+Damage and healing: what do you mean "up to"?
by Eliah Hecht 
Dec 8th 2006 at 2:52AM
+Damage is one of every offensive caster's favorite stats, and +healing likewise for healers. Items possessing +damage say something like "Equip: increases damage done by X spells and effects by up to N", where N is a number and X is one of the schools of magic: Fire, Frost, Nature, Shadow, Arcane, and Holy; +healing items say "...healing done by spells and effects..."; and +damage/healing items say "...damage and healing done by magical spells and effects..." (I'm not sure why only +damage/healing specifies that the spells have to be magical).Let me address one common misconception right of the bat: there is no such thing as simply +damage to all schools. The only items that affect all schools of magic are +damage/healing. This comes into play when people argue that a DPS healing class shouldn't get such an item, as they're not getting full use out of it since they can't heal (this argument is also commonly used to say a healing class shouldn't get the item, since they don't DPS much).On to the main topic of the post, which is: what the heck does "up to N" mean? Well, it doesn't mean that the game randomly picks a number between 1 and N and adds that to your spell. The way you figure out how much of your +damage/healing a particular spell is going to receive is: take the spell's base casting time (casting time before talents are taken into account) and divide by 3.5s; multiply the result by your +damage/healing.
Let's do an example. The warlock spell Shadowbolt has a base casting time of 3.0s (except for the first few ranks). 3.0/3.5 = about 0.86, so Shadowbolt gets 86% of the bonus from your +damage/healing gear and your +shadow gear. The Felheart Crown, for instance, which "Increases damage and healing done by magical spells and effects by up to 20", would add 20 * 0.86 = 17.2 to your Shadowbolt. Heals work the same way. Spells with casting times of greater than 3.5s, like Pyroblast, simply receive the full amount of the +damage/healing. Spells with secondary effects, like those that snare (e.g. Mind Flay) or do both damage and healing (e.g. Drain Life) receive a lesser amount of +damage/healing. DoT (damage over time) and HoT (healing over time) spells are calculated using a similar formula: divide duration of the HoT/DoT by 15s. The quirk here is that this coefficient is allowed to exceed 1, so Curse of Agony with its 24s duration gets 160% of your +damage/healing (thanks, AcceptableRisk!).
This covers all the ins and outs of +damage/healing before patch 2.0.1. This patch introduced one more wrinkle: the downranking nerf. Previously, +damage/healing worked the same way no matter what rank of a spell you used (excluding spells acquired below level 20; those spells are wonky for some reason). Now, there's a penalty for using a spell whose level is too far below your own. Let me elaborate. Let's call a spell's "maximum level" (ML) the level before you get the next rank of the spell. For instance, the priest spell Heal 2 has a ML of 27, since at 28 you can train Heal 3. To determine the amount of +damage/healing a spell will receive on account of its level, the formula is (ML + 6)/(your level). If you're level 60, then, this comes out to (27 + 6)/60 = 55%. Ouch! Note that, of course, if this formula comes out to greater than 1, the spell just receives its normal amount of +damage/healing; there's no bonus for being below (ML+6).
The TL;DR version of the 2.0.1 change, for level 60s: the top few ranks of your spells perform as they used to; lower ranks are now less efficient than they used to be.
P.S. to Priests: If you're confused about what Heal 4's "maximum level" would be, I'm pretty sure it's 39, the level before you get Greater Heal 1. This means it gets 75% as much +heal as it used to. I for one welcome our Greater Heal-casting overlords.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Tips
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
AcceptableRisk Dec 8th 2006 3:05AM
DoT's and HoT's are actually a little different in 2.0 as well. They get a damage coefficient equal to their duration divided by 15. For spells that have a duration longer than 15 seconds, the coefficient can actually exceed 1. So things like Curse of Agony with a 24 second duration receives 160% of your +damage.
Eliah Hecht Dec 8th 2006 3:06AM
Oh, I didn't know about that. Thanks!
Terry B Dec 8th 2006 8:36AM
And this is completely unfair! And here is why.
Take a lvl 60 Druid versus a lvl 25 Druid. Lets erase all stats for this example. Both have Enchant Gloves - Healing Power (+30 healing) enchanted on their gloves. Both cast their Rank 4 Healing Touch. The lvl 25 Druid will get to use the entire +30 (calculated value of 37.2) from the enchant but the level 60 would only get +15.5.
Im sorry but an expienced lvl 60 should always be able to get the same or more out of their spell then the level 25. This formula is flawed IMHO.
Orizon Dec 8th 2006 8:43AM
I think the down ranking nerf is not as big as it seems once you start to have decent gear that allows for a bigger mana pool and mana regen. Our main healing priest heals like a monster but with down ranking being less mana efficient, he started using Greater Heals for MC and after Shazz he had close to 500k healing and 650k overhealing. Yet, he never ran out of mana. I, myself a druid, was close to him with 450k healing but only 125k overhealing. His down ranking was far superior then mine since he had +600 healing while I had only +330. I guess I adjusted a bit better to the system or maybe the druid class is simply better suited for the new system.
We actually had 6 or 7 druids last night because we had 3 applicants and a feral druid amongst us. We had three Tree of Life spec'd so that provided roughly a +90/+100 healing to healers in those groups. With stackable HoTs and so many druids, we actually had tanks wielding two-handers in MC. With the changes MC got alot easier although we didn't finish it because of bad pulls and re-learning some encounters without certain addons (Decursive mostly) and we also started later then usual since we killed Onyxia first.
