When is it worth to use entchanted reprise?

[Turing]

This means that a complete combo deals (base) +1107.2 potency and costs 162.74 mana, and the mana is worth +6.8 potency per mana.

Not to totally derail this threat, your conclusions ultimately came to the same ones that I have with respect to reprise, but I want to make a small argument here considering that this is very important to the TC math that I myself do.

I have our potency per mana number at ~9.2 (depending of course on recast), the difference in our numbers being accounted for by you considering the time spent not gaining mana as a cost of the melee combo, while I do not. Admittedly, my calculations for this were built on doing it the same way as in Stormblood, when we only had one melee option to even remotely consider. However, I'd still argue this: it does not make sense to consider the time spent not gaining mana as a cost of the melee combo, because there is no other reasonable thing that you would spend that mana on. You are, in effect, saying that the melee combo is weaker because it is taking away time that could be spent toward building up another melee combo - the logic is somewhat circular. I'd be interested to hear a counterargument, as this would of course totally reframe my work!

In any case, same conclusion - do not Reprise, overcap mana instead. Reprise is currently only useful as a movement tool when all others are exhausted.

[MaraD_]

Not to totally derail this threat, your conclusions ultimately came to the same ones that I have with respect to reprise, but I want to make a small argument here considering that this is very important to the TC math that I myself do.

I have our potency per mana number at ~9.2 (depending of course on recast), the difference in our numbers being accounted for by you considering the time spent not gaining mana as a cost of the melee combo, while I do not. Admittedly, my calculations for this were built on doing it the same way as in Stormblood, when we only had one melee option to even remotely consider. However, I'd still argue this: it does not make sense to consider the time spent not gaining mana as a cost of the melee combo, because there is no other reasonable thing that you would spend that mana on. You are, in effect, saying that the melee combo is weaker because it is taking away time that could be spent toward building up another melee combo - the logic is somewhat circular. I'd be interested to hear a counterargument, as this would of course totally reframe my work!

In any case, same conclusion - do not Reprise, overcap mana instead. Reprise is currently only useful as a movement tool when all others are exhausted.

its like the arguments about DRK and blood spiller.
it stops u from building up blood from your DPS combo.
but u build that blood to spend on blood spiller.

if you dont remove the DPS loss from not building up the blood, because you delayed the builder on the spender, your numbers end up not reflecting the final DPS outcome.
i get the general concept, but im not able to fully grasp it, other than see the numbers end up matching more accurately when ppl take it into consideration.

EDIT: i guess the better way to put it is;
if mana has a DPS value, it came from somewhere, you borrowed it from the spender, so you need to minus it from the spender

obviously if u spam builders, u wont ever use the mana, and therefor the valued DPS you assume comes from mana doesnt actually equate DPS.

but if the DPS "comes" from the spender, you need to literally minus the DPS from 1 place, and add it to the other, in order to get its value.

[Rongway]

I have our potency per mana number at ~9.2 (depending of course on recast), the difference in our numbers being accounted for by you considering the time spent not gaining mana as a cost of the melee combo, while I do not. Admittedly, my calculations for this were built on doing it the same way as in Stormblood, when we only had one melee option to even remotely consider. However, I'd still argue this: it does not make sense to consider the time spent not gaining mana as a cost of the melee combo, because there is no other reasonable thing that you would spend that mana on. You are, in effect, saying that the melee combo is weaker because it is taking away time that could be spent toward building up another melee combo - the logic is somewhat circular. I'd be interested to hear a counterargument, as this would of course totally reframe my work!

You are quite welcome to argue that, and I think that's the popular view of it.

My reasoning is that we calculate the relative potency of the melee combo based on the potency of the spells that could have been cast during that time. Why then wouldn't we also calculate the relative cost of the melee combo based on the mana that could have been generated by those spells? Mana would have been generated during that period; it matters not that the melee combo is the only reasonable thing we have to spend mana on (in a single target scenario).

When examining just the melee combo by itself, reasonable arguments might be made that the cost is really just the 125 net loss from the three weaponskills. However, in almost all contexts where we're examining the worth of a point of mana, it's to compare the melee combo to Moulinet, and now Reprise; and in those contexts it is important that we consider the mana that we could have generated in addition to the mana consumed, because the lost mana generation does meaningfully affect how soon we can execute the next melee combo, or the next Moulinet spam with cooldowns.

[MaraD_]

The Swiftcast Verslowspell happens in both scenarios, so let's ignore that. Then the cost of the E.Reprise, besides the time taken to use it, is just the two spells totalling 20 mana. It doesn't require an additional generation of the X 'lost' mana that 'would have been generated' during the time I spent executing E.Reprise.

Its still lost mana.
its like using manafication at 50/50.
you gain 100 mana, as opposed to using it at 40/40, which you only gained 80.
The extra 20 lost, is still mana you will eventually use, even if its not in the very next WS combo.
(and the amount of seconds you waste waiting to use manafication also lowers your DPS per second)

if it didnt take up the GCD, THEN it would be a completely different story.
It takes up;
Mana generation
Mana (consumes it)
GCD

Its the very reverse way in which Swift cast is a DPS gain.
Swift Cast is only a DPS gain, because slow spells do more dmg per GCD.

If you spend that GCD not generating mana for the actual spender, but instead waste it towards a weaker spender, you lost 3 things, not simply 1.
(technically you save on MP, until lucid is up, but MP shouldnt be an issue. Moulinent (w/e the cone is called) is better for taking up less time in the GCD, and more potency efficient.)
Only if u must stay in range, and cant keep casting, otherwise you have better alternatives.