Re: interaction of % heal and + heal Edit
In the article: "Damage benefits are applied before any talents or buffs that may otherwise increase your spell damage. Healing spells are the opposite: all talents are considered first, and bonuses from gear afterward." That's what's written there now; I'm not sure what it's supposed to mean as written because it seems to say nothing. But aside from that, I just did some tests with Renew, SW:P, and Power Infusion, and Power Infusion seems to be applying a 20% increase to the base effects AND to the bonus effects of both spells. In other words, it is applying the 20% increase AFTER the addition of dmg/healing to both a damage spell and a healing spell. There could be several reasons that our results conflict, among them: (1) a change has been put in since patch 2.0 that caused the difference, (2) Power Infusion works differently from Improved Renew.
hypehuman 18 December 2006
interaction of % heal and + heal Edit
Consider renew which has a talent that improves the healing by 15%.
If I have 100 plus heal gear do I get an extra 115 or 100? I assume 100 but I'd like to see that confirmed and included in the page.
Update: I've tested this with a low level priest
- Wearing +46 healing gear with 15% talent got 151 Rejuvs with Rejuv 2 (+36)
- 36 / 45 = 78.2% efficiency (21.7% reduction)
- Level 14 Rejuv should get a level based penalty of 6*3.5 = 21%
- Conclusion: +15% heal talent does not combo with +heal from items
I've updated the main document to clarify the below point with an example:
Damage benefits are applied before any talents or buffs that may increase your damage by a flat percentile. Healing spells are opposite; all talents are added to the base first then healing benefits added.
+up to vs +flat Edit
Can anyone confirm the line:
"- If you ever see an item which advertises "increases [...] spells and effects by up to 1 to 42," then it still follows the above formula for the top limit. However, each cast of the spell will give you a random benefit between 1 and what would normally be the actual benefit based on casting time."
Initial testing shows otherwise. I'll test further in game and post my results.
Please list the piece(s) of equipment you are testing. The "1 to 42" part is the important part. As I understand it, no such pieces are available anymore. --Tbannister 14:25, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
+healing with healing trinkets / bandages? Edit
Does +healing apply to effects from bandages and trinkets like Lifestone?
Bandages: tested, does not apply.
Ankh of Life, Lifestone: not tested yet. But I'm not hopeful.
In earlier versions, +spell damage and +healing affected trinkets and bandages. I think this was corrected in 1.7, and since then spell damage no longer affects trinkets or item abilities. --Tbannister 13:06, 8 August 2006 (EDT)
+damge and crits? Edit
Does anyone know how +damage effects spell crit damage? Does it get the same increase as the spell (50-100% increase based on talents) or does the crit only increase the spell's base damage?
The crit multiplier, including whatever bonuses from talents that increase the multiplier, is applied after any +damage effects are added. Esselte 05:16, 24 Feb 2006 (EST)
new spell ranks in 1.9 Edit
How does the modification for spell ranks adjust now that there are new ranks of spells to be learnt? Example is frostbolt rank 11, would rank 10 now do less damage? EffectiveBonus = 10/11 or about 90% of the previous bonus. You'd think if people noticed a 10% drop in damage there would be some commotion.
Uh, what? There's not a modification based on rank, just for spells learned before level 20. Rank 10 frostbolt works exactly the way it did before.
Lower rank does get full bonus Edit
Lower ranks of heals get full damage from healing. As long as the spells are learned at level 20 or higher. lower ranks of damage spells do not.
Warlock Curse of Doom Edit
I've noticed that the warlock Curse of Doom spell seems to break the 3.5 second rule. While wearing Robe of the Void, for example, the +49 damage seems to be multiplied by some facter as no damage is incurred on the target for 60 seconds. The spell itself is instant cast, but the effect occurring after 60sec seems to do several hundred damage more than 49. I currently wear gear that provides about +225 to shadow spells and my Curse of Doom often procs in excess of 4500 damage despite the fact that 3200 is the normal non-bonus proc. Can anyone provide further clarity on how this works?
