Re: interaction of % heal and + heal

1. Spell Power Coefficient Vanilla
2. Spell Dmg Coefficient Paladin Vanilla 1
3. Vanilla Wow Spell Coefficient

Paladin Retribution Aura? Does a Paladin's Retribution Aura gain from any +spell damage? Or possibly from Judgment of the Crusader? I have noticed that fully raid buffed, my Ret Aura will gain +1 and sometimes +2 to the damage it reflects. Possibly Ret Aura has an extremely small coefficient? -Darxide 01:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC). Comment by Carighan The new spell-coefficient after 2.0.1 for Rain of Fire is: 229% base (100% per 3.5s channeling time). 33% for being an AE spell. 25% for being split over 4 waves. There is no spell damage paladin on vanilla. You have to go full Ret with warrior gear (crit, str,agi) for pve. Not that spell power hurts to have but unless t2.5/pvp gear there are just no items that combine spellpower and good amount of melee stats. Paladin Spells for Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) Fifth Edition (5e). A comprehensive list of all official Paladin spells for Fifth Edition.

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.

But what about blessings and judgements, how do those fit into the priority rotation? Are they to be maintained like a dot? I mained holy priest in vanilla, considering holy paladin for classic, but don't know how they work. Is holy pally a melee healer, auto-attacking between heals? Or typical heal at range play? Is the SoR coefficient flat or based on weapon speed? Scaling is flat (Same coefficient with 1.0 and 4.0 speed f.ex). Tested: Elemental dmage goes thru paladin's bop as physical damage. Item Spell Dmg Scaling (WoW Tools) Procrates and PPM.

hypehuman 18 December 2006

interaction of % heal and + heal

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

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?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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)

To my knoledge the only '+damage' (not 'up to +damage') is Pimgib's Collar which raises Imp Firebolt damage by plain +8. --Drundia 21:09, 3 July 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)

Try out Sunken Temples drops such as Atal'ai Gloves or Breastplate. This (person) with Atal'ai Gloves of Healing says they are static healing, not 'up to.' This is the only reference to static spell adjustment that I can recall however. User:Boblo-WW/Sig2 10:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Mind Flay

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

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

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

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

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

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

etc

Please comment!

--Mynia 18:28, 8 September 2006 (EDT)

Not needed. Spell Damage Comparison. Pzychotix 23:27, 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.

Other comments?

--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)

Glitches

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

• 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

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)

Sources?

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

Blockquoth Drysc:

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.

Source: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=38173821&sid=1

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)

Secondary effect penalty is not accurate

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.

Any thoughts?

(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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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. Font cache cleaner mac.

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.

Since the existing formula is a better predictor for MF12, I don't plan to change it. --Erdluf (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not enough +damage

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

Spell Power Coefficient Vanilla

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. g0urra[T҂C] 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 Edit

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..

Look at the enchanting skill requirements for these enchants..

• [Healing Power](+8 spell power)
  • [Superior Healing](+11 spell power)
  • [Spellpower](+11 spell power)
    • [Greater Spellpower](+13 spell power)
      • [Superior Spellpower](+15 spell power)

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.

Spell Dmg Coefficient Paladin Vanilla 1

How lame. I'm sure there are many more examples.

I don't really think Blizzard thought this through. --Fandyllic(talk · contr) 6:48 PM PST 5 Nov 2008

Major rewrite

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?

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)

Does Devouring Plague actually get 100% instead of 80% ((24/15)/2). --bfx 15:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Im almost certain I remember a blue post saying coeffecients consider unmodified spellcast time. So that faster fireball/frostbolt wouldnt lower the coeffecient.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thain(talk · contr).

In the case of those spells, you should look at the talents again.--Sky (t · c · w) 02:14, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Yea just noticed, i just remember a blue being adament about the situation long ago, but go go nerfstick i suppose. Thain 02:16, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed, go go nerfstick. /sigh. ---> is a Mage.--Sky (t · c · w) 02:20, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Fireball/frostball changed in patch 2.3, before it got -10% from talents but now id has still 100% when you have 5/5 is speed increase talents, so they should be changed here accordingly to it.--Vidinufi 14:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• 18Deletion vote

What's with all the non-exact figures?

