Effectiveness Edit

Lifebloom compared to rejuv will give you less time to spirit regen. That could effect it's efficiency.
The end burst can crit.

Effects of +healing Edit

"Lifebloom uses the default +healing formula, but the HoT and end heal gain 46% of your +healing."

I've done some simple empirical tests, and Lifebloom seems to defy any known +healing formula: approximate numbers are that 51.9% of +healing applies to the HOT, and 42.9% to the direct heal portion - a total 94.8% make it scale almost on par with Healing Touch (100%) and Regrowth (98.5%?), and somewhat better than Rejuvenation (80%). For stacking, all 3 application are affected by your +healing, there used to be a bug that only the first lifebloom used your +healing, this is no longer the case.

It should be noted that a "streaming" application of Lifebloom (that is, renewing it after 6-7 seconds) yields a lower efficiency than singular applications - about 3.19 HP/M base, with 43.7% scaling with +healing (vs. 3.96 HP/M, and 94.8% scaling). I'd say it's not worth it, given the amount of micromanagement required; but it is still remarkably efficient (though rivaled by a heavily talented Rejuvenation in this case).

I regard Lifebloom as an "upgraded Rejuvenation" - both HP/M (3.96 vs 2.55) and HP/S (124.7 vs 88.3) are way better, accidental overlapping casts are less likely (shorter runtime) and don't waste as much efficiency ("streaming"); the safety against purge-effects is a big plus. On the other hand, it lacks a decent amount of total healing (it's 873 vs 1060 here), and it's affected by fewer talents (namely, Improved Rejuvenation and Moonglow: if you happen to have both, Rejuvenation becomes very competitive - 3.22 HP/M, 101.6 HP/S, and 1219 healed total). In short: if you don't have the above-mentioned talents, there's no reason to use Rejuvenation over Lifebloom, and a low incentive to use them together, except for the much lower mana cost of Lifebloom compared to Rejuvenation.


As of the release of Patch 2.1.0, Lifebloom's +healing effects have been upgraded. "Lifebloom: Each additional application of this spell will now include the full bonus from effects which increase healing. The final heal, however, is still unaffected by stacking multiple applications of this spell."

So the new calculations, assuming everything else stays the same, would be:

HoT after 1st application: ~ 113/tick (273 + 519) [Note: ticks are /per second/]
HoT after 2nd application: ~ 226/tick ((273 + 519) x 2)
HoT after 3nd application: ~ 339/tick ((273 + 519) x 3)
The final heal will still be the same.

Since there was no increase in base casting cost, it has become much more desirable to keep running at 3 applications.

It is also interesting to note that the crit rate of the final Lifebloom tick tends to be based on the spell crit rate of the target rather than the caster. In personal tests on a rogue who just insisted to have it cast on her, it has not crited once in over 300 samples.


My observations are that Lifebloom isn't a much more efficient spell with stacking, apart from the difficulty of stacking the spell accurately (you really only get 6 seconds of healing between stacks not 7, as you have to recast before it expires), it requires at least 4 stacked casts (ie 3 initial +1). The first 2 casts are very low efficiency (worse than rejuv), as they heal for less than the full amount and don't bloom, leaving only the 3rd at full strength. But subsequent "rolling" casts won't get the efficiency or heals per second above single, blooming, sequential lifeblooms. --Xtfer 13:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends largely on how much +healing you have. As a feral druid with +0 healing, I would never roll blooms. However, with +1500 healing (kara level gear), I get around 200 per lifebloom tick, and 1500 bloom heal. With basic math, 3 stacking would mean 600 Heal per tick * 6 = 3600 overall heal vs. 200 heal per tick * 6 + 1500 bloom = 2700 overall heal.
Finally, you should also note that lifebloom is technically the fastest heal there is (1 second between heals) as opposed to any other flash heals (1.5 seconds between heals). By 3 stacking lifebloom, you increase the amount of healing done while others have to sit there and cast their heals. If you're just letting it bloom each time, you're essentially using it as a 7 second Healing Touch. Don't forget fights with AoE silences, where you want as much HoTs as possible.Pzychotix (talk · contr) 15:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

According to my calculations, which i think are robust, either you are wrong about your averages, or the mechanics and figures available for calculating Lifebloom (from wowwiki) are wrong. As there seems to be some confusing about how lifebloom numbers are calculated, the latter is always possible. However, as roughly half the bonus healing *should* go to the bloom, having more blooms *should* add considerably more bonus healing.