Curse of Doom might be able to crit, the mob may be vulnerable to shadow damage, or it could have a curse of shadows or other debuff which increases shadow damage. --Tbannister 13:08, 8 August 2006 (EDT)
I think that a 15 second rule is more accurate in describing the damage bonuses in patch 2.0 beta. Up to patch 1.12, there was a cap that keeps the benefit from going over 100% of spell damage, but in patch 2.0 and The Burning Crusade, this cap will be lifted. According to tests done and posted here, DoTs follow this formula: Benefit = Spell Damage * (DoT duration/15 seconds). This rule accurately describes Curse of Doom as well.
Curse of Doom is a DoT and therefore should not crit. However, it can receive bonuses from shadow weaving, curse of shadow, battle standards, and other damage buffs. --Yvero 11:44, 19 November 2006 (EST)
In addidtion Curse of Doom has a 400% spell coefficent , derived from its 60 second duration divided by the normal value for DoT's of 15, 60/15=4 , Curse of agony for instace has a 24/15 coefficent.
Shaman Earthshock Edit
I think there's an additional bonus to spell damage supposedly based on intelligence or spirit similiar to attack power bonus for melee. Example: Shaman earthshock rank 7 deals 517 to 545 damage. I've skilled "Concussion" giving me an additional 5% bonus yielding 572 maximum damage. With "Elemental Fury" I increase my spell crit damage to 100%. My earthshock crits should cause maximum 1144 damage. But I do some more damage with crits up to 1400. I don't wear any gear with plus spell damage. There are no debuffs on the mob so far. Has anybody an idea which effect increases my spell damage? I don't complain about it but I just want to understand ;)
Neither int nor spirit increase spell damage (exception: priests with spiritual guidance talent). The mob you are testing on could be vulnerable to nature damage. --Tbannister 14:30, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
Thanx. I agree with you. But is there a chance to count the amount of extra damage on vulnerable mobs? Does this mean the mobs have negative resistances? The extra damage in this earthshock example is about 25%, which could be the next step in absorption of magical damage (here: -25% absorption due to negative nature resistance). Although, for binary spells only the final hit chance could be increased by negative resistances, since no partial absorbtion is possible. An example that could confirm this is the following: Frostmage in MC. I use frostbolts (binary spell) on firelords and gain no additional damage, but it seems that I hit very often. If I use blizzard on them I realize an extra damage of up to 50%. I suppose the firelord is vulnerable to frost spells and has a certain number of negative frost resistance. Can anybody agree with this theory? Morrh 13:36, 13 June 2006 (EST)
True +flat Damage Edit
What if any difference is there between "+32 damage" and "up to +32 damage"?
- See above ( read the rest of the page ) for the answerCJ 04:53, 23 March 2006 (EST)
- That question is not answered though, he isn't asking about the difference between "+32 damage" and "up to 1 to 32". The question remains whether "+32 damage" would add 32 damage with no regard to casting time, which i find very hard to believe but have heard stated. --Spoffomov 03:47, 5 April 2006 (EDT)
- The people who say +32 damage adds +32 damage to all spells are wrong. The only BoE equipment that I can name off the top of my head that has +xx damage is "Abyssal" equipment from Sillithus. Feel free to get some and test it for yourself. --Tbannister 14:24, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
- The flat +damage appear on a very large number of items, they are simply school specific, the "of X wrath" items. The question, I believe (certainly my question) is how does the white effect, "+20 frost spell damage" compare with the green effect "increase damage done by frost spells and effects by up to 20". Does anyone know how exactly, for example, the numbers compare for a drakestone of frozen wrath (+21 frost spell damage and increase damage and healing by magical spell and effects by up to 9) and a tome of the ice lord (increase damage done by frost spells by up to 34)? ETA: poking around, I hear that wrath and sorcery works works the same as "up to", it's just a matter of whether the item description is generated randomly or not. Aidan 03:29, 12 September 2006 (EDT)
- Thott has a nice system for spells... http://www.thottbot.com/?e=Apply%20Aura%3A%20Add%20Flat%20Modifier%20%28Damage%29 according to this there is no other item with a flat modifier, though I have to admit that thott is not always right. Could you provide an item's (full) name or link as an example? -watchout 06:47, 12 September 2006 (EDT)
Mind Flay Edit
Isn't Mind Flay 3 ticks instead of 5 ticks as stated in the page? I've respecced Shadow on the test server, I'll try to get in to confirm but I'm pretty sure that Mind Flay is only 3 ticks and has a lower +damage coeffecient than mentioned.
