Flameshock...

[Delmuir]

Am I right in understanding that if an enemy shakes off the stun effect then they also endure zero damage? Based on my play experience, that is correct.

Is that true for all spells that have status effect attached?

As for flameshock well, I find it the most useless of the fire spells because of that. Most of the time I cast it, especially when I need it at a low level, it does zero damage.

This is poorly explained in the explanation and if my second question is answer in the negative, then it's an inconsistent game mechanic. Can anyone help me understand this?

[ghostbuster]

Stun is a very powerful invalidating effect, maybe the nastiest (reduces speed, damage, no cooldown, etc), but by itself it does not deal any damage. Damages and effects are two different notions. Spells can deal damage, or spread effets, or both, as Flameshock (and for some spells even several damage types and several effects).

From the Spellshock description:
Conjures up a cone of flame with radius %d. Any target caught in the area will take %0.2f *fire damage* and be *stunned* for %d turns.

So if your foes do not take damage from spellshock, it is a bug. Double check and signal it.
Otherwise IMO, Spellshock is an **extremely** useful spell. Stunning several opponents while dealing some damage in one spell is very powerful.

Edit: Maybe your foes are immune to fire (firewyrms, for instance)?

[Mewtarthio]

Actually, Flameshock sets the "Burning Shock" status effect, which combines a fire DOT with the stun debuff. It actually does no damage by itself, so if an enemy resists the Burning Shock effect, the enemy will take no damage.

The upside is that stun is a really, really powerful debuff. You should try thinking of Flameshock less as a damage-dealing spell and more as a way to stun a sizable cone of enemies. You should be using your beams for straight HP damage (they're more mana-efficient, anyway).

[Xandor Tik'Roth]

Maybe we need to have the description reworked, then. The way that I read it is that it deals the fire DoT and has the stun chance, not that it's an all or nothing kind of thing.

[Delmuir]

Maybe we need to have the description reworked, then. The way that I read it is that it deals the fire DoT and has the stun chance, not that it's an all or nothing kind of thing.

I would second this. The description is very unclear. It should prioritize that it's a stun effect with a fire damage bonus IF the stun hits, rathe than a damage spell with a stun attached.

[Mewtarthio]

How about "Any targets caught in the area will suffer Burning Shock, stunning them and dealing X fire damage over Y turns"?

[adamn]

I like Mewtarthio's wording. It's always bothered me that Flameshock reads as though its damage is immediate and independent of the stun, Flame reads as though it's evenly spread over 3 turns, and yet it's the opposite between the two. I'll make an Ideas post if there isn't one.

[Xandor Tik'Roth]

Please do.