That means that with 1500 bonus healing, you'd be more mana efficient and heal faster casting single LB rather than rolling them, by a ratio of approximately 3:2. I've assumed that rolling LB's stack 3 times, don't bloom, and last 6 seconds before needing reapplication (though even calculating them at 7 sec doesn't change it enough) and that single lifebooms stack 1 time, bloom, and last 7 seconds. And that's ignoring the poor mana efficiency of the inital 2 LB casts required to get you started. With no bonus healing there is much less of a difference.

Roughly, assuming you have already built up your LB's and intend to "roll" the heal (and spent a little bit of mana doing so), over 6 seconds your total heal will be 702 plus 42% of your bonus healing (according to wowwiki). If you cast and let it bloom, over 7 seconds your heal will be 873 plus 95% of your bonus healing (again, according to wowwiki).

Im going to try and verify the bonus healing effects empirically, however, as your experience suggests the listed formulas are wrong.

See the warcraft forums and resto for life for two different takes on it.

And as you mentioned speed, casting 3 LB takes 3 seconds, same as a Healing Touch, and a HT does considerably more healing per second, making it much faster, if less mana efficient. --Xtfer 03:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Your math is off. The healing done by a 3stack would be 702 + '52%' (as stated at the top) * bonus healing * 3). Each application adds on its own bonus healing (2.1.0 fix), so essentially you're looking at 702 + 156% * bonus healing. That's why lifebloom is so much stronger when you have good bonus healing.
As for speed, the point was that these mini-heals act so much faster than a 3 second HT. Starting a 3 second heal when the tank is getting low or anyone else would be a disaster. These mini-heals are instead there to help keep him up while the other healers can get their heals off. Don't forget that lifebloom allows you to toss in rejuv and regrowth and you've got HPS rivalling HT. Pzychotix (talk · contr) 08:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Threat? Edit

The threat caused by lifebloom appears to be a little different than other healing.

I did some testing with a warlock, and found that the final bloom at the end of the spell may not actually cause any threat to either the caster (me) or the target (the warlock). The warlock cast a single shadowbolt that caused 406 damage. The mob attacked the warlock (who did no further damage), and I cast a single Lifebloom while standing in melee. In order to pull aggro, I need 110% threat, or 406*1.1 = 447. As healing causes .5 threat for each point healed, I need to do 447*2 = 894 healing. I do not have any threat mitigation talents for healing.

With the gear I had equipped, Lifebloom healed for 47 points each tick, and bloomed for approximately 640 points. The total healing from the ticks is 47*6 = 282. From this, I gained 141 points of threat. I continued to keep a single lifebloom on the warlock until I pulled aggro. The tick and bloom amounts were all approximately the same (no crits on the bloom).

Now, if the threat from the bloom is applied to the caster, I should have pulled aggro after one, maybe two, casts: (282+640)/2 = 461 threat. This is clearly not the case.

If threat is applied to the target (as I've heard from several sources), then I should never pull aggro: I gain 141 threat from the HoT each cast, and the target should get 640/2 = 320 threat from the bloom. So in my testing, after 7 seconds, the warlock should have 400+320 = 720 threat from the shadowbolt and bloom, whereas I have 141 threat, purely from the HoT. After a second cast, 15 seconds later, the lock should have 400+320+320 = 1,040 threat, whereas I would have 282 thread from two HoTs. Since I did manage to pull aggro, this is also clearly not the case.

A third option is that the final bloom does zero threat to either the caster or target.

Anyone have any other information?

--Ferador 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I had been wondering about the veracity of this (which i had taken for granted so far) for sometime myself, even had been avoiding to cast lifebloom on DPS players that are somewhat close to the MT/OT threat to avoid them getting aggro because of my heal. I will see if i can test this out a bit and see if i can arrive to the same results as you, and reply again. But so far by your post, I feel inclined to think that the real behavior is the third case. (NiusPR 03:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

I would suggest using SWStats' skill details report to figure it out. It won't tell you for sure if there's threat coming off the healing or not, but it will tell you who the healing's being attributed to (as with Earth Shield and Imp. LotP). I'd test it myself but I don't have access to a 64+ druid at the moment. Natedubya 19:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem is that the various tools SWStats, Omen, et al just parse the combat log. My point is that the threat caused the final bloom is not related to what is printed in the combat log. Thus, all of the tools may be incorrect. If you can't trust your tools, go back to basics. In this case, I don't trust the tools....--Ferador 03:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
You need to have 130% aggro above the tank in order to steal aggro if you are not in melee range of the mob.  Zurr  TC 03:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
He stated that he was in melee range of the mob, thus 110%. Flowers 21:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat Testing Edit

I have done a test with a hunter friend in November 2007. I was feral specced, with no +healing gear on.