Yes, the page says you get 3/5 the normal bonus because it only has 3 ticks (plus it has a snare penalty as well). --Tbannister 14:21, 12 June 2006 (EDT)
OTOH The priest communtity typically thinks that mindflay is bugged. It isn't a DoT but rather a channelled spell and so should get 3.0/3.5 = 86% before the stun penalty. As it is it gets 43% which isn't compatable with the 3 tick theory above.
+Dmg/Healing vs Talents Edit
Does +Dmg/Healing occur before applying talents such as +percent dmg/healing or after. E.G. Is the formula (base+gear)*talent bonus or is the formula base*talent bonus + gear.
Experimental evidence indicates that talent modifiers apply to spell damage equipment. --Tbannister 13:11, 8 August 2006 (EDT)
Shaman Chain Lightning +dmg Edit
How does shaman Chain Lightning work with +spell damage? Does the initial blast receive (AdvertisedBenefit * (2.5 / 3.5)) actual benefit, and then the jumps are whatever number you end up dealing to the first target (* 0.7) and (* 0.7^2)?
Magical Spells Edit
Just to be sure, it says "magical spells", does that mean spells of the school of Magic, or all kinds of spells including fire, frost, shadow etc? Shandris 18:36, 13 August 2006 (EDT)
There is no school of magic. "magical spells" refers to all schools of magic (e.g. fire, frost, shadow, arcane, nature, holy)
Bonus to Shaman Totems Edit
What is bonus to shaman totems' spells? --Drundia 23:21, 26 August 2006 (EDT)
- I know for a fact that for Searing Totem, it's 8% of your +dmg per "shot". --Bevans (FeldmanSkitzoid) 19:08, 30 September 2006 (EDT)
Reorganization of this Page Edit
I would like to suggest a reorganization of this page. Please note that all the information on the page is not included here, some would be moved to stub pages listed below.
I would create a stub page for each class so the math can be calculated for each classes individual spells and discussed in detail with any specific exceptions or whatever as listed in some comments on this original page.
I will be most likely doing the two complete pages on Druids and perhaps also Priests for both Healing and Damage spells of those classes.
Please see [Druid Math on WoW Forums] for more information.
Formulas:Plus damage and Plus healing/Druid
Formulas:Plus damage and Plus healing/Priest
Formulas:Plus damage and Plus healing/Mage
Formulas:Plus damage and Plus healing/Paladin
Formulas:Plus damage and Plus healing/Shaman
Formulas:Plus damage and Plus healing/Warlock
--Mynia 18:28, 8 September 2006 (EDT)
Uh ok... If you think so. Those just compare the DPS of damage spell only and doesn't explain specifically how the calculations apply to the class' spell. Thats fine for damage if you want but it doesn't compare healing spells. So are you saying I should just clone that category and make one like it for healing comparison?
Also even if we don't make the extra pages I mentioned I think reorganizing this page would make it more clear.
