighs a small gain.

+1 gain with very small aoe and -5 for bigger aoe. If the idea is just for making bigger aoe for party, might as well tweak that ability range cone instead? no need for this shaping just for measly +1 and -5 penalty. Looks exactly like some of the many useless subclass design where penalty outweighs a small gain.

 

This is the wrong way to look at it. The gain is very small because in optimized targeting situations spellshaping is all upside; you can do +1 PL at no loss of targets. (This is why wizard subclasses started off at +1 PL because if all you do is cast from that spell school you have virtually no downside; the problem is that PL scaling sucked for non-evokers so they bumped it up.) The downside is not even a downside; if you even get one more target it's likely worth the -5 PL. Spellshaping gives you flexibility for all upside; it doesn't force you to take penalties.

 

+1 gain with very small aoe and -5 for bigger aoe. If the idea is just for making bigger aoe for party, might as well tweak that ability range cone instead? no need for this shaping just for measly +1 and -5 penalty. Looks exactly like some of the many useless subclass design where penalty outweighs a small gain.

 

This is the wrong way to look at it. The gain is very small because in optimized targeting situations spellshaping is all upside; you can do +1 PL at no loss of targets. (This is why wizard subclasses started off at +1 PL because if all you do is cast from that spell school you have virtually no downside; the problem is that PL scaling sucked for non-evokers so they bumped it up.) The downside is not even a downside; if you even get one more target it's likely worth the -5 PL. Spellshaping gives you flexibility for all upside; it doesn't force you to take penalties.

 

 

Not sure i understand what you mean there. When i have spell-shaping on a chanter, when i reduce the aoe, i definitely get a loss of targets for +1PL (for example, thrice was she wronged). when reducing the aoe, definitely there are loss of targets behind the cone?

 

correct me if i'm wrong -5PL means -15 ACC right? +1PL gains +3 ACC. Also if there is a 5% damage bonus per PL that means that's a -25% damage.

 

 

+1 gain with very small aoe and -5 for bigger aoe. If the idea is just for making bigger aoe for party, might as well tweak that ability range cone instead? no need for this shaping just for measly +1 and -5 penalty. Looks exactly like some of the many useless subclass design where penalty outweighs a small gain.

 

This is the wrong way to look at it. The gain is very small because in optimized targeting situations spellshaping is all upside; you can do +1 PL at no loss of targets. (This is why wizard subclasses started off at +1 PL because if all you do is cast from that spell school you have virtually no downside; the problem is that PL scaling sucked for non-evokers so they bumped it up.) The downside is not even a downside; if you even get one more target it's likely worth the -5 PL. Spellshaping gives you flexibility for all upside; it doesn't force you to take penalties.

 

 

Not sure i understand what you mean there. When i have spell-shaping on a chanter, when i reduce the aoe, i definitely get a loss of targets for +1PL (for example, thrice was she wronged). when reducing the aoe, definitely there are loss of targets behind the cone?

 

correct me if i'm wrong -5PL means -15 ACC right? +1PL gains +3 ACC. Also if there is a 5% damage bonus per PL that means that's a -25% damage.

 

 

no, you're thinking about character levels. -5 PL means : -5 acc, -25% damage penalty (that goes through inversions so in practice may be as little as -20%), -25% duration (same thing with inversions), -1.25 PEN and up to -2.5 projectiles. +1 PL means +1 ACC, +5% dmg, +5% duration, +.25 PEN, +.5 projectiles. all bonuses/adjustments are multiplicative.

 

what i'm trying to say is that spellshaping is all upside. If you are in a situation where e.g. there are two enemies next to each other, then the "cost" of reducing the aoe to get +1 PL is nonexistent. If you are in a situation where expanding the aoe lets you get even one more target, then you've basically already made up for the -5 PL. spellshaping doesn't force you to do anything, so there's no real "penalty." so saying that +1 PL is measly misses the part that you can get that +1 PL with no cost in the right situations, and you're not forced to go with the smaller aoe unless you really want to. Compare that to prestige, which is an AL9 passive that grants +1 stacking PL unconditionally, and a conditional, no-downside, stacking +1 PL at AL4 seems pretty good (and you have the added flexibility of making your aoe larger, which is otherwise impossible to do with PL scaling).

 

 

 

+1 gain with very small aoe and -5 for bigger aoe. If the idea is just for making bigger aoe for party, might as well tweak that ability range cone instead? no need for this shaping just for measly +1 and -5 penalty. Looks exactly like some of the many useless subclass design where penalty outweighs a small gain.

 

This is the wrong way to look at it. The gain is very small because in optimized targeting situations spellshaping is all upside; you can do +1 PL at no loss of targets. (This is why wizard subclasses started off at +1 PL because if all you do is cast from that spell school you have virtually no downside; the problem is that PL scaling sucked for non-evokers so they bumped it up.) The downside is not even a downside; if you even get one more target it's likely worth the -5 PL. Spellshaping gives you flexibility for all upside; it doesn't force you to take penalties.

 

 

Not sure i understand what you mean there. When i have spell-shaping on a chanter, when i reduce the aoe, i definitely get a loss of targets for +1PL (for example, thrice was she wronged). when reducing the aoe, definitely there are loss of targets behind the cone?

 

correct me if i'm wrong -5PL means -15 ACC right? +1PL gains +3 ACC. Also if there is a 5% damage bonus per PL that means that's a -25% damage.

 

 

no, you're thinking about character levels. -5 PL means : -5 acc, -25% damage penalty (that goes through inversions so in practice may be as little as -20%), -25% duration (same thing with inversions), -1.25 PEN and up to -2.5 projectiles. +1 PL means +1 ACC, +5% dmg, +5% duration, +.25 PEN, +.5 projectiles. all bonuses/adjustments are multiplicative.

 

what i'm trying to say is that spellshaping is all upside. If you are in a situation where e.g. there are two enemies next to each other, then the "cost" of reducing the aoe to get +1 PL is nonexistent. If you are in a situation where expanding the aoe lets you get even one more target, then you've basically already made up for the -5 PL. spellshaping doesn't force you to do anything, so there's no real "penalty." so saying that +1 PL is measly misses the part that you can get that +1 PL with no cost in the right situations, and you're not forced to go with the smaller aoe unless you really want to. Compare that to prestige, which is an AL9 passive that grants +1 stacking PL unconditionally, and a conditional, no-downside, stacking +1 PL at AL4 seems pretty good (and you have the added flexibility of making your aoe larger, which is otherwise impossible to do with PL scaling).

 

 

ahh i got it wrong about PL. thanks for the explanation!. well if -5ACC for larger aoe (which you needed most early game) is abit harsh to me. also i find that many of chanter abilities have really small aoe. if their idea was to introduce spellshaping and purposely gimp the aoe, i think that's not so cool though.