The mage ones, for example. Some spells are clearly just 1.5/3.5 but there's 42.86% and 42.73% in different spells. It's 42.86% if there's nothing weird about the spell.

It looks like it's the result of repeated testing and statistical averaging. No need for that on spells which are 'obvious'.--Mekkapiano 12:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

They aren't always predictable as 1.5/3.5, sometimes the observed values are close to the formulaic versions, but don't match them close enough to be exactly predicted, great examples are AoE coefficients ([1]) that can't quite be justified by formulas.Zaldinar 04:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Regrowth Coefficient

The regrowth coefficient was listed at approximately 28-29%. Regrowth is a 2 second cast (normally 4/7) followed by a 21 second HoT (normally 1.4). The HoT gets exactly half of what it should, 0.7 of your +heal. Dividing 4/7 by 2 gives 28.57%, right in the experimentally determined range. I think it is reasonable to conclude that this is how they arrived at the coefficient for regrowth, the spell is in two parts and each part gets half the amount of coefficient that a spell of that type normally would. It seems reasonable, then, to surmise that 28.57%, or two sevenths is the precise coefficient for the initial burst of regrowth. --L337n00b 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - I'm often annoyed at the preference to supply a statistical figure rather than just the most obvious explanation. It should be the reverse process: apply reasoning to get a figure which looks right given trivial testing, and THEN try to disprove it by finding any case which disagrees. Sometimes a 3 second spell really is just 3/3.5.. --Mekkapiano 10:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The split is not 50/50.4/7 and 1.4 are correct, but the splits are4/7 / (4/7+1.4) = 16.6 and1.4 / (4/7+1.4) = 99.4--Erdluf 12:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

4/7 / (4/7+1.4) = 29.0% and 1.4 / (4/7+1.4) = 71.0%.. --ElginRoko 15:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, using the formulas in Spell_damage_and_healing the portion above the line should be squared, resulting in 16.6 and 99.4. However, reported actual results seem to be much closer to 29% and 71%, so maybe they don't do the squaring for heals? If you don't do the squaring you get very close to the result for Lifebloom hot, although the value for the bloom result is too large. You do need the squaring to get the right values for Moonfire.

Anyway, I'm inclined to believe the correct numbers for Regrowth are very close to 29% and 71%. I will do some testing, and update, if nobody beats me to it. --Erdluf 18:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

My testing showed the Regrowth HoT to be very close to 70% (between 60.9% and 70.1%). The direct heal is about 30%. My average was slightly higher than that, but not enough samples to be sure. I updated the article for this. --Erdluf 12:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Priest coefficients

I did some tests with Holy Fire. Without any point in Holy talents, my results were that the DD receives between 83% and 87% and the DoT receives approximately 16.5% (there was a slight fluctuation from one HF to another). These values lead me to believe that the actual value for the DoT is somewhere around 16.5%, whereas the DD receives either 85.71% (3/3.5) or ~83.5% (1 - ~16.5%). Does anyone else have some values? So far, this complies neither with the previous assumption of 75%/25%, nor with the actual proportions. --bfx 10:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I tested and came up with the same values. Editing them into the page now. --KoenPater 12:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just noticed that [Touch of Weakness] is listed with a coefficient of 10%. Currently, I have no Undead priest, but I believe it was and still is 43%. --bfx 05:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope, just tested it and 10% seems right. --KoenPater 12:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Devouring Plague

Testing now, on the 3.0 PTR, and appears now that Devouring Plague is been changed from 80% coefficient, to a 24 seconds duration coeffcient; so ~160%. I'm no expert at math but if someone could double check it for me, it seems to be correct.