--Mynia 00:50, 11 September 2006 (EDT)
Hold on Mynia, this was a bit too much for a talk page. If you are uncertain, you can put you proposals on a separate page, many tend to use subpages of their userpages for this purpose, like User:Mynia/Dev. I already put your text on Formulas:Plus damage and Plus healing/Rework, because I dont like writing in other's userpages... If you still need to look up what you wrote here - because I maybe forgot to copy something -, see the history tab for a complete history and then you can copy it out of it.
Concerning your rework. In my opinion this article really needs to be reworked, so I'd just go kamikaze. There is a history anyway :)
Another point. Please clarify phrases like "= % Benefit Effective (in decimal format)" in your final version, sounds weird to me
-watchout 10:57, 11 September 2006 (EDT)
Rework complete and posted. I hope everyone likes the changes. *crosses fingers* Next I will work on a healing spell comparison page like the damage one.
--Mynia 13:04, 17 September 2006 (EDT)
Some things that I found, and some tips.
- Use subheadings - the more "=" you add, the "lower" the level
- there is some nice work on the formulas you did, but formulas are traditionally monotype, that makes them easier to read - like
Cast Time of Spell / 3.5 = Benefit Effective
- some terms need to be specified, like "Cast Time of Spell" - which is actually the base casttime BEFORE talents or items that reduce it
- Also your "Benefit Effective" is actually a quotient and that opposes the word "effective"
- therefore you will need a "Terms" part, which you already did to some part, but for many terms it is still unclear what their real meaning is if you don't know what they *should* be or compare all formulas (which is hard because they are hard to find - see above :))
- "Portion of Benefit to Regular Part" - you have 2 words in this "name" that say its a part, one should be enough - there are other names having the same problem
- "Note that the cap for this calculation is 100, more ticks than 5 will not give you over 100 benefit. +Healing and +Damage benefit for the spell is divided equally to each tick." actually the cap is 1 or 100%, since it's a relative value - see? its important to specify such things or you will get confused yourself.
-watchout 07:48, 19 September 2006 (EDT)
Thank you for your very useful comments! WoWWiki is new to me so I didn't know about the extra subheadings! I made many of the changes you suggested. One thing though as for the "Terms" I added some notes but the Rules for Applying +Healing and +Damage section covers these also.
Please review again and help me make it even better!
--Mynia 10:08, 20 September 2006 (EDT)
Paladin Seals and Plus Spell Damage Edit
Does anybody know how to calculate the bonus spell damage will give to things like "Seal of Righteousness"?
In case of +SpellDamage for Paladins it does not increase actual Physical Damage done to mobs at all. It just increase proportionally Threat Paladin generates and therefore makes it possible to Protection Paladins to tank. This is situation in Patch 2.2.0. --Ittai 13:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure these formulas have all been taken from some official source, but it would still be a good idea to include the actual references. Currently this page seems to present a lot of magical factoids.
They are not taken from official sites, as Blizzard did not publish game mechanics. Rather, these are generalizations by induction from series of experiments. I did some testing today -- any casting character of 60+ level could probably do it. To test you need:
1) Get some +spell damage equipment, +30 spell damage or higher. Equip it.
2) Farm simple monsters with combat log open.
3) Whenever a spell deals damage more than it's possible according to its tooltip, note the amount the damage exceeds the maximum listed value. Obviously your +spell damage is providing at least this amount of bonus damage.
4) Whenever the spell deals amount of damage close to minimum listed value, note the difference. Your +spell damage is providing no more than this amount of damage.
5) Continue long enough to narrow the bounds for bonus spell damage (they vary from spell to spell). You should get something in between of 0% and 100% of +spell damage.
--Dzerro 16:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Burning Crusade changes Edit
In the Burning Crusade, we’ve decided to make a fundamental change to the way spells calculate the bonus they receive from +healing and +spell damage effects and items. This is because we have seen a growing trend in using “downranking” and large amounts of +healing items, which we feel negatively impacts game balance. Downranking involves high-level players using lower level spell ranks and +healing gear to conserve mana, but maintain a high rate of healing done. Through this method, it has become possible in the live game for healing characters to heal large amounts of damage indefinitely without running out of mana. To maintain progression of use through spell ranks, we are changing how lower ranked spells relate to characters of higher level.
