Inconsistent wording with radius jewels and/or Spire of Stone bug

TLDR: Spire of stone doesn't function as it says, Jewel wording can also use a bit more consistency.

From the wording on Efficient Training, I'd assume that "in radius" doesn't require allocation since even unallocated nodes are transformed when the jewel is slotted in.

However, when using Spire of Stone, I only get the bonus for the nodes that are allocated(according to the tooltip when I hover over the socket), which is working like Static Electricity instead.


Either Spire of Stone is worded poorly and missing "allocated" in the text or its function is bugged.


While I'm at it, I might as well mention that while the following jewel seems to be worded correctly function wise, "allocated" could also be added to it to make it more consistent with the other jewels like efficient training.

I think youre overthinking it, but the wording should be more consistent. So Intelligence from passives in radius is transformed to strength...pretend the nodes are red instead of blue. If you don't allocate them, you don't get Int without the jewel, so why would you get str with it?

As we can agree on the consistency issue, here's my view on the wording that confused me.

The thing is, Efficient training does exactly as it says. When slotted in, all the strength nodes within the radius says intelligence instead. Of course I'd expect to not get the bonus when I don't have that "int" node allocated. Regardless, the main point is that the nodes within the radius are still changed - which is exactly what the jewel says.

Spire of stones on the other hand only mentions "strength in radius." Seeing as how Path of Exile gets oddly specific when it comes to mechanics. I'd say it wouldn't be wrong of me to assume its either a bug or poor wording. I don't expect to get any strength from the nodes in the radius - I mean, that's not the function of the jewel, it's just that the jewel itself didn't specifically say allocated when there is a another jewel(static electricity) that functions the same way with that specific. The only question left after that is whether or not it's a mechanic bug or just poorly worded/typo - which is where we are.