Fr0

My tests show that the coefficient for Devouring Plague hasn't changed. Its damage is increased by 80% of the spell power value, as is its healing. You might have forgotten to refrain from using any talents while testing--which, of course, would lead to a significantly higher coefficient. --bfx (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

With the release of Patch 3.0.2 I have added the untested 'flag' because it seems to have received a new coefficient. --bfx (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Holy Nova

It appears that no one has tested the coefficient for Holy Nova. Samalander 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I tested it on the PTR 3.0 as well, and it seems to be closer to ~35%. Please double check for me.Fr0

Mind Flay

Note: My own preliminary testing delivered a coeficient of 67,5% for Mind Flay. Not to debase the work already done here, but i'm not so sure how reliable this values are. --WurmD

Did you test it without any Shadow talents? This could easily lead to wrong results. Anyway, it is still possible that these values are not correct. Specifically, Mind Flay's coefficient once was mentioned by a CM; I haven't heard of any changes to it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. --bfx 05:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Talented coefficients

Shaman, Warlock, and Druid coefficients are listed with untalented values first, and then talented values in parenthesis. I've updated the Druid coefficients (damage spells only) to include all applicable talents (Improved Moonfire, Moonfury, and Wrath of Cenarius). At some point someone had undone some of the Moonfury contribution, for reasons unknown --Erdluf 13:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It was me who did this. The reason is that the other classes only have talents included which actually change the benefit of spell damage, not the total damage (as talents like Moonfury do not specifically affect spell damage values). The only spells which have comparable talents included are [Frostbolt] and [Fireball], probably due to the unusual mechanic of their respective talents. The only talent of the Druid which actually belongs here (at least as it is now) is Wrath of Cenarius. However, I will not change it again until someone else tells their opinion about it. I personally don't like them here, as for specific classes (especially the three main spellcaster classes Mage, Priest and Warlock), it would horribly mess up the page (due to every single spell being affected by talents; furthermore, for example a Priest has different options, such as using the damage increasing talents from the Shadow or the Discipline tree). --bfx 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like some method of getting at 'final' spell coefficients. For instance I believe that prior to 1.8, Moonfury did not scale, and you still see websites with the old forumulas. I was also under the impression that some healing related talents still don't scale, but that may just be a faulty memory at work. For the most part I guess I'm really more interested in seeing a consistent, and up-to-date (ie level 70 values) version of Spell_Damage_Comparison. Its just that page is such a mess (what is the definition of DPS) that it would be hard to tackle. --Erdluf 17:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Immolate is listed as receiving 27.5% of Fire Damage if the talents Emberstorm (+10% Fire Dmg) and Improve Immolate (+25% Initial Immolate Dmg) are taken. I'm assuming 20 x 1.1 x 1.25 was used to reach this conclusion. It is actually incorrect. The calculation for total damage of the initial Immolate spell is ((Base + Co-eff of 20%) x 1.1 x 1.25). I mention this as I have tested it with my Warlock. 819 Fire Damage, 5/5 Emberstorm and 5/5 Imp Immolate. Using the 27.5 co-eff and using the standard ((Base + Spell Dmg) x 1.1 x 1.25) formula, I should be hitting for 759. I am actually hitting for 675, which is using the co-eff of 20%. Co-efficients should only be changed where a talent increases Spell Damage used by the spell (eg Shadow and Flame, Emp Corruption) and should not be changed where a talent increases the total damage of a spell (eg Emberstorm, Shadow Mastery).````--Razal 13:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Consistent look

This page finally needs a consistent look.

• Should DoTs/HoTs have their total value, their tick value or both listed? The same goes for spells with charges (e.g. [Lightning Shield]).
• Should talents which increase overall damage (and not the benefit from spell damage) be included?
• Should the highest ranks be used, or only a value independet of rank (for example, [Corruption] has only the total damage coefficient for the highest rank, whereas [Entangling Roots] has the value per tick)? --bfx 15:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that a consistent look would be good. I'm usually more interested in the total spell coef. However roots may be a special case (at least among the Druid spells). The coef/tick is constant at all spell levels (at least above 20, and not downranked), and in PvE/PvP. The number of ticks varies by spell level. It also changes between PvE and PvP. Top rank is nine ticks for PvE, and currently four ticks for PvP. In 2.2 it will drop to 3 ticks for PvP. I guess Force of Nature is similar, in that nobody is sure exactly how many hits are possible from a single cast, and you'll probably never get the upper limit in practice. --Erdluf 16:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