Spells will now receive a smaller bonus from +healing and +spell damage based on a comparison of the level at which the spell was learned and the caster’s current level. Take the Priest spell Heal 2 as an example:
The spell is learned at level 22, and the base points for healing on the spell keep increasing until level 27. So, level 27 is considered the spell’s max level in our calculation.
This system gives an additional 6 levels of slack before applying any penalty to casting Heal 2; so, players up to level 33 can cast it with no penalty.
In this example, we will use level 34 (one level past the cast level of the spell) as a starting point.
The bonus from +healing is multiplied by this ratio:((spell level)+6)/(player level)
That means the level 34 player only gets 97% of the normal bonus from +healing items when casting Heal 2. A level 60 player would only get 55% of the bonus, while a level 70 would get 47%.
The exact same system will also apply to damage spells. However, as healing classes tend to use downranking more often than others, healers are likely to see more effect from this change than other classes. As a general rule, players will be able to use the top 2 or 3 ranks of each spell before receiving any penalty. All of the existing ratios for the +healing and +spell damage bonuses on spells are also still in effect; so spells with a short casting time will continue to receive a smaller bonus than spells with a longer casting time. Spells learned below level 20 will still receive substantially smaller bonuses.
- So spells learned under level 20 are getting double penalized. Why do they even give "Of <School> Wrath" suffix to greens before level 20 then?
The reliable formula for lower ranks spells for me was ((level learned) + 11)/(player level) as it seems to work for most spells. With a few exceptions probably. Like Life Tap that receives full benefit for any caster level. --Drundia 23:06, 21 November 2006 (EST)
- You can use the items at higher levels too. They're pretty weak but that's all upto the player, the mechanics are the same. --Scudmarx 00:05, 22 November 2006 (EST)
- It is unlikely that you will keep using level 1-20 greens at level 30+ where the benefit comes. With the new penalties applied to low rank spells cast by high level characters they could just try and combine both penalties. (level learned)/(player level - X) would be better than (level learned + X)/(player level). For higher rank difference would be minimal, but low level spells would be nicely penalized for high level characters, but not low level.
- Level 10 spell for example: From (1-(10*0.0375))*(21/60)=0.219 or (1-(10*0.0375))*(21/70)=0.188 to 10/(60-11)=0.204 or 10/(70-11)=0.169.
- They really enjoy putting penalties to casters.
- --Drundia 12:48, 26 November 2006 (EST)
- So spells learned under level 20 are getting double penalized. Why do they even give "Of <School> Wrath" suffix to greens before level 20 then?
Secondary effect penalty is not accurate Edit
Hi everyone. I am relatively new to wowwikki and how things work here, so my apologies for any ignorance on my part.
I'm working on some calculations and I've found a some discrepancies, specifically in the mage section (I haven't checked the other classes yet):
Spells with secondary effects: Wowwikki says on Formulas:Plus_damage_and_Plus_healing to use this formula:
benefit = ( casting time / 3.5 ) - .05
However in the SF on Spell_Damage_Comparison, they seem to have used the formula (or a derivative of the formula):
benefit = ( casting time / 3.5 ) * .95
This will result in a slight difference in spells which have a secondary effect. For example, Frostbolt with the first formula has 80.71% SF, but with the second formula it is 81.4% SF.
(Also, how do you write something in code/monotype format?
--Colossus10 10:40, 9 November 2006 (EST)
Correct formula is multiplying by 0.95
--Drundia 23:07, 20 November 2006 (EST)
AoE spells appear to have higher penalty for additional effects. Theorycraft applies penalty coefficient for them of 0.895. On PTR Shadowfury (AoE + stun) has a this coefficient certainly lower than 0.95.
