Legendary for SP?

[Zuziza]

Anything that crits also has a chance to proc the staff, so it's not equal to crit. It's more of a flat damage increase based on the proc rate.

The reason I compared it to crit is that it works in the same manner. You have a %proc/crit chance to do 200% damage on any spell, with no ICD in the proc/crit chance. This is true for all classes.

The reason it's not like crit is that it doesn't actually combine with the crit chance you already have in any way. You can have a spell that procs, a spell that crits, a spell that procs and crits, and a spell that doesn't do either one. Thus, it is valued less than crit because you can't increase the proc chance like you can with crit.

However, other damage modifiers may or may not come into play. As I brought up before, we don't know if it copies base damage, procs, and/or spell modifiers. If it's only base damage, it does less damage than the actual hit (valued way less than crit), but if it takes everything into account, it's only slightly below crit (because it does the 200% damage, but calculated separately from crit itself, so it doesn't scale as well as you'd expect).

[Arlee]

Wow this went crazy wow I was raiding... my favorite part was when someone quoted me from the first page saying we didn't know what the ICD was.... and then clearly stopped reading after that post because they totally missed my post saying "yay no ICD".

Ima going to back to the realm of speculation here, but I don't think it would be expecting to much for the proc to do the same amount of damage as what proc'ed it. This is clearly just my feeling on it though so take with a grain of salt

[Zuziza]

I would expect this as well judging from the tooltip, but I'm gotten paranoid about that sort of thing. I won't believe that it does the exact amount until someone posts some proper testing (though I admit, it's the most likely thing for it to do).

[Verth Aeyta]

Wow this thread blew up in the few hours I was raiding.. damn.. anyway, it's good for all casters, the proc is a proc leave it at that and just congratulate the person in your guild that gets one I could care less about the staff since I'm holy/disc but an Arcane Mage is getting our legendary so we'll see how well he does with that proc.

Now I'm off to learn me up some reading comprehension since it's not my cup of tea apparently :P

[Zuziza]

Something I forgot to bring up in my last argument about RNG/chance/probability.

You have a coin. It can land heads or tails. You have a 50% chance that it will be heads or tails because it is perfectly balanced. As you flip the coin more and more, the total number of heads and tails gets closer and closer. You could have a string of all heads followed by a string of all tails, because the coin landing heads or tails one time makes no difference when you flip it the next.

When a proc occurs, it does not affect the chance of the next spell triggering that same proc. It does not become more or less likely because it happened recently. Blizz has implemented a sliding scale for quest drops, but had made no indication of desiring to do so for items like this.

This is why DoT classes have no disadvantage just because they will trigger the proc on weaker hitting tics of a DoT. Arguing that they are somehow "more likely" to have a string of weaker hits because we have more than 1 spell to cast is idiotic. The proc does not distinguish between a weaker or stronger spell. Arguing that it could happen is utterly ridiculous because it's the same BS argument of why you would want to gear a burst class over a DoT class: "Well they might not get as much out of the stats because they could totally have a string of weak tics, so the gear should go to the burst class first because they always have big numbers."

There's a mathematical logic to why no one with a brain says that when working on progression. If that argument were true, DoT classes would be pulling crap DPS in comparison to equally skilled/geared burst classes all the time. After all, they might get smaller numbers in their tics, but an arcane mage always gets big numbers.

Over the course of a long fight (meaning, a raid boss, the only ones raiders that will be farming the shit of this staff care about), it will work like coin flips. The proportions of procs off any particular spell will reflect the proportions of damage done by those same spells. The longer the fight and the more perfect the uptime by an spriest (which relates to, I don't know, skill), the more similar those proportions will be. In the long run, the proc will create a %DPS increase as long as the player is properly utilizing their class' DPS capabilities. Will a fail spriest be more obvious than a fail arcane mage with the same legendary? Totally, since it's easier to royally mess up an spriest's priority system than an arcane mage's rotation. But that doesn't make the first pick of a serious raiding guild somehow related to how easy it is to play a class.

You'll have to excuse me for not accepting that facerolling a class with ~90% damage done by one button is a logical argument for why skilled players of other classes don't "benefit" as much from an item.

[Moshots]

not really, look at what shadowmourne was, it increased ret pallys dps for almost 4k over the next best weapon, while only increasing dks and warriors for around 1500

That was due to a mechanic of ret that was proccing it that shouldnt have that was later fixed. Also dk's was only 1500 over the next best weapon cause the next weapon heroic bryntroll was almost 2k above anything else due to scaling with unholy's abilities. Fury uses 2 weapons so only got half the advantage and honestly people overlook this but arms warriors with shadowmourne were actually viable they got almost as much dps as ret but were so far behind in dps from anyone else no one even cared.

[Arlee]

Zuziza you are correct, but I would tweak it to say that because of the number of ticks that happen during a boss fight compared to the number of times we cast MB or SW: Death, that the proc will probably happen more often on DoT ticks than on our direct damage spells just due to having more chances for that to happen. I'm not saying this will make it weaker for us, just that we shouldn't be surprised if most of the procs are off of DoT ticks.

[Zuziza]

Zuziza you are correct, but I would tweak it to say that because of the number of ticks that happen during a boss fight compared to the number of times we cast MB or SW: Death, that the proc will probably happen more often on DoT ticks than on our direct damage spells just due to having more chances for that to happen. I'm not saying this will make it weaker for us, just that we shouldn't be surprised if most of the procs are off of DoT ticks.

Totally agreed. I'm just agitated that for some reason, people this this is a disadvantage for us. Neither the math nor the logic support that idea.