DoTs and HoTs should have their coefficients listed as part of their total value unless the coefficient is calculated on a per tick basis (I don't know of any that are). This is particularly crucial given that different spells have different ticks (ie. Lifebloom ticks every second, Moonfire every 3 seconds). Additionally, splitting the total coefficient up and distributing it over each tick lends itself to far greater inaccuracy. Given the significance and very fluid nature of this page's information, a couple of theorycrafters really should get a project going that focuses exclusively on maintaining it. They could establish standards and practices and testing methodology (I don't think the look needs to really be messed with, as it's already very well organized).K10wn (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What about hunters?

I have never played one by myself and although I have never seen oriented-hunter/hunters dedicated gears including spell damage, their damages are both from physical and arcane schools; now they share mail with shamans so mail can include spell damage, not to mention the possible use of leather, clothes (likely to have spell damage), and spell power enchantments. Is it by lack of information from the community? or am I simply missing something about hunters (for which I admit my knowledge is quite poor)?In both cases, I'd tend to think wowwiki, as a exhaustive wiki, should include knowledge from an aware hunter, or possibly (if this is the case) just a single sentence to state that hunter arcane spell damage do not receive any increase of damage from gear. --Staarkali 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Arcane Shot will benefit from any +Spell Damage but I do know that Mend Pet gains (or used to gain) from +Healing. I once saw a video on YouTube of a hunter who stacked +Healing and his Mend Pet ability was ticking at over 2000. The video showed portions of the hunters solo fight against the old world outdoor raid Dragons. --Darxide 01:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Paladin Retribution Aura?

Does a Paladin's Retribution Aura gain from any +spell damage? Or possibly from Judgment of the Crusader? I have noticed that fully raid buffed, my Ret Aura will gain +1 and sometimes +2 to the damage it reflects. Possibly Ret Aura has an extremely small coefficient?--Darxide 01:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, Retribution Aura is affected by buffs/debuffs that increase spell damage by a percentage (zone buffs, 1-H weapon spec, etc.), but not by spell damage. --User:Hypehuman 29 April 2008

In wrath it does scale with spellpower giving approximately 6.5% of it as extra damage. Muxecoid (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Lifebloom Coefficients

The talented coefficients for lifebloom are all wrong. Empowered rejuvenation adds 10.9% to the HoT not 20%. Pretty easy to test for any resto druid, the 20% addition is way off. The reasoning is nicely revealed by the 2.4 PTR patch notes - 'Empowered Rejuvenation: This talent now properly affects the final heal from Lifebloom.' The other 9.1% should be being added to the final heal, but isn't being.--ElginRoko 15:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I had put those numbers in. I believed that Empowered Rejuvenation would add 20% to the coefficient (similar to the way Wrath of Cenarious adds 10% to the Wrath coefficient). Testing clearly shows that ER multiplies the coefficient by 1.20.--Erdluf 18:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The tooltip of Empowered Touch/Wrath of Cenarius says that it '.. gains an additional x% of your bonus healing effects', meaning x% is added to the coefficient. If the tooltip says 'The bonus healing effects of your spell is increased by x%', the coefficient is multiplied by x%. I had only had thoughts of this before, but it is confirmed now. --Treekebab (talk) 09:48, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Holy Nova Coefficients Added

I just did some tests on Holy Nova and edited in my results. I found that the coefficient is 16% (±0.3%). I've heard that the coefficient for the healing was 16%, and my results are consistent with this, although they had a much larger margin of error. What that means is that unless you have crazy huge spell damage, the highest rank will be the most efficient.

