Why are in-game descriptions of spells so lacking?

[Kakaappi]

I'm a relatively new player so I'm checking the wiki quite often. The reason isn't necessarily that I don't know what some things do but that I CAN'T know, without checking the wiki, even then I am sometimes confused.

For example I just started my first Fire Elementalist and the first spell I have is Flame Tongue. Why is there no damage formula, why do I have to check it in the wiki? Why is the power of the spell represented as a symbol and not a number, which could then be used in the damage formula to attain the actual damage of the spell?

Also the wiki says "It has a higher to-hit chance than the level 2 spell Throw Flame." How is the chance to hit with a spell determined?

[jejorda2]

Why is the power of the spell represented as a symbol and not a number, which could then be used in the damage formula to attain the actual damage of the spell?

There are some people who would then take that number and plug it into the formula and look at those numbers instead of playing the game.

It's supposed to be different enough every time you cast it that the numbers aren't important, so you don't have to know them or understand them, so you won't need to know them, so you won't see them in the game in the first place.

[Kakaappi]

Why is the power of the spell represented as a symbol and not a number, which could then be used in the damage formula to attain the actual damage of the spell?

There are some people who would then take that number and plug it into the formula and look at those numbers instead of playing the game.

It's supposed to be different enough every time you cast it that the numbers aren't important, so you don't have to know them or understand them, so you won't need to know them, so you won't see them in the game in the first place.

I have two spells at the moment, Flame Tongue and Throw Flame, but because the descriptions in-game are very limited I have no way of knowing which of them actually does more damage. So instead of being a person who "would then take that number and plug it into the formula and look at those numbers instead of playing the game" I am a person who has to check the wiki for answers.

[Sar]

I think generally Conj spells in one school do more damage the higher level is if they hit, or at least it's hard for me to think of an exception right now. Accuracy is another matter but it can be tested, I guess.

[Sandman25]

In this specific case level 1 spell Flame Tongue [1d(8+(power/4))] can do more damage than level 2 spell Throw Flame [2d(4+pow/10))] and always costs less MP. With power 20 you get 1d(8+5) vs 2d(4+2).

[crate]

For the vast majority of conjurations (this is not necessarily true for other spells--see summoning) the actual in-game power level (i.e. "how good is this spell" assuming you can cast it) is extremely strongly correlated with the xp cost to get the spell to a useable failure rate. This is, of course, the most reasonable conclusion to arrive at from guessing how good spells are.

Thus, a level 2 fire/conj spell will be more powerful than a level 1 fire/conj spell, especially per-use. (The fact that MP is so limited early in the game means there are scenarios where flame tongue is better.)

A level 3 2-school conjuration spell is pretty comparable to a level 4 single-school conj spell. (Stone arrow is remarkably similar to IMB in practice.) A level 4 2-school conjuration is stronger than either (throw icicle). Etc.

If you want numbers you are not going to get those because the devs have decided not to give them to you. But you honestly don't need them for conjurations.

[jejorda2]

I don't think damage formulas are really needed, but it would be nice to have in-game descriptions tell which spells can miss, which can be resisted by MR/Size/HD, which can have damage reduced by AC, and which can be blocked by shields. Elemental resistance is straightforward enough to not be need additional info, in most cases.

[Thalfon]

That sounds reasonable honestly. I've heard the arguments about why damage info shouldn't be displayed, and while I don't think I'm experienced enough to judge their soundness, they seem reasonable, if only because some of the damage formulae can be rather cryptic iirc. But a short list of properties like "can't miss, ignores armour, can't be blocked, etc." might be nice. It'd probably make more sense to mention spells that ignore AC/EV rather than those that check them.

When I first started playing IE, I completely underestimated the Freeze spell. If the spell description mentioned that the spell never misses and ignores armour, then perhaps I would have overcome my misunderstanding faster (that is, without relying on someone telling me how great Freeze actually is). After all, that's basically what defines the Freeze spell -- close range, but guaranteed damage -- so it probably ought to be mentioned.

[eharper256]

^ agreed ^

If you're the kind of person that has urges to read a wiki every time you see something new and there is no clear data on it (I know, I'm one of them- alt-tab is my greatest friend), having at least that basic information straight on the interface would prevent that!