Basically our DPS was far better and our healing too. I also noticed that my heals crited alot more (like twice as much). I never remember criting three times in a row before...
Matt Park Dec 8th 2006 9:55AM
What about instant cast spells, like shaman's Shocks?
Mekias Dec 8th 2006 10:36AM
I believe this is still the % you get compared to the base cast time of the spell. Someone told me that Instants are 43% as well. I haven't done enough testing to find out if that's true or not.
Instant - 33%
1.5 sec - 43%
2 sec - 57%
2.5 sec - 71%
3 sec - 86%
3.5 sec - 100%
Vishiro Dec 8th 2006 10:48AM
The description of the +damage/healing was great. I do have one question though. How does the HoT/DoT work for the Shaman, specifically to the totems? The reason I ask this is I have noticed that the Healing totem is now affected by the amount of +healing one has. Similar to the Earth Shield, depending on how much +healing the shaman has, the shield will vary in the amount it heals for.
moongaze Dec 8th 2006 10:52AM
instant spells get somethign like 43% of spell damage added.
Mar Dec 8th 2006 11:57AM
My question has always been around the +damage/healing of spells that gain a faster casting time due to talents. Does the +damage/healing base off the original cast time or the talent-reduced one?
I'd hope for the original cast time, but it is probably the new cast time. I'm not sure if that's fair (a talent having a negative affect on the spell it is enhancing), but i could see this being the case.
jpc Dec 8th 2006 12:18PM
Spells with snaring effects (frost shock, mind flay, etc) also have a +spell dmg reduction of something like 15% IIRC.
Eliah Hecht Dec 8th 2006 12:24PM
@5: My understanding is that instant casts are treated as if they were 1.5s spells (the global cooldown basically means they *are* 1.5s spells), which means they get 1.5/3.5 = 43% of your +damage/healing, as others have mentioned.
@7: I actually don't know what the numbers are like for Shaman totems. Any theorycrafting Shaman care to fill us in?
@9: It's based on the original, untalented cast time. I've tested this using the priest talent Divine Fury.
Marc Dec 8th 2006 12:42PM
Anyone have actual statements from Blizzard saying what the actual new calculations are? In this thread there's been 2 completely different opinions.
Mino Dec 8th 2006 1:15PM
Wow these comments are full of so much disinformation.
Instants are 43%.
Spells with a snare attached recieve 5% less +dmg(frostbolt is 81% not 86%)
+dmg coefficients are applied BEFORE talents so a shaman lightning bolt is 3 seconds base and recieves 86% of spell dmg. Talented it's 2 seconds, it still recieves 86%.
And for Terry, sorry your arguement is pointless. How unfair that a lvl 25 gets full benefit but you don't? Ya I think that was exactly what they are getting at.
Downranking is great for healing, needed for long fights etc. But what blizzard was attempting to do was to make high ranks actually be used outside of pvp. Got your new rank of GH from aq20? That's wonderful you'll never use it. Luckily in the expansion when you are dealing with 13k+hp raid buffed tanks it won't be much of an issue to heal for 4k+.
Melf Dec 8th 2006 1:12PM
@3
Enchants are now (supposed to be at least) level based, so a level 25 could not have the +30 enchant to gloves. This was probably done to address the very issue you mention, but i do not know if it has been implemented as of yet.
Brudus Dec 8th 2006 6:47PM
I was told there would be no math.
Ihituharder Dec 8th 2006 1:18PM
I have several 60 characters that are hybrid healers (Pally, Shaman and a Druid). I also have a combat Rogue. Granted, overall DPS with my Rogue is higher during a raid, but to be honest, my Pally comes DAMN close. I finish top 5 consistantly in both guild raids and PUG MC/AQ20/ZG raids. The reason is because of the +damage gear that I have and my build. A lot of people laugh when they hear about a DPS pally (and I've seen my share of crappy Pallies too), but they seem to stop laughing when we duel. There is no real protection against holy damage. I don't bubble, and I don't even use Lay on Hands...hell, I rarely have to even heal when 1v1. I do pound people into the ground though.
Point is...hybrid healing classes should certainly not be excluded from the +damage gear. ESPECIALLY +dam/+heal gear. This provides greater flexibility to the raid for that character to either heal or off-tank/dps. Don't get me wrong. My guild does it pretty smart, where an item that would benefit a mage more than a pally, druid or shaman (when I'm playing Horde), goes to that class first. If either they don't want the item, or they are in the negative DKP for the item, the item is then listed to other classes that would benefit from it. I don't raid much with the druid, but the Pally and Shaman should bother be considered when handing out +damage gear.
jpc Dec 8th 2006 1:44PM
@13 Mino
It's not 'disinformation'. Disinformation is purposefully misleading someone to think something that is (usually) the opposite of the truth.
If I had said, "Spells with snares get +dmg on top of the +dmg given by items." That would be disinformation. I said snaring spells get an additional reduction in the +dmg awarded and I thought it was something like 15% - hence the "IIRC".
Please excuse me for not getting the number exactly correct. Anyway, I seem to remember WoWwiki saying that people weren't really sure what the additional loss in +dmg was, and that it seemed to be inconsistent across spells. So maybe you should post your source.
Shakina Dec 8th 2006 1:57PM
@15...Hey Mathwiz! Take reading lessons instead. The post that you are slamming for "disinformation" (should be misinformation since disinformation is deliberately giving bad information) also stated they had not done enough testing to find out if it was true or not. If you are going to be a jack@$$ math Nazi, expect people to correct you too.