--Drundia 18:10, 27 November 2006 (EST)
Hybrid DD+DOT Edit
Hybrid DD+DOT spells (Immolate, Moonfire) have no reliable way of determining the bonus. Formula based on cast time and duration fails in both cases, older formula that based distribution between DD and DOT on actual amounts of damage also generally fails, it matches for Immolate Rank 7 and 9, the remaining ranks just benefit the same amounts as those 2 ranks. Moonfire is strange. At least value found in Theorycraft is violating both rules (hopefully addon creator used correct values)
--Drundia 23:14, 20 November 2006 (EST)
+school stacking Edit
This is the first I've ever seen anything like this:
"If wearing the two +20 nature damage items, and one +10 damage/healing, your all non-nature damage spells would receive a benefit of +10, and nature damage spells would receive +30 damage. Note that even though you would be wearing an advertised benefit of +50 spell damage, equal +damage values do not stack."
I have never seen this happen, and my own testing says it doesn't. Who wrote this and how did you verify it? I suspect this may only have existed in pre-2.0 beta.
Mekkapiano 13:18, 22 February 2007 (EST)
Found the edit. It was Vanderholten on 6 February 2007. No explanation why he did that edit or basis for it.
Mekkapiano 13:26, 22 February 2007 (EST)
There is currently a bug in game with some Equip: bonuses not stacking properly from different pieces of gear. I have mostly heard it in relation to mp5 gear but I have heard some mention that it may be bugged for +damage as well. Either way, it's not supposed to work that way anyways. --Phaleux 18:15, 28 February 2007 (EST)
HoT/DoT contribution Edit
The page says HoT/DoT contribution is based around the duration with 15 seconds being the 100% point. I was taught that it was based on ticks, where 5 ticks is the 100% point. Which is right? Blackspirit 16:45, 1 March 2007 (EST)
Most warlock spells are exceptions to the rule... no rules any more! Edit
Soul Fire isn't 100% coefficient. Corruption isn't 120%. Curse of Agony isn't 160%. Immolate isn't 57%. Shadowfury doesn't have the normal coefficient (can't remember it). Seed of Corruption is massively higher than it should be for the DoT (200%-ish). There aren't many warlock spells that do follow the rules. The same is true for a priest's offensive spells, and I'm sure most other classes.
In fact, since TBC the minority of spells actually follow the rules. They just aren't rules any more.
Mekkapiano 10:25, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
This article needs a re-write Edit
As above - there aren't many spells in the game that follow the "rules", and a lot of what's been written can be outlined a lot more concisely. The list of exceptions are very non-exhaustive and misleading, and instead there should be links to each class' coefficient tables.
--Mekkapiano 13:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- On the topic of rewrite, I have found as a priest, the cast time / 3.5 second rule to be false. In all of the spells I have seen it is actually cast time / 3.0 seconds. I have seen similar results on my warlock as well. Can anyone else confirm this?--Chthon (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- A common mistake is to forget that damage modifiers (such as Shadowform) increase total damage, which causes spell damage modifiers to appear larger than they actually are. Personally, I have not seen any unusual numbers except for a few spells which are marked as exceptions already. --bfx (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Downranking formula is wrong Edit
I don't know where that " 1 - " came from, but by my account the formula should read as follows:
([Level at which next higher rank of spell is learned] + 5) / [Character Level]
which produces the downranking coefficient.
The complete formula for spell damage then would be:
([Downranking Coefficient] x [Cast time coefficient] x [Spell healing]) + [Base healing range] = [Actual healing range]
Sub in damage for healing as desired. I've confirmed this is pretty accurate in the game, at least as far as Paladin healing.
--Teflamreilavehc 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
%healing and flat healing for paladins Edit
I did some testing in game, and I can safely say that the +12% healing paladins receive from the Holy talent "Healing Light" is applied to the final heal, after gear is applied. I have also determined experimentally that the healing bonus from Blessing of Light is a flat bonus across all ranks (of spells obtained at or above level 20) of Holy Light and Flash of Light, and is not affected by cast times. This holds true for the bonus received from Libram of Souls Redeemed as well.