To get the 16%, I spammed holy nova on some mobs and recorded the minimum and maximum damage until the difference between the two was the same as the difference between the minimum and maximum listed in the tool tip. I took the difference between the recorded damage and the tooltip damage (assumed an error of ±1) and divided it by my spell damage. For the healing portion, I did not test long enough to get the actual minimum and maximum (the difference between them was quite small), but the min and max were within the range of values that come from assuming a 16% coefficient for the healing.--User:Hypehuman 29 April 2008

Seal of Vengeance Coefficients Added

I just did some tests on Seal of Vengeance. I was able to confirm the DoT and Judgement coefficients that were already there, and I added in the coefficient on the 20 bonus damage that is incurred when the DoT is refreshed and there are already the maximum number of applications. All the damage numbers alternated between two adjacent integers, and so I assumed that the 'real' value was somewhere between the two. That's why the numbers are all something.5, and I took the limits of the value as ±.5 from there. Here's my raw data:

--User:Hypehuman 29 April 2008

This Page Needs Revisiting

Every coefficient on this page should be re-examined for accuracy. I've come across several spells on a couple classes that seem to have incorrect coefficients posted. I'm sure that these were not inaccurate numbers at one time, but seeing as how spell damage coefficients are one of the most fluid mechanics in the game, many of them have been rendered inaccurate as the game has evolved.

Vanilla Wow Spell Coefficient

Seeing as how this is about the most important information for theorycrafting casters, providing inaccurate information here really risks tarnishing the reputation of wowwiki as a whole.K10wn (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Palading healing coefficients have been updated

Based on the numbers that I was provided from generous people and from my own math for my own guide, I updated the spellpower coefficients for the healing spells for paladins and added in Sacred Shield, because that spell is also affected by spellpower. I also adjusted the spellpower value of Holy Shock when it is used as an offensive spell. If the healing spellpower coefficients do seem high, keep in mind that it also incorporates the improved healing you get not only from talents but also from Blessing of Light being incorporated into the baseline healing abilities.Qygibo (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean you didn't get the base coefficients? What were your test conditions? If you look at the rest of the page, coefficient-boosting talents' effects (e.g. Empowered Fire) are shown separate from the baseline (untalented, unmodified) coefficients. Effects like [Darkness] that don't directly boost the coefficient aren't even counted. Adesworth^{talk to me} 19:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

After rereading, I was incorrect in stating that the spellpower coefficients posted were taking into account talents; they are base coefficients. These numbers are correct from various theorycrafters as taken from http://www.elitistjerks.com and from various other sites. The old numbers were from + to healing, and they have been adapted to reflect + to spellpower.Qygibo (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Pet coefficients

This article could use spell and attack power coefficients for hunter and warloc pet abilities. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If you move the page we'd have to include attack power coefficients of Hunter, Rogue, Warrior, Shaman and Death Knight abilities. There's nothing too big about the page that justifies the move right now. It lists spell power coefficients, and Paladins are merely a special case. Adesworth^{talk to me} 14:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

A separate attack power coefficients article could be created. Either way, I don't see why this article shouldn't have pets' spell power coefficients. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made one and linked to it. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ability spam

I think it will be a good idear to spam ability tags onto the abilitys to make it easyer for people just looking at the page to see what the ability does. Richwarf (talk) 10:24, May 27, 2010 (UTC) (tag added a few days later)

All done, onto AP page :P Richwarf (talk) 13:33, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Deletion vote

Votes

Delete

1. Deleteg0urra[T҂C] 08:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC) - (Not updated since WotLK.)

1. DeleteXporc (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC) - (no comment)

1. DeleteDarkTZeratul (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC) - (Not updated, and information that's better presented on individual ability pages to boot.)

Keep

1. KeepAlayea (talk / contrib) 22:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC) - (See comment section.)
2. Keepg0urra[T҂C] 06:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC) - (Per discussion.)
3. KeepXporc (talk) 06:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC) - (no comment)
4. KeepPeterWind (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2016 (UTC) - (Agreed.)
5. KeepDarkTZeratul (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC) - (As below.)

Comments

Rather than deleting the article, it should be kept as an explanation of a game term. Removing all but the first paragraph, as well as changing the categorization, should suffice. -- Alayea (talk / contrib) 22:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I would actually be okay with that. -- DarkTZeratul (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Same. Xporc (talk) 06:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)