Reword Flame and Flameshock to better represent their damage

[adamn]

Right now, Flame reads, "Conjures up a bolt of fire, setting the target ablaze and doing X fire damage over 3 turns." This seems to imply that the damage is evenly distributed over 3 turns, instead of the bulk of the damage being upfront as it is.

Even more troublesome is the wording for Flameshock, which reads, "Any target caught in the area will take X fire damage and be stunned for Y turns." This seems to imply that the entirety of the damage is dealt upfront and is independent of the stun effect landing, when in actuality there is no upfront damage, the damage is tied to the shock, and the damage is evenly distributed over the duration. A better wording would be, "Any targets caught in the area will suffer Burning Shock, stunning them and dealing X fire damage over Y turns."

Credit goes to Mewtarthio and others in this thread: http://forums.te4.org/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=39926

[The Revanchist]

I agree that your new description is superior. It conveys the actual effect much more clearly.

[malboro_urchin]

I agree that your new description is superior. It conveys the actual effect much more clearly.

I was so disappointed when I first used Flameshock. Why was this supposedly awesome ability with 100s of damage in the skill description doing 20 damage? I agree with this change wholeheartedly.

[Doctornull]

The other way to go is to have Flameshock apply regular Burning (non-stun version) if the Stun check fails, which would make the spell a lot more useful vs. Stun-immune enemies.

[Delmuir]

I definitely agree with this.

[evouga]

I agree also. I'd also suggest changing the wording from "X damage over Y turns" to "X damage per turn for Y turns."