Hybrid Formula Edit
The currently posted formula for hybrid spells comes out to
- A = Cast time/3.5
- B = DoT duration/15
- Coefficient for direct = A * A / (A+B)
- Coefficient for DoT = B * B / (A+B)
Elitist Jerks uses a formula
- C = Average base Direct Damage
- D = Average base DoT Damage
- Coefficient for direct = A * C / (C+D)
- Coefficient for DoT = B * D / (C+D)
For Moonfire, the differences in the formulas are very small (around 0.5%), and both are pretty close to observed results. For Regrowth, the differences are very large, and the EJ version gives very good results. For Immolate, the first formula predicts 20.8%+63.6%, while the EJ version predicts 19.8%+65.3%. Spell Damage Coefficients says 20% and 65%, so the EJ version looks better.
Neither formula seems to do a good job for Holy Fire or Lifebloom. I plan to change the formula listed here, unless someone has a counter-argument. --Erdluf 13:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I did some testing, and the first formula (AB) was exact for Moonfire DoT. The second formula (ABCD) was slightly too low.
For the Regrowth HoT, the (AB) formula is much too high. I did a minimal test in Nagrand last night, only getting 1-tick of the HoT. The (ABCD) formula correctly predicts the tick I saw, but only if the Halaa bonus (5% damage) does not apply to Regrowth HoT. I need to do some more testing to see what is going on.
Not enough +damageEdit
I think there needs to be more gear with general +spell damage and no healing. It makes no sense that just about every single piece of caster gear has +healing on it, even when it's part of a set meant for a pure-damage spec. Not only that, the MAGE armor sets have +healing on them (Mages get absolutely NO healing spells). Felindre
- The "healing" is there because it's "damage and healing" for every single caster class. Even though the "+healing" has no effect it's still just there. As to why it's there in the first place– don't ask me, ask Blizzard. User:Gourra/Sig2 14:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Looking at item values, for the cost of 30 Int, you can buy 35 (all schools including healing) or 42 (one damage school) or 70 healing. When you buy (all schools), you're getting some wasted holy, nature, and healing. When I buy (all schools), I'm getting some wasted holy, frost, and fire. I suppose blizzard could also give you the choice of 37 (two schools), but it hardly seems worth the trouble. Erdluf (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Downranking and Holyfire EditEdit
I have edited the Downranking part of this page, as downranking is no longer possible. I've also made quick calculations on the new Holy Fire coefficient. However, I based my calculations on only 20 casts, and a total 40 bonus damage, as it was on my level 20 priest. Numbers can thus probably be sharpened. 57.5% DD and 18.5 DoT. Brachamul (Brachamul), 27 October 2008.
Spell power nerfs many enchants... Edit
Look at the enchanting skill requirements for these enchants...
- (+15 spellpower)
The first one may require more ingredients, but they are lower level and you only need 300 enchanting to do it. Also the first one has no minimum item level requirement. Otherwise they appear to all have the same spell power.
How lame. I'm sure there are many more examples.
Major rewrite Edit
I just did a major re-write of the article to account for the 3.0.2 changes, and to attempt to make the article less confusing. I would appreciate any comments/corrections, as I'm not 100% sure of some of the things that were in the original article, and there are too many to verify by myself. For instance, I know nothing at all about paladin special abilities, so I didn't touch that section. It may or may not be as out-of-date as the original article. Similarly, I didn't verify whether the exceptions listed were all actually exceptions. Statholturris (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Spell Power Bonus Damage to Shots?Edit
I know that the article states that Hunter traps don't receive any damage bonus from Spell Power, but what about Arcane Shot, Aimed Shot and Steady Shot (all direct damage)? Tazmantdr (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)