Here's my test: No buffs on either of us (no thorns motw, etc)

A) Hunter friend body pulls a mob. We used clefthoof bulls in Nagrand. Mob beats on him until he is ~3k health down from full.

B) I stand on top of him and cast lifebloom with zero +healing. This puts me in combat and proceeds to build threat for me.

C) Mob INSTANTLY turns to me and attacks me.

Lifebloom ticks for ~40x7 = 280 healing which is 140 threat. I was feral specced at the time, so no subtlety. Mob is still pounding on me.

D) Lifebloom now explodes for 600 healing on the hunter, which should be 300 threat for the hunter if it follows standard healing and combat log rules (which it does NOT as you'll see below).

Mob is still pounding on me (BING: Assumptions made about combat logs and threat mods are disproven at this point).

E) Hunter melees the mob, for 90 each swing.

First blow by the hunter 90 damage, the mob still pounds on me (90 threat for the hunter).

F) Second blow by the hunter also for 90 damage (total of 180 threat for the hunter). Note: To pull threat he would have to do 1.1x140 threat which is at least 154 threat.


This proves the The bloom is threatless (or at least very very very small due to quantized data). My example doesn't prove it to the nearest 1 point of threat, but its conclusive enough. The bloom causes no threat for the druid, and no threat for the target it explodes on.

Conclusion: The bloom is threatless to everyone.

Kug 29 February 2008

More Threat Testing Edit

I was farming in BEM for hides, with my Warlock and Druid, druid on follow. Got aggro, healed Warlock for 1.5k. Then applied a lifebloom and with my warlock, started attacking. When lifebloom ended with 1k heal, my lock got the threat according to OMEN. Then I generated 50% more threat without doing anything else (no more heals), passed druid by too much but, my warlock never took aggro once . In my opinion, OMEN is showing lifebloom threat wrong, (as well as Recount for healing counts), and that last lifebloom heal threat goes to druid.

This need to be tested, but it is weird that OMEN and RECOUNT shows/adds lifebloom info to the healed person, not the caster. Threat side is absolutely WRONG in my opinion, and healing count is wrong aswell, since you're not the one casting it.

A more simple test: Team up with someone. Let him aggro. Put a lifebloom. Mob will turn you. When lifebloom explodes, he just stays, but threat shows that your partner has much more threat. Be careful with threat meters. I don't know if it's threatless, but it seems it's generating threat for druids.


Threat tests ... Edit

Both tests have severe errors in my opinion

Test 1): the tester assumes, that if the lock can't hold aggro, the bloom can't do threat. Unfortunately, Natedubya does not write how often he had to cast lifebloom. If the bloom does threat, but less than the ticks (an this is, what I've seen) he had to cast it more times than expected

Test 2): the hunter's damage is just too much. You can't say, if the mob aggroed the druid between his attacks or after, because the combat log is not always in the right order, a mob does not switch at once (they tend to finish a hit and switch after this) and there is always a little lag.

I did a few tests that showed a different result:

A dogue (R) and a druid (D), both in melee range

Test 1

  • R: 35 auto-hit -> *0.71 = 24.85 threat
  • D: lifebloom (pulls aggro at the first tick) 7*39 = 136.5 threat
  • R: bloom 600 = x threat
  • D: lifebloom 7*39 = 273 threat
  • R: bloom 600 = x threat
  • R: hits the mob 12 times with very small hits, pulls aggro after 186 damage done. 186*0.71 = 132.06 threat

The druid generated with 2 casts 273 threat, so the rogue should get aggro at 300 threat. He did 221 damage, which is only 221*0.71=156.91 threat. The bloom must generate threat! (75 threat, so x is 1/8)

Test 2

  • R: 446 auto-hit -> *0.71 = 316.66 threat
  • D: casts 5 times lifebloom, healing for 1365 -> 682.5 threat
  • R: gains 5 times x threat from the bloom
  • D: gets aggro after 4 ticks, so the druid has 760.5 threat now
  • D: +3 ticks -> 819 threat
  • R: bloom 600 = x threat
  • R: hits the mob 10 times with very small hits, pulls aggro after 221 damage done. 204*0.71 = 144.84 threat

With x=1/8 every aggro change happens as expected.

I tested this with a paladin and got x=1/8 too. Perhaps the bloom isn't affected by the rogues build-in threat reduce? Zappster (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Threat .. the solution! Edit

Xinhuan posted his tests at the wowace forums

He showed, that the bloom does no threat at all, but the hot generates only 0.25 threat per healing Zappster (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.